that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, THE FATHER."* Unitarians, therefore, can say, what Trinitarians cannot, not only that their doctrine is taught in Scripture, but that it is taught there in so many words. The honest Trinitarian believes, doubtless, that his peculiar doctrines are taught in Scripture, at least by implication or construction; but he cannot believe that they are taught there expressly, and in so many words.

He may insist on "a trinity in unity," or that God exists in "three persons," "three distinctions," or "three somewhats;" he may talk about the "triune God," "Godman," ""God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost," "very God of very God;" and he may think to obviate all objections to such language by refined and wire drawn reasonings about "essences," "subsistences" and "hypostases," "priorities in co-equalities," and "pluralities in unities." As if for the purpose of illustration he may say, with Cheynel in his work on the "Divine Triunity," "We may best resemble all that difference which is between the essence of God, and the divine subsistences, by considering the transcendent affections of ens simpliciter, and the attributes of God; who doth infinitely transcend not only a prædicamental substance, but a metaphysical entity; as the most metaphysical men, who are sound in the faith, do honestly confess." Now I do not deny that Trinitarians may mistake all this for sense, and for the sense of Scripture: but they certainly cannot mistake it for the words of Scripture. It is the jargon of the schools; "the words which man's wisdom teacheth," and not those

* Corinthians viii, 5, 6.

"which the Holy Ghost teacheth." Luther appears to have felt the force of this objection, when he said, "The word trinity sounds oddly, and is a human invention; it were better to call Almighty God, God, than Trinity." Calvin also says, "I like not this prayer, O holy and blessed Trinity; it savours of barbarity. The word trinity," he continues, "is barbarous, insipid, profane; a human invention, grounded on no testimony of God's word; the popish God, unknown to the prophets and apostles."

It is right and important, that this should be stated clearly, and insisted on again and again. There are many terms and phrases current in the community on religious subjects, which have become sacred in men's eyes, and are used continually as if they were to be found in Scripture, though they are not. Repeatedly has it fallen under my own observation that persons have thought themselves to be quoting the Bible in support of the Trinity, when they were in fact quoting their catechism or their creed.

4. Unitarians manifest their preference for Scripture still further, by not attempting to evade or explain away those passages, which positively, and in so many words, assert Christ's inferiority to the Father.

"If ye loved me ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father; FOR MY FATHer is greater than I.”* "But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither THE SON, but THE FATHER."† "I can of mine own self DO NOTHING," said our Saviour in another place; as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own + Mark xiii, 32.

* John xiv, 28.

will, but the will of THE FATHER which hath sent me.' "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER." "Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." These passages, it is plain, assert explicitly, unequivocally, and in so many words, Christ's inferiority to the Father. To evade them or explain them away, or reconcile them in any manner with the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not enough that we take one possible but doubtful meaning of here and there an obscure passage, and change it for another possible but doubtful meaning. We must take the clear meaning of clear passages, and the only meaning which they seem capable of bearing, and contradict or overrule it by maintaining exactly the contrary. Though our Lord said that his Father was greater than he, we must believe that he was as great as his Father; though he said, that the Son knew not "of that day, and that hour," we must believe that the Son did know "of that day, and that hour;" though he said, "of mine own self I can do nothing," we must believe that of his own self he could do every thing; though his dominion is affirmed to be a delegated and temporary dominion, a kingdom which he is to deliver up to God even the Father, and be himself subject, we must believe that he is, and always has been, and always must be the same being with the Father, and equal to him in power and glory.

5. God forbid that any one should be hindered in his liberty to do this, if he sees fit, and if he thinks it necessary to truth and duty. I have charity to believe that humble and devout Trinitarians imagine that there is † 1 Corinthians XV, 24. 28,

John v, 30.

some way or other, in which the passages in question can be reconciled with their peculiar tenets. The only way of reconciling them as yet proposed, is by the hypothesis of" two natures" in Christ; the hypothesis, I say, for it is not pretended that there is a shadow of express authority in Scripture for this very extraordinary assumption. It is an hypothesis, a mere hypothesis, an invention of man's wisdom, and on this account, considering the important purposes it is made to serve, should be regarded with extreme jealousy by those who wish to be guided by the Bible and the Bible only. The best that can be said of it is, that learned and ingenious men have pronounced it to be a principle or key of interpretation, which it is necessary to assume and apply in order to reconcile Scripture with Scripture.

We deny, however, that it is necessary to assume the hypothesis of Christ's double nature in order to reconcile Scripture with Scripture. Unitarians find no difficulty in reconciling Scripture with Scripture, without the aid of this hypothesis. The difficulty felt, does not consist in reconciling the obvious and prominent sense of the passages in question with the rest of Scripture, but in reconciling it with Trinitarian interpretations of Scripture. Besides, this boasted principle or key of interpretation fails for another reason. Though the hypothesis which we are considering supposes Christ to have had two natures, it does not suppose him to have had two distinct minds. His mind was one, and this one mind could not, at the same time, have been informed and uninformed on the same subject; the same idea could not, at the same moment, have been present to it, and absent from it. When, therefore, he positively, without qualification, and

in so many words, disclaimed all knowledge" of that day, and that hour," the question is not whether he knew it by his human nature, or by his divine nature, but whether he knew it by his one mind; or, in other words, whether he knew it at all. If he did, it is fatal to his veracity; if he did not, it is fatal to the Trinitarian key.

"Christ," says Dr. Lightfoot, "as the second person of the Trinity, knew the day, and to say otherwise is blasphemous; but to say that the Messiah knew it not, who nevertheless was the same with the second person of the Trinity, is not blasphemous." "If a Deist were to argue in this manner," says Henry Taylor," should we not call it shuffling? Can George III know a thing as king of England, and be ignorant of it as elector of Hanover, till it is revealed to him by the king, who is the same elector of Hanover to whom he reveals it? Is not this revealing it to himself, who knew it before; and is not this mere sophistry?" Surely it is not for persons who do not hesitate to resort to such expedients to reconcile the Bible with their preconceived opinions, to turn round and accuse their brethren of wresting Scripture.

6. The Trinity, as we have seen, is not sustained by the express teachings of Scripture. Pending the question, however, whether the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in Scripture, there is the strongest antecedent probability that we shall find it taught directly and expressly, or not at all.

The Jews, in the time of our Saviour, held, as every one knows, to the strict and personal unity of God, as the fundamental principle of their faith and worship. Now, if the sacred writers regarded this as an error, as a radical and fatal error, it is not conceivable that they should