ents shall not go unpunished. The blood of their families shall be required at their hands. The severity of the punishment, which awaits them, exceeds all description: O that God would pity a thoughtless race, and bring them, before it is too late, to attend to things which belong to their peace. PHILOLOGOS. (To be continued.) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY UNIVERSAL. No. 2. (Continued from p. 397.) If we come down to more modern ages, numerous proofs are not wanting in all the principal nations to show, that the doctrine of the Trinity is generally received. The Persians, Dr. Hyde informs us, pay worship to Mithra, whom they call the Triplasian or threefold Mithras. This shows that the doctrine is known in Persia. An oracle quoted by Patritius declares the Trinity of the Godhead in these words. "In the whole world shineth forth a triad or trinity, which is a perfect monad or unity." Could the language of a learned modern, more forcibly, more perspicuously, or more accurately, express the doctrine of the Trinity in unity? Dr. Parsons mentions a medal found in Siberia, which exhibits the views which the Lamas of Tibet have entertained on this important subject. On one side of the medal is a representation of Deity with three heads and one body. Most certainly this was designed to convey the notion of a Trinity in unity. On the reverse is an inscription in the Ma gogian language, which Col. Grant translated into Latin, and may be thus rendered in English. "The pure, holy image of God is in these three forms; gather the will of God from them, and love him." Is it not here declared that God exists in three, "all equal in power and glory?" The medal is now in the royal museum at Petersburgh. Remarking on this medal, Mr. Maurice says, "If we direct our eyes from India northward to the great empires of Tangut and Tibet, and over the vast Tartarian deserts to Siberia, we shall find the same sentiments predominate. In the former country medals stamped with the figure of the Triune God, are given to the people by the DelaiLama to be suspended, as holy objects around their necks, or to be elevated in the chapels where the incomprehensible God is adored. The Hindoos, says Mr. Sonnerat, adore three principal deities, Brouma, Chiven, and Vichenon, who are still but one. This people cannot be surprised to hear the doctrine of the Trinity from the faithful missionaries of Jesus Christ. The doctrine must recommend them, and give credit to their mission: for Mr. Foster, in his sketch of Hindoo philosophy, says, "One circumstance, which forcibly struck my attention, was the Hindoo belief of a Trinity. These persons are by the Hindoos supposed to be wholly indivisible, the one is three, and three are one." May it not be asked, which most explicitly declare the doctrine of the Trinity, Hindoo philosophers, or Christian divines? Accordingly Sir William Jones as serts, that the Hindoos have always had a tri-literal name, as applicable only to the Supreme Being. Probably a tradition handed down from Noah. The name is O,U,M.* In Japan their Numen triplex, or triple divinity, carved with three faces, teaches the people the doctrine under consideration. In South America the same truth is taught in their Tanga. Tanga, or Three in One. In Tab asco in North America one of their idols had three heads about the middle. The names of the three principal deities of Otaheite signify Father, Son, and Spirit. In this circuit of the globe the doctrine of the Trinity is every where known. The Chinese are the most ancient people unmixed with other nations. One of their sacred books, called King, says, "The self-existent Unity produces necessarily a Second; the First and Second by their union produce a Third. These Three produce all things." One of their commentators, Lopi, says that, "The unity is triple, and this triplicity is one." Surely the Chinese cannot be offended or surprised, when they hear the servants of Jesus proclaim the Trinity of the gospel. Laostee, another Chinese commentator, speaks of the Three, who produce all, who give light and knowledge to all, who are present every where, animating all things;" and then adds, "Thou wilt in vain interrogate sense and imagination, respecting these Three, for sense and imagination, can make thee no answer; but contemplate by the pure Spirit alone, and thou wilt comprehend, that these Three are but One." Is not this almost the language of Christian humility? Liyong, commenting on this passage, says, Hi, Yi, Ouei, the Three men tioned, have no name, nor colour, nor figure; they are called Unity." The sect of Foe have an image, consisting of Three, equal in all respects, and precisely like that on the high altar of the Trinitarians in Madrid. Though an examination of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is reserved for another paper, we will for a moment inquire of some celebrated authors in the synagogue, that we may ascertain whether they held the doc. trine in unison with the rest