[This Tract is taken from an Address delivered in 1827 before the Unitarian
Association of York County, Maine.]
Why do we not believe the doctrine of the Trinity? Because it is not the
doctrine of the Bible.
This is our reason. Not because the doctrine is a mystery that is, if you
mean by mystery something which we cannot fully understand or explain. This
circumstance may create a difficulty in many minds; but notwithstanding this, if
we found it testified to in Scripture, as an unquestionable and essential
doctrine, we should not hesitate to believe it, any more than we hesitate to
believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, or that God foreknows
all thing, and that yet man is a free agent. We only ask for PROOF that it is
taught in the Bible. We have looked for it, and do not find it. We do find that
God is revealed to be ONE, but we do not find that he is reveled to be THREE
neither three 'persons,' nor three 'subsistences,' nor three 'distinctions,' nor
three 'somewhats;' for each of these words has been used to explain the
doctrine. Therefore we cannot believe it.
That God is revealed to be One is a proposition which I need not stop to
prove; for no one denies it. It would be consuming time to no purpose to quote
passages in support of it.
I therefore pass to the other proposition -- We do not find in Scripture that
God is revealed to be Three. This is the doctrine opposed to our faith, and
which it is necessary for us, in upholding the truth of the Bible, distinctly to
disprove. In doing this, we make our appeal to the Bible; and may He, who
blessed man with that precious volume, aid us in so unfolding its testimony,
that we may 'speak concerning Him the thing which is right.'
We refer principally, in this brief outline, to the testimony of the New
Testament. If it appear that this is decidedly against the doctrine, it is
enough. No one will pretend to prove it from the Old Testament alone. If Jesus
and the Apostles deny it, no one will think that Moses and the Prophets assert
it.
I. The terms which are necessary to the very statement of the doctrine, and
which cannot well be avoided by them who hold it, are not found in Scripture.
The words Trinity, triune, Jehovah-Jesus, God-man, are not in the Scriptures.
We nowhere find the expression God the Son, but always the Son of God; nowhere
God the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. The expressions
first person, second person, third person, three persons, are not found. Now if
the very words, which are necessary to express the doctrine, are not in the
Scriptures, how can we suppose the doctrine itself to be there? If the sacred
writers meant to teach this doctrine, how is it possible they should not
sometimes have used the words which are now used in regard to it?
II. The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in express terms, while
that of the sole divinity of the Father is taught in language the most explicit
and direct.
There are only three texts which speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit in
formal connection, and neither of these declares them to be three equal persons
in the Divinity. Now is it possible this should be the case if the doctrine were
true? Is it possible that the Apostles should never name them together but three
times, and then not speak of their being one God?
Indeed I am wrong to say that there are three texts; there are only two; for
one of the three passages to which I referred is well known to be no part of the
Bible: I John 5:7. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. (Vol. 5, No. 58.) This verse,
every body knows, was not written by St. John, but has been added to this
epistle since his day. John wrote in Greek; but the old manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament do not contain it. It is found only in the Latin. It has therefore
no right to a place in the New Testament, and ought to be rejected. It is
rejected by all impartial scholar of every denomination, who have inquired
concerning it. There are therefore only two texts which formally name the
Father, Son, and Spirit in connection with each other.
The first is the form of Baptism, Matthew 28:19. Baptizing them into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Here the three are placed
in connection. But observe the mode of expression. Does it say that they are
three persons? No, it does not say that they are persons at all. Does it assert
that they constitute one God? No. Does it say that each is God? No such thing.
Does it say that they are all equal? No such thing. Does it say they are all to
be worshipped? No. Then it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. If it
neither declares them to be three persons, nor equal to each other, nor each to
be God, nor each to be worshipped, then it does not teach the doctrine of the
Trinity.
