pecially to those who are engaged in the studies preparatory to the clerical office, the views which have now been prèsented will not, I trust, appear unimportant. Amidst the conflict of opinions, by which our community, in its unrestrained freedom, is agitated, there is full opportunity for every form of religious thought or imagination to have its course without check or hindrance. While we prize this liberty as we ought, and consider it as founded on the only true theory of man's intellectual and moral rights, we may not forget the evils for which it leaves open room, when ignorance, fanaticism, or levity tamper with the high interests of religion. For these evils the efficient remedy must be sought, under God's providence, in the just direction and moral activity given to public sentiment by the educated and enlightened friends of truth. Here then is an obligation, which should be felt in all its power by those who pass their early years amidst the studies which open and liberalize the mind. If you would meet well and honorably the claims of the community, to whom you are to go forth, let the great cause of religion engage your best thoughts, your deepest, most permanent and generous affections; and let the spirit gathered from philosophy and classical learning be illumined and sanctified by the spirit of the Gospel. Take Christianity to your own hearts, and carry it forth into society wherever your lots shall be cast, not as the servile subjection of the mind to authority, not as the official business of the ecclesiastic, not as a code of observances, of forms, or of rites, but as the principle, the vital principle, of the intellectual and moral growth of man's nature, the sanctifying power of his spiritual being, the source of that expansion of the soul, which is the bright and beautiful dawn of endless improvement in a better world.

ART. VIII. —A Statement of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, concerning the Nature of God, and the Person of Christ. By ANDREWS NORTON. 12mo. pp. XL. and 332. Cambridge. Brown, Shattuck, & Co. 1833.

THE germ of this treatise is contained in an article, which was originally published in "The Christian Disciple" for 1819, and which was called forth by Professor Stuart's "Letters to Dr. Channing," to which, however, the Professor, it seems, did not consider it as an "answer"; for, writing to a correspondent in Scotland, under date of 8th September, 1830, he says, "In regard to the Letters themselves, they remain unanswered in my country to the present hour"! We know not precisely what Professor Stuart's ideas of an answer are; but, for ourselves, we thought the article in question, though not confined to the arguments and illustrations introduced in the Letters, contained a pretty thorough refutation of the doctrine which it was their purpose to establish. "Unitarians," continues the Professor, "build not here on the Bible!" This, we know, is the old reproach, uttered against us from the pulpit and the press, by those who think it criminal to read and hear what we preach and write, and who are satisfied to receive and propagate the vulgar accounts in which our sentiments are caricatured. But Professor Stuart ought to have known better. Such a man is entitled, we conceive, to no indulgence on the score of ignorance. If he is not informed, he knows at least where information is to be had; and he is bound, according to our old-fashioned notions of propriety, to seek it, before he writes, - bound to do so, from a regard to the public, and respect for truth and charity, if not for his own reputation, and this, whether he indite theological epistles to Mr. Adam of Dundee, or engage in the perilous task of classical exegesis.

The present work of Mr. Norton, we think, will satisfy any candid mind, that Unitarians here do make some little pretensions to "build on the Bible;" that it is quite possible, at least, for a person to bring to the examination of it a mind of singular purity, deeply imbued with a love of truth, trained to habits of accurate thought, and possessing all the assistance derived from a familiar acquaintance with the writings of Christian

antiquity, and yet, strange as it may seem to Professor Stuart, not find there his doctrine of three "distinctions" in the Divine nature. We are not accustomed to speak of the living or the dead in terms of extravagant eulogy, certainly not of the living. In the present case our commendation would be superfluous. As a critic and theologian, Mr. Norton has long ranked in the very first class. But the present treatise will not need the aid of his high reputation to give it weight and influence. Those who know any thing of him or his writings will readily credit us when we say, that it exhibits a rare union of good sense, choice learning, discrimination, and sound logic, which will place it among our standard works in theology.

And the publication is timely. Thinking men, it is true, may be inclined, at first view, to regard such a work as unnecessary. It will, no doubt, occur to them as an objection to a publication of this sort, that the doctrine of the Trinity is now to be numbered among exploded errors, that it is, in truth, altogether an obsolete doctrine, and we may therefore be spared the task of its refutation. Of this fact, and the objection growing out of it, Mr. Norton thus speaks in his Preface.

