completely, showing it to be of heathen origin, and clearly tracing back its descent to the misty metaphysics of paganism. By a series of pictorial as well as historical illustrations, Dr. Beard shows that Trinitarianism largely prevailed among the heathens all over the east long before the Christian era, forming the very foundation and groundwork of their whole polytheistic system, and that from this, its pagan source, it was imported into the Christian Church, and early began to be engrafted upon the phraseology of the New Testament, turning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Gospel, into one complex tripersonal Deity, corresponding to one of those imaginary tri-personal monstrosities of heathenism, and this in the very face of the gospel testimony of the New Testament itself, which limits the Godhead to the Father, asserting most expressly that "there is but One God, the Father," and that the Father is "the only true God," that the Son is but "the image" and messenger of God, and that the Holy Spirit is but the power and operation of God, or God himself, as the soul or spirit of a man is nothing but the man himself regarded in his spiritual capacities and relations.-See 1 Cor. viii. 6; Ephes. iv. 6; 1 Tim. ii. 5; John xvii. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Luke i. 35; 1 Cor. ii. 11, seq. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power."-Acts x. 38. Here we have first God, then Jesus, or the Son, whom God anoints with power, showing that the Son, who is thus distinguished from God, and needs God to anoint him with power, cannot be himself God, neither can that spirit or power, with which Jesus is anointed, be itself a person. It would be most absurd to speak of anointing a person with a person, or to speak of pouring out a person, as we read of the Holy Spirit being "poured out."

Neither has baptism anything to do with the worship of a tripersonal Deity. Baptism implies faith in the Father, as the one only true God and Father of all-faith in the Son, as a true messenger of the one God and Father's will-and faith in the Holy Spirit—in the holy influence and spiritual blessing of the one God and Father, by which he accompanies and confirms the propagation of true religion made known by the Son. This is the faith of a Christian, as distinguished from that of a Jew or a mere Deist, and has nothing to do with Trinity, the very name of which, as being wanting in the Bible, had to be borrowed from the pagans, as well as the idea that was father to it; for it is ideas that give rise to names, and no nation was ever known to possess ideas without finding names or words to express them; so that the Jews, the ancient depositaries of true religion, knew nothing of Trinity-they had not the idea of it, or they, as well as the pagans, would have had a word in their language and worship to express it, which they have not now, nor ever had. The very idea of dividing God into several persons is of the essence of polytheism;

for the moment you divide him into several persons, you give us several objects of divine worship instead of one, which is the very essence of polytheism, and without which there is no polytheism.

But it is quite beyond my limits to pursue the argument. The reader who would appreciate its full force, as conducted by the masterhand of Dr. Beard, must consult his work for himself. Such is my estimate of the character of this recent production of Dr. Beard, one of the most powerful and elaborate description, such as truly "bespeaks much learning and deep research," and one of such a kind as, I doubt not, will mark the commencement of a new era in the Trinitarian controversy.

At the same time, I would by no means overlook the merits of those other excellent works above mentioned, particularly those of Mr. Wilson, and especially his "Concessions of Trinitarians," which is also a most elaborate production, and of inestimable value-one that must have cost the author unspeakable labour to produce, containing a fund of knowledge, and forming a perfect storehouse of information for every serious inquirer after truth in this department. It meets the Trinitarian fairly on his own ground, and answers him fully out of his own mouth. "Their rock is not our rock, even our enemies themselves being judges." I would just also mention a little work— a very small and unpretending one-a mere tract, by Mr. Knowles, entitled, "A Manual of the Trinitarian Controversy," from which, small and insignificant as it may appear, I have derived some original thoughts, such at least as never struck me before, even after the study of these elaborate productions. Its answers are generally quite to the point, very brief, clear, and comprehensive, which is often of the greatest moment in matters of this kind; for long-winded answers on certain contested points are apt to be suspected of more labour than force of truth. The proem to John's Gospel, for example, he explains at once to my perfect satisfaction in a few words, although it is only by such a work as that of Dr. Beard that the idea can be fully developed and established in all its bearings.

(To be continued.)

MODERN ORTHODOXY.

BY M. A. COQUEREL.

SECTION V.-THE CORRUPTION OF HUMAN NATURE.

(Continued from No. XI. Vol. I. page 332.)

THE subject thus plainly stated, appears to us easy of explanation. MODERN ORTHODOXY does not believe in the complete perversion of human nature, nor in the absolute incapacity of man. As a religious,

moral, and intellectual being, he possesses two faculties, or rather develops two phases of character, which resolve the question-these are Conscience and Remorse. In vain we invoke the aid of dogmatic theology, and surround ourselves with the mystery it creates, and fancy we can escape from the divine glance of CONSCIENCE, or give the lie to its monitions. She will not be silenced: she ceases not to protest against sin, and call good, good, and evil, evil. If she condemns us for iniquity, she feels she has an equal right to applaud us for virtue. When she witnesses some act of virtue, of integrity, of devotion and fidelity to duty-when she has compared an action with the Gospel law, and recognised in it the fulfilment of the divine command, she adheres with an invincible and patient firmness to her verdict of approval. The conscience of man, therefore, refutes this charge of absolute corruption: she refuses to believe that all is evil and accursed beyond the pale of Judaism before Christianity, or beyond the limits of the church since the promulgation of the Gospel. REMORSE is also inexplicable, on the supposition that the nature of man is wholly vicious, and the divine resemblance completely effaced. If man have arrived at the highest pitch of corruption-if he have no relish for the good, he can have no regret for the bad: incapable of doing well, he should certainly be equally incapable of regretting when he has done evil; and it is a flagrant and ridiculous contradiction to represent him as incapable of willing or practising the right, and then depicting him as regretting, not having known or having transgressed the divine law. Remorse, therefore, which proves that liberty of action has not perished with innocence, proves also that all moral sentiment is not extinct-remorse, which is in fact a desire to return to virtue after having fallen from it-remorse, which is the protest of human nature against her own evil deeds-the sentence which the criminal passes upon his own crime-is an inexplicable phenomenon of man's moral nature, if man cannot shun the sin which awakens it, nor avoid the error which produces it; but if he can, then there still remains some virtue in his soul, some capacity for good; corruption has not invaded his whole being; there is still a spark of light within-but a spark, perhaps, but still-of light!

