last supper, gave his disciples his own flesh and blood to eat and drink. In vain might it be urged against this assertion, that there was his own flesh and blood undiminished and unimpaired, and therefore it was impossible in the nature of things, that the bread and wine could be his body and blood, and bread and wine at the same time. It might be answered, that it is so stated in the Bible, and how it could be so, is a mystery. If this plea is allowed, then there is no doctrine, which, by taking the literal sense of the Bible, cannot be introduced into religion. It might be asserted that Christ was literally a vine, a door, and a fountain, and that he was a shepherd, and kept sheep.

Besides, all this, the representation of religion as mysterious, produces the worst effects upon the intellectual character of those who are taught. It produces indolence, inattention, and despair of ever arriving at any clear conception of the subject. The mind, after listening awhile to such discussions, after grasping in vain for clear and consistent ideas, at length becomes fatigued and disgusted, and turns its meditation on some other subject, more plain and familiar, but foreign to the day and to the occasion; just as a man will turn from a dark street, where he stumbles every step, into one that is clear and well lighted.

But it is said, perhaps, that the Trinity and its kindred doctrines, are not practical subjects of discourse. It is a matter of mere speculation. A man may be as good a man, and as good a Christian, who believes in a tripersonal God, as if he believed in a God in one person. I answer, that it is not for me to say, what

truths are, and what are not, important; or how important any particular truth may be. That can be known only to God, who discerns the relation of all truth. It is enough for me to know that anything is true. I must embrace it on my allegiance to God. I must maintain it. It is a noble instinct of my nature to do so. It is an instinct equally noble and generous, for me to desire to impart the truth which I possess

to others.

But, if I may judge by the Scriptures, the unity of God is not only a truth, but an important truth. Jesus Christ has told us, that "the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel! Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one. "" Moses represents God as saying, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

I think, carefully to inquire into the word " me in this commandment.

It becomes us, meaning of the "Me" is a per

sonal pronoun, in the singular number. Does it mean three persons in this case, and if so, why is it used instead of "us"? If it mean one of three persons, which of the three persons does it mean? In the former case, is the declaration "Jehovah is one," to be taken strictly of one mind, one intelligence, such as we are conscious of possessing in ourselves, or does it mean some other sort of unity, which is consistent with a tripersonal nature? It seems to me most important to settle this point, as both Christ and Moses make it the foundation stone of religious faith.

But not only is the Unity of God important, as the theoretic basis of religious truth, but in its practical bearings. Our Saviour has taught us to pray, saying,

"Give us this day our daily bread," thereby intimating that we must pray daily. If we adopt the hypothesis of a tripersonal God, then a difficulty will be presented every day of our lives, how we are to pray. There are not only great intellectual perplexities presented in admitting into the mind the conception of a Being who is three and yet one, but the difficulties are but begun. As soon as you admit three Persons, each equally God, an important duty follows. Three persons are not only to be believed in, but worshipped, and worshipped equally, the one as much as the other. If you address them all as one God, without distinction of person, then all idea of a Trinity is lost, and becomes a dead letter. It is retained in the creed, and neglected in the prayer. The word, God, conveys to most minds the idea, not only of one Being, but one Person, as is proved by the singular personal pronouns, thee and thou, which always accompany it. Can any conscientious man satisfy his own mind in the practical neglect of so important a truth, and believe in three Persons, and pray only to one?

The fact is, that to frame a prayer. consistent with his creed, the Trinitarian must invent a new language, the words of which must have the power of expressing unity and plurality at the same time. Now, unfortunately, there is only one word in our language by which this can be done, and that word is Trinity; a word, not of Scriptural origin, nor invented for many ages after the Scriptures were written. And then there are no other words in the language to correspond to this. All other words must address either one or many. And

the difficulty is not verbal merely, but intellectual. You cannot in thought worship a Being who is three and yet one. While you think of the Unity, you must lose sight of the Trinity; and when you think of the Trinity, you must lose sight of the Unity.

The fact is, that a majority of Trinitarians do not attempt to pray according to their creed. Their prayers are essentially Unitarian. They address only one of the three persons, and that is the first, and make the term Father synonymous and coëxtensive with the word God. If they did pray according to their creed, the Lord's prayer itself would have to be altered. If that hypothesis be true, it is at present exceedingly deficient. They ought to take their pens and strike out of it, "Our Father who art in heaven," and insert, "Most holy, blessed, and glorious Trinity, three persons in one God," and then there would be a difficulty whether to place the verb following in the singular or plural number, to agree with "Trinity," or " three Persons."

Besides, worship is founded on certain relations of the person worshipping to the person worshipped. We worship God because He is our Creator. He is the Former of our bodies, and the Father of our spirits. Is creation a joint work of the three Persons? Then we have three Creators, and we ought to worship three Creators. Is it the work of one of the Persons? Then we ought to worship that one as our Creator. But if so, then the worship and glory of the other two must be, to the same extent, diminished and impaired. Does the Trinitarian worshipper regard himself as being

looked upon by three omniscient Persons? Does he carry this conception in his mind when he worships ? If not, he is a Trinitarian in words, but not a Trinitarian in fact. If he conceives of one of the Persons as appropriating to himself any one of the functions of Deity, then the Divine honors of the others are just so far impaired.

If a man really cherishes this belief, must not these practical difficulties be a great trouble to his conscience, and make him very anxious in the exact distribution of the homage due to the Divine Being, among the three persons of which he is composed? And if he finds it impossible to make these distinctions, let him confess, what is the fact, that he is a Unitarian in reality, though a Trinitarian in words; that his usual conception of God is of one Person, one Mind, one Spirit, "the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen or can see, to whom be glory everlasting; Amen and Amen.”

But not only is a tripersonal God embarrassing as an object of prayer, but equally embarrassing when made an object of thought. The consequence of this hypothesis is, that the idea of God, under the Trinitarian conception, is the most vague and shifting idea that can be presented to the human mind. It may be answered, that the idea of God itself is obscure. It is, but simply because it transcends human thought by its vastness, not because it is made so by intrinsic inconsistencies and contradictions. Our knowledge of the human mind is imperfect; but we are not troubled with any difficulties as to its unity. We have the clearest

.