Almighty be sacrificed to make satisfaction? We speak not in ridicule, bu in the spirit of earnest inquiry after truth.

To conclude. If there be any force at all supposed to lie hid in the argument which we have examined, behold it thus easily reversed. If sin against an Infinite Being be infinite, satisfaction offered to an Infinite Being must (by a parity of reasoning) be also infinite.

The argument therefore runs thus:

Satisfaction to an Infinite Being atones for infinite sin.

Sin against an Infinite Being is infinite sin. Consequently, satisfaction to an Infinite Being atones for sin against an Infinite Being.

As, therefore, the sin was the sin of man, so let the satisfaction be the punishment of man, which alone reason demands and justice accepts, made infinite by being committed against an Infinite Being.

L. M.

SIR,

ON MR. ELTON'S SECOND THOUGHTS.

ALTHOUGH the remarks which have already been submitted to the readers of the Repository by yourself and your correspondents, in reply to Mr. Elton's ungenerous attack on Unitarianism, may be thought to have been sufficient, and more than sufficient, in respect to the importance of the occasion, I, notwithstanding, claim your indulgence in fulfilling my expressed intention of adding something to what I have before said on this subject.

The author appears to me to be guilty of a want of candour in misrepresenting, by implication, the opinions of very many Unitarians in reference to the opening paragraph of John's Gospel. It is his method in this, as in other points of the controversy, to take up for animadversion those varieties only of Unitarian opinion which may be most successfully run down, leaving his reader to a tacit inference that such are the sentiments of the whole body. If some distinguished Unitarian has publicly defended his system on wiser and juster grounds, instead of allowing us the fair advantage of this alternative, he absurdly affects to detach this champion altogether from our cause as if he were not in reality a Unitarian at all. Although we are accustomed to witness this controversial stratagem played off upon us frequently enough in the case of various great men, who though avowedly contending for the essential point of Unitarianism, the doctrine of One God the Father, did not certainly embrace some other views common among us concerning the person of Christ, I must confess I was a little surprised to find the same manoeuvre applied to the illustrious Lardner, the great oracle, if any individual be so, of modern Unitarianism, one of whose latest publications, his Letter on the Logos, was written expressly in refutation of the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence, or, in other words, in maintenance of that of his true and proper humanity. Yet Lardner, the author would insinuate, is unjustly claimed by Unitarians! But the fact is, that Mr. Elton, on the present occasion, appears to be willingly ignorant of what Unitarianism really is. Instead of treating it as consisting in a certain view of the nature of God and the person of Christ, he passes in a few pages from all consideration of these points to reviewing a medley of heterogeneous opinions, which a Unitarian may or may not entertain, and all and each of which may be and have been entertained by Trinitarians likewise. Is this a worthy or rational manner of discussing so great a question? Is this a just or charitable expedient for

procuring topics of reproach against a numerous and unoffending class of Christians? What if Socinus, who was but of yesterday in the history of a sect which confessedly dates from all but the apostolic age, has broached an untenable exposition of the proem of John's Gospel? And what if a minister lately deceased, as Mr. Cappe, of York, by espousing that mode of exposition, has given it a considerable extension among Unitarians of our own day? Still not all, nor do I believe half of us, approve of it; and the author must have known that his own strictures on it, which appear to me very just and forcible, are scarcely more decided and severe than those it has received from writers among ourselves. Let him charge the Socinian opinion on those who maintain it: but I am justified by history in saying, that the true and ancient Unitarian opinion, and that which has had the most sound and learned advocates on its side, is the one for which the author finds it inconvenient to give us credit; one, indeed, which he would find himself rather at a loes in opposing, since he appears still to entertain it himself. It is simply that which regards the Logos or Word, as conceived by the writer of John's Gospel, to be no other being than God himself, as he expressly says, that "the Word was God;" God, under a particular aspect or character; God, in a particular power or energy, in which he at first made the world, and in due time created all things anew, in a form of most intimate union with the Christ Jesus. Lardner expresses himself on this point as follows: "All these texts seem to me sufficient to satisfy us, that by the Word, which St. John says, was in the beginning, and was with God, and was God, he does not mean a being separate from God, and inferior to him, but God himself, or the wisdom and power of God, even the Father, who alone is God, nor is there any other." Thus Lardner, and thus in my opinion δι τῶν λοιπῶν αριστοι.

