on Christian logic, you only have to add a sufficient number of zeros together (query, how many?) to get an integer. How many breadthless atoms, we wonder, when set in a row would make up a line an inch broad! It would be easy to elicit many other ridiculous conclusions from the same axiom, but we forbear, for the point is not to substitute a true doctrine of the ultimate atom for our author's absurd one, but rather to point out how the finite mind, when it gets down to ultimates, even in physics, does always come to antinomies.

But the case is not so desperate with the doctrine of the Trinity. If we hold firmly and reverently to the conclusion we have reached with such a hard effort of thought, that a new and unique category, yet one not unintelligible to us, is applicable to the Godhead, namely, that of spiritual organism, we shall find that it solves also their serious-looking final difficulty. In any organism, the whole of the one essence acts in every action of every member, and yet the member has its appropriate work. If my eye sees, I see, but my ear does not see, yet we do not for this reason rush to the assertion that I do, and do not, see at the same moment. Rather we say that I see through my eye, not my ear. The whole, including the ear, profits from the performance of the eye.

If one member does anything, the one essence does it, and all the members co-operate; yet this does not forbid that member to have its own inalienable function in the economy of the organism.

If one member suffer, the whole organism suffers, and the members co-operate in that suffering; yet this does not prevent a proper suffering to each member. If you will have it so, in the category of organism you have come into a sphere where the paradox of our critic is literally true, that the same thing does, and does not, perform the same action at the same time!

Without saying that the category of spiritual organism is adequate to the Godhead, it may be held and maintained that it is the highest we can apply if we want to have a living personal God at all. The reality is no doubt higher than our highest conception, but this might only make our thesis more, not less, true, namely, that the Divine Persons should have each His proper function, the One God being in every case the sole and invariable worker. To take our critic's instance, God certainly can be incarnate in His Word the Son, without that incarnation being predicated of the Father or the Spirit, properly. In the Atonement for mankind that Incarnate One can take His peculiar part.

The oneness, reciprocity, and mutuality of the Godhead must indeed be ineffable if even a physical organism is so true a unity, whose members live only in and through each other and the one undivided essence. How much more so, the immortal, eternal, infinite God!

The Doctrine of the Trinity cannot then be criticized from this view-point. The last objection of the critics falls to the ground.