racters of light both in the Jewish and Christian revelations, and that to deny it would be the grossest absurdity as well as impiety. — MOSES STUART: Letters to Channing; in Miscellanies, p. 15.

In support of his assertion that all Christians admit the unity of God, Professor STUART cites passages from creeds of different denominations, all of which expressly mention it as a primary object of belief. The fact cannot be denied, and we rejoice in the universality of the acknowledgment; regarding this as a perpetual and a decisive testimony to the truth of the doctrine, and as proving it to be so consonant to the highest reason, and so clearly revealed in the Holy Scriptures, as to forbid the possibility that any one, professing the Christian name, should, consciously and openly, affirm the existence of more Gods than one. But it is a fact equally undeniable, that orthodox writers usually speak of "the three persons in the Godhead" in language which involves the conception of three distinct and separate Minds or Beings, each of them as infinite, or, with a single exception, that of self-existence, — as equal in all divine perfections; and therefore implies a belief in three Gods, united by the harmony, and not by the identity, of their wills, plans, and operations. Unless, indeed, Trinitarianism belies her own professions by frittering away the three persons, as she sometimes does, into three relations or nominal distinctions of the Absolute One, she must, from the very nature of her doctrine, speak of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three equal or unequal Divinities; three Supreme Beings; or only one Supreme and two inferior Gods.

We do not charge any of our orthodox brethren with impiety, or with a clear and distinct consciousness of belief in an unqualified Tritheism; for there is not one of them who would expressly assert the existence of three Gods. But that we have done no injustice to the mode in which the doctrine of the Trinity is commonly understood and explained, is evident from the extracts made in pp. 280-3 and 289-91, to which might have been added a host of others; and from the complaints uttered on this subject by Trinitarians themselves, as by SOUTH, COLERIDGE, STUART, Bushnell, &c.: see pp. 284-9, 292–5.

We take, as a first point, to be held immovably, the strict personal unity of God, one mind, will, consciousness. . . . If our feeling is, at any time, confused by these persons or impersonations, we are to have it for a fixed, first truth, that God is, in the most perfect and rigid sense, one Being, a pure intelligence, undivided, indivisible, and infinite; and that whatever may be true of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it certainly is not true that they are three distinct consciousnesses, wills, and understandings. DR. HORACE BUSHNELL :

God in Christ, pp. 136, 176–7.

The first portion of this extract we think perfectly sustained both by reason and revelation; but, in reference to the latter, we do not hesitate to

say, in opposition to the eloquent and highly gifted writer, that, if the Bible be interpreted as any other book which is designed for the comprehension of men, that is, interpreted in conformity with the universal usage of language, no doctrine can be found to pervade the Scriptures more plainly than this: that the Father and the Son, the Sender and the Sent, the Lord and his Christ, the Almighty One prayed to and the dependent devout Petitioner, were and are distinct, separate intelligences, having each his own consciousness, will, and understanding, though morally united, — harmonious in affection, plan, and purpose; and it is because they are thus characterized in the New Testament, because they are clearly spoken of as distinct persons, agents, or beings, that we deem it inimical to the truth of revelation to represent these two as one and the same God. Dr. BUSHNELL, however, seems to us to be perfectly justified in intimating, that, as it is a first truth that God is, in the most rigid sense, one Being, it cannot be true that three distinct persons or intelligences, having separate consciousnesses and wills, in other words, three beings, are only one God.

The first and most prominent thought, connected with the great word “God,” is, that he possesses existence which is underived and eternal. This is what natural and revealed religion mean by God. The idea of an eternal, independent Being is the most exalted conception the human mind can receive of the all-perfect Deity. He is one who exists prior to every other being, and derives his existence from no other. He is self-existent, and has the principle of life in himself. DR. GARDINER SPRING: The Glory of Christ, vol. i.

page 39.

Dr. SPRING's sentiments will, we suppose, recommend themselves to the mind of every intelligent man; and yet they will be found perfectly incompatible with the orthodox dogma of three co-equal persons in one God. If, as the creeds assert, and as probably most Trinitarians believe, the Son and the Holy Ghost derived their existence and their attributes from the Father, -no matter in what way this derivation may be conceived and expressed, whether by the notion of Sonship or Spiration, of being begotten or having proceeded, in time or from eternity, by the will of the Father or by the contemplation of his own perfections, the conclusion will irresistibly follow, that the two dependent persons are not, and cannot be, each God in the highest, the absolute, sense of the term, cannot either be equal to Him, the self-existent Father, from whom they had their origin, or be one and the very same Being as that underived Cause of all things. If, according to another view of the Trinitarian mystery, the three divine persons Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - are each a self-existent Being, and therefore each God in the most exalted sense of the word, they must, to all intents and purposes, be three Supreme and Infinite Gods; which is an absurdity, and inconsistent alike with the dictates of reason, and with the whole tenor of the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian revelations.

§ 2. THE UNITY OF GOD PROVED BY REASON, AND MANIFESTED IN THE WORKS OF CREATION.

An evident and most natural consequence of this universal and necessary idea of a God, is his unity. All that mention the term "God" intend to convey by it the idea of the first, most exalted, necessarily existent, and infinitely perfect Being; and it is plain there can be but one Being endued with all these perfections. — ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON: Theological Lectures, Lect. 7; in Works, p. 571.

God is a being absolutely perfect, unmade, or self-originated, and necessarily existing. . . . It evidently appears that there can be but one such Being, and that unity, oneliness, or singularity, is essential to it; forasmuch as there cannot possibly be more than one supreme, more than one omnipotent, or infinitely powerful Being, and more than one Cause of all things besides itself. DR. R. CUDWORTH: Intellectual

System of the Universe, vol. i. p. 282.

