was some of the sermons of Dr. Channing; and I must now express myself, as I have done before, deeply obliged for the views of rational and scriptural piety, which those sermons develope. From Dr. Channing I learned the necessity and the excellence of pursuing virtue for its own sake; from some of his sermons I became convinced, that the man who could write, and feel, and think as he did, must be a man of sterling excellence, a man of great moral sensibility, and of great piety; and I consequently thought, that if the theory of Unitarianism was connected with such moral excellence, there could not be so much danger in studying that theory. However I might be inclined to look more favourably on Unitarianism from this, and also from having had put into my hands a private letter from Dr. Channing, to a friend in this country, in which he breathed sentiments of the most enlarged charity and Christian kindness towards those who differ from him, and recommended to his correspondent the exercise of Christian candour and forbearance in a controversy into which he was about to enter;-however my feelings were affected by these things, I never began seriously to doubt upon the subject of the Trinity, till I heard certain lectures upon theology, delivered by a professor* at the College where I was educated. These lectures were delivered, very critically and ably in many respects, for the express purpose of showing the unscriptural nature of Unitarianism, and that in fact the doctrine of the Trinity was the uniform testimony of Scripture. These lectures first seriously staggered my mind; and from that period I determined to think for myself, because I perceived there was a manifest inconsistency in these lectures. In the first place, the doctrine of the Trinity, in all the books that I have read upon the subject, is stated to be something which, strictly speaking, is undefinable, something

which surpasses human reason. But I always found

that before the subject was dismissed, it was defined clearly enough to be the existence of three distinct, intelligent, voluntary agents-to my mind, three Gods. However, doubts are not convictions; and when I began to doubt, I determined to study the matter as I had opportunity; and I beg here to state, that when I commenced an investigation of Scripture, and began to read

*Dr. Henderson, at Highbury College.

more extensively upon the subject, I commenced with the firm belief, that the more I studied and thought, the more evidence I should have for the doctrine of the Trinity. I did not commence the investigation with the belief that it would lead to the results to which it has led. As soon as I had opportunity, I began to give more critical attention to the strongholds of the Trinitarian doctrine, to those various passages of Scripture which are thought by Trinitarians expressly to assert the doctrine in dispute. I read upon the subject the controversy between Mr. Yates and Dr. Wardlaw; I gave Yates a re-perusal; and from my own experience, I would advise all who seek the truth, and read an adversary's book, to read it twice. Upon the second perusal, I found many things which had not struck me before. I also read Dr. Pye Smith's 'Scripture Testimony to the Messiah,' a work judged to be one of the most powerful on that side of the question; Belsham's 'Calm Inquiry; and I further paid attention to the writings of Professor Stuart, one of the heads of an orthodox college in America; and I was especially struck by a small treatise in defence of the divinity of Jesus Christ, contained in several letters replying to the arguments of some of Dr. Channing's sermons; and this, upon the whole, appeared to me to be the most rational of any of the treatises I have mentioned on that side of the question. I was led to suspend my Judgment for a period, by the difficulties suggested by that book, and by Scrip ture, and for which, I must confess, I did not find an adequate interpretation in either Belsham or Yates. At length, after much consideration, I was perfectly satisfied, as I now am, that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with itself, and inconsistent with reason; that it is founded upon interpretations of Scripture, which are marked by absurdity, and which are characterised by any thing but philosophical accuracy; that the doctrine of the Trinity might be rejected without any serious practical consequences, as it is not connected with practical religion; that to view God as the great Father of us all, as our benefactor, redeemer, and purifier, as one who exercises over every individual a kind and fatherly care, is quite sufficient for any man's salvation. Another doctrine, that of eternal punishments, was a subject which gave my mind much anxiety. That doctrine I was led to reject, after the study of the Scrip

tures, and after I became convinced that there is no one passage in the whole Scriptures that may not be consistently and faithfully interpreted, without involving any such monstrous and terrible dogma. And I must now confess and acknowledge, that in the adoption of Unitarian sentiments, I did not feel the power of that doctrine over my mind to lessen in the least my reverence to my Creator; nor do I find that my sympathies towards my fellow-creatures are in any way lessened. I do not feel that I am a worse moral character; but believe I am a better; and I do hold it as a truth, that though Unitarianism may not be necessary to salvation, it is necessary to perfection of character. I believe it to con. tain those just, equitable, and benevolent views of God, which are calculated not only to excite and raise the hopes of man in this world and towards another,-not only calculated to unite in one family all the human race, and to universalize the truth that God has made of one blood all the nations of the earth, and that every man is our brother, but I believe that it is also calculated to promote disinterested piety, that it appeals less to the selfishness of the human heart, and more to its more generous and noble sentiments, than does the Trinitarian doctrine. And with these views, I hope that, while I maintain that firmly and conscientiously which I believe to be true, I shall eschew forever the spirit of the bigot, and endeavour, along with zeal for Truth, to embrace also her twin sister, that 'Charity' which 'suffereth long and is kind,' and which 'thinketh no evil of its brother.'

