refuse these offers of mercy ;-let a person fully and firmly believe these truths, receive them as strictly applicable to himself, and regulate his feelings and conduct by them, and we hesitate not to say, that he has experienced religion. Let him feel and live, from day to day, as though there is a holy and sovereign God, to whose law he is subject, and to whose tribunal he is bound—let him regard himself habitually as a justly condemned transgressor, whose only hope of forgiveness and salvation is in the blood and merits of the Saviour-let him deeply repent of all his sins, embrace the Lord Jesus Christ as his deliverer and portion, and become that new and holy creature, which the Gospel requires, "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," -let him believe, apply, and obey the truths of religion in this sense; and, though his character will be totally different from that which is formed under the full influence of Unitarian doctrines, still we must believe him an experienced Christian. He has passed through no "mysterious unintelligible process," and has felt no unaccountable "swell of feeling, he scarcely knows what or whence, pass over his mind.” He does not "think himself a great deal better than all the rest of the world, or say, in the spirit of the Pharisee of old, God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are."" He does not "make boastful comparisons of himself with others," or "seek public exhibitions," or "blow a trumpet," or "hang out a flag." Neither does he, like many pretenders to religion, speak great swelling words of vanity; or have men's persons in admiration because of advantage; or speak evil of the things which he understands not. Still he has experienced the power of divine grace on his heart, and is the happy subject of vital experimental godliness. His religion differs from that of the Unitarian, chiefly because the doctrines, on which it is based, and out of which it grows, are different. He believes, applies, and obeys one system of doctrines, and the Unitarian another; and characters are formed under these influences, which differ, we had almost said heaven-wide. Of such vital importance is it, on the score of practical experimental religion, that people be thoroughly and properly instructed, and be made fully acquainted with the truth as it is in Jesus.

The writer of this Tract, through the whole of it, and more particularly towards the close, inveighs strongly against the idea of instantaneous conversion. "Some people talk of experiencing religion at a particular time, as if it were to be done but once, or all at once. This is certainly a very strange notion. We must experience religion, not once merely, or at a certain time, but every day, and at all times." p. 15. Does this writer really think it implied in the doctrine of instantaneous conversion, that when religion is experienced, it is experienced once forall, so that no farther exercise of it, or progress in it, is needful? His language here, and

in several other places, implies that he so considers it. But if he does, we can only say, that his ignorance is such as to disqualify him utterly for writing on the subject; and if he does not, he is an intentional deceiver. We believe as strongly as he can, that religion should be exercised daily, habitually. "It should be interwoven with our whole moral and spiritual frame." And not only must we exercise it, we must make progress in it. We must "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." We must be "faithful unto death," if we would "inherit a crown of life." And all this is perfectly consistent, in itself, and in the mind of every experienced Christian, with the doctrine of instantaneous conversion. For what is this doctrine? That there is a time, an instant, when the child of God is spiritually born. In other words, there is a time, an instant, when vital religion commences its existence in the soul. But this does not imply that the whole work of sanctification is at this instant accomplished. It implies just the contrary. The new convert is at first a babe, and he must live and grow. He must press onward, and mount upward, from strength to strength, and from attainment to attainment, till he arrives at the stature of a perfect man in Christ.

We may ask the publishers and the patrons of this Tract, how, with all their opposition to evangelical doctrine, they can consistently rid even their own system of the doctrine of instantaneous conversion. You admit there are some now in the world, who are not experienced Christians. They are not to be regarded as truly religious. They are in the broad road, call this what you may. Suppose one of this number at length experiences religion. Must there not be a time when this change is accomplished? Grant, if you please, that much preparation of mind and heart is necessary; still, must there not be an instant when religion is first embraced, and when its power begins to be felt? Must there not be an instant when the broad road is left, and the narrow one entered, and when the person in question first possesses the character, and becomes entitled to the name, of an experimental Christian? Certainly you must admit this, unless you will suppose that there are individuals now, and continually, in different places, who are neither religious nor irreligious, neither in the broad nor in the narrow way-a mongrel class of beings, who are neither the one thing nor the other. And if you really believe there is a class of beings of this description, then will you please to inform us, as soon as shall be convenient, in what chapters and verses of the Holy Scriptures their character is particularly described? And will you inform us farther, should it be the lot of such to die in their present condition, to what state you think they will be consigned, in the future world?

We are next to consider the Tract entited "The Doctrine of Pronouns applied to Christ's testimony of himself. By Noah Worcester, D. D."

"Pronouns," says Dr. W. " are words used as substitutes for the names of persons or things, to avoid a too frequent repetition of the same word or sound. A personal pronoun is a substitute for the name or title of a person; and it implies all that the name or title would imply, if used in the same place. A human person in the present state is supposed to possess two distinct natures, a body and a soul, which are so united and identified as to be but one person. The pronouns I, my, myself, include the whole person. Suppose then, that John should say, 'I cannot think, I cannot choose, I have no sense of right or wrong.' Peter asks him what the means by such strange declarations. John replies, I spoke only of my body, my inferior nature.' What would be thought of John's veracity, or the propriety of his explanation?"

"Trinitarians adopt the hypothesis, that Christ is God and man in one person. Here then we have two distinct minds to one body, supposed to be united and identified in the one person, Jesus Christ. But when Christ or any other person says, 'I can, or I cannot, do this or that,' the pronoun I embraces all the powers of the person. How unfortunate then is the method which Trinitarians have adopted, in explaining the language of Christ! He said, I can do nothing of myself,'My Father is greater than I.' When such language is urged as proof that Christ was not the independent God, Trinitarians venture to say that in such declarations. Christ spoke only of his human nature. As man, he was dependent; yet as God, he was independent." pp. 5—8.

