some of them who are not friendly to Arianism, have been constrained to declare, since the meeting of Synod, that the avowed and reputed Arians conducted themselves with such temper and ability, as have brought them to a determination to examine carefully into their principles. This is bringing good out of seeming evil, and proves that men will not be frightened into the dogmas of Synods and Councils, but will obey their Saviour, and judge for themselves that which is right.

To many, numbers possess a wonderful charm-forgetting, as they must, that every improvement in art and science, every reformation in religion and morals, has been brought about by a few honest and manly individuals, in opposition to the will and wishes of the multitude,-forgetting, likewise, that, if numbers be made the test of truth, and evidence be forgotten or neglected, every thing that is dear to the Protestant, the Dissenter, nay, to the Christian, must be given up. The long night of Popery would again return, or the midnight darkness of Paganism cover the land.

On reading the above observations to a confidential friend, he smiled, and said, "Arianism dying a natural death!' Good!" And to the condemnation of my ignorance, informed me, that there were between two and three hundred Unitarian Congregations in England, composed of devout, reading, and zealous members, from the humblest to the highest ranks; that there were a great number in America; a few in Scotland and elsewhere; and added, that they were increasing every year. So that, the orthodox themselves being judges, their favourite test of numbers, may ere long, turn the scale against themselves.

The

The proceedings of the Synod, when shaping their test or declaration regarding the Trinity, were so confused, and they found it so extremely difficult to discover language with which the Calvinists could agree to express their faith in that doctrine, that I have been since much puzzled in reflecting on the terms and phrases. The terms Essence, Person, and Substance were objected to, by some of the most expérienced divines, as too scholastic. phrases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost-the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and some similar ones, were considered as not sufficiently definite. Two or three members, who discovered that the discussion was doing harm, suggested, as a remedy, that they could declare their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, without being so particular about words! After various attempts at some safe and guarded language, they were driven by a kind of necessity to adopt the old and, even to common and unthinking readers, the evidently unscriptural phraseology of the Westminster Shorter Catechism-"There are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in Substance, equal in Power and Glory." Whether the Synod means by the word Person, a whole Being or only a part of a Being, a finite or an infinite Person, a distinct God or only a part of God, was not decided. For my own part, I am extremely anxious to have an explanation of the term; and must confess that it is more than strange, that a doctrine which

is said to be so fundamental and important, has not been clearly recorded in plain language in the Bible. If the fact were registered in the Scriptures, that the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, it would satisfy many doubters, who would not be so presumptuous as to demand any thing about the mode or the manner. Mr. Stuart, Professor of Theology for the Seceders at Andover, America, has, as I am told, condemned the use of the term Person, in defending the doctrine of the Trinity. His words, I learn, are, "I could heartily wish, indeed, that the word Person never had come into the Symbols of the Churches, because it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary dispute and difficulty.” Next year, it is to be hoped, the Synod will explain what they mean by the term Person, that they may not be the means of leading those who pin their faith on their sleeves, into the belief of three Gods.

I cannot close these desultory remarks, without observing, that the Rev. Mr. Alexander, a man of high moral and literary attainments, charged Mr. Cooke, in open Synod, with having deserted the Table of the Lord Jesus Christ, to bow his knee to an earthly King. Had his gracious Sovereign known, when Mr. C. was in his presence, that he had thus forsaken Christ for George, his Majesty must surely have been shocked. Had an Arian so turned his back upon the Captain of his Salvation, all Ulster would have been in arms against the "high-way robber," the ungrateful and blasphemous deserter.

AN ULSTER PRESBYTERIAN.

To the Rev. Robert Stewart, A. M. Minister of the Gospel at
Broughshane, Ireland.

