"Tis, finally the man, who lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
Or left, unthought of, in obscurity.
Who with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not,
Plays, in the many games of life, that one
Where what he most doth value must be won;
Whom neither shape of danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
Who, not content that former fame stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:

Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must go to dust without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name,
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal rust is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause;
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
Whom every man in arms should wish to be.

SONNET.

FROM 'POEMS BY ONE OF THE FAMILY CIRCLE.'

How oft beneath his blest and healing wings
He would have gather'd me, and I would not!
Like a weak bird, all heedless of my lot ;
Perverse and idle in my wanderings.

Now my soul would return, and trembling brings
Her wearied pinion to its wonted rest;
And faint with its short flights and flutterings
Would seek a refuge in its parent breast!
O Father! in thy mercy shelter me,
For I am worn with mortal miseries;
My dark and earth-entangled spirit free,
And plume it to ascend its native skies;
With loosen'd wing to thy high rest to soar,
And never to desert its mansion more!

REVIEW.

ARTICLE I.

An Attempt at a Scriptural Statement and Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity, in consistency with the Unity of God. By JOSEPH FIELD, Pastor of a Church in Charlemont. 12mo. pp. 234. Greenfield, printed by Denio and Phelps.

THIS little volume is deserving of public attention, and of the public favour, for several reasons. It appears to be the work of a man of a discriminating mind, of no small degree of comprehension, and who seems, from this publication, to have allowed himself to think with freedom and independence,unincumbered with system, and undeterred by the fear of coming to unpopular results. Every attempt of such men to place commonly received doctrines of religion on a better foundation than they have usually stood, to explain, illustrate, and render them more intelligible, to modify, and give them a more rational form or to show, that they are not doctrines of christianity, but its corruptions ;-is entitled to consideration and to the gratitude of the christian community. Especially ought we to respect a man, who is ready to do this upon a subject, on which much public feeling is excited; at a time, when powerful influences are exerted to check the spirit of inquiry, and to intimidate those, and prevent their expressing their doubts and their convictions, who, unable to receive a doctrine, which they cannot understand, and which seems to them absurd and impossible, have been honestly seeking an intelligible faith; and in a section of the country, where the spirit of intolerance has fixed its head quarters, and where memorable examples of its power and its vengeance are presented all around him. A man who, with Deerfield, Hadley and Pelham under his eye, and with a knowledge of the hostility with which such men as Willard, Huntington, and Bailey are to be pursued, for daring to think for themselves, and to express what they think; yet is not restrained from exercising the right, which God gave him when he gave him

reason, and performing the holy duty imposed upon him by his Christian faith, and his profession as a teacher of his religion, who allows him to call no man on earth his master;a man thus intrepid is entitled to no common share of the respect of christians.

The book which has attracted our attention, has other claims also of an intrinsic nature. Besides being written with great independence of mind, without reference to any prevalent system, and apparently with a single aim at what is true, and with a catholic spirit, which does not forget the rights of others in asserting its own; besides this, it is composed by one who has thought closely and connectedly upon the subject about which he writes; has viewed it upon all sides; and has endeavoured to form a complete system, intelligible and consistent with itself in all its parts, and drawn from the obvious meaning of the Holy Scriptures.

In forming his system, the author sets out with the Unity of God in its most proper sense, as an undoubted doctrine of revelation as well as of reason. This unity implies one distinct intelligence, one individual consciousness. To say, therefore, that there is more than a single, individual, distinct intelligence in God, would be to deny his Unity: so would it also, to represent the Godhead as consisting of persons, so separate and distinct as to enter into covenant with each other, by forming mutual engagements, and taking upon themselves separate offices. It would be contrary, again, to the unity of God to affirm of him, that in his nature there exists from eternity a society, which is the basis of that sort of happiness, which is the most delicious, and the most congenial with intelligent and rational existence. It would, once more, militate against the unity of God to represent a trinity of persons in his undivided nature, each performing works peculiar to himself, just as the individuals of a community have their several and separate tasks to fulfil, or as the officers of government restrict themselves, each to his respective department, and to the duties pertaining to it.

