The bishop of Sarum said, "By person here is not meant what we commonly understand by the word, a complete intelligent being, distinct from every other being, but only, that every one of the blessed three has a peculiar distinction."

Dr. South supposed the three persons to be "three postures," or something "equivalent to postures." He wrote "animadversions" on the explanation given by Dr. Sherlock. These were answered by a friend of Sherlock, in a work, entitled "The doctrine of the trinity placed in a due light." This writer however was so far from vindicating Dr. Sherlock, that he expressly affirmed, that the "three persons are no more than three attributes or properties. Goodness in God," said he, "is infinite, and therefore is God; the same must be said of wisdom and power, and yet they are not three Gods but one God.”

The writer of "twenty eight propositions," supposed the Father only to be God, in the highest sense of the word;-that it is no contradiction to suppose, that he produced other beings so perfect, that they have all perfections excepting self-existence, independence, and that of being the original of all things; and that between the three there is an "inconceivably close union in will and nature."

These explanations, being perfectly contradictory to each other, excited considerable animosity among those, who were in favor of the general doctrine, and gave great advantage to those, who did not admit it as an article of

faith.

The anonymous writer, abovementioned, availed himself of this advantage, and exhibited the explanations as at war with each other. Some of them he considered as perfectly unitarian, and others as tritheistical. Such a state of things very naturally interested the feelings of Mr.Howe, and induced him to show his opinion, which was as follows:

That the three persons are "three distinct numerical natures, beings, or substances." He also used the terms "distinct essences" and "distinct spirits." The union he conceived to have been eternal, and more than Dr. Sherlock's "mutual consciousness." He illustrated it by the union of the soul and body, and also by the union of "the vegetative, sensitive, and intellective natures in

man.

As these three natures are united in one man, so he supposed three spiritual natures united in one God. This union he believed to be consistent with such perfect distinction, that the three persons enjoy the most "delicious society." Yet he maintained, that neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, considered "sejunctly or by himself," could be called God in an adequate sense of the word, because each of the other two is included in that name.

In relation to these views Dr. Calamy states, that "Mr. Howe met with very different treatment from different persons, according to their different notions; by some he was the more respected, while others wished he had left this argument untouched, and kept his thoughts to himself; and some, out of the abundance of

their zeal for orthodoxy, could scarce forbear charging him, as well as Dean Sherlock, with downright heresy." To this uncharitableness the Doctor replies in the words of Bishop Stillingfleet: "There is," said he, "a kind of bitter zeal, which is so fierce and violent, that it rather inflames than heals any wounds that are made; and is of so malignant a nature, that it spreads and eats like a cancer, and if a stop were not given to it, it might endanger the whole body."

We feel happy in having no inclination to asperse the fair character of Mr. Howe, by any severe remarks on his very singular hypothesis. The better way for us will be, in view of his imperfections, to reflect on our own liability to be misled; and in view of his many moral excellencies, to go and do likewise. We shall only state two questions, and then dismiss his views of the trinity. If it be, as Mr. Howe supposed, that God is three Spirits, or beings, so united, as to be one Being, and so distinct, that the three persons enjoy the most delicious society, why is there no intimation of these facts, in any of the examples of prayer or praise recorded in the Bible? And why did God assume the name I AM, rather than wE ARE?

The life of this eminent saint embraces so many interesting particulars, and his occasional writings furnish so many useful remarks, that we hardly know what to omit or where to end. But it is time to draw to a close. In that part of his life, which was subsequent to the events that

have been narrated, he had great occasion for grief, on account of the continued animosities among those, who professed to be the disciples of Jesus. To a man of his meek and pacific spirit, such things must have been distressing. "He seems to have been born into the world," says Dr. Calamy, "to support generous principles, a truly catholic spirit, and an extensive charity." For these purposes he was eminently qualified, both in ability and temper; and to these purposes he devoted a great part of his time and talents. He lived until April A. D. 1705. In his last sickness he enjoyed that peace and comfort, which the world could not give, and which was a foretaste of that reward, which grace has provided for those, who by patient continuing in well doing lay up treasures in heaven. With humble submission to the will of God, he manifested a desire to depart from this uncharitable world, that he might breathe in purer air, and enjoy the society of those, who are perfected in love.

A few years before the death of Mr. Howe, Dr. Watts wrote an elegy on Mr. Thomas Gouge. In closing the elegy he brought Mr. Howe to view, in the following manner:

"Howe is a great but single name: Amidst the crowd he stands alone; Stands yet, but with his starry pin

ions on,

Drest for the flight and ready to be gone.

