N reply to the body of evidence

endos against Griesbach are neither just nor decent: and they betray the Remarker's forgetfulness of the claims of the Professor to his candour.

The larger portion of Dr. L.'s Appendix, consists of Readings from Origen, and from the M.SS. A. G and C. in relation to that father, to the received text, and, in some degree, to each other. This is the least exceptionable part of the pamphlet, and may have it's uses for those who are desirous of appreciating Griesbach's efforts in Biblical Criticism. The student should be reminded however that the mere number of readings is not decisive of the class to which the manuscript containing them belongs.

* Precipuus recensionum in criseos sacræ exercitio usus hic est, ut earum auctoritate lectiones bonas sed in paucis libris superstites defendamus adversus juniorum et vulgarium codicum innumerabilem pæne turbam. This is the nature, this, the excellence, of Griesbach's system. By this standard let it be tried. It is idle to complain of him, in one page, 92, that he has recourse to analysis-in another, 134, that he dogmatizes by synthetical reasoning. Dr. Laurence may have suc eeeded in winnowing some chaff from the wheat: let him take the chaff for his pains!

port of the Unitarian doctrine, and in answer to his animadversions on Mr. Wardlaw's Discourses, the latter gentleman has written a large volume, in which he endeavours to defend his former reasonings, and professes to bring forward additional evidence of the Divinity of Christ, &c.; and not only to refute Mr. Yates's arguments, but even to turn most of them against him. In endeavouring to accomplish these objects, he has indulged in much declamation; introduced a great deal of extraucous matter, and, we are sorry to add, exhibited much less of the deportment of the gentleman and the spirit of the Christian even than in his Discourses. With a strict adherence to the main points in dispute, and with much temper and mildness, Mr. Yates replies to his opponent, with great brevity, but with a strength of argument which appears to us to be decisive of the controversy. We earnestly wish that every person who has not made up his mind on these important subjects, would calmly and impartially compare what Mr. Wardlaw has advanced in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the proper Deity of Jesus Christ, with the argutments urged by Mr. Yates against these opinions; and the evidence he has adduced in support of the doctrine that, according to the Scriptures, there is but one God, in one person; that this one God is the Father; and that Jesus Christ derived all his dignity, power and authority from him. Our previous convictions may possibly lead us to form a higher estimate of the number who would, by this means, become Unitarians than the experisatisfied, that no person of a sound ment would justify; but we are fully understanding and candid mind, would rise from such an investigation, without a conviction, that Unitarians pay as entire a deference to the Sacred Scriptures as any class of Christians whatever; and that the arguments by which they endeavour to establish their system, whether capable of sustaining it or not, are at least of a nature to deserve the most serious and impartial attention.

Were we to give any thing like an abstract of the volumes before us, it would swell this article much beyond

the limits prescribed to it: and this, we hope, is not necessary, since what we have already said, must be sufficient to induce those who place any confidence in our recommendation, and who feel any interest in the sub ject, to consult the works themselves. We shall, therefore, rest satisfied with quoting a single specimen of the manner in which Mr. Yates has conducted his reply, and which will at the same time afford an example of the kind of arguments advanced by both writers: and then we shall proceed to state an observation or two which the perusal of the controversy has suggested.

“Mr. Wardlaw writing in the treatise before us upon the Doctrine of the Trinity, repeats what he had asserted in his Discourses that he believes the fact, although he is ignorant respecting the mode or manner of the fact.-The fact stated in his own language is this; that in the Unity of the Godhead there are three distinct Subsistences or Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This fact he wishes me to believe. Before assenting to it, I am desirous, as in every other case, to understand the meaning of the proposition.-You repeat to me a fact which you say is of superlative importance;' before I can believe it, I must know what it is: yon aunounce a proposition, I wish to be informed what ideas you annex to the terms of the proposition.'-To this query Mr. Wardlaw appears to me to return two different answers, varying his explanations according to the purpose, which he has in view in each particular case.

"In the first place, he replies, that the subject is so completely removed beyond the view of the human understanding, that it is impossible for us to form upon it any clear or accurate conceptions. Of the precise import of the terms Unity,'' Distinct, Person,' and ' Subsistence,' which are employed in the proposition, I shall not attempt,' says he, to convey to your mind any clear ideas. I cannot impart to you what I do not possess myself. I however assert, that the proposition contains an important truth, because the truth is declared by divine authority.'"*

·

"I answer, Shew me that it is declared by divine authority, and I shall assent to it with submissive reverence. But observe, that, in order to do this, you must shew me in the word of God the identical proposition which you have announced. For, since no distinct ideas are annexed to the terms of the proposition, we cannot prove its truth by

