IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // z 1.0 1.1 1.25 jso ""^" Hi^H u Hi 2.0 111 ■UUl- U 11116 VI vq T /A .%.v. />> '^ 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat orisinal copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may significantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. QC D D D D D Colourad covars/ ouvartura da noulaur I I Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covars raatorad and/or lamlnatad/ Couvartura rastauria at/ou pallicul4a □ Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua I I Colourad maps/ Cartaa gtegraphiquaa an coulaur □ Colourad Ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autre qua blaua ou noire) I I Coloured plataa and/or illuatratlona/ Planchea at/ou illuatratlona en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cauae shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La rm liura serria peut causer da I'ombra ou de la distorsion ie long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II so peut que certainea pagea blanchea ajouttea lore d'une reatauration apparaiaaant dana la texte. mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont paa At A filmAas. Additional commanta:/ Commentairas suppiimantaires: L'Inatitut a microfilm* la mailleur axamplaire qu'il lui a it* possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaira qui sent peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographiqua. qui pauvent modifier una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mAthode normale de fiimaga sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pagea/ Pagea de couleur Pagea damaged/ Pagea endommagies Pages reatorad and/oi Pagea rastaurAas at/ou pelliculies Psges discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dAcoiortes. tachaties ou piquias Pagea detached/ Pages d6tach6as Showthroughy Tranaparance Quality of prir Qualit* in^gala de {'impression Includes supplementary materia Compr4nd du materiel supplAmantaira Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I — I Pagea damaged/ r~~| Pages reatorad and/or laminated/ r~p\ Peges discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pagea detached/ r~l Showthrough/ I I Quelity of print varies/ rn Includes supplementary material/ r~1 Only edition available/ D Pagea wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. una pelure, etc., ont M filmtes A nouveau de fapon & obtenir la meilleure image possible. T t< T P a fl G b tl si o fi si o T si T h d ei b ri n n This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document eat film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous 10X i4» lav *»v •JftV *«w ■ Jua.j-1 J_ 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« hat b««n reproducad thanks to th« ganarosity of: Lakehead Univenity Thundar Bay L'axamplaira filmA fut raprodult grica h la gAnirositA da: Lakehead University Thunder Bay Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality poaalbia conaidaring tha condition and iagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Las imagaa suh/antas ont itA raproduitas avac ia plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira fiimA, at an conformiti avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Origins! copias in printad paiMr covars ara filmad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impraa- sion, or ths back covar whan appropriate All othar original copias ara filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrsted impres- sion, and anding on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The iaat recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. I.ee exemplaires origincux dont Is couverture en IMpier est ImprimAe sent filmis en commenpent par la premier plat at an terminant soit par la darnlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par ia second plat, salon la cas. Tous lea autrea exempleires originaux sent filmis sn commandant mr la premiere pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustrstion et en terminant par la darnlAre paga qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivsnts apparaftra sur la darniAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: la symbde — ^signifie "A SUiVRE", ie symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". IMeps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ore filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Lea cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmis A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est filmA A partir da I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de iMut en baa, an prenant la nombre d'images nAcessaire. Las diagrammes suivsnts illustrant la mAttM>da. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ,i ;*'■ 1^" t.-- { r::i}i )' • m'^ •t* fi-'Wy;' '' •••■ '♦ ''::^w. -"?-.' — '"'^^^5^ vTJIv**? '/<^*'f • AN Si, K ^1 ■ V EXAMINATION, " « .w ' BY A ^Hi Minisitt of tlrf ^nntrtt nt Canabn, Uji -^ IN 0ONNK0TIO# WTTH THK CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, OF- A DISCOURSE ENTTTLED, €> DELIVERED \ • ■ r BY EZRA S. GANNETT. • ,". AX THE DEDICATION OF TJIE UNITARIAN CHURCH, [i^@!^QTI^[Ei^ILo - :«! . » iWuntreal: PRINTED BY LOVELL & CUBSON, ST. NICHOLAS STREET 1850. : *-«i ^^/A *'■ »••♦.- ■ * *., i- 4;., EXAMINATION BY A WiMxx of t|it Iqnob of (Canaba, :2£; IN OOMNEOnOK WITH TBI CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, or A DISCOURSE EMTITLKD, S55«» »# DELIVERED B.Y EZRA S. GANNETT, AT THE f DEDICATION OF THE UNITARIAN CHURCH, PROPERTY OF LAKEHEAD lUNIVERSITY, a •'^■V>/>/>,>,'V\A/V\.'W'\/\/\.^ ^ CHURCH STKE^ iWontreal ; PRINTED BY LOVELL & GIBSON, ST. HICHOLx\S STREET. 1850. ^ % ■^ I AN EXAMINATION, &c. i The advertising of this discourse for gratuitous circulation amongst us, has naturally attracted some attention, both to the discourse itself, and the subject of which it treats. The subject is not new to any one acquainted with the controversies of the Church, and no new light is thrown upon it by this discourse. But the manner in which it has been ushered into public notice, and tlie reasons assigned for the proceeding, as well as the whole tone and character of the document itself, seem to invite an ex- Bmination of the pretensions to be received as a Christian deno- mination, thus advanced, by what we are led to believe, is the ftrst avowedly Unitarian body giithered together in British North America, to lift up the banner of their peculiar profession amouffst US) and give a reason of the Faith that is in them> to every one mat asKetn. At the veiy opening of the germon, the gauntlet is thrown down, and the challenge given with an air of haughtiness, and in a tone of defiance sufficiently provoking, to indicate that the champion, who is " buckling on his armour," has full confidence in his prowess to encounter all comers, and in so far at his first announcement of himself in the lists, he seems to lack something of the true character of a perfect Scriptural knight, in that he las torgotten the admonition to reserve such boasting till the time should come for « putting his armour oflF." " Crowds," says he, « of ignorant though honest, and yet other crowds of Ignorant and dishonest persons, and still others whose prejudice or opposition cannot seek a shelter behind their igno- ranee, as they look upon these walls, will find no pleasure in the sight. They who have built this house have studied no conceal- II ^ u . ^ ^^® P^**'®^ "P®** ^*8 fro°* t^e word Unitarian, though It be offensive to many eyes, and by some observers be deemed a contradiction of the title of Christian with which It has been united in the same inscription." Ignorance" and « Prejudice," and " Dishonest persons who cannot seek a shelter behind their ignorance for their prejudice or opposition," are pretty hard words to begin with, by the partizan of a party, who consider themselves as the very pink of controversial courtesy, and claiminff srreat latitude of bp.- liet lor themselves, are not able to insist on great strictness or precision in the articles of their creed from others, yet so plume themselves on their large and comprehensive charity j that thev are continually reading lessons of love and mutual forbearance to all parties, so much so, that they sometimes seem to consider the })reaching of this too much disregarded principle their own pecu- iar mission in the Church and the world. We do not however complain of this asperity of language. When a man considers his good name as unjustly assailed, the repelling the assault with some heat and rudeness may easily be pardoned in such a world as this. Now, we look upon truth, not merely as a possession, but the most valuable possession, which either ourselves or others can enjoy. It is emphatically public property, the common pro- Serty of the whole race, to the full enjoyment of which every in- ividual has an equal right ; but we do not acknowledge with regard to it, the maxim : that a man may do what he will with his own, and may take away any portion from the general stock, in order to bury it in the earth. He has no right to puddle the })ubtic fountain, because he has a right to drink at it. We con- ess we cannot, and we do not think that any man ought, with- out some measure of indignation, to behold any portion of im- portant truth, torn away, or stolen away, to be huddled out of sight among things worthless and vile. Any attempt to rob the world of truth, is a thing to be repelled with no slack hand, but with all our might, and those who seem to us, endeavouring to perpetrate so heinous an oflFence, should be resisted and driven away at all hazards, and branded with deserved marks of repro- bation and contempt, as a terror to all such evil doers. The Church must contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the saints, as being not only true, but the Truth, and of such importance, that In it the salvation of the world lies wrapt up. This much seems to be acknowledged both by Unitarians, and all who bear the Christian name. But it must also be acknow- ledged, that between them, and all who now bear, or ever bore the name of Christ, the whole substance of their Faith is the matter in dispute. We do not preach the same gospel — their glad tidings are not our glad tidings — our message of peace and good-will from heaven to earth, is not their message of peace and good-will. The atonement, of which they speak, is not our atone- ment— their Saviour is not our Saviour— their Lord and Christ is not our Lord and Christ, whom we worship, and in whom we believe— their God, the Father, is not our God the Father, for He is not one with the Son— their Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, is not our Comtorter, for He is not one with the Father and with the Son. No ingenuity can make it appear otherwise, than that a whole religion is in debate between us. If their religion be Christianity, ours is not. If our religion be the truth, as it is in Jesus, then the faith which they profess is unscriptura( and anti- Christian, and denies the Lord which bought them. J^^ ^ In dealing with snch, or with any whom we consider opposers of the truth ; we confeM it to he our duty to lav aside ail malice, and all unchantableness ; but w« consider it no duty, but a mean deception, to seek to escape the imputation of these unholv feel- ings, by searching after and selecting soft words, in which to characterize what we consider dangerous and deadly errors • doctrines of deceit, that will conduct all who follow them, into the paths of the destroyer. We shall write as we feel, out of the fulness of our heart 5 we shall not seek to conceal either dislike or contempt, if these things be in us, and be wrong, our speakinir them out cannot, we think, add much to our guilt. We would not wish the world to know all the evil that is m us, but neither do we wish to pass ourselves off for very ranch better than we are. We do not think ourselves to have reached any such emi- nence of ffoodness ; that perching ourselves on its top, above the turmoti of all evil passions, we can, like some superior belnir, look calmly down and deal our righteous and impartial censures to those below. We feel that we are a man of like passions with those against whom we have to contend. Nothing iq them offends us so much as their affectation of superior candour and charity, and we shall hot oflFend thera by the affectation of any thing of the kind. Wherein we think we have attained to any knowledge of the truth, or to any love of it, we sincerely wish that m this they were not only altogether such as we are, but might so abound as to have something to impart to us out of their greater fulness. We came to the consideration of this discourse, under a etrong conviction, that the troth concerning Christianity was not to be found in It, and we did not look to find it there. After reading jt, we thought it presented a fair opportunity of showing that the bodj from which it emanates, are not merely greatly unsound in their views of the Christian Faith, but entirely off the foundation which we believe God to have laid, on which to build the sinners hope, and other than which no man can lay. We have laid hold of this opportunity with the design of turning it to account, In showing that Unitarians are no guides for sinners desirinff to be led to God through Christ. The professed design of this discourse is to tell us " what Uni- tarianism really is," our design, which we also openly profess 18 to show from this description of it, that it is almost, if not al- together the very thing it is usually supposed to be. That Unl- tarianism, in short, whatever it be, is not Christianity. As we have here stated plainly what is to be looked for in this jxamination, so we desire also to state plainly what Is not to be iooKea lor m it, and what it cannot reasonably be eipected we * should endeavour to put into it. In our remarks upon this discourse, we shall not enter into inv ir f ?"""»»"«" »/ ]>>« peculiarities of Unitarian d" trine or undertake any extended or elaborate defence, of the truths which we conceive to be either rejected or approVed, by th s »rstem the'te""''',/",'"' * .'""'•f'" '"'PO'i'i-Hof th'e t?„e chlTof the Christian Redemption. The limits to which the preacher was necessarily confined, rendered it impossible for hKdo ZZwZof^/::!"^^"''^ """'"• 'f W» <"»" doctrines, and XSh^.f .'"^"'^ ""^ *^'"!? »"y f"™*' '"'■"'""on «f thoM to which they are opposed. Our readers, therefore, are not to ex- pect any searching investigation of the principles on which Uni STh^'!?"' '"' '"'i ""y '"6"°""'t«tive defence o7 our own. TTiose who desire to understand the Unitarian system of thought and doctrine and the grounds on which it is maintained to be i^fh'"!*'"'"""*'' f "«' «*">»» by which it is shown to be ne ther the one nor the other, but unicriptural and faUe mn,? th/Zn...T°^r' "?'""'"'> "» *» ''"■"« «he discussion within the compass of an hour-long sermon, and a short essay in reply The reasons alleged by the preacier for delivering such a^U course, and the same reasons are also assigned for its nublic^linr are, that the doctrines of Unitarians, as^roplldefiy themi selves, are not generally known, an^ that bSne eros,Iv mU™ which It proceeds, against unjust judgments alleged to Be o^ tempt to defend ourselves against imputation of nrein*™ U always useless and vain; those who agree vrith u/wHnhint irom m, will in spite of all we can say, continue to think &« hfi md: "xr T" *'T ^'^"^'""^' dishoSesV;/a'ALgt prejudice. The charge of ignorance is one more easilv dpfit with especialy after those who make it havrundertZ^^^^ task of enhghtening us, andW have heard them out. W . cannot help surmising, after reading this discourse that the sum and substance of the mistakes, misapprehSTs and misrepresentations, of which Unitarians comE amounts to this, that do and say what they will, they can by no suSes of reasomng or plausibilities of statement, induce either bele^^^^^^ or tW^n.fhT'V*^ "''f*^^" *^^"* ^^' Christians. We do notTbink this publication calculated, in the least degree, to alter the f-en- S Tnt'r Z^^'^S^^^ t? the system ifis intended to iutt1?v v,..