desired for it. And, thus, we may dismiss this metaphysical jumble about "potential existences" and "attributes" created into "persons," to the companionship of many a forgotten speculation and ingenious theory.*

We have said,—and we recall the words here, simply as a reminder, that the establishment of either of our theses, destroys Dr. Lamson's sweeping position. Still, before we close, there are one or two points to which we must ask attention.

Dr. Lamson adduces arguments from three subsidiary sources as confirmatory of his general position. These sources are, Hymnology, Christian Art, and Church Festivals. His reasoning on them is too extraordinary, not to say original, to be passed by unnoticed.

*

If, as Dr. Lamson asserts, "there are not half a dozen hymns in existence which can be traced back to the time of the Council of Nice," it is certainly a style of argument more dashing than satisfactory, to declare that the Hymnology of the Early Church was clearly not Trinitarian,” and then proceed to the illation, that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not believed. The Hymn at lamp-lighting, at all events, looks quite away from any such conclusion. While, if language has any meaning, the language quoted above from early writers, shows that the same praises were rendered to the Son and Holy Spirit, that were offered to the Father. Besides, people in those days meant what they said in prayers and hymns: the former had not been made vehicles for the exhibition of gifts of eloquence and graces of rhetoric, nor had the latter become convenient appendages to artistic harmonies and complicated combinations.

However "little art or refinement," then, there may have been in "the old singing," however great may have been the lack of "musical taste," because people sung "in private dwellings, in caverns or on shipboard,"-we fail, by the way, to see why all this indicates an absence of belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity-still, the very rudeness, the very simplicity, only make it more probable, that the hymns of the Early Church

* Bishop Bull, in the Third Section of his Defensio, leaves little to be said.

were simply what the early writers say they were.

Their sim

plicity lessens the likelihood of mistake in describing them. These writers describe them, as we have seen, as ascribing praise to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, because they speak of themselves as ordinarily rendering such praise. If they were not of this character, then, certainly, Unitarian Hymns exhibited, in that day, what they never have in modern times, a wonderful facility of turning themselves into Trinitarian Doxologies.

In the interesting department of Christian Art, Dr. Lamson argues, that because we find no carly pictorial representations of the Trinity, therefore the Doctrine was not a part of the early Faith. But his argument proves too much. For, in the course of it, he admits in terms, that there are no "artistic representations of the Father before the twelfth century." Are we then to understand, that there was no belief in God the Father before that period? If the argument is good in one line, it is in the other. Besides, there are representations and symbols of our Lord and the Holy Spirit, of a confessedly early date. So that, taking into the account this fact, and following out this exquisitely ingenious argument, we should come, for all we can see, to the conclusion, that the early Christians did not believe in that one only Person, whom the Unitarian confesses to be God.

Our author, too, lays himself very distinctly open to criticism, for the way in which he confounds representations and symbols; the difference between which is a fundamental principle in the study of Christian Art. But, on this topic we forbear to enlarge.

The concluding chapters of the work are devoted to the Christian Festivals. And in these, as elsewhere, Dr. Lamson finds no traces of the Doctrine of the Trinity. To discover, however, that Festivals, commemorating events in our Lord's Human Life, have no special connection with His Divinity, is not a very remarkable discovery, and can hardly be accepted as conclusive proof of a disbelief in the Trinity.

The Festival, which seems especially disagreeable to Dr. Lamson, is Christmas. He insists that it is not an early Festival, that it was kept on different days in the East and West,

and a great many other things not particularly new or relevant. To all this we can only reply-what then? We never knew it alleged that keeping Christmas gave any proof of a belief in our Lord's Divinity. We have always supposed, that it was evidence of a belief in the perfect Humanity of Him "Who, as on that day, was born of a pure Virgin." Its absence, therefore, might indicate we speak from Dr. Lamson's stand-point-an absence of belief in this latter truth, but surely not in the for

mer.

