recognize in him only a fictitious character, or a mere historic personage, having no higher authority to promulgate the truth in the name of God, and no greater security against error, than may pertain to any truly virtuous philosopher of our own times. They brand as falsehoods and fable, a large class of facts, all the supernatural facts, recorded as real in the four gospels.

I do not charge every Unitarian with these views of scripture. But what I affirm is, that I cannot receive a system as the gospel which leaves me in uncertainty as to whether there is an inspired Book of God,-if there is, how much and how far it is inspired, or whether God has given to men a message which he requires them to obey under pain of his eternal displeasure which they can reject only at the peril of their souls, -and which is after all so vague that we cannot tell whether a man is a believer or an infidel.

Coleridge in one of his conversations with Mr. Cottle, remarked "that he had renounced all his Unitarian sentiments: that he considered Unitarianism as a heresy of the worst description; attempting in vain to reconcile sin and holiness: the world and heaven; opposing the whole spirit of the Bible; and subversive of all that truly constituted christianity. At this interview he professed the deepest conviction of the truth of Revelation; of the Fall of Man; of the Divinity of Christ, and redemption alone through his blood."

But once more I remark in conclusion, that Unitarianism represents the character of God in such a way as contravenes my reason, my conscience, and my knowledge of human nature, of God's works, of God's providence, and of God's word.

The MODE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE is utterly beyond the comprehension of the human intellect, which can neither determine whether He is absolutely one, or whether while one in essence there is in God a threefold subsistence of distinct and personal attributes.

Certain it is that reason, unaided by revelation never propounded the dogma of God's absolute unity,—that a trinity is involved in all the most ancient and prevalent theologies-that nature is in harmony with the doctrine of a triune God, as its creator, governor and beautifier-and that scripture makes it undeniable to the simple faith of the great mass of inquiring minds. I undertake, by the same species and amount of proof, to establish the deity of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost, which can be brought from Scripture to prove that the Father is truly and properly God. For in what way is this possible,

22 Vol. IX.

but by showing that every name appropriated to Deity is hisevery attribute characteristic of Deity his—every work peculiar to Deity done by him-and the worship which is distinctive of Deity his. But this is all true of the Son and therefore he is over all—God, blessed for ever. He is God-the Great Godthe Mighty God-the true God. He is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Infinitely Wise. He creates, he upholds, he governs the universe: all is for his glory. "He is," believer, "thy Lord, and worship thou him.”—(Ps. xlv. 11.) And this is all true also of the Holy Ghost.

As to the CHARACTER OF GOD also, I must believe that He is necessarily holy and just, in order to be good and gracious, since a God all mercy is a God unjust. He must be a governor as well as a creator, a law enforcer as well as a law giver. Mercy, therefore, can be exercised by such a God only in accordance with the good of the whole universe of being and the maintenance of the holy laws by which that universe is governed.

Every element in my nature, therefore, combine to demand for the salvation of a guilty sinner, just such a divine and Almighty Saviour-such an omnipotent and omnipresent Sanctifier-such an all sufficient and vicarious redemption,—such a free and gratuitious salvation,-and such a full and gracious pardon, as we believe to be announced in the plain and uniform teaching of the Bible.

While Unitarianism is thus condemned by reason as well as revelation, while it involves us on every hand in inextricable difficulties-it removes none. All that Dr. Gilman objects to in Calvinism, is objected to by infidels against Unitarianism. The existence of moral evil,-differences in the character and condition of men,-exhibitions of depravity, like that of Dr. Webster, inexplicable upon any ordinary motives to human conduct, the belief on the part of perhaps most Unitarians, that there will be a future judgment and the punishment of men hereafter for sins which God permitted to be done here*-in short the fact that God brings man into existence with such a nature that he does sin, and with such a destiny that he may everlastingly suffer for sins thus committed-this, which is the great difficulty in all theology, Unitarianism leaves as terrible

as ever.

In all that is fundamental to Unitarianism, therefore, I consider it to be another gospel which is not another-depriving *Unitarian Tracts No. 186. pp. 33, 34.

man of consolation and strength in the discharge of life's duties, and the endurance of life's trials, of all hope and triumph in death, and of all confidence in the anticipation of the judgment day.

These points are of infinite importance. They involve a total difference of sentiment in regard to the God we worship, the medium of worship, the nature of all true and acceptable worship, and the way by which alone any of our guilty and sinful race can ever become sanctified and acceptable worshippers in the church on earth, and in the church of the first born in heaven. One or the other must be false. Both cannot be true. If one is idolatry the other is blasphemy. Dr. Dewey says he would rather be an infidel than be a Calvinist. Expressions quite as strong might be quoted from English Unitarians. Dr. Channing allowed himself to say that the Cross of Christ as the appointed way of salvation was the great central gallows of the universe. And "the unoffending and good Servetus" called "the Triune God a three headed hell bound monster."