« v.4.v«au. IT u may couuemn the system through prejudice. i bnt we hope to show, from this discourse, that it Is not through ignorance, for short as it is, it furnishes Evidence of the trith of tarian am is condemned as a false pretender to the character of a Christian creed. Not one who refused to aclinowledire it in thiJ character before reading the sermon, will, we ve^uTto say see any reason for changing his mind aAer hiving perused it ^' We never heard them cEar^ed with any denial oftfie truth, as it iS in Jesus which is not lere more or less distinctly avowed Vol It IS here admitted that they 6nd great difficulty in "' """ers having ro- M^^i^^^' u^^l i''*y ''»7« ^"""^ " necessary to print this tstle over their church doors, in order to let people understand what neither by their preacling nor their practL;LrhavS aWe^to teach tllem to beUeve, that their worship'is tKf c»- Since the time when the disciples of Jesns were first called Christians at Antioch, till the pre^sent day, there have b^en a fh^Jf M '¥ ""'''* "'" 'ecogniSed one another underthat name' tha world also seems to have had some instinctive knowledw of noin?i;,l.?^t'^°Ar '^"T' ''"» seldom mistaken on this point as the Church • they can discern what is even to be regard- ed as a passable imitation of this character. The great leE DecuLarit|es of Christian doctrine are also well know^nhe worif ' lias had them pressed upon its attention by various denoSions Ztl 1^ '^t^-i -'!'"-•"*«».""=»'¥.,''» "^together alien in ih^ ZIa v.. ^"V°''^"" cuaracier ana doctrine are known nndt *r ni-f" 'T^''' ?^ Z^^'' "« «»« ^^'^ recognize tS under the Unitarian type. If they think to prove that all parties 8 are under a mistake ; that all which hitherto has been supposed to represent the character of Christianity in life and doctrine, is a'hideous caricature while they present the veritable likeness; and all who would knov Jesus, and the truth and power of his doctrine, must come among them and listen to their words, and tTJ? luZtT^^^'J^-r^^ ^® ^^y> *^«y would vindicate their rig^it to the title of Christian, either for themselves or their doc- trine, it mi-t be by other means than demonstrations upon paper mai it IS unjustly withheld. ^ ^ The Methodists were as much spoken against, in the world and by many of other denominations, as ever were the Unitarians. But the mck-name which was bestowed on them by their detract- ors, as a mark of contempt, has with a noble conffdence in their own characier, and the justice of their brethren, been marked over their Chapels by the followers of Wesley. When they -^nte over the door of their places of worship *' Methodist Meet- n ouse, they do not think it necessary to add for the further jation of him who reads it. A Christian Church. No, luc^ have conveyed that piece of intelligence to the world after a different manner by inscribing on their hearts the living words of tje truth as itia in Jesus, and exhibiting these to the Churches as their epistles of commendation to be received into their fellow- h^'L^n"! !^y"^ ^^^?* 7.^^ *^'"» ^"^^ ^^rks of Christ, as can be known ard read of all men. Amid all the Sectarian animosities, which deform our Christian profession, and that they are too mauv and too bitter none can deny, yet we have not refused to each other the name of Chris fe'l^'oMT^'^'if ''''^K''^ *^® «P»"* ^ Christ, in such as do not m aM things follow with us. To Unitarians it is denied because they do not seem either to Apeak ihe language, or exhibit the power of the doctrines of Christ. Their laSgulge and the r customs seem all to proclaim them men of anothir country, citi- Smtr^rav:ir '^" ^°' ^^^^'^^^^'^ ^°^ ^^^°^ ^-^ ^- The Roman Catholic hoists over his house of prayer an outward visible matenal cross the well known Symbol of his Church, all over the wor d, but fie does not find it necessary to write on his doors "Christian Church." Haughty as are the claims of his Church m the Ou-istian worid and hi^ly insulting towards the members of every other (Jristian profession, deep as are the wrongs it has inflicted and bitter the memories of the blood shed, and the mise- [!l'f'nT/.^°^_^.^^ '> struggles for supremacy/fet,' noTwitLtand- in the Churcn, on looking up to ing all this, men of every party m me ui his chosen symbol, acknowledf^p fhaf if i<> on i.««o=* «„«.^,:„i bearing, and has a. right to stand where it does. It does not belie the character of the worship maintained in the building it 11 surmounts. The worshippers do not deny that they revere the very wood of their sacred sign ; their brethren do not question that many of them worship Him who was lifted up upon it, as their Redeemer and their God. The visible material cross, is therefore an honest representative, and by all acknowledged so to be of the Roman Catholic faith. If, through ignorance, we deny the name of Christians to Unitarians, they must have recourse to other means of enliffhtening us, than writing the name over the doors of their Churches. Butj may it not be asked, why should the world be supposed more i^'sorant either of the doctrines or general character of Unitarians, than of those of any other denomination ? Is it owing to the modest retiring character of the sect, unwilling to obtrude their claims on the notice of the public, that they are not known, and therefore not acknowledged ? Surely they will not themselves say this ; they havfr had as ample means as others for making both themselves and their doctrines known, and as free liberty to uSe them by preaching, by writing, and by their lives and conversation. Their claims have been fairly laid before the Christian worid in all these ways ; nor can it be said they have been oyeriooked. They have been preached against, and written against, and they have answered, and been answered again and again. Why then should we be supposed ignorant of Unitarianism ? It is boasted that the system of interpretation they have adopted, is a kind of "Christianity made easy." It may seem hard, that after all this they cannot get the world to understand that they are Christians. Does it never occur to them to suspect that it may be just because they are so weU known, and so fully understood, that they are discerned not to be Christians ? They glory in having purged out all mysteries from tiieir creed, and banished all mysticism from their devotion ; but Christianity propounding nothing to be believed, which is hard to be under- stood, seems to the reader of the Bible the most wonderful wonder of all. ^ Of all hard sayings, this seems one of the hardest. A reli- gion with no groanings which cannot be uttered, no hopes which cannot be distinctly defined, no aspirations which language can- not express, seems little like the religion of Prophets and Apostles. When the^ propound, such a Christianity, and such a religion, as the Christianity and the religion of the Scriptures ; do they wonder that all who hear, listen with an air of incredulity, as if they said, do these men take us for fools, or are they fools themselves, are they deceived, or are they deceivers, or what are they, for they bring strange things to our ears ? Do they wonder at this '? Are they more than half persuaded themselves, that what they assert is true ? When all has been said that can be said, putting /■ 10* demn themTniustlv ihJZh fl"""* ^® '""taken. If we con- that they ca^nSn be ZZLTZ but V^'^ "" P^^'y' We see L iittl« ~ '^T""* """ ""'y "^^ condemned * their people, fte fordaUon ?f ft^' -"T'**"' ^^ ^MkWing been ^ifby "«£ b^^^^^^ »/ their influence and power, as hai land. If theyXve Sd It *'"*^ '" ^"S'""" «■«> « Scot- propagated tfoXSL™'^^.*^^^^ "-e councils, or ^^b\ibeV^"on^ZZhTJ^Lr^J':^ "i ""y <*°«=h, either cannot be denied w* f hit ' ^ . "'^y ''»™ ^""c so n both ereptinnoonnSerhow h«i.r '""'■''''S'' * ">»'«'t, btttLy only knom^tbuZ^7i!lZe^^«:^7 Tt '""" '«"' " ''^ the name of Christ camfl .7 i!If' *°"^ '?"' whererer they were, tained no hot d^Lte »h„' ''* '*'5 ?"»'?«'• They have main- opinion. None 7fl^ t""l ?''y.denomiDational diflerences of dispute withTem -n,.™ TT"""' '""'« ''^ »? warm party thXc«e&any''oKetrw«r''°'''"'^''''J"*^^^ c'^MUy^JZ^Zt'lf^:''-'' <'!'»r>''^»**g<' '•"" « cause TheyJave%S?^ fLt^X^.^^Sl^'ll ?.lV'^!- " themselves. ^Zf^.S\r&'^t^Si \ H 1 n- id ce )» IS 'g >r le ie ^ h 1 I i I 11 of preachers of the truth, in the eyes of those they addressed, who came themselves and brought their children to hear them, ittle knowing what it was, that would be proclaimed to them, as ine Jaith m which their fathers trusted and were not deceived, d The Unitarian body was not gathered together under the wine of their preachers^ as the Methodists were under theirs. The attractions of Unitarian preaching were far different from the attractions of the cross, presented after a different manner or to a different class of people. The Methodist preacher sought out those, for whose soul no man seeraed to be taking care. The Unitarian preacher addressed himself to such as he thought, had neen taught on this subject to care only too deeply. Nor did he act, as those called Sectarians usually do, when they rise up against an error or an abuse, which they regard as an abomina- nation standing where it ought not, or when they undertake to bring forward and defend any truth which they consider as kept back or obscured. In such cases these lift up their voices boldly, and going forth from the old encampment and all its forti- fications and defences, plant their standard in the open field beyond, and ciall aloud on all who are like minded to follow. Not so the propagators of Unitarianism. they have not gone out, tiU they were cast out. they have not so much separated them- selves as been deserted, fled from. " The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed," and wander to other pastures in search of what they want and put themselves under the care of other pastors. Those who are not hungry remain, and rest and ruminate, and chew the cud of their own reflections as they were wont to do, and now and then pick out a dry straw from what is thrown to them to keep their teeth going till they get home to dinner, as Idle and uninterested people will do for want of better employ- ment. All the best and greatest of Unitarian preachers have been trained under different teaching than their own, where they acquired a knowledge of the truth, and imbibed and retained some lingering love of it, perhaps, or at least received the intellectual stimulus of a system to oppose. Unitarian preachers bred and fed, from first to last under peculiar Unita- nan culture, are, we suspect, as far as divinity is concerned, very emptv vessels indeed. The Church will never bs overthrown, nor the world converted by them. They have but little to teach and when they kdow little or nothing of what they are called to ■ oppose, they must feel greatly at a loss for something to say. We have greatly the advantage of them here, for we have all got a Unitarian within us, and when we go to the Bible we are a ._ „.,,, „,j Hiin-sj 111 twiittu lu upDuau uiui, VVUO Knows tUO very inmost ihnwyhi of his heart. Yes we were pretty well acquainted with the Unitarian controversy before we read any 12 Unitarian books, and it was from a very different book than tbia discourse, that we learned what Unitarianism really is. We believe it to be, what it is very generally supposed to be, and that its name in the Bible is, " The carnal mind yvhich is enmity to God and is not i^ubject to the law of God neither indeed can - be," and the " Natural man which cannot receive the things of God, neither know them, because they are spiritually discerned. They have brought up their cause again and again for a hear- ing, but the previous sentence is always affirmed. Whether the jury consist of believers or unbelievers, the verdict is ever the same, Unitarianism not proven to he Christianity, No, it is not ignorance, nor prejudice, that denies them the iitle of a Christian sect, but the firm conviction, that if their inter- pretations of the Scripture be received, the foundations of a Chris- tian Faith and hope in God, are utterly done away, and that to give them the Christian name, is to acknowledge that it is a mere empty sound, signifying nothing. So long, therefore, as the Churches contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints, it is not possible that Unitarians should be by them called Christians. If they covet the title, they must earn it, not by clamouring (6r it, but by copying after Chnst, in such a manner that the likeness can be discerned, without their being obliged, like the old bungling painters, to write under their performance, " Behold a Christian," or over their places of worship, « This is a Christian Church." They are verv fond of charging others with Pharisaism; is not this very like the Pharisee practice of making broad the phylacteries? The disciples were first called Christians at An'*3ch; let them wait till they see in what part of the worid, some other than themselves, will first call the Uni- tarians, Christians. That piece of history, when they are able to , bring it forward, will go further to support their claim to the title, than any evidence they have yet produced in court - .. , , We have observed that this discourse, preached and publishea in order to shew what Unitarianism is, and. to prove that it is Christianity, seems to us rather^ to establish that Unitarianism is what it is usually supposed to be, and is not Christianity. It is said that the spirit of Unitarianism is not the spirit of the Gospel, because it is not a missionary spirit, and does not urge those who are actuated by it to make any great efforts or sacrt- fices, in order to make men know, and press upon them to believe those truths which they profess to have learned from Scripture, as delivered by revelation from God. After the flourish about the inscription on the front of their building, almost the very next « The dedication of the first avowedly Unitarian Church m British North America almost requires of us that we explain and justify ourselves in such a step." \ ■ 18 The statement is altogether a very cnHoas one, and we cannot perhaps better suggest how peculiarly to us it savours of the body irom which it emanates, than by requesting any reader, whether Unitarian or not, to ask himself if he could conceive of the preacher of any other denomination making such a statement. To any other, it would have appeared more necessary to attempt some justification for not having come sooner, than to offer one for having come at last. We ask, therefore, if Unitarianism be as they say, the perfection of Christianity, why were its advocates not sooner in the field ? But it is needless to press the point. We might ask, also, wh^ have they first lifted up their voice in Montreal, the principal city of these provinces, and why does no voice sound forth from thence over the whole length and breadth of the land ? Several such questions we could ask. and suggest answers, too, by no means favorable to the Christian character of Unitarianism ; but we forbear. One expression in it, however, we must noie, as it marks ano- ther feature of the character of Unitarianism ; it is alleged that " as the professors of this creed are not zealous for its propagation, 80 neither do they, unless under special circumstances, feel con- strained to confess with their mouths what they believe in their hearts. Now the expression ^* avowedly Unitarian Church," struck us as being also a manner of speaking, which the preacher of no other denomination would ever think of making use of with regard to the people of his own persuasion. No other denomina- tion, we venture to assert, either claims or would acknowledge adherents who do not avow themselves. In truth we cannot conceive of anything really Christian not avowing itself. There is something so simple and direct in genuine Christian convic- tion, that without either courting notoriety or studying conceal- ment, leads to the utterance of the truth believed Whenever occa- sion requires it. This preacher, however, speaking, no doubt, from his own impressions of those who hold his opinions and partake in his sentiments, seems to think it probable that many who do so, have not yet avowed their predilections. But Chris- tians in general feel that a certain responsibility of making some open declaration concerning the essentials of their faith attaches ta all who believe in Christ, from his own solemn testimony, that he came into tii/? Torld to bear witness of the truth, and his say- ing, " whosoeve„ , hall confess jne before man, him will I confess also before my Father in heaven, and whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." We add Paul's injunction to Timothy, which seems a CCuiuicUiaij Ou luis oajiiig; ui v^iinsi. " luu llilllgs WDiCu laoU hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thOu to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. If w« 1^: if 14 deny ChrUt, he also will deny us." At the conclusion of his dU- course, this preacher speaks with no unbecoming fervor of the duty of testifying to such things as we believe to be true, and of importance to the best interests of man j but even then there it"? ^u^".