what we know to be a fact in one case, ought not to be pronounced to be impossible in another; espe cially if this latter case should be, in its own nature, still farther removed from all our known powers of apprehending, and usual rules of judging. In one word, from the instance of Antipodes here brought, it may at least be deemed possible, that the doctrine of a Trinity of co-equal persons in one undivided essence may become, in some future period of our existence, as intelligible to us all, as that of the Antipodes is at present to men of letters.

THE ARIAN SYSTEM.

AN Arian, observing, that the characteristics of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, will necessarily lead ns, if we reason according to the common course of other things, to conclude, that there cannot be that co-equality, and co-eternity of persons in the Trinity, for which the Trinitarian believer so earnestly and zealously contends, therefore resolves to examine all those texts over again, which are usually brought in support of the Trinitarian doctrine.

Having this bias on his mind, he prepares to search the Holy Scriptures; and then by the help of subtile criticisms, strained, and far-fetched comments and glosses, he at last discovers, or fancies that he discovers, that these texts may be so understood as to imply a supremacy of the first person over the second, and the third,-not only in point of order

and economy, but also of necessary existence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternity, and the like.

But having proceeded thus far, his labours are so far from being at an end, that here they properly begin; for every step he advances presents him with fresh difficulties, and new embarrassments: therefore, in order to render his scheme uniform and consistent with itself, and to answer the Trinitarian objections, he must in his turn act on the defensive side: that is, he must maintain the following paradoxes, viz. that though the second person in the Trinity ought to be acknowledged to be the Creator of all things both in heaven and earth, yet he himself owes his very existence to the sovereign pleasure and good will of his heavenly Father, and consequently is but a mere creature;-that though he is over all, God blessed for ever, yet he is but an inferior, a dependent, and a subaltern God;-though prayers, praises, and adorations are to be offered up to him, yet they are not to be directed ultimately to him: [N. B. This is exactly the same apology which the Roman Catholics use for worshipping saints and angels] --though the only-begotten Son of God existed from all eternity, yet he was not co-eval or co-eternal with his Father; though he is omniscient, yet his knowledge is borrowed and circumscribed; and though he is omnipresent, yet his omnipresence is merely systematic, relative, and local.

These are some out of many perplexities, which the Arian system unavoidably labours under: but this specimen is enough to convince any indifferent person, that the Arian, in getting rid of the Trinitarian difficulties, doth not at all mend the matter; for he not only strains

the scripture expressions to senses, which they do not naturally convey, but also involves himself in such intricacies (to speak in the softest manner) as even on the footing of human reason, would render his scheme not a jot more eligible than the other. Add to all this, that by representing our Lord in so inferior a character as that of a deputy-divinity, he evidently saps the foundation of the whole doctrine of redemption, satisfaction, and atonement.

THE SOCINIAN SYSTEM.

THE Socinian, as far as the present controversy is concerned, seems to be a disinterested spectator on both sides. He feels the weight of the objections both against the Trinitarian and the Arian systems; and therefore weakly, perhaps arrogantly imagines, that he can devise a third, which is encumbered with no difficulties at all. Filled with this persuasion, he boldly pronounces the Holy Spirit to be no distinct person, but only a mere quality, emanation, or attribute of the deity. [Strange, that we should have been commanded to be baptized in the name of a quality, attribute, or emanation!] And as to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he was a mere man, like other men; being no otherwise the Son of God, than as Adam and all mankind may be stiled the sons, or offspring of one common parent.

This, it must be owned, is very short and concise: It cuts the knot of controversy asunder, and solves all the former difficulties at once. But after this is done,

what is to become of the Holy Scriptures? And how is their authority to be supported, as the infallible oracles of the living God? For, granting, if you please, that an Arian, by the help of subtile distinc tions and learned criticisms, might make some passages of Holy Writ to bend so as to favour his hypothesis, this is no advantage to a Socinian: for he can never make them bend; they must break, under the torture of his operation. Nay, more, if his system be really true, the Scriptures of course must be false; and Christ and his Apostles be ranked among the greatest hypocrites and impostors that ever appeared on earth. For either our Lord was more than a mere man, or even than a mere angel; nay, either he is that great I Aм, which had an existence, not only before Abraham, but before the worlds began, and upholds all things by the word of his power; or else he must have been one of the falsest and vilest of the human race, for making such groundless pretensions.

The conclusion of the whole is this: the Trinitarian system hath confessedly great difficulties, which human reason cannot pretend to master. The Arian hath full as great; besides the injuries occasioned by distorting several very plain passages of scripture from their natural and genuine signification, also of putting the merits of Christ's sufferings into a very disadvantageous point of view. As to the Socinian, it not only strips the Christian believer of all hopes and comforts in a covenant of grace founded in Christ's proper atonement, but also sinks the Gospel into a system of mere morality. Nay, what is still worse, and indeed is the most shocking part of all, it represents the author, and

the first publishers of this moral system, to be such very bad men as not to be worthy of any credit or esteem, on account of their manifold and barefaced falsehoods.

What then is a rational, a modest, and a pious man to do in such cases as these, where dangers and difficulties surround him on every side? Undoubtedly he will reject the Socinian system, if he chuses to retain the essentials of the Christian covenant, and to avoid representing the author of it, as no better than an infamous impostor. Moreover with respect to the Arian, he will weigh deliberately, and consider well, whether this system, with all its boastings, has any real and solid advantages over the Trinitarian; nay, he will particularly examine, whether, on the whole, it be not more liable to objections, and less eligible on Gospel principles. Therefore, if this should prove to be the case, after a serious and solemn examination, surely he is justifiable before God and man in rejecting this likewise, as well as the Socinian :— He is justifiable, I say, in adhering to his former persuasion or belief of a Trinity in Unity; notwithstanding all the cavils which have been or may be raised against it. Nay, in respect to those very mysteries, about which such loud clamours have been excited, he will cooly reflect, that, as he must admit great and inexplicable mysteries to take place both in the natural and the moral world, it would be difficult for him to shew a just reason, why he should reject the like mysteries, when coming from revelation. In one word, as he is sensible that his abilities are limited, he will not attempt to push his enquiries, either in