SIR,-Your discourse on the "Essential Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ," has disappointed your admirers. In times of popular ferment, men of very moderate acquirements have been known, by a judicious accommodation to the prejudices of the multitude, to raise themselves to an unlooked-for eminence. Their unexpected success, whilst it astonishes others, often dazzles and misleads themselves. In this novel situation, for which their talents are not calculated, they are urged by vanity to aspire after loftier praise; and failing in the idle attempt, become objects of pity to their friends, and of scorn to their enemies. A considerable fluency of expression-a countenance not easily discomposed-a power of talking to an unmeasurable length, with few ideas, and in very common language and above all, a happy compliance with popular prepossessions, had obtained for you some reputation as a preacher, among the honest but unenlightened people, of whom you are the spiritual guide. In that obscure station, you might still have continued to have been regarded as a man of unbounded knowledge; and a few of the neighbouring congregations might have united their plaudits with those of your own charge, and have esteemed you one of the ablest champions of the orthodox faith.

In an evil hour, listening to the flattering recommendation of ill-judging friends, and above all, to the advice of Lord Mount

cashel, you have ventured to come before the public as a writer. There is, perhaps, no more hacknied apology for the vanity of unfledged authorship, than that of the solicitation of friends; and it had been good for you, if a natural confidence in your own powers, had not received this injudicious excitement. It has precipitated you into a measure for which you were altogether unfit, and completely dissipated the illusion from the public mind. Even those who were opposed to you in opinion, were inclined to have given you credit for considerable talent; and expected, that, although your arguments might not have been convincing, they would have been at least placed in the strongest light. Above all, from an impression, I pretend not to say how it originated, that, when at college, you had been the associate of young men of liberal sentiments in religion, with whose opinions your own had corresponded, it was hoped, that, in you the violence of controversy would have been abated, by the difficulties which you must have experienced, in framing a religious creed; and that they who had the misfortune to differ from you, on such deep and mysterious questions, would have been treated according to the courtesies of civilized life, and the professed moderation of those assuming the Christian name. Their expectations have not been realized. I therefore now address myself to you in the bitterness of disappointment, and more in sorrow than in anger.

With your discourse on "Papal Supremacy," I do not feel myself immediately concerned; and shall therefore leave you to settle that controversy as you best may, with the Rev. Father Macaulay, with this single remark, that the creed which you have now adopted, as it is indefensible on the ground of common sense, ties up the hands of a protestant advocate, and suggests the advantage of the authoritative decisions of an infallible church.

was

In the preface to your discourse, you say, that the author ❝ at one time in considerable doubt respecting the divinity of our Lord. The metaphysical disquisitions of Dr. Samuel Clarke, entitled, the Scripture doctrine of the Trinity,' had very nearly misled him. A little more and closer examination of the subject, however, enabled him to see, that the doctrine he was embracing, was not received on the authority of the Scriptures, but of Dr. Clarke; for he never should have found it in the Scriptures, had he not read Dr. Clarke's book." I by no means intend to call in question the sincerity of those convictions, which induced you to return to the faith of your forefathers. The minds of men are so differently constituted, that the arguments which operate irresistibly upon one, will fail in their effect when applied to another. But is it not possible, that the strong and deeply-rooted prepossessions of earlier years,―the reluctance which all must feel to give pain to those with whom they have long maintained affectionate intercourse, and to incur the overpowering weight of popular odium,-in a word, an anxiety to be persuaded of the truth of doctrines which it is equally your wish and your interest to believe, may not, unconsciously, have influenced your decisions, and have finally adjusted the wavering balance?

Permit me also to inquire, What were the views of the Trinity which you taught from the pulpit, during the time when you were "in considerable doubt respecting the divinity of our Lord;" when your understanding was in a state of abeyance as to this momentous doctrine? You do not inform us, when the cloud began to gather over your mind; nor what was the period of greatest obscuration; but merely, that toward the commencement of the year 1825, the darkness had passed away. Are we, then, to understand, that from the time of your appointment as a preacher, till the ominous 1825, a period of sixteen years, you "had not turned your attention directly to an inquiry into what really is the Scripture doctrine of the nature and character of our Lord Jesus Christ?"-that on a subject of such vast importance, you had not seriously inquired?—and that, although you had solemnly vowed to teach "the whole counsel of God," you had remained in gross and wilful ignorance of what he has revealed, respecting his nature and his attributes? You profess to believe, that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to Christianity; and that the Arian, who questions it, is separated from the Deist and Atheist "by a partition-wall slight as the web of the gossamer." I repeat then the question, What was the doctrine, on this fundamental point, that you taught during the times of your spiritual darkness? Did you then, as now, lead your people to understand, that you were a firm believer in this mysterious dogma; though you had not seriously thought of it, and even entertained doubts respecting its truth? I leave you to answer these queries, and to explain these seeming inconsistencies, to the world, to your own conscience, and to your God.

