upon the public as Mr. Belsham's, what Mr. Belsham never wrote. "Although Mr. Belsham's Tract," says he, "contains "no such words, and no such sentiment, Mr. Wardlaw intro"duces the following passage among others correctly cited, " in the form of a quotation from that pamphlet: The Evan-· "gelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth died on a "cross; and I believe him. The same Evangelist Matthew "relates that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin; and "I believe him not."" Did Mr. Yates seriously think, that I designed to represent these words as a quotation from Mr. Belsham's pamphlet ?-Did he indeed reckon me capable of such base artifice? of such atrocious villany? I cannot call it by a better name. In point of principle, or rather of want of principle, it is just as criminal to attempt to pass a sentiment as another's, when we know we have made it for him, as to pass a promissory note as another's, when we know we have made it for him. I feel, when I think of such a charge, certain inward risings of the pride of indig nant scorn, which a disciple of Jesus should rather seek to repress.-Mr. Yates might have perceived, that the quotations, in the same note, are all printed with inverted commas down the margin of the page, while the words in question have such commas only at the beginning and end. These marks were used, merely to distinguish the words from the rest of the page, as being something supposed to be said. The manner in which they are introduced, as a parallel to Mr Belsham's own words about Livy, might have shown this to any man of ordinary judgment or ordinary ingenuousness:-The connexion in the note is as follows: "From its "being recorded in Livy's history that an or spoke, he "(Mr. Belsham) never thinks of inferring that this passage ❝ was not written by Livy himself. No; he only says:

"Livy relates, that Hannibal crossed the Alps, and beat "the Romans at Cannæ; and I believe him. The same "Livy relates that an ox spoke; but I believe him not." "Very well. We have no objection to his saying, provided he "does not insist that our faith shall be regulated by his. "The Evangelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth "died on a cross; and I believe him. The same Evangelist "Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin; but I believe him not."-Let this writer, by all

66

66

means, ́exercise a little common sense in judging of a report, and discriminate what is worthy of belief from "what appears to be incredible in the works of the same "author.' But let him not, wherever he finds any thing "which he may be pleased to deem incredible, unwarrantably "and presumptuously conclude, that it forms no part of what "the author wrote."-Now, did Mr. Yates not perceive that the words which he has represented me as endeavouring to pass for Mr. Belsham's were merely hypothetical? If he did not, what had become of his wits? If he did, what had become of his candour? The absence of the latter I must believe to have been the defect, because I cannot believe that Mr. Yates really thought me guilty of the wretched and contemptible baseness he has imputed to me.-If ever I shall write again on the Unitarian controversy, which, however is not very likely to be the case, I shall certainly take better care both of my points of admiration, and my inverted

commas.

PART III.

EXAMINATION OF THE MORE DIRECT EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY MR. YATES, IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF UNITARIANISM.

CHAPTER I.

AGREEABLY to the order I have prescribed to myself, I now go back to Part II. of Mr. Yates's Vindication, to consider the arguments which he there brings forward in support of Unitarian principles, relative to the unity of God and the subordination of Jesus Christ.

Before entering on the particular examination of these, it is of importance to observe, in general, that all evidence is irrelevant and inadmissible, that does not immediately relate to what are, strictly and properly, the peculiarities of Unitarianism, the precise points of difference. To set about proving the divine unity, for example, is to do a service to Trinitarians as well as to Unitarians. It is an article of faith which is held by both; and the former will be as highly gratified as the latter, by the excellence and conclusiveness of the reasoning by which it is established. There may be some diversity of opinion respecting the degree of certainty with which the doctrine may be learned by the light of nature; but in the doctrine itself, that GOD IS ONE, as a doctrine fully certified by revelation, and according with every principle of enlightened reason, there is perfect agree ment.-The harmony on this point between my opponent

66

and myself, will most satisfactorily appear from a comparison of our respective language." But whatever may be the ❝views we entertain, as to the extent of natural evidence " in support of the unity of the Godhead; there can be no "doubt, that this doctrine forms one of the first and funda"mental truths of divine revelation. It is, in many places ❝ of the inspired volume, distinctly and plainly affirmed; and ❝it appears pervading the whole, as one of those great lead"ing principles, to which it owes the peculiarity of its general complexion, and to which all the subordinate "parts of the system bear a constant reference." Discourses, pages 9, 10." Notwithstanding the proof of the unity "of God afforded by the harmonious correspondence of 66 parts in the material creation, it is probable that this "doctrine would have been unknown, or little regarded, if "it had not been taught to mankind by the clear and au"thoritative voice of divine revelation. In almost every 66 page of the Bible it shines with incomparable lustre. "To reveal, establish, and propagate this tenet, to which, "however sublime and rational, men have, in all ages, ❝evinced a strong disinclination, was the great end pro"posed to be accomplished by the inspiration of the He"brew prophets, and by the splendid series of miracles "recorded in the Old Testament. To promulgate the same "great truth among Heathen nations, and ultimately to ef"fect its universal reception in the world, appears to have "been one of the principal purposes which God designed "to answer by the mission of our Lord Jesus Christ." Vindication, page 57.—Whatever difference might arise between us upon an explanation of the terms of the last sentence, it is obvious, that in the sentiment that the unity of God is an important truth, and a leading doctrine of revela

tion, we are one.-What, then, is the precise point at issue? It is simply this. Both parties hold the unity of God. But Trinitarians maintain that, according to the Scriptures, this unity is, in a way which is not explained, and which they do not therefore pretend to understand, consistent with personal distinction. Unitarians deny that any such distinction of persons is taught in the Scriptures. The point, therefore, which it behoves them to establish is, not the unity of God, but simply the inconsistency of this unity with the personal distinction for which Trinitarians contend; or, in other words, that this doctrine of personal distinction has no place in the word of God.-All argument and discussion that are not confined to this one point, are entirely irrelevant to the question.

66 on

As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Unitarianism, I shall pass by Mr. Yates's two chapters, "the evidence for this doctrine from the light of nature, and "from the testimony of the Scriptures," with a single remark:

In the latter of these chapters, he says, (page 58.) "The word God does not denote a collection of persons, or ❝ a council of intelligent agents: it signifies simply one per"son, or intelligent agent. Consequently every text, which "affirms that there is but one God, implies that there is ❝ but one person in the Godhead."-But is this argument? Is it not just the old style of petitio principii? Does not the question still recur, What is the kind of unity which such texts affirm? Is it unity involving distinction-or is it not? If it can be proved that, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, there is a distinction in the divine unity, then it will follow that, so far from Mr. Yates's statement being just, every text which affirms the divine unity must be interpreted, in consistency with this doctrine, as meaning that