controversy; whereas, this does not constitute the one-half of the work which he has to accomplish. Let the question be put, what dignity of being does the Son sustain? and let him answer the question categorically and positively; and according to his own system, he must declare that he simply believes him to be one of the highest order of created intelligences; but withal, a creature, contingent in his being, and dependent, as every other created thing necessarily must be, upon the Great First Cause of all for his existence. Now we would ask the Arian to establish the truth of this from the positive declarations of the word of God; and we are much mistaken if he can point out to us one single text, which, by any legitimate mode of interpretation, can be regarded as direct testimony in favour of his particular views. Such testimony, we conceive, the Scriptures do not afford, otherwise Arians would long ere this have adduced it. Let him try it now, and we are aware that not one single passage of directly affirmative proof can be brought forward by him. The system is totally built upon negatives; is defended by negatives; and is itself a direct negation of all Scripture testimony respecting the essential dignity of the Messiah. But the Arians may turn round upon us, and say-give you to us positive testimony, in confirmation of the truth of your opinions, upon this subject? This is a fair demand, and compliance with it is not by any means difficult. "The Word was God" is at once our ready and scriptural reply. Now let us demand of them to bring us forward one solitary passage in which it is asserted that The Word was" NOT " God;" but they will search in vain for this: no such passage occurs in all the volume of revelation. He may indeed adduce passages in which Christ is spoken of as a man: but the truths contained in these are not by any means opposed to the Trinitarian creed; nay, so far is it to the contrary, that the doctrine which they assert, forms an integral part of the Trinitarian system. Besides, it must at once appear evident to every person who is even superficially acquainted with the bearings of the controversy, that this doctrine of the human nature of the Son, and the passages of Scripture which go to prove its truth, are totally at variance with, and completely overthrow, the Arian hypothesis. So far as the Scriptures satisfactorily prove the truth of the doctrine of the human nature of the Son of God, just so far do they go to prove the truth of Trinitarianism, and so far do they lend their sanction to the demolition of Arianism. In like manner do other passages, referring to the same sub

ject, which are usually quoted by Arians, go to overthrow the system which they are brought forward to establish.

One other peculiarity of the same system is generally overlooked; and that is, the indwelling of this antecedently existing, super-angelic intelligence in the human nature of the Messiah. The Arian maintains that this intelligence was in like relation to his human nature as the soul of man is to his body; but if this be the case, he could not by any possibility have been a man; and, therefore, wherever the Scriptures speak of him as such, they distinctly and unequivocally refute the Arian theory. But where do we find any passage of Scripture, which, even by the most tortuous mode of interpretation, can be considered as lending any support whatever to this imaginary hypothesis-that an intelligence, antecedently existing, of the highest order of creatures, inhabited the body of the man Christ Jesus? No such passage can be found; yet Arians maintain the doctrine, directly opposed, as it is, to reason, common sense, and revelation.

But our limits are so circumscribed, that we are compelled to hasten to the other phases which Unitarianism presents. If Unitarians do not concur in the belief of the doctrines usually denominated Arian, they must necessarily entertain those which are designated Socinian or Humanitarian ;—that is, they believe that Jesus Christ was a mere man, and in all respects and relations only a man, differing in no attribute of being from his common brethren of the human species;—and that prior to his appearance upon this earth, he had no existence. It must be evident that there is a considerable difference between the Arian doctrine and this; yet both agree in believing that Christ, the Word, was a mere created being, differing, however, widely respecting the time of his creation and the dignity of his nature. This latter system is so completely unsupported by the whole tenor of Scripture, when interpreted by the legitimate rules of exegesis, that we consider it as undeserving of a serious refutation. Its supporters, like the Arians, frequently deal in negative proof; and even in drawing their conclusions from the passages of Scripture which they adduce in support of their theory, they proceed upon an utter fallacy in their argument. They suppose, when they have proved the doctrine of the human nature of Christ as being revealed in the Scriptures, that then they have accomplished 'the establishment of their system. This is really the case with regard to the Arian, but certainly not with regard to the Trinitarian. With regard to the latter, such arguments are

completely innocuous, they must also prove that Christ, the Word, is only a man, and nothing more than a man: they must bring forward direct testimony from the word of God to prove him to be only a man, because we believe in the doctrine of his human nature; but such testimony as that demanded, is not to be found in all the records of inspiration. Whilst the Trinitarian, then, has positive evidence in support of his belief, the Arian and Socinian have only negative, upon which to rest for the establishment of theirs; and even this when properly analyzed, will be found, more or less, to be hostile to their respective creeds, whilst it lends its aid powerfully to strengthen and to establish ours.

