first would indicate in them gross dishonesty; the second culpable neglect, in not making themselves acquainted with the opinions of those from whom they differ, and against whom they write. If this consideration were constantly attended to, much trouble might be avoided by writers upon both sides of this much agitated controversy. But though Trinitarians put in this disclaimer, it may be supposed, that nevertheless the opinions which they hold are subversive of the Unity of the Godhead. Now to get at the substance of this objection, let us inquire what is unity, as predicated of deity? We may say it is oneness, but this is merely defining one term by another equally undefined. The question will again return, what is oneness in the same logical relation? Does it mean numerical unity or simple unity? If the former, that is precisely what Trinitarians believe, so that all controversy upon the subject is useless; if the latter, then we ask, what is the difference between these two kinds of unity, and what is simple unity as applied to deity? Let every intellectual nerve be strained to its utmost degree of tension, and Unitarians as well as Trinitarians will discover that the human mind is incapable of defining the Unity of God. Why, need Unitarians say that we hold doctrines subversive of the divine unity, when they cannot tell what that unity is, nor wherein our opinions are hostile to it? The reason why this definition is impossible is obvious: the Deity is acknowledged by all to be infinite in his being, and so must be incomprehensible to us who possess only finite capacities;-but of that which stands in an incomprehensible relation to us, it is impossible to form a positive idea, because if we could, then the being must either become finite, or we must become infinite, both of which are impossibilities; and of that of which we cannot form a positive idea, the necessity of things prevents us from giving a definition. We may, however, entertain a positive belief of the existence of God, though we might find it more than difficult to give a definition of it; but the mode of the existence of a being and the simple existence itself are two different things, and of the former, in relation to the Godhead, it is utterly impossible for us to form any positive conception whatever. Far easier would it be for man to grasp our world in the hollow of his hand, than to comprehend in his mind the mode of the existence of the infinitely adorable Jehovah. We cannot form any intelligible idea of the mode of our own existence; but even supposing we could, that would not enable us to form a distinct conception of the same in deity: we are

created, finite, and contingent beings-he is uncreated, infinite, and necessarily existent; so that no analogy in the possibility of things could exist between the two cases. When Unitarians object to us as, by implication, trenching upon the Unity of God, we ask them what that unity is, and wherein our opinions militate against it? Let them tell us, when they cannot give us a definition of this incomprehensible Being, because if they could, he would consequently be no longer incomprehensible, and therefore no longer infinite, and so no longer God,-why we may not with equal propriety and with equal truth predicate a trinity of distinctions in the Godhead as well as they may predicate no distinction? We have frequently been called upon to define the existence of a trinity of persons or distinctions in the Unity of the Godhead -this, as finite creatures, we profess our inability to do; but when Unitarians define unity as applied to the divine Being, we will pledge ourselves to attempt it; but this, even did they possess the united intelligence of the whole human race, they will never be able to effect. With what reverence and humility, then, should we speak of the everlasting Jehovah ! with what holy awe should we breathe his name! and how presumptuous is it for men to dogmatize respecting the mode of his existence, which is incomprehensible, and in comparison to whom we are as nothing, and but of yesterday!

To this sense of the term Unitarian, as conveying the insinuation, that Trinitarians deny the Unity of God, we do most decidedly object;-we say it is untrue, as regards our principles, because the ignorant might thereby be led to look upon us as idolaters, who entertain the belief of the existence of three separate distinct beings or entities, each being a God. We know that the majority of ignorant Unitarians, who distinctly comprehend neither what the opinions of their own party are, nor those which we profess to believe, entertain this imagination respecting our creed; and that, notwithstanding its frequent exposure as a misrepresentation, it is still reiterated by the vulgar and fostered by the learned. Whoever has looked into the writings of Unitarians will be aware of the truth of this statement;* and whoever has conversed with the laity of that sect, must have heard this misstatement of our opinions again and again reiterated. The controversy, as we before alluded, does not consist in the denial of the Unity

* Belsham, Priestley, Channing, Drummond, Bruce, Mitchell, &c.

of God by one party, and its affirmation by the other; but it arises from the views which are entertained respecting Christ the Word, and the Holy Ghost the Comforter. This controversy can be settled only by an appeal to the Sacred Scriptures, as it must be admitted that natural religion gives no intimation whatever of a Mediator or a Sanctifier. The necessity of each to fulfil the separate offices which they sustain might at least be shown to be probable, and our arguments be based upon the perfections of Deity as discoverable by the light of nature, and upon the present moral condition of the human race; but prior to the communication of a revelation, we had no knowledge of the existence of a Mediator or Sanctifier; and consequently none of the harmony which appears to us now to subsist between the evil to be remedied and the agency actually engaged in the economy of grace for that purpose. Our opponents cannot then be considered as acting justly by us, when they thus endeavour to shift the question from its fair and legitimate ground, taking for granted that we controvert a principle which we believe as firmly as they do themselves. We believe in the numerical unity of deitythis is necessary to the very existence of that system of opinions which we entertain, and which we believe to be in perfect accordance with the declarations of the word of God; nor have we ever known of any Trinitarian maintaining the doctrine of Tritheism: so soon, in fact, as any person does that, he that moment ceases to be a Trinitarian; nor are we any more accountable for his opinions than we are for those of a Mahometan; and consequently he stands as much opposed to us as does the Socinian. Let not Unitarians, then, make use of this mode of argumentation, we should say, of misrepresentation, because such conduct makes them appear as if conscious of the weakness of that cause which they are compelled to support by means which every honest man must repudiate as unjust, and deserving only of contempt.

