lieve in.

"When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus." We cannot suppose for a moment, that the Apostle disobeyed his master's command, to baptise "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" the expression "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus" answers exactly to our expression-" they received Christian baptism;" meaning that they were baptised into Christ's Church, and of course in the way Christ ordered. Indeed, unless they were baptised in the name of the Holy Ghost, what force can there be in St. Paul's question, on finding their ignorance concerning his person-"Unto what then were ye baptised?"

Now hear the song of the Seraphim; "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts." Is. vi. 3. In the same strain they are heard by St. John crying "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Rev, iii. 8. With regard to the scene of glory witnessed by Isaiah, we know from John xii. 41, that the glory manifested was that of the Son; for after shewing that the blindness of the Jews under Christ's teaching was a fulfilment of the prophecy spoken on that occasion, St. John adds, "These things spake Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." We also know from Acts xxviii. 25, that it was the Holy Ghost, who spoke to Isaiah by the name of the Lord of Hosts: so that we need be at no loss to understand the meaning of that three-fold song, which then resounded in heaven-"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts."

Lastly, we refer to the famous passage, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.' 1 John v. 7. On this I content myself with quoting the following remarks of a learned writer on the Trinity, William Jones. The capitals and italics are his own. 66 There has been much disputing about the authencity of this text. I firmly believe it to be genuine for the following reasons: 1. St. Jerome, who had a better opportunity of examining the true merits of the cause than we can possibly have at this distance of time, tells us

*The following extract from Mr. Slade's comment on this text presents an argument in favour of it almost conclusive to the author's mind; although of course the mere English reader will not be able to appreciate it. "Many have justly observed, that if it be rejected, the construction becomes wholly unaccountable: in the phrase 'There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood,' the adjective and participle are both masculine, whereas all the substantives to which they refer are neuter; and one of those substantives (the only one of them, to say the most, which could have authorised the use of the masculine gender) is actually constructed in the preceding verse with a neuter participle. Now, although it is scarely possible to reconcile this on any ground, with the plain rules of grammar; yet the error may be accounted for, by supposing it to have proceeded from a repetition of the phraseology of the disputed passage; or from, what grammarians call, the figure of attraction."

plainly, that he found out how it had been adulterated, mistranslated, and omitted on purpose to elude the truth. 2. The Divines of Lovain having compared many Latin copies, found this text wanting but in five of them; and R. Stephens found it retained in nine of sixteen ancient manuscripts which he used. 3. It is certainly quoted twice by St. Cyprian, who wrote before the council of Nice; and also by Tertullian. Dr. Clarke, therefore, is not to be believed when he tells us, it was 'never cited by any of the Latins before St. Jerome.' 4. The sense

is not perfect without it, there being a contrast of three witnesses in heaven to three upon earth; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, whose testimony is called the witness of God; and the Spirit, the water, and the blood, which, being administered by the Church upon earth, is called the witness of men. He that desires to see this text farther vindicated from the malice of Faustus Socinus, may consult Pool's Synopsis, and Dr. Hammond; and I wish he would also read what has lately been published upon it by my good and learned friend Dr. Delany, in his volume of Sermons, p. 69, &c. even allowing it to be spurious, it contains nothing but what is abundantly asserted elsewhere; and that both with regard to the Trinity in general, and this their divine Testimony in particular, For that there are three divine pesons who bear record to the Mission of Christ, is evident from the fol

But

lowing Scriptures: John vii. 17, 18. The Testimony of two men is true. I am ONE that bear witness of MYSELF. The FATHER that sent me beareth witness of me. 1 John, v, 6. It is the SPIRIT that beareth witness. And Christ has also mentioned upon another occasion a plurality of witnesses in heaven. We speak, says he, that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not OUR Witness! which can be no other than the witness of the Trinity; because it is added—no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven; therefore no man could join with Christ in revealing the things of heaven to us."

All that remains for us now is to notice the assertion so often made by Unitarians, that the doctrine of the Trinity, even if true, is a useless doctrine; that it can have no practical effect upon the heart and life. I have no remark of Mr. Barker's on this subject in print before me; but a respectable person, who was present at one of his late lectures in the Potteries, tells me that the following was his style of argument: "Of what use can such a doctrine be to any one? Can it make a bad man good, or a good man better? Can it make any one leave off sin and turn to God? Suppose I met a drunkard for instance in the street, and said to him, Now, my man, this is a very bad habit you've fallen into; it's very wrong to get drunk; you know God is a Trinity in Unity, three persons and one

God; so you must become sober, and not be so wicked as to get drunk any more-would it be likely to have any effect upon him?" This peculiar method of arguing, which so frequently occurs in the writings of the person just alluded to, always raises a doubt in my mind, whether I ought to follow the 4th or the 5th verse of the 26th ch. of Proverbs. There's a double danger; either of being led to say any thing that might look like bitter feeling towards the man, or of appearing to speak irreverently on so sacred a subject. But as the simplest and most effectual way of exposing the palpable sophistry of such an argument, only imagine a medical man, endeavouring in a public lecture to shew the uselessness of a certain drug as a medicine, and speaking thus: "Of what use can it be to any one? Can it cure a sick man, or make a healthy man stronger? Suppose I met a man in the street, and I said to him, Now, my man, you're evidently very ill; I've got an excellent medicine here; just let me rub a little of it in your eye!-would it do him any good?" * All the sensible persons present would probably walk out of the room at once; the ignorant would laugh and think what a clever hit it was; while, if any opponent thought it worth replying to, he would tell him that, however valuable a medicine may be, it must be properly applied, or it can do no good; and further, that different diseases require different remedies. Having already given my opinion rather plainly in the preceding lecture on a very similar controversial manœuvre, I will only just put these questions to Mr. Barker's conscience, and his hearers' judgments-Did he, when he used those words, believe that any Trinitarian ever applied that doctrine in any such way? Did he not know what use they do make of it? And if so, was it not a wilful attempt to deceive men's souls "with feigned words?" If throughout the whole course of his Trinitarian ministry, he never did learn the true value and use of the doctrine of the Trinity, no wonder he was led on at length to disbelieve and deny it. Every enlightened believer however knows full well, that on the Trinity rests Christ's Deity, and on that his Atonement. What effect this has upon the hearts and lives of all who are led by the Spirit to rest upon it with a living faith, he knows both from Scripture and experience. He can testify "that the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin;" nor dare he shrink from adding, "Neither is there Salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Mr. Barker lays great stress on believing "that Jesus is the Christ;" but suppose I met a drunkard and said to him, "Now you must leave off this wicked practice and be sober, for you know Jesus is the Christ-would it be likely to reform him?

