at Brussels; and several of them were lost or destroyed. Some, however, escaped this fate, and were purchased by Rubens for king Charles I. After the dethronement and death of that accomplished monarch, his royal collections were dispersed; but the cartoons were secured, by Crom EVERY one has heard of the cartoons in the palace of Hampton-court. The word "cartoon" is used by artists to signify the full-sized drawings or studies, made in chalks, or body-colour, preparatory to any great work to be executed in oil-well's particular command, it is said, for the colour or fresco, or to be copied on tapestry. The finest specimens known are the work of Raffaelle d'Urbino, which were sent to Flanders in the reign of pope Leo X. for two sets of tapestry to be completed from them. These cartoons, originally twenty-five in number, were left neglected VOL. XXV. country. At the restoration they were again neglected and injured, having been sent to Mortlake to have once more copies made of them in tapestry. William III. repaired them, and built a gallery at Hampton-court for their reception. George III. removed them first to Buckingham house and afterwards to Windsor-castle; but they | allowed to broach their errors with impunity; have since been restored to Hampton-court, where they now remain. The subjects of these celebrated pictures are scriptural. The one here presented to the reader represents the remarkable history recorded in Luke v. (being the gospel for the fifth Sunday after Trinity). The moment of time selected by the artist is that when Peter, astonished at the miraculous draught of fishes, and convinced that he who could exert such supernatural power must be indeed a divine Person, "fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord." THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY IN FAVOUR BY THE REV. J. S. BROAD, M.A., No. II. "The general reception of an opinion among all churches was esteemed a proof that it had been originally taught by the apostles and their successors."-TOWNSEND. those errors were made the subject of earnest inquiry by the church, as the keeper and guardian of divine truth, in councils convened for the purpose; and, in most cases, its censures were pronounced upon them, and in some instances the parties were deposed from their spiritual functions. A remarkable proof of ecclesiastical jealousy and vigilance occurs in the case of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who, in his earnest zeal in defending Trinitarian doctrine, had dropped certain doubtful or suspicious expressions. He was at once accused to his namesake, bishop of Rome; and a synod was held concerning him. Dionysius, however, explained his views to the satisfaction of the synod, and the establishment of his own orthodoxy. Here, then, we have the testimony of history, at an advanced period of the third century, that Trinitarian doctrine was then held to be the truth of scripture. Sufficient evidence may also be afforded that it was the uniform practice of the church to offer Incumbent of St. George's, Newcastle-under-Lyme. divine worship to the Son and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the eternal Father. He indeed was usually acknowledged and addressed (as at present) as the Fountain of the Deity; and the other two divine Persons as subordinates, but not inferior, to him. He was approached through the merits of the Son, and under the gracious influence of the Spirit; but they also were addressed as equally objects of pure worship, and possessed of all the attributes of divinity. Among other proofs of this fact, we may point to the use of the doxology, ascribing equal glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In the fourth century a the doctrine we are advocating, seems to be deducible from these and similar documents. To enter into an examination, or even to take notice, of all the heresies which sprung up in succeeding years, would be manifestly impracticable within the limits of this paper. Only a very few of the most prominent ones can be noticed. Let us here observe, that at the end of the second century Praxeas promulgated the notion that there treatise was written by St. Basil, for the very was one nature only in the Godhead, that of the purpose of proving that it had constantly been Father; and that the threefold distinction hitherto employed, not only in private, but also in the used was only a nominal one, the Father being public services of the church. Akin to which called by the names of Son and Spirit, as regarded may be mentioned the constant and unvarying under different points of view. Tertullian op- use of the form of baptism appointed to be obposed him in a treatise written for the express served by our Lord himself. A very cursory inpurpose, and he it was who introduced the word spection of the various ancient liturgies will satisfy person into the controversy, to meet the error in any candid inquirer upon the point, and furnish question. He states most unequivocally, "That satisfactory evidence as to the nature and objects the Father is God; the Son, God; and the Holy of the worship of the early Christian church. But Ghost, God; every one singly; and yet alto-one conclusion, and that altogether favourable to gether make but one God." In little more than half a century afterwards, Sabellius brought forward his views, and gave