ward. Next to the mathematics, grammar is perhaps the most difficult science for a beginner, and to augment the difficulty, the subject is embarrassed with technical terms, wholly arbitrary, some of which are in themselves unmeaning. Thus the words, noun, adjective, and verb, being used only in grammar, and in themselves insignificant, that is, having no meaning but what is arbitrarily given to them in that branch of science, present no ideas to the beginner; and he plods on for months, perhaps years, before he has a clear conception of their use and application.

For these reasons we concur with Mr. Dufief in the opinion, that languages are most readily acquired by the ear, the memory, and by practice; or, according to the popular phrase, by rote. This method is less difficult, slow and discouraging, than the ordinary method; and even facilitates the subsequent acquisition of grammatical rules. We therefore conclude these remarks by wishing bim success in his laudable undertaking, proportioned to the ingequity and ability with which these volumes are executed.

We are happy to learn that several instructors in different parts of the United States, are teaching the French language on Mr. Dufief's principles.

One God in one person only and Jesus Christ a being distinct from God, dependent upon him for his existence, and his various powers; maintained and defended. By John Sherman, Pastor of the first church in Mansfield, (Connecticut.) pp. 200 8vo. Worcester,

I. Thomas, jun.

IN his introduction to this performance, Mr. Sherman uses great liberty of speech. He ap

pears to censure, with no small degree of asperity, the whole body of orthodox christians, for their want of charity toward those, who deny the doctrine of the sacred Trinity. He pleads for that unbounded catholicism, which embraces all denominations of christians, and which excludes the name and the guilt of Heresy from the whole christian world. This liberality of sentiment he founds upon the principle, that no man can be infallibly certain, whether any one article of his religious creed be agreeable to the word of God. Hence the whole train of his introductory remarks is calculated to open the door to every species of religious errour, infidelity, and skepticism.

Among many instances of high colouring and misrepresentation, calculated to mislead his readers, we quote the following: Speaking of the influence of education on theological students, he says, (p. 78. Introd.) "While under the care of his respected instructor, he is furnished with such authors, as ingeniously defend his peculiar sentiments. He is taught to contend earnestly for the creed of his teacher as being the faith once delivered to the saints; and having examined one side of a question only, and been inspired with sufficient prejudice against every opponent, he is sent forth to preach and to defend the doctrines in which he was born!"

We know of no theological instructor in New England, who treats his pupils in the manner here described. We doubt whether Mr. S. can substantiate this bold and unqualified charge by a single example.

He divides his dissertation into two parts. In the first part, he proposes to shew that the passages and considerations, alleged in

favour of the supreme and independent Deity of Christ, do not establish such doctrine concerning him and in the second part, he proceeds to state what appears to him direct and positive proof, that Christ is not the most high God, but a being entirely distinct from God, inferior and dependfrom God, inferior and dependent, his Son, servant, messenger,

&c.

No theological fubject has been more frequently, more fully, and more ably difcuffed, than the doctrine concerning a Trinity of Perfons in the only living and true God. Every corner in this field of controverfy has been repeatedly traverfed by the moft ingenious and learned divines. It is not to be expected, after eighteen centuries have been employed in fearching the writings of both infpired and uninfpired men, that any thing really new, in point of hiftory, criticifm, or argument, can now be advanced upon this fubject. Mr. Sherman does not pretend that he has devifed any new method, or made ufe of any new weapons, to attack and overthrow the commonly received doctrine of three diftinct and equally divine Perfons in the Godhead. He profeffes only to exhibit his own fentiments in his own way. And it is but juftice to acknowledge, that he is no fervile follower of thofe who have gone before him in this controverfy; that he has written in a perfpicuous and independent manner; that he has fearched the Bible and other books diligently; and that he has thought closely upon both fides of the great question, which he has undertaken to decide. But ftill we are forry to find, that he has fpent fo much time and pains in an infidious and fruitless attempt, to fubvert a fundamental doctrine

of the gofpel. He has taken undue methods to ftrengthen his own caufe, and to weaken the cause of his opponents.

king a merit of changing his fenWe fee no propriety in his ma timents. Had he overcome the nouncing errour and embracing prejudices of education, in re, truth, his conduct would have been truly meritorious. But fince he has rejected a precious and important truth, for the fake of adopting and propagating a dangerous errour, he has, we believe, merited those marks of difpleasure, from his brethren in the ministry, which he fays he has received and which he may fill receive from the friends of truth.

