The doctrine of the Trinity treated as consistent with an appreciable theory

Good removed pamphlet. Pages lightly foxed. 15 p.; 21 cm. [Previous edition, 1866] There are persons in the divine nature. There are persons in the human nature. Are the two natures similar? It can be shewn that they are not. There is similarity between a bird and a fish. Let us imagine a bird of prey whose haunt is on the Andes.Let us suppose this bird to be transformed into a ravenous fish infesting the Pacific.We can understand howthe subject of this transformation could preserve the consciousness of his identity with the creature who soared on high. Let him be changed back again into his former nature. We can understand how the reinstated tenant of the air could preserve the consciousness of his identity with the creature who had explored the depths of ocean.But one thing is plain. He could not be condor and shark at the same time.Similarity forbids union.From this we argue that union proves dissimilarity.The divine nature and the human nature are shewn by the Incarnation to be capable of union. Therefore they are dissimilar. Still there are obvious points of comparison between the two natures. Com- parison by similarity is denied us.Comparison by analogy remains.The 2nd and 12 following verses of John's gospel treat of the subjective Word. It was the subjective Word that was made flesh. In the first verse the Word is objective.The first verse of John's gospel treats of the Word as a fourth hypostasis.The establishment of a quaternity may be made a matter of charge against this treatise but it cannot besaid that the doctrine of the Trinity is injured in any way. In speaking of the divine hypostases we say that they are four.In speaking of the divine persons we say that they are three. Binding is Pamphlet.…