By Rev. Bassam Michael Madany

Islam has engaged the attention of Christians ever since its rise in Arabia in the seventh century. One obvious reason is the fact that most early Muslim conquests took place within Christian lands. “The People of the Book,” as Jews and Christians were called, faced the choice of adopting the faith of their conquerors, or of remaining in their particular religion. Those who persisted in their Christian commitment gave a reason for this decision. They could not, and would not forsake the Biblical Messiah, their Lord and Savior. By implication, they refused to believe in the “heavenly” mission of Muhammad as God’s final Messenger commissioned to call the world to Islam. From the beginning of the Christian-Muslim encounter, the main debate centered upon these fundamental doctrines: the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Some time later, when the irreconcilable differences between the teachings of the Bible and the Qur'an were recognized, the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures became another core issue of controversy.

The Qur’an refers to Jesus as the son of Mary who was sent by God to proclaim a specific message to the people of Israel. The details of the birth of Christ, his teachings, and miracles, as recorded in the Qur’an, are apocryphal. What were Muhammad’s sources for his accounts of the person and mission of the Messiah? In dealing with this subject, Professor Neal Robinson, a British scholar, wrote in his book, Christ in Islam and Christianity:

As Islam developed over the centuries, so did its intolerant attitude towards Christianity. Its polemics were primarily directed against the Christian doctrine of God as Triune. Muslim theologians ridiculed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it had no basis in Allah’s “true” revelation in the Qur’an.  Furthermore, it was irrational. They also attacked the Christian doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, as revealed in the Christian Holy Scriptures, and confessed by the Church in the Nicene Creed. Therefore, these words of the Nicene Creed are abhorrent to the ears of Muslims:

Denying this Trinitarian affirmation of the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Qur’an responds:

Basically, Muslims cannot accept the deity of Christ in the Trinitarian formulation and it inevitably leads to their rejection of the Trinity.  Muslims charge Christians with the sin of “shirk,” i.e., associating a mere creature with the Creator. In Islam, this is the unforgivable sin.

When this theological context is fully grasped, the challenge facing Christian missionaries in Muslim lands becomes apparent in all its starkness. How can the saving message of the Gospel break through the obstacle of Islamic theological intransigence toward one of Christianity’s main tenets? When preaching the Word of God to Muslims, should missionaries downplay the importance of the Trinity, or the deity of Jesus Christ?

Lately, some Western experts on world religions, having adopted theological pluralism, minimize the great gulf separating Christianity from Islam.  In his book “Jesus in the Qur'an,” Geoffrey Parrinder, Professor Emeritus of the Comparative Study of Religions at the University of London wrote:

His “restatement” of the Christian religion illustrates how some Western scholars have downplayed the sharp differences between Christianity and Islam. Should their views achieve a wide acceptance among Western Christians, it would mark the end of their mission work among Muslims.

It is evident that Parrinder seeks to make inter-faith dialogue a fruitful enterprise and his book concludes with a radical reappraisal of fundamental Christian principles:

At the same time he deplores and denigrates the orthodox Christian view of the Atonement:

Such examples are cited to emphasize the fact that the consensus that had prevailed among Western Christian missionaries from the days of William Carey (1792) to the early years of the twentieth-century, no longer exists today.  In the past, regardless of certain doctrinal differences that prevailed among Protestant churches, they affirmed the supreme and final authority of the Bible, the Trinity, and the uniqueness, finality, and superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ and his substitutionary work on the cross. The consensus no longer exists as was well documented by Professor S. Mark Heim, of Andover-Newton Theological School, in his article, “Pluralism and the Otherness of World Religions,” published in FIRST THINGS, August/September,1992 ^[6]

What should be the Christian reaction to these developments? Parrinder’s thinking reflects the mindset of secular, pluralistic Western societies.  He seeks to bring Christian categories and doctrine into its orbit. But the tenets of the historic Christian faith must never be compromised in any way regardless of how unbendingly doctrinaire it appears to pluralistic secularists.  Do the Western modernist theologians ever stop to think that their Islamic counterparts will not bend to such categories either?  By suggesting that Christian theologians should gives Islam victory by default.