of mankind. The Targum of Onkelos, written thirty years before Christ, asserts, that it was the Logos, who spoke to Moses, who spoke, and the world was made. The ancient Jewish: prayer, called Hosanna Rabba, publicly sung the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, forcibly expresses the doctrine of the Trinity. It was in the following words. "For thy sake, oh our Creator, Hosanna; for thy sake, oh our Redeemer, Hosanna; for thy sake, oh our Seeker, Hosan na." The learned Morneus says, that once it was the received doctrine of the Jewish schools that the famous words of the forty two letters, which explained the name of the great tri-literal name of Jehovah, which the Jews were not allowed to pronounce, was explained to have been," the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, three in one, and one in three." Can language more explicitly declare the doctrine? In the book of the famous exposi tor, Rabbi Ben Jochai, called Zoar, which the Jews respect 1most as much as they do the laws of Moses, is the following explanation of Deut. vi. 4. "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." Rabbi Ibba saith, This, oh Israel, is the an cient God, Jehovah. We say, Father, that is our God : the Son is also called God; the Holy Spirit, who proceedeth from these two, is called measure of sound; the one with the other unite, and are in league, because the one from the other cannot be divided; and for this we may say, observe to unite, Oh Israel, this Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, consider them one essence, and one substance, because all that is contained in one, is contained in the other; all was, is, and shall be." The same Rabbi in his exposition of Isaiah vi. 5," Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts," saith, "Ho ly," this is the Father; "Holy," this is the Son; "Holy," this is the Holy Spirit. Surely the synagogue rivals the church in the perspicuity and decision of its declarations in favour of the Trinity. Remarkable it is, that as geog raphy and history extend their researches, the belief of a Trinity is found more and more general through the nations of the world. In countries ignorant of Christianity; in countries remote from any Christian nation; and in ages prior to the Christian era, the doctrine of a Trinity has formed an article of their Unitarians, conscious of this fact, trembling before the corruscations of this two edged sword, have endeavoured to seize it for themselves. One of their writers does not deny that Jesus Christ, and the apostles taught the doctrine of the Trini ty; but he says, "they probably adopted it from the writings of Plato and Philo, who had it from the Pythagoreans, who had it from Orpheus, who had it from the Egyptians, who had it from the Hindoos; while the oriental writings abound with passages clearly expressive of this doctrine, no certain traces of it can be found in the Hebrew scriptures." What the language of the Hebrew scriptures is, we have yet to examine; but we have already heard the Trinity proclaimed by several of their most famous Rabbis, and in some of their most solemn acts of religious worship. Well might Augustine Philastrus affirm, that "the doctrine of the Trinity was esteemed as ancient as the world; it was reputed a heresy to think the contrary:" and the Bishop of Brixen declares, that "the Trinity of Christians was asserted from the foundation of the world." Such is a cursory view of the prevalence of this doctrine from remotest ages to the present time. We have explored the nations from Japan to Otaheite, from the Baltic to the Yellow Sea, and every where we find the doctrine of a Trinity. We learn it from their acts of worship, from their images, their medals, their traditions, their sacred books, and the names of their Gods. Though it is not every where correctly stated; though sometimes fancy, and ig. norance, and depravity, have given false additions to the sa cred and venerable doctrine; still the spirit and language of inspired truth is discernible. As the rivers of the world, far remote from their fountains become dark and turbid; so the current of truth, far from the celestial fountain of revelation often becomes obscure and min gled with error. Yet men of pure hearts distinguish its original excellence. From this brief and general men pray; thus he throws a view of the subject we presume, it may be said with confidence and safety, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not first conceived in the dark night of papal superstition, as some "ignorant ly" assert; it did not originate with the great founder of our religion, when he commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Trinity; it did not originate with Moses the lawgiver of Israel, nor with Abram their celebrated progenitor; it was not first taught on the banks of the Nile, nor in the wide domain of the Grand Lama; it was not first heard in the school of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, nor the