have any distinct conceptions. If there be any thing in this mystery, or in any other mystery, especially conducive to morals, this must be left to the wisdom of the initiated to develope.

My future remarks will be chiefly directed to the grand division of the trinity above denominated the Tripersonal; and that I may not be perplexed with the endless differences of opinion existing among those, who are ranged in this division, I will confine myself to that more simple form of the doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith. "In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost."* As a general definition, this would seem sufficiently clear. Every person, who assents to it, has views peculiar to himself respecting the nature and relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet all suppose them to be three distinct persons, and that each person is God. To this notion of the doctrine my future investigations will be limited. It does not come within my present object to inquire how it could be brought to pass, that three persons, each of whom is God, could make one being and one God; or how there could be three persons, or beings, each of whom is God, and not be three Gods. I am engaged with the nature, the origin, and tendency of this doctrine, and not with its truth, or consistency.†

* Confession of Faith, Chap. II, Sec. 3.

"That any

+ Dr. South seriously discourses on the subject as follows. one should be both father and son to the same person, produce himself, be

In regard to its nature, or to the thing itself, which is called trinity by those, who profess to believe a doctrine under this name, enough has been said. Before I proceed to examine the Scripture authority, and the tendency of the kind of trinity last mentioned, I will devote a few words to some of your views on this subject.

In explaining what you understand by the term Unitarian, you express yourself in the following manner. "When the orthodox use this title, they consider it as only designating those, who reject all belief in that mysterious threefold mode of existence in the one Supreme and Eternal Jehovah, which the Scriptures, as we think, plainly teach; which lies at the foundation of the whole plan of redemption; and of which the rejection always has been, and always must be, connected with a denial of every essential principle of the Gospel." This passage is of so remarkable a character, that it will admit of a short analysis.

We are here told of a "mysterious threefold mode of existence" in the Deity. What are we to understand by this phrase? I do not ask how the Deity exists in three modes, nor how he exists in any manner, nor what a mode is; I simply ask what is the meaning of the words here put together. To my mind they convey no ideas whatever; they are

cause and effect too, and so the copy give being to its original, seems at first sight so very strange and unaccountable, that were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be exploded as a contradiction." South's Sermons, Vol. III. p. 140, Lond. 1718.

mere sounds, which fall on the ear, and are lost. Before we can have a true faith, is it necessary to talk of the Supreme Being without ideas, and to describe his nature in combinations of words to which we can affix no meaning?

Again, it is said, that this mysterious nature of God is plainly taught in the Scriptures. How then should it be so mysterious? In most cases, it would be natural to expect, that things, which are plainly taught, must be clearly understood; and not only so, but that the language used to express them should be so constructed as to communicate definite ideas.

Moreover, you go on to say, that a "rejection of this mysterious threefold mode of existence always has been, and always must be, connected with a denial of every essential principle of the Gospel." That is, to reject a proposition, which, in the very terms of it, is confessed to be mysterious, of which no mortal can form a distinct conception, and to which no intelligible meaning can be affixed; to reject this proposition, which it is impossible for a rational man not to reject, is to be accounted a "denial of every essential principle of the Gospel." Nay, this " always has been, and always must be" the dreadful consequence. A hard necessity, truly, for conscientious christians, who think it their duty to obey the Saviour and Apostles in preference of all others, and who cannot profess a belief in a thing of which they have no conceptions. But, after all, perhaps they may be permitted to look into the Bible, and have some respect for the revealed word of God; per

haps they may have the liberty of searching for the place in which our Saviour has authorized any one of his followers to proclaim to all the rest what “always has been and always must be," in respect to their faith, and their understanding of the Scriptures. Perhaps they may be tolerated in thinking a reality better than a mode, and a truth better than a speculation.

How does it appear, that a rejection of this mysterious threefold mode of existence is connected with a denial of every essential principle of the Gospel? Are not the doctrines of the divine attributes, a superintending providence, the moral agency of man, the Messiahship of Jesus, repentance, pardon of the penitent, a resurrection, future state of retribution, and salvation by the free grace of God; are not love to our Maker and to our brethren, faith and charity, piety and benevolence; are not these essential principles of the Gospel? And what have they to do with a metaphysical notion about a mysterious mode of existence? Must we be censured as skeptics in these most important principles, or as denying them altogether, unless we can detect some faint glimmering of light in the chaotic darkness of this proposition ?

But before we are required to believe in this doctrine of modes, we have not only a right to demand what is meant by the form of speech in which it is expressed, but also what is meant by a mode itself. When you talk of a mode of existence in God, do you mean that he is a divided, changeable being; that

he exists in different forms at different times and places; that he has certain capacities of will and action to day, and opposite ones to morrow? If this be your meaning, it is intelligible enough. But if you add to this, that God is one and indivisible, simple in his nature and unchangeable in his being, we are again involved in obscurity, and compelled to acknowledge, that to your notions we can attach no ideas. We see only contradiction and absurdity. A trinity of this kind of modes either destroys the unity of God, or destroys itself. When it is reduced to such a form as to be understood, it denotes three beings, or distinct intelligences in God; when it cannot be understood, it is either a contradiction, or means nothing at all.

Suppose it be replied, that this is forcing the matter too far, and that a mode of existence, or being, or nature, was not literally intended, but only a mode of action. If we take the subject on this ground, we shall, it is true, be brought back to something intelligible. God has certainly many modes of exercising his perfections. In this respect, each of his attributes may be called a mode. He displays himself in various modes to all the works of his hands; he is the Father and protector of his rational creatures, whom he loves, sustains, and blesses. He has revealed himself through Jesus Christ, in whom were his wisdom and power; he communicated his holy spirit to the Apostles, enlightened them with heavenly truth, and made them successful preachers of a pure and persecuted religion. He is still regardful of the in