* Disconrses, p. 11. 19. 26. 30. Unit. Incap. of Viud. p. 63,

any comparison of those terms with other phrases to which distinct ideas are attached."+

"If," says Mr. Wardlaw, "the terms themselves are unintelligible, you are clearly right; for in that case it would be impossible for us to substitute other terms, with any degree of certain assurance that we were enunciating the same doctrine. The man who knows not at all the meaning of the words Ellipse, Conic, and Sections, would in vain endeavour to convey in other terms than those, in which it has been announced to himself, the proposition that an Ellipse is one of the Conic Sections. He must satisfy himself with repeating the ipsissima verba.” ‡

God, the identical proposition, which "Show me then, in the word of you have announced."-At this point of the argument Mr. Wardlaw changes his ground. The proposition in question, he knows, does not occur in the Scriptures; he is therefore obliged to maintain only, that it may be PROVED from the Scriptures. But proving implies DISTINCT IDEAS; and hence he is under the necessity of representing the proposition as not merely true, but intelligible, and the ideas suggested by it so clear, the conceptions so accurate and distinct, that the truth of the proposition may be inferred with absolute certainty from a great variety of phrases and declarations contained in the Sacred Scriptures, all of which may be shewn to have a manifest bearing upon the subject, and to contribute testimony, more or less abundant, in support of the proposition.

are

"The terms themselves," says he, NOT unintelligible. The fact, stated in the proposition, is revealed, although the mode of the fact is not revealed. Reasoning from the Scriptures is, therefore, the proper mode of establishing the fact, or proving the truth of the proposition." §

"With the mode of the fact, I answer, we have, as is admitted on all hands, nothing to do. The Scriptures, you say, assure us of a fact, and you maintain, that the terms of the proposition, in which you announce that fact are intelligible. Permit me, therefore, to repeat the question, with which I set out, and to ask again, What ideas do you annex to the terms of the proposition? In the first place, what do you mean when you assert THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD.”

Vind. of Unitarianism, pp. 41-44. 129-132.

Unit. Incap. of Vind. p. 52. § Unit. Incap. of Vind. pp. 52, 53

"I mean," replies Mr. Wardlaw, "that the universe is subject to one simple and undivided mind, one all-wise Designer, who is uncreated, unchangeable and everlasting, sufficient without the aid of any counsellor, assistant or associated God, for the production of every effect, which is exhibited throughout endless time and infinite space." ||

"What do you mean by the term PERSON or Subsistence?"

(Mr. Wardlaw.) "By a Person, I meau that which possesses personal properties."*

"Of course; that is no more than saying, that a Person is a Person. But what are Personal properties'?"

(Mr. Wardlaw.) "Personal properties are the properties which constitute personality. Now that which can contrive, which can design, is a Person. There capacities constitute personality."†

"What do you mean when you say that the Holy Spirit is a. Person?"

(Mr. Wardlaw.) "I mean that he is not a mere attribute or power, or influence, but AN INTELLIGENT AGENT."

"When you affirm, that in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, do you mean, that in the Unity of the Godhead there are three Intelligent Agents!" (Mr. Wardlaw.) "I employ PERSON and INTELLIGENT AGENT as synonymous expressions "§

"You have now explained sufficiently the meaning of the proposition, which you wish me to believe. My answer is, that I could not believe it, even though I found it clearly stated in the Scriptures; because its intrinsic absurdity would be stronger evidence against it than any evidence in its favour, which could possibly be exhi bited."||

"I allow," replies Mr. Wardlaw, AGAIN CHANGING HIS GROUND, "that a doctrine clearly self-contradictory, could not be proved even by the testimony of the Scriptures But the doctrine which I have stated, cannot possibly be proved to be self-contradictory, because it is a subject, on which we are left in total ignorance, and, unless we have some notion of the thing itself, on what principle can we possibly make out the contrariety?"¶

"Presuming to urge this discussion a little farther, I observe, you just now explained yourself as meaning by the Unity of the Godhead,' that the order of events

in the universe is entirely directed by the will and agency of one simple and undivided mind." "I did."

"But you asserted that there have existed from all eternity in the Unity of the Godhead three Persons; and you have explained yourself as meaning by a Person an Intelligent Agent. Your doctrine appears, therefore, to imply that three distinct Intelligent Agents, form one simple and undivided mind, which is a direct contradiction."

