see where they knew they could not see, and may arrive at last, by wrong-headed and retrogressive industry, to what they knew were but enigmas which they could not solve, and fragments which they could not unite.

The mind delights to contemplate a man, who, born in the midst of gross idolatry, and educated in the practices of a religion almost more irrational than atheism, has risen superior to his teachers, and toiled to satisfy the craving of his immortal spirit, for some notion of his Creator that may not be revolting to reason and conscience, until at last he ventures to conIclude that there must be some one great First Cause and Father of all, from whose wisdom and power this fair world has had its being. At such a spectacle, the mind reposes in the recollection that God is merciful, for he will reward every man according to his work'.

But wholly different are the character and position of the man who endeavours to

1 Ps. lxii. 12.

raise Christianity to what he is pleased to consider the classic sublimity of the heathen poet and philosopher. If the sage of old dared, with more of hope than credence, to call God his father, in some vague notion of a connexion between the helplessness and misery of man and the power and goodness of the Creator, vagueness and uncertainty were all he could attain to. But what in him was humility and faith, is pride and infidelity in us. God has himself taught us in what sense he is our father. He has himself informed us, how he has been pleased to interpose to relieve our misery, to assist our weakness, and to illuminate our understandings. If he permits us to call him Father, it is on the distinct and sole ground, that he is the Father of an only and eternal Son, Jesus Christ, by whom, and in whom, we are adopted into his family, and made his children. If he condescends to illuminate our understandings, and give us the victory over our evil and turbulent propensities, he has very definitely informed us, that the renovation of our nature is to be

effected by the personal agency and intercession of his eternal Spirit, whom he sends forth to dwell within us. To pretend, therefore, to look for this sanctification and instruction, and at the same moment to deny or explain away the existence of that glorious person by whom it is to be imparted, is nothing less than practical atheism. To call God our Father, and, at the same time, deny that high and mysterious sense in which He calls himself our Father, is in reality totally to renounce the connexion. He is not our Father, except because he is the Father of that only Son. He is not our Father, except because we are adopted into his family by the power of that only Son. We cannot deny the Son, without denying the Father also; that is, without denying the mysterious doctrine of the divine nature: for no one professing Christianity in any form or guise, pretends to deny, that the Messiah is, in some sense, the Son of God. It is a point ruled and decided by Holy Scripture; and to adopt any system which sets aside the Scripture, is, in fact, to deny Christ

ianity altogether. He is antichrist, saith St. John, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father 1. "This," saith our blessed Redeemer, "this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent 2." Such are undoubtedly the views contained in Holy Scripture. It inculcates the unity and perfections of God in such a manner as necessarily to involve the doctrine of the Trinity. If then we reject that doctrine, we, in fact, proclaim ourselves to be absolutely destitute of revelation. If we reject that doctrine, we have no alternative; we must reject the Scripture as an imposition and a fraud. But, be the doctrine true or false, it can never be an unimportant question, so long as truth is a matter of importance, and our happiness here or hereafter at all involved in our religion.

I may now proceed to observe in the last place, that the system of truth revealed in

1 John ii. 22, 23.

2 John xvii. 3.

Scripture is not more inseparably connected with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, than is the system of morals which it incul

cates.

The reception of truth is a moral action. Where the teacher is authorized and qualified to instruct us, we are guilty of immorality, if we do not receive his instructions with humble and teachable attention. Surely, it is not too much to expect, that we should bring to the school of Christianity that disposition, without which our common sense tells us a child could not learn its letters. Now the Scripture, professing to be an immediate and unerring communication from the Almighty, calls on us to receive certain doctrines totally undiscoverable by human reason. It puts us, therefore, into the position of disciples; who may indeed reject the instructions of their teacher altogether, if they can prove him to be incompetent or untrue; but if unable to impeach his testimony, or his right to dictate, cannot without extreme injustice to him, and to themselves, refuse to allow to his communications the full weight of his