In the remaining part of this article, I would like to share with the readers of the Journal, how I dealt with this the doctrine of the Ontological Trinity in my radio and literature ministry among Arabic-speaking people over a period that spanned thirty six years.

I began proclaiming the Gospel in Arabic in 1958 over radio station ELWA, of Monrovia, Liberia. Later on, the Lord opened other avenues for the broadcasting of the Word on radio stations in Europe, and in the Middle East.

Even though I spent most of my active ministerial life in Canada and USA, I kept in touch with my field of endeavor through short wave radio, Arabic language publications, and frequent visits to the Arab world. The potential audience in the Arabic-speaking world is predominantly Islamic. How was I to do the work of an evangelist proclaiming the saving message of the Biblical Gospel?

Upon hearing a Christian radio program, most listeners would not have been sympathetic to its contents.  Sooner or later, they would discover that the purpose of the broadcast messages was to call them to faith in the Biblical Messiah, who was not only the son of Mary, but equally the Son of God. And this God was a triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It meant that I was asking them to change their loyalty from Islam to Christianity; from being followers of Muhammad to being believers in Christ and all that it entailed.  That was tantamount to asking them to apostatize. In their tradition, apostasy is a sin punishable by death. By what authority did I call people to make such a radical decision?

Ultimately, it was the Bible that gave me the authority, and the boldness to herald the Good News of Jesus the Messiah. As a member of the community known to Muslims as “The People of the Book,” I proclaimed the Good News that called for “repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20 (AV)

Realizing, therefore, the absolute necessity of proclaiming a Biblical message every time I recorded a radio program, what specific approach did I use? Both my Christian heritage and my knowledge of Islam, led me to adopt the evangelistic system Paul used in his Letter to the Romans. Theologically speaking, it meant that I would begin with an emphasis on Biblical anthropology, followed by an exposition of Biblical Christology and soteriology. Then, I would go on to explain that salvation proceeded from the plan and unmerited love of the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I would further explain that the existence of this God, i.e., of the Holy Trinity, pre-dated the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicea (325 AD). The Trinity was a living reality, before the creation of the cosmos. A further reference to Ephesians 1, helped expound the role of the three persons of the Trinity in planning, procuring, and securing our redemption.

Continuing study of Islamic doctrine reinforced my decision to follow such a course of exposition. For notwithstanding the strong criticisms that have been leveled by Muslims against the Bible’s authenticity, the Trinity, and the deity of Jesus Christ, their greatest objection is to Biblical anthropology. Whereas the Christian view of man’s predicament is marked by recognition of the drastic results of the Fall, the Muslim view of man’s present condition is very optimistic. It may be described as a thoroughly Pelagian point of view.

This was articulated well in a 1959 article appearing in the quarterly The Muslim World in which the Islamic doctrine of man was discussed. It contained a quotation from a paper read by a Muslim professor in 1957, at a gathering of some Christian and Muslim scholars that was held in Morocco. The Muslim professor said:

In commenting on the paper, Edwin Calverley, the then editor of The Muslim World wrote:

According to Muslim anthropology, man has no need for a divine Savior; he needs only to know in order to do the will of Allah. By performing the requirements of Allah’s Shari’a (Law,) man achieves the goal of his existence and gains entrance to Paradise.

Following is a brief description of the approach used in the radio messages beamed to the Arabic-speaking Muslim world. My starting point, following the order of the Letter to the Romans, was to expound the Biblical anthropology showing the lost condition of man, and his inability to please God by his own efforts.  Actually, the Qur’an follows Rabbinical Judaism in teaching that humans, by their own efforts, can achieve righteousness. The critique of Judaism in Romans 9-11, supplies us with a similar critique of Muslim “soteriology.” Read Romans 10 and imagine Paul addressing a Muslim attempting to establish his own righteousness by works rather than believing in God’s righteousness.

