the "Ultima Thule" of Popery, she is rousing herself to power and exertion at a time when on the Continent all means, fas et nefas, are employed to re-invigorate the system, and unite the scattered fragments of influence which survived the Reformation-we feel the importance of the measure we have been advocating, and we look forward to its accomplishment with hope and confidence.

Our readers will see that we have principally directed our attention to our Presbyterian brethren. With these we assimilate more than with other bodies of Dissenters however respectable; they are by descent members of an Establishment, and but by accident Nonconformists. The temporal advantage to the Church seems to be but small; but the Presbyterian interest would derive much, and Protestantism more. We are in possession of as much emolument and respect as we could have after a junction; but orthodoxy would be preserved, and union would be promoted, and Protestantism would take a bolder position in opposing the common foe. Far be it from us to presume any dictation as to the mode or terms of our union;* these would be the well-concerted result of sound deliberation. Our task has only been to prove-and we shall be satisfied if we have gone any way towards the proof-that an union would be important, and would be feasible without compromising a single principle, or surrendering a single right which an honest man would value, or a Christian man would prize.

"If his Majesty's

byterian body has called forth their gratitude and attachment. Government would only revise the invidious system of classification, and extend to us some legal power to tax ourselves for the amendment or rebuilding of our wretched meeting-houses, the Presbyterian Church of Ulster could have nothing further to beg, and would feel a lasting gratitude to their rulers and benefactors."-Cooke's Evidence.

• A talented contemporary, among the expedients which he proposes for the advantage of the Church, suggests a revival of the Convocations, and the establishment of Diocesan Synods. It is not our part to venture a decided opinion on either; but we may say, that to us the latter measure seems to deserve the attention of the Bench; that it seems to be a most effectual mode of giving respectability to the lower orders of the Clergy-connecting together the Prelates and their inferiorsreviving in our Apostolic Church, one of the most useful practices of antiquity, and removing at once, perhaps, every objection which a conscientious Presbyterian could feel to an union with the Establishment.

RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

ON THE TRINITY.

COPY OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO A YOUNG CLERGYMAN.

MY DEAR

The view you have taken of the threefold offices of Deity in the great work of redemption, is creditable both to your piety and to your understanding. To your piety as disposed to accept, with the humblest reverence, and the most affectionate gratitude, the revelation he has been pleased to make of his will; and to your understanding, as desirous to shew the perfect accordance of so mysterious a dispensation with the sound principles of cultivated reason. It is, at least, a laudable undertaking; and though disquisitions of this kind cannot, from their abstruse and metaphysical nature, be expected to satisfy all, yet I have no doubt that it will be as gratifying to many, as it has been, what is most to be wished, consoling and satisfactory to yourself. The reflections it has excited, lead me to offer some observations on that great and fundamental article of our Church-the Trinity, or mysterious union of three in one.

Though the terms Trinity, or Triune God, are not to be found in Scripture, yet, is the use of those terms, adopted for convenience, fully justified by the language of Holy Writ. Of this I hold it needless to offer any proof, because it seems to me impossible for a diligent and unprejudiced reader of the Bible to think otherwise; and they that do are reduced to the necessity of amputating, mutilating, or misconstruing every text, and they are many, which makes against them. My purpose is, to shew that there is nothing revolting, irrational, or incredible, in this doctrine of Three in One, as referable to the Divine Essence; that the contradiction it is supposed to imply arises from the imperfection of human intellect, confounding matter with mind; and that so far from being alien to reason, or the natural understanding of men, it is, in reality, less dissonant from it than the modern philosopher's notion of Divine Unity.

I would first ask the Unitarian, whether he calls himself Christian or anti-Christian, whence he obtained his knowledge of Divine Unity, and on what foundation his belief, or if he so pleases, his conviction of that great truth, reposes? This is a question which, I believe, he never asks himself; and yet it is a question that must be clearly and satisfactorily decided, before he can be sure of his point. If he calls himself Christian, he will, of course, say that he found it in the Bible, and he will say right; but then he reduces himself to this dilemma, that if the Bible be his sole authority, he has no choice but that of taking the knowledge of God as it is there laid down, or rejecting it altogether. We canot allow him a right of garbling the Word of God-or of

saying, I agree with what God has been pleased to reveal in one point, but I beg leave to differ from the Deity in another. If, in the Old Testament, God be not spoken of in the plural numberif there be not numberless predictions of a Messiah, or Saviour, who was to come in a Divine character-if, in the New Testament, our Saviour, both in his own declarations and in numerous testifications of the Evangelists and Apostles, be not invested, not merely with the honour of a heavenly commission, but with the actual attributes of Divinity-with the real character of the Son of God; and if there be not a clear and distinct account of the Holy Spirit operating on, influencing, and sanctifying the faithful believer, there is no signification in words, no truth in language, and no certainty in understanding. That some errors may have crept into a very ancient, and once with difficulty collected record-that some passages may be less clear and intelligible than others—that there are minor points on which difference of opinion takes place, and that pious Commentators have been thereby led into errors, is, perhaps, very true-but that there can be no doubt respecting the great and leading articles above stated, must, I think, be fully admitted.

