so many, and so many bold and intelligent advocates as at this moment. It never stood on so solid and immoveable a foundation. The party has been winnowed, thoroughly winnowed, and a little chaff has blown over to the other side. The ignorant, half-informed, and disaffected, have been separated; but these proved to be but two or three: the rest stand firm to the truth. There are now in that city alone, twelve Unitarian societies, having from one hundred and fifty families to four hundred families in each. Population, sixty thousand. New England will, in no long time, become wholly convert to the truth as it is in Jesus."

MR. HARRIS cannot allow this Number of the Christian Pioneer to go forth to the world, without expressing his sincere and grateful acknowledgments for the pleasure he experienced, and the kindness and attention he received, from his numerous and highly valued friends, on his late journey. Its remembrance will cheer and animate his efforts, and impel to perseverance and earnestness in the work of Christian Reformation. It is his fervent wish, that peace may be in their families, and prosperity in their habitations.

Mr. Harris also only utters the united voice of the Unitarian Congregation of Glasgow, in recording their feelings of gratitude and thankfulness, for the important aid they have received from their English brethren. The Subscription List will be kept open till the close of the present year, as they still hope to receive contributions, however small, from those Congregations and individuals who have not yet united in this benevolent work. A statement of the names and donations will be given either in the January or February Number of the Christian

Pioneer for 1829.

Ireland.

THE Unitarian Congregation of Glasgow acknowledge with sincere thankfulness, the receipt of Seven Pounds Fifteen Shillings, forwarded to them towards the liquidation of the Chapel debt, from their friends at CORK, contributed, as it is expressed, “as a testimony of their approbation of the exertions of the Unitarians of Glasgow, in the cause of religious liberty and scriptural truth." They venture to express the hope, that the example of Cork will be followed by others of their brethren in Ireland.

CHRISTIAN PIONEER.

No. 26.

SIR,

66

OCTOBER, 1828. Vol. III.

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

NEARLY six years have elapsed, since, in the preface to the 2d edition of my "Sequel," I expressed my feelings and opinion respecting Dr. Wardlaw's charge, that, in the controversy between us, I had been guilty of wilful and deliberate misrepresentation." He has at length noticed my remarks, in the preface to the 4th and much enlarged edition of his "Discourses," published this summer. As he there continues and renews his former accusation, though not with the same asperity of language, I am induced, in justice to myself, and as a further contribution of my humble, but earnest and solemn testimony to the cause of most important scripture truth, to request your insertion of a few remarks in reply.

As my opponent has commenced his recent observations with an account of the "facts," and as such an account is now evidently rendered necessary by the complicated nature of the dispute, as well as by the length of time which has intervened since it occurred, I also shall, in the first place, recall to your readers the circumstances which led to Dr. Wardlaw's accusation, and the tenor of my answer to it. But my account of "the simple facts" will be essentially different from Dr. Wardlaw's; and in proof of the correctness of mine, I only request those of your readers, who still take an interest in the question, not merely to read my account with attention, but to examine the passages in our respective publications, to which I shall refer. I also beg the reader to bear in mind, that the writers in every controversy are continually obliged to make use of two distinct processes, first, the statement, and then the refutation of the opinions, which they are combating, and that it is of great importance that these two processes should not be confounded.

I think I may venture to assert, that the distinction between these two processes has seldom been more carefully observed than in the 4th Chapter of the 3d Part of

E

my "Vindication of Unitarianism," in which I have stated and endeavoured to refute the orthodox doctrine of the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ. The second and third paragraphs of that Chapter are occupied with the statement of the doctrine; in the fourth paragraph I proceed to the refutation of it, clearly marking the transition from the narrative to the argumentative style, by the use of the conjunction "therefore." Before giving my statement of the doctrine, I

[As there may be persons who will not take the trouble, and as there may also be many who may not have the opportunity of referring to Mr. Yates's work, we think it right to give the three paragraphs in a Note, marking them as they are noticed by Mr. Yates.-Ed.]

2d Par.] "Before we begin to examine the evidence for the orthodox opinion concerning the nature of Christ, it is necessary to know what that opinion is. Nothing could indicate greater irreverence for a question of such vast importance, than to argue and dispute without even understanding what we wish to prove. It is therefore a matter of no small satisfaction, that Mr. Wardlaw's statements are clear and intelligible. He lays down his doctrine in the following terms; (p. 33;) that Jesus Christ is truly God; that in his person there subsisted, when he was on earth, and still subsists a union of the Divine and Human Natures.' It appears also fro the general train of language and argument, pursued through his volume, that, while he believes the man Christ Jesus to have been finite, created, mortal, dependent, exposed to suffering, and limited in power and knowledge, he also believes, that this same person, being God as well as man, was infinite, uncreated, immortal, independent, incapable of suffering, omnipotent, and omniscient.