The Unitarian, in conducting his argument, besides being guilty of the pernicious practice to which we have just alluded, falls into another logical mistake equally egregious and unphilosophical. In discussing the doctrine of the Deity of the Word, he imagines, if he could prove that Supreme Deity cannot, upon Scripture testimony, be predicated of him, he has then gained a victory over his Trinitarian adversary; whereas, could he even effect that, he would then only be stepping upon the threshold of the real subject of controversy. He must also show from Scripture evidence who Christ is,

and what character of dignity he sustains, otherwise he has merely proved a negative from which no positive consequence can be deduced; he must also prove that the Scriptures reveal him to us a created intelligence, possessed of that peculiar order of dignity of which Arians speak, or he must establish upon the same grounds that he is a mere man, and nothing more than a man, in accordance with the opinions of Socinians. Suppose in the ethical controversy respecting the nature of virtue, we might be able to prove that utility was not its basis, would we then be at liberty to draw the conclusion, that it consisted in disinterested benevolence? No, certainly not; we would, even after having effected this, be necessitated to establish the truth of our own theory, and meet the objections which our opponents might be able to urge against it, before we would be logically at liberty to draw such a conclusion. The same observation is equally valid, with regard to the doctrine of the Deity of Christ; although it could be proved not to be true, that would not establish the truth of either the Arian or Socinian hypothesis. Each of these also might be proved to be untrue, and opposed to Scripture testimony, what then, we ask, would be the legitimate conclusion to which the controversialists alone could come?-why, that none of the three opinions was true; but beyond this they could not proceed in drawing any just and logical consequence. It must be evident from these observations, that it is necessary for each sect not only to refute the systems of others, but also to establisin the truth of their own, in opposition to the objections preferred against it by its adversaries. Trinitarians have uniformly pursued this honest, upright mode of conducting the controversy; but the Unitarian sect, compounded by some sort of ecclesiastical chemistry of Arians and Socinians, has almost always skulked from the attempt to prove the truth, by positive Scripture evidence, of those doctrines and those imaginary theories which are peculiar to it.

There is always considerable ambiguity attached to our language when we make use of the term Unitarian, even when we apply it to that sect by whom the title has been "usurped. When we charge the Unitarians of this country with the opinions advocated by their "English_brethren,' they turn round upon us, and say no, we are not Humanitarians or Socinians. When again we call them Arians, they in general object to that also, and claim the title of Unitarians. In England, the term was first used-it was afterwards assumed by a party in this country-so that we conceive we

have a perfect right, unless they give us the meaning which they attach to the title, to assume that their opinions are the same as the rank Socinian doctrines of their "English brethren," who are called by the same name. Otherwise, the term is one to which no definite meaning has been attached; and if so, we must bring the charge of dishonesty, coupled with a design to impose upon and delude the public, against those ministers and people of the "northern counties," by whom the title has been now "usurped." But, that we may treat them with all possible candour, we may regard the body as being compounded of two component ingredients-Arianism and Socinianism; perhaps we might add a third-Deism, as all Deists, who wish to make any show of religion, uniformly connect themselves with Unitarian congregations-if any such be within their neighbourhood-and sometimes even exert themselves to further the interests of that party, in whose prosperity they always rejoice.

We need not, however, wonder at this, in consequence of the very close resemblance which subsists between the two theories: the one adhering to reason and the light of nature alone-the other receiving only so much of revelation as this reason and the light of nature can satisfactorily explain and bring down to the humble level of ordinary human comprehension. It is on this account that we always find Deists rejoicing at the advancement of Unitarianism, so great is the moral, sympathetic affinity which appears to subsist between the two systems. Nay, it would not be difficult to show, that the very same arguments which Arians and Socinians foolishly consider sufficient to overthrow Trinitarianism, if valid in that case, would also be equally, if not more strong and unanswerable, when applied to the demolition of Christianity itself. It might also be shown, that if the Scriptures do not, by their declarations, prove the Deity of the Word, neither do they reveal any being as possessed of supreme deity; because the same arguments and the same principles of interpretation which are made use of by Unitarians, for the purpose of depriving the Son of Deity, would be equally applicable to the subject, if the object were to divest the Father of his Deity.

In endeavouring to establish any particular doctrine of revelation, we require, as we before observed, not merely negative, but also positive evidence. The Arian, in every instance, however, merely resorts to the former: he imagines, if he can make it appear that the Word is not God, or raise a few objections to that doctrine, he has then decided the