to have had twelve marshals of his empire at the head of his armies, and four others, who were in a state of inactivity. The twelve first are the twelve signs of the Zodiac, marching under the orders of the Sun (Napoleon), each commanding an innumerable army of stars, which are divided into twelve parts, corresponding to the twelve signs. Such are the twelve marshals who, according to our fabulous chronicles, were in active service under Napoleon. The four others are evidently the four cardinal points, which, immovable amidst the general motion, very appositely represent the state of inactivity already mentioned. Thus, all these marshals, active and inactive, are purely symbolical beings, having no more reality than their chief.

9th. We are told that this leader of so many brilliant armies, gloriously overran the countries of the south* ; but having penetrated too far in the north+ he could not maintain himself. All this is perfectly characteristic of the Sun's march. The Sun, it is well known, rules as a sovereion in the south, as is said of the Emperor Napoleon. But what is very remarkable is, that after the vernal equinox, the Sun seeks to gain the northern regions, by moving from the Equator. But at the end of three months of advance towards those countries, he meets the Boreal Tropic, which forces him to retreat and retrace his steps to the south, in following the sign Cancer, that is to say the crab, a sign to which this name was given to express the retrograde march of the Sun in this part of the sphere. It is on this basis that the imaginary expedition of Napoleon to the north, towards Moscow, and the humiliating retreat which followed, are built.

10th. Lastly, and this needs no explanation, the Sun rises in the east, and sets in the west, as every body knows. But for spectators, placed at the extremities of land, the Sun seems to emerge in the morning from the eastern seas, and to sink in the evening into the western seas. Moreover, this is the mode in which poets describe his rising and his setting. And that is all that we ought to understand when it is said that Napoleon came by the sea from the east, from Egypt, to reign in France, and disappeared in the western seas, after a reign of twelve years; which simply means the twelve hours of the day, the

twelve hours during which the Sun shines above the horizon.

"He only reigned a day," says the author of the "Nouvelles Messenienes," in speaking of Napoleon; and the manner in which he describes his rise, decline, and fall, proves that this charming poet only recognised in Napoleon, as we do, an image of the Sun. And assuredly he was nothing more. This is proved by his name, by the name of his mother, by his three sisters, his four brothers, his two wives, his son, his marshals, and his exploits. It is proved by the place of his birth, by the region whence he came to assume his career of sovereignty, by the time he occupied in fulfilling it, by the countries he governed, by those in which he fell, and by the region in which he disappeared, pale and uncrowned, after his brilliant career, as the poet Casimir Delavigne has described him.

It is, therefore, demonstrated that the pretended hero of our age is no more than an allegorical personage, all whose attributes are borrowed from the Sun. Napoleon Bonaparte, of whom so many things have been said and written, consequently never had a real existence; and the error into which so many have fallen, arises from their having mistaken the mythology of the 19th century for a history.

P.S. We could further support our position by a great number of Royal Ordinances, the dates of which evidently contradict the pretended reign of Napoleon, but we have our private reasons for not noticing them.*

* When Louis XVIII ascended the throne of France, in 1814, he dated all his Ordinances in the eighteenth year of his reign, as though he really had during the preceding eighteen years wielded the sceptre, and had never gone into exile-thus causing the whole of Napoleon's ign to disappear.

MRS. DANA'S LETTERS.

By

["Letters Addressed to Relatives and Friends, chiefly in Reply to Arguments in Support of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Mary S. B. Dana. Boston, 1845."]

MY DEAR FATHER:

LETTER VII.

AN EXPLANATION.

IN your last communication you say: "Though somewhat doubtful, after your annunciation that you had settled two months ago the matter, which I supposed might still be in some degree in question, whether I had better resume my pen, I have notwithstanding done so, that I may have the satisfaction hereafter that will arise from the reflection of having done all in my power, not so much to influence and control your decisions, as to aid and direct your inquiries."

I did not mean, my dear father, to express myself with arrogant confidence; I was merely giving a reason why I called myself a Unitarian. I intended it as a reply to what you had said in regard to collateral doctrines; and I was endeavouring to establish the point, which was clear to my own mind, namely, that, whatever might be my views upon other topics, while I believed in the absolute and unqualified unity of God, I was certainly a Unitarian; and this point, I informed you, had been settled, in my own mind, for the space of two months or more. I am not so settled in any opinion, that I am not willing to hear and candidly to weigh any arguments which may be presented for a different belief.

You say, "it is but too evident that you have had before you the entire strength of one side of the question, the ablest productions of the most powerful minds which have embarked in this discussion. So far, at least, as human authors have been your resource, one side has had immensely and overwhelmingly the advantage of the other. If your mind had not been made up, as you seem to say it has, I should like you to have read Dr. Miller's Letters on Unitarianism, and Professor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. In the former of these, I am inclined to think, you will meet with a different exhibition of the opinions of early and primitive Christians, from that to which you have been recently listening, and to which you have, perhaps, acceded as correct."