^' reference to a personal obligation to Christ, to do this in obedience to his command. We think it hardly possible that a Dreacher of any other Christian denomination should have omitted this m the same circumstances. It was far more likely to have formed the leading theme of his whole address. Indeed a deep and lively feeling of intimate personal connexion with thrist, is an element which clearly distinguishes the religion of Christians from that of Unitarians. The presence of it, we ate persuaded, conveys as instantaneous and irresistable an impres- sion to the Unitarian, convincing him beyond the power of all argument, tliat where this is. there his religion is not, as the absence of it conveys to the Christian, that where this is wanting, his religion will be searched for in vain. ** We observe therefore further, that if this discourse is fitted to loach us what Umtarianism is, then the choice of the subject announced at the commencement, is alien to the spirit of Chris- tianity, and the whole subsequent treatment of it is equally so. The two taken together go far to substantiate the charge usually brought against Umtarianism, that its animating principle is a self glorifying spirit prompting those actuated by it, to do honour to man rather than to give glory to God, and more especiX ?o exalt themselves above all reasonable measure. To sav that it does not lead them to exalt Christ, were a superfluity of accusa' if ?L ?"* wJ""'* f ?J 1^** ^^^'' ^"«"»Pt« t^ clear themselves of the imputation of dishonouring and degrading a character 7^tTiZw' r'f ""t'^ '' '' not c^sideild honoSle to think 1 ghtly of, when they seek for their own honour, to remove the odious imputation, by speaking of Jesus as the bes of men &c., they seem to us to act in mockery of their own profession of Faith in the Scriptures as the word of God, To? t^^f /.'hf '*^' IT'r^ ?^ If '^y *« ^^™> «f ^h«°» it is written «fi ^Mi»^»«i»t »t »«* robbery to be equal with God," and. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that Give to Unitarians, the name of Christians, truly I Whv. wf nr-*M I'^i' ^Scripture which they have laboured to prove had no right to be there? Is it not those which seem to /o the highest honour to Christ. Is there one such. fh«t *hpv h J" rZ put upon its trial, to prove its right to be a^ part oTScripture- But we are forsrettinff thfi disr-mirL o«^ «,„„♦ il*„ ".. ./ t"**^^^ fition in hand forgetting the discourse , "' "^ " Unitarianism and must return to the expo* " truly is. .« wS"?!.*'""' T '\T^ »"''' •">"'«« of PBWic worship in . »hi i 1 ''''8fT ;*"'™' ""'' »• "»"y othw names Mder wluch they might have arranged thems/lve. in the divi»rn of the Chr.sf.an forces, why have they thought it necessarto m,,*-''T'"*'^^J''1''«u.*''« ^""'""''e »«"•« of Unitarian ? Sw i^o '7"." »/ ,""" "r " ^ ^'"'t "« the reasons for « hPf d i! ^"t"''"' T "■* */"•»«=«• ''hich it indicates « MhZ !f,.^ ''o^hippers here and those who gather aronnd «?i.n S^"'"^J'"I\''^* *»"«'"»»' «''»' natwally "rise, and w-nHf I51« *""• ^'^"''^•' *^' ' '•"'" ""O'O direky meet the wants of the present hour, than if I should discourse of the Dronrifitr or the character of Christian worship in generai." oJ^Lr^^''u%u^^J' more briefly states the points he means to SteS:^^^^^ ''' ^"^*^'^^*^^"^> '^' ''^ ^^^— of Now we readily admit, that all religious sects and parties do ♦Z ll^'.'f !^°**^ *>? ^'"17 "^ ^'^> ^i*^ *»»« advancement iS the world, of the principles they profess, and the doctrines which Sfw ?i* '^u'l'J * ^*'®' ^« ^« n«* speak of rights or of duties, but allow, that from a necessity of nature, Unitarians in as far as they are rehgious must necessarily do the same. Be- heving that the glory of God, would be best promoted^ Unitarianism and that this was hindered by an unjust odium 2!T;'°^ V^^ "fT^ ***® P'®**'^^^ ^*s justified in endeavourinff to remove it. and the most ready way to do this, was certainl? te?-l J- ^' r^^^^ ^^ ? f^^' «^**^"^°* «f i*« (ioctrines and a J?n«l Jr?**r*^.f '^' principles and a modest appeal to its pracv t cal eflFects thatit is not the unchristian, and unScriptural system It IS generally supposed to be. But then this should]iit,ve been done nw!!!f • * T/ f ^"^ !^T*^** ^^^^^'''y «f C}od, was the leading object m defending the honour of the sect. We will not take upon us to say, that the defenders of other sects, admitted to be 2?v«?f ^'Jr ""'^ ^'"'V"*o *^« «•"> of "°W exaltiJg them! selves and their community, and setting this dowti to the Account 1„« f ""'^ °^ ?od. All are men, and we do not accuse Unita- rians of any untuman propensities, but of wanting peculiarly Chnstian principles and feelings. Vow in this discLse the human elenaent, the desire to exalt the sect is not only prominent and pervading but as if this had been essential to the proper treatment of his subject, in teaching us what UnitarianiK with unconscious simplicity, as doinff the most nafnrai ihir.^ ; * ^e world for a Christian minister- to do, he selec-tremfToVc^ with a view to the praise of Unitarians, and proceeds to handle iil 16 It in such a manner as to show that he means to end as he beiran by praising Unitarianism. lie quotes in the course of his sermon one passage of Scripture, but without any comment upon it, which, if he had chosen for the subject of his observations, would have presented him with a fair opportunity of fully stating the views of his party on the essential doctrines of Christianity, and calmly considering the differences between them and others. " This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The one he has chosen for his text, seems to have been selected for no other purpose, but that of intimating that Uni- tarians have received Faith, and speak according to it. If it do not serve this purpose, we do not know wherefore it was placed at the head of the sermon, for no attempt is made either to ex- plain or apply it. We observe, therefore, that in this discourse we have proof that Unitarians, while professing to receive the Scriptures as a Revelation from God, do not appeal to them in support of the opinions they profess, with that distinctness which such a profession demands. They do not manifest that anxious desire to have it clearly ascertained that what they believe is really taught in Scripture, which is done by others who receive Scripture as the Word of God. No preacher of any other deno- mination, professing to give an account of their peculiar views, and the grounds on which they entertained them, who had made no greater effort to support his statements, by proofs from Scrip- ture, would have had his discourse printed at the request of his hearers, as a vindication of their claims to be thought Christian and orthodox. This discourse being placed before the public, as a vindication of their Christian character, by the Unitarian con- gregation to whom it was addressed, we are justified in inferring, that they did not consider any more careful appeal to the Scrip- tures required/than did the preacher himself. It is a peculiarity of the sect, not of the individual, a feature in the portraiture of Unitarianism as it is. Further, as all Christians profess to found their Faith upon a wtitten Revelation, it is reasonably expected that they should be abte to give some certain account of tne leading doctrines most surely believed among them. One of the sacCred writers in ad- dressing a disciple, concerning those things which are most surely believed among us, says : " I have written unto thee, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." But it is alleged that Unitarians are not willing to make any certain profession of their Faith, or set forth in order, a declaration of such things as are most surely believed among them. This the present discourse distinctly admits ; for the preacher having taken in hand to answer the question. X " What are the truths of Unitarian Christianity ? What do Uni- tarians believe?" must needs give some answer. Before, how- ever, either propounding the question, or attempting a reply : he first tells us they " have no accepted creed," and that he *^can only utter private persuasions or the impressions which a wide . and careful observation may have given." Now, if one of them^ selves is thus cautious about committing the body to the declara^ tion of any one thing, as being most surely believed among them ; we think It was too much to break out in almost the next breath, with a complaint that thousands are " profoundly ig- norant of what Unitarians believe, and that so little pains are taken to learn what they really hold as truth." But such is Unitarianism as it is painted by Unitarians. They must have the liberty of a lax profession ; and if any one says, no one can tell what your body believes, they must be taxed with ignorance and presumption for speaking of what they do not know, and have taken no pains to learn, when all the while they are speak- ing the plain truth, which It required no searching to discover. Even after we get the profession of Faith, which this preacher bupposes to contain, " certain great doctrines which are held in common by Unitarians in America and in Europe ;" after all the fuss that has been made about setting forth this declaration, and the ignorance which it is to rebuke and enlighten ; we venture to assert that if you ask the first person you meet, what he con- ceives to be the distinguishing tenets of Unitarians, he will either say he never heard of them, or give for substance the very ac- count that is here given. For to what does it amount ? " That they believe in one God." We never heard their creed called either Atheistic or Polytheistic. " They believe also in the obligation of man to live righteously ; so do almost all men. We never heard them called Antinomians in their profession. " They receive the Scriptures as the word of God, and as a ne- cessary consequence acknowledge Jesus Christ as a Messenger sent from God." All this is known to be a part of what they profess ; this is what is supposed to constitute the distinction be- tween them and infidels, who deny both. Those who deny that Unitarians believe in the Scriptures do so, upon grounds which no profession of Faith can remove ; they say they make them void by their interpretations. They do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is properly and truly God ; many, if not most of them believe that he is simply a Man. Of the latter number appears to be the writer of this ^coarse. We have, we think "tated the substance of his profession of Unitarian belief, and ^../ing no particular remarks to make upon I'.'i B 16 it) there was no necessity for being more specific. If we have not here misrepresented their creed, and we do not think we have, then they certainly have no great reason to complain that their creed is not known, for we never heard it otherwise spoken of. It is indeed said, that while all make void the Scriptures, some even deny them to be from God. And, as they have no accepted creed, however extensive the preacher's enquiries may have been, he cannot take upon him to deny, that some calling themselves Unitarians, reject the authority of Scripture. He fully authorises us to say, however, that nothing can be received as a declaration of the things most surely believed among Uni- tarians, and to our minds this amounts to the admission that they do not believe the Scriptures ; this, however, is only an inference of o^'TS, not an admission of theirs. We give his words at the conclusion of his statement, as marking this infirmity of Faith in ITnitarianism. " Such are the prominent truths of Unitarian Christianity, / cmceive, as held by those who adopt this name as the designation ®J tneir Faith, and who, however they may disagree on questions of inferior moment, would probably concur in this exhibition of the articles of their belief." We go on to observe, that this discourse, short as it is, fur- nishes abundant evidence of the slender grounds on which Uni- tarians lay claim to another good thing as well as the Christian name; and that Unitarianism as it is, is not the religion of universal charity, peace, and good-will, which it affects to be. They laud charity and love, and condemn in no measured terms the sharp censures and strong language, in which what is called the "odium theologicum," too often finds vent; but it is alleged that with all this, thejr indulge in much self-glorying, and though they affect to do it with pity and compassion, and much sorrow of heart, yet the streams of their censure are made to flow out very copiously, on all occasions, and in all directions; and while they tell those whom they thus visit, that they approach them with reluctance, but that they are very dirty, and stand much in need of a washing, and that did not the interests of truth, and the good of society absolutely require it, they would never attempt so uncivil a thing; yet, somehow or other, they seem to enjoy the exercise, like other uncharitable mortals, and to be much more refreshed themselves, by the showers of rebuke they are pouring down, than those to whose more special benefit the drenching is devoted. No one who reads this sermon will say, that the leading design of the preacher evidently is to advance the glory of God, to exalt the honour of flhrist. iin<1 nrnmnfo fho nanop /%f f.