fault with the remarkably excursive nature of this logic -beside these, where else in the whole Gospel do you find indications of the Evangelist's faith in the Supreme Deity of Jesus, or the doctrine of the Trinity? I will not taunt with the question, where does he mention the name of this essential dogma-where does he speak of the thing for which the name stands? Is it not but too plain that, although a few texts may be construed so as to favour the Trinitarian hypothesis-is it not plain that their value, whatever it may be thought to be, is wholly destroyed when we consider the general tenor and prevailing language of the Gospel; that with every reason why the Evangelist should give the doctrine in question a distinct prominence above all other truths, he has on the contrary kept it strangely out of sight. A few texts like those on which the advocate of the Trinity relies, ought not to be considered as of any authority by an unprejudiced mind, on a question like this. They are, in truth, of no force whatever. Such a doctrine must be able to show a better support, or it can, with the intelligent mind, never be thought worthy to be believed. I should think myself as well warranted in saying that the author of a treatise on the Newtonian system was nevertheless a disciple of Des Cartes, because there were one or two statements which I could explain in consistency with his theory, though opposed by the whole scope and tenor of the book, as that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew, and was believed by him, though the whole tenor and prevailing language of the history rejects, and denies, and disowns it, because there are a few passages which will bear a Trinitarian exposition.

Is it credible, now I would ask, that Matthew, once Jew and a firm believer in the Unity of God, should

have sat down and written a history of his new faith, so opposite on so essential a point to his old belief, without once giving his reader to understand, by a single clear statement, that his new faith was different from his old one? Is it credible, that being a Christian, with a Christian's faith in the tri-personality of the Deity, he should have written on the subject like a Jew? Is it credible, that the Apostle, writing under such circumstances, should have left it a doubtful point whether on the subject of the mode of God's existence, and the person of Jesus Christ, he was not still a Jew? Is it credible, that he should write an express history of Jesus and his religion, and never, in one clear, unambiguous sentence, tell the amazing truth, that Jesus, who to all outward appearance was a man, was not so in reality, but the Almighty and Omnipresent God?

III. I remark in the next place, that we may reason from the general tenor and prevailing language of Matthew's Gospel, to his ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity; if true it would have entered deeply into the structure and sentiment of his Gospel.

It is obvious enough what is meant by the general tenor of a book. For example, throughout the whole Bible God is spoken of and described as a Spirit. His spirituality is taught or implied every where. If two, or three, or more expressions should seem to contradict this truth, it is certain that the contradiction can only be an apparent one; and though we might not be able satisfactorily to interpret them in consistency with that truth, we still should not be justified in bending to them the universal doctrine of the Bible. In many places in Scripture, hands and arms, eyes and ears, and a bodily form are ascribed to the Deity; yet we may not therefore believe that the Deity is clothed with flesh like ourselves, but we refer to the general tenor and pre

vailing doctrine of the Bible, and explain these expressions so as to harmonise with it. Similar illustrations might be abundantly multiplied. But I will only add generally, in this connexion, that were the doctrines of orthodoxy rigorously tried by this rule, (and there cannot be a juster one) they could not stand the test. Who will not say, that the general doctrine of the Bible is, that man is able to do well or ill as he pleases? On this, are grounded the promises and threatenings of religion, which run through the whole Bible, and stand forth on every page. But what then becomes of the doctrine of Total Depravity, which rests for its support on a few insulated texts ? What is more evidently the current language, and universal sense of the Bible than this, that the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him? But what then becomes of the doctrine of the Atonement? Orthodoxy rests on detached sentences, insulated texts, strong figures, and remote inferences and analogies. The current sense of Scripture, the spirit of its teachings, the broad and obvious meaning of its most plain and intelligible parts are all fatal to it. The general tenor and prevailing language of Matthew's Gospel show that he had no faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus Christ. No one can be found to deny, whether orthodox or not, that the Unity of God, and the dependence of Jesus on him, are the doctrines that enter most deeply into the very texture of the Gospel. I am ready to affirm, and with little fear of contradiction by any intelligent believer in the doctrines I oppose, that the general tenor of Matthew's Gospel is so decidedly hostile to those doctrines, that the individual cannot be found of a mind unprepossessed in relation to them, or ignorant of them, who after a diligent perusal and study of that

Gospel, would even surmise their truth. Having learned the doctrines from other sources, from catechisms and confessions of faith, then indeed, texts may be found which will bear a meaning consistent with their truth, but not one to require it; still less, one that directly teaches them. The Catholic gathers a strong argument for the doctrine of the Real Presence, from this Gospel, far stronger than the Trinitarian gathers for the doctrine. of the Trinity, from the whole Bible; for he finds it laid down in express terms, Take, eat, this is my body." And why does not the Trinitarian Protestant receive this mystery? Not because it cannot boast the most express declarations of Scripture in its favourall the Evangelists unite in teaching it in definite, intelligible language—but because, among other reasons, it is contrary to the general tenor of the Gospels; it is not in keeping, not of a piece, with the rest; and therefore he understands the Evangelists in such places to use figurative expressions, which he interprets so as to harmonise with the other plainer and undoubted doctrines of religion. Now, the same principle of proceeding should lead him to interpret the few texts in this Gospel which will bear a Trinitarian sense, in consistency with the tenet of the entire Unity of God which every where pervades the book. taining the form of Baptism, is quite as insulated, and solitary in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, as that which seems to teach the mystery of Transubstantiation is in relation to that doctrine; and yet, here the Trinitarian abandons his adopted principles of critieism which had so kindly saved him from the dreaded faith of the Catholic Church, and most perversely, I am almost ready to say, wickedly contends, under circumstances as nearly similar as possible, that the whole Gospel, though diametrically opposed to it, shall bend

The text con

to the meaning of one verse which is supposed to teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

IV. If the doctrine of the Trinity is one which Jesus taught, and Matthew learned, then is the Evangelist's fidelity as an historian brought into question; for he has not taught it with the clearness and frequency that became so important a doctrine, and were neces sary to its universal reception.

One of two things must be true, either our Lord did not, for some reason, teach the doctrine during his ministry, or Matthew has been culpably negligent in recording it—or rather, has altogether omitted to record it.

That our Saviour did not teach the whole of his religion to his immediate disciples, there is no good ground for believing. The fact that it was to be imparted to the Gentiles, was not indeed fully understood and admitted until after Peter's vision. But there is not a single doctrine to be found advanced by any of the Apostles, which is not contained in the recorded discourses of our Saviour himself. That he withheld the mysteries of the Trinity and Atonement, as some of the ancient fathers maintained, reserving them for later communications through John, is mere assumption, and a most unfortunate one too; as of all the writers of the New Testament, John is the most distinct and emphatic in his testiomny to the Unity and Supremacy of the Father. Not to add, that the advocates of the Trinity, by adopting the idea that John first taught it, lose whatever advantage is to be derived from the tes timony of the other books of the New Testament, which were all-with the exception of his own Epistles, writ ten before his Gospel.

It remains therefore, that Matthew must have been fully initiated into the knowledge of the Trinity. If true,