name to another modification of anti-trinitarian doctrine. He contended that Jesus was a mere man, but that a certain energy, or perhaps a portion, of the divine nature had descended upon him, and was united to him: the Holy Ghost he considered likewise not to be a separate person, but a portion of the Father. The only difference between his opinions and those of Noctus, who preceded him as a sower of heresy, appears to have been in this respect, that the latter supposed the Father himself had assumed human nature in Jesus; whereas Sabellius held that it was an energy, or influence, from him which was joined to the Christ. They were fol.owed by Paul, of Samosata, who also contended that the Saviour was only a man, upon whom the reason or wisdom of the Father had descended; and that the Son and Holy Ghost exist in God in the same manner as reason and energy do in man. With regard to these and other heresiarchs it will only be necessary to remark that they were not Unquestionably the most extensive aggression upon Trinitarian doctrine was made by the heresy of Arius, in the fourth and following centuries. The troubles it caused to the church during that period, and the divisions and bloodshed to which it gave rise, are well known. The struggle between truth and error, between catholic doctrine and human opinion, was long and severe; nor was it until the secular power had been corrupted that the orthodox were forced to give way. Arianism did indeed prevail to a great extent, and at certain times usurped the place of the ancient verity of the church; but it was not through the force of conviction, but by the power of the sword, and the influence of secular patronage. need hardly say that Arius took higher ground as to the nature and person of Jesus than some of the teachers of heresy that had gone before him. He regarded Christ as a creature; but the first and noblest of creatures; and only not consubstantial with the Father. By his instru I 8 mentality (as he taught) the Father created in vain during succeeding ages for that purity of the world; but both in nature and dignity the doctrine and practice which had unquestionably Son was inferior to him. Arius was brought distinguished preceding times. The waters of life before two councils at Alexandria, of which had been corrupted by admixture with human city he was a presbyter, and excommunicated. speculations and earthly science. The church of His talents and eloquence drew around him not a Christ was given up to false doctrine and schism : few followers; and such was the effect of his opi- a love for disputation, and a proneness to indulge nions upon the peace and prosperity of the in metaphysical distinctions, took the place of church, that it was deemed advisable to sum-simple-hearted zeal for God, and love of truth. mon a general council, which assembled at Nice, Hence arose the heresy of Apollinaris, who, in about the year 325. In that memorable assem- maintaining the divinity of Christ, in some degree bly, Arias was again condemned; and the feel- impugned his humanity, denying that he had a ings and opinions of the church may be gathered human soul, or receiving his human flesh from the from the fact that out of 318 bishops there assem- virgin. Hence, also, the error of Macedonius, bled, only seventeen hesitated to subscribe to the who boldly denied the divinity and personality of doctrine laid down by the council as to the con- the Holy Ghost; the controversy raised by substantantiality of the Son with the Father Nestorius concerning the term "mother of God" (Opoobrios T Tarpi); and of these, the greater (OεOTOкoç), applied to the virgin; and the notions part afterwards consented to it. The Nicene of Eutyches, so fruitful in producing still further creed remains to this day a striking specimen of divisions and animosities. the avowed theology of the orthodox churchmen It must not, however, be forgotten that these of the time. We have also a noble monument of and other heresies were still condemned by the such theology in the creed called after the illus-church. The council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), trious champion of truth who opposed Arius, the Athanasian; though it is generally considered not to have been written by Athanasius, but by Vigilius, the African, in the latter part of the fifth century. There can be no doubt as to the nature of the doctrine which is contained in this form of belief. Though Arius was condemned and banished, his tenets were not extinguished, nor his party broken up. Various alternations took place in the controversy, according as the ruling powers were influenced by his partizans, or by the Trinitarians; but at last error became dominant, and the upholders of catholic doctrine were long exposed to bitter persecutions. The annals of this period of the church are dark and distressing; and the ill-treatment which the great Athanasius and his party received from the Arian rulers was severe and shameful. But, though the Arians gained the ascendancy, they were not united in their sentiments; and various sects sprung up among them in consequence - semi-Arians, Actians, Eusebians, Anomæans, and others. There was no end to division and error when once the human mind laid aside the simplicity of faith, and gave way to unbidden speculation. The purity of the faith having in other respects