has nothing to do with perishable food. Is it your body? but your body has neither reason nor feeling of its nature. Is it chance? but how can chance (a word invented to cover our ignorance,) be the author of so admirable a work, of such constant and uniform operations? You do not comprehend this wonder, and because you do not, is it less true, less real? Could you explain to me, Sir, how one and the same moisture of the earth, insipid as it is tasteless, and without any smell or colour whatever, can bring forth such an infinite variety of plants, of herbs, of flowers and fruits, as various and different in their shape, size, colours, taste and smell, as the faces of men are from each other? Can you explain, how the same simple and apparently insignificant cause can produce such an enchanting and variegated scenery, as your garden or your verdant meadow exhibits? It is a mystery to you and to me, and yet neither of us doubts the fact.

Lastly, have you sagacity enough to inform me, by what magic art it happens, that by opening your eyes, the immense expanse of the skies is suddenly depicted, in most distinct and lively colours, in the retina of your eye, which is not bigger than the head of a pin? To form that admirable miniature in your opick nerve, and to embrace, as it were, the immensity of the heavens in so imperceptible a space, it is necessary, that, from every sensible point of the firmament, a ray should come to strike the retina: Well, is it very easy for you to conceive, how such an infinity of rays, parting at once, from all the points of the heavens, can meet in so small a focus, without being thrown into confusion, and retrace in one instant in your eye, a landscape as distinct as delightful of the majesty of the heavens ? Reason can admire this wonder, but never comprehend it: still you believe it, and in doing so, you follow the very dictates of your reason: it is therefore reasonable, at times, to believe, even what we cannot conceive.

By this time we might with reason expect to find, our Unitarian friend more inclined to give up the principle under consideration, since he cannot but see to what strange straits it

reduces him. But, as this principle is the cardo rei, on which the whole system turns, he cannot prevail upon himself to relinquish it.

*

If so, then willing, or unwilling, he must needs launch out into downright atheism, and say with the impious: Non est Deus: there is no God. Psalm, xxx. v. 1. He shudders at the idea of denying that God, who made him: but still reasou will force him to admit this horrid consequence, as long as he insists on the unhallowed principle; for, is there any thing more unintelligible, more incomprehensible, more above all created understanding, than God? Is not incomprehensibility the most prominent attribute not only of God himself, but also of all his works? Can the Unitarian comprehend a Being, that has neither beginning nor end, and that lives throughout all eternity? Can he conceive, how, by the omnipotent act of his will, he can create myriads of worlds, and annihilate them with as much facility as he called them forth from nought? Can he conceive, how a being can be, at once, infinitely free and still be essentially immutable and unchangeable? How a being can be present in all places, whole and entire, and co-exist whole and entire, in every point of space, and yet be infinitely simple and essentially indivisible? If he could comprehend this, he would be God himself, because he would possess an infinite intellect: he, therefore, cannot comprehend God, and yet there is a God: either, therefore, he must renounce his principle, and with it, Unitarianism, or his creed will be simply this: there is no God.' Unitarianism and Atheism will be synonymous terms.

XII. It is quite natural to expect, that we should be interrupted by our Unitarian friend, at this last conclusion, and that we should be candidly told, that our logic carries us too far, and that, in fine, to be called "Deists in disguise," as they have

* Job, xi. "Peradventure thou wilt comprehend the steps of God, and find out the Almighty perfectly? He is higher than heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of him is higher than the earth, and broader than the sea: if he shall overturn all things, or shall press them together, who shall contradict him?"

been termed by some, is sufficiently illiberal, but, to be styled Atheists, is not to be borne with. To this, I answer, that it is far from me to fix this most odious appellation upon any professor of Unitarianism; nay, I should not do justice to my own feelings, were I not solemnly to declare, that I conceive them to have as great an abhorrence of this last link of human depravity, as I myself do feel. I have already remarked, that I have nothing to do with personalities, but with principles only, and I still maintain, that, consistent with them, the Unitarians must turn out real Atheists, or bad reasoners. Their principles, by a necessary connection, lead to the denial of God. If, then, they do not admit this horrid consequence, they, indeed, will not be Atheists, but they will be inconsistent logicians.*

* It is a subject of surprise to the writer of these tracts, to see the Unitarians repel with so much indignation the appellation of Deists, and to think themselves unjustly dealt with, when they are denied the name of christians. For, if the definition of the Unitarian sect, given by a most venerable character, in a letter published with his permission in a Unitarian periodical review,† be correct, then assuredly they cannot, with any appearance of reason, lay claim to the name of Christians, nor term it illiberality, when they are styled by their proper names, Deists. The definition of the Unitarian church, given in the letter alluded to, runs thus, "There is, my dear Doctor, at present, existing in the world, a church philosophic The philosophic church was originally English. Voltaire learned it from lord Herbert, Hobbes, Morgan, Collins, Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, &c. You may depend upon it, your exertions will promote the Church Phiosophic, more than the Church Athanasian, or Presbyterian." Assuredly, a Philosophic Church, a Church established by the English Apostles of Infidelity, and propagated by the Patriarch of Incredulity, throughout France and the rest of Europe, cannot, with any appearances of good sense, be called any other than the Church of Deists.

