on the very lowest possible supposition, taking it merely as a record of the theology of the founders of the Jewish and Christian Churches, written by persons living at the time and on the spot, it is absolutely impossible, that it could convey a false and groundless view of the fundamental article of their common faith. There is nothing whatever in the style and reasonings of the sacred writers which could give a moment's entertainment among sane persons to the idea, that they were so devoid of natural abilities as to be unable to state the common and prevalent notions of their religion with some degree of accuracy. Now the doctrine is so interwoven with the whole contexture of the Scriptures, that any, the lowest degree of accuracy, is inexplicable on any other supposition than the general correctness of the impression conveyed by these writings. Besides this, the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is stated in the Scriptures, can never be resolved into inaccuracy or misapprehension : idea so wonderful, so uncommon, so utterly unlike all other notions of existence, must

11

have been wholly out of the range of ordinary minds. They could never have fallen by accident or mistake into the various forms of language in which it is conveyed in every part of Scripture. Generations of writers could not have so utterly mistaken their national faith. The doctrine, therefore, must either be the doctrine of the Church during the whole period of inspiration, or else the mode in which it is presented to us in Scripture must be the result of deliberate invention and wilful misrepresentation. Now, beyond all question, the doctrine was published as the faith of the Christian Church all over the world before the destruction of Jerusalem. It was published at the same time as the faith of the Jewish Church also. For the New Testament, as we have seen, is as clear proof of the one as of the other. And several ages before that time it had been published, in the Greek version of the Old Testament, as the faith of the Jews before the coming of the Messiah. So that if the doctrine be not true, its untruth was not discovered by the Church when it was

published in writing. It was allowed to go forward as the representation of their faith, and of that revelation which they believed had been given to them by God. If it was a mistake, it was uncorrected. The supposition is plainly absurd. And, therefore, as the doctrine of the Trinity was undoubtedly taught by all teachers who laid claim to a divine mission, whether Jewish or Christian, and as it was no less certainly the fundamental article of faith in the Church of God, during the whole period of inspiration, either that doctrine is true or else we are utterly destitute of revelation. Either there is a personal plurality co-existing in the unity of God, or else the whole volume of Scripture must be rejected as an imposition and a fraud.

The objection supposes, that the main design of Revelation is to communicate right notions of the divine nature. This is true, but it is not a sufficient representation of the case. Revelation is not only positive, it is corrective also. It is designed, not merely to communicate truth, but to banish falsehood. Not only to give

light, but to drive away darkness. The Scriptures are designed, not only to teach the worship of our Creator, but to deliver mankind from polytheism and idolatry. Now, supposing that the Scripture had laid no claim to inspiration, it is clearly impossible that any teachers of the unity of God, in contradiction to polytheism, would introduce into their system the notion of personal plurality in the Godhead, unless they believed it to be truth, and truth absolutely necessary to be known. I say more, that, unless they believed the mischief which would follow from concealing this mystery in the mode of the divine existence, altogether to outweigh any possible danger from the difficulty of avoiding the errors which, in the minds of the multitude or in the speculations of the ingenious, might possibly grow out of the doctrine,unless they believed that ignorance of the Trinity was more dangerous to the salvation of mankind, than the possibility of any theories being introduced which might approximate towards Tritheism, — they would have guarded their phraseology and

their statements so as to keep the doctrine totally out of sight. They certainly would not have gone out of their way to use solecisms and figures (to say nothing of more direct statements), calculated to endanger the defeat of the purpose for which they wrote. In a system of religious instruction, directly and avowedly aimed against polytheism, the mode of the divine existence is the precise point on which the slightest tinge of confusion or ambiguity is inadmissible. Now, it is easy to prove, that no one who has adopted any one of the heresies concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, is or ever can be satisfied to take the holy Scriptures as they stand in their obvious and grammatical sense. Our opponents are a plain proof, that no person who disbelieved the doctrine would have written as the sacred writers have. The consequence is unavoidable. The sacred writers never could have written as they did, unless they believed the doctrine, and intended to teach it to mankind. Therefore, either the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is true, or else the Scriptures are not