Our object in writing must not be to defend a party, but to maintain truth; and if an adversary charges on a whole party opinions to which individuals of that party cannot subscribe, it becomes such individuals to step forward and vindicate themselves at least from the false imputation. If this is neglected to be done, the whole party is likely to be judged, in public opinion, from the proceedings of those ultra partisans who generally outstrip the more moderate, not more in the extravagance of their opinions than in their zeal in proclaiming them. When the essential character of a doctrine is negative, this precaution becomes the more necessary. Unitarianism consists in a disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity, as unscriptural and absurd. But the man who disbelieves this doctrine may happen at the same time to disbelieve many others which really belong to the Christian verity; or, like Evanson, he may, perchance, be one of those who, while they still call themselves Christians, make no scruple of rejecting large portions, or even almost the whole, of the Scriptures. Now, it suits well the purpose of a controversialist to confound together, under the name of Unitarian, all these persons of scanty faith, down almost to the naked Deist, with those for whom alone that name is truly responsible, those, namely, who maintain simply the doctrine of one God the Father, and such others as are necessarily connected with it, and that as being the truth of Scripture. The love of truth would suggest a different mode of proceeding; but the love of truth, alas! too seldom presides in this arena. The man, however, who from conviction values the essence of Unitarianism, should ever be prompt in disclaiming such injurious alliances.

The author gives a fair specimen of his controversial policy when he lays it down as one of the four cardinal maxims by which Unitarians dispose of

Christian doctrines, "that the writings most opposed to Unitarian simplicity are either spurious, or probably so, or that it would be better if they were so." He seems to be indisposed or unable to admit the possibility of honest error among Unitarians; all that they do he attributes to craft and perverseness. Respecting the good which he might find he is willingly silent: the evil which, by prying among the rubbish, he can detect, he eagerly hauls out to light, spreads abroad in full view, and makes it occupy all his picture. No sincere and genuine Unitarian can stoop to a single turn of that base art described in the above passage: he admits no thought of representing any passage as spurious unless there be found in his opinion conclusive critical reasons for considering it so. It is an undeniable fact, that several texts of the New Testament, which the orthodox have been wont to place in the front of their array, are discredited by their non-appearance in our oldest and best authorities. The most eminent Trinitarian critics have taken the lead in their rejection. What then? Are Unitarians to be taunted with malpractices because they set aside passages thus, in a critical point of view, untenable, and loaded, in their judgment, with additional suspicion from their advancing doctrines foreign to the acknowledged Scriptures? I say, with our old English motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense; but for my own part I hold it a duty no less sacred to rid the Scripture of what is spurious, than to retain what is genuine. The closing words of Revelation denounce on him that adds to the words of prophecy, a curse as heavy as they do on him that takes from them; and he that adds to them, differs but little from him who is ever seeking to smother and hush up the inquiry which would expose and discredit such as have been added.

Advancing in this work, and endeavouring to follow the train of the reasoning, it seems to me next to impossible not to become involved, more or less, in those Calvinistic mists and darkness which, descending from the gloomy regions to which the author has approached, appear to have completely surrounded him, and left only such a glimmering of daylight as forbids all comprehensive and distant views. The prevailing impression, however, is, that we can never be too thankful if we have been preserved from that peculiar leaven of religious sentiment which is working far and wide, and which, by surrendering manly thought to superstitious terror, appears so to debilitate the mind, as to render it incapable of believing in the goodness of God. One would have thought that a Unitarian might carry his views of sin and of redemption far enough for every good purpose. I suppose that there are not many Unitarians who would not readily admit that sin is lamentably and universally prevalent among mankind, and must therefore be considered as a thing to which human nature is exceedingly inclined; that therefore the world, being in transgression, is also in guilt before God; that death is the just wages and penalty of sin; and that the Almighty, being willing in his mercy to deliver us from the consequence of this penalty, or in other words to forgive our sins and redeem us from death, has effected this gracious purpose by a mediator, who, in conformity with the views of Divine Wisdom, laid down his life in order to the attainment of this great end. Is not this, considered as an outline, a plain and yet sufficient statement of the condition of mankind and the nature of our redemption? But views such as these, confined to the great facts of the gospel history and their obvious design and connexions, go for nothing, absolutely nothing, in the estimation of those who have received the leaven of the Calvinists, or what some would most unwarrantably call evangelical sentiments. The views to which I now allude, are, I believe, entirely incapable of accurate definition, and that for a