The same is true of the other text, II Corinthians 13:14. The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be
with you all. It is not here said that each is God, nor that all are equal, nor
that all are to be worshipped, nor that all together constitute one, Therefore
it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Nay, it virtually denies it. For,
as you observe, it does not speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but of Jesus
Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. Observe the difference, and consider what it
implies. Would a Trinitarian express himself in these words and in this order,
when intending to express his doctrine? If it were Father, Son and Spirit, we
should of course regard them as three and not one, unless expressly instructed
to the contrary; how much more when the words run, Jesus Christ, and God,and the
Holy Spirit. So that there is only one text which unites the term Father, Son
and Spirit, and that one says nothing of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now I ask
seriously, if it had been intended to teach that doctrine, is it possible that
this should be the case?
It is thus plain that this doctrine is nowhere taught in express terms. You
then say, it is perhaps taught indirectly and by necessary implication. I
answer, it is impossible that this should be, because the doctrine that THE
FATHER ALONE IS GOD is taught in the most direct and absolute terms that
language will admit; so as positively to put out of the question every other
doctrine, and to take away the liberty of inferring any other from indirect
expression.
That this is so, may be seen at once from a few plain and explicit texts,
which seem to be perfectly decisive.
(1) John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE
GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. This is the language of our Lord
himself in prayer. Now that he was at prayer proves that he could not be God for
God never prays. But besides this, he strongly asserts that the Father only is
God. It could not be asserted more strongly. It never has been asserted more
strongly.
(2) Mark 13:32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels
which are in heaven; NEITHER THE SON; but the Father. This is the language of
our Lord. he declares that he does not know the time of that day and hour; that
the Father only knows it. Therefore the Father only can be God; for God knows
all things.
(3) I Timothy 2:5. There is one God and, one Mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus. What can assert more positively than this, that Jesus is
not the one God? If not, then there is no Trinity.
(4) I Corinthians 8:6. But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom
are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things
and we by him. This text is very positive. It declares that Jesus is our Lord;
but that the Father only is our God. Can language be devised which shall declare
it more positively?
(5) Ephesians 4:5-6. ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER of
all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. What can the Apostle
mean by this separation of our Lord from the one God and Father of all, if it do
not intimate the Father's complete and unrivaled supremacy? What words can speak
it, if such words as these mean anything else? Has it ever been asserted, by any
Unitarian, more unequivocally?
I ask then, seriously , in the fear and presence of Almighty God, and in the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord ,whether these five POSITIVE, EXPLICIT assertions
that the Father only is God, ought not to set the question at rest in our minds?
While we have these plain and intelligible declarations of the divine word,
which never have been, and never can be, made consistent with the doctrine of
three equal persons in the Godhead, ought we to be turned from our faith by any
arguments which might be drawn from more obscure passages? Ought we to take up
the opposite doctrine, because it may be ingeniously inferred from difficult and
controverted texts? Are we not bound by these plain declarations? And while they
stand in our Bibles, uncontroverted and unrefuted, shall it be said that we
reject the testimony of God, and depart from the oracles of truth? For myself,
so long as the glorious doctrine of the Divine Unity is built upon these FIVE
SACRED PILLARS, I must confide in it as the truth of God. If the Holy Oracle can
announce any truth plainly and unequivocally, it has so announced this. To my
ear it speaks in language the most unambiguous and the least susceptible of
perversion. While I abide by it in these plain texts, I know what I believe; I
have the sure word of truth. If I forsake these, and attempt to reason out
another doctrine from more difficult passages, I am not sure that my reason may
not deceive me in the process, and lead me to wrong conclusions. I am safer
therefore to abide by the testimony inscribed on these Five Pillars, which I can
read as I run.
III. As these fundamental texts most plainly teach the supremacy of the
Father, so there are equally decisive texts respecting the character and offices
of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, which go to confirm it. Let us attend to
these.
(1) Let us consider, first, the language which is commonly used respecting
our Lord Jesus. Is it such as implies that he is the same with Almighty God?
Take his testimony respecting himself:
"I came not to do mine own will."
"I can of myself do nothing."
"The Son can do nothing of himself."
"The Father that is in me, he doeth the works."
