and would, no doubt, use the expression, "Son of God," in the same sense as his countrymen did. Plainly, therefore, when he says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," he adopts their accusation as his faith. And thus, in so far, at least, as the second person is concerned, we find here the declaration of the doctrine of the trinity. Nor are these words of Peter the only form in which this doctrine may be expressed. For while every one must admit that the human mind cannot fully conceive, nor human language truly describe, the whole mystery of the incarnation, it is certain that many books have been written on the subject, many discourses delivered, all of which are true and orthodox, and yet not one of them, quite similar to another, either in the definitions or illustrations made use of. Here, as elsewhere, the truth has been clothed in great variety of forms, and is so clothed every day, and still it does not cease to be the truth.

But beyond the range of the truth here, also, we have an error on each hand. On the one hand, we have the error of tritheism, in which the unity of the Godhead is lost in descriptions, in which the three persons of the Godhead are represented as consulting together, and discussing in eternity, the salvation of man, in language such as would be used by three finite separate individuals in such a case. On the other hand, we find the doctrine of the trinity lost under a mistaken view of the unity of the Godhead, and giving rise to a heresy, which, though it be a grievous error in itself, is yet but an element of a far greater, when it forms part of a system which repudiates the whole of sacrificial religion, and derides the doctrine of the atonement; and in doing so, rejects the gospel and libels humanity as insensate, while it desires and professes to honour it. For, if humanity in all its variety, has shewn one invariable state of feeling and con

viction, it is that which testifies in favour of the need of sacrifice to atone for guilt.

In like manner, were we to take any other elementary principle of the Christian economy uttered by our Saviour, one relating to worship, for instance, instead of polity and doctrine, we should find a recurrence of the same phenomena, we should find error on both hands, and truth between. We should also find that that truth is limited, not by the words in which it is expressed, so much as by the errors which bound it. Thus our Saviour, conversing with the woman of Samaria, took occasion to utter the great principle that, under the gospel-dispensation, worship should not be confined either to Jerusalem or Mount Gerizin; but that whoso worshippeth the Father acceptably, must henceforth worship Him in spirit and in truth. From this we learn, therefore, that in order to be truly Christian,-in order to be acceptable to the God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, all worship must be spiritual and true. But good men have formed various opinions as to the particular forms, seasons, and places of worship, which represent and embody this requisite most completely; and each worshipper finds his own ritual most spiritual and truth-inspiring; and each regards his own as that which is to be gathered from the analogy of faith, and believes it to be that which is most congenial to the will of God. As the extremes which lie beyond the range of truth on both hands, we may mention on the one hand, that which a priesthood, ever actuated by the same principles, tends to construct, a system where all is a mysterious symbolism,— which says to the laity, “ Touch not, taste not, handle not,”—all a mumbling in an unknown tongue, which none can utter but the priest, and which, therefore, tends directly to serve the purpose of maintaining the exclusive privileges and ghostly supremacy of that order. Not

that we would place such an economy of worship beyond the range of truth, because it was well fitted to serve the purposes of the priesthood, if it were not otherwise objectionable. But every one who grants the exclusive authority of the written word, must admit that such a ritual as has been alluded to, is often and particularly condemned in the word of God, as one composed of beggarly elements, suitable, indeed, to the infancy of the church, but contrary to the intention of God, with respect to the Christian era. As the limit, on the other hand, we may mention such a system as that of the Quakers, who admit no rites whatever. Not that the mere consideration of unfitness for the purposes of general worship, would warrant an exclusion of such a ritual (or rather absence of all ritual), from the range of true and spiritual worship. But such a system is contradictory of the authority of the New Testament Scriptures. For there we find baptism and the Lord's Supper instituted, and commanded to be perpetuated; and we see the primitive Christians joining in prayer and praise, and preaching in their assemblies. Between these limits, however, what beautiful variety is conceivable, and how little is there in the word of God to forbid any of our evangelical rituals?

Let it also be remarked, that while the church system of the Romanist and of the Quaker, and the doctrine of the Unitarian, are placed beyond the pale of the church, no judgment is made respecting the ultimate destiny of any individual, who may belong to any one or other of these communions. That is a point, which it does not belong to this treatise so much as to touch. It has, indeed, been just affirmed, that the Unitarian rejects the gospel. And let him see to that and to its consequences. But here it belongs to us only to state the melancholy fact.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE

HUMAN MIND.

*

In an early page of this work, I have endeavoured to shew that, independently of the testimony both of reason and of Scripture as to the nature of true Christian unity, and, indeed, antecedently to the application of these faculties to the consideration of its principles, we are to expect, as a natural result of the universal love of order which actuates the human mind, a general prepossession in favour of universal uniformity in religion, and that, even though such an uniformity should be wholly inappropriate or unattainable, in reference to such a society as the church. We have also endeavoured to shew, in opposition to this prepossession, that not universal uniformity, but unity of spirit in variety of form, is a state of things in the church, which is both suitable to such an all-embracing institution, and is supported by the analogy of nature, and by considerations of moral beauty, and of fitness and utility. And this being done, it might, perhaps, be allowable now to infer, from what has been already advanced, that, in so far as reason can decide such a question, an evangelical unity in faith and love in variety of different communions, is a form of the church worthy of being regarded as both reasonable and right, in reference to the present era at least. But there is yet one other consideration more urgent than any of those which have been noticed, on which a few words may, perhaps, be well bestowed before we close. I allude to the argument arising from the limited powers of the human mind.

It will be admitted, that that is very reasonable which necessarily springs out of the very operations of reason, * See p. 93.

and which is unavoidable, if reason is to be allowed any play at all. Now, this is truly the case in reference to the point at issue. If reason is to have any sway in religion at all, an absolute unity, an universal agreement, as to creed, ritual, discipline, polity, in a word, an uniformity over all, is an utter impossibility as matters now stand. Where all minds are impressed by the same primary truths, and guided by the same spirit, and animated by the same affections, there may, nay, there must be, unity of spirit among all. There must be a beautiful harmony, both in faith and feeling among all. But in order that there should be an absolute uniformity,-an universal agreement in all things,-it would be necessary that there should be no such thing as individuality among men. It would be necessary that the same quantity and the same quality of feeling, taste, and reason, should be found equally in all men. And in order that all, while they agreed among themselves, should also agree with the truth, it would be necessary that that ray of universal reason, which, as from a higher source, descends into the breast of every man, should continue in him in its native purity, unmodified and unindividualized by the soul into which it entered, and where it was destined to dwell. Were this the condition of human nature, then we might have absolute unity. But this is far from being the condition of our nature as it actually is. In every man, reason and conscience are individualized; and, in order to be of any use to man as an individual, they require to be so. But hence it necessarily comes to pass, that when truth is entertained in the individual mind, and enwoven with individual feeling,-as all truth, truly believed, ever must be, then, forthwith, though the unity of the truth may be still preserved, variety of form and utterance must unavoidably manifest itself likewise.

The human mind is instinct with self, and desires to