There is undoubtedly such a theory of "development" as that here referred to, which dishonors the Bible in comparison with tradition. But it is as far as possible from that of the historians and theologians in question, who believed the doctrine of the Trinity, "in its scientific form," to be developed out of a doctrine of the Trinity more fundamental and incontrovertible, revealed in the Word of God himself.

We have spoken of the admissible and indeed instructive variety in the speculative explanations put upon the great central and abiding truth. There are a few statements on minor points in this volume to which we do not assent. It undoubtedly serves the purpose of opponents to confound the truth and the explanation together. But that undertaking has an effectual adversary not only in the light of impartial investigation, but in the hidden intuitions of devout souls. Thus it is in respect to the main practical application of the Trinitarian doctrine, in the atonement for sin. The Catholic teaching of the Church is that, except in the essentially Trinitarian view of Christ, the needed redemption is not wrought out. In their interpretations of the mode of the efficacious connection between the one truth and the other, orthodox teachers have disagreed. But, practically,

to us.

each believing heart settles itself calmly and firmly in the faith, unvexed by the dispute. For our own part, we derive unspeakable consolation and peace and strength from the faith of an emotional, sympathizing God, able and willing to suffer for us and with us in Christ, through all the passages of infirmity in "our low estate." To blot out this belief would greatly darken the benign splendors of the Bible That brightness on its pages illuminates all our times of dimness and pain. Our brethren may apply to this belief whatever names they prefer, old or new. We cling gratefully to it, and it clings graciously to us. Others, we know, obtain similar support from believing that it was only the human nature in Christ that suffered,-this human nature being so united with the divine as to effect the needful propitiation. Now, if those who reject both beliefs, and the propitiation besides, choose to judge which of these is properly orthodox, and which is suspicious orthodoxy, it is a harmless exercise of privilege. But they can hardly with seriousness expect orthodoxy of any sort to look to them for its standards of soundness in the faith. With all due appreciation of this neighborly vigilance, we shall ourselves be content to be in the fellowship not only of Prophets, Apostles, and Saints of old, but of Hooker,

Pearson, and Charnock, of Beveridge, Horsley, and Barrow, of Jeremy Taylor, Chalmers, and Robert Hall, of later days. Nor would it in the least discompose us if on a mystery so high, and among glories into which the angels desire to look, any of these “far-seeing spirits" should be found to report their visions in words literally inharmonious, and all unworthy of the unspeakable theme.

But it is time to leave our author to speak for himself, nay, to speak for his Lord. The immortal cause is strengthening. The Church moves gloriously on to her triumph in the second advent of her Living Head. The multitudes are gathering and flocking as doves to their windows. "All they gather themselves together, Gentiles to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee!" The "Rock of Ages " is not moved. The "coming Church," the "new Church," the "Church of the future," can be no other than the Church which has been, is now, and ever shall be,-ever new, and ever old,— world without end. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost!

CAMBRIDGE, Monday in Whitsun-week, 1860.

F. D. H.

PREFACE.

THE title-page of this Treatise may sufficiently indicate the line of argument I have attempted to pursue. My standard of reference throughout, has been the memorable precept, "Trust ye in the Lord for ever, for in the Lord Jehovah is the Rock of Ages." (Isai. xxvi. 4.) That the one Infinite God claims our supreme and undivided confidence; that the same confidence is, on the warrant of Scripture, to be reposed in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost; and that therefore Father, Son, and Spirit are equally God over all, blessed for ever, the Triune Jehovah, in whose name alone we trust, on whose arm alone we rely, and whose majesty alone we adore and love:- such is the brief outline of a train of thought indelibly impressed many years ago on my own mind.

Local circumstances, to which I allude in my opening chapter, induced me this autumn to commit these thoughts to paper. I intended to write only a brief pamphlet. But I found that proofs from the written

word accumulated upon me so rapidly, that I could not duly sketch this most momentous of subjects in so cursory a way. I therefore suffered Scripture as it were to lead me by the hand: until by compiling and illustrating Bible evidence alone, my little essay swelled to nearly its present dimensions. And when the rough draft of my manuscript was to some extent completed, I did not scruple to avail myself of the labors of those authors, to which I have from time to time referred, so far as my limited leisure permitted me to consult them. I especially allude to Dr. Pye Smith's "Scripture Testimony to the Messiah:" my readers will find how much I am indebted to that truly learned and elaborate work. I would also mention a short but valuable treatise, now out of print, by the late Mr. Serjeant Sellon; Dwight's Theology, vol. ii.; Wardlaw's Discourses; Serle's Horae Solitariae; Lectures at Christ Church, Liverpool; Scholefield's Hints; Dr. Gordon's Supreme Godhead of Christ; and Jones' Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity: though to many of these authors I have only been able to refer, as isolated passages led me to desire to know their judgment on contested interpretations. With respect to the last, "Jones' Catholic Doctrine," which contains so much in so brief a space, I had not seen it until my Treatise was almost finished. His system of proof is in some respects similar to mine: but even my threefold comparison in the last chapter of this work, which resembles his arrangement the nearest,