He appears very difingenuous, in holding himself a Non Defcript among the various denominations of chriftians, who deny the proper Divinity of Chrift. "In the following treatise (he fays) we have not thought it proper to bring into view peculiarities, which we may entertain, and which diftinguifh us from any denominations of thofe, who deny the fupreme and independent Deity of Chrift and the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity. Seeing the only question of primary importance, is Whether the commonly received doctrine concerning Chrift and the Trinity be true or falfe,' we shall confine our arguments wholly to this fingle point." P. 15. Introduc tion.

By taking this ftand behind the curtain, he avails himself of the learning, the artifices, and the reafonings, of the Sabellians, of the Arians, of the Socinians, and of the Unitarians; without embarraffing himfelf with the pecuiar difficulties which attend their different and oppofite schemes of

faith. Though all thefe fectaries may now claim him as their ad vocate, yet whenever he thall find it convenient to throw off the mafk and take his proper rank, he may appear as zealous and powerful in oppofing them, as he now does in oppofing the Trinitarians. His chief aim appears to be, to demol ifh the commonly received faith concerning the Trinity, without attempting to furnish a substitute. His conduct in this refpect, is neither juftifiable in itself, nor confiftent with his boasted frankness in avowing his fentiments.

But these are venial faults, in comparison with the unfair method he has taken to accomplish his defigns. He very well knew, that the orthodox doctrine fuppofes three equally divine Perfons in the Godhead. But he has first and chiefly directed his arguments against the fupreme and independent Deity of Chrift, without bringing into view the doctrine of the Trinity in general, and what the Scriptures reveal concerning the union and order of operation, of the three divine Perfons in the economy of redemption. Befide, his ufing the phrase, "Supreme and Independent Deity of Chrift," feems to infinuate, that the orthodox fet up the Son as equal, if not fuperior to the Father, in all refpects. Upon this ground, he confiders every text that speaks of the Son as inferior to the Father, in any respect, as militating against their doctrine. Every critical and impartial reader will readily perceive that the whole plaufibility of the first part of his differtation, arifes altogether from this artful mode of treating the fubje&t in debate.

The fame obfervation is equally applicable to the fecond part of

his treatife. He collects all his direct and pofitive proof, that Chrift is not the most high God, but a being entirely diftinct from and inferior to God, from what the Scriptures affert, and what the Trinitarians allow, concerning the humanity and official inferiority of the Son to the Father, which is fo far from refuting, that it does not even touch the true doctrine of the Trinity. This part. of his performance abounds with mifconftructions and mifapplica tions of fcripture, and a train of reafoning about the mysterious mode of the Divine Existence, which is a fubject totally beyond the province of reafon.

His whole publication would have appeared to more advantage in the eye of the publick, if he had concluded it with only claiming the right of private judgment, inftead of calling upon the whole body of the orthodox, either to yield to his arguments, or come out and meet him in the field of controverfy. They may believe, as well as he, that truth will finally prevail and triumph over errour, and yet have painful apprehenfions, that multitudes will be der ftroyed, before the latter day light and glory fhall diffipate all the clouds of ignorance, errour, and delufion, which now overfpread the earth. And under this impreffion, they will undoubtedly feel themfelves bound in duty to check, rather than promote, the circulation of his, or any other publication, which they deem fraught with the poifon of fatal

errour.

Remarks by another band.

MUCH of this author's theory depends on critical difquifitions on the original languages, in which

the fcriptures were written. Such difquifitions we are far from difcouraging. Conducted by intelligence and folid learning, they throw great light on the facred oracles. But, when a fingle article of christian doctrine, of momentous importance, is either af failed or defended by criticifm alone, there is always fomething fufpicious. The translators of the English verfion of the bible were not matterers in the learned lan

guages. They were profoundly verfed in the originals, which they tranflated. Whatever verbal améndments their translation may admit, we do not yet fee cause to confider it as an unfafe guide to the English reader, in any fingle fundamental article of religion. That grand article therefore, which this publication is defigned to overthrow, we do not believe muft fland or fall by verbal criticifms. The fame expedient has been adopted before, to eftablish the doctrine of universal falvation, but without effect.

“See Kar's and 's build the glorious

scheme!

And ygs and gas unfold their proof supreme !

But such nice proof as none but those can know,

Who oft have read the sacred volume through,

And read in Greek."

in general, we find this to be actually the case, whenever they lay aside their catechisms and talk in the plain language of their own ideas. How ever it may be received, by high Trinitarians, it is no matter of hesitation with us to say, that we doubt not but

If the appeal to criticifm be inconclufive, the appeal to common ferfe will not be found fo decifive fenfe will not be found fo decifive on the fide of the question adopted by Mr. Sherman, as he feems to imagine.

