theological writing of Dr. Huntington, who ingeniously substitutes in the next paragraph the word "Threeness" for Trinity. It is a pleasant begging of the question to imply that, because the "praises, confessions, and exhortations of the second century" make use of the Apostolic benediction, they therefore prove the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, which this benediction does not contain; and that the reason why the doctrine was not in the creed yet, was that there was no need of it. Transubstantiation might be much more clearly proved in this way; for did not the pastors of the second century, when they broke bread at the Lord's table, say, "This is the Lord's body"? We defy Dr. Huntington to produce a particle of proof that the Triunity, the Tripersonality of God was set forth in "the praises, confessions, or exhortations" of any century before the fourth. His third point, too, is accurate only so far as it gives the final results of a long and passionate series of debates, extending over more than a century. Trinitarianism, indeed, at last got the majority in the councils and the patronage of the Imperial Court, and, in the exercise of its power, decreed that the doctrine of God's unity was fatal heresy. Unitarians have no desire to break the force of this fact. In the view of the majority of the Church, their doctrine is heresy, and has been so for more than twelve hundred years. But they are far from allowing it to be an "unblessed enterprise," to prove from the authorities themselves of the Church that what was voted into the creeds in the fifth and sixth centuries by turbulent majorities does not really represent the teaching of the first, second, and third centuries, much less of Christ and his Apostles. If Dr. Huntington has any sources of information other than these "old writers," than these Church Fathers, let him mention them. But until he does mention them, the recognized authorities must stand: and the recognized authorities are against his view.

In a short paragraph upon "developed doctrine," Dr. Huntington comes to the rescue of Neander, and shows how this great historian, whom he has himself so strangely misrepresented, has "been abused" by a "respectable Unitarian writer." With all deference to this new view, we shall continue to think that what Neander says, he means, and

that his theory of development, so far as the doctrine of Trinity is concerned, does not differ essentially from that of Dr. Newman. He does not find the doctrine in the Scripture, and he does find it in the creeds half a dozen centuries later; and his account of its origin is such as any candid Catholic scholar would give. Any reader of his chapter on this subject in the "History of Christian Dogmas" can see whence he derived the Trinity,-not from Scriptural sources, but from the engrafting of Greek philosophic ideas upon Christian teaching. And Neander is a witness, moreover, that the average faith of the Church followed after, instead of anticipating, the faith of the teachers. Basil, he says, wished to teach the divinity of the Holy Spirit in the fourth century, but did not dare to.

Dr. Huntington closes this extraordinary Introduction by a new declaration of his own exceeding comfort in the doctrine of the Trinity, especially as affording an adequate atonement for sin. His own experience assures him that the sin of man is so great as to require a dying God to expiate it. He seems to teach (though here, indeed, his language is ambiguous) that God died on the Cross in Christ; and he intimates that the "benign splendors of the Bible" illustrate that view. We shall not use the "harmless privilege" of deciding the orthodoxy of this view. That may be done by Dr. Huntington's new brethren. However deep may be our consciousness of sin, we trust never to reach such a view of depravity as will require the physical sacrifice of Almighty God to atone for it. The "intuitions" which lead to such a view must be unspeakably dreadful. We do not covet Dr. Huntington's Paradise, if to gain it we must pass through such a Purgatory.

This strange production which we have been rapidly dissecting, is dated at "Cambridge, Monday in Whitsun week." It is a singular fruit of the Spirit to follow the celebration of the Christian Pentecost. It is a signal evidence that the fruits of modern conversion are not always accompanied by what Paul enumerates as the graces of the Spirit. Such an exhibition of temper and duplicity as this will more than neutralize any harm that the defection of one so popular might do to the Unitarian cause. Many will regret that the strong words which

Dr. Huntington in former years uttered for the Unitarian faith have been so bitterly denied, and that the Tracts, "What do ye more than others?" and "The Strict System and the Easy," which the Unitarian Association continues to publish for their excellence, can no more have any weight from the name which they bear. How great the contrast between the profession of ten years ago,-"If Christ be Deity, he is no longer in the nearest sense our example; - infinitely removed above us, he has not sympathized with human sufferings, nor been the pattern of human virtue, under human trial," and the present worship of a dying God! We crave no light which, in reconciling us to such blasphemy, makes us forget the example of the Master. And we agree with what Dr. Huntington once said of the sense of total depravity, which now seems to him to require the self-immolation of the Infinite Lord of Heaven,—that "nothing can be devised to cripple the soul so utterly, and then so utterly to excuse it, as this strange opinion of human manufacture."

