(1.) Christ's Resurrection; not incredible, for we have no experience to judge by. (2.) Man's resurrection; not incredible, for the same body need not involve the same molecules. (_E._) CONCLUSION. Three considerations which show that the Christian Religion, though improbable, is certainly not incredible. We pass on now to the Christian Religion, by which we mean the facts and doctrines contained in the _Three Creeds_, commonly, though perhaps incorrectly, called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian. And, as these doctrines are of such vast importance, and of so wonderful a character, we must first consider whether they are _credible_. Is it conceivable that such doctrines should be true, no matter what evidence they may have in their favour? In this chapter, therefore, we shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of Christianity. Now its four great and characteristic doctrines are those of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection. We will examine each in turn, and then conclude with a few general remarks. (_A._) THE TRINITY. To begin with, the Christian religion differs from all others in its idea of the nature of God. According to Christianity, the Deity exists in some mysterious manner as a _Trinity of Persons_ in a _Unity of Nature_; so we will first consider the meaning of this doctrine, then its credibility, and lastly its probability. It is not, as some people suppose, a kind of intellectual puzzle, but a statement which, whether true or false, is fairly intelligible, provided, of course, due attention is given to the meaning of the words employed. (1.) _Its meaning._ In the first place, we must carefully distinguish between _Person_ and _Substance_; this is the key to the whole question. The former has been already considered in Chapters III. and IV., though it must be remembered that this term, like all others, when applied to God, cannot mean exactly the same as it does when applied to man. All we can say is that, on the whole, it seems the least inappropriate word. The latter is a little misleading, since it is not the modern English word _substance_, but a Latin translation of a Greek word, which would be better rendered by _nature_ or _essence_.