which we can be certain in which character he spoke, but he uniformly acted and conversed as one being, possessed of one nature, and sustaining one character. By what rule shall we judge? One reads his words, and says it is God that speaks; another says it is man. Who shall decide? Or how shall it be proved, that he did not utter the language, and speak with the wisdom of man only, when he published the doctrine of a future state, or any other of the doctrines of revelation. Do you say, that the divine nature always controlled the human in these cases? How do you know? You can only decide by your arbitrary opinion, and every man may do the same. That is, no other rule appears than the fancy, caprice, and prejudices of men. In short, this doctrine of the double nature of Christ introduces uncertainty and confusion into the whole scheme of revelation; it leaves no safe ground for the humble christian to stand on; it carries destruction equally to the moral precepts, and revealed doctrines of the gospel.

Trinitarians are apt to dwell much on the humility of Christ in descending from the glory of the heavens, taking up his abode with men, submitting to the pains and hardships of a life of sufferings on earth, for the noble and benevolent purpose of procuring the salvation of mankind. They make this a ground of love and affectionate gratitude, and conceive that the ardour and effects of their emotions are much increased, by the conviction of the supreme deity of Christ. But how can they talk of the hu

mility of the unchangeable God? Can the Being who is the same from everlasting to everlasting, and whose perfections are as immutable as his nature, can such a Being humble himself, lay aside his attributes, and take upon him the nature of a frail, sinful man? Such a supposition is at war with every dictate of the understanding, and every feeling of the heart; in this view the humiliation of Christ is imaginary; it is impossible; it affords no rational incitements of love, sympathy, or gratitude. But "it is our belief, that Christ's humiliation was real and entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part of him, suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep and unmixed agony. As we stand round his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor our sensibility weakened, by contemplating him as composed of incongruous and infinitely differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite felicity. We recognize, in the dying Jesus, but one mind. This, we think, renders his sufferings, and his patience and love in bearing them, incomparably more impressive and affecting, than the system we oppose."* Here are just and forcible reasons for being deeply affected with the humiliation and sufferings of Christ; we consider him a being who was capable of suffering, and who voluntarily submitted to it for our sake.

One reason more shall be added, why the trinity has an unfavourable tendency with respect to piety and moral excellence. It is allowed by all christians,

* Rev. Dr. Channing's Ordination Sermon at Baltimore, p. 26.

that a special object of the Messiahship of Jesus, was to make known and confirm the certainty of a future state, to open the prospects of immortality, and to fit men for an existence in another world. All our hopes as christians are built on the belief of a resurrection of the dead, and another state of being. Whence do we derive this belief? Wholly from the death and resurrection of Christ; according to the reasoning of the apostle, "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen; and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if so be the dead rise not."* Here, it seems, the resurrection of men is argued from the resurrection of Christ. What force would be in this argument, if Christ were God; or what possible reason should we have for the consoling belief, that we shall revive from the sleep of death, because he has revived, “and become the first fruits of them that slept ?" For if God, or, which is the same thing, a person who was truly God, could have died and arisen from the dead, we cannot hence infer, that we shall rise, any more than that we can create ourselves anew, or do any other act of omnipotence. Take the character which the Apostle gives of Christ; consider him as subject from his nature to suffering and death, as acting by the power of the Father, and not of himself;

* 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14, 15.

believe his own words when he speaks of his dependence, his limited knowledge and faculties; the argument then becomes an irresistible one. As God rais

ed him from the dead, we have as convincing a proof as we can have, that he will raise us likewise; and on this substantial ground rests our hope of future safety and glory.

The weight and value of this argument are increased, when it is considered as furnishing a motive to obedience and holiness. If any thing will subdue the hardness of the sinner's heart, and awaken him to a sense of the folly and danger of sin; if any thing will quicken the sensibility of conscience, and impress the laws of heaven on the understanding, it is the certainty of a future judgment, a state of being where justice will raise her impartial scales, and award to each the precise measure of his deserts. The strength of this motive, and its influence on the mind and practice of every individual, will be in exact proportion to the conviction he feels, that the soul will exist hereafter, receive a just retribution from its maker, know the pains of depravity and vice, and the joys of conscious innocence and purity. The system of faith, which adds the greatest force to the argument for a resurrection, will be the best calculated to give efficacy to this motive, and thus advance the great purpose of the christian religion; but from what has been said, it is quite obvious that the trinity, even if it be true, lends no help to such a system.

I have thus taken a short view of the influence of the trinity on some of the prominent principles of

christian faith and practice. With what accuracy it has been done, I willingly leave to be decided by the candour and judgment of every reader; I have been obliged to content myself with hints only, but they embrace a compass of argument, in which may be included almost every branch and article of the orthodox faith. The trinity is a kind of trunk, which gives being and nourishment to the whole; and to me it would seem, that the evil consequences of this doctrine, if they were not checked by others more rational in their nature, and practical in their tendency, would overthrow the whole system of revelation, and leave nothing but a heartless infidelity or gloomy skepticism behind. The doctrine of the divine unity, in its simple form, is encumbered with none of these evils; it admits the authority of Jesus, and all he has revealed, taught, commanded, and promised, to operate with undiminished power on the understanding and affections of believers.

24