thought two and two always made five. What would, then, be our position? It would certainly mean nothing to us; we could not really be said to believe it in any sense. But even being called upon to say that it was not impossible would seem to destroy all rational thinking. We could only accept a statement like this on authority at the cost of throwing overboard all our own thinking and indeed all rationality altogether. If we even had to allow that it meant anything, we should have to say that everything else which we had ever thought was meaningless. And of course, if there was so much as a glimmer of doubt as to the infallibility of the authority, such a statement as this would be for us decisive against its claims.

Now neither of these two last instances would satisfy orthodox apologists. They claim a high degree both of practical and of speculative value for the doctrine of the Trinity. But yet it seems difficult to deny that it must fall under one of these two heads. And, so far as the argument has gone, there seems little room to doubt

that it comes within the last class rather than the one before. Of course all would admit that we cannot know the personality of the Deity in its fulness as it really is. Yet simply by calling God a person we imply that we know something of his nature. It must be of the same kind as the human personalities, which we know : and our knowledge of one must therefore be continuous with our knowledge of the other. Personality, as we know it, has certain characteristics which we must ascribe to it if we are to think of it as such at all. And chief among these is a certain unity and individuality which positively excludes anything like the Trinity. The utmost that we can allow to the doctrineand this concession is more than doubtful —is that if it were explained to an extent far greater than any explanations given hitherto, and if we had reached a level of knowledge which certainly no one has yet attained, then we might see that it had a meaning and that it was true. But till that is done it has no meaning and no value for anyone.

THE UNITARIAN MOVEMENT

IN SCOTLAND: ITS JUSTIFICATION

THE Unitarian Movement in Scotland is of the nature of an invasion. It is urged by ideas radically different from those set up by the dominant ecclesiastical authority. On the ground of its invasion it finds an entrenched dogmatism, with a history dating from the middle of the seventeenth century, fortified by traditional heroisms, and made sacred by sturdy piety. The 'Covenant' which cost Scotland 'blood and tears' bars the Movement at its outset, and puts upon its aggressive hand the stigma of sacrilege.

Thus the Movement appears as a wanton and irreligious opponent of a nation's dearest possession. Its work is one of dispossession. It actually sets itself against the established instruction, the

rooted prejudices and the conventional interests of a people amongst which Calvinism was set up as the absolute truth. It seems to imply not the removal of the standards merely, and the clearing away of all dogmatic evidences, but the displacement, if not the destruction, of the Bible and the stamping out of religious faith.

The Movement certainly needs thorough justification. It is not to be undertaken as a dashing polemic or conducted as a wayward controversy, but entered upon with an enlightened concern for truth of thought and rightness of life, and maintained by reason and with spiritual integrity.

At the outset, it may seem an altogether unwarrantable and hopeless thing to attempt to dissolve inbred ideas and disestablish a dogmatic authority settled so strongly. The invader is immediately met with the claim that the mind of Scotland has been long made up theologically and is permanently Calvinistic. Calvinism is congenial to the Scots character; it suits

the mental make of the northern man, and any attempt to supersede it must cut against the holiest grain of the Scottish soul.

In face of such an apologetic defence of the popular belief it will be evident that if ever the Movement against it can succeed, it must be by a fiery revolution or a slow Fabian-like process of disintegration and the gradual introduction of new ideas.

There are high precedents for such a Movement. The sudden appearance of Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee, as a preacher of God's universal Fatherhood, was virtually an invasion of Judaism. Himself a Jew, he made it evident, by his first utterance, that he had broken away from the orthodoxy of his people, was the opponent of Pharisaism, and the irreconcilable enemy of a sacrificial ceremonialism.

Those engaged in the Unitarian Movement in Scotland felt the impelling touch of the Galilean invader strong upon them and in the inspiration of his example undertook their arduous work. They looked