^,» i:L j that the praise of Unitarians is only introduced in subordination 1§ to these higher objects, and because of its connexion with them. To us it seems that the latter is the main object, and that to this he offers up with a hearty good-will, the good name of all who profess Faith in Christ. His comparison of Unitarianism with all other Christian Sects, for the alleged purpose of showing more distinctly the peculiarities and excellencies of his favourite sys- tem, which purpose it does not serve in the least degree, is as curious a specimen of general detraction, as we remember to have seen. The peculiarities of Unitarianism might have been stated in many ways without any comparisons of the kind he has seen fit to make. After an examination made with considerable care, we cannot discover that he has made one explicit doctrinal state- ment of any one peculiarity of the Unitarian system. If it were our intention to combat any one peculiar dogma of Unitarianism, we would have very great difficulty in findin^g such a thing plainly stated in this discourse, with the reasons, why In this case they could not use the language of other Christians. In his pretended comparison of his system with those of other Sects ; it must be perfectly obvious to every reader, that it was not his design to illustrate his own doctrines, but to present those of all others in the most unfavourable colours. Truly is it said, " out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." These comparisons are not designed to exalt Christ, nor set forth the excellency of his religion, not even as understood by Unitarians, but to set forth the honour and glory of Unitarians themselves. When he comes to speak of the differences between them and others, instead of comparing doctrine with doctrine, he adopts the personal style, and selecting the various peculiarities, which might be wrested to their disgrace, and presenting them, as usually done, by their bitterest enemies, he says : such are Catholics, such Episcopa- lians, such Methodists, such Presbyterians, such the self-styled Orthodox, but such are not TTe, Unitarians. This draught of flattery to his own people, strongly spiced with a flavour of de- traction of their neighbours, forms as pretty a cup of scandal as could well be presented to any company, and was a strange mix- ture from which to pour out a libation at the inauguration of a Church, over whose portals they gloried in having inscribed the name of Christian. That it was greedily swallowed, we may in- fer, from their proclaiming to all the worid of what they had been drinking. Within the limits of an ordinary discourse, it was not possible for the preacher fully to discuss the doctrines of his system. We find no fault with him, for not attempting what under the circum- stances, could not well be done. But it gives us one unfavour- able impression of Unitarianism, to which we have felt justified in calling attention, that, the preacher, at the dedication of a I'J 80 Sili'T^V^^i!"'' ^t :^T *' *^ ^? J"«*'y ^^"«^ Christian, should have chosen for his subject on such an occasion, one, whiih, gave him an opportunity indeed, of asserting the superior' excellency of hS own system, But only in a way usually tirmcd boasting, for he had no space to make good his commendations by proof. PTilnon"®'''*'' ^^^1 ""^^ourable impression, that this boasting of nfhfl '°'J/ " """i^' *^' ?'^'' ^^^ introducing a comparison with her parties, and so noting all their deficiencies, and proclaiming all their offences, in a way usually called detraction,' for, in h^ arcumstances, it was impossible to justify his censuW'bV prov! ing thejr were deserved : and that thus the one part of his dis- Shp'iS^'" "Pi '" P'*'.'^"^ ?'' ^^" 'y^'"^ «nd his own friends, from them ^'* *" denouncing the errors or sins of all who differ ^pnL'^nrrS^' ?^''"f ^? ^H r^^* ^^ *h« "'O'Je^ty, the good sense, or Chnstian charity of the audience who listened to this h.J« «?r f ?r""^»/"u^ rectlessness of detraction, that they in VZ ?io* ^ "^ *^^'lf 'f H^"^ ''"' °« »" *« consult its pages h^^order that we may ruly learn what Unitarianism is, and we may suppose, never again venture to hint, that Unitarianism is not t?orChrisSs'' ??"^fr r^' and bnltaLsreTs;'p"e ! lect 01 Christians, It will and must produce a very unfavourable impression that the dedication of the first Unitarian cKS British North Arnerica, should have been inaugurated by a dis- Td n'f h-*'??"?/^. *'* l''^^^ "^' *h« honour and glory of God and of his Christ, to whose service it was professedly set apart t"llXtn?t '^iS''. V"' '''' T^^^^^ builtfand mS !1k! i?A° ^i\J^ *^^^ *® ^^^ unseemliness of the whole tran- canon ot it, that the Church, over whose dedication the Dreacher w? ^r^%^ r ^ '"^^^"^ *^ '«'«"»d ^"h thrprats of the sect who bmit it, was the Jlrat, which in these parts Lv had erected while a multitude of others stood in sight Ko frf ?nd st.rnf'l^''""^''^ T ^^''^"^y «*«^^^^ with simiarS,^^^ Some of these are rude and humble enough, it is true, * aeuier m the bush, lift up, from amidst its remote and lonelv clearing, against this tardily reared structure of the 4althy ffi tarians of Montreal. Does it even greet its late wearance wUh own solitary f.M-i look glad, as with a ight from Heaven it casts a dark ^mid r- - (^^ its forest recess,%nd blots from t'he view, th« vauiiting and lying inscription of Christian cSirch designed to mark their Unitarian hifiidmc. oo „ r"! .h??'^„' But it ioQk. tp it for no sympathy," andhsends nineYo T'''''"' II The same sun of righteousness has not arisen upon them with healing under his wings j tliey have no mutual liglit to reflect ; they have received no couimon salvation, that tney should he mutual partakers, in each others cheerfulness and joy. Surely, every thing considered, if this preacher did come amongst us, to promote that way, which to him seemed best, yet he might have come in more quietly. Coming so late, and coming last, and coming alone, and coming soon to depart, bo needed not to have signalized his advent by such a tremendous flourish of trumpets as this. If we were doing our best, he might have given U8 a little more credit for our good intentions. He found us at least at our work, but his own people, what had they been about for so lon^ a time, why so backward in avowing the most rational and Scriptural of all forms of Christianity. The whole aspect of the matter seems to say that Unitarianism is all a lie, and that its preachers cannot open their mouths without proclaim- ing it. He might have admitted, that we showed a zeal worthy of a better cause, aud reproved his own people for doing their better work, with so slack a hand. Or, if he did not wish to discour- age them, by being too hard on their infirmities, yet why treat them to such a cup of flattery, spiced with such a flavour of detraction? If it be said, his subject necessarily led him to speak in some such way. We ask, why choose such a subject, on which to address such a people, under such circumstances ? Why did he think it appropriate in such circumstances to address a people who had shown less zeal for the glory of God than any other, as if they did him more honour than all others ? On what principle did it seem to him appropriate and peculiarly appro- priate, to address a people who had done least to adorn the doc- trine of Christ, aud speak abroad the honour of his name, the last to bestir themselves for the propagation of Divine Truth, as if they alone knew it, they alone loved it in its purity, and to them above all others the world had to look for teaching the way of life most perfectly? If the preacher had loved or valued his own system with half the fervour he affects, his audience would that day have heard another sound. Hollow, hollow, heartless Unitarianism, that proclaimest thy own nakedness, and yet art not ashamed I but gloriest rather. Frail as we all are, ready to throw a veil over our defects, and to proclaim our goodness, when we can do it under the colour of praising our party, yet under similar circumstances, we can conceive of no Christian minister of any denomination acting a similar part. Sorry and --u. ._j *«_ ij u. - X'-lx l-«. usuu,iui;u luu, vvuuiu sucu u uuu iiiivu mil, uis vuii;c «>uuiu iiuvc been low ;aa his aspect humble, as mournmg over the sins of his people, or if he lifted up his voice, it would have been in tones ; 1:1 m u 22 of rebuke, not of vain boasting. Had this Unitarian preacher taken his congregation to task, and sharply reproved fhem for doing what they owned to be the work of the Lord sHer? Suf ifuh^^i'^-J '''Z\^^Shtnot have been printed by request session nfi'lilrHo' • ''T ^T "t^" ^ ^^'^ ^^^«»rable im-' '^ bTL L iflT "^ \^^\^^^ this piece of fulsome flattery, thf riila nf f7 '"^^T" ^'' P'-etended comparison of it with in h-Jh nnL l''*^'''- ^' '^y pretended, for it really throws Skn i iKi'? ^''P'''"?. '^'7 *^^"S ^h'ch is peculiarly mnstian m the doctrme or practice of others. incr rnll^'^fSr W^r^ Something excessively ludicrous in his go- ing round the circle of the Churches, with his Unitarian model in his hand, saying to each in succession, « Now let us see how yoS look, when contrasted with us." Speaking of the cam setVby not insolent. Of his conduct m going through the round of his silly comparisons we are disposed to say, in his own word reversmg their order «It would be insolent, if it were not ridTcu-' . ii,?ifn?tf!°' ^!' comparisons with the infidel, and that reminds mthv wi h SS*'^ *^T.^^* '' "''"«^^ «^ h^^i"g a secret sym- Fni^L^ infidehty, so that we must be on the look out for any indications of his which may happen to leak out. He is aware li-f '"lP"*^t»?°?.ff he says, "tlnitarian Christianity halno rtnc?"'' BnMhf ^ w-n ^^'^ l'^'"'^ ^? ^osite poles ^of expe- rience. But this will not make us shut our eyes, for extremes sometimes meet. Perhaps the murder will out7 Kt us h^a? his statement of the things wherein they differ : «frnn!inLr''* placc, then, as Unitarian Christians, we differ * • * Infidelity, Whatever form .it may take, from the coarseness of the scofer, to the wttf i ^'' r P*^'' '^''^' ^^*^ °^ f^^«"r at our' hands. We treat it juiitly, as we would treat everybody and every "tn^'u'J "^'^ .?' ^'''^^ ''r '' ^^^^5 but we can bestow upon It only our pity, our condemnation, or our counsel." Those who aflect to be able to pronounce what it is iust or unjust for God to do, and without further consideration oenq^y^ m the face of the plainest statements in what they profess to receive as a revfilafion fmm iiim ^«,.i — *u-. .. i^ ^ ". .^9 Iho^ildm^vJ^r"''' hecause to them it appears unjust, that he should, may take upon themselves to do justice to all men, and even 23 tt) the Devil. We suspect, however, it would lead them among those mysteries which they are so anxious to keep clear of, were they to take in hand to tell us plainly what they would consider as doing justice to the Devil. But allowing this to pass as a trait of Unitarianism as it is, that it would do justice to the Devil, if it could, we enquire whether Unitarianism he not, as it is sup- posed to be, inclined to do a little more than justice to the infidel, and raiher less to the orthodox Christian than it would do, even to the "Devil, or error and vice" under any common form. Upon infidelity, he tells us, Unitarians can bestow only " pity, condemnation, and counsel." Of these three, if this preacher truly represent them, they can bestow upon the Christian only " condemnation." If he falters out any faint admissions of good concerning such, they are very few, and very faint, and very feebly uttered, as something to be set down to the credit of his own candour, and give a colour to his claim, of being one who would do justice to the Devil, rather than as a just tribute to them of well deserved praise. His counsel he does not offer us j his pity he knows would be misplaced ; we are better and hap- pier now, and, therefore, not likely to fare any worse hereafter, under the influence of what he calls our delusions, whether he esteem them so or not, than we would be under the guidance of his barren speculations, whose fruits, whatever they he, are not, like the fruits of Faith, the substance of things hoped for: as for his condemnation it is not needful to tell him how lightly we esteem it. 1 But let us see what counsel he bestows upon those who are . wandering in the mazes of infidelity. "We repel the charge of promoting or countenancing infi- delity." We do not think that Unitarians are generally charged with directly intending either to countenance or promote, what they and we call infidelity, namely,, an open rejection of the Scriptures as the word of God. What we allege is, that not submitting their understandings to the dictates of the word, and their hearts to the obedience of Faith, but taking the Bible A ao aiatinr* «1«:„1., ^UwA l-_l! J- i: 1. „i^^ free and accountable being, is better, a proof of its possibility I" Ihe language is Vague, but we do not suppose Christians of any other name would use it, and that it would be somewhat hard to .establish from Scripture, that man has within himself a proof of the possibility of his redemption. We are accustomed to look to bcripture alone for an assurance of the possibility, and a pledge of the certainty of the redemption of man. While on this subject, however, we recollect that there is a treatise by the Rev. A. Fuller, with the title : " The Calvinistic and bocinian Systems examined and compared as to their moral tendency," which has generally been considered a very sufficient vindication of Calvinism against charges of immorality, and to nave done no small damage to the claims of Unitarianism. We nave some times heard insinuations against the moral tendency " ''"'• -iwjc as Huu us i^aiviiiism, Dui never neara oi many wno read the Bible or sought out Calvinistic preaching, by way of an incitement to do evil. &i j j i 20 Of the present caviller against Calvinism, it may be aufflcient to observe, that while he could find an apology for the unbelief of the infidel in fleeing from the superstition of the Christian, he can find none in the abounding of iniquity, and widc*spread ungodliness, nor in the strong expressions of Scripture on the subject, for what to him might seem to be, or what really might be some overstrained expressions with regard to human depra- vity, in the language of expounders of the Calvinistic creed. As Unitarian Christians We differ from the 8elf*styled Ortho* dox of this and other lands, in our doctrine concerninir the "atonement.'* * As we design to quote this paragraph at length, and make some remarks upon it, which will be better understood when we have examined his whole system as far as he has seen fit to unfold it, we pass it over at present, with observing, that as usual instead of stating his own views, or those of others in such a way as that light might be thrown upon the differences between them by a cpmparison, he makes nothing evident but a spirit of bitterness and self conceit. If any one can gather from anything here said what views he and other Unitarians entertain on the sub* ject of the atonement, it is more than we can. He tells us they believe in an atonement, and that it is a doctrine of parental love, and we infer that he wishes them to get credit for such a faith, though we think he could hardly expect that they will, simply because he pleases to assert it. The " self*styled orthodox " of every land, get no favour at his hands to which we dare say they will submit with proper patience. According to him their doctrine, of a " vica- rious atonement," subverts our notions of justice and teach'es us to look upon the heavenly Feather as an Infinite Despot. " We reject," says he, « with abhorrence, a doctrine which despoils the " the Divine Character of its glory, and takes from the Divine " Law its most urgent sanctions.*' , He has no reluctance, it is evident, to heap opprobious terms upon the self styled orthodox of this and other lands, however styled orthodox " are plainly beyond the palt ^. „.