"The discussion is one in which no scholar or intellectual man can, at the present day, engage with alacrity. To the great body of enlightened individuals in all countries, to the generality of those who on every subject but theology are the guides of public opinion, it would be as incongruous to address an argument against the Trinity, as an argument against transubstantiation, or the imputation of Adam's sin, or the supremacy of the Pope, or the divine right of kings. These doctrines, once subjects of fierce contention, are all, in their view, equally obsolete. To disprove the Trinity will appear to many of whom I speak, a labor, as idle and unprofitable, as the confutation of any of those antiquated errors; and to engage in the task may seem to imply a theologian's ignorance of the opinions of the world, and the preposterous and untimely zeal of a recluse student, believing that the dogmas of his books still rule the minds of men. It would be difficult to find a recognition of the existence of this doctrine in any work of the present day of established reputation, not professedly theological. All mention of it is by common consent excluded from the departments of polite literature, moral science, and natural religion; and from discussions, written or oral, not purely sectarian, intended

to affect men's belief, or conduct. Should an allusion to it occur in any such production, it would be regarded as a trait of fanaticism, or as discovering a mere secular respect for some particular church. It is scarcely adverted to, except in works professedly theological; and theology, the noblest and most important branch of philosophy, has been brought into disrepute, so far, at least, as it treats of the doctrines of revealed religion, by a multitude of writers, who have seized upon this branch of it as their peculiar province, and who have been any thing but philosophers.

"Why, then, argue against a doctrine, which among intelligent men has fallen into neglect and disbelief? I answer, that the neglect and disbelief of this doctrine, and of other doctrines of like character, has extended to Christianity itself. It is from the public professions of nations calling themselves Christian, from the established creeds and liturgies of different churches or sects, and from the writings of those who have been reputed Orthodox in their day, that most men derive their notions of Christianity. But the treaties of European nations still begin with a solemn appeal to the Most Holy Trinity'; the doctrine is still the professed faith of every established church, and, as far as I know, of every sect which makes a creed its bond of communion; and if any one should recur to books, he would find it presented as an all-important distinction of Christianity by far the larger portion of divines. It is, in consequence, viewed by most men, more or less distinctly, as a part of Christianity. In connexion with other doctrines, as false and more pernicious, it has been moulded into systems of religious belief, which have been publicly and solemnly substituted in the place of true religion. These systems have counteracted the whole evidence of divine revelation. The proof of the most important fact in the history of mankind, that the truths. of religion have not been left to be doubtfully and dimly discerned, but have been made known to us by God himself, has been overborne and rendered ineffectual by the nature of the doctrines ascribed to God. Hence it is, that in many parts of Europe scarcely an intelligent and well-informed Christian is left. It has seemed as idle to inquire into the evidences of those systems which passed under the name of Christianity, as into the proof of the incarnations of Vishnu, or the divine mission of Mahomet. Nothing of the true character of our religion, nothing attesting its descent from Heaven, was to be discovered amid the corruptions of the prevailing faith. On the contrary, they were so marked with falsehood and fraud, they so clearly discovered the baseness of their earthly origin, that when imposed upon men as the peculiar doctrines of

Christianity, those who regarded them as such were fairly relieved from the necessity of inquiring, whether they had been taught by God. The internal evidence of Christianity was annihilated; and all other evidence is wasted when applied to prove, that such doctrines have been revealed from Heaven." pp. iii. - vii.

-

Were we to consult our inclination, we should quote the whole Preface, for we have met with nothing of a recent date, which has appeared to us to convey so just a view of the modes of thinking, the errors, the dangers, and tendencies of the times.

The object of the first part of the work is to show that the modern doctrine of the Trinity, taken in connexion with that of the unity of God, is essentially incredible, and no evidence therefore is sufficient to establish it. The same is true, the author argues, of the doctrine of the "hypostatic union, as it is called, or the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, in such a manner that these two natures constitute but one person." These doctrines cannot therefore form parts of a divine revelation, for such a revelation cannot teach what is incredible or absurd.

The evidence from the Scriptures to show that the proposition, that "Christ is God," is false, is then presented. It is shown to be false by the very passages adduced in its support; it contradicts the express and repeated declarations of our Saviour; it is opposed to the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and all the facts in the history of Christ; and finally, none of those effects were produced, which would necessarily have resulted from its first annunciation by Christ, and its subsequent communication by his Apostles." The next section treats of the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, in the Platonic philosophy, and the succeeding, of the history of that of the hypostatic union.*

Mr. Norton proceeds to consider the "difficulties that may remain in some minds respecting the passages of Scripture alleged by Trinitarians," difficulties which can be

* In some remarks on this topic in a former number (Vol. VI. p. 39, New Series), we took notice of what we conceived to be an error of Dr. Priestley in supposing that the Fathers who preceded Origen maintained that the logos was united in Christ with a rational, as well as animal, soul. We are happy to find in Mr. Norton's book a confirmation of our opinion. The error in itself is not of much consequence, but still it may be worth correcting.