tent upon the impotent, for it is exerted by taking the things of God and showing them to men. Who can overvalue or overstate the contributions of intellect to religion in thus offering to view the King to his subjects, the Benefactor to his beneficiaries, the Redeemer to his ransomed ones, the great Author to his own world?

The judgment day is another subject which, though in its simple announcement impressive and awful, in discussion by superior mental faculties, may be made far more effectively so. Its developments and consequences may be so truthfully and solemnly opened, that men shall almost seem to themselves to hear the call of the archangel, to see the eventful morning break, to feel themselves witnesses and partakers in the dread transactions that follow. A scene like this of the final judgment, pertaining not to one isolated population but to every kindred, nation, tongue and people; not to a single age but to every generation over which the stream of time shall have swept; a scene in which are settled the interests of Divine justice, and revealed the depths and mysteries of Divine love; a scene in which are present three worlds, the throne of the Eternal and the Judge of quick and dead; a scene embracing a solemn audit before the Almighty that knoweth the heart, the acquittal or condemnation of every human being, the reception of one part to heaven never more to weep, and the dismissal of the other to perdition never more to smile; a scene including the world in flames, the sea turned to blood, the elements melted, the heavens rolled together as a scroll, the close of the great drama of time, life and probation-such a portentous omnipotent scene, furnishing action for even angelic powers, in the hands of suitable and exalted human faculties, may be made to produce in a reckless, ungodly world, results truly incalculable, infinitely important. So may these faculties reveal the last day, that the deepest slumberers in all the domain of spiritual death can sleep no longer, and the most hardened victims that Satan ever deceived or bound, no more refuse instant supplication for mercy from the heart of infinite Love.

The religious teacher, with a vivacious and gifted intellect, thus taking up the great things of God and dispensing them to men, seems clothed almost with omnipotence. Certainly revealed truth, such as he announces in the ear of the world, God has often made almighty. All the subjects of religion are invested with influence partly at least in proportion to the intellectual energy and skill with which they are urged upon the consciences of mankind. Under the elucidations and conduct of such mental vigor and wisdom, more broad, pure, spiritual, will appear the law of God: more dreadful and glorious its sanctions: eternity be farther penetrated more of its volumed ages be made to unroll their realities to the astonished hearts of men: hell be opened into lower depths of corruption, thicker blackness of darkness, more intolerable woes heaven be discovered to possess richer crowns, fuller glories of the eternal, more of the fruit that droppeth every month,

a deeper river of life, a profounder holiness, a more perfect peace. Precious ore can intellect, studious and penetrating, bring up from the deep mines imbedded in the heart of religion: open refreshing waters from her abundant fountains to pour abroad upon fainting vegetation. Who can measure the power which such intellect may add to the inculcations of religion! Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Chalmers, and great spirits like them in the same calling, through their superior powers, have moved the human mind, wrought on the human character, left permanent impressions on the general current of human affairs, contributed enlargement and power to the kingdom of Christ, to an extent which God only can fully comprehend. The influence over the world in quantity, to say nothing of quality, effected by Chatham, Burke, Fox, Johnson, Addison, and other orators and writers of kindred eminence and fame, bears no comparison to that which has been exerted by the great and sanctified intellects which have spoken to their age in behalf of the Christian religion. We do not assert or intimate, that piety, deep, fervent, constant, consistent, does not render a much larger and a more essential assistance in giving Christianity power upon mankind. We have discussed here another subject, the contributions of intellect to this vast and important design. If sincere godliness is a warm inspirer, lofty mental power is a great executor. If the former be the life within, the latter is the light abroad.

The whole preceding discussion, if just views have been taken, exhibits superior intellectual endowments, the high honor of our nature in every sphere, in that of religion where they act as contributors to its proofs, its purity, and its power, as charged with truly illustrious duties and an immense responsibility. Save truth and moral goodness, which they here subserve, there is nothing attainable or conceivable which confers so ennobling and desirable a distinction. And, in this ministry of holy beneficence, intellectual powers seem almost to partake of the pure spirit which they task themselves to inspire and build up in the heart of men. To enriched and invigorated minds, consecrated to the service of religion, as indicated in the present discussion, there is due a love and appreciation which they have certainly not always, not generally, received. There is within the church of Christ a vast mass of intellect, lying inactive, like precious ores in the heart of the earth, and almost as unwrought and unnoticed. The duty of bringing up much of it and working it into such form and power that it may serve well in establishing the character and aiding the great mission of Christianity seems immediate and imperious. That mission is worthy of the highest and best cultivated mind which Heaven ever bestows. Brilliant will be the day when the powerful and the gifted generally shall be the sincere lovers of truth, and shall bend their great endeavors to the cause of human progress and human redemption.

ARTICLE VII.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, RATIONAL AND SCRIPTURAL.

By Rev. EDWARD BEECHER, D. D., Boston.

IN the very forefront of practical Christianity, stand certain words, which have in all ages not only originated, but rendered necessary a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Those words are these. BAPTIZE IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE ISON, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST. This cannot be done intelligently till it is understood who or what the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are. The discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity then is not theoretical, secondary, and incidental, but practical, primary, and fundamental.

The public mind has of late been particularly directed to it. We avail ourselves of the existing interest to make it the subject of a few remarks.

Many objections we know are alledged against it. Some deny its practical utility, if true. What can it effect more than the unity? Others affirm that it is absurd and incredible. Others, less confident on these points, do not feel satisfied that it is fully taught in the Bible. It is so important, if true, that they wonder that it has not been taught more clearly.

