impossible to be otherwise than pleased with his company, though few would take him as their pattern, or form themselves on his model. Between him and Mr. Clairmont the most perfect familiarity evidently subsists, notwithstanding the difference in the cast of their minds and characters. In the course of the evening I took occasion to ask the farmer, what he thought of the "connection between taste and virtue?" "What! Clairmont's been at you already (said he). If Clairmont were to undertake it, he could prove a connection between that tobacco-box and virtue, or between taste and my old-hat, and he would soon puzzle me, if I were to take the other side of the question. He would begin by defining his terms, and as sure as he defines a thing, so sure am I of knowing nothing about it. Virtue I understand without a definition; but as for taste, with all the definitions in the world, I cannot make it out. 1 look at things with my eyes as well as I can, and try to see the beautiful in a pitchfork, or the sublime in a dunghill; but still the pitchfork and the dunghill seem just the same; but Master Clairmont is blessed with a second sight, which makes things look so vastly pretty to him-there's a place hard by the house, where this taste hunter goes to stare at, what he calls the picturesque. I fagged up there from home, one hot summer's day, in order to enjoy the prospect with him; but, I assure you, I found twice the enjoyment in a nap under the oak tree.

"And now, Sir (said the honest farmer), allow me to ask you a question, for I understand something of your notions from my friend. How can a young man of your understanding be so foolish as to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? (I felt a little disconcerted at so unexpected an enquiry)—the connection between the persons in the Trinity, is as absurd as the connection between taste and virtue; and if I were to assert, that you, and I, and Clairmont, are but one man, L should be set down for a fool, or a liar." "I might assert, Mr. Allen (replied I), that we three are one, inasmuch as we are of one genus, or one common nature.' At this observation, Mr. Allen seemed a little foiled, and after taking his pipe two or three times from his mouth, and repeating one common nature”. one common nature"-he began mainly to dispute the principle, though in rather a confused way. "How do you make us of one common nature? Our tempers and dispositions may be quite different from each other-no two men are alike.”. -Here Mr. Clairmont relieved his friend from his embarrassment. "And why, farmer, need you be afraid to admit us of one common nature? What will Henry gain by the admission? Though we are of the same genus, still are we numerically distinct-still are we three men. Does our friend.

66

mean to say, that the three persons in the Trinity are only one, in the same sense as we are one by a similarity of nature? If so, it follows as a positive consequence, that the three persons are three distinct gods, as much so as we are three distinct men, and polytheism is avowed at once."

"That is clear enough," said the farmer, with as much satisfaction as though the argument had been his own. "It is impossible (continued Mr. Clairmont, addressing himselfto me) to give any illustration of the Trinity, which can make the doctrine appear even plausible, as long as we are allowed the exercise of our understandings. The Trinitarian tells me, he acknowledges but one God; and yet at the same time calls upon me to believe in the existence of three persons, each of which is God-the two positions destroy each other, and to attempt any argument to show the absurdity of such an hypothesis, seems a hopeless task, if the mere statement of it does not strike the mind as carrying contradiction on its face. Two opposite propositions cannot be both true-either there are three gods, or there is but one. The Trinitarian can choose which he pleases, and the Trinity must fall to the ground on either side.

There are those who, in order to get rid of the train of difficulties which the orthodox notion of the Trinity brings with it, have considered that the Deity is but one simple and undivided being, and that the three persons of the Trinity are the three different relations in which the same being stands to man in bringing about his salvation-God the father, as creator; God the son, as redeemer; and God the holy ghost as sanctifier. But what wretched nonsense must this make of all those passages in which Jesus declares, he acts under superior direction"I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me;" that is, of himself, according to this hypothesisand again," the father is greater than I;" that is, I am greater than myself. But why is that Being, of whose vastness it is impossible to form any other than mean conceptions, who has lighted up ten thousand suns, and fixed the course of infinite worlds!--why, I say, is that Being brought down to humanity, and wrapt in swaddling clothes, but merely because the vanity of this magnificent dust, called man, has fancied it essential to his salvation?

The doctrine of the Trinity is, in every point of view, impiously absurd; but you will tell me it is taught in the scriptures. This I deny; and, if it were, the question with me would not be, is the doctrine of the Trinity true, but are the scriptures true? The ground on which I admit them as true, is their accordance with the reason and nature of things; but if this doctrine formed a part of them, that ground is at once de

J

stroyed. What a degraded idea must men possess of revela,, tion, who seem only to suppose it was designed to defy all rea sonable belief, and to contradict all probability. There never was a more striking instance of the triumph of ignorance and superstition over truth and philosophy, than in the general reception of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the abhorrence expressed at the simple notion of the unity of the Deity. When I conceive, in my own mind, a benevolent, self-existent, omnipotent Being, the source of all wisdom, and the author of all things, I cannot but ask myself, what would the Trinitarian have more-what is there dangerous in such a sentiment??? “ There is nothing dangerous, Mr. Clairmont (said I) in the bare sentiment you have expressed; but then you give up the divinity of God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." tainly I do; because it is absolutely necessary to preserve the divinity of God the Father; for if you give the attributes of Omnipotence to either the Son or the Holy Spirit, you thereby deprive the Father of them, it being impossible to suppose the existence of two or more Omnipotent Beings. The Atheist and the Trinitarian run into opposite extremes, both in direct violation to the principles of philosophizing the one believes the world could exist without a sufficient cause, the other dates its existence to more causes than are necessary."

