'Now, in reading these passages-and they have reference to the very point in debate, the commencement of religion in the soul; -would it ever occur that they regarded man in any other light, than as being active in the entire work of religion? Do they look as if the sacred penman, ever considered their minds as mere passive recipients, in any part of this work? Do they not speak as men do on other subjects, when they express activity? And is not the natural language of these expressions, that the mind is as far as possible from stagnation, or torpor, or "moral panic?" Let it be remembered also, that they speak of the actings of the mind, in all the changes which it experiences in religion. There is nothing in the change of which they speak, anterior to ACTION; no department of the moral man in which christianity obtains a lodgment, that is not expressed by language describing man's own agency.'-p. 350.

Again, their notions of election we deem incorrect; yet in their controversy with the 'old' Calvinists, they use language which we can readily adopt; language that would have sounded strangely in orthodox ears, a few years ago.

What is the doctrine of election, on the theory of our opponents ? That a part of mankind are taken to eternal life, in consequence of a change of heart, in which they had no share. That the remainder sink to hell, for wanting that which did not depend upon themselves-for wanting "a holy principle" distinct from, and independent of, any act of their own-and for wanting that influence of God, by which such a principle is created in the breast of the redeemed! With exactly the same justice might any man be condemned to perdition for wanting talents, beauty or wealth. These are the representations of the doctrine of election, which have made it so odious in many parts of our land. Every principle of man's nature rises up against such statements. They make the whole system of the doctrines of grace, a loathing and an abhorrence to thousands. They steel the hearts of multitudes against the influence of divine truth. Other multitudes they place in the attitude of passive recipients, waiting for some mysterious gift distinct from their own agency. With entire respect, and with personal affection for many who make these statements, we are compelled to say, that, in our view, they take upon themselves a tremendous responsibility in so doing. Woe to that minister of God, who, in His name, proclaims

to men to wait in the solemn duties of their souls, for the expected aid of the Almighty, or to delay the effort for repentance, till He shall send them new powers or principles of action, from on high. In all the oracles of truth, not one such direction is found.'-p. 357.

Once more, in respect to faith, it is gratifying to us to quote, from an orthodox source, sentiments, such as Unitarians have been suffering the reproach of 'heresy,' ,' these many years, for uttering.

When we look at faith, without reference to any theological debate, we see nothing that is particularly mysterious about it as an operation of the mind; nothing which by any inherent properties separates it from the usual actings of moral agency. It is belief in testimony; that is, credit given to truth according to evidence, implying action in looking at this evidence, and in coming to the result.' In all this we see only the actings of the mind. Take away that act of mind-the putting forth of confidence, trust, or belief, and what remains? There is nothing tangible or conceivable, but that act of the mind.' 'A child puts confidence in a parent's promise. This is faith. He relies on him in the hour of danger; he fears when he threatens. That is also faith. But besides this act of the mind in the child, there is nothing that can be detected or conceived of in relation to the subject, that deserves praise or blame. So of the christian. All that we know of this crowning christian grace is, that the man believes, hopes, loves, fears, puts trust in God.'

But it is said that faith is the gift of God. This is true. And so are repentance, love, hope, and peace, the gift of God, and in the same sense, and to the same extent. The passage of scripture which says, "for by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God," may perhaps be objected to the view here given. But it should be remembered that while the sentiment which appears to be taught there is true, it is not the truth which that passage contains. In the original, the word "that" refers not to faith, but to the salvation by grace. It would be correctly rendered, Ye are saved by grace through faith, and this salvation by grace through faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God :—a sentiment not asserting any thing peculiar in the gift of faith above other graces.'

To this view of faith, we know there is presented a difficulty, in the technicalities of some systems of theology, drawn we believe

from erroneous views of the philosophy of the mind. It is, that anterior to the exercise of faith, apart from it, and capable of distinct contemplation, and of course responsibility, there is a principle of faith implanted in regeneration.' This is the counterpart of the doctrine of physical depravity; of a concreated principle of evil; and is what cannot be admitted as true.'-pp. 353, 354.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE TRINITY, AND THE MODES OF DEFENDING THEM.

PILGRIMS."

'SPIRIT OF THE

Messrs Editors-In the number of the Spirit of the Pilgrims' for July, I observe a few selected paragraphs relating to Transubstantiation and the Trinity, and the analogy they bear to each other, as it regards the evidence on which they rest. The subject appears to me an interesting one, and if you think the following cursory observations worthy a place in the Advocate, they are at your disposal. The paragraphs to which I allude, are introduced by a remark of the editor, that Unitarians often class the doctrine of the Trinity with Transubstantiation, and insist that those who admit the former, ought not to stumble at the latThe one doctrine, say they, may be supported by the letter of scripture, not less than the other; and both are equally absurd.' This statement is not perfectly accurate. Unitarians have never admitted, that the doctrine of the Trinity derives any support whatever from the letter of scripture. They have uniformly maintained, that it is opposed alike to the letter and

ter.

spirit of the sacred writings; that it is no where directly asserted; that we search the Bible in vain for any thing like an express statement of it. In fact, the advocates of the doctrine admit this. They admit that it is no where in the scriptures explicitly stated or affirmed, but on the contrary, is wholly a doctrine of inference. Now the Roman Catholics allege, in favor of their notion of Transubstantiation, the express words of scripture. This,' says our Saviour, is my body.' This affirmation taken literally, certainly establishes the doctrine. In this respect, Transubstantiation, as regards the support it derives from the scriptures, is placed on a better footing than the Trinity. The New Testament explained according to the letter, asserts the one, but does not assert the other. It ro where asserts, that the 'Father is God, the Son is God, and the holy spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God.'

The other part of the remark above quoted from the Spirit of the Pilgrims,' is true. Unitarians do consider the two doctrines as belonging to the same class. They think them both alike unsupported by just views of the language of the Bible; they think that they are attended with the same or similar difficulties; that they are irrational and absurd, and can be defended only on principles, which would inspire a universal distrust of the human understanding, and, in fact, sweep away, at once, the whole mass of evidence on which Christianity rests.

I shall not attempt any labored comparison of the two doctrines. It is unnecessary. I wish simply to state one or two particulars, which, in my view, reduce the doctrines to the same level of absurdity.

The point chiefly urged by those who hold a belief of the Trinity, but reject Transubstantiation, is, that of the two doctrines, one relates to a subject wholly incomprehensible, the other to a subject with which we are all perfectly familiar; that though we are justified in affirming that bread is not flesh, by our familiarity with the properties of each, yet our knowledge of the Divine Being is so exceedingly imperfect, that we are not authorized to deny, that with regard to him, three may be one, and one, three; that though we may safely deny this of bodies subjected to the examination of the senses, it would be rash to deny it of him, the 'depths of whose nature' we cannot fathom. This is the sum of the whole argument.

Now to this reasoning of the Protestant Trinitarian, a Roman Catholic of ordinary acuteness might reply, as it has been often replied in substance; The cases are not so dissimilar, sir, as you imagine. You object to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that it is repugnant to reason. But beware, I beseech you, of pride of intellect; beware of 'carnal reasoning' in matters which do not fall within the reach of the human faculties. In these matters it is your duty, as you have been taught, no doubt, to submit the understanding to faith. There are mysteries in religion, as in nature, and in surrounding objects of sense. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is one of them; a holy mystery which human reason is to receive on the authority of revelation, and not attempt irreverently to pry into it, to discover how far its parts are consistent with each other, and with the understanding. You are a Trinitarian. You are accustomed, then, to overlook difficulties. You must