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 66 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 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." Vin dication, page 57.-Whatever difference mi rise be tween us upon an explanation of the tence, it is obvious, that in the se

66

God is an important truth, an

st sen

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 person, 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?

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 66 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 "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." Vin dication, page 57.-Whatever difference migh

tween us upon an explanation of the te

tence, it is obvious, that in the sen

God is an important truth, and

rise be

ist sen

tion, we are one.-What, then, is the precise point at is sue? 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.

As evidence of the unity of God is not evidence of Unitarianism, I shall pass by Mr. Yates's two chapters, "on "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? roved that, according to the testimony of the inction in the divine unity, then rom Mr. Yates's statement being the divine unity must be inthis doctrine, as meaning that

If it car

-Script

it wi

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 "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." Vin dication, page 57.-Whatever difference mic tween us upon an explanation of the term tence, it is obvious, that in the sentim

God is an important truth, and "

rise be