« courtesy. He offers them no counsel, stretches towards them no hand of reconciliation, all he has to throw to them, are words of reprobation. Between him and them there is indeed a great gulph fixed, across which there can be no shaking of hands. He is just as well aware as they are, that if they be Christians, he is none. ' " As Unitarian Christians, wp diffor frnm mmnhAM ^f *hn Koman Catholic Communion, in our doctrine respecting autho- rity in matters of religion." After alluding to the exorbitant 80 claims of her Hierarchy, witli tlie supremacy of her Pope, lie observes. "We might bear with her other errors; but this " assumption of the attributesof the Most High, with all the terrible " consequences which it involves, we may not regard even with " patience. It invades the sanctuary of man's freedom and scales " the, throne of God's Sovereignty." But the Catholic Church is Trinitarian, and this, he says, repre- sents God as an " equivocator, and is injurious to devotion and per- nicious to morality." This Church also maintains the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, which he says, " subverts our notions of justice, despoils the Divine character of its glory, and takes from the Divine Law its most urgent sanctions, and teaches us to look upon the Heavenly Father as an Infinite Despot." But these seem to us errors as little to " be borne with," as " invading the Sanctuary of Man's Freedom," by extravagant claims to the place of God's Vice-gerent upon earth. Is it true that Unitarians are more jealous about their own liberty of thinking than about the truth of Scripture and the glory of God or the purity of His wor- ship ? This is sometimes alleged against them and the things which he says they might bear with and the things with which they cannot bear at all, nor listen with patience to the bare assumption of a claim to them, seems to indicate that Unitarian zeal is most sensitive on the side of usurpation over the liberty of opinion in man. We do not believe that the Protestant body in general come any whit behind Unitarians, in an enlightened condemnation of these usurping claims of the Church of Rome, and a steady resolution to resist them to the utmost by all lawful means. Such big bullying words on the part of Unitarians, are, we have no doubt, estimated at their true value in Rome. They know well enough there, who are the adversaries they have to fear in the contest between the possessors of Church power, and the assertors of the liberty of conscience. That contest does not lie between them and infidels or Unitarians, these are as little feared by them as enemies, as they are by us, trusted to for allies. But, in truth, if this " Unitarian Christian" admits that opin- ions may be framed, according to the principle of what is called the analogy of Faith, we do not see why the supremacy of the Pope should appear to him to be so very monstrous or offensive, for to us it appears in just accordance with the faith of Unitarian Christianity, as laid down in his sermon. He says tl^t Jesus is man, and not God, and that he is the head of the Christian Church ; he says, also, that he believes the Scripture ; he must, therefore, believe, that to Jesus as the head of the Church, " all power in heaven and on earth" has been committed to administer for the Church. Now, if he believe that a man can receive and exercise 81 all power in heaven, so far from its appearing to us a strange thing, it seems the most natural and appropriate arrangement in the world, that the earthly portion should be intrusted to a man present upon earth, and engaged in its aflfairs. If he sees nothing but a Pope as the head of the Church in heaven, we do not perceive what so offends him, in beholding a vicegerent Pope at its head upon earth. The Pope aspires no higher than to administer upon earth, what Unitarians seem to us to say, has been committed to the administration of a man in heaven. The preacher might, therefore, have reconciled himself to this error of the papacy, and borne with it, as well as the rest. We do not know what he thinks of the man that affects to do justice to the Devil, and grant indulgences to the Pope, but to us he seems to have ascended as high, if not a step higher, on the ladder of presumption, than they do at Rome, and they are sup- posed there to have gone up as high as men have yet ventured to climb. Only think of a Unitarian minister, at the opening of the >a« Unitarian Church in British North America, after standing all the day idle, coming amongst us at the eleventh hour, dealing out amongst us, whom he finds already in the vineyard, his praise and his censure, his words of encouragement and his frowns of rebuke, and his gracious, condescending assurances, that out of compassion to human frailty, he can bear with much and overlook much, in the imperfection of our labours. We dare say we can all better bear with our old fellow-labourers, even those of them who wear the badge of the Pope, bitter as have been our quarrels, than with this newly-arrived, chattering daw, who wishes to deck himself with a feather plucked from every wing. But we pass on. " As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the adherents of the Episcopal Church in our doctrine concerning the Ministry." We are beginning to get tired of these comparisons, which throw no light on the subject. For anything that we can see, he might for the purpose of illustrating Unitarianism, have just as well said, We, " Unitarian Christians, differ from the followers of Confucius in our doctrines concerning this, and from those of Zoroaster in our doctrines concerning that," as much that he has here said. But why, in doing justice to all, did he not tell us wherein " we Unitarian Christians differ in our faith from that of Devils." Not in their doctrine concerning God, for we have good authority for saying, the Devils are so far sound in their faith as to believe that there is one God. According to our views, neither are willing to bow at the name of Jesus, or to confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. But we again pass on, in order to reach the end. ^[ As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the Baptist denomi- nation, in our doctrine concerning ordinances." II i 82 He- might have added, in our zeal for translating the Scrips lures, and preaching among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and in many other things. But he chooses rather to tell us that " We, Unitarian ChrisUans, while we prize and use ordii ances, would be slow to exaggerate their importance ; whereas the Baptists care more for the letter than the spirit of the teaching of the Founder of the Christian religion." Self-praise is no praise, and from such condemnations the Baptists will take no harm. Both parties are known. <* As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the Methodist Con- nexion, in our doctrine concerning religious excitement." But as Unitarian Christians, do you not also differ from them, and from Him whom you call Master, in diligence in preaching the Gospel to the poor? " As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the Unlversallst body, in our doctrine concerning retribution.** As neither body has, we believe, any accepted creed, the com- parison is here necessarily of a somewhat vague and indefinite des- cription } for, " there are different shades among us. Unitarians, as to the future state of the wicked.*' The impression left upon our mind, after going through the whole of these comparisons, is, that while the writer feels that between his party and Christian sects there is no sympathy, and can be no compromise, a mutual un- derstanding might be come to between them and the Universal- ists. The Universalists, in short, are a Unitarian, not a Chris- tian sect. Be this as it may, his last comparison is the most cu- rious one of all* *' As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the irreligious of ev- ery class, whether they be openly immoral, or such as immerse themselves in the cares of the world, the profane or the thought- less." Now, who would not have expected that it would have follow- ed, "We differ from the irreligious, by practising no open immoral- ity, by guarding against immersion in the cares of the world, and thoughtfully taking heed to all godliness and honesty ;" but hear ye simple ones, wherein Unitarian Christians differ from the ir- religious of all classes,— it is in none of these things, but " in our doctrine concerning righteousness.** This we have been taught to consider, a very slight distinction indeed. Nor have we ever noted any great difference in the doctrines of men, on the sub- stance of duty, or the excellency of virtue. If Unitarians rely upon this as a means of being distinguished from the " irreligious of all classes," they must not be surprised at being often con- founded with them. He that acts as his own lawyer is said to have a fool for his client; and whosoever undertakes to give his own character, / would need to be a very honest man, for unless he have the weiirht of a well-earned reputation to countervail his own testhnony he runs a great risk of proving himself -a rogue. The Sriaa body here, liave put a witness into the bol to emit a vo"unta?T declaration in their favour. He has taken tharopporlSy tJ tell us a b,t of his mind with regard to their neighbou The? olTh' if^'F'fi! *^'V"'^ ''''^'^'' ^•" ^' «'ft«J ^»>i'2 he gives on behalf of themselves, and that he is such a witness as can stand a little cross-questioning. We now, therefo^rgo back to 'TuTs ^hl n •?". '""'i ,^^^^?, '' *^«''fi«« con&ng the tions of th^m'' U";i^^!«»« »^^''«^«»" toge^^^ the "justiaca- hav": m^lTalreX '^^"'"^'^ '' ^""^"^» Christianity," we to the^'litVnf%1'-r-'^*^K.^T?"' '" ^""^'»'^» *^« P«hlic as fiCnt fw I^"*'''"^"'' *^." ^''^«^" ^^^"•••^'^ ^or »ts proper ful- filment that their peculiar views should be stated with all the explicitness and distinctness that the writer could at7ain Vose articles of their creed, about which there is no dispute betweea them a«d others, it was necessary to state as a parUf the things sary to expatiate. In our examination we shall allude to these o« Joft" 1 •'' 'T'i t ?^^"^ ^ "^^^""^d and imperfect a^: count of the hings they hold for true. But, contenting ourselves 7Jl l*^^*"§,ihem, we shall not make them 'the subject of many remarks. The answer to the question. What is Unitarianism as aprofessionof faith in Christ? lies in'the pec^arSo their creed, and is to be drawn out by a full and fair exposition if them. We are ar from thinking that we have got aSy h ng of the sort, m this discourse ; but our object is to draw out such in- formation from it, on the points in question, as we can, and po nt out wherein its information is defective, as we think disiLenn ously defective. We observe, for instance, that Scr^ture p^^^^^^^ es are sometimes made use of, in which to express the faith of Unitarians on disputed points, and no allusion whatever is made to the sense in which they are to be received, while it must have been perfectly well known to the writer, that in his creed they do not stand for the same truth as in ours. This we consider very disingenuous No one will dispute that the Scripture phrase expresses the truth ; the question between us is, What is the truth it was intended to express ? On this principle it is the usual custom in setting forth a creed, for the parties doing so, to use such woi-ds as will most clearly set forth their own thoughts, and support this exposition by a reference to Scripture. We mii«t here, however, take matters as we find them. as hereTt'forlh'' ^'""^ !^° ^^^^'"^ ^'''"'' ""^ ^^^ Unitarian creed !| w ** We believe, then, in God, as the Supreme, Perfect, and Infl- ^* nite Being, Lord of heaven and earth. Author of all life, Source ** of every blessing, Searcher of hearts, and Judge of men. We " believe in His moral government, which, as it is rightfully exer- ** clsed, 80 is inflexibly administered. We believe in His Paternal *^ character, in which He has been pleased to reveal Himself to our " admiration and love, — a character which never shows Him to " us as weaklv indulgent, or capriciously tender, but as always << consistent with His own perfections, while full of parental re- " gard towards men. *' We believe in the requisitions of duty which He has promul- ** gated, by which are laid upon us the obligations of outward and " inward righteousness, and it is made incumbent upon us to cul- ** tivate purity, devotion, disinterestedness, and the harmonious " expansion of our nature, that the result may be an excellence " which shall redound, to the glory of God." The above is somewhat wordy from one who had, for want of room, to leave so much unsaid on points concerning the Unita- rian Faith, where explanation was much more wanted. No Chris- tian will see anything in it against which to take exception, but as little, we presume, would any Mahommedan. It was not on account of anything nere professed, that believers were first call- ed Christians at Antioch. We wish it to be kept in mind, that all essential differences between us and Unitarians, are connected with our views of the character and work of Christ, and the way of redemption through him. As it would be tedious to quote all be may have said or insinuated on this subject, we ahail quote his words, only when we have any remarks to make upon tlivjm, and state the substance of his views as fairly as we can, tc make the whole intelligible. The sentence which follows what we have quoted above, as it is the first which announces a truth, strictly speaking, in connection with the Christian scheme, we give at length, observing that it does not state that truth in a Christian- like manner. '* We believe in His mercy, which enables Him, without impair- " ing the integrity of His government, or subverting the original " conditions of His favor, to forgive the penitent sinner, and admit " the renewed soul to an inheritance of eternal life." No one acquainted with the Unitarian controversy, will doubt that the above sentence was carefully framed with a view to that controversy. Not even the writer of it would venture to assert, that it is so framed as to place in a clear light his own peculiar Tiews on the disputed points which it involves, yet this seemed to 1.5^ UI3 ucsigii in prcaCiiing luis uiscourse. it be denied by him, that a Fair exposition of their respective views of what this sentence seems to declare, would bring out in 85 ir. fl^ .??,»".''. ^'""'"'"'»> ^nif "•««« which lie at the verV root of the life of Faith i„ the Chrl.llan, and, a, wo will take thj Wo speak than plainly, because we think ihert was here «n In totlU "wZtt'?™"- """ ""' "'"«' 'i-^pV "to nZ'^^^^ Ztllh "^''' ?"'«'" persons or parties believe, we could not have charged h.m wilhdisingenuousness for setting it fo??hi„ any us whit ttv'hTnrJ"'- "" ""I "'"^ "'e'" "8™"- Men ml;?e|^ us wnat they believe, in any language thev see fit tn emnlA^ oT^ttTntt," i^"'>^^^l''\"8"»s« g":, us i"-:s7vu'«; R„. »h.. " "."' '""'.»"'«'• to be the cAaracler of their creed Bu what more, it may be asked, was to be expected or Z\Xi i",l^ '"' /"?"'""''. "">" """ ? " '' «» bo borne^n mind fhatte «To ZVuiis c e 'h"^ '•'"' ~*;*™^'' "f """' ""'"'. «»«1 mean " fnt '„t,h V f ^ " '? "^o^fo^ity with Scripture. He was writ- ;^. f5?i ?• ® '* ?" ga'nsayers who affirm the Unitarian creed is not OirisliaD, nor in conformity with Scripture. But i„ Si Scripture, on an important point of practical religion whfch in volves all our doctrinal differences, he employs iSage to which knew fhLth"''"" t" ^"P'"'"' exposition, whie yet helell knew, that they would not accept his exposit on, nor he th^rs Now the real question between us is one of Scriptural exDosWnn" He has not told us what Unitarians believe as CWway of ML if' ''* ""'• "*' ".S "•»'■• "^ed on the subject. AH he has done, however, is, without telling ns what Ihey believe on ac er of G"oi'° C"" ""!| l"""' ""=<"''' '=»"''^«"' with thrchar" afexposmnn „f w.r'i','"'!?^'? P"" "ff^™'' »» «^5ertion for ?h.rr •"■"'^i'l'"'^®*'''^ H'"i iie slated his creed, we could then have judged for ourselves, whether or not it fulfi these conditions, and enabled God, w'ithout subverting the oriS coT ditions of bis favour, to forgive the penitent sinner. V^e "u pect fron^ this very peculiar phrase « without subverting the orSt et rp^fc, i^Th":''; '""^'^f!. -"-"""g his own oS ^h.-Tf practising the further dishonesty of insinuating a false cha Te against the doctrines of those from whom hf differs fessTn lP,f h'" '"'""'•'rJ' y" "' *■>»'« i" ^•'-'se name we pr^ fess to speak have accepted creeds, we ventnr« ia -ii .!.»