most that the passages usually alledged by them, even if we were to admit their own interpretations, could establish, would be this, that other beings, of inferior nature, have been ordained by the Deity to represent him to the feeble conceptions of his creatures, and while they shone by his light, by his authority proclaimed his will, and by his power executed his decrees, have been permitted, in his name and on his account, to receive the honours ultimately due to him alone. I do not say that this is the doctrine of scripture,--on the contrary, I think it, in its full extent, false and unscriptural ;-but I maintain that it is the very most that the proofs usually adduced by Trinitarians, admitting their own construction, can establish. For the alledged eternal distinction in the essence of the Godhead, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not a shadow of a proof has been, or, in my opinion, can be produced. Yet this is the doctrine which Dr. Pye Smith, in common with every other consistent Trinitarian, maintains.

I doubt not their sincerity: I question not their motives: but I would seriously ask them one question; ought there not to be the strongest, and the most direct authority,-authority from God

Jesus saith

saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us. unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet thou hast not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then show us the Father ? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." John xiv. 7-11. see also verse 20. This passage speaks for itself. It indicates clearly the only sense in which our Lord ever did, or ever could speak of himself as being one with the Father. The Father dwelt within him by his Spirit, and might well be represented, as speaking the words which he suggested, and doing the works which he enabled his chosen servant to do. Philip in seeing Jesus had seen the Father. Why? Because Jesus was in the Father, and the Father in him. But how is this passage to be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity, according to which, it was the Son dwelling in, or rather combined with Jesus,-the second person of the Trinity, and not the first,-that spake the words and did the works? The plain truth is, that the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more than a mere human hypothesis, employed to explain passages, better explained without it :-or, to adopt an illustration of Mr. Wardlaw's, a key of many wards and brittle materials designed to open a lock, for which a simpler key, of more solid metal, will serve infinitely better.

himself clear and indisputable,-for a doctrine which professes to present an analysis of the very essence of Deity,—to suggest a modification, to say the very least, of the simple unity of the infinite First-cause,-to explain, if not to add to the declaration of God himself by his prophet "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah,"—to expound more clearly, and to set forth more at large, the creed of our Lord himself, and his apostles ;of our Lord himself saying, on one occasion, "why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God," and on another, "If ye loved me ye would rejoice that I go unte my Father, because my Father is greater than I," and on a third, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God ;”—of our Lord's apostle thus clearly and unambiguously expressing himself, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all," and again, "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," and once more, "Though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be Gods many and Lords many: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him"? Ought not that doctrine, I repeat it, to rest on the strongest foundation of divine testimony, which not only treats of the profoundest of all subjects, the essential nature of God himself; but which goes to modify so materially, if not to set aside, some of the clearest declarations of his inspired servants ?* Whether Trinitarians have such

The charge of indulging the vain and presumptuous idea, of fathoming the unsearchable mysteries of the Divine Nature, has not unfrequently been preferred against Unitarians; upon what principle I know not, unless it be that principle of policy which sometimes prompts a disputant to endeavour, if possible, to astonish and confound his antagonist, by preferring against him the very accusation, which he had fully expected to be preferred against himself. Surely if presumption must be ascribed to either party, though I am not aware of the necessity, and should therefore greatly prefer the milder term error,-it should rather be to those who pretend to define what the Divine nature is, or at least to point out the distinctions that are in it, than to those who withhold their assent from any such unauthorised definitions or descriptions ;-rather to those who, without the direct sanction either of reason or revelation, affirm the Deity to

testimony to produce it is for them seriously to enquire, and honestly to declare my own deep conviction is that they haven ot.

Let the serious Christian, I would only say, who really feels anxious to form a just and unbiassed opinion on the subject, take up the Bible, it matters little in what version ;-let him for a season forget, if possible, his own peculiar system, whether orthodox or heterodox ;-let him lay all his favourite expositors and commentators upon the shelf;-let him carefully and diligently peruse the scripture, without note or comment ;— and, if I am not altogether mistaken, he will find himself, at the close of his examination, constrained to confess that, if there