The faculty of Imagination also supplies a curious argument in corroboration of the view we have taken of human corruption. Has any one ever read in history, or met with in his own experience, an evil action that could not be imagined worse-a wicked thought that might not be conceived more wicked-a depraved character whose features might not be deepened in enormity? Even the crimes of a Nero or a Tiberius do not pass beyond those limits which a fertile imagination can supply, there are some enormities these monsters of cruelty have not committed, and some bad passions they have not

displayed; and to cite an example which will readily arise to the theologian, could we not conceive even of a Judas, more avaricious and traitorous than he whom the sacred history has consigned to an infamous immortality? The more one reflects upon the subject, the more he must be satisfied that the extreme of iniquity has not yet been reached, and that the corruption of mankind might be deepened. We might be wholly without light, but there has ever been a glimmer to guide us on our way.

It is easy to trace the origin of the error into which the Protestant Church has fallen respecting total depravity. The Catholic Church exaggerated the value of good works, both as to their number and value, so far as to contend that some men performed more good actions than were needful for their individual salvation. Of these superfluous good deeds the Catholic Church compounded indulgences -a species of vested stock of virtue, which could be sold or transferred in lots to purchasers and others who were deficient in the holiness needful for salvation! The Protestant Church, in its zeal to reform, naturally fell into the opposite error, and, in her indignation against the traffic in indulgences, contended that not only could man not perform too many good actions, but that he was unable to perform any!

Upon what authority does Old Orthodoxy now rest for the proof of this melancholy dogma of innate and total depravity? We reply, upon a few favourite and isolated texts, which are eternally dragged into this controversy, but which are, in their original connexion, merely hyperbolical expressions, whose literal meaning is restricted by other declarations of the holy Scriptures. We have elsewhere shown the evil of a literal interpretation of the Bible; but still we are prepared to hear our opponents cavil at this expression. Look, say they, at the way you humble Scripture ! If a text oppose your views, it is immediately set down as a hyperbole! When St. Paul, in Rom. iii. 10, cites the language of the Psalmist " There is none that doeth good, no not one"-is that a hyperbole? We content ourselves by referring in reply to the words of our divine master-" There is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance." And a thousand such examples might be cited; but we turn to a more serious argument. We do not wish to anticipate what we shall have to say, in our next section, respecting the aid of God's grace; still we must advert to the mode in which our opponents attempt to turn aside the force of those texts which appeal to the moral sense and capacity of man, by alleging that in all these cases divine grace had already produced its effect. When Christ said to Matthew and Peter, "follow me," no doubt these disciples had received power to obey the divine command;

M

and when the Lord said to the whole company of the Apostles, "Ye shall see greater things than these," no doubt it is implied that they had already received important information and witnessed important signs of God's power. But when Cain's heart was filled with envy and hatred to his brother, and meditated his murder, he surely was not under the impulsions of God's grace; and yet the divine voice says to him-"If thou doest well, shall not thy offering be accepted?” How are we to reconcile these words with the doctrine of total depravity" If thou doest well?"-is it possible to address these words to a being incapable of even thinking what is right? Christ addresses similar language to men whom the Spirit had certainly not enlightened. To the Doctor of the Law, who inquires how he may obtain eternal life, and quotes the commandments as the code of moral duty, he exclaims, "Do these things, and thou shalt live!—would Jesus have thus spoken if he knew that this Israelite could not keep the commandments? Or would he, wishing to prove the virtuous purpose of his interrogator, have concluded the interview with the parable of the good Samaritan, and added, "Go and do thou likewise?" Our faith accords with that of the Apostle, when he says, in Rom. ii. 14, 15, "When the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another." These words are used in reference to men under the direction of their natural reason --of men without revelation and without grace: it is impossible more distinctly to state that such men are able to do well, and are not wholly corrupt, and that humanity, "created but a little lower than the angels," has preserved, though it may be in a tarnished state, somewhat of its primitive lustre. Moses, Christ, and St. Paul testify to this truth.

(To be continued. )

ARE YOU A SUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHER?

If you are, you are engaged in a good work. Yes, it is good, both as acceptable to God and profitable to men. It is good in its direct operation, and in its reflex action. It is not merely teaching "the young idea how to shoot ;" but, what is still more important, it is teaching the young and tender affection what to fix upon, and where to twine itself. Nothing hallows the Sabbath more than the benevolent employment of the Sunday-school teacher. It is more than lawful to do such good on the Sabbath-day; it has great reward. Continue to be a Sunday-school teacher; be not weary in this well doing. Do not think that you have served long enough in the