He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent."
He says, "I am come in my Father's name."
And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and
to my God and your God."
Ponder these expressions; weigh these words; and say whether they be the
words of one who would represent himself as the independent God.
Take the testimony of the Apostles.
"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did
by him."
"Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour."
"at the right hand of God exalted."
"made both Lord and Christ."
Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him
a name above every name."
In the end he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God
may be all in all."
Weigh these expressions deliberately, and consider whether it be possible
that they should be used concerning Almighty God. Yet such as these are applied
to Jesus in every part of the New Testament.
Consider the terms of faith in him which were required of his disciples. Were
they such as implied his supreme divinity? Remember the confession of Peter --
"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God;" -- and with this Jesus was
satisfied. Remember the confession of Martha -- I believe that thou art the
Christ, the Son of God;" --and he required no more. Remember the reason which
John gives for writing his Gospel; "These are written that ye might believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." Who does John say is born of God? "Whoso
believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Who does he say overcomes
the world? "He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." What was the
preaching of the Apostles? Look through the book of Acts, and you will find the
burden of it to be, "Reasoning from the Scriptures and testifying, that Jesus is
the Christ." Now is it possible, that, in all which is thus said of the
necessity and value of faith in Jesus, when believers were to be received into
the church and their immortal interests were depending -- is it possible that
they should not have been required to believe him the Almighty God, if he were
so? Would he and the Apostles have so solemnly assured them that faith in him as
the Son of God was sufficient, if in truth he had been the very God?
(2) The same conclusion may be as decisively drawn from the language
perpetually used respecting the Holy Spirit --language, wholly inconsistent with
the idea of a divine person distinct from the Father, and equal with him. The
Spirit is said to be poured out -- shed -- given -- given without measure; men
are said to be baptized with it, filled with it, to partake of it. But this
cannot be said of a person. It signifies evidently, in such passages, a divine
influence; an influence which may descend from the person of the Father, as well
as from some distinct person. God does not become another person, because he
gives his spirit to men. When Paul visited Ephesus, he found certain Christians
there, and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. They answered, we
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. How is this? The Holy
Ghost a person in the Godhead, equal with the Father, and essential to salvation
to know him, and yet these disciples never heard of him? Impossible -- and
therefore impossible that it should be a third person in the deity, distinct
from the Father, and equal in power and glory. No -- the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of God. Paul tells us what it is, when he says, "As no man knoweth the
things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him; so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." The spirit of God is God himself, just
as the spirit of a man is the man himself. It is no more a separate person, than
a man's spirit is a separate person. Thus the supremacy of the Father remains
unaffected.
(3) There are also many expressions respecting Jesus and the Holy Spirit in
connection with each other, which confirm the evidence that the Father alone is
God. It will be sufficient to cite these without comment; since the mere reading
of them will show how utterly irreconcilable they are with the idea of three
persons, alike equal and supreme.
"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy spirit and with power."
"Jesus received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost."
"God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him."
"He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies
by the spirit that dwelleth in you."
Consider what each of these passages must mean if the doctrine of the Trinity
be true, and you will perceive them to be utterly irreconcilable with it. Each
of the sentences quoted speaks of God, of Jesus, and of the spirit; and this in
such a manner, that, if each be God, they express a meaning which is absurd.
IV. Thus far we have looked at the testimony of Scripture as exhibited in
particular classes of texts. We may now turn to some considerations drawn from
the general style of the New Testament. Here we shall find that the doctrine of
the Divine Unity so pervades and gives a complexion to the New Testament, that
if we could conceive the doctrine of the Trinity to be true, it would alter the
complexion of the whole. It would not be such as it is, if that doctrine were
true.
This may be partially illustrated from the devotional character of the New
Testament; from the conduct of the disciples toward their Lord; from the conduct
of the Jews toward him, and his disciples; and from the controversies of that
age.