Eternal God, command his stay, Stretch the dear months of his delay; O we could wish his age were one immortal day!

To justify the intolerance of the present day, it will probably be pleaded, that the points, now in debate, are of far greater importance than those on account of which Mr. Howe was driven into exile. This will be granted; and for this very reason we have the greater need of candor in examining the subjects; and the more dangerous it must be to rely on the opinions of those, who have gone before us. But is not an intolerant spirit a never failing sign, that the person, who possesses it, has never candidly examined the reasonings of those, who dissent from him? Where is the man of any sect, noted for uncharitableness, who can lay his hand on his breast, and say, "I have patiently, candidly, thoroughly, and prayerfully examined the arguments of those opposed to my opinions?" Would it not be easier to find a number, who, like the Jewish High Priest, prior to any proper examination, in a petulant manner, exclaimed, "He hath spoken blasphemy! What further need have we of witness?" Can it be that men of this temper have ever duly considered the importance of the points in debate, or their own liability so to err, as to condemn the guiltless?

Moreover, is it not well known, that the most frivolous and most absurd opinions have often been magnified into essential doc trines? In the days of Calvin, to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation was accounted "damnable heresy." Why all this fiery zeal in support of a doctrine so manifestly repugnant to common sense? Were there no men of learning,

or even of common sense, in the church of Rome? This will not be pretended. The fact was this, the Romish clergy were blinded by their prejudices and by traditions. It was so with the English clergy in the days of Mr. Howe. And do not these facts speak with an admonitory voice to the clergy of New England at the present day? Our liability to a similar course of inconsistency should lead every one to self-diffidence and self-inspection, lest he support error with an intolerant spirit, and condemn those more righteous than himself.

In addition to the inspired admonitions contained in the scriptures, we have the history of past ages to assure us, that if we are men, we are liable to err, and that the most self-confident and overbearing, are as fallible as others; yet how many can affirm their opinions on the most doubtful passages of scripture, and censure their opponents, with as much assurance as was ever displayed by a Roman pontiff! What do we see in the conduct of the ungodly, more astonishing, or more to be deplored, than this blindness in professed christians? Is it possible that men should suitably reflect on what they read, what they hear, and what they experience, and still be so self-confident and so censorious? Yet, as though nothing could be learned even by experience, or as though the disease were absolutely incurable, we see this blindness in some, who have frequently changed their own opin

ions.

While on one side of a question, they could censure all on the other; but as soon as they

changed their opinions, they changed the current of their censures; and thus, at one period or another, they have probably censured all the christian world, and doomed the whole to destruction. Thirdly. How amiable does the character of Mr. Howe appear, considered as a minister, suffering reproach and oppression for his honest opinions. With all the firmness and intrepidity of an upright man, he united the tenderness of a christian towards his opponents. With what meekness and firmness did he conduct his part of the controversy! How careful not to inflame the passions of his friends against those who occasioned his afflictions! How careful to cultivate in their hearts the spirit of tenderness and forgiveness towards the very men who had driven a beloved minister into exile! We most sincerely hope, that the exhibition of this example, will have a favorable influence on the minds of all who are called to bear reproach for dissenting from popular doctrines. Whether they be correct in their opinions or not, it is infinitely important to them, that they cultivate a meek, inoffensive, and forgiving temper. By the exercise of such a spirit, they will be much more likely to obtain correct opinions, and what is still more important, they will insure the approbation of God. It will be impossible for God to condemn a man of such a temper, whatever may be the errors of his judgment. "The Lord looketh on the heart."

There are, it is believed, but very few ministers in this coun

try, who will not, in words, approve the character of Mr. Howe, and disapprove the treatment he received. Let this be done by all classes in deeds as well as in words, and our churches will exclaim, "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" If all would unite in this, there would be occasion for a universal jubilee throughout the land.

As a motive to induce every one to lay aside the spirit of intolerance, we may remark, that it does not, and will not, answer the purpose for which it is indulged. The object is, to prevent the prevalence of the sentiments against which it is exercised. But this carnal weapon cannot ultimately succeed in a land of freedom. It may for a time retard the progress of the obnoxious opinions, but it will not suppress them. On the contrary, this intolerance may accelerate their progress instead of retarding. In many cases this has been the obvious effect of such conduct. God has often frowned on this method of opposing imagined errors, or of supporting imagined truth, by so ordering events, that the inhuman means were made to operate contrary to the intention of those who adopted them. And well he might frown on such means, for they have as often been employed for the suppression of truth, as for the suppression of error. If such means were attended with uniform success, they would always be employed for the suppression of truth, when the majority are in the wrong. We rejoice in the thought, that