In order fully to discuss the doctrine, we should accordingly attend to these points: its rationality-its Scriptural evidence-its utility. We propose, however, in this discussion to attend to its rationality and its Scriptural evidence. We consider first, its rationality, because it may remove from the minds of some, difficulties which diminish or destroy the force of Biblical evidence. For the doctrine has always been opposed by many as so irrational in itself as to be incapable of proof or belief.

Under this impression some have denied the inspiration of the Bible, because they seemed to see that the doctrine was there taught, and were unwilling to resort to the pitiful expedients adopted by many to evade its meaning. Others, unable to resist the evidences of inspiration, have either done violence to language, in order to escape its obvious sense, or else have rejected parts of the Bible as unreasonable.

While the minds of any are in this state it is of little use to quote the Bible. Priestly after trying to explain away the proof of the pre-existence of Christ, contained in John 3: 13, is not satisfied with his own solution; yet rather than believe the obvious import of the passage, on an article of faith of such magnitude, he prefers to call in question the correctness of John's recollection and representation of our Lord's language. So strange and in

credible does the hypothesis of a pre-existent state seem, that he would sooner suppose an interpolation, or that the old apostle dictated one thing and the amanuensis wrote another. Socinus declared of the atonement that if it were not merely once but often written in the Scriptures, he would not believe it. Smalcius said, that if it were not merely once or twice but often and clearly written, that God became man, yet it would be better, because it is absurd, against reason and blasphemous, to invent some mode of interpretation by which these consequences might be avoided. In like manner a modern antagonist of the trinity says of the advocate of this doctrine, that he is compelled to defend his faith by the plea that God is honored by our reception of what shocks the intellect, violates reason, and prepares its advocates for worse and worse delusions.

We propose then to begin our labors by an effort to define the doctrine and to prepare the way for adducing Scriptural proof of its truth, by evincing its rationality. A definition in order to be complete, should show what the thing defined means, and what it does not mean; i. e. it should include its essential ideas and exclude all that are foreign to the subject.

The doctrine, therefore, means that the one God who made and governs the universe, exists in three persons, equal in every Divine attribute and claiming equal Divine honors and worship. It does not mean, as we understand it, that these persons are so separated as to destroy their unity, in essence or substance, nor so united as to destroy their separate existence as three persons. Of course it does not mean that they are three separate Gods and yet one God. Nor does it teach that they are in such a sense one God, as to prevent each person from exercising his own attributes and performing his own works.

We use the word person, because we think it the best word; and because we think it not liable to any reasonable objection. We are indeed aware that some in more modern writings on this subject have lamented its introduction because, they think it calculated to produce misunderstanding. In place of it, some would use the word distinction, as implying less than is meant by person, and as appearing less inconsistent with unity. But this seems needless. The word person is not liable to any fair objection, and does not mean too much. For, as we shall show hereafter, the Bible does reveal to us the nature of personality so far as the word person has a just meaning in our language, and all difficulties arise from assuming unreasonably that the word means more than it does. It implies less than the word being, but more than the word distinction, or than any other word in use.

When we speak of a being we include all that pertains to the being, and we cannot say that these separate beings are one being. On the other hand, if we eschew the word persons and only say

of a being that he has in himself three distinctions we convey no definite inea. Nor do we include as much as the Bible teaches, on the subject of the Trinity-for a being who is in every sense one, in essence, person and attributes, may yet have in himself three distinctions of some kind. The veriest Sabellian will admit three distinctions in God. But when we say of God, that he is one being and yet three persons, we mean that there are three persons properly speaking, so united as to be truly one being. To show that this is possible or reasonable, is evidently not a part of the definition. With equal clearness, to refute the inferences of others from this definition is not a part of the definition; this belongs to another head. We desire merely to state at this time what we mean— in what sense we use words-so that when others state our belief they may state our definition as we have stated it and guarded it, and not state their own inferences, as being the doctrine, as we hold it. If then some one should say, if you hold to three divine persons, it after all must mean three Gods-we reply, you can properly mean by this only that our definition leads to such a result, as you view it, certainly you cannot mean that we so teach, for we expressly assert that we do not. If any one therefore attempts to state our belief, the proper way is to state it as we define it. If he wishes to state his own inferences from it, he has our leave, only he should be careful to state honestly that we do not admit that these inferences can be fairly derived from our definition. If he attempt to prove that they can, we shall not object, only we shall attempt in return, in a proper place and way, to show the fallacy of his reasoning, and to vindicate the rationality of our definition by showing that the union of three persons in one being, so as to be properly one God, is not unintelligible, and implies no contradiction or absurdity, according to the common laws of language and usage of words.

We now proceed to show that the doctrine is reasonable. We place this subject next, not because we suppose that it is of course true, merely because it is reasonable: Nor because this alone determines the question whether the Bible teaches it. For the Bible does not of course teach all things which are true, and of course many things which are reasonable are not taught in the Bible; for it was not intended to teach all things, but only things needful for our salvation: Nor because it would follow of course, that the Bible does not teach it, if it is unreasonable, unless we first assume its plenary inspiration for we can suppose as an argument against the Bible, that it should be proved that it is an unreasonable doctrine and yet that the Bible does teach it. Of course we do not suppose that this can in fact be done. But we place this topic here, because if it can be truly shown to be an unreasonable doctrine, in the proper sense of these words, it would be of no use to