And, what is still more to the purpose, have not the public, since they have been made acquainted with the strange correspondence of the Unitarians of England, with the ambassador of the mighty Emperor of Fez and Morocco, good reasons to doubt, whether our Unitarian friends themselves set much value on the name of Christian? Men, who hesitate not heartily to salute and congratulate the followers of the Asiatic Impostor Mahomet, as votaries and fellow worshippers; who style themselves as their nearest fellow champions; who profess, that the Supreme God has raised Mahomet to defend the faith of

† See the Christian Disciple, No. 1, v. 3. page 43, 44.

XIII. Before we proceed further, it is proper to take noice of an apparently plausible objection, that may be made. against what has been said in this paragraph, but which, if properly examined, will turn greatly to our advantage, and throw new light on the matter before us. The Unitarian

might say you have done your best to convince the public, by a variety of instances, that reason itself obliges us to believe what we cannot comprehend, and that, of course, the incomprehensibility of mysteries, is, of itself alone, not a sufficient reason for rejecting them; but you will permit me to observe, that there appears to be a vast difference between the cases adduced above, and mysteries.

To this I reply, that, if there be any, let it be pointed out. Here it is, says the Unitarian: "It is true, Sir, that I cannot conceive, how this world could or should rush into existence, by the simple act of the will of God, but after all, I behold this world, I dwell in it, I enjoy it, and its existence incessantly strikes all my senses. I must agree, likewise, that I do not know the very essence and intrinsic nature of any of the beings that compose the world: but I am constantly environed by them they are before my eyes, and under my hands: they are subservient to all my wants and conveniences. I am, too, I must confess, in deep darkness as to the nature of my own being, as well as to what passes within myself, but I am con

:

one Supreme God, with the sword as a scourge on those idolizing Christians; Men, who seem so much concerned for Mahomet's glory; men of that character, who so openly court the friendship and fellowship in faith with the sworn enemies of the Christian name, leave, assuredly, serious doubts on the public mind, whether they value themselves much for the title of a Christian.

The authority of the above correspondence is set beyond the possibility of a doubt, in the very interesting pamphlet published by the Rev. Henry J. Feltus, Rector of St. Stephen's Church, N. Y. under the following title: "Historical Documents and Critical Remarks on Unitarianism and Mahomedanism," printed by W. A. Mercein, 1820. The same Rev. Author makes it appear, from unquestionable authority, that "Mahometanism, in many respects, has much stronger claims to orthodox Christianity, than Unitarianism; and that the Mahometans have much more exalted sentiments of Jesus Christ, than the Unitarians have.” See the Tract above quoted.

scious of my own being and of its modifications. In a word, I have no intimate or adequate knowledge of any of these things, but, to supply this want of adequate and intuitive knowledge, I have proofs of fact, proofs of sentiment, proofs of experience, and these more than suffice me. Let any one produce me such or like proofs in support of the mystery of the Trinity, or of any other mystery, and I am ready to believe

them. '

This reflection does honour to the understanding of our opponent; it is that of a man of good sense; and, in consequence of it, I do assure him, that if he be sincere, before long we shall perfectly agree in our belief. He will believe the mystery of the Trinity, and all other mysteries as firmly as I do; and, though he smiles, I shall proceed to my demonstration, and reason thus:

XIV. You grant, and you cannot but grant, that the mystery of the Trinity, is simply incomprehensible. You agree, likewise, that there is a variety of things which are unintelligible to us, and which, nevertheless, we are forced to believe, because, if, on the one hand we cannot conceive the possibility of them, we have, on the other, certain proofs of their existence: itison these two grounds you promise to believe in the mystery of the Trinity, for instance, how incomprehensible soever it may be if I am able to afford you certain proofs of the said mystery. Well, sir, I am going to give you a certain and infallible proof of the existence of the mystery of the Trinity; a proof which is equivalent to a direct demonstration.-Here is my proof; Are you not convinced, that God is to be believed by men upon the unerring authority of his own testimony, respecting his own nature, his own Being, his manner of existing, and in fine, his own works? Assuredly, you are convinced of this principle; for, in order to deny it, you must needs suppose, either that God does not know himself or his own works, which would be a horrible blasphemy; or, that God may give a false evidence to men respecting his own nature, or that of his works, which would be a blasphemy still more horrid; or, in fine, that men, although convinced of the infinite veracity of God, have, notwithstanding, a right, not to ad