hosannas of Palestine; it was not first inscribed in the sacred books of China, nor carved in the temples of Elephanta or America; but indubitably the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed in the garden of Eden, in the bowers of innocence, God himself the Preacher, and Adam the heaven-taught hearer. PHILO. (To be continued.) man upon his back to make him look upwards." He has some pathetic expressions. His method is admirably clear, beyond almost any other writers. Many of his sermons contain nothing remarkable, especially most of his posthumous works; yet some equal to any published before. His best pieces are at the beginning of his first and third folios. His discourses on evil speaking are excellent. He made great use of Barrow and Wilkins; with whom compare some of his sermons. There is sometimes great tautology. In controversy no man ever found such apt arguments, or more artfully exposed the sentiments of his adversaries. BARROW is the most laconic among English divines. He has an amazing number of thoughts, though not always well digested, nor plainly expressed; yet sometimes excellent in that respect. He attempts to introduce some new words, which not succeeding appear odd. Many useful scriptures and fine quotations from the classics and fathers are found in the margin. His works are very elaborate. Most CHARACTER OF THE OLD DI- of them were transcribed three VINES. [From Dr. Doddridge's private un WRITERS OF THE ESTABLISH ED CHURCH. TILLOTSON. There is such ease in his style and beautiful simplicity in his expression, as seems easy to be imitated; and yet perhaps there is nothing more difficult. For example; "God uses affliction to make times; some much oftener. Many of Tillotson's finest sermons are extracts from him. See that on evil speaking. The first volume of his sermons is the best. The method of WILKINS is very exact, but too scholastic; his style is almost as easy and pure, as Tillotson's. He abounds in excellent thoughts thrown together in a very intelligible manner. His sermons on national religion, beauty of providence, on prayer and preaching, and all his practical works deserve reading. Tillotson's wisdom of being religious, and many other pieces are taken from him. BEVERIDGE is much like Henry, but not equal to him. He shows great devotion. Some of his high flights are exceedingly weak. His private thoughts are most valuable. SCOTT is prolix and verbose, has many intelligent words, and some shocking passages; yet is on the whole excellent. His reasoning is strong and conclusive, though drawn to an excessive length. He discourses with great warmth and pathos on divine things; yet almost all appears too forced. His Christian life, is the best of his works, especially the first part. The The prayers at the end, are the best I have read. SOUTH is severe in wit and satire. Sometimes has fine language, often weak arguments. He shows an ill spirit of controversy, and has many levities unbecoming the pulpit. He seems to write from spleen, and has little that is calculated for usefulness. These sermons, if any, seem to be written by an evil inspiration. His best is his first volume, though there is great affectation of wit, and little appearance of being earnest with God. NORRIS is excessively affected, pert, and verbose; yet has some good thoughts. His sermons on the beatitudes are most celebrated. He carries matters rather too high. LUCAS. His style is very peculiar; sometimes exceedingly free, nearly approaching conversation; sometimes grand and sublime; generally very expressive. His method is not clear; but his thoughts are excellent : many of them taken from attentive observation of life. He wrote as one entirely devoted to God, and superior to the world. His practical Christianity, and his inquiry after happiness, especially the second volume of it, are most valuable. SHERLOCK. His arguments are strong, and exceedingly proper for conviction. His style. is plain and manly. His representations are very awful; and therefore his pieces on death and judgment are his best works. SPRAT is least considerable as a practical writer. His language is always beautiful; but many of his sentiments very weak. The Ciceronean style too much affected, and Tully directly translated for many sentences in some of his sermons, without any acknowledgment. All his sermons in one volume deserve reading. CLARKE has slipt into very high reputation chiefly by his peculiarities. He is very far from being a pathetic preacher; but his ideas are well ranged, and his scriptures well explained. Sometimes he takes more pains and time than is necessary to collect parallel scriptures, and uses solemn parade, to explain others, that have no difficulty. He takes more notice of atonement and grace than most of his followers and admirers. He and Tillotson have both made considerable use of the fratres Poloni, though they make ne mention of them. HORNECK, though not elegant, is exceedingly pathetic. He excels on devotional subjects. His |