It is clear from this passage, that Dr. Watts considered the "Sacred Three," not as real, but only as " scriptural persons :" that is, according to his own explanation in the paragraph last quoted, figurative persons. That is to say, the doctrine of the trinity is a figurative mode of speaking. Take away the figure, and it is nothing else than Unitarianism.

The inquiry concerning Jesus Christ, in the fifth section, is premised with the following remarkable declaration: "there is not one text which I know of, in all the Bible, wherein he is called the Son, only and purely relating to his Godhead, but all refer rather to his inferior nature, or his office; for Godhead cannot be generated or derived." Accordingly he does not hold by any means the sound doctrine, that Jesus is God because the second person in the Godhead, the Son, is united to the man ; but because "the Father dwelleth in him." "This second person, this man Christ Jesus has the true Godhead united to him, or dwelling in him, in a peculiar manner; i. e. the man Jesus Christ is assumed by the great God into so near and intimate an union with himself, that they are often represented as one complex person, or personal agent. The man Jesus Christ is the inferior agent or medium of the great God, who acteth whatsoever he pleases in and by the man Jesus Christ." p. 24.

Here, the man Christ Jesus, and the second person, are synonymous terms. The second person is formed by the union of the Father with a human being. This certainly is not the doctrine of the Trinity, for it allows no distinction of any kind in the Godhead, which is essential to that doctrine. Indeed we do not perceive that it really differs from the simplest form of Unitarianism,

His opinions respecting the Holy Spirit are quite as distant from real orthodoxy. Indeed his section on this topic is a set argument against the personality of the Holy Spirit; that is, if there be meaning in languague, against the doctrine of the Trinity. We refer our readers, without saying a word more, to the following passages.

"The best idea that we can find, which either the ancient or modern Jews have received concerning the Spirit of God, is that of a real, almighty, operative power or principle of knowledge or action in the true Godhead; for I do not find they ever agreed to carry their ideas so far as to make him a real, distinct person in the Deity. "Now we can hardly doubt but that the general notion of the Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, when Christ first came on earth, and which inspired Zechary and Elizabeth, Mary the mother of Christ, Simeon and Anna, and John the Baptist, Luke 1st and 2nd chap. in the beginning of the New Testament, was the same notion or idea of the Spirit, which the Jews had received from all ages by their Scriptures, and from their fathers by education and tradition.

"And 'tis most highly reasonable to believe, that our blessed Lord, who is truth itself, used those words of the Old Testament in the same sense in which the Jews of that day used them without re. proof or blame; and that he would not impose upon them, nor on bis disciples, by putting new and unknown ideas upon common and well known words, or names, in their conversation with him.

"In order to find what is the true scriptural idea of the Holy Spirit, let it be added also, that as the Scripture makes use of the analogy or resemblance between human and divine things, to represent the Son of God to us, so does it also in representing the Spirit of God.

"Now the spirit of any thing amongst the Jews, and other Eastern nations, was the perceptive and active power or principle of that being. So the spirit of a man is the principle of knowledge and ope ration in man; so the spirit of a beast is the same; and the apostle Paul confirms this opinion, and establishes this analogy between things human and divine. 1 Cor. ii. 11, What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.'

"The Spirit of God therefore, according to this analogy, must be that all-wise, almighty, and eternal principle of consciousness and of powerful operation which is in the Godhead." p. 27, 28.

"It may be intimated here also, that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, when it speaks of things after the Ascension of Christ, very generally or for the most part means, that power or influence of the eternal Spirit of God, which proceedeth from the Father, and which was communicated, or to be communicated by Christ, when he was exalted, to his followers here on earth, to confirm his gospel and to call in and secure his subjects or it may be described thus ; That divine influence which was eminently given to Christ at his ascent to heaven, to attend his gospel and bear witness to it by miracles in the first age, and by sanctifying grace and comfort ever since. 'Tis very useful to bear this idea always in mind in reading the New Testament.

"And indeed if the Holy Spirit were really a true and proper person, it would be as difficult to account for all these and many more expressions in Scripture, which cannot possibly be ascribed to a proper person; and if in some places these impersonal expressions, or in other places the personal expressions, must be figurative, why may not my explication of them do as well as the contrary? And thus the Spirit of God need NOT ANY WHERE BE CONSTRUED INTO A REAL PROPER DISTINCT PERSON." p. 30.

"Yet let it be remembered (as is said before) that even in some of these impersonal senses it may be sometimes represented as performing personal actions, according to the Hebrew idiom; as Wisdom, the Law, the Scripture, Righteousness, Sin, Death, and many other things are described as persons. So the anointing teacheth us all things, 1 John, ii. 27. The Spirit lusteth against the flesh,' Gal. v. 17. i. e. the new nature wrought by the Spirit." p. 31.

"But I know not any place of Scripture which requires us to make express personal addresses, either of prayer or of praise. unto the Spirit, as we are taught to do to the Father and to the Son; nor can I find where we are required to fear him or to adore him as God, or to trust in him, or so much as to follow after the knowledge of bim; but for these benefits which we receive from him, we are directed by precepts or examples in Scripture to address or pray to the Father or the son, Luke, xi. 13, Rom. xv. 13, John xv. 26, but not to the Spirit himself.

"Surely if praises or prayers were necessary to be offered distinctly to the Holy Spirit, 'tis very strange that of all the writers of the New Testament, not one of them should give us some hint of it in precept, instruction, or example; but neither Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, Paul, nor Peter, James, nor Jude, have left us any thing whence we can infer it.

