allusion to it. If that doctrine were perfectly developed to the disciples, previously to this farewell injunction, they would undoubtedly understand their Lord as referring to it in this his farewell admonition; but moderns have yet to find the proofs that such a discovery was made to them, either in public or in private; and, without this satisfaction, they can hardly be justified in believing that the three names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are the proper names of three persons united by a mysterious union into one God.

Upon John v, 7, it is sufficient to remark, that, although it has long been a powerful weapon in the hands of the orthodox, and has been since the time of the Reformation triumphantly wielded by them in defence of their favourite doctrine, it has now become a bruised reed, by being proved, to the satisfaction of every candid critic, to be interpolated. As the fact is indisputable, I shall content myself with quoting the words as they ought to stand, and take my leave of the text: "For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one;" that is to say, in one record, or testimony*.

The 2 Cor., xiii, 14, is much more to the point, but is yet only a proof, if any were wanting, how easily detached passages of Scripture may be construed to support any doctrine, however repugnant to the general tenor of Scripture, or even to common

* See Note C.

D

sense.

It is as follows: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Upon comparing this text with the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, as recited above, it will be found to prove no more of it than that there is one God, and that our Lord Jesus Christ is a distinct person; points which require no confirmation. It does not in the most distant manner allude to his Godhead, a point upon which this text can only be brought to bear by assuming that it was familiarly known, and frequently spoken of as indisputably true, as I have already observed.

The words communion of the Holy Ghost, if read with a view to understand them, and not to strengthen any presupposed doctrine, admit of no other meaning than the partaking of, or participation in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which St. Paul prays that the church at Corinth might enjoy, as other churches did in those days, when extraordinary interpositions of divine power were judged necessary for the promotion of the infant religion.

Another argument for a trinity of persons in the Godhead has been drawn from those passages of the book of Genesis, in which the word expressive of the Deity is used in the plural number; it being maintained, that "Elohim," or Gods, was written instead of "Eloh" or God, in reference to this particular doctrine. But orthodoxy proves more than it wishes by this criticism; for, if Moses intended to convey to his readers an idea of plurality, it must have been a

plurality of Gods, not of persons. Moses, however, is so little careful as to numbers, or violations of grammar (the rules of which were probably not very strictly observed in his days), that he uses the plural of the same word not unfrequently in conjunction with a verb or adjective in the singular number, and vice versa. We find him also speaking of the Deity in the singular and plural number almost in the same breath; for in Genesis, i, 16, he represents the Almighty saying, "Let us make man in our image ;" and in the very next verse he continues, "God created man in his own image." In the account of the confusion of tongues (Gen., xi, 7), God says, "Let us go down, and there confound their language;" but the historian quickly makes up for the peculiarity of this phraseology by informing us, in verse 8, that "the Lord scattered them abroad from thence." But whatever peculiarities of grammar of idiom Moses may have indulged himself in, or whatever licence the Hebrew language may allow, no one can read the account of the creation without perceiving, that it was the main design of that book to ascribe to one God the origin and formation of the earth, of man, and of all the animals and plants that inhabit and clothe it.

As to the assertion, that the Jews once knew this doctrine, but suffered it to be corrupted, or forgotten, the order of corruption is contrary to the known tenor of their history; for they were always more inclined to adopt a plurality of Gods from their neighbours, than to improve upon the idolatrous re

ligions which surrounded them, by reducing the various divinities to one Jehovah. If the Jews really have departed from so important a point of their ancient faith, their sacred books, which have so faithfully, and with so little tenderness to their other errors, recorded their many deviations from truth and duty, would, doubtless, have left some faint trace at least of the time and manner of so great a heresy taking place.

The above are nearly all the passages that can be adduced to countenance, in any great degree, the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead. When we consider how slender this support is, how little such a doctrine is capable of proof from reason and the nature of things, and that, by confession of the whole Christian world, it must ever be it's fate to be received with a doubting and compulsory acquiescence, rather than cordially embraced as being clearly and demonstrably true, it is not a little surprising that a belief of it should ever have been considered as the test of a genuine Christian profession, in preference to those dispositions of mind, and rules of conduct, which exalt mankind to a nearer resemblance of their great Creator, by making them steady imitators of his moral perfections.

The consideration of the supposed Deity or Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ presents difficulties of another kind; for we reason now upon a being whom the eye hath seen; not a purely spiritual essence whom no man hath seen, nor can see. He was to all appearance, as well as in fact, a man: he was born

like one of the human race, passed through all the stages of human growth, and died: he ate, drank, and slept as a man: endured hunger and fatigue, pain of body, and anguish of mind; and, to the most close and constant observer offered no appearance by which a suspicion could be excited of his being any thing different. It requires, therefore, the clearest and most incontrovertible evidence to prove that such a one was any thing more than a mere man; and especially that he was of a nature so far exalted above the condition in which he appeared, as to possess infinite power, to be incapable of suffering, the Creator of the world, the one supreme and eternal God. The burthen of proof lies with those who maintain these improbable positions. It is certain, that, during his life-time, he took upon himself no greater state, and presumed to no greater authority than that of a prophet. The authority that he exercised, and for which his miracles were his chief warrant, he uniformly ascribed, as the prophets did before him, to God the Father. Even after his resurrection he was styled by his followers a man; (Acts ii, 22; 1 Cor., xvi, 31; 1 Tim., ii, 5) and St. Paul even speaks of him in terms that forbid us to suppose that the apostle had any impression upon his mind to the contrary. "For since by MAN,” says he,

came death, by MAN also came the resurrection of the dead; for, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor., xv, 21, 22.) For, if Jesus had been a being of a superior order, the apostle would doubtless have expressed himself in