On the other hand, Coleridge who had long been a Unitarian, says in his Literary Remains, “In consequence of our Redemption, the Trinity becomes a doctrine, the belief of which as real, is commanded by conscience. To christians it is commanded, and it is false candor in a christian, believing in original sin and redemption' therefrom, to admit that any man denying the divinity of Christ can be a christian."

"Socinianism (Unitarianism) is not a religion, but a theory, and that too, a very pernicious or a very unsatisfactory theory. Pernicious, for it excludes all our deep and awful ideas of the perfect holiness of God, his justice and his mercy, and thereby makes the voice of conscience a delusion, as having no correspondent in the character of the legislator; regarding God as merely a good-natured pleasure-giver, indifferent as to the means, if only happiness be produced. Unsatisfactory, for it promises forgiveness without any solution of the difficulty of the compatibility of sin with the justice of God; in no way explains the fallen condition of man nor offers any means for his regeneration." It never did and never can subsist as a general religion."

Amid these variant creeds there is but one infallible guide. It is that SPIRIT of wisdom-Who is able and willing to guide into all truth-wнO is promised to them that ask-and

†See Coleridge's Nightly Prayers to the Trinity, in his Literary Remains, vol. 2, p. 3, 6.

Who has said that if any man do His will he shall know of the doctrines whether they be of God.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE.

Presbyterianism and Republicanism.

Dr. Gilman justly remarks in his discourse that it "is a suspicious circumstance for the votaries of any religion to recommend their views as peculiarly harmonizing with any form of civil government whatever. It is unworthy of their great mission, thus to flatter the political opinions and predilections of those whom they addess." In this decision I fully agree, only that I extend the denunciation to those who endeavor to "recommend their views," by shewing their peculiar claims to literary and scientific attainments and to the great names of Newton, of whose theology we know little-of Locke, who affirms, as I understand him, his reception of the doctrine of the Trinity-of Milton, who certainly did not agree in one single point with modern Unitarianism, I can well remember when Calvinism was made to hide its diminished head by the triumphant inquiry, "What poem has it written?"

Dr. Gilman even arrays against us the name of Leibnitz who, although a member of the Lutheran church, illustrated and established the doctrine of Philosophical necessity, or the perfect consistency of the freedom of a moral agent with the infallible determination of his conduct, WHICH IS CALVINISM. There is a small book of his entitled "Essais de Theodcee, sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberte de l'homme, et l'origine du mal," which contains almost all the principles upon which we rest the defence of the Calvinistic tenets. Leibnitz also laid down, very clearly, the distinction between the absolute nature of God which is one undivided Godhead, and the will or personal attributes of God, which may be threefold and distinct in their conscious personality."*

Dr. Priestley who is also gloried, in his work on Philosophical necessity has established as he thinks, principles which lead inevitably to all that is so staggering to the common sense of mankind in the doctrine of predestination.

I unite, therefore, in thinking that "it is an alarming thing (and in this case certainly suicidal) to see religion thus encroaching on unconsecrated ground, and seizing on the per*See Coleridge's Lit. Rem. vol. 3, p. 73.

V

ishing elements of the world to advance her power and pretensions."

Calvinism, as a THEOLOGY, must stand or fall with its scriptural authority, and the analogy to Republicanism, claimed for our Presbyterian Polity, must stand or fall by a comparison of it with the Synagogue Polity of the Hebrew Republic, to which, as a model, it is undoubtedly assimilated,-by the historical evidence of its affinity, to constitutional forms of government, responsibility in governors and representation in the people;— by its whole history and character in England and in this country; by the evidence for the declaration stated by Lafayette that it was looked to as a model in the formation of our national constitution, and by the undeniable facts connected with the doings of our church and its members at the period of the revolution and since.

Dr. Humphrey made no exclusive claims to the glory of patriotism for the Presbyterian church and he certainly did not deny this glory to Congregationalism which embodies many of the elements of Presbytery. If, however, Unitarians can shew that they have been specially excluded in the distribution of the rewards due to patriotism, or if any other denomination has been unfairly dealt with, let them present their claims, and full payment will be made on demand.

But when Dr. Gilman goes on to say, "As for the enumeration in a note, of all those Presbyterians who took a leading part in the war of the American Revolution, I have always regretted to see such things brought into notice. There is not the slightest pretext for their introduction. The idea did not originate, I am persuaded, from this preacher, nor any other true born native American," I would remind him that in his over vaulting ambition to be severe, he has only unhorsed himself. Let him consult his own Unitarian fellow-believers, the historian Bancroft, who is "a true born native American," in his History of the United States. (Vol. I., p. 462, 464, and 266, 267; Vol. II. p. 459, 463.) He will find Mr. Bancroft, there declaring as an historian that "CALVINISM IS GRADUAL REPUBLICANISM." And what is far more, "the political character of Calvinism," says Mr. Bancroft, "which with our consent and with instinctive judgment the monarchs or THAT DAY feared as REPUBLICANISM, and which Charles I. declared to be a religion unfit for a gentleman, that is a man of no creed and no morals, is expressed in a single word predestination."