In Chapter 2, Paul stressed the fact that a mere knowledge of God’s revealed will was not sufficient to achieve reconciliation with Him. Muslims regard themselves as enlightened, since they believe they possess God’s final revelation of His Law in the Qur’an. They believe the followers of other religions are living in ignorance. The strong words of Paul in unmasking the superficiality of Rabbinical Judaism fit Islam as well. But lest the bearer of the Good News be perceived as exhibiting racial arrogance or superiority, Paul announces the fact that None Is Righteous.

It must be a shattering experience for a Muslim to hear such words proclaiming man’s inability to justify himself by the “deeds prescribed” in God’s sacred law. When the Holy Spirit opens his heart to receive the teaching in Romans (1-3), then he is ready to welcome the proclamation of the Gospel and its exposition in chapters 3:21-8.

Once a Muslim accepts the Biblical teaching that the law, far from being a means for man’s justification, manifests his enslavement to sin, he is open to accept the Gospel as expounded in the Letter to the Romans. Patiently and methodically, the Christian messenger must teach the Scriptures. Teach how they witness to Jesus Christ, who was both the son of David, and the Lord of David. Teach how he alone could fulfill the law on our behalf, how he healed the sick, and restored some to life, revealing his Messiahship and his primary mission to seek and to save the lost.

According to Hebrews 1, our Lord brought about the completion of God’s revelation; but he did more than that:

Thus far, I have outlined my approach in teaching the Holy Trinity, the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, in my radio ministry to Muslims. I would like to reiterate, that the Trinity must be proclaimed from the Scriptures, and by following the way it was gradually revealed within the Bible.

During my years of radio broadcasting, one episode remains fresh in my mind. Early in the nineties, I received a letter from a Muslim merchant who was residing in London, England. After commenting on my command of the Arabic language, he wondered how I could believe in the Trinity. The letter did not surprise me; after all, he was sharing with me the classical Islamic critique of the Christian doctrine of God.

The following is roughly a summary of my response to this honest inquirer:

What I pointed out to the Muslim correspondent was his obligation, as a fellow human being, to deal with me “quid pro quo.” Just as I do not accuse Islam with dualism, Muslims should refrain from regarding Christians as propounding a plurality of gods.

When we study the history of Islamic teachings, we become aware of deficiencies inherent in its doctrine of God. For example, Muslims teach that God is the “wholly Other.” He is a transcendent Being. There is no similarity whatsoever between the Creator and man, the crown of creation. Muslim theologians have devised the notion that “Allah huwa bila kayf” i.e. Allah is unlike anyone else. Neither in the Qur’an, nor in the Tradition (Hadith), is there anything close to the teaching of Genesis 1:26a, 27: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (NIV)

The doctrine of the image of God in man is another fundamental Biblical teaching. In the radio broadcasts I referred to it often, not only when dealing with creation, but also when teaching the doctrine of redemption. But I would never mention the fact that man is made in the image of God and after His likeness, without saying immediately, that I was actually quoting from the Pentateuch, or as the Muslims call it, “Tawrat Moussa.”

Since Islam propounds the doctrine of a solitary and transcendent God, it follows that no Muslim claims that he or she, can know Allah. Muslims study Allah’s Shariah and seek to conform to its demands or prohibitions; but they cannot “know” Him. Nothing in their tradition approximates these words of Paul: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection …” Philippians 3:10a NIV

It was this teaching about an impersonal God in Islam that contributed to the rise of the mystical movement known as Sufism. The Sufis played an active role in Islamic history as they tried to fill a spiritual vacuum created by the strict unitarianism of Islam. Over against the teaching that Allah could not be approached except through obedience to the demands of the Shariah, they pointed to a different way of pleasing the Almighty and thus attaining the bliss of Paradise.  Sufi leaders taught that through meditation and a strict discipline, a Muslim might arrive at the goal of existence. One such spiritual exercise they advocated was the recitation by a group of assembled men, of the Beautiful or Ninety-nine names of Allah.