"As the doctrine of the Trinity" writes Dr. Whately "may be considered as containing a summary and compendium of the Christian faith, so its application may be regarded as a summary of Christian practice: which may be said to be comprised in this; that as we believe God to stand in three relations to us, we also must practically keep in view the three corresponding relations in which, as is plainly implied by that doctrine, we stand towards HIM,-as first the creatures and children of God; secondly, as the redeemed and purchased people of Jesus Christ; and thirdly, as the temples of the Holy Ghost our Sanctifier."

APPENDIX.

(Extracted from the Preface to the seventh of the Liverpool Lectures on Unitarianism.)

The word Trinity is of more ancient date than the public may happen to know. It is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who was converted to the Christian Faith, about the year of our Lord 140. But that he was the inventor of the word is more than any one can prove. He was for some time contemporary with Polycarp and Papias, two disciples of the Apostle St. John. And it is not improbable that he found the word in use with them. However that may have been, it is a fact, that between the death of St. John and the conversion of Justin Martyr, there intervened only 48 years. This brings the use of the word within half a century of the Apostolic age. And to assert that the word was not in use until it was written, is to assert a little too much: And to suppose that it was used and written without any meaning is still more absurd.

The next who makes use of the word in his writings is Theophilus, a Gentile convert, who was appointed Bishop of Antioch, in the year of our Lord 170, about 30 years after the conversion of Justin Martyr. The word occurs in his second book addressed to Antolycus.

Next to Theophilus, is Clemens of Alexandria, who was originally a philosopher, and is said to have been converted to the Christian Faith about the year 194, and so to have flourished 25 years later than Theophilus. He introduces the word Trinity in the third book of his Stromata.

Tertullian, Bishop of Carthage, who was converted to Christianity about the year 200, follows Clemens in the use of the word. He had occasion to introduce it in his work against Praxeas, in which he defended the fundamental doctrines of Christianity against the heartless attacks of that noted heretic.

Origen, who had been the scholar of Clemens of Alexandria, flourished about the year 230, and used similar language with his master in reference to the Trinity. He is accused of having being the first to mix up the reve

ries of the Platonists with the solemn truths of Christianity, but this charge cannot apply to the introduction of the word Trinity, as that word was in use in the Christian Church nearly a hundred years before his time, if not much longer.

To furnish any more examples of the use of the word Trinity in the primitive Church, would be superfluous: but to bring forward a few testimonies to show that the doctrine intended by that word, was held and taught in the earliest ages of the Christian era, cannot be unimportant: for though this doctrine is a matter of pure revelation, and must consequently derive its proofs exclusively from Scripture, yet the Christian feels a degree of satisfaction to learn that the view he takes of the doctrine was that of the Church of Christ from the beginning.

A proof of the Divinity of Christ has been always considered decisive in establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, because all who have admitted the former have also admitted the latter. We premise this remark, because some of the testimonies which we shall adduce bear more fully on that point as the turning one of the doctrine.

Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, when at the stake, addressed a prayer to God which he concluded in this manner: "For all things I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ: with whom, unto thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory, both now and for ever, world without end, Amen." Polycarp was a contemporary of the Apostles. Justyn Martyr declares," that Christ, the first-born Word of God, exists as God; that he is Lord and God, being the Son of God; and that he was the God of Israel." Again he says,-" HIM (the Father) and that Son who hath proceeded from him, and the PROPHETICAL SPIRIT, we worship and adore." He flourished in the year 140.

Melito, Bishop of Sardis, says "We are worshippers of one God, who is before all, and in all, in his Christ who is truly God, the Eternal Word." He flourished in the year 177.

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, declares that "Christ, as God, was adored by the Prophets; was the God of the living, and the living God; that he spake to Moses in the bush; and that the same person afterwards refuted the doctrine of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead :-He farther says, that Abraham learned divine truth from the Logos, or Word of God." He flourished in the year 178

Athenagoras says:-"The Mind and Word of God is the Son of God: We, who preach God, preach God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one." He flourished in the year 178.

Clement of Alexandria, says,- "The Logos is the Universal Architect," that is the Maker of all things. "The Logos is the Creator of men, and of the world and in prayer he addresses both the Son and the Father, saying, "Son and Father, both one Lord, grant that we may praise the Son, and the Father, with the Holy Ghost, ALL IN ONE." He flourished in the year 194.

Tertullian says "The name of Christ is every where believed, and every where worshipped. He reigns every where, and is every where adored. He is alike to all a King, and to all a Judge, AND TO ALL A GOD AND A LORD. He flourished in the year 200.

Origen states, that the Christians were accustomed to say,-"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are one God," and speaks of this as a difficult and perplexing doctrine to such as hear not with faith." Again he observes : "When we come to the grace of baptism, we acknowledge one God only, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." He flourished in the year 230. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, says,-" Christ is our God; that is, not of all, but of the faithful and believing." He flourished in the year 248.