3d Par.] "All Trinitarians believe, that Jesus Christ was but one person, although possessing two natures. Their doctrine is, that one of the three infinite minds in the Godhead was so united to a human soul, as to form one intelligent being, retaining the properties both of the God and of the man.

4th Par.]"By the Nature of any thing we always mean its Qualities. When therefore it is said, that Jesus Christ possesses both a Divine and a Human Nature, it must be meant, that he possesses both the qualities of God and the qualities of Man. But, if we consider what these qualities are, we perceive them to be totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are eternity, independence, immutability, entire and perpetual exemption from pain and death, omniscience, and omnipotence. The qualities of Man are, derived existence, dependence, liability to change, to suffering, and to dissolution, comparative weakness and ignorance. To maintain therefore, that the same mind is endued both with a Divine and a Human nature, is to maintain, that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both changeable and unchangeable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and incapable of it, both able to do all things and not able, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of certain subjects and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them. If it be not certain, that such a doctrine as this false, there is no certainty upon any subject. It is vain to call it a mystery; it is an absurdity, it is an impossibility According to my ideas of propriety and duty, by assenting to it, I should culpably abuse those faculties of understanding, which have been given

have pointed out the necessity of making such a statement in clear and intelligible terms. Immediately after these preliminary observations, I have produced my statement; and, in doing so, I have adopted the very words of my opponent, not only because his account of the doctrine appeared "clear and intelligible," but because I thought this the best possible way of doing justice to him, and of obviating misapprehension and cavil. I have annexed three sentences designed to show, that the statement of the doctrine, which Dr. Wardlaw gave, and which I have adopted from him, is conformable to the general strain of his language and argument in other parts of his "Discourses," and also to the views of Trinitarians in general. To this account of the tenet, Dr. Wardlaw has never offered the least objection, and I may be allowed to consider his silence upon so important a point, as an implied admission, that it is correct and true.

Having thus done what I then considered, and do still consider, as ample justice both to my subject and to my opponent and his numerous partisans, by a clear, fair, and hitherto unassailed statement of the doctrine in question, I proceeded to the refutation of it. My argument is briefly this, that the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ cannot be true, because, as the nature of a thing always means its attributes, qualities, or properties, and as many of the properties of God are directly opposed to and quite incompatible with the properties of man, the doctrine implies, that the same person possesses qualities, which are utterly inconsistent, and which cannot by any possibility meet in the same subject. To many of my readers as well as to myself, this argument has appeared perfectly unobjectionable and decisive.

My "Vindication of Unitarianism" was answered by Dr. W. in his book called "Unitarianism Incapable of

me to be employed in distinguishing between right and wrong, truth and error. According to the maxims, laid down as the guides of our inquiry, and acknowledged by Mr. Wardlaw as fundamental principles, (See P. I. Ch. 4,) this doctrine could not be established even by the clearest declarations of the Scriptures. For the testimony of the Scriptures would not prove it to be true; on the contrary, its occurrence in the Scriptures would prove them to be false.

In the 4th edition (p. 65), Dr. Wardlaw has tacitly altered the statement in question, by substituting "nature" in the singular, instead of "natures in the plural number. His language was more correct

before the alteration.

Vindication." In Part II. Chap. iv. of that work, he says, "I come now to his statement of the orthodox doctrine respecting the person of Christ." But the whole of that statement Dr. W. has passed over without the slightest remark: any one, who read his book without consulting mine, as nine-tenths of his readers probably do, would suppose that I had never given such a statement. He quotes accurately the whole of my words both before and after it: the statement itself he has entirely omitted. Instead of it, he quotes at full length the reasoning, which I advanced as a refutation of his doctrine; and not being able, as I shall take the liberty of assuming, to overthrow that reasoning, he advances the angry charge of "wilful and deliberate misrepresentation," followed by numerous expressions, which are among the most vituperative in his volume.

Dr. Wardlaw, however, thinks it necessary to prove his charge, and for this purpose quotes a passage, in which I have mentioned the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, that notwithstanding the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ, those natures continue distinct.

circum

I have maintained in reply, that it is this very stance, which establishes the justice of my argument; that, if the two natures, instead of continuing distinct, had been represented as mixed or confounded so as to produce, in the language of Dr. Barrow, "a third nature different from both," the doctrine might not have been self-contradictory; but that this view of it is decidedly rejected by the orthodox; and that the palpable absurdity of their opinion consists in this, that they represent two opposite and incompatible natures to be united in one and the same person without any change in those natures, without any mixture or confusion of them, without producing any thing between the two, any third nature partly human and partly divine, that according to this view Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man, and that, consequently, one and the same mind or person possesses at the same time properties, which are self-contradictory and utterly inconsistent. Such was my argument, which I have now carefully reviewed, and which I still think decisive.

Nothing further occurred upon this subject, except that in advertisements to the Second Editions of my "Vindication" and my "Sequel," I expressed my earnest hope, that Dr. W. would think himself called upon, as a man of