Eventually, Sufism departed further and further from Orthodox Islam.  As an Egyptian scholar put it, “Sufis tended to be heretical. They taught that intuition was the way to understanding. Some of them advocated monism, while others went as far as pantheism, and claiming that there was no difference between good and evil.” ^[8]

The basic problem with the Islamic doctrine of God is that He remains an impersonal and remote being. A Muslim’s relation to his creator is that of a slave (‘abd) to his master. This explains the frequently given name of ‘Abdallah among Muslims. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity reveals the centrality of God’s attribute of love, as we notice in Christ’s prayer on the eve of his passion. “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” John 17:24 (NIV)

In conclusion, the relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Missions to Muslims and to followers of other religions can appreciated by converts who find comfort and power to persist in their new-found faith, by tracing it back to the actions of the three Persons of the Trinity, as Paul taught in the opening words of Ephesians 1:

Notes

1. Christ in Islam and Christianity by Neal Robinson. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1991. p.22

2. The Qur’an. Surah #112

3. Jesus in the Qur’an by Geoffrey Parrinder. Rockport, MA: Oneworld Publications, 1995. p. 14

4. Parrinder, p. 173

5. Parrinder, p. 169

6.  From the introduction: “We have witnessed in recent years the flowering of various Christian pluralistic theologies calling for unequivocal affirmation of the equal validity of all world faiths. It is argued that Christianity (and to some extent other traditions) has been infected by a virulent exclusivist virus, the disease of imagining its religious truth superior to all others and its path to salvation the only one. Advocates of pluralistic theology maintain that there is no antidote to this virus but a consistent reconstruction of the fundamentals of Christian faith.” Pp. 29-35

7. The Muslim World, Vol. 49, No. 1, January 1959

8. “The Rational and the Irrational in Our Cultural Heritage,” by Dr. Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, Dar Al-Shurouq, Beirut, Lebanon (This book is available in Arabic only, it shows no publication date; most likely, it was published in the 1970s.)

The Moslem World – April 1912 – Vol. II, No. 2
MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIANISM AND ISLAM

MISSIONARY work among Mohammedans is beset with many difficulties, which are not encountered in other fields. Missionaries among Moslems have to deal with a fanatical opposition to the Christian faith in God as triune. To speak of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, causes in every bigoted Moslem an outburst of hatred that lies latent in his heart. Taking this into consideration, would it not be better to emphasize the ethical character of Christianity and to leave the obnoxious doctrine of the Trinity severely alone?  If the signs of the times do not deceive us, some missionaries are inclined to answer this question in the affirmative. We would be sorry, indeed, if such a policy should ever prevail. This would involve a compromise, which is impossible for a loyal Christian who believes that Christianity is the religion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  It would be a calamity if anti-Trinitarian leanings ever obtained a foothold in mission fields among Moslems. Of course, missionaries should make use of common-sense and pedagogical wisdom in presenting the revelation of the Triune God to fanatical opponents, but as followers of Jesus Christ they must also have the courage of their convictions.

There have been many anti-Trinitarian movements in the Church of Christ since she began her course. I prefer to call these movements anti-Trinitarian instead of Unitarian, because they are a reaction from the Trinitarian development of the Christian faith. It is true, modern Unitarians look upon their conception of God as an advance upon the traditional Trinitarian development; their view, they maintain, is more in harmony with culture and science, than our Christian faith in the triune God.

This is a grave mistake; we also wear a modern dress, although Christianity is old. We believe in progress on the right and safe tracks, but modern Unitarianism is an advance along a wrong road; it is a descent and not an ascent; it does not represent progress but rather retrogression. I also prefer the term anti-Trinitarianism to that of Unitarianism, because Christians are, as far as their relation to polytheism is concerned, Unitarians, Monotheists in the true sense of the word. It may be that the unity of God has been placed now and then in the background, but as a rule the Christian Church has always upheld the unity of God. But we protest on behalf of God’s unity against an abstract uniformity in God’s essence. We adore, as true Theists, the mystery of the Holy Trinity, as revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, and we also admire the work of the Church in building up the doctrine of the Trinity.