The antiquity of the Easter, Whitsuntide and Epiphany Festivals, Dr. Lamson seems disposed to admit, though he assigns to the last a much later date than that of the others.

Where a good deal more might, certainly, be said, we content ourselves with asking a single question; What form of belief would have been likely to originate such observances? What system, naturally, heartily, fully incorporates them now? That is the one to which they belong. Is that Unitarianism? God, Whose mercy is infinite, be thanked, for His special love and grace, in and by which some have been delivered from a system, the fundamental article of which is a negation,—and such a negation !—and which, throughout, is faithful to that starting principle! O, the misery of always saying, "I do not believe!" The joy and comfort of being taught to say, "I believe !" None can fully know the blessed peace of the one, unless they have known something of the restless disquiet of the other.

ART. II. THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS AND THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES.

1-Declaration of the Evangelical Armenian Church addressed to all Christian Churches.

2.-MEMORIAL VOLUME of the First Fifty Years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston. 1861. 8vo. pp. 462.

AT the time of the abandonment of our Mission to the Oriental Churches, and the return of Bishop Southgate to this country, there were those among us who, while they felt compelled to acquiesce in the giving up of the Mission, were thoroughly convinced that there were certain influences at work in our communion, hostile to the Mission and to the principles on which it was conducted, of which the great mass of Churchmen knew nothing. In other words, the "American Board" were aiming at a certain work in those old Churches, which our Mission was expressly calculated to interfere with. They meant to do away, in those Churches, with their Episcopacy, their Liturgies, their Creeds, and introduce the Presbyterian and Independent Systems of government, and Confessions of Faith. To this end, they sought power and influence in those old Churches, and were not always scrupulous in the means employed. They wore clerical robes, and made the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, and, on occasions, used Liturgies, like the English Clergy, and so concealed their own character. When Mar Yohannan was traveling through this country, they persistently and notoriously kept him, as far as they were able, from all intercourse and acquaintance with our own Reformed Branch of the Catholic Church.

Now, we do not complain or find fault, that Presbyterians and Congregationalists are restive at the presence of Episcopacy, and Liturgies, and Primitive Creeds. Of course, these things are a reflection, and a most serious one, upon their organization and their whole system; and hence, we are not sur

prised that they seize on every opportunity to extort from Churchmen, if they can, a virtual acknowledgment of the essential soundness of Presbyterian and Congregational principles, and the validity of their ordinances. All that we have to say is, that the field is a fair one. Differing as we do from them on the great question of the organization which Christ, through His Inspired Apostles, gave to His Church, we have a right to demand that that question shall be met by an appeal to credible witnesses, and that denunciation, and hatred, and charges of bigotry and exclusiveness shall be laid aside. But we do not wonder that the idea of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism entering in to reform those old Episcopal and Liturgic Churches of the East, was so tempting to both these denominations. It seemed to promise a great deal, every way, both abroad and at home.

Their Mission to the Armenians commenced in 1830, and at Pera, or Constantinople, as being the most central point. For a period of fifteen years or more, the Missionaries declared, repeatedly and emphatically, that they had no wish or design to interfere with the Oriental Churches; all that they aspired to do was, to "preach a pure Gospel!" They could not, at that time, have maintained their position a day, on any other principle. Subsequently, however, and with the opportunity, their real design was unfolded, and in violation of their former pledges, they began, by preaching and in other ways, to incite their converts to leave their old Church. Books of a certain stamp were printed and circulated. Their converts, notwithstanding their immaturity, were called on to lead in extemporaneous prayers; and in these devotions, prayers were offered for the conversion of the Patriarchs and Bishops, &c., &c. As early as 1844, the Rev. Drs. Anderson and Hawes, having gone, for the sake of consultation, to the East, it was formally resolved, that these converts "are to be recognized as Churches," and "that the reformed Churches are to have no reference to any of the degenerate Oriental Churches." The first formal organization of the "Evangelical Armenian Church," took place at Pera, in 1846.

A statement of the Rt. Rev. Bishop Bedell, at the late Meet