conception of its possessing one consciousness and one will. The very faculties which enable us to conceive of God at all, lead us to conceive of Him as possessing one consciousness and one will, as being, therefore, one Designer and one Agent. We cannot, even in thought, distribute this consciousness and this will among three Personalities, all existing at the same time. It is equally impossible for us to conceive of a Person without these inherent elements of personality, consciousness and will. There is no way then, in which we can conceive of God, under the Trinitarian view of him, without identifying him with one of the three Persons, and we cannot think of Him as being and doing what God ought to be and do, without tacitly considering the other two Persons as quiescent, and, in fact, sinking them into nonentities.

But in consequence of these vague ideas of the Divine Unity, passages of the Scriptures are alleged as proving the tripersonality of God, which not only have no such meaning, but, when carefully examined, are found to be altogether subversive of it. No text of the New Testament has been more frequently cited, perhaps, in proof of the Trinity, than the last verse of Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a benediction. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the participation of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Here, it is said, are the three Persons of the Trinity, brought together, made equal, and more than this, made the objects of worship. But all appearance of intimating such a doctrine, is instantly dissipated by a consideration, which seems to

have been strangely overlooked. The second Person of this Trinity is God, the whole Deity, without any distinction of persons. "The love of God." God, the whole Deity, cannot be a Person of the Trinity. Had the expression been "the love of the Father," then there would have been something like a reason for considering this text as an argument for the Trinity. The Trinity here expressed, is not a Trinity in God, for God is here one of the three Persons. It is true, there are here three subjects of discourse, God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Only one of these is God, by the very terms of the expression, "the love of God." So far then from supporting the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage contains a strong argument against it. Divinity is by implication denied to Christ, for he is spoken of in connexion with God, but as distinct from him. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God." There is no intimation that these two persons are one being, or that they are both God, or constitute one God. One is God, in the most unlimited sense, comprehending the three persons, if the word God ever can be supposed to do so. The other is the Lord Jesus Christ, connected with God by the particle and, proving, if anything can prove, that the Lord Jesus Christ is out of the Deity, and not in it.

In the last clause, the word "fellowship" serves to mystify this passage. In common language, this word is nearly synonymous with the word "companionship," and would seem to intimate that the Apostle wished the early Christians the companionship of the Holy

Spirit. But the English word, which comes nearest to it, is "participation." We have fellowship with a person, but participation in a thing. It is only by a figure of speech, that we can participate in a person. We participate in a thing without a figure. The meaning, therefore, evidently is, "May you be partakers of the Holy Spirit."

The phrase "the Holy Spirit," so far from indicating a person, is in the original in the neuter gender, signifying that it is not a person, but a thing. There are doubts then, suggested by the very language, not only whether the Holy Spirit be a Person of the Trinity, but whether it be a person at all. Those doubts are much strengthened, when we compare such parallel passages as these: "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." The same writer expresses the same meaning in another place; "I send the promise of my Father upon you, — ye shall be endued with power from on high." To be baptized with a person, hardly makes sense. Besides, what is called "the Holy Ghost," in one passage, is evidently called "power from on high" in the other. Power from on high is evidently not a person.

and the power of the Here is evidently a

There is another passage, of a similar import, near the beginning of the Gospel according to Luke. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, Highest shall overshadow thee." Hebraism, the repetition of the same meaning in two different forms of words. "The power of the Highest" is only another phrase for "the Spirit of God," or the Holy Ghost." There is another passage of

a like construction in the Acts; "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power. The Holy Ghost is here evidently synonymous with miraculous power. If there were any doubt upon that subject, it would be removed by comparing these words of Peter with another passage from the same speaker, when the same thing is the subject of discourse. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and signs, and wonders, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves do know." What in the one case is called the "Holy Ghost” and

power," is in the other called "miracles, and wonders, and signs." How far this is the representation of a person, I leave every one to judge for himself.

Whether the personality of the Spirit is sustained by the general language of the Scriptures, may be learned from such texts as these. "I will pour out of my Spirit." "Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. "They of the circumcision were astonished, because on the Gentiles was poured out the Holy Ghost."

These quotations, from different parts of the New Testament, will aid us in determining whether the participation of the Holy Ghost," which the Apostle wishes that Christians may enjoy, is companionship with a person, or the participation in a thing. And if this latter view of things be correct, the Trinity spoken of in the Apostolic benediction, is not a Trinity of

persons even ; one of the three subjects of discourse is a thing, and not a person. Such an analysis of this prooftext is sufficient to show us how exceeding vague men's ideas of the Divine Unity have become, under the influence of the Trinitarian system, and how prone men have become to offer and accept as demonstration, that which, when examined, turns out to be no argument at all.

Another striking instance of the tendency of the human mind, under the influence of theological systems, to draw broad conclusions from narrow premises, is the fact that so much has been made of the form of baptism in the Trinitarian controversy, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This form will be more particularly analyzed in the last lecture of the course. Here I notice it merely to point out the fallacy of the argument that is usually raised upon it. It is affirmed that each of these is a person, and each must be God, because Christians were baptized into the name of each. But let the advocate of the Trinity turn to the eighth chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and he will find that his argument proves too much, and will make Moses to be God, or a person of the Godhead. The same Apostle elsewhere says: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." This undoubtedly means Christian baptism. But does it prove that Christ was God, or a Person in God? Let us examine. The same writer says of the Israelites, that they "were all baptized unto (literally into) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." If the baptism of Chris