"Bishop Burgess teaches, that the Father is a person, but not a being, the Son is a person, but not a being, and the Holy Ghost is a person, but not a being, and these three nonentities make one perfect being.' "The doctrine of the French and Belgic Confession is, that 'the Father is the cause of all; the Son is his wisdom and word; and the Holy Ghost is his virtue or power.'

"A Connecticut divine informs us, that we may consider God as standing in a circle; standing on this part he is the Father, on that he is the Son, and on the other he is the Holy Spirit.'

"And Heber, in his Bampton Lectures, says, that' the Father is the first person in the Trinity, the archangel Michael the second, and the angel Gabriel the third.'

In such discordances and conflicting statements, we perceive ample evidence of the uncertainty and unsoundness of the whole theory.

The doctrine of the Trinity, as we have already said, stands on a basis of inferential reasoning, not on any express Scriptural declaration. Certain texts are selected, and by the peculiar exposition given to them, or by joining several isolated texts together, the triune theory of the Godhead is constructed. But in building it up in this way, Trinitarian theologians disagree among themselves concerning the validity of the passages for the purposes alleged. "There is scarcely one text," says the eminent John Locke," alleged to the Trinitarians, which is not otherwise expounded by their own writers." Take, for example, one of the very first passages employed by Trinitarians generally, to construct their system, Gen. i. 1 : — “ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In this text the Hebrew word Elohim, translated God, is in the plural number, whence it is argued that there is a plurality of persons in the Deity. But Professor Stuart,

and other Hebrew grammarians, tell us that such a form of expression (called by them the pluralis excellentiæ) was commonly employed by the Hebrews for the sake of emphasis." And John Calvin himself, in his note on the passage, especially warns his readers "against such violent interpretations." From all this we derive additional evidence to convince us of the uncertainty and unsoundness of the Trinitarian system.

6. It now remains for us to show that the doctrine on which it relies for support, and without which it could not be efended, is fallacious and untrue.

Jesus says, "MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I." (John xiv. 28.) And again he says, "MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL.' (John x. 29.) To the same effect also is the language of the great Apostle of the Gentiles: -"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD." (1 Cor. xi. 3.) Of a similar import is a large class of passages in the Bible. Their meaning is obvious, it cannot be mistaken. They teach the subordination of the Son to the Father; they teach the subordination of Christ to God.

But we all know by what means it is sought to evade the force of such plain and powerful testimony of our Saviour and his Apostles. We are very well aware, how it is sought to make their words have no meaning in the controversy concerning Christ's Supreme Deity. It is by a very ingenious device, but a most unwarrantable one. It is assumed that Christ had two natures; and, by a dexterous employment of this assumption, the advocates of the triune theory of the Godhead seek to nullify every

plain statement of the Scriptures regarding the supremacy

of the Father and the subordination of the Son. But the assumption is entirely gratuitous, adopted solely with a view to meet the pressing exigency before us. It is a pure fallacy, a mere logical artifice; and yet without it the Trinitarian ground could not be maintained one moment. It is assumed that Christ had two natures, one divine and the other human ; that he was perfect God and perfect man mysteriously combined. And then it is thought the force of the direct statements which teach his subordination is turned aside by asserting that such things were affirmed of, and by, our Lord, in reference to his human nature only. This is a mournful way of dealing with the obvious teachings of the Word of God. That it meets with so general a reception affords lamentable proof of the readiness of men to adopt any method of explanation which will enable them to cling to their favorite notions. Again we say, this distinction of two natures in Christ is a mere gratuitous assumption, adopted to meet the emergency of the case. Such a distinction is nowhere made in the Bible. Nowhere is it said, "This is spoken of, or by, Christ in reference to his human nature," or "This, in reference to his divine nature.' We look in vain for the statement of such a doctrine as that of the "two natures," in the Scriptures. Nowhere is it said in the sacred records, that "our Saviour had two natures." Such an expression is not to be found from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Well hath it been styled a mere human invention, to bolster up a human

In thus stating with such great plainness our opinion

concerning the common doctrine of the two natures in Christ, we are not insensible to the fact, that to many minds some of our expressions may appear abrupt, unauthorized, and dogmatical. We confess we have not endeavoured to trim, or soften, or smooth our phrase in this matter. We believe the theory of the two natures to be fallacious, and we have said so very plainly. We have styled it a mere assumption, because it directly rests upon a mere assumption. It is high time that people should look to this, it is high time that the attention of the inquirer should be fairly directed to it; for on it really depends for support the doctrine of the Trinity. If this prop be unsound, the whole structure of the triune theory of the Godhead must topple and fall.

And it is unsound. Let us look at the mode of proof by which it is sought to be established. Two Scripture phrases (or classes of phrases) are produced, in one of which it is said Christ's Supreme Deity is taught, and in the other his subordinate nature. Both, it is urged, must be admitted in the sense attached to them, and from this it is urged that Christ had two natures. The theory thus constructed is then employed to defend the doctrine of Christ's supremacy against the overwhelming evidence of Scripture, teaching his subordination, which can be arrayed against it. Now we ask the careful reader to mark the fallacy. Is it not plain, that, in the first instance, in constructing the theory of the two natures, the real point in controversy (Christ's Supreme Deity) is gratuitously assumed, or taken for granted, without proof? And then the theory thus fallaciously constructed is employed to protect the very doctrine which was gratuitously assumed

for the purpose of constructing it. Is not the fallacy obvious? Christ's Supreme Deity must be satisfactorily proved before the doctrine of the two natures can be established. And this just brings us back to the primary question.

We say, then, without any hesitation, that it is impossible to construct the theory of the two natures without resorting to the fallacy of "begging the question,” or assuming that to be true which is the very point in dispute. Nothing short of a distinct Scriptural statement could warrant its adoption by the Scriptural Christian. And this, as we have already said, is nowhere to be found.

With such a liberty, men might prove

There is great danger to be apprehended from the admission of gratuitous assumptions into the interpretation of Scripture. almost any thing from the sacred volume, and find means to evade the force of any argument, however cogent and precise. Let us illustrate by an example. Christianity is universally held to be a religion of peace; our Saviour inculcated peaceful principles; his own life corresponded with his precepts, it was eminently peaceful; "peace on earth" was the strain which ushered him into the world, and " peace was the legacy he bequeathed to his disciples on his departure from it. But suppose a sect should arise, claiming to be his followers, who should assert that Christianity was a warfaring religion; that, in fact, it was a Christian duty to prosecute war far and wide; and this not merely defensive war, but aggressive war, which should lead them to invade unoffending and defenceless foreign nations, murder their people, destroy their property, and desolate their homes. Suppose we

a war