REVIEW.

Plain Words for Plain Men: a Letter to the Presbyterians of Glastry, Kirkcubbin and Ballywalter; containing a Short Reply to several False Charges made against the People called Remonstrants. By WILLIAM HUGH DOHERTY, Minister of the Presbyterian Congregation of Ballyhemlin. Belfast, Simms and M'Intyre,-S. Archer, H. Greer, and J. Magill, pp. 60.

WE have here a well written and well reasoned tract; -plain, concise, perspicuous and persuasive. It is exactly such a publication as is likely to engage the attention, and convince the understandings of the class of persons to whom it is addressed; and we cannot doubt that it will be found a serviceable auxiliary to the cause of truth in many quarters.

Mr. Doherty has divided his letter into several heads, or chapters, for the distinct consideration of the topics to which he addresses himself. In the first, he shows, "that it is not any sin to go to hear Remonstrant Ministers, or to read their Books."

"Here the Apostle Paul is my authority, and my guide. He commands you, (1 THES. v. 21,) to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." If, therefore, your ministers should repeat what they have so often told you, that going to hear our sermons is like tasting a cup of poison,-you will see, that not only are they trying to deceive you by foolish and silly comparisons, which can prove nothing, but also that they have the misfortune to differ from the Apostle Paul." p. 5.

In the second chapter Mr. D. shows "that our religion is not a new religion, but as old as the Bible;" and in the third, he proves that "we do not deny the Lord that bought us, but that we glory in confessing him as our Saviour, our Redeemer and our Judge." Both of these points are argued with great clearness and force, and with admirable brevity. We think that all lovers of truth and honesty, in whatever sect they may be found, will acknowledge the accuracy of the statement contain. ed in the following extract; and will regret that misconception and calumny, have prevailed so extensively, as to render the repeated denial of the accusation to which it refers absolutely necessary: It is taken from the fourth chapter; in which the author shows "that we do not depend upon our own works for Salvation; but that we know and say, that we are all sinners before God."

66

My friends, I regard the charge which our enemies make against us, respecting our reliance upon our good works alone for salvation, as more absurd, though it cannot be more false, than their other calumnies. So absurd is it, that I do not believe there lives a man, whether Deist or Christian, who ever supposed, that in strict justice his own works alone, without the intervention of God's mercy, could procure salvation for him. The man who in looking back upon his past life can see no sins to be repented of, no neglect of duty to lament, and no violations of God's law meriting punishment, must be a man whose mind is enfeebled, and whose judgment is destroyed by a foolish and presumptuous vanity. Our faith is, that as God has created, and still continues to support us,-as all our powers and faculties are his gifts, so could we live quite free from sin, (which is impossible,) we should even then merit no reward, for we should merely have done our duty. But where is the man who can claim even this degree of virtue ? As for us, we claim it not; and our constant confession before God and our brethren is, that we are sinful and unprofitable servants; and that our only hopes of salva

tion are built upon the mercy of our God through Christ Jesus, our Lord, our Saviour and our Redeemer." p. 15, 16.

The object of the fifth section is to show that the Remonstrants "are neither Arians, Socinians, Deists, Infidels nor Atheists; and that those who give them such names are guilty of great wickedness in bearing false witness against their neighbours." Mr. Doherty is very far from shrinking from the avowal of any doctrine which he really holds; but he is too well aware of the mischiefs which have arisen from the adoption of party designations borrowed from the names of human and uninspired leaders, he is too thoroughly imbued with the genuine principles of religious liberty,-and holds too sacredly his allegiance to the great King and head of the Christian church,-to assume any such appellation himself, or to permit it to be attached to him by theo. logical opponents. "We are not Arians," he says, “but Christians. We care nothing for Arius or his opinions; we only desire to follow Christ!"

"As this man [Arius] was abused and persecuted by wicked men, and not aided by the ignorant mob, I am inclined to think very favourably of his opinions. But as it is not now possible to be certain what those opinions were, I absolutely refuse to be ranked among his followers; and whether his belief be right or wrong, I will not take his name nor submit to his leadership. For as he was not inspired he must prove a fallible guide." p. 23.

With regard to Socinus, the case is still stronger. It is probable indeed, that there is not, correctly speaking, a Socinian in the world. In the next chapter, Mr. Doherty gives a short but clear account of the points in which he differs from "the followers of John Calvin and the believers in the Westminster Confession of Faith." This is one of the most effective chapters in the book. The method which Mr. D. follows, must be allowed by his opponents themselves to be perfectly fair and candid; for he gives the very words of their own creed; and contrasts with them the plain, express and reiter ated assertions of scripture: nor can there be any question, in a mind which is open to conviction, after weighing the evidence which he produces, that if the Bible be true, the Westminster Confession must be false, and vice versa. The letter closes with a chapter containing a perspicuous statement of the doctrines professed by the members of the congregation in whose defence the author took up his pen; and these are expressed for the most part in the very language of scrip