the Saviour of the world:-which could not be the case, unless he stood to them in the relation of their God, to whom they were subject and accountable as the creatures of his hand. *

It was at one time my intention to have entered into some discussion relative to the ANGEL who appears so frequently in the Old Testament history, and who speaks, and is spoken of, and spoken to, under the appellation and character of JEHOVAH.-This work, however, has already extended so very far beyond my original expectation, that I am now still disposed, as before, to decline entering on this branch of the subject.

I shall close this chapter with a single general observation. In putting to death" the Lord of glory," the Jews perpetrated a crime of nameless atrocity;-so clear and so numberless were the evidences which he exhibited of the validity of his claims. Yet, by the law of Moses, the sin of blasphemy exposed the transgressor to death: and, if Jesus could have been convicted of the sin, that law would not only have justified, but would have imperiously, required, a capital infliction. Now, if he was a mere creature, and yet " made him

self equal with God," he was guilty, and flagrantly guilty too. We know that, on different occasions, he expressed himself in such a way, that the Jews thought he did claim this equality with God. Was this, then, a purely malicious interpretation of his words? Was there nothing in his mode of speech that was at all fitted to convey any such impression to their minds? If there was not, the guilt was entirely their own. But if there was, then, in proportion as this was the case, their guilt was evidently extenuated. And was not this guilt still further extenuated, if, when they had fallen into the mistake, and brought forward their charge, the im

*See Royaards' Diatribe de Divinitate Jesu Christi vera, pages 170—172.

putation, instead of being instantly and explicitly disowned and repelled, was met in such terms, as served to confirm, rather than to dissipate, the impression of its truth? When, indeed, we take into view all that Jesus said of himself, we cannot be surprised that the Jews should have understood him as they did; and the principles of those who assert him to have been a mere man, or a mere created messenger of God, furnish the most plausible apology which can be produced, in mitigation of their guilt, in " denying the holy One and the just, " and killing the Prince of life."

CHAPTER V.

In drawing toward a conclusion of this work-(which, I am rather apprehensive, may be no unpleasant prospect to the reader)-I must again solicit attention to the real magnitude and importance of the difference between the doctrines which it defends, and those of my opponent and the party to which he belongs.-Mr. Yates concludes his introduction in the following terms:-" I think it probable, that the chief "effect produced by this controversy will be a conviction, " in the mind of candid and sensible judges, that the differ❝ences of sentiment between the two contending parties, are much less than is commonly supposed. In perusing "the Discourses of my opponent, it has often occurred to me, that his orthodoxy is little more than Unitarianism in "a mist; and if our readers shall still think, that there is "any thing real or substantial in those mysterious tenets su"peradded by Mr. Wardlaw to the plain truths, in hold“ing which we are both agreed, I trust such persons will “however acknowledge, that, under the government of a

66

"Being infinitely wise and good, it is impossible that the "everlasting happiness of mankind should depend upon "their perception of such dim points and dusky distinc❝tions." (Page 8.)

66

Elsewhere, Mr. Yates admires "the powers of reason❝ing" displayed by his opponent, pronounces his statements “clear and intelligible,” and “heartily joins in the universal "confession, that the Trinitarian system could not have been "more ably defended.", Was the paragraph which I have quoted, dictated by a kind anxiety to preserve the brain of his friend from the prejudicial effects of such commendation? Certainly the Trinitarian system, instead of "ably," must have been most miserably defended, and the statements relative to it must have been any thing but "clear and intelligi“ ble,” if, after all, the orthodoxy of its defender has appeared little better than " Unitarianism in a mist." This, by the way, would not, perhaps, have been an unappropriate title-page designation to Mr. Yates's own work; in which, as we have seen, we are continually enveloped in a mist of negatives, without any distinct and determinate view of what Unitarianism is.The attempt to reduce the magnitude, or to lighten the weight, of the differences between us, is as vain a one as could well be made. They respect all that is essential and fundamental in Christianity. With as much wisdom might you try to unite the poles, or to bring east and west together. It is not at all a case, in which, by mutually explaining, and softening down, the sentiments of the contending parties may be made to meet, or even to approximate. It is mere childish affectation of liberality, to talk as if they could. The two systems, which of them soever be the right or the wrong, stand as antipodes to each other, with the whole world between them. If it be Christianity, that the Son and the

Holy Spirit are God, equal with the Father, and entitled to supreme adoration and homage;—that man is a fallen, guilty, and depraved creature, and, as such, utterly incapable of obtaining acceptance with God, on the ground of his own obedience, or righteousness;-that the great design of Christ's coming into the world was, to atone for human guilt by the sacrifice of himself; and that his sufferings and death were thus vicarious and expiatory, and his resurrection from the dead the evidence of their efficacy, as well as the pledge of life to all who trust in his finished work;-that the influence of the Divine Spirit is necessary for the illumination of the understanding in the things of God, and for the renovation and progressive sanctification of the soul;-that the present life. is the only period during which sinners of the human race can be brought to "repentance toward God, and faith to"ward our Lord Jesus Christ," and to consequent salvation;— that the good works of believers form no part of the ground of their justification before God, and their enjoyment of eternal life, but, they themselves being previously "accepted in "the Beloved,” their works also, springing from a heart renewed by grace, are accepted and approved, as fruits and evidences of that "faith which worketh by love:"-if these, and other kindred doctrines, be Christianity, how, in the name of common sense, is it possible, that their opposites should be Christianity too? Is it not infantile weakness, for the abettors of either of these opposite systems to be angry with the supporters of the other, because they decline giving them the appellation of Christians? Why are we to convert this sacred name into a mere epithet of unmeaning compliment? The inconsistency is equal on both sides. It is just as absurd for Mr. Yates to bestow it on me, as it would be for me to bestow it on him. If my op

ponent be a Christian, I am a deluded idolater, miserably deceived in the object of my worship, and the foundation of my hope! Why should we disguise this matter, and delude ourselves and one another, by taking a name in common, when we have hardly a principle in common? I am quite prepared for the ordinary charge of illiberality and narrowmindedness. But the charge, in such a case, has no foundation in Scripture, or in common sense; and I therefore disregard it, and cheerfully yield the world's plaudits to those who, so unphilosophically, as well as so unscripturally, confound under one common term, things so essentially different.

Mr. Yates speaks in a much more sensible and manly manner, in his sermon "On the duty and manner of deciding the "more important religious controversies," than in the extract from his "Vindication," which has led to these observations. There we find nothing about the differences of sentiment being "much less than is commonly supposed," or consisting in "dim points, and dusky distinctions." Of the controversy respecting the Trinity, he there says;-" In its im"mediate views, it involves no less a question than that "concerning the proper object of supreme worship: in its ❝connexions and results, it leads to the most interesting "and important inquiries respecting the character of God, "and the capacities, duties, and hopes of his creatures:" (page 8.) and afterwards:" Ardently interested to dis"cover the import of this Divine revelation, they will es"teem it their duty to study the Scriptures seriously, judiciously, and impartially, in order to ascertain whether "Jesus Christ has directed men to worship the Father as "the only true God, or whether he has also directed them to "worship himself and the Holy Spirit, as equal to the Father "in power and glory. No two opinions can be more oppo