(1) Look at the devotional character of the New Testament. If the Apostles
worshipped God in three persons, it will so appear in their conduct and
writings; this circumstance will characterize their devout expressions
everywhere. And this the more especially, because they were Jews, a people who
worshipped God with a strict and most jealous regard to his unity. They could
not have changed their practice in this particular without the change being most
strikingly observable. Yet we have no intimation of such a change. They appear
to have gone on with the worship of the One God of their fathers, without any
alteration. Look at this fact. When Paul was converted, he must have passed --
supposing the Trinity to be a christian doctrine -- from believing Jesus a
blasphemous impostor, to believing him the Lord Jehovah. Is there the least hint
of such an amazing change? He speaks with admiration and rapture of the new
views and feelings which he enjoyed with his new faith. But all the rest
together was not so astonishing and wonderful as this particular change. Yet he
nowhere alludes to it. Is it then possible that it could have been so? that so
great a revolution of feeling should have taken place, and no intimation of it
be found in any act or expression? He speaks frequently of his prayers. And how?
"I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Making mention of you in my prayers, that
the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the
spirit of wisdom." It is plain therefore to whom Paul directed his worship. His
epistles contain many doxologies and ascriptions of praise to God. And in what
terms? Always to One person, God the Father. And not once, either in his
epistles, or in any other writing of the Bible, is a doxology to be found, which
ascribes praise to Father, Son and Spirit, or to the Trinity in any form. This
fact is worth remarking. The New Testament contains, I think, twenty-eight
ascriptions in various forms; and from not one of them could you learn that the
doctrine of the Trinity had been dreamt of in that day.
Honor is doubtless ascribed to the Saviour in terms of gratitude, love, and
rapture. It could not have been otherwise. How could they, who had seen him,
avoid it, when we, who have not seen him, are constrained to love him, and
through our faith in him to rejoice with joy unspeakable? Ascriptions of
gratitude and honor to the Saviour, who will not render? But this does not prove
him to be the Almighty God. When the company around the throne are represented
in the Apocalypse as uttering a new song of blessing and honor and glory to Him
who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb, it never can be understood that they
attribute divinity to the Lamb; much less that he is the same being with him who
sits on the throne, for he is standing in the midst of the elders, and is
praised because he was slain. This is not a description suitable to God. And
thus while the New Testament overflows with warm expressions of reverence and
gratitude toward Jesus, it is as to the Son of God and it reserves all supreme
worship for the Father. Jesus himself worshipped the Father. The language of the
Apostles was, "Giving thanks always to God, even the Father, through Jesus
Christ." And when honor to the Son is spoken of, it is distinctly stated that it
is "to the glory of the Father."
Such is the devotional aspect of the New Testament -- an aspect which it
could not possibly present, if the disciples had practiced, and meant to teach,
the worship of God in three persons.
(2) The manner in which the disciples conducted themselves toward their
Master, is a certain proof to the same point. Conceive that they supposed him to
be Infinite Jehovah, the God of their fathers, whom they had been adoring from
their childhood in the strong and awful reverence of the Mosaic worship; and
could they have lived and conversed with him freely as they did? Could Peter
have rebuked and denied him -- Judas betrayed him -- and all forsaken him?
Impossible -- perfectly impossible. Their whole intercourse with him must have
worn a wholly different complexion. It is not in human nature to have lived with
one whom they knew to be God, and yet to have conducted themselves as if he were
not.
(3) The same thing may be said of the conduct of the Jews toward him. If they
had supposed him to be the God of their fathers, is it possible that they should
have treated him with violence and contempt? If they did not suppose it, yet
knew that he claimed to be such, and that his Apostles so regarded him, they
must have looked upon him with horror as the highest blasphemer. And would not
this have sometimes appeared? This is a very strong point. When he was accused
before their Council, and the charge was blasphemy, they were evidently at no
small straits to support the charge. The only evidence which they could at last
adduce was, that he had said he could raise up the Temple in three days. Now if
he had ever claimed, in any way, to be Almighty God, or had given any intimation
that he desired to be so considered, would they not have remembered it against
him at such a moment? When they were eager to seize on the most trifling
circumstance, when they sought long for false witness before they could find
one; is it to be believed they would pass by such a charge as this? And as they
were entirely silent concerning it, is it not certain that he could never have
made any such claim?