-.?:. sitioii we propose to give of this sentence the genlral sense Tf Christians on the subject. When Unitarians gi?e us theirs wj can judge whether the truth has here been spoken of thei cre^d l! h 36 *' We believe," says he, " in the mercy of God." This, of course, all Christians assent to. The Revelation in which they believe, is in a peculiar sense a revelation of the mercy of God. It is this which distinguishes the Christian religion from what is usually called the religion of Nature. But further, he says, " we believe in His mercy, which enables Him to forgive the penitent sinner, and admit the renewed soul to an inheritance of eternal life." To this also the Christian assents, as what hs believes. Repentance and a renewing of the soul, are essentials towards the salvation for which he hopes. In this statement, however, there is something lacking from what he would consider a full declarJ\tion of his faith. He would have said, " I believe in the mercy of God, as manifested through Christ ;" and if speaking to a Unitarian, would most likely, to prevent mistake, have said— " as purchased or procured by the death of Christ." He would also, besides repentance and renewing of the soul, have mentioned Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as essential to the sinner's salva- tion. He would further assert, that the mercy of God, in which he trusts, does not impair the integrity of God's government, nor subvert the original conditions of His favour. What the Christian considers, indeed, as accounting for all that is peculiar in the Christian dispensation, is the necessity for something being done, in order to reconcile God's shewing mercy to the sinner with the necessity of maintaining the integrity of His government. The phrase, " nor subverting the original conditions of His fa- vour," is one which must strike the Christian as somewhat strange. It was this, indeed, which particularly arrested our attention, and led us to scrutinize the whole sentence with a little more care than we might otherwise have done. The absence of the name of Christ in connection with the mercy of God, in a Unitarian statement of faith, only struck us as a piece of verbal consistency which we hardly expected to find in it, and which it might be supposed we would overlook; more especially as this Uni- tarian view of mercy was here asserted to be in harmony with all that is usually said of the mercy of God, as manifested through Christ. But what are we to make of this phrase, about subverting the original conditions of God's favour. Every Christian will of course admit at once, that Christ's coming into the world did not subvert any one thing which God had ever established. But if any one, in announcing to a debtor that he was delivered from his debts by some one having discharged them for him, it would sound a little odd, were he to add, " and he did this without breaking any of the bargains between you and vour creditors." To such a statement he would answer, " that of durse, seeing that be has paid all that I owed." 87 .T3S!l?""*'-'!*"i "■Tf're, be any reasonable doubt, that this St on whtV? '■•,"•''''' ''^^"V"' ""> '"ke of insinuating some objection which Unitarians think may fairly be brought against l„.rr" "f ??,:""' "^ "•« -Joctrine of Go>s shewing mef^to r„snallv h"il?"''! »"• "'f. of Precluding some objection wLh IS usually brought against their own. What we complain of is. tnAlW"^ distinctly stated which of these purposes'^^t war ini ha? ihir vt™ '/.".'' ^""""•' J'"" "» a'tempt is made to shew i»np^ « . r K "^•"^ """^y of ^°^ "Joes not imply what is here ?ar^n, ZSV H^^I-e Stated distinctly on what principles Uni- w[th thl »' i" accordance witdtliem.trod shews mercy to the sinner without subverting the original conditions of His favour, is only to tell us what g vef r^hlT"""".' ,"■.!' *•"='' »'^" way seems right in their own S'dtherr~f'/' I"' ^'■'" """ "^^y '"■ As it is not our de- ff.rir to refute the views of Unitarians or defend onr own, dde how f^lTh ''""" *'«''" ''"'' ''»^'»g !t to our readers to de-' ^p ln?n/» ""T f ? agreeable to Scripture, we shall not en- «f ih. 1,^^ ?f^ ^"'. ^"^ ^^ ""ay bealfowed a short exposition of the common Christian Faith on this subject. to ma"n wpr. I'^r.""!' ^}i^ ""«'"»' conditions of God's favour bel^vp'Z .kL"^°"' obedience to the Moral Law. Christians (I M»„, Lii''' r'^'t'ons have been subverted by man's sin. H'"'f."'^«''»''««;«ypcver have been, a^ never will be, sub- tbnJ nf >S? f Christians believe, that with the original condi- favonr ,? 5/„ 7" M*"."*"' '"" ''»""'> "P the forfeiture of that trInTj.1^ ^""rl^. transgress. Christians believe man has iondiUons nl? S^^/o^f^'t'd^God's favour, and that by the original and S, K? r*"""' 9'^ 's bound to punish the transgressor, who U r^H '" ^^T'l^' ""'"■ Christians believe that Christ «,VnA^' "™*< '"'" J""" '""■'''' heeame Immanuel, God witl^ as' a man r/*'""'"'' "l"' J^ f"'*"'"? the conditions of the law mercv «wi??i."'-°"''-'."^^v''« ™'«''* enable God to show us rbvertinrL '•'™P'','"''«^..'^o integrity of His government, or subverting the original conditions of His favour." cons?I'r7h« ' ^""T' *?. ^""^ <■■•<"» Unitarians, is, what they have beci ? ^^ ™nditions of God's favour towards man, to Whether they implied perfect obedience ? therddki^ "" "" ""^ P*'' "f ■""" ""'^^'""'y '"'•^''rt, Whpf w T^^ "1^^^. ^^^" subverted in the case of every man ? ^iZuaof i vicarious atonement of Christ being set aside, a Simple act of mercy pardoning the sinner, does not imply a C m P i i fHf II parting on God's part from the original conditions of His favoqr? To us it appears that such a proceeding does both ^' impair the integrity of God's government, and subvert the original condition* of His favour." But what we chiefly complain of with regard to this discourse is, that while it clearly teaches that Unitarians do not hold the common faith of Christians with regard to the mercy of God as manifested through Christ, it neither tells us plainly what they do hold on the subject, nor condescends to explain how their view^ of the subject agrees with innumerable passages of Scripture, in which the fiiercy of God is spoken of in connection with the sacrifice of Christ, while at the same time it asserts that their views are most Scriptural. But we go on with our examination. We take the followipg from others to the same purpose, as a sqf^cient declaration o| their faith in Scripture. " We believe in the revelations which God has made by those of old times, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and in a latter age by Jesus Christ, the Son of His love, and the Messenger of His Grace. To these Scriptures we appeal, as th^ decisive authority upon questions of faith or dtity, interpreting " them in the devout exercise of that reason, through which alone " we are capable of receiving a communication from heaven." To this profession of Faith, we suppose no Protestant will ob- ject. The use of reason in interpreting Scripture, cannot well be set forth in a general proposition. We all use and must use our reason, whether in interpreting Scripture for our instruction unto righteousness, or in wresting them to our own condemnation. The right use of reason, therefore, in interpreting Scripture, can only be tested by the mode in which it is applied in particular in- stances. We again pass on. " We believe that God is one in every sense in which the term can be applied to Him j one in nature, in person, in character, iu Revelation.'* This is sufficiently explicit, and requires no com- ment. We come next to his testimony concerning our Lord Jesus Christ: " We believe that Jesus was the Christ — the anointed and sent " of God, whose truth He proclaimed, whose authority He repre- " sented, whose love He unfolded." As it is in their doctrine concerning Christ, and the way of salvation through Him, that Unitarians differ most from the com- a u tt u differences would then be flmall. Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed and sent of God, whose truth 39 d7Zr v. ^ this manner of speech wc are disposed to ullT ^"«^>"^ w»th whom we have to do, and how they that Ltt""7'P*"i!;^"^.^"^'' ^'^"^^ i» «"« ^h^'-^^ter, in order that they may deny Hira in another, and yet offer something? like an explanation of certain Scripture^esti monies concerning Him! Trth f L'" ?^ .^''?"^ '}:'' '^'^ ^f^*' Christ represented S ?ni?v i^^^"*^«"'^ {jf God ? We believe that Jesus Christ was wa^aL To/' Twf "!' Unitarians; hut we believe that He 7Z.h G^od which they deny.. Admit, however, that He repre- Zuii w! r*/" M *L'f ??^ »P«" *^^ ^^^-th, and then how quickly HU^n. ' ^' « ^' 't** *^J' ^^P'*'»« ""any of His expressions, an5 His allowing Himselfto be worshipped, &c. ' Ra wf/^^/ ' distinctly, that as man, as the Christ, if you will. ter H« ^^IT'^Vh' *"*^^"*'^ '^f G«^- That in this characi ter He made Himself of no reputation on earth. Did He repre- sent the authority of God whe'n He said, « who marme a udg^ ?p..hpr //r"^n^?^ ^« spoke 'with the authorit/of\ teacher sent from God ; such a character He bore, but we deny It Zf^V^ P/TS*^ "^ *^'« expression, that Christ represented nfm 1 J { 'r P'^ "?"? '^'^^' If t^V will not say that in ?ri nnw V**'/"*"''5 f *\' ^^^^^^^ *>od»3^» ^^ w*™ ouF read- He in wlit to dS. '^ *^'^'* '''''"'^'' "'^^^^" "^ *^^"^ *^^^ n Jl^^f^ ^T ?^ °"f«lded." To this, of course, we can have ^i^^n^ ''^^^''^' ^1^^^® *^'"^ that Unitarians, knowing whereof they are accused, might have spoken a little more warmly \Uilfn(lTSu''i '^'^ ««°>ething implying, that they knew i wh^h H^'V*?.^^'"P'"'f say about the special love^f God, JhVa StT^"^^^"*.^^/ according to the tenor of such a passage aj ««;«.! f nTtt" »V^^!"-?^' *^^' ^« '«^'«d G«^i »>»' that He loved ^< w K ,• '^^^ ?^" *^ ^^*'* * propitiation for our sins." « n«. ™ u Z®. * . '^^f "^ Ch'^t came on a special mission to our world, to instruct the ignorant, to save the sinful, and to give ^^ assurance of immortality to those who were subject to death, that ^^ such a teacher and Redeemer was needed, that Ele spoke as iever *' Sed '' * ^ °"*° ^^^^ *^^^' *"^ ^*®^ ®^ "®^®'' "**° If the expression « Christ died as never man died," is designed to be passed off upon us as a declaration of the Unitarian creed, with regard to the death of the Saviour of the world, it is sucll an insult to our common sense as cannot be replied to in words : to give his the proper answer, we would require to be face to lace witn the sneakftr. that h« mitrht ,.a«^ :* :^ j.u^ -:i„x look of quiet scorn and contempt, with which it was listened to. Poor deceivers and deceived 1 is this all you can put into your 40 death of Christ, after sayin/» " we appeal the decisive authority npoii questions of ereed concerning tl to the Scriptures Faith I" Shall we inquire whether such interpreters have ohtained their conclusions in the "devout exercise of reason?" No, truly. When a man says he has just heen to the well, and you turn his bucket hottom up, and no water runs out, you need not ask what discretion he has used in going and returning, and drawing, for you see his labour has been in vain — he might as weH have staid at home — ^he has gone, and returned empty. Shall we now ask what he means by saying, that Unitarians believe that " Christ came to save the sinful?" We ask it, but we further ask, why he has not said something to explain the expression ? All Christians put something into their creed that gives meaning to the words r " He shall be called Jesus, for He ehall save His people from their sins." , Why, also, do Unitarians call Christ a Redeemer? Surely the preacher must have known that these words could only deceive us as to his views, unless he gave some explanation of the peculiar sense in which he uses them. Would any of the " self-styled Orthodoxj" as he calls them, in giving an exposition of their creed, which they expected to enlighten those who misunderstood their views, have shrouded their meaning in vague terms, which they knew were diflferently interpreted by those to whom they were addressing themselves ? He knows they would not. They were more likely to have wearied him with an unneces- SBTy minuteness of explanation, and an over carefulness to pre- vent his mistaking their meaning. This may be wearisome, but it is the way in which honest men proceed when they are anxious, to be understood, and believe they have been misrepresented. Of any such anxiety there is in this sermon no trace, no, not the faintest. But we go on again. " We read the history of His life with mingled admiration and " gratitude. We are moved by His cross to exercises of faith, " penitence and hd))e." Seeing that the writer of the above, does, in another part of this same discourse, speak of the very idea of Christ having suf- fered as the substitute of sinners as utterly abhorrent to all his notions of justice, we confess ourselves very much at a loss to comprehend what he could see in the cross to move him to exer- cises either of faith, of penitence, or of hope. This is rather a singular way certainly of stating their creed with regard to the doctrine of the cross. To say we are moved by it, &c. We notice it, therefore, as another of those disingenuous attempts to pass oflf a mere testimony to their own orthodoxy, as a statement of their belief. It wil! be observed, that, as all Christians will M \ agree these are the genuine fruits of the doctrine of the cross,— faith, penitence, and hope, so he aflSrms, "we Unitarians are thus moved by contemplating the cross of Christ." But he pro- tesses to be telling us not how Unitarians feel, but what they believe ; and, as to their faith, with regard to the doctrine of the cross, he has not here told us one word, good or bad. What is this but to deceive the unwary ; and should we say, Unitarians deny or reject the doctrine of the cross ? to be told on the autho- "ft «f this sermon, far from it, they are moved by it to exercises of taith, &c. Their denial of the ordinary Christian doctrine of the cross is introduced elsewhere ; we bring it face to face with this testimony about the pious influence the cross is said to exer- cise over them, as another proof that Unitarianism has no truth m It, and is a system of false pretences. Unitarians condemn all mystery in religion, but all that in this discourse is said of their views of the Christian Redemption is, to us, an impenetrable mystery. We can attach no meaning to their saying, « Christ came to save the sinful," nor to their call- ing Him a Redeemer." Again, when it is said, " we are moved by His cross, to exercise faith, penitence, and hope," understand- ing by the cross, Christ's death on the cross, we are utterly at a loss to conceive what he sees there to awaken any such affec- tions in the breast of a man, who denies, as the writer of this discourse does .?eny, and in very plain terms too, the vicarious character of Christ's sufferings and death. How the sight of a man suffering and dying, neither for his own sins, for He knew no sin, nor for the sins of others, should excite Faith or penitence in him who meditates upon this strange spectacle, is to us a mystery, which no known law of human thought, enables us to bring withm the circle of things possible or comprehensible. Till they clear up this mystery then, we may be permitted to doubt, whether their meditations on the cross move them to exercise either Faith, penitence, or hope. How the cross awakens these affections m the breast of him who views it, according to the common Faith of Christians, needs no explanation. We can only understand this writer's saying that it does so, in the case of Unitarians, because something of the kinil was necessary to support their claim to the character of Christians. They lay claim to the virtues, but deny the doctrine, by which alone the virtues can be produced, and by which alone, according to the Scripture, tney are made acceptable to God and profitable for man. We come now to his statement of Unitarian belief, with regard to the present condition and future prospects of man. We have ••• ^v-.tiiiavix ciiuugii uiiuui au aysiuuis, a iruiiiess Pi- tempt to give some definite deliverance on the subject of human depravity. With such things we are all familiar, and know how 'i m it is said, man is not so good as some would wish us to believe, nor so bad as others seem disposed to assert. We know also how after sundry pushings up and down of the sliding scale, by which the precise measure of h«?man good or evil desert is sought to be ascertained ; the operation is concluded with the inevitable response ; All have sinned and come short of the glory of God " We quote, therefore, only one sentence on this subject, in which a prmciple is announced, which admits of being distinctly tried by the standard of Scripture. ^ ^ " We believe in human immortality, and a righteous retribu- tion after death j when they who have lived in obedience, or reconciled themselves to God, through sincere repentance, shall enter upon a nobler fruition of life, while they who have been disobedient and impenitent, shall realize the consequences of their folly in shame and suffering." To the greater part of the above language, all Christians would assent, such as the necessity of being reconciled to God, and lead- ing lives of obedience that we may enter into life, and the right- eous retribution wtth which the sins of the impenitent will be visited, after death and judgment. But taken all together the passage teaches essentially another doctrine than the doctrine of Lhrist. Let us examine it a little more closely. First *' They who have lived in obedience shaU enter into life" ; all agree in believing this for so say the Scriptures : "The man thatdoeth these things shall live by them." But we are inclined to think that the preacher intended to say, that Unitarians believe that aome do actually enter into life by the way of obedience, but we do not assert that such is his meaning. It may be, that he only intended to say, what all agree in sayinj?, that obedience is a way leading to life, if men could only walk in it without swervini We come then to his other alternative, « or who have reconciled themselves to God through sincere repentance." In either case It seems man must be his own Saviour. He obeys, or he recon- ciles himself. As our object is rather to examine the Unitarian treed, and find out what it is, than to discuss its truth : we leave this subject with the remark, that we .cannot understand how he reconciles the aboye statement with another of his doctrines, that the Scriptures are the standard of Faith, for they seem to teach so plainly, that « Christ reconciles us to God " as to forbid the use of the above language in anything professing to be a Chnstian creed. We are indeed exhorted to reconcile ourselves to bod through Christ, but the above is not an exhortation, but a ----- .