You have accordingly, since writing what I have quoted above, sent me a copy of Miller's Letters, which I have carefully read. I do not find that his "exhibition of the opinions of early and primitive Christians" at all overthrows the opinion which I have seen as I think, established by other writers,-namely, that the early Fathers did not believe that the Trinity was taught in the Scriptures, and that those who believed in and contended for this doctrine themselves, did not receive it as it is received at the

present day. I have neither time nor strength to enlarge upon thispoint, but will only say, that Priestley's History of Early Opinions contains very satisfactory evidence in favour of my position, taken from the writings of the early Fathers themselves.

You seem to be offended because Unitarians insist that such a doctrine as that of the Trinity ought to be explicitly stated in the Bible before we can be required to receive it, and much more, before we can regard it as fundamental. But if Unitarians feel in this way, as I confess they do, it is precisely as your favourite, Dr. Watts, felt. For proof of this, read again his prayer to the Deity, as quoted in my last letter. But I will quote from your letter. "Unitarians are right," you observe, “in saying that important doctrines will be frequently inculcated in the Scriptures, but," you ask, " are they not wrong in insisting that they must be presented precisely in that form which they choose to prescribe, and that their phraseology must be used?"

Now this is by no means what Unitarians insist upon. They only insist that every fundamental doctrine must be capable of being stated in Bible phraseology. Any proposition, that is of merely human origin, and which cannot be explicitly stated in the words of the inspired volume, they would not consider authoritative: let such a proposition emanate either from a Unitarian or a Trinitarian source.

Again, you say: "If worship to Christ is commanded,—if men and angels are represented (and who can doubt that they are?) as worshipping him,-if the titles, or the attributes, or the works. ascribed to God are attributed to him, is it not tantamount to what they profess to want?"

I acknowledge that it might be so if the word worship was always used in one sense, or if Trinitarians and Unitarians always used it in the same sense. But both of them acknowledge that in the Bible it is not always used in the same sense, that is, to denote supreme homage. There is then no other way than for each one to determine the sense in which the word is used in each particular instance, by other portions of Scripture about which there can be no doubt or difference of opinion. There remains, then, the second part of your question, "if the titles, &c." And here again we differ as to our premises, and cannot, of course, come to the same conclusion. Unitarians do not believe that the "titles," "attributes," or "works ascribed to God are attributed to Christ,' in the same way or in the same sense. I will not enlarge upon this point here, because it has been fully discussed elsewhere.

In another part of your letter you make the following inquiries. "Have you become so far acquainted with the productions of Unitarians, as to satisfy yourself that, the Trinity excepted, in all other respects they and we are, and ought to be, one people? If you have, I most heartily rejoice at it, and I long to partake of the discovery. Do they believe, as you have been accustomed to hear from paternal and other lips, and accustomed, as I suppose, to believe and feel too,-do they believe in the lost and depraved condition of human nature, in the necessity and nature of the

atonement, in the constituents and evidences of regeneration, in the cross of Christ, in self-denial and sacrifices, in non-conformity to the world, and in heavenly-mindedness and other kindred sub jects, as you have been accustomed to regard these matters? IF so, it is high time we should come together, high time for Trinitarians to confess that they have injured and slandered their Uni-tarian brethren. I, for one, shall have very much to repent of, to ask God's and their forgiveness for, and to forsake. And I am. ready to do all these things, and to do so with cheerfulness, if any of them can convince me that I have wronged them. I have condemned them in days past, but not, as one of their writers expresses it, without a hearing,' nor 'from the unfriendly represen-tations of others.' If I have (and I certainly have) borne testimony against them, it has been 'with a good conscience.' But I think I have ever been, and still am ready to do them ample justice."

My dear father, no one, who knows you as I do, would doub this for a moment. And yet while men make their particula views of the doctrines taught in the Bible necessary to salvation. I do not see how those who differ in their views can come together. The Unitarian is willing to give the name of Christian to all who acknowledge Christ as their divinely commissioned Teacher and Head. "We may safely affirm," says a Unitarian writer, "that the Scriptural sense of the term Christian, to which it might be wise for Christians to adhere, is neither more nor less than that of a disciple of Christ,-of one who, from a sincere belief in Christ's divine commission and Messiaship, chooses him for his instructor and his Lord." But others are not willing to use the term Christian as it is used in the Bible.

In regard to the inquiries you make concerning Unitarians namely, whether I have found out that there is no difference between them and Trinitarians upon certain doctrinal points, E answer that I think there is a great difference; but differences are to be expected while men's minds are so variously constituted Upon fundamental points, that is, those points, a belief in which is necessary to salvation, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion, because I believe they are so plainly revealed that no honest inquirer can mistake them. In regard to all the points mentioned by you in the extract I have made from your letter, Unitarians have a certain belief; it is rather a different belief from yours, but they think, as you do of your views; namely that they are sustained by the Bible.

"We think," says the Rev. Orville Dewey, "that they (that is Trinitarians) ought to listen to us, when we make the plea, once their own," he had been alluding to the fact that all Protestants had once to defend themselves from charges of heresy;-"that we believe, according to our honest understanding of their import, all things that are written in the Holy Scriptures.

"There is one circumstance which makes the statement of this defence peculiarly pertinent and proper for us. And that is, the delicacy which has been felt by our writers and preachers about

H H