tion concerning it.

Even Phrenology, which has much attention, recognizes, "Every man

of late excited so most decidedly, this triple nature. knows himself," says a phrenologist of some eminence, to be an animal being, an intellectual being, and a moral being; yet no man can tell how these exist distinctly yet unitedly in his single self; while yet he is conscious that they do thus exist." So I used to say, without knowing or caring much about Phrenology. And so I still say. And hence too I found no difficulty in receiving upon testimony so ample, the great doctrine of the triune nature of the Deity. Indeed I could not else see how man was made in his image.

But the statements of the record-how were they to be met? Jesus there represents himself as inferior to the Father. True, but he also represents himself as one with the Father; as being Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the ending-the Almighty. Others call him God, the Creator, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, &c. Now if we assume that he was truly God, the expressions which imply inferiority can be accounted for, on the ground of his being a mediator, &c.; but if we assume that he was a derived, dependent being, how can we account

for the frequent application of titles to him which can belong only to the Supreme God?

There were other considerations. He never said,Thus saith the Lord," but "I" say so or so. This was never done before or since, by any sound-minded being on the earth. Of course, his character was a peculiar one. But if not a man, what was he?"I will give everlasting life," said he. "I will raise him up at the last day." "If ye ask any thing in my name, I will give it you." But the authorities on this point are too numerous to quote here. myself compelled to admit the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; choice of difficulties.

Finally I found doctrine of the were it only as a

Let me not be understood as saying or supposing that these are the only, or the best arguments in favor of the views of Trinitarians.

I am

only speaking of the operations of my own mind at the time; and what the evidence was, which at that time presented itself. At the present moment, I should take a widely different course of reasoning from that which influenced me, and led me to the sentiments which I now entertain, to convince a Unitarian of what I conceive to be his

error.

For my own part, at present, I feel not at all

inclined to appeal to what are usually regarded as the direct proofs on this subject. The indirect evidence is quite sufficient, and even strikes me with most force. This indirect evidence is found

on almost every page of the New Testament. The manner in which the Savior speaks; the authority he assumes; the right and powers he claims; and the predictions he utters respecting himself, cannot certainly comport with any thing like modesty or even sanity, if he were a created being. Assume the point that he was so, and I am compelled to stumble at every step, and become more and more involved in difficulty; but granting him to be God and man-God made flesh and blood and dwelling among us-and though I do not say that all difficulties are removed, yet I do affirm that, to me, the path is comparatively clear, and the New Testament language comparatively intelligible.

Though I had been compelled to admit the doctrine of the Trinity, I had occasional misgivings. Not that the state of the argument appeared to me to vary, but the power of habit was so great, that such trains of skeptical thought and feeling, and such common cavils, would occasionally come up, as for the moment seemed overwhelming.

The thought, "Could the Creator die!" was a leader of one of these associations, and was very troublesome. I had admitted doctrines which appeared to involve such an opinion, but it was a "hard saying ;" and after all, I sometimes thought, may there not be a mistake about it ?"

But what is death?" I used upon reflection to ask myself. "Is it the destruction of any thing? Is there any greater difficulty in believing that the Creator died, than that he ate, and drank, and slept? Jesus certainly exercised the functions, and met with temptations common to man. Where then the mighty difficulty of supposing that after he had been a man in other respects, and had passed through the changes to which man is subject, he went through the last change?"

Sometimes, after a train of reasoning like the foregoing, the clouds would disperse; at others, they would only thicken upon me. There were seasons when I felt as if I must and should go back to skepticism. I felt that I had no heart to attend to religion. All my feelings,—all my habits of thinking and reasoning-were so much of the " doubting system," that I thought religion, if true, of no consequence to me; that it must always "play round the head," but never reach "the heart." At seasons I almost thought, with Dr. Payson, that

1 could bring such a single argument against the Christian religion, as was alone sufficient to demolish it.*

My only escape from this state of mind was to consider that I had once settled the question according to the best evidence I could obtain, and that I was bound to act upon that decision until more evidence should appear. This consideration commonly afforded relief for a short time; but it sometimes cost me hours of struggling with the current of unbelief, before I could overcome it.

One day I met with an old correspondent of the Unitarian denomination, who had heard with great pain that I was relapsing into what he called the "old school" doctrine. But he treated me with a great deal of gentleness, and only insinuated that I had never understood the Unitarians; that I had viewed the subject partially, or in a distorted form; that there was not the shadow of a doubt that our sentiments were still pretty nearly alike.. "But do you really believe," said he, “that Jesus Christ was God?" 66 Certainly he was so, in a sense," I replied. He said he did not like to hear me say, in a sense, for it was evading the question. I had no idea, however, of evasion,

* See Appendix, note E.