very obvious reason, namely, that they are entertained by persons who systematically exclude the exercise of the rational faculty from the affairs of religious faith. Our author wades about among these disastrous topics in a manner much to be pitied: he seems unable to find any sure footing whereon to stand himself, and yet he earnestly attempts to persuade those who still walk along the firm bank to enter with him into the muddy and troubled stream. Turning entirely aside from the dark and hopeless labyrinth of controversy, let us cast at these matters the glance of good feeling and common sense. How can we honour God or benefit our own minds by maintaining that God imputes sin where it has not been actually committed? What need of formal debate on the question, whether our innocent babes are objects of the Almighty's eternal wrath, or have ever deserved it? Is it not preposterous and disgusting to maintain that all human actions, virtues and vices alike, are indiscriminately wicked and bad; that not a single good thought or feeling dwells in the human breast? It is equally repugnant to our best feelings, to imagine that the Divine Justice is of such a character as forbids him to forgive his penitent creatures when they return from the evil of their ways. If there is any truth in Scripture, we may be assured that our sincere repentance and amendment are all that are essentially necessary to our being forgiven. The method of forgiveness will of course remain to be. determined by him that forgives; and without controversy, the method prescribed in the Gospel is the mediation of Jesus Christ and faith in him. But what need of laboured argument to induce us to reject the opinion, that we are forgiven on the ground of God's having found an innocent being willing to bear our punishment in our stead; or that we are accepted on the ground of God's imputing to us another person's righteousness instead of our own? If such notions do not confute themselves, I know not certainly what can confute them. If they are to be found in the Bible, it is high time for us to have done with the Bible; for it will be manifest, that it is not that wise and holy book for which we have taken it. Perhaps Mr. Elton would reply, that the doctrines just mentioned are not those for which he is an advocate. It is certainly highly probable that in the plain English in which they are here propounded, they would not seem altogether what he would wish. Yet do I solemnly believe, that, whether agreeable or not in the form here presented, I have stated neither more nor less than the simple truth; I have exhibited the opinions which are in fact and reality embraced by a large body of zealous Christians. I believe, also, that I have stated exactly the views to which Unitarians object, and against which they bear their testimony. If Mr. Elton does not mean to maintain these sentiments, there has been no adequate reason for, as far as I can see, his abandoning and assaulting Unitarianism. He has, in short, conjured up an unreal Unitarianism to abandon and attack, and chosen a disguised Calvinism to embrace and defend.

Let me, however, in closing this letter, restrain the pen of controversy, and express my strong feeling of the fallibility which attends us all, and commend myself and the author on whom I have esteemed it my duty to make these animadversions, to the gracious teaching of the Most High.

REVIEW.

ART. 1.-Obstacles to the Diffusion of Unitarianism, and the Prospect of their Removal: a Sermon, preached before the Supporters of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, at their Annual Meeting, June 7, 1827. By John Kenrick, M. A. Svo. pp. 36. Hunter.

THE question is sometimes triumphantly asked of Unitarians, "Whether it be credible that, if their system of faith be the true exposition of the Gos pel, it should have been so long unknown, and should have made so little way since its promulgation at the era of the Reformation ?" In a Protestant country, where professed Unitarians are not as one to a hundred of the Christian community, this question may have great weight with minds not familiar with the technicalities of theological controversy. But let the scene and the subject be changed; let the question, with the requisite change of terms, be put to the Protestant by a Roman Catholic at Madrid or at Rome, or to the Roman Catholic by a Turk at Constantinople, by a Hindoo at Benares, or by a disciple of Fo or Confucius at Pekin, and the fallacy of this mode of determining religious disputes will be instantly seen. Undoubtedly, it is a mysterious part of the Divine Government that Truth, whatever it be, should be so long enveloped in such thick clouds; but the mystery affects Unitarianism no more than any other system of Christian doctrine; for there is no one communion whose members are not a minority compared with all others. Yet we verily believe that the argument from numbers weighs fully as much as any textual argument with the mass of British Christians against the claims of Unitarians. They are in the wrong, because they are few. Trinitarians are right, because they are many and enjoy the numberless advantages of a numerous sect, in the sympathy which every one finds in his neighbour, and in the ardour which is naturally inspired in a crowd.

Whether the number of Unitarians be great or small, is of no moment with regard to the truth of their doctrine; but we are really amused at the inconsistency of some of their more vehement opponents who at one moment appeal to the prejudice of the vulgar in favour of large masses of believers, by representing them as a dying sect, already dwindled below notice; and in the next, set about to attack them totis viribus as if they were the most formidable enemy that ever lifted up a banner against the Church, and as if the faithful were no longer safe than whilst they are on their guard against a foe, whose strength is rendered tenfold more formidable by the wiliness with which it is wielded. The Unitarians are not inconsiderable, their antagonists being judges; and we huinbly suggest that the cause of the consideration in which they are held is the consciousness of the force of their scriptural testimony, and the suspicion, if not the knowledge, that this testimony is operating with a secret influence upon the minds of many who, from various motives, are ranged under some of the numerous and party-coloured divisions of "orthodoxy."

Instead of wondering that Unitarianism has not made greater progress in our own country, we, for our part, are surprised that it has spread to so great an extent, in spite of the numerous obstacles put in its way by preju