methods of interpretation, bad as they are, and all the ingenuity of controversy, dexterous as it is, cannot give a plausibility to the alleged scriptural proof of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. Here the trinitarian doctrine is most accessible, and here it ought to be assailed. All its advocates have been pressed with this difficulty. We know not what solution the rest have given of it. That of Epiphanius is this, and perhaps on his ground it would not be easy to find one more satisfactory; "the apostles writing by the inspiration of the Spirit, he did not choose to introduce much commendation of himself, lest it should give us an example of commending ourselves."

We repeat this, because we think it deserves more attention than it has received. There are three propositions essential to the received doctrine; they are these:

There is a separate existence, God the Father.

There is a second, God the Son, equal with the Father. There is a third, God the Holy Ghost, equal with the Father and the Son.

If either of these propositions is disproved, the doctrine which they go to compose is disproved with it. The first all Christians agree in. The second and third some deny. The third is the most clearly without support, yet has been the seldomest assailed. Mr. Eddy has spoken of the utter deficiency of evidence for it, but he has not followed his remarks to the consequences which they manifestly admit.

We are pleased with Mr. Eddy's work, because it takes up the argument on purely scriptural ground. Here it is that we always wish to see it maintained. To us indeed the doctrine of the trinity plainly appears to be self-contradictory; and we might reason a priori, that it could not make a part of a reve. lation from God; for what is self-contradictory cannot be true, and what is not true cannot come from him, whom the works of nature declare to be a God of veracity, because of benevolence. But it is useless to reason on the impossible supposition, that such satisfactory evidence as we have for the divinity of the scriptures, and such intuitive evidence as we have against a contradiction,† should run counter to each other; and it is idle

* On this subject we wish to be entirely secure from misapprehension. The agency of the Spirit of God in affecting the hearts of men, and in various offices of divine benevolence, we admit most willingly and gratefully. It is its personality, as a separate subsistence from the Father, to which we say the scriptures give no countenance.

To acquit ourselves of the charge of having made any over-statement in calling this doctrine a contradiction, we give the following extract from a work of one who thought it very true and important. Let any plain

to prove what must be, when we can look and see what is. We receive the scriptures for the word of God. The question then as to any article of faith is, Is it written there? As to that of which we speak, we do not care to see it shown how shocking to the original principles of belief it is, but we would always identify the defence of its opposite with the defence of this proposition; the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in holy scripture, but the reverse is most explicitly taught. Here let it be tried, and by this stand or fall. All that, as well wishers to the cause of pure and undefiled religion, all that we wish as to this disputed article of faith, is, that it may be examined fairly on its merits by the infallible test of revelation. With the Bible in their hands, it is not impossible that men may now err, for there are a thousand solicitations of early impression, of example, and of association of one part of the scheme of belief with another, to betray the judgment. But with a careful and serious study of it, and with continual effort and earnest prayer to be led to the true understanding of it, the mind will be extricated by degrees from the toils which have been so long weaving to embarrass it, and may grasp at

Christian say, whether he can find in scripture support for such statements as some of these. They are laid down with all solemnity in Doolittle's body of divinity. There is a passage to much the same effect in one of South's Sermons.

"1. That the same person should be the Creator and yet a creature. Is not this wonderful?

"2. That the Father of eternity should be born in time. Is not this wonderful?

"3. That the Mighty God should be a weak babe. Is not this wonful?

"4. That the virgin's womb should contain him, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain. Is not this wonderful?

5.

That he that had both father and mother, should have neither father nor mother. Is not this another thing in him very wonderful?

6. That his Father should be greater than he, and yet he be his Father's equal. Is not this also wonderful?

7. That he was before Abraham was born, and yet Abraham was born before him, about the space of two thousand years. Shall not this be accounted wonderful?

"8. That he was David's son, and yet David's Lord. Was not this such a wonder, that the great Rabbies among the Pharisees could not understand it?

"9. That the wisdom and word was an infant, that could not speak a word. Who with words can declare how great this wonder was?

"10. Who can reckon up the wonders in him? He was omnipotent, and yet weak; infinite, and yet finite; invisible, and yet was seen; immortal, and yet did die; he was a most spiritual being, and yet bad flesh, and blood, and bones. That he was God, what more glorious? That he was flesh, what more inglorious? That he was God in flesh, what more marvellous ?",

truth with something of its native vigour. Mr. Eddy's work is a guide for the scriptural inquirer. His faith he declares to have been "the result of diligent, prayerful, and laborious search after truth." He has the claim to be heard of one, who, when his earliest doubts occurred, "determined to satisfy his mind from the only correct source of information," and who was diligent and wary enough, before he suffered his judgment to be decided, to transcribe "every word from the beginning of Matthew to the end of Revelations, which appeared to bear on the question." Let those who dispute his conclusion, look at his reasons, and they who think lightly of his faith, imitate his zeal and caution in inquiry.

We like Mr. Eddy's little work, further, because it shows him in the light of what we account the most noble, elevated thing on earth, a man who will act undeviatingly on his responsibility to God, let what will cross his way. He doubted whether what he had believed religious truth were indeed such; it became his duty to examine. He examined, and his sentiments were changed. It became his duty to do nothing inconsistent with his recently acquired views of divine truth, and he refused to do any thing inconsistent with them. Here is the consequence.