Nothing can be more decisive than this consideration. Yet it may be
corroborated, if not strengthened, by advertising to a remarkable event in his
history. Some of the Jews, on a certain occasion, took up stones to stone him.
He inquired the cause of their violence. They answered, "Because thou, being a
man, makest thyself God." To this he replied by a positive denial, and by a full
explanation cleared himself of the charge, saying that he claimed to be only
"the son of God." After this they seem never to have repeated the accusation; --
not even when they were ready to take unfair measures for his condemnation. And
yet, strange to say, this explanation, which satisfied his enemies, has not
prevented his followers from still insisting to repeat the charge which he
refuted -- that he, being a man, made himself God.
(4) The conduct of the Jews toward the disciples after their Lord's death,
proves that they knew nothing of the Trinitarian doctrine. They were active in
establishing a new dispensation of religion, and thus drew on themselves the
obloquy, abuse, and persecution of their countrymen. Wherever they went, they
were assailed by the Jews with outrage and violence. They were accused of
speaking blasphemous words against the holy place and the law; of turning the
world upside down; of designing to overthrow the religion of their fathers; and
were scoffed at as followers of a master who had died the ignominious death of a
malefactor. But they were never accused of worshipping him, or preaching him as
God. Amidst all their enemies' accusations -- about the fairness of which we
cannot think they would have been very scrupulous -- they never brought forward
this. And yet, in the eye of a Jew, it must have been the most hateful thing in
their system. To teach that that Nazarene enthusiast, whom they had despised and
slain, was the very God whom they had always honored and worshipped, the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! -- nothing could have so excited them against the new
religion and its active propagators. Yet it never formed the ground of their
opposition. Is it not therefore certain, that the Apostles never held such a
doctrine?
(5) Of the same nature is the following argument. There arose several
controversies in that age, especially with those Jews who had been converted to
Christianity. Some of these are treated of in the Epistles. But it is very
observable, that amongst the questions which thus arose and required
explanations from the Apostles, there is no record of any question or
controversy respecting the Object of worship. And yet, if the new religion was
adding two new objects of worship to that of the old, this would have been, to a
Jew, by far the most important, most interesting, and most perplexing of all the
peculiarities of the gospel. No such doctrine could have been added to the
ancient faith of the Jews, with whom the Unity of God was the proud and
distinguishing tenet, without its occasioning some controversy, between those
who received and those who persecuted the new birth. Yet no such controversy
took place; neither is there the slightest appearance in the new Testament, that
any objection, difficulty, or doubt arose in any quarter upon this ground. Is it
not impossible, then, that any such doctrine should have been taught?
V. I have thus gone over a few heads of the Scriptural argument respecting
the Divine Unity.
But in speaking thus decidedly respecting the testimony of the Scriptures, we
must not be understood to assert, that there is nothing in this volume which
seems to favor the Trinitarian doctrine, or that its advocates are altogether
without plausible support. Far from it. There are undoubtedly many passages of
difficult interpretation, and many expressions, more or less directly, which may
be construed to assign Supreme Divinity to the Saviour, and personality to the
Spirit. But there are two considerations which go to show, that although this be
the case, yet the certainty of our doctrine is not in any degree affected by it.
(1) The first of these considerations is, that the texts which speak most
directly and plainly on this subject are decidedly Unitarian. These we have
already quoted, and no forms of speech could be selected more explicit and
unequivocal. But this is not the case with those texts which are quoted in
support of the Trinity. Not one of them states the doctrine in so many words.
