nity in man, we may also form other more particular ideas in perfect harmony with the general one, and varied at pleasure, both as to thought and expression. Thus we say that man not only consists of soul, body, and operation; but also of will, understanding and mind, which latter is the result or combination of the two former; or of love, wisdom, and use; of affection, thought, and act; of good, truth, and life; or of charity, faith, and works; which all have reference to one man, either as to his soul, his body, or his proceeding operations."

Here we have already three times three, twice told; and there certainly can be no reason why their opposites should not be introduced, hatred, ignorance, evil, falsehood, selfishness, &c., so that, in good truth, they "may be varied at pleasure both as to thought and expression."

Mr. Hindmarsh proceeds: "Such then is the nature of the Trinity in man, which may well be called his trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, because though three in idea, they are yet inseparably one in act. Now, as man was created in the image or

likeness of God, it is reasonable to expect that whatever may be the kind of trinity in man, such also must be the kind of trinity in God, of whom he is the image, both as to his soul, and (as far as nature will admit) as to his body likewise. Yet here a wide distinction is to be observed between the trinity in man and the trinity in God, namely, that while in man it is finite and merely human, in God it is infinite and wholly divine." (P. 24, 25.)

To all this, one reply is obvious, that there is not one syllable of trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, in either the Old Testament or the New. How far therefore, agreeably to your own tenets, you are right in inferring such a trinity, let Mr. Clowes himself speak. “For Reason, of herself, has no light but on such subjects as relate to this lower world of nature, and therefore in judging of things above this world, she is totally blind, unless when she admits a light higher than her own." (p 6.)

2nd, Upon the subject of spiritualiz

ing,

nothing occurs in either of the

pamphlets referred to, to call for

marks.

any re

3d, With respect to the existence of a devil, or of devils, I would observe; That your's is not the devil of Trinitarians. You appear to believe in a multitude of such beings. (Mr. Clowes, p. 67. Mr. Hindmarsh, p. 8.) But were I to adopt your creed, I should certainly prefer calling them dæmons, as the Jews did; it being distinctly stated by Mr. Clowes, that he believes them to have been men. p. 80. Upon the subject of dæmons, I refer you to Farmer on the Dæmoniacs.*

* As I shall not have occasion again to refer to Mr. Hindmarsh's pamphlet, I would here make a remark upon one passage, (Matt. xxviii. 20.) the closing expression of our Saviour to his disciples. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." "For surely," says this gentleman, " had he been a mere man, or a being perfectly distinct from either the Father or the Holy Ghost, he would never have given them to understand that his own presence should become a source of consolation and support to them in the performance of their duty; but rather he would have assured them, that the great God, in whose name they were to baptize all nations, would be with them, and in them, to bless and protect them in the sacred work.” P. 20.

This I have observed was the last address and consolation of Jesus to his apostles, previously to the close of his ministry, and his ascent into heaven to his Father and God.

4th, The main point of difference between us is that you believe Jesus Christ to have been the One only God, the Father Almighty. The following is the statement given by Mr. Clowes.

"He

was such a man only in respect to that infirm humanity which, as was hinted at above, he derived from the mother, and which he successively put off, until he was no longer her son, and no longer called her his mother. But he was not such

No event more closely parallel to this ever occurred, than the closing address and consolation of Moses to Joshua, previously to the termination of his ministry, and his ascent to his Father and God.

If then a similar expression should have been used by him, will you hold to your argument? Let me then refer you to Deut. xxxi. 23. Moses has been assuring Joshua that he must "the die, "and no more go out nor come in," nor pass over river Jordan." V. 2. Yet he gives to Joshua this charge, "Be strong and of a good courage; for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them; and I will be with thee."

Now repeat the paragraph just quoted from Mr. Hindmarsh, and ask if it be possible that Moses could have been a mere man, when he states that his own presence should be the source of consolation.

If

you

will not admit that the expressions mean, the transfer of similar divine powers from the persons speaking to those addressed by them, give any explanation you please, only it must be suitable to both.

a man, in respect to that glorified or divine humanity, which he successively put on from the Father, and in which he finally ascended into heaven, to reign there in eternal dominion, as the Lord God Omnipotent over all things and creatures, both in heaven and earth." P. 56.

Suffer me to recommend to your serious and attentive consideration the following passages.

Matt. xxvi. 72. I do not know the man. v. 76, I know not the man. Luke xxiii. 6, Whether the man were a Galilean. v. 53. Never man before was laid. John v. 12, What man is this, vii. 46. Like this man. xix. 5, Behold the man. 1 Cor. xv. 21, By man came the resurrection. v. 47, The second man is of the Lord. 1 Tim. ii. 5. The man Christ Jesus. John i. 30, After me cometh a

man.

iv. 29, Come see a man which, &c.

vii. 12, He is a good man.

viii. 40, A man that hath told you the truth. ix. 11. A man that is called Jesus. v. 16, How can a man &c. x. 33, Thou being a man. Acts ii. 22, A man approved of God. Philip. ii. 8, In fashion as a man. Matt.