But this notice has already been too far extended. In answer to the hard words and harsh insinuations which Dr. Huntington has uttered of the brethren he has parted from, and the denomination he has left, we set down these words of his earlier and wiser period:

"As a denomination, for we are compelled to use that word yet a little longer, though waiting for the time when the names of divided sects shall be merged in the one great name of Christ, as a denomination, we profess to have found better doctrine, to have sprung up upon a higher standing-point, and to see by the insight of a more single-eyed and spiritual affection, than our brethren. We claim to have outgrown the ritualism of Rome, the narrow exclusiveness of Calvinism, and the assumption and intolerance of Oxford and the English Church. We have cast off the gross conception of God as more than one in his nature, seeing plainly that that honest mistake had its origin in a pagan mythology. We have rejected the poor absurdity, so injurious to the sublime office and simple dignity of the Saviour, that the Deity suffered in his person, and in our stead, to satisfy his own stern indignation, and as a sacrifice to himself,- himself being very God. We have refused so to trifle with intelligible Scripture as to take, in place of the truth written there, that man is formed in the image of God, and, though liable to sin as to virtue, yet his child, and naturally capable of obedience, VOL. LXIX. 5TH S. VOL. VII. NO. II.

19

-

we have refused to take, in place of that inspiring truth, the unworthy dogma that we are born in the fatal likeness of evil spirits. And we congratulate ourselves, and thank Heaven, for being set free from those dark delusions. We are glad and grateful to be on the returning way to the simplicity of our Master and his gospel; to see in the Supreme Spirit one tender Father; in Jesus, a Saviour, and His Son, offering forgiveness if we will have faith in him and repent, teaching us righteousness, brotherly love, and purity of heart in daily action, and disclosing to us, by example and precept, that to live like him is life immortal; in our own natures, to read the capacity either to be miserable in sin, or to find joy, and strength, and ever-growing excellence, by serving devoutly that Father, and by believing and following humbly that Saviour. We profess, then, to be Christians, not like others only, but to have arrived at clearer views of human life, and our duties and relations to the unseen world. Then let us have done with saying so merely with our lips, and prove it by our deeds. And if the question

be put to us tauntingly or reproachfully, "What do ye more than others?" let it be answered in our closer nearness to Christ, and our more faithful imitation of that perfect Pattern."

ART. IV. - LESLIE.

Autobiographical Recollections by the late CHARLES ROBERT LESLIE, R. A. Edited, with a Prefatory Essay on Leslie as an Artist, and Selections from his Correspondence, by TOM TAYLOR, ESQ., Editor of the "Autobiography of Haydon." With Portrait. Boston: Ticknor and Fields. 1860.

THE life of an artist, in the abstract, would seem one of the most tranquil, independent, and desirable. When adopted from love and with the requisite capacity, and followed with rectitude and aspiration, we should imagine it at once harmonious and elevated. Such, however, is often the sensitiveness of the artistic organization, the indifference of the multitude, and the conditions of practical success, that the record of no class of lives is more shadowed by misfortune or marred by perversity than that of the lives of artists. Cellini's skilful hand was as frequently employed in knocking down an enemy, as in carving a chalice; Salvator's name is associated with turbu

lence as often as with the picturesque; the bitter controversy between the romantic and classic schools of France wrought as much woe as many theological or political strifes, and the suicidal despair of Haydon finds its parallel in many an artist's career. Moreover, jealousy, want of tact, improvidence, egotism, and moderate abilities are frequent and fruitful sources of error and privation. When, therefore, we meet with one who is true to himself and his vocation, who finds contentment in the love of beauty and the patient exercise of talent, and hallows his endowments by manliness, benignity, and faith, it is at once a duty and a pleasure to recognize his worth and analyze the causes of his success. The latter will be found to consist in elements of character by no means rare, in opportunities accessible to many, and in principles within the reach of all. It is delightful to contemplate such a life as Charles Robert Leslie's, so consistent, satisfactory, and complete. Endowed with exquisite perceptions and a happy temper, eager for improvement, patient both in study and under criticism, with a keen relish of the intellectual, a fine sense of the humorous, with high and loyal social instincts, honorable, genial, and refined, he thoroughly enjoyed the blessings, earnestly cultivated the powers, and nobly used the privileges of genius. His success was as much the result of character as of talent, as directly the fruit of good sense and good feeling as of fortunate circumstances. Hence his autobiography and correspondence inculcate a precious lesson for the profit of others of like tastes and purposes.

He was eminently true to his convictions,-satisfied to do what he could do best. Few painters have wasted less time in vain attempts to work beyond their sphere, to sacrifice their individual gifts at the shrine of fashion or ambition. He soon learned wherein to him peculiar excellence was attainable. He thought and wrote in 1813, that, "to insure a picture currency, it is necessary that it should tell either some Scriptural or classical story." He believed then in Benjamin West more than in Raphael. Hogarth had initiated, and Wilkie had triumphed in, the then unrecognized field of the domestic and characteristic; sympathy with the household literature of his vernacular suggested to Leslie a new phase of this neglected