any be

the gospel in its length and breadth dwelt in every heart-if its spirit and temper animated all of every age and station who have been brought to its light-if its lofty sanctions and its inspiring and immortal hopes filled every bosom-it were morally impossible that such as I have pointed out would be "the signs of the times." Would that I could awaken all to feel this as they ought! Too many are treating the Christian religion with a most unworthy neglect are living according to any other principles than its spiritual, self-denying ones-are concentrating all their efforts, and devoting all their time and talents to the things of this world, careless of its brevity, forgetful of judgment and eternity. Alas, what multitudes of men, who possibly flatter themselves all the while how wise they are, seem to regard religion only as a part, so to speak, of worldly policy-nay, of public police-its institutions, as possibly necessary to the temporal order and welfare of the community;-its ministers, as hired labourers, paid to do their stated work as well as they may,-not that they have lief in much of what they speak, but only at the best, that they are ready to do their part to keep the peace of society. Again, how many are there, who are contented to contribute to the support of public worship,-to appear once on the Sabbath in their places at church, to be prayed for and to be preached at by another, and who retire from the sanctuary, perfectly self-complacent, that they have listened with becoming reverence, and that good as it was, it fitted others better than themselves. Still again, how many are there who, with all outward respect for religion, give it no place in their hearts-live entirely without its influences-and become the stumbling-blocks and causes of offence to many weaker brethren! There is a most pressing call on all those, on all of us, to give the Gospel that sway over our consciences, over our lives, which Christ designed it to have. Christians should so wear their Christianity, that it may shed around them whereever they move holy influences. Were all that are called such, truly such, the power which is wielded by the public press would bear always and beneficently on the best interests of man; the intolerant, illiberal temper of which I have spoken, would cease; the various parties and sects organized for one or another object, would act harmoniously each in its own place, and truth, in all her virgin purity, would company with every heart, to purify and bless. Every one should feel that he has a personal charge in this great work-and look devoutly to God for grace to help him fulfil it. No thought of

its difficulty-no doubt of its practicableness-should be suffered. Onward to the mark! should be the watchword. Time, talents, opportunity, life, should all be devoted as God would have them! Death, whenever it comes, should find each at his post! and then heaven's gates will open to receive each one to rest! F. A. FARLEY.

The following was handed to us in the form of a letter addressed to a Clergyman, which form we have not thought it worth while to alter. We publish it as containing a very satisfactory reply to the arguments said to have been urged in favour of the Trinity, by the preacher who is addressed.

LETTER ADDRESSED TO REV. L. W.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,

I HEARD your sermon on the doctrine of the Trinity. As you delivered it in a number of places, it became considerably noticed, and seems to have been accepted as one of your best performances. I am disposed, Sir, to give you credit for the ingenuity displayed in that discourse, and for a happy talent as a speaker from the pulpit. And I was particularly pleased with your devotional exercises; which were, apparently, and I doubt not, sincerely, what such public exercises always should be, but what, unhappily, they are not always; humble, simple, fervent. I was not, however, altogether pleased with the sermon; and although I disclaim and abhor the character of a captious, uncandid, and fault-finding hearer, yet, I think, without justly incurring the imputation of it, I may take the liberty of making some animadversions upon the sermon.

Your text was the baptismal commission, containing the formulary; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The introduction was brief, consisting of a few remarks directed against the pride of human reasoning. You then stated your theme; the Divine Trinity; and announced four heads of discourse: 1. Definition: 2. Consideration of objections: 3. Confirmation: and 4. The practical importance of the doctrine.

You appeared to decline attempting to support the doctrine, in the form it is sometimes caused to assume, whether by its adversaries or friends, but only according to your own definition; and you remarked that " many a handsome face has been made to cast a homely profile." Your definition was nearly, or precisely, the following: "That in the God

head there are three persons; the term person, however, being used in some uncommon sense; three distinctions ; three somethings, call them what you will; which are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

In this definition, Sir, the doctrine, as everyone may perceive, is placed on a very indeterminate foundation. And it is suspected that the design of it was to envelope the subject in a kind of obscurity and mysticism; and thus to place its defenders on a stand, where they may be invisible, intangible, and inaccessible. But, Sir, when you, and others, who have adopted that definition, come to the discussion of the doctrine itself, and the uses of it, both you, and they, obviously employ the word person in its usual import; intending by it, some distinct, entire, rational agent. You speak of the person of the Son as distinct from that of the Father, previously to the event of the incarnation; and you speak of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and maintain that He is as distinct a person from the Divine Father and Son, as they are from each other. But when the inquiry is put-Can the one only true God be more than one rational agent? Can there be more than one truly and properly Divine Understanding, Will, and Consciousness? You then retreat into the place of refuge, previously prepared, and there shroud yourself in misty dimness and impenetrable clouds.