"Itis," he observes (p. 185) "easy, natural, yea, according with the conception of common christians, untrammelled by an imposing theory, to understand this doctrine in the manner we have stated. So far as we have conversed with the good mothers in Israel who have been long before us in Christ, or with common christians

more than three fourths of the best disciples in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus are really with us in sentiment, though it be the fashion to subscribe to Trinitarian creeds; which, 'however, they neither understand nor construe, as do their theoretick teach'ers."

This cannot be called argumentum ad verecundiam. Modelty is here out of the queftion. The experience of a young minifter, in a parish of no great magnitude, may teach him fomething of hu man nature, but not every thing. What has been learned from converfations, which might poffibly have received fome impulfe or bias from the principal speaker, will not be denied. What is undoubtingly prefumed, without knowledge, will not fo readily be admit ted. We well know, that errourists, of all defcriptions, are accustomed to call themselves Legion. It had been becoming a lover of truth, had there been ever fo great advantage of age and experience, to hefitate long, before he had faid, what there is much reason, not to doubt merely, but abfolutely to difbelieve, refpecting the prevalence of the antitrinitarian tenets.

Since this opinion has nothing to do with the arguments of the au thor, we do not, it is prefumed, trefpafs the limits of a review, in offering a remark, to counteract its injurious tendency. We have no evidence, that "the best difciples" of Chrift have generally apoftatized from the faith of the primitive chriftians, and of the Reformers of the fixteenth century. How the learned and the unlearned have uniformly, with inconfid

erable exceptions, understood the fcriptures on the point in controverfy, cannot, without effrontery, be denied. The manner, in which they have thus generally underftood them, forms no fmall prefumptive evidence in favour of the truth. Had not Jefus Chrift poffeffed a truly divine nature, would not the scriptures have fo treated the fubject of his character, as to prevent a natural, yet idolatrous, mistake among christian believers. "If the Saviour were not the true God," fays a writer of recent celebrity, then there would lie

in the gofpel fufficient reason for the most dreadful fuperftition; by which, during eighteen centuries,

FAR THE GREATEST PART OF THE CONFESSORS OF CHRIST, and among them the most eminent lights in all wifdom (these too, with the immortal fame of skill in languages and other learning, have fearched and explained the facred fcriptures,) have given religious honour to him who was crucified, while in the genuine import of these names, he was neither the Saviour, nor God."

ACCOUNT OF AN INSTITUTION AT

ST. CHRISTOPHERS.

(Concluded from page 180.) In addition to what has been already said, a general outline of the principles, upon which the institution is established and conducted, may be thus delineated.

All the children who are admitted in toit derive the advantages of a home, as well as the instruction of a school from the provision which has been made, and the regulations which have been framed for them. Protracted and fraudulent vacations, which cheat them of their improvement, and suspend the progress of knowledge until its attainments are almost forgotten, are depriv ed of the pretext by which they are usually glossed over. Nor indeed are holydays, which substitute idleness, ennui, and pastimes hardly innocent, for necessary relaxation and brief respites from study, scarce ever admitted. By this means the advance of the children in knowledge is regular and uninterrupted, and the effect of vicious society, improper conversation, and corruptive idleness, cautiously guarded against.

The diet of the children is regulated and established upon principles of economy and health, of certainty and

sufficiency. Regular and seasonable hours are fixed upon for their meals. Clothing has been directed of the plainest, cheapest, and most uniform kind. In institutions of this sort, every approach towards ornament is an attack upon the principles of the establishment. It misapplies to purposes of ostentation, the funds that should be sacred to the relief of want, and nourishes vanity in bosoms whose happiness depends on its exclusion. The lodging of the children has been so contrived as to ensure cleanliness, air, and health to the bed chambers. Nor was it less adapted to extend all these advantages to their school and dinner rooms. Instruction occupies a considerable portion of the day; and yet it is so timed as to be rendered compatible with, and mark out the seasons best adapted to exercise. The practice of devotion is rendered habitual. And a decent respect for established forms inculcated by a regular attendance on divine worship.

But all these benefits and blessings could not reconcile the parents of poor and destitute children,throughout the island of St. Christopher, to the plan of the institution. That they should with reluctance instead of eagerness consent to have the necessities of their