Let men criticize as they will the formulation of this doctrine in the works of Systematic Theology, but let them have reverence for the mystery of the triune God. We cannot comprehend this mystery in its height and depth, its length and breadth; we apprehend it, however, by faith, and see so much glory and beauty in it that we rejoice and are glad. Our faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the only true and living God, seems to us so reasonable that no rationalistic attacks upon it can really alarm us. The rationalistic pseudo-Trinity, viz. God, freedom and immortality, shows the barrenness of any monotheistic view that is not based upon the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

We are rich in our Christian faith; we become poor if we enter into a compromise with anti-Trinitarians in any form.  F. C. Bauer, the father of the Tübingen School, who cannot be accused of being a friend of traditional orthodoxy, was correct in his statement that Christianity would have lost its character as the universal religion of mankind if Arianism had been triumphant at Nicea.  Let us with boldness proclaim it everywhere in the face of anti-Trinitarians of every description, that Theism and faith in the triune God are intimately joined together. We have real communion with God, because in Jesus Christ we are in blessed relationship with Him. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, because He is the Son of God.

God created man as a religious being, forming him in His likeness. This endowment gave him an indelible character as God’s offspring, which even the deepest degradation of his sinful estate cannot efface. This is the reason why savage tribes still possess a craving after God. How can this communion with God, which alone is eternal life, but which was lost in Adam’s fall, be restored to man?

By a God, perhaps, who in majestic transcendence is enthroned on high, out of the reach of His creatures? Certainly not! Even if it were possible to be admitted to the court of this heavenly monarch and to have audience with Him for a few moments as Mohammed claimed to have enjoyed, would this be communion? The deistic conception of God excludes communion with God most rigidly. Or is it, perhaps, possible by a God, who, without being transcendent, is immanent in the monkey as well and in the same manner as in man, God’s image bearer?  Such an immanence, wherein as a rule modern Unitarians delight, does not constitute conscious communion between God and man.

Neither Deism nor Pantheism lead us up to God; the former is cold and unattractive, the latter attractive to a certain extent, but unreal. It is a fact, that the anti-Trinitarian conception of God forces Mohammedans as well as modern Unitarians, as a rule, to vacillate between Deism and Pantheism. No wonder these systems are rather philosophical than theological, hence they share the character of most of the philosophical systems, viz. to be either deistical or pantheistical, either Kantian or Hegelian.

In Christian Monotheism alone the transcendence and immanence of God are so intimately joined together that the transcendence of God fills us with awe and reverence, which leads us to adoration, while the immanence of this transcendent God pursues us to Himself with the cords of love, creating within us filial confidence and devotion. The unity of transcendence and immanence, although it is beyond our comprehension, is more easily understood than the abstract Monotheism of the anti-Trinitarians. When we say that we believe in the triune God, we indicate thereby that we believe in a God who is separated from His creatures, having placed His majesty above the heavens, and who is near them in His Son, who was willing to be His servant, and assumed our nature in order to be obedient unto death. Our God is the living and true God, because there is a divine movement in the eternal inter-relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The true nature of this inner divine life we cannot comprehend, but it is a reality, which we apprehend by faith. In the works of God, ad extra, this life of God is clearly manifested. The Father is the source of everything, the Son reveals the Father’s footsteps in creation, and the Holy Spirit changes the chaos into a wonderful cosmos. This life of God, which truly is immutable but by no means immovable, guarantees us our communion with Him, who is the life of His creatures. And applied to the sinful condition of mankind, we have approach to God the Creator through the Son, who not only reveals Him as our Father but who also dies to save us, in the Holy Spirit, who by indwelling in us completes and perfects our communion with the triune God.

We repeat that the Holy Trinity is a mystery, but it is a mystery which secures to us not only a pure theology, but also a joyful and active religion, and this is not a speculation or poetical conception, but a positive reality. Rationalism has no place in it, but it is thoroughly rational. Truly, there is communion with God, because He is triune in His unity. To know this God, who is the only true and living God, is eternal life, because He unites us to Himself in Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, and who as the Logos became the Son of man and the Lamb of God. Away with that abstract unity which is the unity of a stone. I have often thought that the stone in the Kaaba at Mecca, which the pilgrims kiss, is a fit symbol of the Moslem Allah.  How oppressive this abstract unity of God must feel when the soul longs for real communion with its Maker. Some one has said, if the locus de Deo is wrong, then the whole system goes wrong with it. It influences the doctrine of man in his integrity as well as in his sinful condition and especially is the doctrine of salvation obscured, when there is no place for a divine Saviour. It sometimes seems that we are not always conscious of how great the treasure is that we have in faith in the triune God.

