done, says St. Paul, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, those persons, who experience this change of character, are said to be born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; that is, they derive this change of character not from their parents, nor from their own efforts, nor from the efforts of any man, but from God.

But this change the Unitarians deny, and the agency of the Holy Spirit in effectuating it in the mind of man. Nay, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit as a person, or agent. As a substitute for regeneration they declare mankind to become better in a gradual manner, by their own will, or efforts, and the efforts, or will, of their fellow-men, to such a degree, that God will accept them. In this manner they make the immense splendour of apparatus for our Redemption and Sanctification; and all the magnificent exhibitions of Christ and the Holy Spirit, terminate in this: that Christ came to declare divine truth to mankind, and to prove it to be divine truth; and that men, assenting to it with the understanding, change themselves by the ordinary efforts of a sinful mind into such a character, as is denoted in the Scriptures by being born again, and created anew. Such, it would seem, was not, however, the opinion of St. Paul, when he said, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them; for they are spiritually discerned.

The present occasion will not permit me particularly to follow this subject any further. It will be sufficient to mention, summarily, several other doctrines, which have been denied by Dr. Priestly and his followers.

Our Saviour says, A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Dr. Priestly, on the contrary, informs us, that the human spirit is constituted only of organized Matter: that is, of flesh and bones. St. Paul tells us, that, when he is absent from the body, he shall be present with the Lord. Dr. Priestly holds, that Paul was nothing but body; and therefore could not be absent from the body, unless the body could be absent from itself. When the body dies, the soul, according to Dr. Priestly, terminates both its operations, and its being, until the resurrection, then to be created again; and therefore is not, and cannot be, present with the Lord, until after that period. The Scriptures assert the existence of Angels, of various orders, both good and evil; and delineate their characters, stations, actions, and enjoyments. Dr. Priestly utterly denies, and even ridicules, the doctrine, that evil angels exist; and labours very hard to disprove the existence of good angels. I do not remember, that he expressly denies it; and am not in possession of the volume, in which his opinions on this subject are expressed, but he says all, that is short of such an explicit denial; and plainly indicates, that he does not believe them to exist.

Beyond all this; he denies the plenary inspiration of the Apostles; and declares, that we are to acknowledge them inspired, only when they say they are inspired: and this, he says, we are to do, because the Apostles were honest men; and are to be believed in this, and all their other declarations. Dr. Priestly says expressly, that he does not consider the books of Scripture as inspired, but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to mankind; with every particular of which we cannot be too well acquainted. The writers of the books of Scripture, he says, were men, and therefore fallible. But all, that we have to do with them, is in the character of historians, and witnesses, of what they heard and saw; like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes. " Neither I," says he to Dr. Price," nor, I presume, yourself, believe implicitly every thing, which is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament. I believe them," that is, the writers, "to have been men, and therefore fallible." And again; "That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration is a thing, to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence of Christianity." The reasonings of the divine writers, he declares, we are fully at liberty to judge of, as we are those of other men. Accordingly, he asserts St. Paul in a particular instance to have reasoned fallaciously; and maintains that Christ was both fallible and peccable. Other English Socinians unite with Dr. Priestly in these sentiments: while Socinians of other nations proceed so far, as to treat the writers themselves, and their books, with marked contempt. In these several things there is plainly an utter denial, that the Scriptures are a Revelation from God. To all these opinions Dr. Priestly was once directly opposed: for he was once a Trinitarian, and a Calvinist. The inference seems, therefore, to be necessary, that he was led to them all by his denial of the Deity of Christ. A similar transformation appears to have been undergone by many other Socinians; and something very like it by no small number of Arians. The observation of Mr. Wilberforce, therefore, seems to be but too well founded, when he says; "In the course, which we lately traced from nominal orthodoxy to absolute Infidelity, Unitarianism is, indeed, a sort of nalf-way house, if the expression may be pardoned; a stage on the journey, where sometimes a person, indeed, finally stops; but where, not unfrequently, he only pauses for a while; and then pursues his progress."

IV. The last objection, which I shall make at the present time against the doctrine of the Unitarians, is its Immoral Influence.

Mr. Belsham says, " Rational Christians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion." Dr. Priestly says, "A great number of the Unitarians, of the present age, are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion: and there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in them, than is observable in VOL. II.

5

others." He also says, that he hopes they have more of a real principle of Religion, than they seem to have. He further allows, that Unitarians are peculiarly wanting in zeal for Religion.

At the same time, Dr. Priestly acknowledges, that Calvinists have less apparent conformity to the world; and that they seem to have more of a real principle of Religion, than Socinians. He also acknowledges, that those, who, from a principle of religion, ascribe more to God, and less to man, than other persons, are men of the greatest elevation of piety. Wilberforce declares it to be an unquestionable fact, that Unitarians are not, in general, distinguished for superior purity of life; and that Unitarianism seems to be resorted to by those, who seek a refuge from the strictness of the practical precepts contained in the Bible.

That these representations are just, I consider as completely proved by Dr. Fuller in his letters; and no less completely the immoral tendency of the Socinian system.