"I have explicitly declared," answers Mr. Wardlaw," that when I used the term Person,' and others employed in the proposition, I would not be understood as pretending to any precise and definite conception of the nature of that distinction in Deity, which these terms import. Was it an unreasonable expectation, that you should carry this declaration along with you through the remainder of the disenssion, and that, when those terms were used again, they should be used with the quali fication previously affixed to them? A generous disputant would certainly have felt himself bound to proceed on this reasonable principle."*

"You said, that when you asserted the Unity of God, you meant that all things are made by the power of one Designer. But you also asserted, that in the Unity of God there are three Persons, and that by a Person you mean that which can contrive or design. Does not your doctrine then imply, that three Designers are one Designer?"

"I employed the term Person' in compliance with established usage, and because I do not know that another could be

devised more appropriate. But of its precise import, as applied to a distinction in the Divine Essence, I have professed my own incompetency and my conviction of the incompetency of others, to form any clear conception. Justice and generosity alike required, that you should have taken along with you the qualifying explanation which I gave in the outset, and which I certainly intended should, accompany, to the close of our discussion, my use of the terms distinct, subsistences, person, and personality, in their application Deity."+

10

Unit, Incap. of Vind.

*

PP. 62. 301, 302.

Discourses, p. 281.

Trinity, and the evidence requisite to prove it."-Sequel to Vind. of Unit. pp. 57–63.

In this controversy there is some approximation to the spirit in which

* Unit. Incap. of Vind p. 65.
+ Unit. Incap. of Vind. pp. 67, 68.

all discussion, and particularly all religious discussion, ought to be conducted. The acrimony which usually mingles with, and poisons religious controversy, has long excited the malignant smile of the unbeliever, and the sigh of the enlightened Christian. That the disciples of a Master whose spirit was gentle as the dove, the emblem of the Divine approbation which descended on his sacred head; and whose religion is nothing but benevolence, speaking in its sweetest accents and inspired by its Eterual Source, should exemplify even in their inquiries relative to its doctrines and duties, the very temper which it is its great object to destroy-can be accounted for only by the philosopher who looks deeply into the human heart, and perceives through all the appearances and names it assumes, the true and most hateful and pernicious egotism of which it is full. To defend the doctrines of the religion of Jesus with animosity, is as if one should dilate on the loveliness of the meek and gentle disposition which turns with agony from the sight of human suffering, and end by the application of the rack or dwell with impassioned language on the value of the friendship which knows neither suspicion nor bound, and as the accents fall from the lips, Judas-like, to betray to death with a kiss the most confiding of friends.

Yet it is a certain and mournful truth, that even the enlightened have displayed on this subject, a bigotry of which ignorance itself might have been ashamed; and the amiable indulged an animosity of which none but the malignant might have been supposed capable. They have offered incense to their own vanity, while they imagined, perhaps sincerely believed, that, animated only by a zeal for the glory of God, they were sacrificing on the altar of truth, every human infirmity. Often too, this violation of the spirit of Christ arises from a most unworthy source: from the wish to display what talent is possessed for smartness and repartee: with what severity and sarcasm it is possible to chastise the insolence which presumes to differ from us: and with what ease a small oversight may be magnified into wilfulness, perversity and guilt. Few controversialists in

deed, are conscious, at the time, of the littleness of the feeling which prompts these unhallowed sallies of imagination and criminal ebullitions of passion; but that feeling is not the less real or active for being concealed. And it is curious to observe how it prevails over the firmest resolutions against it. Almost all disputants begin with profession of moderation and candour: most, with a sincere desire to exemplify these excellencies: but gradually the imagination becomes heated: the mind, feeling strongly the evidence which it endeavours to illustrate and establish, wonders at the ignorance which does not perceive, or the perverseness which will not yield to it becomes irritated and provoked, forgets its good resolves and delivers itself up to the evil spirit which, at length, entirely possesses it. And what is deeply to be lamented, this disgraceful violation of the spirit of the Christian religion, is generally applauded and cherished by the parti sans of the cause it is supposed to favour.

We are not a little gratified that Mr. Yates has manifested a deep consciousness of this aptitude of the mind to sin against the Christian law that he appears, therefore, to have excrcised a vigilant guard over himself through the whole controversy and in general with success. The gentleness of his spirit, and the courtesy of his manner, are exemplary. Without pretending to humility, there often occur in the works before us traces of the genuine feeling. Fixing on the great arguments which have produced conviction in his own mind, stating them plainly and simply, and leaving them to make their own impression on the mind of the reader, he neither attempts to flatter nor seeks to awe or to persuade him. He points out the misconceptions, the misrepresentations and the fallacious reasonings of his opponent, without affecting to wonder at his ignorance, to tremble with horror at his presumption, to be scandalized at his impiety, or to be in doubt whether he deserve the Christian name, or can be admitted to a participation of the Christian's happiness. There are indeed some exceptions to this prevailing urbanity and modesty: occa