also been sullied, fewer barriers were opposed to free thinking; and the mutual influence which integrity of doctrine and holiness of heart and life have ever been found to exert upon each other, was gradually relaxed. We may form some idea of the soundness of Trinitarian doctrine which had hitherto prevailed, and of the corruption which was by degrees introduced, from the alterations which were made in the long-established form of baptism. Eunomius directed his followers to baptize "in the name of the uncreated Father, of the created Son, and of the sanctifying Spirit created by the Son." Others baptized with the death of Christ;" or, "in the name of the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." Thus man seeks to be wiser than God; and, having learned to doubt the word, is easily moved to disobey the command of God. It is of little consequence to foliow this stream of history in its further progress; for we may look at which 150 bishops were present, asserted the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit; adding to and explicating the statements of doctrine made in the creed adopted by the council of Nice. The council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), and that of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), both occasioned by the opinions before mentioned, maintained the ancient truth, which is still cherished by all Trinitarians, that two distinct natures, without change or confusion, are united in the Lord Jesus, who is truly the Son of God and Son of man. The continually recurring and conflicting errors of successive times occasioned alterations and enlargements of creeds, but not of doctrines; of language, but not of truth; and it is satisfactory to find, that, amid all the darkness and superstition which brooded over the church for some ages, the great catholic doctrine of the Trinity in unity was firmly maintained as by authority; the only material exception being during some periods of the Arian controversy, when might prevailed against right, and the arm of secular power kept down the truth of God. Even in the darkest ages this light of the sanctuary was not extinct; and who will not cherish the hope, that by its means, not a few were kept from fatal error, and were guided, as from on high, into the way of life and peace? One important argument remains to be noticed in connection with the history of Trinitarian doctrine at the time of the blessed Reformation. It is well known that at that period, when a spirit of inquiry had been stirred up in the minds of many, some of the ancient heresies which have been noticed were revived, either in their old form, or modified in various degrees, according to the views of their abettors. Lælius and Faustus Socinus, uncle and nephew, who have given a name to modern anti-trinitarian doctrine, were conspicuous among others in this work. Nor can it be denied that the opinions which they broached prevailed to a great extent in come of the continental nations. Still they did not overthrow the long-established truth. And the very fact of their being urged at such a time must have attracted the attention of the reformers, and led them to look into the controversy. By some persons every thing attached to the papal church was de nounced as erroneous; and the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement were regarded as part and parcel of Romish superstition and error. But our reformers were too wise to be thus deceived: they knew by God's grace how to distinguish the chaff from the wheat; and, while they renounced the doctrines and practices which they found to be in antagonism to the word of God, they carefully maintained and defended all that was in accordance with it. The doctrine of the Trinity then underwent a close examination: it was put to the test, and found to be of the very essence of God's revealed truth; and ever since that period it has been adopted and valued by the overwhelming majority of those who call themselves Christians, of all sections. And thus, in modern, as in former times, we can bring forward the stubborn testimony of history in confirmation of it. And what has been stated is honest testimony; the very facts of the case we have no hesitation in appealing to the sources whence they have been drawn in proof of orthodox truth. And, in reviewing the history of this controversy, we are almost inevitably led to draw several important inferences or reflections from the facts which it presents before us. The first thing that strikes us is, that most of the errors which have prevailed on the subject have had their rise from the pride of human reason, and the waywardness of human intellect. Men have been unwilling to submit their judgments to the divine will; they have desired to bring down heavenly mysteries to the very level of their own finite intelligence; and, because they cannot make every doctrine square with their own ideas, or divest it of every difficulty, they proceed to discuss its truth, regardless of the disclosures of the Almighty himself respecting it. One would think that no person could be so unreasonable as to suppose or expect that the nature of the Deity could be understood by him: in the very nature of things it must be otherwise; and therefore it is most becoming and incumbent upon a creature like man (especially in a fallen condition) to rest