We have here given the argument of Dr. W. in his own words. Compressed to a syllogism, it will stand thus:

"The pronouns I, my, myself, include the whole person." Christ uses these pronouns in setting forth his inferiority and dependence. Therefore, he is inferior to the Father, and dependent on him, in his whole person; and consequently the Trinitarian hypothesis cannot be sustained.

This argument would be conclusive against us, if the major proposition were the truth. But we are satisfied that it is not; and we are astonished that a mind, as acute and candid as that of Dr. W., should be imposed upon by such a sophism. "The pronouns I, my, myself, include the whole person." Let us inquire and see whether this is uniformly, or commonly, the case. The following examples are cited by Dr. W., except that he puts them in the negative form: I think, I choose, I have a sense of right and wrong.' Does I here include the whole person, soul and body, or merely the soul? Could any one, in using these expressions, be understood to mean that his material body thought, and chose, and felt a sense of right and wrong? Or would not the application of

VOL. I.

39

the pronoun be limited by the connexion, so as to prevent the possibility of misapprehension ?

Take another class of examples. 'I walked a mile this morning; I had coffee for breakfast, and meat for dinner, and tea at supper.' Does I here include the whole person, soul and body, intellectual and animal; or is it confined exclusively to the latter? A person using these expressions could not be understood to mean that his immortal part walked a mile in the morning; or that his soul had been nourished through the day, by such substances as coffee, meat, and tea. Nor would he think it necessary to add, by way of explanation, that he spoke only in respect to his corporeal and animal nature.

Take still another class of examples; for they can be multiplied to almost any extent. 'I rejoice at your success. I am sorry for your misfortune. I hope and believe you will yet be blessed.' Here again I does not include the whole person, soul and body; as joy, sorrow, hope and belief, are manifestly affections of the

mind.

Dr. W. admits there is one exception to his remark, that the pronoun I includes the whole person. But, instead of one, there are thousands. Indeed his remark is contradicted by the general use of the personal pronouns. They seldom include the whole person, but refer to the material and animal, or the intellectual and moral part of our constitution, just as the nature of the subject requires.

Persons often use these pronouns in application to themselves, as acting in a particular character or office. An agent goes to New York to purchase goods, and writes to his employer, 'I have been here a fortnight, and have done nothing.' That is, I have accomplished nothing as your agent. An ambassador at a foreign court writes to his sovereign, 'Yesterday I signed a treaty of peace.' That is, in his official capacity he performed the act mentioned. In these, and similar cases, persons use the pronoun, not in their natural, but in their official capacity; and the phraseology needs no qualification in order to be perfectly understood.

We admit that Christ uses the personal pronouns, in setting forth his inferiority and dependence. He does say, "I can do nothing of myself." "My father is greater than I." But these pronouns do not necessarily include his whole person. They may, in perfect conformity with the authorized use of language, be limited to a part of it, by the nature of the sentiment conveyed. Nor is there any reason why this limitation should be formally expressed, any more than when a person says, 'I drank coffee for breakfast,' he should be careful to add, that he referred not to his intellectual, but his animal nature.

Christ uses the personal pronouns in setting forth his divinity. "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." "I am he who

searcheth the reins and hearts." But here the pronouns do not include his whole person; they refer only to his divine nature. Nor do the passages need qualifying to render them perspicuous, except as they are qualified by the sentiments they express. No one can regard such declarations as applicable to a human being. Dr. W. has several pages on "John's care to prevent misapprehensions;" and he infers from this, that if the apostle had understood our Saviour's expressions of inferiority and dependence as applying only to his human nature, he certainly would have said so in some part of his Gospel. But we discover no reason for this supposition. John had said expressly in the beginning of his Gospel, that "the Word," or Christ, "was God, the Creator of all things;" and that this divine "Word was made flesh," or became a man. He had a right, therefore, to conclude, that when expressions occurred importing either the inferiority and dependence of Christ, or his divinity, the reader would refer them to that part of his person, to which they were limited by the sense. We see no reason why either John, or the Spirit which guided him, should have been more explicit on this subject.

Dr. W. represents "the Trinitarian explanation" as being inconsistent with itself. "If Jesus Christ was personally the independent God, his declarations of dependence on the Father," it is said, "cannot be true, in the sense contended for by Trinitarians. For their hypothesis is, not that the human nature was united to the Father, but to a second person, as independent as the Father. Now who cannot see that personal self-sufficiency precludes the possibility of personal dependence? If Christ was personally selfsufficient, how could his human nature need aid from another person? Yet Christ did assert his personal dependence on the Father." p. 13. Dr. W. ought to have remembered that "the Trinitarian explanation" not only makes three persons or distinctions in the Godhead, but these three to be one God. The divine three are so intimately, though mysteriously united, as to constitute, in an important sense, but one. "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father." "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." "I and my Father are one." The three persons or distinctions in the Godhead are not to be wholly separated, even in thought. Their union is most intimate, and their dependence mutual. Hence, in perfect consistency with "the Trinitarian explanation," Christ might speak of himself, in respect to either nature, or both, as in some sense dependent on the Father.

We doubt, however, whether his expressions often import this. They more frequently express his subordination to the Father in point of office In accomplishing the great work of redemption, he Father is, by covenant, the head. He sends the Son, and