— -- "•' *" ««!. T ci\ pijua ifc la luui lue Lmianan De- lict admits of no doctrine of salvation, that in his religion there is no place found for a Sa^viour of Sinners ; yet they desire to be called Christians I If the disciples had not thought it necessary to name the name of Christ, even when they spoke of their recon- ciliation with God, they would never have been called Christians at Antioch. In the following passage we have the writer's own opinion of the creed he has set forth, as that in which he " cowcJvft? Uni- tarians would prohahly concur as an exhibition of the articles of tneir belief." « And now what need is there that we should enter upon a vindication or defence of such a faith? Does it not carry its own justification in the elements of which it is composed? Does it not sound right ? Does it not look right ? Has it not the aspect and savor of truth ? Does not reason approve, and Scripture sanction it ? We can answer these questions in but one way. We are satisfied that ours is a correct faith, of which we need not be ashamed, but in which we may glory ^^ before mejK and by v/hich we may hope to obtain eternal sal- ^^ vation. Yet to many ears and eyes it wears a suspicious cha- « T-^if^' o V^"^* ^^® popular, the prevalent, the " Orthodox " faith. Strictly orthodox^ as we contend, emphatically Evan- u St . .' *"^^® ***'^''' *'*e deemed inapplicable to it by most of the Christian denominations by which we are surrounded. They account it as at best grievously defective, If not radically un- sound. We are driven therefore to the necessity of proving that we hold the essential and sufficient truths of religion. And I must now proceed to give such a reply as the time will permit to the second question we proposed to answer— what n ?^?. 1^,? g'O'^nds on which we rely for the justification of our " belief." With reference to the profession of faith, in behalf of which this triumphant appeal is made, as to how it may sound, how it may look, what aspect it may present to the eye, what savour it may communicate to the taste of Unitarians, we can say nothing. For ourselves, " We can answer these questi jkis in but one way." All that is peculiarly Unitarian in it. Scripture nnequivocally condemns, and of none of these peculiar articles does our reason approve. Perhaps, it will be said, does not Scripture sanction, and does not your reason approve the solemn declaration ? « that there is one only living and true God." To which we reply, is this profession of faith peculiar to Unitarians ? Do not Christians of everj^ name and denomination proclaim, that they believe in one living and true God, and only in one? Is not this a promi- nent article in the accepted creeds of them all ? It may be said they contradict this, in admitting a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but this is a thing to be m il f I Mi proved, not simply asserted. As no attempt is made in this dis- course, to discuss the Trinitarian question, either on grounds of reason or of Scripture ; we may be held excused for not entering on so wide a field of enquiry in our examination of it. However this may be, we thini? it was, on the part of the author of the discourse, a plain evasion of what he promised to do, when he took in hand to set forth the veritable creed of Unitarians, to blazon forth in all the pomp of high sounding words, their belief m the existence, the wisdom, the goodness, the power, and the unity of God, &c., which no one questioned, and from which no one dissented, and then half to conceal, some of their most strik- ing peculiarities, under language, which he knew to be used by himself in one sense, and understood by the generality of Chris- tians, in another and very different one. We have a right to say, that in a professed explanation of the peculiarities of his creed, such a method of proceeding was, calculated not to en- lighten, but to deceive the ignorant and unwary. ^ We hardly consider It fair in Unitarians to represent the ques- tion between us, as being one about the Unity of God. This view of the matter, however, renders their argumentative position so strong, th-'t we cannot wonder they should exert all their in- genuity to n- i the question assume this appearance. But the question is not about the Divine unity, but about what is techni- cally called the Personality in the Godhead. This may seem to them necessarily to destroy all idea of unity in the Divine essence, and they may rightfully use this argument for what it is worth, but surely not to answer and set aside the question " whether the Scriptures teach that Christ is God ?" as well as various other ques- tions about the Godhead, which the Scriptures have never failed to raise in the minds of their readers. But apart frcm this con- sideration, we do not think that Unitarians deal honestly either with themselves, or those who differ from them, as to the nature of the Divine Unity, when they speak of their differences on this point as the fountain from which all their other disagreements flow. Christians do not deduce their peculiar doctrines connected with the Redemption of man by the Lord Jesus Christ, from their doctrine of the Trinity, though they discover a harmony between the two, which makes them essential parts of the same system of truth. Their zeal for the doctrine of the Trinity is thus inti- mately connected with their hopes of personal salvation ; this they willingly acknowledge. But Unitarians seem to us rather disposed to make a show of zeal for the honour of the Divine Unity, when it is their zeal for their own honour in the creed which they hold concerning man, which stirs most strongly within them, xiavingfcad something on both sides of this question, the result of our experience is an impression, that, important and necessary as / 4& «onnd views on the subject of the Trinity are, and essentia! to he proper faith of a Christian, yet the very best and soundest treatises on the abstract question do not minister much to direct edification, and that the truths of Redemption connected with the doctrine are the great stake in the mind of all the contending parties. Those who have similar views about sin and about righteousness generally adopt similar views about the Trinity The different views which we entertain of ourselves, lead to these disputes about the character of God. Were it not for its con- nexion with the practical doctrines about the guilt of sin, and the way of our deliverance from it, we would have fewer questions about the doctrine of the Trinity. It is in its connexion with these doctrines concerning ourselves, that the Scriptures deliver to us this testimony concerning God ; it is in its connexion with these that it must be received in order to be profitable for our in- struction unto righteousness, it is on account of its connexion with these, that it is rejected by those who do reject it. Uni- tarians may persuade themselves, and labour to persuade others that they are the patrons and defenders of the doctrine of the Divine Unity, but we know better, they are the rejectors and opposers of the Revelation concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, One God, because they will not own that they need a Saviour. But it is much more honourable, and gives them something whereof they can better glory to appear standing up in the character of champions of the Divine Unity than in that of the defenders of the citadel of their own nature when at- tacked in the name of a holy God, as a rebellious city, and sum- ^moned to surrender at discretion, or be rased to the ground. We do not believe Unitarians to be so much better, and more godly- minded than others, as to fight so furiously for what they call the Divine Unity, and which none of their opponents deny, if they did not feel that a deep personal interest of their own was in- volved in the issue. We believe, therefore, that the true ground on which to contend with Unitarians, is not on what the Scrip- tures reveal concerning the unsearchable things of God, but on what they teach concerning man. Here we are on common ground, and have a subject to deal with, which we have both equal opportunities to know, and equal abilities to understand. Our Saviour, whom they justly call the Great Teacher, whether they sit at His feet in the spirit of true disciples or not, in His con- versation with Nicodemus, seems to point to the propriety of such a mode of dealing with this class of characters, when He says : " I[I .h^^e.jold you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things." Such being our views, we can have no objection to join issue with the present writer, when, in answer to the question. " What i ¥h m I . I, m VMl"" ^T"""}' ?" '^^".''' "^^ '^^y <*«' *^^« justification of our be- Iier<' 'with which our last quotation closed ; he goes on to say First, I remark, it finds justification in our nature, as both the capacities and wants of our nature pronounce In its favour." Wq would here remind the reader, that both we and the writer or this di^ourse have agreed, that in investigating our present subject, we are to take the " same lamp to our feet, and light unto our paths ;»' that the Scriptures are the decisive authority npon all questions between us. We have appealed to the same judgment seat, and to the same judgment seat we must ffo. We are agreed also that as, to use his own words : " The human ^^ being and the Christian religion came from the same source, they must be suited to one another, for Christianity was in- ^^ tended by its infinitely wise Author, to meet the exigencies of ^^ numanity. Unless, therefore, we recognise a correspondence ^^ between our religion and our nature, we conclude against God, ^ imputing to Hira a defective performance of His gracious de' So far we are agreed; but we have such diflferent ways of thinking, with regard to most things, that we deem it proper to take the precaution of here offering a few words of explanation, on another passage which occurs in the paragraph from whic^ the above extracts are made. r o r " Let me, however, anticipate here an objection with which we are familiar, that the aeceptableness of our views of reliffion to a depraved nature, is a proof of their falsehood. It is not of the tastes of a depraved mind, or the tendencies of a corrupt heart that we speak, but of inherent, indestructible character- istics of the nature which God has given us, and of necessities which arise out of the constitution imposed by our Creator." _We observe, that as we have not taken In hand to refute the religious views set forth in this publication, but to examine what they are; we have no intention of endeavouring to establish their falselwod on the ground that they are acceptable to depraved human nature ; but neither can we admit, that their acceptable- ness to human nature, as existing in any individual upon earth, nu*^.'^^ ..^*' ®^^".^ ^^^^"^ presumption in favour of their truth. Lhriatianity may be suited to our nature, without being acceptable 10 It. VYe may recognise a correspondence between Christianity and otfr nature, different fram aeceptableness. Besides, it may be well to observe, that every false religion, and false view of religion, as not being from God, but the offspring of the human mind, must needs have a certain correspondency with the source irom which it SDrine-s. Thp dpviVoa ^nha i..,^«^ K^«-i -lu- „_ ception of man's imagination in religion, as in everything else, must correspond with his nature. , , . ' \ / ».„I5n f '«*'"'"«" 7^'«*» the v^riter wishes to draw between human nature as depraved, and in some other sapposabie but not actual condition 18, for any purpose of testing truth by an appeal to its tastes, futile in the extreme, h we had a perfe^ct^y holy man to whom to make the appeal, we should certSy at- tach yery great weight to his decision, ind the hoi natur of the Christian religion seen in its effects on those who truly embrace eIido?iriromVi/^'R'.' ^'''' f^^^^^"» testimonies^hat thi religion is rom God. But as we have no perfectly holy men to whom to make this appeal; so there are none amongus with one eye holy, and the other affected by sin, who, shuttfng he n affected eye, and examining the doctrine with that which is holy SrP^''"-''.r'''*'^''^^ "^*' '*^«"'^ approve Itself to ou; L twpd nn?"'"