EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MR. WORDSWORTH.

MY DEAR MR. COTTLE,

* *

* "You have treated the momentous subject of Socinianisıu

in a masterly manner, entirely and absolutely convincing.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE following pages are not designed for the Class who expect, and are satisfied alone with critical, and philological disquisition; neither is this small work calculated for the humbler individuals, who, from possessing a too circumscribed knowledge of their native tongue, are incompetent to pursue close trains of reasoning; but, on the contrary, it is addressed to the large intermediate class, who require no concession in the ordinary use of terms, and whose understandings, on all ordinary occasions, are sufficiently enlightened to detect fallacy, and to discern the force of argument.

Many elaborate and highly valuable Treatises, calculated for the class first noticed, are possessed by the Religious Public; but it has appeared to the Writer, that a piece was still wanted, contravening Socinianism, in a temperate spirit, designed for the last description of Inquirers after Truth; the thoughtful and hesitating, to whom, the

metaphysical and more erudite modes of conducting the

viii

argument, would be unsuitable. To such, with any prospect of success, the appeal should be made to the Letter of Scripture, in its undisputed portions, so as to testify its obvious meaning to all unsophisticated minds. This has here been attempted, not without a fervent hope, that, with the blessing of the Almighty, it may be made beneficial, in rescuing some from what is regarded as error, and for confirming others in what is believed to be the truth.

Preparations had been made for a 'Second Part' to this small Treatise. This intention has been abandoned, and the more readily, as the present Work, though admitting of large illustration and elucidation, is complete in itself.

J. C.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

66

"FOUR things," said the judicious Hooker, concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord Jesus Christ; his Deity, his Manhood, the conjunction of both, and the distinction of both. Four principal heresies have withstood these truths: the Arian, the Appollinarian, the Nestorian, and the Eutychian. Against these have been held four ancient general councils: the council of Nice; A. D. 325: the council of Constantinople; A. D. 381 the council of Ephesus; A. D. 431: and the council of Chalcedon; A. D. 451: the decisions of which may be comprised in four words: Truly; Perfectly; Indivisibly; and Distinctly."

Heresies have abounded in all ages; some of a more pernicious tendency than others, but all testifying the corrupt bias of the human heart, in wandering from the clear letter of Scripture, and forming arbitrary systems, that either obscure, or extinguish Divine Truth.

A long catalogue has been preserved in ecclesiastical history, of such as once disturbed the Church, and stigmatized the Christian name; but most of them are now unknown, and only operate as warnings, from the occasion they furnish of melancholy retrospection.

It is intended, in the following pages, to take some notice of the three leading theological classes of the present day; Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians. Socinianism commenced with Socinus, in the sixteenth century; Arianism with Arius, in the fourth century; and Trinitarianism, in its confirmed, rather than incipient state, at the moment when the Divine Founder of Christianity directed his Apostles, to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, "Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

On this occasion it is proper to determine the precise meaning of words; from which it is remarked, as brief definitions, that

B

the Trinitarian believes in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, in essential union with the One living and true God; the Arian believes that the Son, and Spirit, are Creatures; while the Socinian, (as the general features of his creed) rejects the personality of the Spirit (except as identified with the Father,) the Pre-existence of Christ; the Atonement; Eternal punishment, (believing that all will be saved;) affirms the materiality, or sleep of the soul; denies the existence of Satan, and the reality of Hell; rejects the Incarnation, and the Fall; and asserts our Lord Jesus Christ to have been a mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary.

There is no Socinian, to whom, as a fellow-creature, the Writer would withhold any office of humanity, or even of kindness; from which it is impossible that any personal antipathy, or intolerant feeling, should be ascribed to him; but while he would spare the men, he would pronounce their doctrines, by an appeal to the Standard of Truth, the Bible, unscriptural, and most dangerous to the souls of men. Devoutly entertaining this belief, the Socinian cannot be surprised if the endeavour should not always have succeeded, to avoid an earnestness of expression, which might, in a predisposed state of mind, be construed into harshness, and which nothing could have excited but a solicitude for the best interests of man. Persons and things should receive their proper names. Socinians denominate all who advocate the Divine Nature of Christ, "Idolaters; and if Christ be only a man, they are such. We reply, The men who believe the conformation of our Earth to have resulted from fire, could never be called Neptunists, and the admission of the Newtonian system could not comport with the denial of gravitation; why therefore should those who degrade the Saviour, in rejecting his Divinity, by declaring him to be, a mere man, and who renounce almost all the peculiar features of our Holy Religion, retain the name of Christian? Let them call themselves, rather, by the term Mr. Belsham has chosen, Theophilanthropes, or any other name, which describes what they are, rather than what they are not.

The tenets of Socinians and Trinitarians are separated by an "impassable gulf." Nearly all that the one holds sacred, (recognised in the Bible, and handed down as it has been from the times of the Apostles) being rejected by the other with unhesitating disdain; consequently a discordance, in principle, prevails, that admits of no reconciliation. But, virtually, the grand difference resolves itself into the question, whether or not "The