"'Tis true I cannot think it unlawful nor utterly improper upon some occasions to say, Blessed Spirit of God, enlighten me in the knowledge of the truth: or, we give thanks to thee, O Divine Spirit, for thy boly influences; for since the Holy Spirit is true God, I think he may be adored; we may say, Blessed be God and his Spirit; as we may say, Blessed be God and his wisdom, or his power, or his grace. But I think the two plainest reasons why we are not directed to address express prayer or praise unto him, or perform divine honour to him directly, is first, because the greater part of Scriptures which speak of the Spirit of God mean his influences, his operations, &c And these are not proper objects of such express addresses. And secondly, because whensoever the Father or the Son is addrest, the Holy Spirit, who is the conscious and active power, or Spirit of God, is also worshipped, though not in an express and distinct manner.

"It may be observed also, that though our Lord Jesus Christ is sometimes addrest by prayer in Scripture, because he is true God, yet 'tis but very seldom this is done, that so the general method of Christian worship may be maintained; that is, to make our direct addresses to God the Father by the mediation of Jesus Christ his Son, and by the aids of the Holy Spirit, Ephes. ii. 18." p. 32, 33.

All this we conceive to be most obviously and unequivocally opposed to all correct faith in the orthodox trinity. His mode of answering "objections about these representations of the Holy Spirit," is a still further proof of this.

"There are many Christians indeed, who cannot suppose that several texts of Scripture can be explained by the Spirit of God, considered as an essential power or principle in the Godhead, because the Spirit of God is always represented as ministering to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ, as sent by both the Father and the Son, on all his messages, and seems to be distinguished from them as another person in the Form of Baptism, and in 1 John v. 7, where Three bear record in heaven, and in other Scriptures.

"But we must remember, that not only the Hebrew tongue, but almost all languages represent many things in a personal manner, which are not real persons: such as Life, Death, Virtue, Time, Fate, Nature, Providence, Conscience, Appetite, &c. And we may say, God and his Spirit, as well as we may say God and his Providence, God and nature, do this or that.

""Tis objected also, that the Spirit of God is sometimes represented in a lower character, as a mere messenger, John xvi. 13, When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak,' &c.

"But we should consider, that though the Spirit of God itself, or the divine principle of knowledge and power in Godhead, cannot be so properly represented in a lower character, yet the influences and operations, the gifts or effects, of the Spirit of God, which are often called the Spirit, may be said to be sent, conveyed, or bestowed upon men; and that even not only by God the Father, or by Jésus Christ, but also by the hands of the apostles. Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit, Acts viii. 17." p. 35.

Such are the contents of this pamphlet. We apprehend that the sentiments advanced and defended in it, do not materially, if at all, differ from those which he had publicly given to the world before his death, and which are generally attributed to him under the title of "the indwelling scheme." But though there should perchance be found any shades of difference, we are certain that they are very small; and that his former writings, as well as this posthumous pamphlet, afford no sufficient pretence for classing him amongst trinitarians. He indeed loved and used their phraseology; he had been educated in it, there were holy associations with it in his mind, and he could not bear to give it up. But no one can glance an eye over the passages we have quoted above, without being convinced beyond question, that he affixed to it a signification altogether foreign from its obvious meaning, and totally irreconcilable to it. In words he confessed it, but his heart was far from it.

It may be thought, perhaps, a matter of small consequence what the opinions were of Dr. Watts, or of any man who lived a century ago; and that it is scarcely worth while to enter into an inquiry concerning them. In regard to most men it would be so. But in regard to a man universally known, respected and appealed to; upon whom the majority of Christians look as the standard of faith, and whose poetical writings exert an influence over the minds and hearts of believers, great beyond all calculation; we esteem it right and proper to step in and see whether there be any mistake or not. We hold that it is improper and unjust

to regard him as the champion of a faith, which, in his ripest and latest years, he did not maintain; and it is time that we should cease to propagate, under cover of his early writings, and be. neath the sanction of his venerated name, a sentiment, which he has, with great solemnity, virtually disavowed.

But enough of this. There is another thought suggested by the work before us, to which for one moment we must beg the attention of our readers.

Nothing can be plainer than what is taught us from this example of Watts, and others similar to it; that the doctrine of the Trinity is a matter of words and phraseology alone. The contention is not, on the part of its advocates, so much for a certain opinion, as for a certain form of language. He that adheres to this language, is accounted to be sound in the faith; he that abandons this language, bas departed from the faith. This is no random assertion, but a plain and demonstrable matter of fact; and it constitutes, in our view, one of the most deplorable features of the system. It is well known, that there is as little community of belief amongst those who contend for this creed, as between almost any classes of believers. The variety of interpretations given to these words, is almost endless. And yet every one who takes the words, in whatever sense, is considered and treated as a true believer ; while every one who rejects these words, is, for that simple and single reason, considered and treated as a heretic. Dr. Watts was able to abide by the language in which he had been educated, and has been suffered quietly to retain his reputation and influence; while many others, not perhaps differing at all in sentiment from him, have yet been branded with obloquy, because they departed from the prescribed mode of speech. Such is trinitarianism it is built upon, it consists in, words; and every inan who will repeat the words, construe them as he may, is sound in this article of faith.

This appears to us a most important view of the subject; for if it be thus-as every man of reading and observation must know that it is-it is an unsettled, loose, indefinite system, pretending to great exactness and precision, yet neglecting the sense in an unworthy adherence to words; and therefore we are fully justified in opposing all attempts to force it upon us and our fellow christians, and in repelling the imputations cast upon the character of those, who care more for the sentiment of their creed, than for the language in which it is stated.-Nay, we must be permitted to say, that we think the whole history of man does not afford a more lamentable instance of weakness, to say no