curiously to pry into." But let it be remembered, that we are called upon to receive these distinctions as a saving mystery, not by Christ himself or his apostles, but by human councils. And after all, do the terms substance and person, used as they are, save the plain doctrine of the Trinity from being a contradiction? Sherlock speaks of the Father and the Son as "two perfect sames;" that is, the one is the other, and the one is not the other; the one is the other, for otherwise they would not be the same, the one is not the other, for otherwise there would not be two.* Dr. Newman, speaking of the Trinity, says, "It is a contradiction, indeed, and not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed. We can scarcely make a nearer approach to an exact enunciation of it, than that of saying that one thing is two things." The explanation is, "the divine nature does not come under number." But as Milton has said, "Unless the terms unity and duality be signs of the same ideas to God which they represent to men, it would have been to no purpose that God had so repeatedly inculcated that first commandment, that He was the One and only God." According to the most learned Trinitarians themselves there is extreme difficulty in avoiding on the one hand Sabellianism, and on the other Tritheism. Bull contends that the Son was begotten as to substance, and that the notion that it was only in person the Son was begotten, must lead inevitably to Sabellianism; whereas Calvin and others maintain, that if

*Barling On the Trinity, p. 85.

+ Vide Barling's Doctrine of the Trinity, Appendix, note A.

the Son be begotten in substance he is not selfexistent, and therefore not Jehovah, the self-existent.

My second remark relates to whether we, a small body, are justified in differing from the rest of Christendom. We think numbers ought not to influence us; first, because human authority ought not to be allowed to come into comparison with that divine authority to which we have each access in the Scriptures and in our own souls; and secondly, there is no weight in numbers, where belief is not the testimony of separate minds, that have deeply studied theological subjects, with much labor and prayer. In battle, the plan of attack or defence is formed by the commander-in-chief, though an army carries it out; and many Christians as implicitly receive the creed of their Church, as the soldier obeys the commands of his superior officer. This is avowedly the case with Roman Catholics. It is true, Protestantism hands to the Christian the Bible, and bids him search for himself; but this is to no purpose so long as he questions Orthodoxy at his peril. Moreover, history abundantly testifies, that by God's grace the few have not unfrequently been enabled to render essential service to mankind.

What Mr. Bickersteth has said of the appeal made by Unitarians to Griesbach, and of "rash assertions respecting the uncertainty of manuscripts and versions," suggests some observations on the text of the Scriptures. We value the labors of Griesbach, because he has made use of ancient manuscripts and versions, to bring the New Testament as nearly as possible to the state in which it proceeded from its

writers. His caution in introducing change, is one reason why he is especially appealed to in controversy with Trinitarians; but some persons think this caution has frequently prevented him from adopting readings, which really have preponderating evidence in their favor, and that Lachmann and Tischendorf have been still more successful in restoring the text to its original purity. We think that the love of the Scriptures will by degrees, as men become more enlightened, show itself, not in a fear of altering our Common Version where it is wrong, but in an earnest desire to make it represent the original with the utmost possible fidelity. Let it be understood, however, that we want a revision and not a new translation; for the incomparable language of our English Bible, endeared to English Christians as it is by most sacred association, may well be left untouched, excepting in those passages in which some change is indispensable to give the meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek. In short, we cannot express what we desire in this respect in any language more satisfactory to ourselves than that of Professor Jowett and Bishop Marsh. The former of these says, "No one who is acquainted with Sophocles or Thucydides in the volumes of Dindorf or Bekker, would be willing to reprint the text of those authors as it is to be found in editions of two centuries ago. No apology is therefore needed for laying aside the 'Textus Receptus' of the New Testament." Bishop Marsh's words are these: "Although it is probable that our Authorized Version is as faithful a representation of the original Scriptures as could have been formed at

that period; yet, when we consider the immense accession which has been since made, both to our critical and philological apparatus; when we consider that the whole mass of literature, commencing with the London Polyglot and continued to Griesbach's Greek Testament, was collected subsequently to that period; when we consider that the most important sources of intelligence for the interpretation of the original Scriptures were likewise opened after that period, we cannot possibly pretend that our Authorized Version does not require amendment."*

And now, what is the Scripture doctrine of God and Christ, and the Holy Spirit? In answering this question, I wish to be understood to speak only for myself. Not that I have anything peculiar to offer, but I would rather be responsible to the teachings of Holy Writ, than to any members, even of my own denomination. And God knows how deeply I feel the truth of the words with which I commenced this Chapter, "In the midst of this darkness which involves us, we both conceive and speak, or rather lisp like children, concerning this and other divine mysteries."

The three things insisted on in the New Testament respecting God are His unity, His perfect goodness, and His fatherly love. His wisdom and might are taken for granted as associated by all with the idea of Deity. That the great Eternal One is Almighty,

* A Unitarian, who himself has rendered important service as a translator of the New Testament (S. Sharpe, Esq.), has suggested that the revision of our common version should be entrusted to the Regius Professors of Greek and Hebrew at our National Universities, whose position is a pledge of their ability for the work. This proposal would, I think be generally acceptable.

All-wise, All-perfect, and our Father in Heaven is the truth that has been vouchsafed to us respecting God.

When I ask myself practically "Whom say ye the Son of Man is ?" the answer is-the Son of God, whose teachings are God's teachings, whose promises are God's promises, and whose character represents God's character. I think we cannot read the New Testament without feeling that Christ himself claims to represent God on earth as a teacher of religion. "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me." "He that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." we wonder that there are passages in the New Testament which taken alone seem to imply that Christ is God? According to the foregoing view, God and Christ are united throughout in giving us Christianity, and in our redemption and sanctification.

Since this is the case, can

Of the Holy Spirit, the practical teaching of the New Testament is, that it is God in communication with our souls, imparting inward life and light and strength. It may be so full as to be an indwelling of God, or it may be to us an imperceptible divine influence. The reader will see how much is here left in mystery. Indeed, it is those who uphold creeds who seem to be least disposed to recognize in how much mystery divine truth is involved.

As to the essence, substance, or metaphysical nature of Christ, I am little inclined to speculate upon it. The most important suggestion that I am acquainted with on this subject was thrown out by Channing, and has been expressed in different terms