I come now to the sapient philosopher, who, disdaining the aid of what he calls vulgar theology, draws his knowledge of the Unity of the Supreme Being from the stores of his own superior mind, and highly cultivated intellect. Is he, I would ask, really assured that such a treasure is to be found in that rich storehouse? What is the datum on which conviction rests? Where are the proofs that support his thesis?—and by what process of reasoning has he arrived at his conclusion? These are questions which he cannot have asked himself; because if he did, I do not know how he could have failed to discover the futility of his doctrine. This will appear at once, if he will put out of his mind all that he has learned from that despised theology-all that he derives from that religion, which the exalted state of his fine intellect disdains to acknowledge. A few miserable Atheists excepted, the belief of One Almighty Being, creator and preserver of the universe, is now become so known and acknowledged a truth, that it seems frequently to be considered rather as a sort of instinctive impression, or at least as a truth necessarily impressing itself on a refined understanding, than as, what it really is, a doctrine resting on the sole words of revelation. Accustomed to it from their infancy, it imperceptibly becomes so intwined in men's hearts, that it resembles more a plant of native growth, than of exotic introductionthey have it, not only without the fatigue of deep reflection employed in the attainment, but without the trouble of thinking how or whence it is derived. Thus it comes to be built upon as a foundation laid by Nature herself, and for which they owe nothing to any body but themselves: they make use of it as private property, to be disposed of just as they please subject to no tax-incurring no responsibility, and commanding no obedience. The teachers of that religion, to which they are indebted for it, are regarded as task-masters, enforcing duties, imposing restraints,

and prescribing rules of government to people wiser than themselves. The books to which these ministers refer, are regarded as useless, because they consider themselves already in possession of all that is worth knowing, through a channel more to be depended on the light of their own cultivated reason! And thus infidelity, scepticism, and vice, seek deceptious security in the paths of destruction !

It will hardly be denied, that reason, unenlightened by revelation, had attained a very high state of advancement at the time when Roman Monarchy was established on the ruins of Republicanism. It would be hard at any time to find a mind more cultivated, an understanding more clear, or a tongue more eloquent, than that of M. T. Cicero. Among the voluminous writings of this extraordinary man, he has left a treatise, entitled, De Naturâ Deorum; highly valuable, indeed—not for its intrinsic worth, but for the testimony it bears to the triumphant superiority of Christian truth, and for the clear demonstration it affords, that the highest religious wisdom of heathen philosophy was, literally speaking, absurd and puerile foolishness. I do not hesitate to say, that the humblest Christian, provided he has been fortunate enough to seek the benefits of Scriptural instruction, (for unhappily too many are destitute of this good fortune,) knows infinitely more of the true nature of Almighty God, and of the human duties resulting from that knowledge, than any, or all of the boasted philosophers of the heathen world. To the latter, indeed, knowledge is a term wholly inapplicable; they knew nothing-their happiest hits were either lucky conjectures, or the results of primeval tradition.

Surely, then, the knowledge of the Nature and Unity of God is not discoverable by reason, for if it was, the Roman orator could scarcely have missed it. Yet he was unable to discover it, either in the structure of his own mind, or among the accumulated treasures of other philosophic intellects. With what justice, therefore, any modern reasoner can take credit for a knowledge unattainable by him and his illustrious predecessors, it seems, after what has been now said, perfectly superfluous to enquire.

Let us now consider, from a general view of mankind, what idea it is that natural reason does really suggest, respecting the Nature of God, and I believe it will be found very far, indeed, from that of Unity. In the case before us, we suppose revelation out of the question, (though, probably, first traces of original revelation are universally discoverable,) and reason only exerting her powers on this great subject. We will begin with the savage state which some erroneously suppose to have been the earliest condition of men, but which really arose from their dispersion, and distant removal from the first place of their existence, long after the era of creation. When a few collected savages began to reflect, and reflection was not among the early efforts of their minds, they would be deeply affected by the surrounding works of creation, and that still greater wonder-their own existence. This existence,

they would conclude, must have originated from something with out themselves, because though they could continue, they could not begin it. Similar reflection would lead them to ascribe the formation of other things to some cause, the nature of which they had no means of ascertaining. It would, however, appear, that there were some power, or powers invisible, by whose mysterious operation all these things were effected. They would perceive that they were themselves sentient beings-capable, by their reason and ingenuity, of doing a great deal, and far above the brute creation; and hence might be led to suppose, that there were beings still greater than they, who had been able to execute all the wonders they saw, and who still might preside over the works of their hands, though they had withdrawn themselves from mortal view. These might inhabit some of the celestial bodies, or some unknown part of the earth, and their voices might be heard in the thunder and the storm; but as to the real nature, essence, and qualities of those superior beings, it would be altogether out of their power to form any conjecture. The existence of mind without matter would be utterly inconceivable, because analogy, their sole rule of direction, and experience, their only guide, never could have suggested any such notion. Wherever, therefore, the idea of soul surviving body, or of a future state, in which both might be united, happened to be found among rude and barbarous tribes, it must unquestionably be ascribed to tradi tional authority-to some indistinct remnant of original Revelation it never could have originated with the barbarians themselves-it never could have been among the improvements of their growing civilization, because there was nothing within the range of their knowledge from which it could have arisen, and because every kind of death, which daily took place before their eyes, directed them to an opposite conclusion.

From history we learn that the celebrated nations of Greece and Rome, as well as several others, (with the exception of the Platonists, whom I shall subsequently notice) were wholly unacquainted with the Unity of the Divine Being; and that no increase of civilization-no improvement in arts and science, enabled them to advance one step towards that knowledge. They were all Polytheists; and instead of confining Divine power to one, distributed it among a variety of personages, presiding over different departments. Many, if not all, of their deities seem to have originated from human excellence, or human distinction, of a certain remarkable and prominent character. But the deification of Heroes must have resulted from some confused trace of deity originally revealed; for it seems strange to suppose that he who, while he lived was only loved, admired or feared as a man, should, as soon as he died, that is, when he ceased to be lovely, admirable, or formidable, be exalted into a god. But when once the idea of deity, or a superior nature capable of seeing, and influencing human operations, and of rewarding and punishing both here and hereafter, was admitted into the mind, it became an easy