The doctrine is made up by inference and argument from separate texts. Many of
these texts are among the most perplexing and difficult passages in the Bible --
passages which have tried the skill of interpreters in all ages, and have
received a variety of expositions. now it is plain that where such passages are
cited in proof of the Trinity, the value of the citation must depend on the
correctness of the criticism; that is, on the soundness of the reasoning by
which the text is interpreted; that is, the doctrine is thus far supported by
the power of reason simply. Need I say how different from the support which our
principal texts give to the doctrine of the Unity? Thus it appears that the
doctrine of the Trinity is mainly dependent for its support on processes of
reasoning; processes, by which the most plain and decisive texts are made to
bend to the less plain, and the easy are interpreted by the difficult. We think
it safer not thus to trust our power of interpreting dark places, but to take
the plain texts for our guide, and solve the dark ones by them. And if there be
some which still remain obscure, and which we cannot satisfactorily clear up, we
should esteem it safer to leave them as they are, unexplained, than to give them
a meaning, and then find ourselves obliged to conform the plain texts to them.
In the one case we should think that we followed our power of logic, and in the
other the simple word of revelation.
(2) The second consideration to which I referred is this. The assumption, or
supposition, which is resorted to in order to make these plain, decisive
passages agree with the Trinitarian doctrine, is of a character to confirm us as
yet more strongly in our belief. This assumption is that Jesus Christ possessed
two perfect natures, the human and the divine; and that he sometimes speaks and
acts as a man, and sometimes as God. Now if this were expressly asserted in
Scripture, it would be very well. But it is not so asserted, and, what is more,
it is by none pretended to be expressly taught there. It is argued that it must
be so, because it is a supposition which serves to remove difficulties, and to
reconcile the language which is used respecting the Lord. But we have no right,
it seems to me, to reason out for ourselves a doctrine of such magnitude as this
for such a purpose; especially when it creates difficulties quite as
embarrassing as those which it removes -- it seems to me far more so. For look
at the case a moment. The assertion is, that our Lord speaks and acts sometimes
as God and sometimes as man. Accordingly when we argue thus:
"He declares that he does not know the day or the hour
it is then replied:
"He says these things as man; he does not, as man, possess supreme power, or
know the future; and as a man he prays; but still as God he is omnipotent, and
omniscient, and asks no blessing from on high." Now this assertion may support
the doctrine of the Trinity, and may evade certain difficulties which Scripture
throws in its way; but does it not create a more serious difficulty than it
removes? Let any man candidly examine the subject, and say whether it do not.
For -- I speak it reverently, and my hand trembles as I write -- does it not
attribute to our Lord a very strange way of speaking, and something of a
deceptive manner; to say that he does not know when he really does, and that he
cannot do what he has infinite power to do? For, if he were God, it would not be
true that he did not know the future; it would not be true that he did not his
own will, and did not work miracles of himself. And therefore I beg to ask -- in
the name of all that is reverent and good --whether we can find it in our hearts
to advocate a doctrine, which can be supported only on a supposition which
exposes the blessed Jesus to the charge of untruth and deception; a supposition
which would render it impossible, if carried to its full extent, to believe
anything which he may say; for one has only to assert, "He spoke this or that in
his human nature, not as God, and therefore it has no authority;" and then all
his testimony on religious truth may be entirely set aside.
No. Let the plain declarations of our Saviour's word be enough for us; and
let us rejoice that we hold a faith, which allows us to believe every word that
he said, just as he uttered it, without the necessity of explaining away a
syllable, on the plea that he sometimes spake in one character and sometimes in
another.
Such are a few of the reasons which are directly and indirectly furnished by
the Scriptures for holding the doctrine of the undivided Unity of God.
We regard it as the clear and unquestionable doctrine of Holy Writ, and
therefore to be held with firm and decided faith. The more confident our
persuasion that it is so, the more highly shall we value it, and the more shall
we rejoice to see it extended and honored. If we felt that he whom we call
Master and Lord, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, who lived and died that
he might secure to us the blessing of our religion, and whose kingdom we desire
to spread with its holy and beneficent influences -- if we believe that he
taught and inculcated this doctrine; then, as his disciples, we shall desire
that it prevail -- for it is his Truth.