on any

ing that Theology can ground none of her assertions other basis than the Trust or Faith which those Attributes have ever inspired, we are fully aware of the clamors such conclusions will excite, not only in the ranks of Philosophy, but still more in those of Theology. Philosophy, already pretty well convinced by the vain attempts of philosophers themselves of the inanity and mutual contradictions of the à priori and à posteriori proofs of the Existence of God, may indeed be induced to give a fair hearing to the plain statement of the question at issue. Philosophy having merely adopted a negative position is almost disinterested in the admission on rational grounds of the proofs of the Revelation of the Existence of the Almighty under Attributes which alone have ever constituted His Word or Name. Not so Theology; when the peculiar and distinct character of the knowledge Man has of God is once admitted,--the Nature and the Ways of Him whose Word or Name forms as the Almighty the only ground of Trust or Faith, are also removed by that very fact beyond the grasp of human conception. Theology stands convicted of deceit on the very admission of the Existence of the Supreme Being having been revealed. If we find ourselves obliged to have recourse to desultory preliminaries in order to make ourselves understood when we would say that in the fact of the Revelation of God as the Almighty resides the real ground of Trust in Him as such, and that His Word, or Name, or Attributes, which are the same, constitute His Law, being the call that awakened Man into Life,-if in short the plain and bare statement of that great fact be adduced as the firm ground of Faith, it is because it is met with an exclamation of surprise and by the question of what Revelation we allude to, for if Heathen Theology had, according to Warburton, Revela

tions in bushels, Christian Theology not only has them by thousands, but even the renewal of the primary Revelation of the Word in Christ is generally presented in a manner that makes a starting point of an Event which, without Unity with the primary Revelation, would leave Christianity at the mercy of Theology. But, the Almighty be praised, such is not the case. A standard exists in the Word of God, in His Attributes, which Theology cannot recuse, and to which it must ever refer, whilst the Revelation of Him as the Almighty becomes the ground of Divine Faith so that even Christianity cannot claim another basis. The duty of the man that admits of the Call of God in the Appeal made by the Revelation of His Existence, being evidently that of trusting in Him as in the Almighty, whilst he devotes himself to Him whose Attributes or finite qualities constitute the Law or the Word, and have ever been His Name. Now, this ground can never become that of Faith until Theology shall stand convicted of having practised deceit, either intentionally or unintentionally, since that leaves the matter the same and is indifferent to the thing itself. Theology surrounding the Rock on which Divine Faith reposes as a citadel, with thousands of Revelations and Inspirations, Theology not only reduces the Revelation to their level, and prevents that great event from being clearly distinguished, but it binds its fate to that of those outskirts or mere human conceptions. Enthusiasm may, it is true, prove a ready excuse for many such errors; and we know that the spirit of religion, when directed on the wrong road, i. e., on the Nature and the Ways of Him whom that religion admits of as only known as revealed by His Word, ever finds expression in devout belief in such wonders as set the most at defiance all the authority of relative

or positive belief. But if His Worship consists in Man's devoting himself to His service, and in following the path pointed out in His Word, and not merely in heartfelt thanksgivings, or what is more common, in selfish requests, then His Attributes become the aim of Man. Is trust in the Almighty at variance with the finite character of those attributes? Does not rather the Absolute nature of Trust in the Almighty constitute a motive for positive or relative Faith in the pursuit of such an aim? Would religious enthusiasm be damped by what is, not an interpretation of fancy, but one that dearly purchased experience has pointed out to many, if not to all? Theology would then become fancy, and the Attributes of God Religion. It is not that the various interpretations given by human Reason to those Attributes would be devoid of strife and discussion. But in adopting rational faith in the Deductive Philosophy as a criterion of the finite attempts of human Reason, with Goodness and Morality extended far and wide by means of Education or Intelligence conferred as a help, such strife and discussion would probably be avoided. Credulity would at least be divested of its noxious character. Fanaticism would assume the garb of ignorance. Fired with his system, the rational believer in God might also imagine that he saw what in reality did not exist, and fancy at the same time that prejudice did not make a part of his intellectual baggage. But error in this path, although much to be lamented, would always prove retrievable however late it might be pointed out, for man alone would be conceived as the authority; whilst error in Theology or Religion, at the present time, is subject to far deeper evil, because Theology speaks in the Name of God respecting His unknown nature, and when the error becomes too glaring to be concealed, Theology is

ever ready to say that in charging her with a fallacy men are attacking God.

As far as human knowledge reaches respecting the human race, and excepting isolated tribes or individuals, the notion or idea of God appears as coexistent therewith. We aim at proving that the original covenant between the Creator and Man, His creature, was Trust or Faith in Him, because He was only known and revealed as the Almighty. Why Human Will went astray we know not; but we own that the conclusions to which our inquiries had led us were strengthened greatly by the passage in Genesis (ch. iv. 26) which is considered to relate to the introduction of false Gods, in the times of Enos, grandson of Adam, and therefore, at all events, refers to an occurrence which took place in the most early period of the traditional history of our race. The passage stands translated thus in the text of our version, "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord," whilst the translation in the margin is, "then began men to call themselves by the Name of the Lord;" and again, "then began men to call the Lord by Name." Now, we own that we were greatly struck with this text, at a time when we were asking ourselves the question whether our conclusions were not altogether erroneous, whether it was absurd to say that all Idolatry, either symbolic or mythic, was nothing else than a false application of the Word or the Name of God so distinctly the same under the various idioms which expressed it. We had already come to the conviction that all Symbols, even the Sun, had received the name of the Supreme Being when Man conceived the idea of taking them as the representatives of the Almighty, and we could not refrain from finding that that view was clearly expressed in the text. The oft-debated

question of Monotheism finds in this fact a ready solution. And we may be permitted to remark that the mysterious terms employed by the Apostle John, in order to express the nature of the Word, far from being at variance with our interpretation, adapt themselves entirely thereto.

This great eventful fact renewed in Christ, only admits of Christianity on the ground of the Unity of that Revelation. And it was, indeed, the assertion of the Unity of Christ with the Father that drew forth from the Jews the cry of "blasphemy," and prompted them to stone Jesus. And yet these mysterious words, the Unity of Christ with God, constitute the very basis of Christianity, for Christian Faith and Divine Faith are one. What was blasphemy to the Jew, was Religion to the Christian, and the same continues to obtain to the present day. And it is in that Unity that we foresee the future universal triumph of Christianity.

same.

The great distinction that exists between the various incarnations of Brahma, and of Buddha and Christianity, is involved in that mysterious Unity. The Revelations are One; and the Attributes are the The Trinity was no new doctrine, for God, the Law and the Prophets, as uniting in One all religion, find in Christianity an explanation. The incarnations of the various Eastern Worships of ancient times, and more especially of Brahma and of Buddha, not to mention the incarnations of the Grecian Mythology, were beliefs, it is true, of the embodying of the Almighty under a human form. An incarnation, therefore, was the readiest conception of the Union of Christ with God. Theology, that pretends to know all about the Nature and the Ways of the Supreme Being, only made known in a manner quite distinct from all other