progress of his work; acknowledges his obligations to some of his friends; and solicits those whom he addresses, to join with him in their expressions of gratitude. The language which convers these thoughts is simple, appropriate, and unassuming.

The preface which follows, takes a more commanding station, It expatiates in the ample field of human intellect; surveys the various modes of reasoning, by which legitimate conclusions may be obtained; points out the nature of that ground on which the author takes his stand: anticipates difficulties which he expects to encounter, while pursuing things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme;" and gradually prepares us for those heights which the eagle's eye hath not seen, and encourages us to walk in paths which seem hitherto to have been untrodden by the foot of man. The language is dignified and judicious.

66

The body of the volume is comprised in thirty-six propositions. Of these, the first twenty are founded solely on rational and metaphysical principles. The four which next follow, make their appeal to Revelation; and the remaining twelve, advert to the traditions and histories of the principal nations that have peopled the earth.

The examination and proof of these propositions are preceded by nine axioms, several of which are worthy of that name; and these are succeeded by an explanation of some important terms which frequently occur in the volume.

The first proposition treats of simple duration, which the author conceives to be constituted by the necessary existence of God; and from hence, he infers the divine eternity. And, without adverting to the opinions of Leibnitz and others, who have argued, that duration is nothing more than the mere relation and successive order in which bodies exist, and events occur, he assumes its existence, and proceeds to his conclusion by the following gradations. Duration, he argues, is necessary to the existence of all finite beings, and as such it must be a positive good; and in the same proportion as it is a positive good, it must include some degree of perfection. But since duration is simple and uniform in its nature, it must be an exclusive and invariable perfection; and being without beginning, and without end, it must, on the same principle, be an eternal perfection. It cannot, however, be a substance; first, because it is nothing but a perfection; and secondly, because it is wholly destitute of intelligence. It must therefore be a perfection of some substance, whose existence is commensurate with it, and which, consequently, must necessarily be eternal. On this momentous truth. the reasonings are clear, cogent, and convincing.

The reasonings advanced under the second proposition, which treats of Space, coincide, as might be expected, with those under the preceding. The intermediate links are, however, less

numerous, and the language is less diffusive; but on this account, as the essence of the argument is unimpaired, the conclusions are more obvious; so that it derives an advantage from those deficiencies which the former proposition tolerates. Space, it is contended, is like duration, necessary to finite existence, and therefore it must include some degree of perfection. But, when detached from its simple modes, as it must be simple and uniform in its own nature, it must be an exclusive and invariable perfection; and being without all bounds and limits, it must be an immense perfection. An immense perfection implies an immense substance. Space therefore, will as clearly demonstrate the divine Immensity, as duration will prove the divine Eternity. Having established these fundamental propositions, Mr. Kidd next proceeds to argue, that this immense and eternal Being, must be absolutely perfect; and consequently, in order to this, that he must exist in such a manner as is necessary to the existence and display of his absolute and universal perfections. To constitute this absolutely perfect manner of existence, it is argued that the Divine Being, instead of being confined to one mode, must exist in all those possible modes, which can be conceived to be necessary for the utmost amplification of all his perfections, as they inhere in himself, and for all that is essential to that full display of them, which the nature of absolute perfections requires, without admitting either dependance or contingency.

Now the only radical modes of existence which are possible, he contends, must consist in distinction and union; and these radical modes, being essentially necessary to absolute perfection, must necessarily inhere in the essence of this Being, who, being absolutely perfect, can derive nothing from another. Whatever is thus necessary to absolute perfection, must be wholly independant on creation, which had a commencement, and must have a termination. Whereas, every thing that can be conceived to be necessarily connected with the divine perfections, must be immutable, must be placed beyond the influence of time, and, like the eternal Being, must remain the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

Distinction in existence he proceeds to argue, cannot be possible unless there be two modes of being. Neither can distinction include more than two; because, if we admit any augmentation of number, this will not affect the abstract nature of distinction, but only introduce variety, in those degrees of the modes of being which two imply; and being contingencies, they must necessarily be excluded from inherence, by the nature of absolute perfection. Hence it follows, that neither more nor less than two radical modes of being, can be absolutely necessary to constitute distinction in existence.

Union, he next proceeds to argue, can only subsist in one mode of being. Another, like the former, will only be a multiplication of the same mode, and will be unnecessary; and being unnecessary it must be a contingency, which is necessarily excluded from all absolute perfections. The supposition therefore, of another mode like the former is as big with absurdity, as the multiplication of an infinite essence. And if we suppose in union another mode, not like the former, this will fall in with distinction which is already full, and can admit no more. Union therefore, can only exist in one mode. And hence the aggregate of these modes of being in which an infinitely perfect being subsists, must be three, and cannot possibly be either more or less.

This distinction and this union, he argues, are not to be considered as arbitrary, or in any way whatever depending on volition, or which can be either abandoned, resumed, or changed at the pleasure of Omnipotence; for if this were admitted, the modes of the divine subsistence would be contingent, which is utterly inconsistent with the nature of necessary existence. But on the contrary, they must be necessary, and essential to a being that is absolutely perfect. And consequently, the Divine Being can no more subsist without these three essential modes, because he is absolutely perfect, than necessary existence can become non-existent.