"My opinions are represented by many as indicating a state of mind, altogether indifferent as to my future welfare, and even as betokening doubts of a future state of rewards and punishments; a state rendered certain, in the opinion of some of the best and most learned men, from the very light of nature, independent of all revelation. Brethren, can you believe that life, eternal life, has all at once become of no value to me? And that for no other reason than to be exposed to hatred, calumny and reproach, I have voluntarily departed from him who is the way, and the truth, and the life? Do you think that my mind has become callous to the solemnities of judgment and the joys of salvation? Can you believe that I have willingly, and without a cause, incurred the loss, not only of Christian fellowship, but private friendship? That I have at once become insensible to all that is most dear to man, either in time or eternity? You must either believe this, or you must do me the justice to acknowledge, that my opinions are the result of careful investigation, and avowed under a serious sense of duty, and a full persuasion of future responsibility."

On the meekness of this expostulation we cannot stay to remark. The independent uprightness which was the occasion of the charges is worthy of all praise. The spirit which prompted them is one of the paradoxes of what is esteemed by some the religious character. Difference of religious views is the only thing which is regarded as releasing men from the otherwise universal duty of a charitable judgment of each other. On that ground only, which is most sacred, the cruel passions, it

Оп

is thought, may war. In other cases the feelings are understood to give some warning to the conscience; but a zealot sanctifies his outrage by accounting it the victory of his duty over his weakness. If there is any thing which, more than all the rest, is sickening to a fair mind, and urges it to look to a better state of being, which may correct the inequalities of this, it is to see the treatment which an honest man receives tor avowing a sentiment which conviction and a sense of duty will not let him conceal. No sooner is such an avowal made, than men of character and sensibility-responsible, respected, unspotted men become the scoff of every conceited neighbour, who chances to be afflicted with a zeal beyond his knowledge. In such a contest all the usual supports, on which, in other cases, men who have earned them may lean, are unavailing or worse. Piety is called in question; profound and humble investigation termed the pride of reason and learning, and respectability but furnishes a theme for vulgar sarcasm. They who can urge no better recommendation to notice, can style themselves the weak things of this world," and think themselves appointed to confound what they denounce as "the things that are mighty." To a discussion the most important and sometimes the most intricate, there is no man but thinks himself equal; and when general ideas fail, personalities are at hand; and that may be made up in positiveness and vehemence, which is wanting in argument.

We make no application of these remarks, except to say, that, to what they describe, the method of the author of these pages is a contrast. We have seen that he did not profess his novel sentiments with impunity, but he defends them without any appearance, not to say of uncharitableness, but even of irritation. We admire the temper which his little work exhibits. He appears in it a man of honourable and intrepid, but kind and considerate mind; ardently attached to protestant principles, and showing his respect for them by forbearing to encroach on them in others; jealous of any aggression on his right of private judgment, but too well taught in the school of Jesus to be willing to repel it at any sacrifice of the fruit of christian truth, the christian temper. If controversy were conducted only by such men, men who, having some delicacy themselves, knew how to respect others, it would no longer be such a dreadful thing. Truth might be sought at no cost of brotherly love, nay, by its exercise and culture; the tree be pruned without shaking from it a healthy blossom. We are not so blind to what is going on about us, as to expect to witness much of this. As yet, in most parts of our country, what New Series-vol. I.

10

we hold for the sense of scripture is much in disrepute. We cannot expect, that they who profess it will not meet with discouragements like those of Mr. Eddy; and we rejoice, that they have so fair an example of the manner in which, by a Christian, such discouragements should be encountered. For ourselves, we are taught to value our privileges. We live in a place (and while we sympathise with others, whose lot is less favoured, it is not lost on our gratitude) where difference is not danger nor estrangement; where men know how to tolerate without acquiescing, and are willing to have our friendship, though they cannot go with us in our belief. Now and then we hear a railing accusation from without, but we are spared the trial of having enemies of our own household.

We wish this little work may have a wide circulation, for it can teach nothing either in doctrine or in temper, but what is worthy to be learned.

RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

The Evangelical Missionary Society of Massachusetts.— This society has for its object, to provide for the destitute inhabitants of our own country, the means of christian instruction and moral improvement. It has now existed for twelve years, and is increasing in importance and influence. Its mode of operation upon the people of our new settlements, especially the peculiar attention it gives to the education and improve-ment of the rising generation, has rendered essential service to the cause of religion, and been favored, under the blessing of a kind providence, to the advancement of knowledge, and piety, and happiness, and, we trust, to the salvation of many, who without its kind aid might have lived and died with little learning and still less religion. It is our intention at some future time to lay before our readers a more minute account of its origin, its plan, its operations and success. For the present we confine ourselves to the publication of the last annual report, from which some pleasing intelligence may be gathered.

The annual meeting was holden in Boston, the first day of October, 1818, when a discourse was delivered by the Rev. Dr. Bancroft. The following in the Report of the Trustees.

In reviewing the origin, progress, and influence of the E. M. Society, the Trustees consider it an imperious duty, to invite