'When we are told,' says the author, with great clearness and force, 'that the second person in the trinity, who is God, executes the work of redemption, and that this branch of universal providence does not belong to either of the other persons; the question almost insensibly obtrudes itself, can the one, who is inactive, be the same being with him, who acts. Or can human ingenuity make any other than an express contradiction of it, when it is said, that he who sanctifies the heart, as his peculiar work, and he who does not, are one being?-If personality should be resorted to as a refuge in this difficul

ty, making the difference applicable to persons and nothing else; what would it avail? Is there any thing intelligible in this expedient to free the subject from embarrassment? It is clear that there is not; and one might as easily produce conviction by an ef fort to show, that three distinct beings may be one; as by endeavouring to prove, that three persons may have distinct parts to act, and this not interfere with unity of being.'-p. 31.

Having shown, in the first chapter, that in several points of view, the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is usually understood and explained, is inconsistent with the scriptural and necessary unity of God; the author proceeds in the second and following chapters to a distinct and minute exposition of his own views of the several parts of the subject. Of this our limits will admit of giving but a very brief and imperfect sketch. It will be done as far as possible in the author's own words.

It does not appear, he thinks, that independently of revelation, any just conceptions of the Deity would have been attainable; so that we are indebted to the mystery of godliness, the manifestation of God in the flesh, in the person of his Son,-of him, who was Immanuel, or God with us,-for all that knowledge of God, by which he becomes an object of our regard, reverence, and adoration. He endeavours to show, that in manifesting the Deity to men, he acts not as personally the Supreme God, but by a delegated power and authority. He is thus the Creator of the world--God having created all things by Jesus Christ. He is also a Mediator between God and man,-not as an intermediate being, of a larger capacity and higher rank than man; but as participating in both the divine and human nature, and uniting divinity and humanity in one person.

But Jesus Christ had not only divinity and humanity united in his person, as the Mediator; he had also a pre-existent created, as well as uncreated, nature. It is in this created nature, in which he existed before any other being was brought into existence, that he is styled the first born of every creature.' It is in this, too, and not in his divine nature, that he is the 'image of the invisible God.' Yet this finite created nature could become the image of the invisible God only by the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelling in it. This divinity, not a part but the whole of it, he must possess in himself; which will give a specimen of an uncreated and a created nature united in one person. Thus 'in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and it 'pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell.'There can be no ground to object against this, our author thinks, as a union of two natures in one person; and that this took place before the creation of the world-alluded to Heb. i. 2.

Christ then is possessed of a created, intelligent nature, produced into being by that divine efficiency, which is itself unproduced, eternal, and Almighty, and the first of creatures in the order of time, in extent of capacity, and in brightness of glory. With this intelligent nature Godhead unites itself, and makes it a medium through which divinity adapts its glorious attributes and operations to the perception of those, who cannot look upon Godhead only as presented under some definite and intelligible form. A being is thus constituted, who is the image of the invisible God, not God himself, whose nature is absolutely without boundaries and undefinable; and yet comprising the whole of Deity..... The eternal God, whom no man hath seen or can see, is thus revealed to us in the person of the Mediator, who is the image of the invisible God, because in him dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'-p. 62.

In this complex nature, some things may be affirmed of the Mediator, in relation to his divinity, which are inapplicable to him in other respects. On the other hand, that may be ascribed to him, which can in no manner be true of the Deity. Thus the Father in the Son may know, what the Son as a man, or as a creature of the Father, does not know.

The mediation of Christ relates not to men only, but also to the holy angels, who might need as much as mortals, a sensible manifestation of the Deity. In his intercourse with them, that is, the angels, he is supposed to have inhabited a spiritual body like theirs, as when he came to appear on earth, it was in human form, in fashion as a man, and with all the properties of a man. Our author supposes this power of appearing in bodies of a different nature, not peculiar to Jesus Christ. He thinks there is no absurdity or improbability in the thought, that a messenger from heaven to earth should suddenly pass from a state of body purely etherial, to what is corruptible and gross, that he might be fitted to converse with mortals, and, having finished his sojourn below, revert to his former state. This he supposes took place in the messengers sent to Abraham and to Lot; and in the several exhibitions of our Saviour after his resurrection; as for example, when he appeared suddenly standing in the midst of his disciples, the door being shut.

Our author endeavours to show, that it was Christ, in the character of Mediator, and as an angel from heaven in the garb of mortal man, who often appeared to men on earth prior to his birth at Bethlehem. It was he, with whom Adam communed in the garden, who appeared to Jacob in his return from Padanaram, who met Abraham in the person of Melchisedek, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, who was the captain of the Lord's host, and the angel that conducted the Israelites in