be both three and one, than to those who, confining themselves strictly to the language of scripture, and the express declarations of God himself, dare only to affirm that he is one;-rather to those who exalt an inference of their own, certainly neither intuitively obvious nor necessary, into an essential divine truth, than to those who think no human inference, even if it were apparently just, entitled to equal weight with the inspired decisions of scripture ;-rather to those who pronounce dogmatically that mere human formulas of faith and doctrine have "the express warrant of holy scripture," than to those who hesitate to admit as scriptural, doctrines which are not taught, and cannot be expressed in scriptural terms;-rather to those who do not scruple, in the public congregation, in the solemn presence of Almighty God, and as a part of his holy service, to express their unqualified and implicit belief in such matters of doubtful disputation, to say the very least, as are contained in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, than to those who require much higher authority than that of fallible men, or fallièle councils, to induce them to entertain, or to warrant them in publicly and solemnly professing such belief. Whatever may be said of “Unitarian presumption" in this respect, the charge most assuredly comes with an ill grace from persons who profess to know so much more of the Divine Nature and Essence than Unitarians do, who draw conclusions respecting it from passages in which it is not even mentioned,—and who dignify those conclusions, though mere deductions of their own, and never once directly indicated by scripture, with the name of sacred and essential truths. Let any one carefully and seriously peruse the Athanasian, the Nicene, Dr. Pye Smith's, or any other Trinitarian creed,-let him consider their doubtful and difficult matter, for such it is at the best, and mark their uncouth and unscriptural phraseology, -and then let him say, whether the guilt of presumption, if it must attach any where, (which however when I consider the endless wanderings of human error, I do not think it necessary to believe) ought not rather to be imputed to the man who, without any modest doubt or prudent reservation, professes, than to him who feels himself compelled, by the testimony both of reason and of scripture, to withhold his credence.

I

is any one doctrine which shines with a brighter light than another, pervading every part of the sacred writings, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, it is that of the undivided personal unity, the unrivalled and unparticipated supremacy of GOD THE FATHER ;-he will be obliged to acknowledge, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not only one which cannot be stated (as Dr. Smith himself virtually admits) in scriptural terms, a circumstance in itself surely most suspicious,— but that it is one which, when stated, derives no support whatsoever either from the spirit or letter of scripture.

Is it to be believed then, some will say, that on this great point, the Unitarians only, an insignificant and upstart sect, are right; while all the rest of the Christian world, for so many ages, have wandered and still wander in error? Before the question is hastily answered in the negative, let me earnestly request those who put it, to pause one moment for self-examination,―to ascertain, if possible, for their own satisfaction, the motive of the inquiry,—to be quite sure, if it be not pride, that it is not prejudice,-and that they are not under the influence of that narrow feeling which could lead even a Nathaniel to exclaim, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?" Let them remember that God has sometimes chosen "the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak to confound the mighty, and things that are not to bring to nought things that are ;" and that "to be every where spoken against," though in itself no proof of merit, perhaps rather a presumption of the contrary, may yet, in some instances, be the early fate of a cause, ordained ultimately, to establish a triumphant claim upon the good opinion and gratitude of the world.

That corruptions of Christian doctrine, of various kinds, crept into the church at a very early period, and were many of them very widely disseminated, and that several of these, by the exertions of individual reformers, have, in the gradual course of succeeding ages, been exposed and rejected, cannot be questioned. What renders it incredible then that similar corruptions may still be discovered, and that the truth, as it is in Jesus, may be yet further purified from the intermixture of human error? Some corruptions of this kind, and one great one particularly, the basis of the rest, Unitarians believe that they have detected, and wish to point out to the serious notice of their fellow-christians. On this great point, as on every other, the

truth is their object, and all that they ask for is a calm and im partial examination of arguments, which, in their opinion, have never yet been refuted.

Into the other peculiarities of Calvinism, stated by Dr. Pye Smith, in the passages which I have extracted, it would be impossible to enter at large within the compass of these pages. I shall therefore merely leave them for the consideration of the reader, in the sober and serious.conviction, that, if he can divest his mind of "educational prejudice,"-which is not perhaps always possible, and will compare them with the plain testimony of scripture, he will find them altogether deficient in the only kind of evidence that could establish doctrines from which reason entirely withholds her support. To the unbiassed mind, I think there will be something, at the very first view, repulsive, in a theory which seems to represent the Deity as resorting to expedients to evade or modify the foreseen consequences of his own decrees ;-as reconciling justice and mercy, (qualities which, as far as I can see, in a Being of infinite goodness and wisdom, could not be opposed,) by a fiction, viz the sufferings of a being who could not suffer, and the death of a being who could not die ;-as sustaining at the same time opposite and inconsistent characters,-that of the Father and the Son, of the victim and the Deity, of the appeaser and the appeased ;—as creating and upholding numberless finite beings for infinite misery ;-as arbitrarily selecting and qualifying others for holiness, happiness, and eternal life. This, perhaps it will be said, is not a fair representation of Calvinistic doctrine. If so, let it not be accepted. Dr. Smith's own account is before the reader. I can only say that I cannot, myself, see it in any other light. Nothing, I confess, seems to me more remote from the simple truth, as it is in Jesus, than the complex, abstruse, metaphysical scheme, of which the learned writer has presented the outline. But let us "prove all things, and be every one of us fully persuaded in his own mind."

NOTE G. Page 28.

I have inferred, from the prayers of Jesus, that he could not be the omniscient God. Should it be replied that it was the human nature only of our Lord that prayed; the answer is obvious, that such an hypothesis is liable to all the objections