MY RESPECTED FRIEND,-In the course of conversation last evening, when you undertook the defence of the Trinity, I was forcibly impressed, with the power of mystery, to charm the finest understandings. You appeared to be attached to the doctrine, not so much because you were struck with the strength of argument in its favor, from revelation or from reason, as because your imagination was fascinated by its very indefiniteness and obscurity. In your mind, the same grandeur was associated with the mystery of the Trinity, which belongs to the mysteries of our own being, of the operations of Providence, of the system of nature. But, I confess, that to me, the Trinity recalls no such emotions. Instead of classing it with those sublime subjects of thought, which are suggested by our condition in this world, and our hopes of a future, I should place it among those fictitious creations of a strange fancy, of which the dark ages were fertile.

I have always thought, and I was confirmed in the opinion by your conversation,-that the doctrine of the Trinity bore a striking analogy to the doctrine of Tran

substantiation. You will not be offended, I am sure,

with

my freedom, if I proceed to point out to your notice, some particulars, in which, it appears to me, the two doctrines are very similar.

1. The statement of each involves an apparent contradiction. The doctrine of Transubstantiation, is that the bread and wine, employed in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, are converted, after consecration by the priest, into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. The elements retain the same outward appearance, but in reality are entirely changed. To the senses, they still seem to be common bread and wine; but faith regards them as the body and blood of our Lord. You acknowledge the impossibility of believing this. You confess, that no evidence could prove it to your mind. the same contradiction in the statement of the Trinity.— The contradiction is, 1. That there is but one God. 2. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate persons, each having his own mind, consciousness and will, each sustaining different offices in the work of redemption. 3. That the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God.

But is there not

Now to my mind, this statement appears to present as palpable a contradiction, as the former. I cannot torture my intellect to perceive the possibility of either of these propositions. It is as easy for me to admit that what the evidence of my senses teaches me is wine, is in reality, the blood shed on Calvary, eighteen hundred years ago, as to perceive, that the Father can be God;-the Son, God; and the Holy Ghost, God, and yet, that there is but one God. Both the propositions, I cannot help regarding as contradictory and impossible.

2. The doctrine of Transubstantiation, is defended by passages of Scripture, which, if admitted in their obvious. and literal sense, are certainly, indubitable proofs. Indeed, the language of our Saviour is more explicit on this point, than it is on the doctrine of the Trinity, as its warmest advocates, I presume, confess. The doctrine of Transubstantiation-unless we bring reason to our aid, in interpreting Scripture-is supported by direct quotations from the New Testament. "Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you." “And he took the bread and said, this is my body, which is given for you." In like manner, "he took the cup and said, this is my blood." By these texts, the believers in Transubstantiation, think they demonstrate their doctrine. But the man, who permits his common sense to operate, refutes them on the principles of criticism and sound reason, and shews that the language of Scripture is not to be pressed in its most obvious sense, too closely, but that we must look beyond the letter to the spirit.

The analogy which the Trinity bears to this point, is that it is supported by some obvious passages of Scripture. You say, that you are convinced of the truth of the doc

trine, by certain texts in which a triple distinction of the divine nature is implied; or by passages which appear to invest Jesus Christ with the attributes of the Deity. But are these passages as numerous or as forcible, as those which the Catholic alleges in favor of Transubstantiation ? Why do you not receive them, in their literal sense? Plainly, because you exercise your reason and cannot admit an impossibility.

On the same grounds, I interpret the texts, apparently

If your

in favor of the Trinity, according to my reason. argument is just against the Catholic, mine is just against you. To maintain consistency, you must become a Catholic or a Unitarian. If you adopt an opinion, from the literal import of Scripture, without regard to the real import, you must believe in Transubstantiation; but if you refuse to believe a contradiction, though capable of a plausible support from Scripture, you must renounce the Trinity. The Catholic can retort upon you, with precisely the same arguments, with which you attack the Unitarian; why, then, will you not allow the latter the same advantage which you assume, in contending with the former ?

3. The two doctrines agrce in the mode of argument, by which they are supported. A Protestant, reasoning with a believer in Transubstantiation, would argue something in this way. "I cannot believe as you assert, that the bread and wine of the eucharist, are the real body and blood of our Lord, for the supposition contradicts the evidence of my senses. The bread, which is before me, to all appearance, is unchanged. It has all the properties, which belonged to it before. I perceive, its form, color, taste, smell; and I am sure, that these are the qualities of real bread."

But to this the Catholic replies; "I admit all that you have asserted. If you think you have made out any argument, you mistake the ground of dispute. You have proved nothing by proving that the element in question, has the visible properties of bread; that is granted: but the ground we take is this: that, allowing all you have said, the bread is still in a mysterious manner, the true body of Christ; its retaining the appearance of bread, is

nothing against the conclusion; for our Saviour expressly said, "this is my body." Now we must admit this to support the consistency of scripture. And after all, the whole subject is a solemn mystery, which is not to be investigated too closely by our carnal reason.”

No one

How similar the mode of reasoning adopted by the Trinitarian. We say, "that we do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, because it is inconsistent with the divine Unity. We are convinced by the united testimony of Nature and Revelation, that the Lord our God, is ONE LORD. Now, we cannot think at the same time, that he is THREE. Again, we find our Saviour continually spoken of in the New Testament, as the Son of God,distinct from the Father-and inferior to him; we cannot then believe that he is God, equal with the Father." To this you reply, "What you say is true. doubts it. To press this point so closely, betrays ignorance of the controversy. Trinitarians hold to the Unity of God, and to the inferiority of the Son to the Father; but at the same time, they believe in the Trinity and the equality of the son with the Father. You gain nothing by proving that the knowledge of Jesus Christ is limited; we admit that; but believe too, that his knowledge is unlimited; you gain nothing by proving that his power was given him by the Father; we admit that; but believe too, that his power is underived and independent: you gain nothing, by proving that he is the Son of God, and finite; we admit that, but believe too, that he is God, and infinite. To be sure it is a mystery; but we must submit our carnal reason to the teachings of scripture."

Now, how this differs from the reasoning of the Roman Catholic, in favor of transubstantiation, I am unable to