satisfied with what God has made known concerning himself. But this will not do for the man who prides himself upon his reason, and who thinks that nothing can be true which he does not understand. Scarcely a controversy has been raised in the church which may not be traced to some feelings of this kind; to some self-sufficient attempt to define what infinite wisdom has left undefined, and to explain what was never intended to be fully unfolded in the present state. And, generally speaking, the authors of heretical theories have been men puffed up with a vain conceit of their own prowess, or else so addicted to inquisitive speculations as never to be satisfied with truth as it is revealed. I would not make the statement without some modification; but I am firmly persuaded that it is substantially correct. Such men have not been of that humble, self-distrusting, teachable spirit which the divine word assures us is necessary for receiving the mysteries of God, and enjoying vital communion with God. Hence we may discover, too often, in their speculations a rashness which is really fearful, a venturing upon the dark unseen, and in their reasoning, a flip.. pancy, and irreverence, in some cases amounting to profaneness; and this is a characteristic which has also been painfully exemplified in some modern impugners of Trinitarian doctrine. Let reason be employed in its proper place, to ascertain the genuineness, the reality of the divine revelation; but, when it has once done that, let it bow down to the supremacy of scripture, and implicitly receive its gracious and hallowed statements in the simplicity of faith and love; and with heartfelt thankfulness for the peace and blessedness which it discloses for the contrite and believing soul. Another cause which has led to the aggravation, if not the rise, of heretical opinions on the present subject, has been the imperfection of language. It can hardly be expected that the sublime mysteries of the divine nature should be conveyed to us in terms so clear and comprehensive as to unfold every thing belonging to them, and to be free from every difficulty touching them. I do not say that they are not revealed sufficiently clear for all necessary purposes; that they present any insuperable difficulties to a scriptural and rational faith; but only that difficulties may be expected to arise, or to suggest themselves, owing to the ambiguity or imperfection of human language. In such language they must be conveyed to us if we are to know any thing of them; and, moreover, by thus conveying them to us, a test is furnished by which to try the sincerity and teachableness of the parties instructed. Yet, in spite, or in ignorance of these things, not a few of the authors of heresy have laid hold of the doubtfulness or imperfection of certain terms employed in the scriptures, and also by men in their illustrations and reasonings, and upon them have built their own theories. It cannot have escaped the notice of the inquirer into this controversy how many errors have arisen, or at least been increased and heightened, from the attempts of finite minds to make perfectly clear, in ordinary language, the heights and depths of an infinite nature. And, though truths of solemn and eternal import have been involved in these ecclesiastical strifes, after all, some of them have been but strifes of words. And, when contending parties have calmly and rationally explained their meaning to one another, and been content with the statements of God himself in his own word, they have found out how little they differed in reality, and how greatly they were darkening counsel by words without knowledge." 66 Again: It is a striking fact in this controversy, that those who have really denied the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity have never been agreed among themselves as to what is the true doctrine, and to be believed by men upon the subject. In this matter especially, error has been fearfully various and multiform. Even from the earliest times there have been the most lamentable difference and opposition among anti-trinitarians themselves. Witness, for instance, in the apostolical times, the opposite errors of the Docete and the Cerinthians; the former denying the humanity of the Lord Jesus, and the latter his divinity. How numberless the variations of Gnosticism, how diverse and marked the sects which arose out of the Arian heresy! What anti-trinitarian will pretend to say they can all be right? And, if not all, which, among all the thousand and one, shall we fix upon as sound and truthful? When, amid the perplexing diversity, shall we haply light upon heavenly truth? Where be directed to find that peace which he who knows any thing of himself feels that he needs, and to attain that eternal life after which the inner man continually pants? one. On the other hand, while error on this subject has been multiform, truth has invariably been Without denying that there have been shades of variation on certain occasions among the orthodox, it may be confidently asserted, upon the clear evidence of history, that the catholic doctrine of the Trinity has, in all ages of the church, been substantally one and the same. Individuals may have slightly differed; but the teaching of the church, and the authority of the church, have agreed in maintaining the truth delivered to us by