You occupied time, Sir, as you will recollect, to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost. You affirmed that he must be a person, and not an attribute, or an operation, or an office, because the Father is a person, and the Son is a person, and it would be grossly incongruous to connect two persons and an attribute together, in the manner, they are connected, in the formulary of Baptism, and in the Benediction, and in the testimony of the three Heavenly Witnesses, [a spurious passage]. The Father being a person, the Son, of course, must be a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, for each is distinct from, and equal to the other. Now, Sir, in asserting these things, do you not use the word person, in its common signification? As much so, at least, as the term God (whose mode of existence none can comprehend), is commonly understood to signify a person; i. e. a Being possessed of an understanding, a will, and a power of voluntary effort. If the term person, in the doctrine of the Trinity, mean nothing more than some uncertain and incomprehensible distinction, whence can it be known that this distinction amounts to what you make of it? or that it will answer your purpose in the divisional work of redemption? or that it is any thing more than what a con

sistent Unitarian may admit it to be? So long as you cannot define, or understand, what the distinction is, how can you know that the second distinction is equal to the first; or that the third is, in personality, equal to the two former? Can we safely reason from terms which we do not understand?

"No

And here, Sir, I will premise that it is not my object to decry the doctrine of a Divine Trinity. I admit the doctrine. Whoever believes the New Testament must admit the existence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. These three Divine Names constitute the Scriptural Trinity. And I further admit that this doctrine is incomprehensible. man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, neither knoweth any man who the Father is but the Son." The Son is called God, and therefore He is God; but in what sense He is God, has, probably never been comprehended by the human intellect. Of one thing, however, I think, we may feel a full confidence, viz. that he is not God in any sense inconsistent with the fact that the Father is the only true God.

In regard to the personification of the Holy Spirit, there can be no doubt; but the truth of his personality manifestly is disputable. I will not say that the doctrine of it is untrue; nor can I say that I do believe it to be true. Your argument in confirmation of the doctrine, derived from the connection of the names, is, in my view, inconclusive. I would refer you to the three earthly witnesses, "There are three that bear witness on the earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood." If the Spirit be a person, as you teach us, and if your principle of inference be correct, then the Water and the Blood must be persons also.

As a further test of this principle of inference, adopted by you, Sir, we will change the application of it, and ascertain what it will then effect. The water and the blood are not persons, therefore, the Spirit is not a person; because thus to connect persons and things together, is improper and inadmissible. The case stands thus-The three Heavenly Witnesses are, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The first and second of these witnesses are persons, therefore, you infer that the third is a person also. The three which bear witness on the earth are the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Two of these, the water and the blood, are not persons; inference, therefore, is, that the other, the Spirit, is not a perThe very same witness is, by this rule, proved to be a person, in the one case, and not to be a person in the other. The rule will prove two opposite things. And in doing so its

son.

the

true character cannot be mistaken. It is an illegitimate rule.

You will also recollect, Sir, that you ridiculed the stupidity of those who could not see the force of your reasoning, in this instance, by comparing it to what that of Lot, in Sodom, would have been, had he told his sons-in-law, that he had seen three men; and when asked to explain himself, had replied, that he reckoned the shining wings of the two angels to constitute a third person. What a happiness it is, Sir, to have on every needful occasion, just and apt thoughts, both for argument and illustration.

Having defined the doctrine, you proceeded to consider the objections. I do not remember that you took notice of more than one; its being incomprehensible, and apparently self-inconsistent. This you admitted, but contended that it was not impossible. I doubt, Sir, the perfect justice of this representation. The opposers of the doctrine have strongly urged the absence of scriptural proof, and the irreconcilable character of it, to the unity of God; so much and so frequently insisted upon in the Bible. You gave a variety of illustrations that a doctrine might be incomprehensible, but not absurd. The propriety of this cannot reasonably be questioned; but they did not, to my mind, remove the objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is commonly expressed and understood. That a being, or a thing, should be three in some respects, and one, in another respect, is no inconsistency. But that a being or a thing should be properly one, so as to exclude plurality, and yet, at the same time, truly and properly three, so as to imply plurality, is a contradiction. An army cannot have one, and only one supreme commander, and yet have three persons who are each and severally invested with supreme authority. If they are not persons, in the proper sense of the word, they, of course, are not properly and severally, commanders; and if each of the three Divine Distinctions be not persons properly so called, then each of them, cannot, in the proper acceptation of the word, be God. For how can each of them, severally and properly be God, when each of them is not properly a person? For is it not as evident that there is a Divine person, as it is, that there is a God?

The old and genuine doctrine of the Trinity is that of three distinct persons, in the proper import of the words. So the doctrine stood for more than a thousand years. The idea of an uncommon and an unknown sense of the term person, is a modern invention. And it is an innovation. It is not orthodoxy. And we need not travel far back, in the track of time,