It is, also, a well known truth, that Unitarian Churches are in general moderately frequented on the Sabbath; that the sermons of their preachers are generally cold; especially on the peculiar duties of Religion; that they have never formed, nor united with others in forming, Missions for the propagation of the Gospel among the Heathens and Mohammedans; nor distinguished themselves by any discernible earnestness in the cause of practical Christianity. On the contrary, their own declarations, too numerous to be here recited, teach us abundantly, that in the view of a great part of them, almost all the seriousness, fervour, and selfdenial, that deep sense of sin, and that prayerful, watchful and strenuous opposition to temptation, which their opponents esteem indispensable to salvation, are mere enthusiasm, superstition, or melancholy. Christianity, with them, seems to be an easy, pleasant kind of Religion; unincumbered by any peculiar restraints; admitting without difficulty of what are usually called the pleasures and amusements of the world; and only confining them within the bounds of delicacy and politeness. Can this, let me ask, be taking up the cross, denying ourselves, and following after Christ?

SERMON XLI.

DIVINITY OF CHRIST. OBJECTIONS TO THE MODE IN WHICH THE UNITARIANS CONDUCT THE CONTROVERSY.

1 CORINTHIANS iii. 20.-The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

IN my last discourse I proposed several Objections against the Doctrine of the Unitarians. I shall now allege some Objections against their Conduct in the Management of the controversy.

Before I proceed to the execution of this design, I shall premise the following general doctrines concerning the Scriptures.

That the Old and New Testament were revealed to the several Writers of them by the Spirit of God.

That, although the several Writers were left to use their own characteristical style, or manner of writing, yet they have always written such words, as the Holy Ghost taught, and not such as are taught by the wisdom of Man.

That these Scriptures contain all things, pertaining to life and to godliness.

That they were written for the use of mankind; the learned and unlearned alike; and therefore were written in the usual language of men, with the usual signification of that language; as being that only, which such men can understand.

That, therefore, they express true ideas of God, of Christ, of human nature, of human duty, and of the way of salvation, in such a manner, that unlearned men, as are ninety-nine hundredths of those for whom they were written, can, and, if sincerely disposed, will, understand them, so far as is necessary to enable them to perform their duty, and obtain their salvation.

Every one of these doctrines I believe not only to be strictly true, but capable of the most satisfactory proof; and proof, of which I feel myself satisfactorily possessed. Occasional remarks I shall make on this subject in the present discourse; but a fuller discussion of it must be left to a future time. I have mentioned these doctrines here, because they are in my view just, important, and necessary to enable those, who hear me, to understand the real import of the following observations.

1st. The Unitarians, to a great extent, have interpreted the Scriptures according to pre-conceived opinions of their own, and not according to the obvious meaning of the passages themselves.

That I may not be thought to charge this upon the Unitarians without ground; I will recite some of the opinions, which they themselves have expressed concerning the Scriptures. You may

remember, that in my last discourse, I mentioned, that Dr. Priestly pronounces Christ to be fallibie; the Scriptures not to be written by particular inspiration; and the writers to make no pretensions to such inspiration. The contrary notion, also, he asserts to be destitute of all proofs, and to have done great injury to the evidence of Christianity. He declares the writers of the New Testament to have improperly quoted some texts from the Old; and to have been sometimes misled by Jewish prejudices. Another Unitarian writer says, "it is not the nature and design of the Scriptures to decide upon speculative, controverted questions, even in religion and morality; not to solve the doubts, but rather to make us obey the dictates, of our consciences." Mr. Belsham says, "The Bereans are commended for not taking the word even of an Apostle ;" and pleads this as an example for us. Steinbart, a foreign Unitarian, speaking of the narrations in the New Testament, says, "These narrations, true or false, are only suited to ignorant uncultivated minds." Semler, another, says that "Peter speaks according to the conception of the Jews, when he says, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;" and adds, that "the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains, as divine revelation." Concerning the reasoning of the Apostles, Dr. Priestly says, "We are to judge of it, as of that of other men, by a due consideration of the propositions they advance, and the arguments they allege." That men, who entertain such views concerning the Scriptures, will not, and according to their own opinions ought not, to receive the declarations of the Scriptures, in any other manner than that, in which they receive the declarations, contained in every other book, is obvious to the least consideration. If the Scriptures were not written and the writers do not pretend that they wrote, by particular divine inspiration; then they, certainly, stand on the same footing with all other books; and the writers are undoubtedly to be regarded, as Dr. Priestly says, merely in the character of Historians and witnesses.

If Christ and the Apostles were fallible men, and St. Paul has actually reasoned fallaciously; then undoubtedly their reasonings, and all their doctrines, are to be examined in the same manner, as those of other men. If the Scriptures were not designed to settle speculative opinions or doctrines, even in morality and religion; then it is plain, that they must be settled, if settled at all, by some other tribunal and there is no other tribunal, but our own reason. If the doubts of conscience were not intended to be solved by the Scriptures, then, certainly, the mind must solve them, so far as it can, for itself. These Gentlemen have, therefore, prescribed a rule for themselves, which every man may certainly know beforehand, even without reading their works, they could not fail to follow: for no man ever believed the Scriptures not to be an infallible rule of direction in these things, who did not also make his