In the introductory part of your discourse, in attempting to ascertain the nature of our blessed Lord, you say, that "the question must be answered by Scripture information alone. All attempts to answer it by information derived from other quarters, will be as unsuccessful as presumptuous. The Scripture informs us, that he is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and God. manifested in the flesh: but how this can, or cannot be, we are unable by reason or philosophy to explain." And again, after enumerating various things in nature, which we cannot fully understand, and yet of the existence of which, we do not entertain a doubt, you observe, "Why therefore will we not admit on the authority of the divine word, that there is but one God, incomprehensible in all conceivable perfections, and that he exists, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although we cannot comprehend, or explain the nature of his existence?"

On this passage I would remark, that you assume the very point at issue, and take for granted what remains to be proved, that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in Scripture. On the contrary, it is my firm and conscientious belief, that the Scriptures fairly interpreted, teach no such doctrine; but in numberless passages, inculcate the great and fundamental truth, that "there is but one God, and none other but he."

From the passage which I have quoted, as well as from the

general tenor of your discourse, you seem to deprecate the use of reason in matters of religion. It has long been a favourite measure with the supporters of dárk and mysterious doctrines, to undervalue those powers which God has bestowed on his intelligent creatures, and to represent them as unfriendly to that divine revelation by which we have been happily enlightened. The design of this is very apparent. The love of power is one of the most deeply rooted passions of the human heart; and if the mass of the people can once be prevailed on to surrender their understandings to their spiritual guides, and to consider the doctrines of the Gospel, as utterly beyond their comprehension; then are they fully prepared to bow to ecclesiastical domination. A very slight acquaintance with the world, or even a knowledge of the recent proceedings of the General Synod of Ulster, at Strabane, may serve to convince us, that the Church of Rome is not the only church that has attempted to keep the human mind in trammels, and "to lord it over God's heritage."

But how, I would ask you, are we to know, whether that which professes to be a revelation of God, be from Heaven, or of men, except by the due exercise of that reason which places us so high in the scale of animated nature? And when we are fully persuaded that it has clear and undoubted evidence of having proceeded from the Father of lights, the purest and the best of beings, how are we to ascertain its meaning, but by calling to our aid those powers which our merciful Creator has bestowed on his intelligent creatures? Various Christian sects have arisen throughout the land, all professing to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and that their peculiar opinions are contained in it. Now, amidst this amazing discordance of sentiment, how are we to choose for ourselves, unless we search into, and inquire what is really taught in Holy Scripture, that we may, frame our lives thereby? We know also, that if we take single, detached portions of Scripture, in the manner in which you have done, without regard to the connection in which they stand, or the point which the sacred writer wished to enforce, there are few opinions, however visionary or absurd, that may not thus be countenanced and supported by the Divine Word.

In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of Scripture, if there be two modes of expression applied to the same subject, that are directly opposed to each other, then we should conclude, that one of them is literal, and the other figurative; and we ought to interpret them in that mode which most agreeable to common sense, and the general tenor of Scripture. But you, Sir, have followed a very different course.

Though your sermon professes to be an illustration of the essential divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, I have found some difficulty in ascertaining the precise views which you entertain on this mysterious subject. In one place, indeed, you affirm, that "there is but one object of worship, the Trinity in unity, or the Deity revealed, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Yet still, in these times of mental reservation, and theological quibbling,