"Cer

Here I interrupted Mr. Clairmont, by observing, that I be lieved as much as himself in one God. "That cannot be (said the old gentleman); for when I say, I acknowledge the existe ance of one God, I mean only one, and thereby exclude a belief in the existence of all other Gods-whereas the definition of your one is three. I suspect, my friend, that in reality you know not what you believe-you persuade yourself to believe an impossibility, a direct contradiction, and there is no axiom but what you will break through-no truism but what you will kick down-no self-evident proposition but what you will violate, in order to retain it. Thus, for example, the whole is greater than a part; but according to the calculations of orthodoxy, each of the persons of the Trinity is God, and yet all together are no more than God.” According to my judgment (said the farmer), it ought to be a God, and carry two." ، Excuse (continued Mr. Clairmont) the drollery of my friend ; I know how it affects the timidity of prejudice to hear the sportive sally of wit directed against subjects which it esteems sacred; but truly when a doctrine has in it nothing but the absurd, it is presuming too much on Christian charity to expect, that by merely calling it sacred, satire can be disarmed of its weapons, or ridicule converted into respect. I know, Henry, your mind is in an unsettled state as to the Trinity; you neither know how to receive, nor how to reject it; you have

66

dared to doubt, you have commenced an examination of the scriptures, not to confirm your prejudices, but to convince your understanding. Go on the investigation is honourable→→ truth should be sought after as for hidden treasure. The scriptures are invaluable-only let all inquiry into them be conducted on principles broad and copious. An important doctrine must not rest on a word, or a verse, or a figure of speech, or be gathered from an equivocal sentence, or a difficult passage, or a doubtful translation; but every leading truth of Revelation should flow with the stream, and drift with the current of the the sacred writings. In ascertaining whether the Trinity is a revealed truth, examine whether the Deity first made himself known to man as a simple or compound Being (if the expres sions be allowed); what the people who received the divine oracles believed in this respect-what were the sentiments acknowledged, and taught by the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets whether Jesus or his apostles made any communi cation concerning the divine nature, different from what had been previously set forth by the teachers and messengers of the Mosaic dispensation-whether the doctrine of the Trinity formed the ground of any argument, the theme of any dissertation, the subject of any dispute, the object of any illustration. From such an expansive mode of research, you will come out with astonishment, to find that this Trinity, which has given endless motion to the pens of polemics, which has kindled the faggots of persecution, and bent the knees of devotees; in the belief of which whole nations have united, and revolving ages passed away, is a nonentity, and that to the Christian there is NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE.

The faithful old-fashioned monitor, in the corner of the room, warned Mr. Allen it was time to depart-a joke—a knudge— a squeeze of the hand-ended our evening's entertainment.

In conversation the next day, Mr. Clairmont gave me the following account of his friend :-"Mr. Allen is a worthy man;-if his huge bulk were reduced to an essence, it would leave nothing but good nature. In mind he exhibits a strange compound of sense and weakness, a combination, of clearness and confusion. Sometimes his ideas are plain and simple, and his argument nervous; at other times he is trifling, puerile, and sophistical; on some occasions he has a pertinency of remark, almost exclusively his own; on others his thoughts are vague, and his conceptions exiguous. We have been engaged in controversy, more than once, with some of our superstitious neighbours on doctrinal points. I have listened with pleasure to Mr. Allen; when, in eager dispute, he has pursued a chain of reasoning with peculiar force and perspicuity, my feelings and interests have all been engaged in the argument,

and when alive in every pore to the success of my friend, he has suddenly run against some trite ridiculous notion, diverged from the point in dispute, and in a moment his whole faculties have become eclipsed. Among the scriptural pursuits of my friend, Prophecy has occupied a large share of his attention. The study of prophecy must certainly prove interesting to the Christian, as it carries with it an evidence of the truth of scripture, and tends to declare the providence and superintendance. of a benevolent Being over human affairs. But the prophecies should not be read with childish curiosity; it is not for man to undertake the task of fulfilling them, or to go in search of a prophecy for every trifling event which comes under his Rose; but Mr. Allen is so eager to find an accomplishment for scripture prediction, that if we were at sea, and were to observe a porpoise thrown up by the storm, I should not be surprized to hear him descant on it, as the beast which arose out of the sea, in the Revelations.-In the pursuits of the chace, Dashwood, our Justice of Peace, had rode over the farmer's corn, broke down his fences, and done serious mischief to his grounds; accordingly he commenced a prosecution against him, when suddenly he discovered, that Paul's "Man of Sin" was none other than the sporting Magistrate; that part of the verse which de scribes him as "God sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God," he thought peculiarly applicable" the temple of God" was our parish church, in which the 'Squire has a fine seat; and where the apostle describes this Man of Sin, as "shewing bimself that he is God," it was only meant to convey an idea of his pride, and aspiring consequence; the term God implying power, and being in the scriptures given to the assembly of the judges, which makes the word singularly appropriate to Dashwood, who is a Magistrate.

asked Allen, what was to be understood by the Lord's destroying this Man of Sin "by the brightness of his coming?" &c. "The coming of the Lord (said he) is not to be understood as a personal appearance, but merely a display of his power and judgment, in any remarkable or ordinary way-he supposed the 'Squire might be thrown from his horse, and break his neck.

I need only tell you, that the farmer immediately stayed all legal proceedings, being more satisfied with this discovery, than with any damages a jury could have given; and the 'Squire may hunt over his grounds with impunity, as long as he lives.