We trust we have now shown that the controversy between Unitarians and Trinitarians is not one respecting the Unity of God, because that fundamental doctrine is acknowledged and advocated by both parties; but that it has reference to other subjects, in the confirmation of their own views of which, Unitarians are utterly unable to adduce from the word of God positive or satisfactory evidence. From this, then, we must conclude, that the title Unitarian, is not one which can, with any propriety of language, be applied to those who have "usurped" it, thereby insinuating that they alone are the worshippers of one God, and that all other denominations of Christians must consequently be idolaters. Arian and Socinian, or, if they prefer it, Humanitarian, are the only distinguishing epithets to which, in common justice, they can lay claim. If they be ashamed of these appellations, then we say they ought to be more ashamed of the doctrines which are peculiar to those sects; if they be not ashamed of them, let them not assume a name whose obvious tendency is to screen their opinions from the view of the public, by imposing on it a view of them which is false, as regards themselves, and dishonest, as regards their neighbours. In our next paper we shall briefly take up the subject of creeds, to the adoption of which, as a public testimony to the world of the doctrinal sentiments of a church, Arians and Socinians are so resolutely opposed.

(TO BE CONTINUED.)

"God in mercy hath concealed from man the knowledge of his end. If he knew it were near, he would be disqualified for the duties of life; and if he knew it were distant, he would delay his preparation. You should therefore be satisfied with knowing that it was certain: and the safest way is to believe that it may be also near, and to make no delay in getting ready, lest it overtake you unprepared."

SCRIPTURE-READERS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN.

SIR, IN your last Number you have briefly stated the argument for the office of Scripture-readers. The argument, though briefly expressed, must have commended itself to every sound and enlightened mind, as complete and satisfactory. Will you permit me, therefore, in a few words, to make an application of your argument, by pressing on your many readers the duty of employing Scripture-readers, so far as they may have influence to do so? The simplicity of the office is one of its great recommendations, in the present state of the church and the world—the former being able or disposed to do little in the cause of Christ, and the latter needing the most extensive services. There are three ways, in some of which a reader might be employed in any neighbourhood throughout the country; and the special design of these few lines is to suggest these plans. The first and most desirable is, that each congregation shall have its own reader, whom it will support and superintend. The office is thus part and parcel of the church, and subject in all things to its government. The members of the church defray the expense, and the eldership direct and superintend the labours of the reader. He should visit chiefly those families that neglect public worship, and are so deprived of the attentions of a pastor. And it requires little discernment to perceive, that were such an agency employed in any neighbourhood, it would soon tell upon the church that employed it, increasing its members, and in all likelihood advancing its funds to the full amount of all that it contributed to its support. The sum usually paid a Scripture-reader is £30; and where the congregation would be found unable to raise so much, it has only to raise what it can, and apply to the Synod of Ulster's Home Mission, which would be willing to supply the deficiency. The present arrangements of the Mission seem to be such, that no congregation truly desirous of having a Scripture-reader, and willing to contribute what it could to his support, need be without his services. Let the congregations of the Synod think of this suggestion, and see what they can do. Some of them have already come forward, and it is to be hoped many will soon follow. The second method of supporting a reader which I would suggest, is, that every man whose circumstances permit him, should maintain

such a labourer in his own neighbourhood. What would £30 a-year be to many in society? How little do some of our nobility, or gentry, or even merchants, think of spending £30 on one evening's entertainment? But go to them on the morning after the route and ask a subscription for some religious institution, and they will tell you, that really the times are such, they are unable to afford it. They do not think of what they are doing. If they would only seriously reflect upon the use of £30 spent in an entertainment, compared with that of a similar sum devoted to the support of a Scripturereader for the services of a whole year, surely they could not be guilty of such an abuse of the gifts of God. "It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful." There are many persons in society who are foolishly wasting every year as much as would maintain a reader. There are many hoarding up this sum, the rust of which will be a witness against them. And there are many who, by practising a little self-denial, could save all that would be necessary. How wise would it be for the landlord to employ such an agent among his tenants, and the extensive employer among his servants! He would be repaid tenfold, even had he no higher object than the promotion of his temporal interests. Let the rich lay these things to heart, in the prospect of the judgment where they shall render an account of their stewardship. Were they only faithful in the use of the talents entrusted to them, this land, which has hitherto been a scene of bloodshed and confusion, would speedily become an Eden of peace and prosperity. There is little prospect, however, that the rich will do any thing for their country, nor has God usually employed them. It is on the poor chiefly he has conferred the honour of supporting his cause and servants. Permit me, therefore, to suggest a third method of maintaining a reader, which any one may at least attempt. It is to go out and seek subscriptions for the purpose. This plan is at present adopted by many who have a heart in the work, yet have not the means of supporting a reader entirely out of their own resources. Some of these raise the whole sum that is necessary, others raise only a part, and the remainder is supplied by some of our public societies. Let those, then, who have the leisure, seriously bethink themselves of this method of doing good. It is unpleasant work, it is true, to go out for the purpose of begging money. it is just one of the crosses which the Christian should be ready to bear when he sees it is necessary for the promotion of religion. The self-denial required is small, indeed, com

But