Let us beware of compromises with Mohammedanism. Let us uphold the banner of Christianity, notwithstanding all the enmity of the Moslem world against it. “Let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross and despised the shame.” If we are unwilling to preach to the followers of Islam the truth, nothing but the truth and the full truth, it would be better to give up the evangelization of the Moslem world and to leave the field to modern Unitarians, who soon would find out their affinity with the followers of Mohammed in the doctrine of God, and be convinced that they have nothing to give to hungry and thirsty souls who long for righteousness. Cultured Unitarianism has a hopeless task to perform in grappling with the fanatical Unitarianism of superstitious Moslems. The testimony of history is not at all favorable to Unitarianism as a missionary agency. In Ulfila’s days Arians had succeeded in establishing Unitarianism among the Goths, and it seemed for a time as if Arianism were to gain the day, in a considerable part of Europe at least. But Arianism has vanished as snow and ice in spring. The Unitarian churches established in those days have left no vestige behind them. They exerted no influence on the nations among whom they dwelt, and of missionary enterprises undertaken by them hardly anything is known.

And who were the great missionaries during the critical period of the migration of the peoples?  They came from Britain, and belonged either to the Catholic or the Chaldean Churches. They had their differences and quarrels, yet they were to a man believers in the triune God. By them the continent of Europe was evangelized. Their enterprises were blessed, and their work was by no means ephemeral. Their methods of work were imperfect, their faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, was strong and active. That the Churches of the Middle Ages were not entirely uprooted during all the upheavals and catastrophes of those dark days, that they were able not only to keep their own faith but also to spread faith in regions beyond the civilized world of that day, they certainly owed to their firm belief in Christ as the Son of God, which virtually is belief in the triune God.

Allow me to draw your attention also to the detrimental influence Unitarianism has exercised on missions during the reign of the Rationalism of the eighteenth century. Pietists and Moravian brethren had begun a fine missionary work, the former in India and the latter in West India and other fields. The University of Halle, where Francke taught in the spirit of Spener, was the centre of pietistical missionary enterprises. The beginnings were grand, and promised much for the future. Ziegenbalg, Schwartz and Plütschau were very much blessed in their work. It seemed as if India was to turn to Christ and to surrender to Him. But, alas this was not to be. Pietism, with all its extravagances, yielded to the illumination; and Halle, strange to say, became the citadel of a dry and cold Rationalism, which discarded the revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures and with it the doctrine of the Trinity, in order to establish a kind of deistical natural religion. The missionaries, who were then in the field, joined the ranks of the Rationalists, and they soon found out that there was no work for them to do. They left the field, and the promising beginning ended in complete failure.  The modern Unitarianism of Rationalism acted as a night frost does upon vegetation. At the same time the missionary efforts of the Moravian brethren continued to grow and flourish. Their theological conception of the doctrine of the Trinity was possibly crude; still their faith in the Godhead of the Son of God was strong and full of devotion. And this soteriological aspect of the doctrine certainly is the core of the matter.

There is really no place for Unitarians in the mission field. Ethics divorced from faith in the triune God is no lever to lift up sinful men from their lost condition. They need the Father in heaven, who sends down from thence His Son as His servant to rescue them from perdition, objectively through His atoning work and subjectively through the application of this work through the Holy Spirit, whereby they learn to apprehend it by faith in Jesus Christ. Trinitarian Christian workmen, full of the Holy Spirit, are the only ones who have reason to expect success in their work anywhere, and especially among Moslems.

Unitarians may succeed in extending Western culture, but people are not saved by culture. Cultured Moslems, stripped of their fanaticism and superstition, remain what they were—enemies of the cross of Christ and of the doctrine of the Trinity. And if their hatred turns into indifference, they are, perhaps, further away from the kingdom of God than their co-religionists were in their former condition.

NICHOLAS M. STEFFENS.
Holland, Mich, U.S.A.