the inspired apostles. The church has always been specially jealous of adulteration here; and no sooner has any individual given birth to actual error, or even been suspected of error, than a synod or general council has been called, and the solemn decision of the church been recorded upon the point; and this has been the case even in its less pure and faithful times. Surely we have the working of divine providence for the support of divine truth. Surely we have here a strong confirmation of the doctrine which we hold and cherish, and may point with confidence to the page of history to bear witness that our faith is the same as that of the holiest and best of men in all ages; the faith for which, let it never be forgotten, we go, in the first place, to the infallible word of the God of truth. ENDURANCE OF TRIAL”. EXEMPTION from the ordinary trials of life appears desirable to all, and is what most persons are sedulous to find. Yet these are the very business and employment intended by our Creator to fill up our allotted time on earth; for "affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward." "In the sweat of his face shall he eat bread, till he return unto the ground; for out of it was he taken: dust he is, and unto dust shall he return" (Job v. 6, 7; Gen. iii. 19). They are, indeed, part of that chastisement in which our sinful condition has involved us; yet are they also the principal means, not only of advancing and perfecting our nature, but of ultimately producing resignation and contentment with our lot. Exercise, not inactivity, is the parent of health and vigour: it stimulates the dormant powers of the soul, and is the means of developing faculties and capabilities which, but for the urgency of want and pain, would not be known to reside in its nature. Man's truest interest is placed in virtuous action; and his wisest course through life is to make his happiness consist, not so much in anticipating the final issue of his labours, as in the use of the means necessary to its attainment. Misconception of this subject no inconsiderable cause of dissatisfaction with From "Sermons on Practical Subjects." By the rev. 8. Warren, LL.D. incumbent of All Souls', Manchester. Blackwoods, Edinburgh and London. 1848. is the allotments of Providence, and occasions many of those hasty measures which frequently end in bitter disappointment, and a situation far more wretched than that which, through impatience, was imprudently abandoned. Eagerness to escape from trials produces that uneasiness and restlessness which prompt so many to perpetual change. The occupation in which they have been engaged from early life becomes irksome, contrasted with one to which their imagination has assigned no annoyance, because experience has not detected the fallacy of their hasty conclusion. They quit their hold of advantages which skill and long practice had brought within their power; and, unable to regain what their rashness had cast away, they too soon find that change, which has multiplied their cares and their toils, has diminished nothing of the source of their complaint. Another, and yet another change, place them only at a remoter distance from con tentment. Hence not unfrequently proceed those migrations to foreign climes, which tempt the fickle and inexperienced to forsake their native land. The neighbourhood in which they formerly spent their happiest days has lost all its wonted attractions: a blight has withered all its beauties. A portentous cloud of evils has darkened the whole political horizon; and refuge from the coming storm can be secured only by speedy flight. The ends of the earth hold out prospects, where nothing will harass and disturb their peace. Labour will there be amply remunerated, genius no longer languish in obscurity, health will be wafted on every gale, and success result from every enterprise. Full of these unreasonable expectations, they tempt the dangers of the inconstant ocean, to explore regions of which they know nothing but by vague report, and to engage in undertakings which they have never before tried. Vain attempt! the evil genius which they wish to escape embarks with them in the same ship, becomes the companion of their voyage, and ceases not to utter its ill bodings in their ears, as dangers thicken and the tempest howls. The endurance of those trials with equanimity which fall to our lot in the ordinary course of Providence, when all prudent measures have failed to procure exemption, is equally rational and religious. Then it is that the devout disciple of Christ is entitled to commit the keeping of himself, and all which concerns him, to the care of the Almighty, who is especially the protector and patron of the afflicted, the stay and support of all who trust in him: "Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God. When thou passest through the waters, Í will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee" (Isa. xli. 10, xliii. 2). The fires which Nebuchadnezzar in his fury kindled to consume those Jews who refused to worship the idol which he had set up in the plain of Dura were not less illustrative of their own heroism, and the futility of the wrath of the king, than of the efficacy of divine interposition in their behalf. A desertion of their duty, or a concealment of their principles, would in this instance have been a violation of |