whom they had lived in unconscious intimacy. Is it possible that the personal appearance of the Most High, in the likeness of sinful man, which, one would think, must have excited their highest astonishment and admiration, could have been passed over with distant allusions, which many cannot understand?

Let me illustrate the absurdity of such a supposition by an example. It is well known that Peter the Great once left for a while his throne and country, and labored a considerable time in Holland, in the humble capacity of a ship-carpenter. Now let it be supposed, that, after his departure, one of his fellow-laborers, who had become acquainted with his real name and dignity, had undertaken to write an authentic account of his labors and adventures there. Can it be believed that he would have spoken of him only in his assumed name and character, without once informing his readers who he was? But if, instead of one, four of his fellow-laborers had written such accounts, and others still had written letters to their friends about him, would not the most credulous shake their heads on being told that none of these documents contained explicit and incontrovertible evidence that this eccentric adventurer was the Emperor of all the Russias? Is it not absurd to suppose that, among those who possessed these documents and acknowledged their authority, a controversy should arise as to the identity of the singular adventurer and the distinguished monarch? And is it any less incredible and absurd to suppose that the King of Kings, veiled for a time, his infinite perfections with human flesh and infirmities; that, during his stay on earth, he was constantly attended by a few humble companions;

that, after his departure, he revealed to them his true nature and dignity; and that, nevertheless, these men, in giving an account of his abode on earth, never lifted the veil which concealed his divine features from human vision? Is it not much more so, inasmuch as the former histories would have been interesting, merely on account of the singularity of the adventures related, while the latter are of momentous importance as affecting the interests of all the generations of men, for time and for eternity? Do not these considerations afford a strong presumption that the doctrine in question is not true?

One of the truths revealed to the apostles after our Lord's ascension was, that the Gentiles, equally with the Jews, were to be partakers of the blessings of Christianity. The circumstances of the miracle by which Peter was convinced of this are minutely detailed. This truth, moreover, is often spoken of or alluded to in the epistles to the gentile churches. No doubt can be entertained by any reader of the New Testament that this doctrine is contained there. We have also a circumstantial account of the decision to which the apostles were led by divine assistance, that the shackles of the jewish law were not to be imposed on christian freemen. On this point, too, there can be no dispute. Now is it not unaccountable that while these truths are so clearly made known, another far more astonishing should be left in such deep obscurity? Is it not a reasonable inference that this other is not true?

Had Jesus Christ been God, we should suppose that Paul might have urged it with advantage in his mission to the heathen. The Messiah belonged to a nation

which they abhorred and despised. Many who would hesitate to become followers of a crucified Jew, might readily yield allegiance to an incarnate God. Such an advantage would not fail to be improved by an apostle who, in addressing Greeks, quoted from a Grecian poet, and whose principle it was, as far as was justifiable, to become all things to all men.' Even had no advantage been derived from the disclosure, yet fidelity would seem to have required it of one, who publicly declared that he had not shunned to make known to them all the counsel of God. Notwithstanding this, we do not find in any of his epistles or recorded discourses, any explicit and undisputed assertion of the doctrine. What then is the natural inference? Surely that the doctrine under discussion is not true.

I will not pursue the subject any further. I will merely say in conclusion, that should any author of the present day write as much as the New Testament contains on the various topics of christian doctrine and duty, without a more distinct avowal of a belief in the Trinity than can be expressed in scripture language, he would undoubtedly be denounced as a heretic if not an unbeliever. Indeed, should the apostles and evangelists appear again on earth, and, without discovering themselves, write and preach precisely as they did in their writings and discourses which have come down to us, I cannot doubt they would be declared unsound in the faith, builders on a rotten foundation; good moral men, sober philosophers it may be, but no Chris

tians.

H. A.

ORTHODOX CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

IN connexion with our notice of the Salem Correspondence, we remarked upon some other instances of church discipline as conducted by our brethren of different opinions. We have other instances and other remarks to offer.

One of the most objectionable features of orthodox church discipline, as it has come under our observation, consists in its uncertainty and irregularity. They who exercise it talk much of rules and regular steps, and appeal constantly to Scripture and the Platform. Yet we have scarcely known two churches that have observed precisely the same rules; or, to speak entirely within bounds, we find among these churches very different degrees of method and exactness in their enforcement of discipline. The same offence is treated very differently not only in different churches but with respect to different individuals of the same church. We have seldom known a man of property and influence called to account by a church and resolutely dealt with, however much he may have departed from its rules of doctrine or order. We do not say there have been no such cases, but we believe they are very rare. We certainly have known instances of great and avowed defection from the faith of a church, and some cases of flagrant neglect, entirely overlooked, and allowed to go on for years, for no obvious reason, except that they were persons of standing in society, whom the church either did not dare or did not wish to cut off or offend. Such respect of persons' seems to us to

bring suspicion upon the motives of the actors, as well as the soundness and utility of the rules by which they profess to be guided.

Another seeming inconsistency and evil in the usual administration of church discipline, is, that it has respect to opinions more than to moral character. In the first place, the terms of admission to most orthodox churches seem to us to relate to opinions more than to character. The candidate is so rigorously examined as to his faith, that his practice is often overlooked, or rather is made to appear a secondary thing. If he believes such and such doctrines, and thinks he has experienced such and such changes, that is, has had violent feelings and strong convictions, it is regarded as better evidence of his fitness for the church, than any good character to which his neighbors or the community would testify. A single defect in doctrine, an unwillingness to subscribe to one article of the creed, though the character be wholly unobjectionable, will exclude a man. But let him subscribe to the whole creed, and affirm that he has had certain feelings, and will a defect of character exclude him? Of this we are confident, a defective character, after admission, will not be so likely in most cases to subject him to discipline and the danger of excommunication, as defective doctrine. Immorality is safer than heresy in many churches. A member may be guilty of falsehood, dishonesty, avarice or intemperance, and not be disturbed. But if he deny the doctrine of the trinity or total depravity, he will soon be admonished; and if he persist in his heresy, he must leave the church, though he should leave not a man in it more upright than him