Having proceeded thus far with his theory, to establish the absolute necessity of three modes of subsistence in the divine essence, the author next proceeds to consider whether these modes can exist without personality; and his conclusions are, that personality is necessarily implied in each of these modes of subsistence, and consequently, that there must be three distinct persons in the divine nature. The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore a necessary consequence of the divine perfections and existence; and is neither founded upon an ecclesiastical dogma, nor assumed upon grounds which shrink from a rational investigation, how incomprehensible soever the manner of this distinction and of this union may be.

In the subsequent propositions, the truth of the hypothesis of which we have endeavoured to give a comprehensive, and yet. compressed analysis, is argued from the following principles. From the nature of the divine efficiency, and from its active, energetic, and operative influence. From the nature of the divine intelligence; from the way in which the Divine Being knows his own wisdom, immensity, and immutability; and from his moral attributes, particularly his goodness and his love. From these sources of argument, the author turns to analogical reasoning, and argues from the powers of the human soul, which being all derived from God, furnish evidence, that every excel

1

lence received, must have been communicated, and that therefore, all these perfections must exist super-eminently in him, from whom their emanations have been derived. From these analogies he turns again to the nature of the divine existence, and draws proofs in favour of his hypothesis, from the nature of his perfections, from the nature of his happiness, from the nature of necessary existence, from his necessary perfection, and finally, from his necessary happiness.

In his appeal to Revelation, he proceeds to infer the doctrine of the Trinity, from the perfection of knowledge in which man was originally created; from the names and titles of the Divine Being, revealed by God himself; from the names or terms in the Old Testament; and finally from those revealed in the New. From the evidence of Scripture, we are directed to that of history and tradition, where we find our attention arrested by an appeal to Hindostan, to Chaldea, to Persia, and to Scythia, comprehending Thibet, Tartary, and Siberia; to China, to Egypt, to the Greeks, and to the opinions of the Greek Philosophers; to the Romans, to the Germans, and to the ancient Americans; and finally, to the sentiments of the Cabbala, and to other documents of direct evidence, which, independently of the Scriptures, prove that this doctrine was known in the church from the most remote periods. Some interesting notes are introduced at the conclusion of the volume, tending to illustrate the metaphysical part of the work. These are by no means the least valuable part of the volume. They obviate several objections which might occur to the reader while examining the propositions, and throw a needful light over some obscure parts of the argumentation.

The reasonings founded upon Scripture are not only powerful in themselves, but they confirm the various proofs which the hypothesis had unfolded; and shew that this sacred source of argument has not yet been wholly exhausted by former writers. From several passages which have hitherto been generally regarded as having only a remote connexion with the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. K.'s acquaintance with the Hebrew and the Oriental languages has enabled him to derive unexpected aid, and thus to augment the general accumulation of evidence.

In appealing to history and tradition, fact itself assures us, that the belief of this doctrine, though obscured by fable, had taken a deep root, and an almost universal spread, at a very early period of the world. The instances adduced, which bear full on the doctrine to be established, might have been easily augmented; but it is not always that redundance is advantageous.

Against the evidences drawn from Scripture and historical facts, no formidable objections will probably be raised; nor is it against these well-known sources of argument that the weapons

of opposition will probably be directed. It is the previous theory that must expect to bear the fierceness of attack; and if founded on a rock, even this will become more refined by passing through the conflict.

On a subject so abstruse and so mysterious, as that of a triad of persons in an unity of essence; and on a view of its principles so singular as that which the author has taken, it is not to be expected, but that some abberations will occasionally appear.Roses without thorns are flowers of Paradise. On the most familiar topics, error seems to be inseparable from all human compositions. More however, is pardonable, where more may be expected, in those unfrequented paths which wind along the obscure margins that divide the empire of light from that of darkness, than in those central tracks which Science and Revelation have conspired to enlighten, for more than five thousand years. It is on the extremities of those margins that the author has stood, while casting his line into the vast profound; and, although he has not been alike successful in all his exertions, he has found bottom in many places that had hitherto been deemed unfathomable. Analogy says, that there may be many regions of the illimitable abyss still within soundings, to which no plummet has ever yet descended.

To many objections, some parts of this volume no doubt are liable, and to many more, some detached paragraphs will at first appear to be exposed. But some of these will grow less formidable, as we advance and expand our views, to take a comprehensive survey of the theory in all its parts. How far it may be just to reason by analogy, from weak, limited, and ignorant beings like ourselves, to the awful modes of distinct existence, necessarily inherent in an absolutely perfect being, who must be infinite, immense, omnipotent, and eternal, we hesitate even to think, and decline to express. Whether "the supposition of the very existence of efficiency, as inhering in the divine essence, infers the exercise of it, according to its nature, at some time or other; and the very supposition of the exercise of it in any one instance, past, present, or to come, infers the exercise of it eternally, immensely, and immutably," (p. 49,) may create some doubts. In favour of this position the author, however, argues with much energy, and it cannot be denied, that his arguments have some considerable weight.

"The perfection of efficiency, inhering in the divine essence, infers, that it must be every way like that essence, eternal, immense, and immutable; and, as we have already argued, if that which is eternal, immense, and immutable, be ever, in any one instance, exercised according to its nature, it must be exercised eternally, immensely, and immutably. The divine efficiency is eternal, immense, and immutable; therefore it must be exercised