It hath been alleged by divines and philosophers, with great judgment, that indeed the existence of a God is manifested to mankind in the high wisdom and the admirable contrivance that is seen in the whole and parts of the world. . . . There are a thousand significations, in the works of creation, that God is; but not the least intimation by them, or any other ways, that there are more Gods than one. Seeing, therefore, the works of God were made to display his perfections to the rational part of the creation, we rightly infer, that, because those works discover to us only this, that there is a God, we ought to believe no farther than is declared to us, namely, that a God, or one God, there certainly is. . . . Of one such Mind or Spirit, the works of creation, so full of beauty, order, and design, are a clear demonstration; but they show us not the least footsteps or track of more such spirits and minds. DR. ROBERT SOUTH: The Judgment of a Disinterested Person, pp. 50-1.

The unity of the Godhead is a truth enstamped on the very nature of man, and may be as plainly proved from the light of nature as that there is a God. There can be no more than one Being who is without beginning, and who gave being to all other things: which appears from the very nature of the thing; for if there are more Gods, then they must derive their being from him, and then they are a part of his creation, and consequently not Gods, for God and the creature are infinitely opposed to each other; and since there is but one independent Being, who is in and of himself, and derives his perfections

from no other, therefore there can be but one God... Infinite perfection being implied in the idea of a God, it is certain that it cannot belong to more than one; for, as it implies that this perfection is boundless, so it denotes that he sets bounds to the perfections of all others: therefore, if there are more Gods than one, their perfections must be limited, and consequently that which is not infinite is not God. And as infinite perfection implies in it all perfection, so it cannot be divided among many; for then no being, that has only a part thereof, could be said to be thus perfect: therefore, since there is but one that is so, it follows that there is no other God besides him. . . There is but one Being who is, as God is often said to be, the best and the greatest: therefore, if there were more Gods than one, either one must be supposed to be more excellent than another, or both equally excellent. If we suppose the former of these, then he who is not the most excellent is not God; and if the latter, that their excellences are equal, then infinite perfection would be divided; which is contrary to the idea thereof, as well as to what is expressly said by God, "To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One," Isa. xl. 25. Abridged from DR. THOMAS RIDGLEY: Body of Divinity, vol. i. pp. 194-6.

If there were any other self-existent Being besides that whose existence we have demonstrated, he must in all respects be equal to him; for otherwise it would be natural to suppose some derivation or dependency, inconsistent with self-existence, and consequently with the hypothesis. To suppose such another Being is to limit the omnipotence of God; for . . . it seems he would be unable to act without his consent, at least tacitly implied; and, if their volitions should in any respect contradict each other, which in things indifferent they might at least very possibly do, the one would be a restraint upon the other, and so neither would be omnipotent. . . . The unity of design, which seems to prevail in the works of nature, makes it reasonable to believe it had but one author, and that he operated in an uncontrolled manner. There is no reason from the light of nature to conclude that there are any more Deities than one, or indeed to imagine there are any more; since one almighty and all-wise Being can do as much as a thousand such beings can do. - DR. PHILIP DODDRIDGE: Course of Lectures, part ii. prop. xxxix., or vol. i. pp. 132–3.

As authorities for these sentiments, the lecturer or his editors refer to WILKINS, Bishop BURNET, LE CLERC, JOHN HOWE, and GROTIUS, as well as to several eminent Unitarians.

So far as I know, all who have acknowledged one infinite God have regarded the acknowledgment of more as an absurdity. In this sentiment have concurred the Patriarchs, Jews, Christians, Mohammedans, and all those modern infidels who have not denied the existence of such a God. These classes of men have, with one voice, renounced the idea of more than one such God. Such a general accordance, in men differing in other respects so widely, clearly indicates that the admission of one infinite God brings with it, to the human mind, serious difficulties against the admission of more; and plainly implies that more cannot be admitted by the mind, without violence done to the understanding. . . . Although the proofs of the existence of God are complete, yet there is no proof of the existence of more than one God. The argument for the being of God, which I mentioned as exhibited in the happiest manner by Mr. Locke, proves unanswerably the being of one eternal, self-existent Cause, possessed of sufficient intelligence to contrive, and sufficient power to create, the universe of worlds, and all which it contains. The existence of one such Cause completely removes from the mind every difficulty, and satisfactorily accounts for every thing. . . . . . . The unity of design and agency in creation and providence furnishes another argument in proof of the existence of but one God. So far as we are able to understand the works of creation and providence, we discern a general simplicity and harmony in the nature and operations of all things. Amid the immense complication which surrounds us, we perceive one set of laws, in accordance with which all things proceed in their course. The same causes produce uniformly the same effects in every place and period. Vegetables spring from the same seed, germinate by the same means, assume the same form, sustain the same qualities, exist through the same duration, and come to the same end. Animals also are born in one manner, and exhibit the same life, powers, and tendencies. Man has one origin, form, life, system of faculties, character, and termination. All things in this world are, in one regular manner, made subservient to his use and happiness; and are plainly fitted by one design, and conducted by one agency, to this end. Day and night uniformly return by a single power, and with exact regularity. With the same regularity and simplicity, the seasons pursue their circuit. The sun shines, illuminates, warms, and moves the planets by a single law, and with exact uniformity. By one law, the planets keep their orbits and perform their revolutions. The face of the heavens is but one, and the oldest sphere which is known presents to our view the