same Jesus whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ." You perceive then, that the title Lord is applied to him in a sense altogether different from that in which the same title is applied to God, and inferior to it.

A few passages of scripture are interpreted by some, erroneously we think, to assert that Jesus Christ was the Creator of the material universe. But even here his agency is only ministerial and subordinate. For it was only by the Son that God "made the worlds." Other passages are supposed to mean without sufficient reason as appears to us, that Christ will judge the world in person. But here too his agency is only subordinate and ministerial. "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son." "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

We now come to an important topic, the object of worship. Worship strictly Trinitarian is impracticable. It is so, considered merely as a mental exercise. Three objects of worship in one object of worship is an idea which cannot be formed in the mind, for it is a self-contradiction. While the mind thinks of the Unity, it must forget the Trinity, and while it thinks of the Trinity it must forget the Unity. So to address Unity in Trinity is equally an impossibility. A new language must be invented to correspond to it, a language which must discard from its parts of speech all distinction of number, or rather confound all distinction, and express at the same time unity and plurality, and

designate its objects, as at once, three and one. This idea of three-one is so anomalous, that there is only one word in the whole compass of language which corresponds to it, and that word is Trinity. But this, strange as it may seem, is not found in scripture, nor was it invented till several ages after the New Testament was written. It was introduced with the doctrine it was intended to express. Unscriptural as it is however, it has played a most important part in theology. It has bound together a mass of incongruous ideas, which but for this word would have dissolved by their own mutual repulsion. The language of strictly Trinitarian devotion, could never wander beyond this single expression, Trinity. All other appellations of Deity must signify either one or many. If a singular form of address be employed, then only one Person is addressed, and the Trinity is lost sight of. If a plural form were used, and the three Persons addressed at once, the Unity is lost. Besides, such devotion though justified and required by the Trinitarian theory, would be utterly shocking.

Three equal Persons in Deity are equally objects of worship. But in order to worship them at once, plural forms of address must be used. This however would reveal the revolting nature of the whole system. In order to escape this, those who worship by a form carefully constructed upon the model of the creeds, instead of the suggestions of their own minds and the language of the Bible, address each Person in succession, "O God the Father of Hea

ven, have mercy upon us miserable sinners." "O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy upon us miserable sinners." "O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, have mercy upon us, miserable sinners." Although in this way, the shock of plurality of address is avoided, unity of idea is quite as effectually destroyed. Here are three objects of worship, not one object. It is true the attempt is afterwards made to unite them in one. "O holy, blessed and glorious Trinity, three Persons in one God, have mercy on us." But instead of uniting them, it introduces a fourth object. For certainly a Trinity comprehending the three Persons, must be quite as different from each, as they are from each other.

Those on the other hand, who pray according to the suggestions of that "inspiration of the Almighty which giveth man understanding," and the impressions which are left upon the mind by the word of God, find their devotions directing themselves to one object and that object is the Father. But this they do in utter condemnation of their creed. Their creed declares, there are three Persons in the Deity, equal in power and glory, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, neither of whom has in fact, or ought to have in regard, any pre-eminence over the others. How can they then select one of these Persons and make him almost the only object of address? Why do they choose the other two? How

the Father in preference to

can they reconcile it to their consciences, thus to

defraud, if I may so speak, the second and third Persons of the glory due them, by not addressing them in their prayers till the very close, in a kind of doxology? It can arise from this fact alone, that all men at heart, hold the simple unity of God. The fact is, the supremacy of the Father is so deeply impressed upon the scriptures, that the mind cannot forget or overlook it. Though men may say in their creeds, that the second and third Persons are equal to the first, they do not worship them as if they were equal, for they do not address either of them as often or as exclusively as the first. A prayer which should begin by addressing Christ or the Holy Ghost individually, would sound strange and shocking even to the most determined Trinitarian, and yet if that faith were true, it would be just as proper, nay, as often required, as to address God the Father.

Do not even those who hold the Trinitarian creed, show by their language, that they at heart, believe in the supremacy of the Father when they pray? They thank the Father for sending the Son. Why not as naturally and as often, if the Son be equal with the Father; thank him for coming to the relief of human misery? They pray God to send them the Holy Spirit; would they do this unless they thought the Father supreme, and the Holy Spirit subordinate? If they thought the Holy Spirit equal and as much an object of prayer, would they not as naturally and spontaneously address themselves directly to him, and implore him to come?

The truth is, men have modelled their prayers

more on the scriptures, than they have on their

1

creeds; and then they could not fail to remember there is not one single instance of a prayer or devotion being addressed to the Holy Spirit. They could not fail to remember, that in a large proportion of the places, where the Holy Spirit is spoken of, not even personality seems to be ascribed to it. It is represented, to be the power, or influence, or energy of God. In framing their prayers Christians could not forget, that Christ commanded his disciples just before he left them, to ask nothing of him, when he should be exalted to heaven, but to pray to the Father in his name.

They could not forget that the apostles obeyed this command, and immediately after his ascension, so far from praying to a Trinity, they were heard to use these remarkable words, "Lord, thou art God, who hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, grant unto thy servants that with boldness they may speak thy word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done in the name of thy holy child Jesus."

But you say that there are some passages of Scripture which would lead you to think there were three Persons in the Divine nature, and that Christ was one of those Persons, and the Holy Spirit another. There are other passages which seem to teach that God subsists in one Person, and that one Person is the Father. Both of them cannot be true. There is a Trinity or an Unity in the Divine nature. Now which is to be believed?