^ P"'f \i '" 'P'^''^^^ ^^'^''^^'^^ ^f Christianity fust a ^1'ir h«* ff ^P*^f^« J« ««r nature, we mean our nature Caved nitire ''' '' '''' ^'''^'''''' ^^^^^^ " '« ^» «» ™«"^ - We do not, therefore, admire the form of words, in which the writer announces that he considers the justification of his religi- ous views to be found in this, that both the capacities and wants of our nature pronounce in its favour. But let us see after what manner he unfolds this argument in the way of further illultra. From what he calls the capacities of our nature, which nro- nounce in favour of his religious views, he select* twi. " One of r.j!Jl ' " -.1*^*' . ""*'^' "' ** ""^^^^^^'^ an^ the other as religious beings, with a view, we presume, to corroborate his creed by a . testimony drawn from them in its favour. «« "^ * The first witness he calls to testify on its behalf is the « Ra- tiona Faculty :" >ye cannot help suspecting, however, that this Faculty when called, was out of the wV orotherwise^nS nr oflpf n* n'PP^T ^" *5' '^''' *"^> •" «hort, for some Lson or other, could not be produced in court. But as his face is not familiar m every place, we think some one ventured to answer to his name, and appear in his stead. To us at least this witness does not a all appear to be the Rational Faculty, but reminds us •prodigiously of one with whom we have formed some acquaint- ance as the trial was going on, and if this be not the very framer It .hoP^^-^^'TS^ testimony to his own work, we are sure it is not the Rational Faculty. Let us, however, hear what he has to say, whoever he be.. It is said,' there is not one of the things set forth in the Uni- tarian creed, which "reason will not aporove." nothing in if u «♦ ' which reason would be offended, or from which irwould" turn away m contempt. That the whole harmonises with the con- clusions to which reason is brought by a study of the works and i 11 i r I if 48 " wav8 of God, and the constitution and situation of man • earh ;; Us support in every other, and each gives support ?o ill^ The above is the sum and substance of what is said in the di*. creTis"ttifi d rth^^ 'ir 'I'' «»^-»that X UnUart ir. oiiif^ ^ he rational faculty pronouncing in its favour It calls for no remarit, Jet the creed have the full benefit of the whTi^'i ^V^''' ^^«P^ ^^""^ ^''« ^"ter one of those phases which disclose the very spirit of the system lie esZses and wbcli IS a spirit accused of not being always willing to answer to us true name, or appear in its true character. It is said tha Unitarians make Reason or the Rational Faculty, the suDreme authority in deciding what is and what is not to^'be bel eveH religion but they will not frankly admit this • Lv sav as th « writer has said for them : " We appeal to he a'uhoTity VscriD ture as decisive in questions of Faith," but no one can make oS what they mean by this. Here, however, is what he savs is Z grerogat ve of Reason in the things of rel g of « But^fu h t not only is each article of our belief when separatelVconsiS such as reason may accept without injury t! i^7^^^^ distingmshwg hetwem what is worthy and what I unworthv of " S tr^tV' ''' '" "' ^ontradiction^or inconsisrencrbetweef We could easily show that both what he approves and has pnt into his own creed, has been selected on the principle that reason had this prerogative to deal after this manner with the tetmon? of Scripture and that what he has rejected and condemns in the creeds of others, is rejected and condemned, under this sud^^^^^^^ prerogative of reason without any, even th'e least reTardC^^^ the authori y of Scripture, but it would be denied. We shal however give some evidence to this effect by and by. We w i rojtir ' """ ^'' ''"''" '' '""'''^'^ '' '^^''''' '& «"^t P^e- We will here quote, what seems very much to the oresent nur pose a passage from a Sermon of Dr. Chann ngrpublisred and circulated, we believe, by the same parties X^LaC c rculated the discourse under examination. It contains a coramonruth which might have been stated on our own authoritvTs wiiTiV must^admit J but being introduced under the Lnction'of'^^Ar jui ui uie,r own scnooJ, it cannot be said, that it is a mere invpn tionoftheenem^ It has the further advantage of Sg much better expressed than it would have been by any words iifXh we could have hoped to clothe our thoughts. u ...T^""^^?^' «^6 ^¥'' ^»fl»ence very much to the mental .nn- uuion oi inose to wiiom they are addressed. What is "nroof f n one man, ,s no proof to another. The evidenre, wffilri- 48 i " umphant in one age, is sometimes thought below notice in the '' next. Men^fl reasonings on prtictical subjects, are not cold lo- ** gical processes, standing separate in the mind, but they are " carried on in intimate connexion with their prevalent feelings " and modes of thought. Generally speaking, that and that " only, is truth to a man, which accords with the common tone of '' his mind, with the mass of his impressions, with the results of " his experience, with his measure of intellectual development, " and especially with those deep convictions and biases, which ** constitute what we call character." If the above be true, of all reasoning on practical subjects it is pre-eminently so where questions of morality and religion are concerned. That, it is true, we all know from experience in ourselves, and observation upon others. On this principle, no one is allowed to be judge in his own cause, or where any great personal interest is at stake, or his affections deeply engaged in the issue, not merely because in such a case there is a great pro- bability that he will decide unjustly^ but from a well founded per- suasion, that, under such circumstances, it is almost impossible that he should be able to judge Justly. He is not only likely to act wrong, but almost certain to reason wrong. Every one who has passed from a state of carelessness about the things of reli- gion, into one of anxiety, knows what a very different aspect the very same arguments presented, when viewed under the in- fluence of the one " mental condition," from that which they now wear, when considered under the influence of the *' prevalent feel- ings," which have arisen within him from his new " modes of thought." Every one, who, from being without God and without hope in the world, having passed through the anxieties of the conflict between his new born hopes and his newly awakened fears, has attained to peace with God, and laid hold on the hope of eternal life set before him in the Gospel, knows how frivolous now appear, all those objections which once seemed reasonable and just against a religious life, as imposing unnecessary res- traints upon the conduct, calling for wearisome formalities of de- votion, and debarring from innocent amusements and harmless recreations, while it presented to him no hope of a well spring of internal happiness, to make glad every moment of every day, but only the faint and distant prospect of an uncertain consola- tion amid the agonies of a dying hour. Every such a one knows also that, the very same arguments, evincing the evils of sin, and the advantages and necessity of holiness, which, wont to be poured in vain into his drowsy ear, and urged to no purpose upon his unexcited understanding, now act with lively vigor amid his newly awakened processes of thought, and instantaneously com- municate a corresponding impulse to the " convictions and biases" D i so of his newly acquired "charaptpp" t. • of the arguinent i, not vS t„ !" IL" "" """ ">« ''"fl-ence « neitier fell nor discerned. When 7h ''' '"'"' »"'^ «»gen«)'. are ipersnade, in one state of n,i„d ;" „ "l™*"''. "" P"'^''''""' «• disregarded, it may seem to be treL^T n""*' .'*' ** »»"«'" and and estimated at its real value "'cording to its deserts, «P^:Xnee^7^?tei tET' - — ^-«'" «"« those who are not impressed hv ^h!^ "^ ""'?•' *"<> "'""''er at «hen, but a little y^-^raZX^L^^^ "'?''' "' "<»^. with the r feelings withnV^ L; i • P'"* "'*"■ P'ace, and felt at those who thfn' wondered a 't""f "' T'"^'''' •"" -•"»'«" which we then Iinew n?tWn„ h .1 „' """ '^^ ''«'•>' «"'»"»ns of Melancthon, who when hsol;ievLTr/fiP?''"<=«-, The case of glories of the Christian religion^ and hi hi' T"''' '"'*'''■''''' the 'ove of its holiness, and h f wllr.l» . \**" ^''""^^ "'th the wlh its bless-d hopes and ffllnfnrr' "'"^'^^ «"d ""taated all the world to embrace if »i f">""?«'; expected to persuade it really was, is rore or less ZT ''7'""'''' '«" "'^"'^K truth as it is 'in Jesus "■* '*'* "'^ ''"^'r convert to the tern of interpreting ChristfanUv for TT*.';'""'''' »f ""cir sys- fact, that to them^ it leariy 'i' ^W " "l;: ''\'*^^ 'he Every man carries about with S a !.„„.M m''*' ""^y "'^ert. he regards as unanswerable a,MrnhS'?''l' 1""='' "f «''>at world consider as arguments imtw^!. V^ "'"'='' ">« half of the this very principle, that Z n rea"o„ ?r„l < *" '"l''!"""!!- H is on ' results of ex^ri'ence." We are nlr.^ "conyjctions" « Masses," Jt so hard to induce e the^beMev^eLor th' • "' ^'"■"'"'"•» «»<' them as Christians. If th» .mZiL [ "nbehevers to ioolc upon tianity at all, he is verv liLw f A " ^*,'° ^*""'Si>t about Ch?is" becom'e a Ch'ris.ian heCU„„?rd ff"' "'.'" '^ ^/ '""""O «ve' newed after a different fo,h!,fn ? '•'''erent creed, and be re- or sees to be in Un taria^st h"™''"^"""^ that' he hears ot while he sliphted, the genu ne' dis^iulenf,r"r ■'1^'' ™«ognised hat the Unitarian is not Sch a one Whf. fi'""' ""^ """^ **«' in sincerity the doctrines of Chrig^Liiv 5 T "'"' ^'"'"•"'e mon interpretation, cannot recoSrir"'''''"* '" "■« "om- needs no explanatio'n. Truse thf w^rW n''"-?^*' Christians mental condition, the prevalent fe^lC .1 '^''- ^hanning, « the rdrLi«b:i«M;»^ processes, ^Wm^::;^;^^ ^SZ SoThf t 'S '^ t 51 •»^ t not true to the other, and what is proof to the one is no proof to the other." In order, therefore, to determine this question about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of our respective views, we must descend below the surface, and inquire what are those modes of thought, &c., which lead each party to feel the force of their respective reasonings. But if there be any truth in this, what becomes of the prerogative of the Rational Faculty to de- cide what is worthy, and what is unworthy of reception. Even supposing this were its prerogative, is it not obvious, that under 80 great infirmity and liability to err, it should be anything but arrogant and peremptory, in the decisions it pronounces. Sup- posing Christianity had been left to propagate itself in the world by tradition, without any written standards of doctrine, what, by this time, would have been the mass of impressions concerning it. We might have had what would have seemed to us a pure Christianity and a rational religion, but it would have been neither the religion nor the ChrJstianity of the Bible. With the Bible in our hands, if each man is to choose as worthy, and re- ject as unworthy of reception, according to the dictates of his rational fiiculty, and accept what to his mode of thought seems true, and reject what to the convictions and biases of his peculiar character seems false, no doubt each man will have a religion which his " reason approves," and supposing the Scriptures to sanction such a principle of selecting the articles of his creed, €ach man may triumphantly demand concerning his own religion, whether it be not one, which reason approves, and the Scriptures sanction? It must be on some such principle that Unitarians assert so confidently that their creed is sanctioned by the testi- mony of the Word of God, for even they cannot deny that it is hard to reconcile their views with the letter of the Bible. We would like to have from them a full and fair account of the men- tal process by which they pretend they have succeeded in ex- tracting the genuine meaning of all its mysteries of godliness. Having compelled the Rational Faculty to pronounce in favour of his system, very much apparently to his own satisfaction, and very little to ours, for to us the response of his oracle, being in- terpreted, amounts to this and no more, that " a man's way seems right in his own eyes," but we have the testimony of a more sure word of prophecy, that for all this, the " end of it may be death," he now goes on to make his appeal to the religious capacity of man. The paragraph in which this appeal is made we shall givt entire, that the nature and extent of the justification it affords to the Unitarian system, may be clearly seen and fully compre- hended : " If now we turn to the religious element in human nature, << we find that it demands just such opportunity of exercise, such 1 52 " encouragement, guidance and help, as are presented tn it •„ the exhibition we have made of the Divine character 1^ J ,k" '' S ';r/fi''1 ^""r ^ ^"'""^ '» H'' •'•'iWrrnreartr m re' :: Sfnlp:!,Tontrx:r;-;a^^ with the religious part of our constitution; whenTe shalT thu ^olL'u '''^'' ^"r" *,*'^^ *" Christian writers ai?rce that thp ^ I / ss we cannot but suppose that the manifestation of this might have been as necessary, for filling full with the knowledge of God, all the capacities of our nature as originally created in the likeness of God, as it has seemed to His wisdom, necessary, in our present condition, in order to our redemption from sin, and restoration to- His favour. We do not believe that Unitarians or any others could have invented a God that would have satisfied all the capacities of our religious nature, and cannot admit that their maimed and marred representation of His character, as revealed by Himself, would meet the exigencies of our nature, under any imaginable condi- tions or circumstances whatever. But of what use is it for Unitarians to represent their system, as it is made to appear in the above quotation from this discourse, when they know that they neither will nor can abide by it. Will they admit that the manifestation of God, aa the administrator of a perfectly righteous and inflexibly just law, would at all meet the actual exigencies of man in his present existing condition? The whole tenor of their writings, and the leading features of their sy^em, do indeed leave no reasonable room- for doubt, that they would very fain persuade themselves, that all they require at God's hand is to be dealt with according to their righteousness ; but we do not suppose they would feel that, to be a religion which their reason would approve, which left them no other hope in God but this. Like all, who do not believe in the unsearchable riches of God's mercy in Christ, revealed in the Scriptures j they also do not believe in the perfect righteousness of the law, and the in- flexible justice of the Lawgiver, revealed in the same Scriptures. Something accordingly must be put into their system, that will give hope to the sinner as well as encouragement to tho righteous. This writer seems very unwilling to admit that our nature is de- praved. Now to us this seems very strange. For to go no fur- ther in search of an illustration of the fact, how has the present controversy grown up between us, and we are not the first, and it is to be feared will not be the last, between whom such ques- tions will be agitated. A fearful mystery does indeed appear to us to hang over our present condition, view it in whatever light we may, but it shocks every feeling we have as to the character of God, to suppose that we are not heirs of a depraved nature, while yet no one ever inheriting this nature could say of God that He had always been his joy and rejoicing every moment of, his existence. We cannot understand how God has so withheld from us the tokens of His love, and shown us such terrible things in juagmeni, ii we oe i;oi a seeu ui uvu uucia, tujsuicsi niat aio transgressors. We cannot understand how any but depraved creatures should fall into disputes about the character ot their H ;i 54 ««r thoughts conce^nCTg the Wvf„.''Beinr''r'' ^r""""^ ''" "" ifl that case, would have had 3 «.h ^V None of us we think, sach as the e, that wfth Hin. ?,^h°""' )»"S^'« »''»•" ««" welcome the Tame? a„I„evt «V .T'.'^P'"""' visit, their more highly honrrW^'s^rtwokenrHu'^"'**^'"? more abundant y filled with riphpr Hift. ', " *•'* '*"»"'' and goodness. Why have we anv „fLf ? '*T, "•* l'*»*»™« »f "'» If we are as we ousht t?h« Ihl • w ir'"'?1 "^ ^"^ <>ut this ? the very saints usefowlrd, 'Pn^ "k'."""' "'"• "» *" ? Why do « terroVto me ?hl arrmv^lr»'' ^^r^' V *■"'? " B« "«" the Great Red'eeme?? « My God ' T-fr' i"""! '"'"' '"•^ '^ •aken me," if it came nnt frL ° ' ? V?' ^^''^ ••»«« ""on for- of a downcast na^re Bum., nllfh '^J"^ "■>'?"""»'''''« depths which God could seem fafaUv J.if' ^'P"" ''*'' " f*"*" f™™ If the Holy One and The f ..7 Y; *7 "*'''' "»' <"«?"" of sin? and suffering, our punishment dM I r''"'"!!'^ ""f ""« •>"' <"■'»« nature underthe te?rib e Sil™ i,!,"'^ u"*"" "•« »S»ny of our desolation, « How d"eadfn|^?.ri; 'it'" ?* \*"' "P ""at cry of digged for\herarives?" BuT?f h-* "" .P." "'"''='' ''■"•<"•' have of sinners travail „Tfor nnr ,ii ' r^^ l>e agony of no Saviour might, if the cup Zur wrath wrS'n'Mh'" '.^' l^"'"«^« »f His »aid, " it is finished " whit dLTi i^' ""*" ^™"'' »»'. ^''•'en He If tiis were the c^' of a mere f„ .T ^f !!*"8» »"«■• •» a" ? it pleased the Lord^thns to bnl?.L Pi""' ""^ ""■• ««deemer, if made not his soul a„ o'el'^^ sfn' wltXl'r'''^ ^'^ ^^ the nriffod vaDDear? Hn ttJ* • ' ™"^'^e shall the sinner and that presented to us in Unitarianism wl !u ^\*^.'"^'^ ^om tion darkened under the Reveh^^nrnf ^t^}"^' ^ ^^^^'^ ^rea- all ungodh-ness, o. brKhuL il^^^^^^^^ ^^^'"^^ it from the sun of riSirnP.r i ^ ""^ ^u^^ '^^^ ^*^^» "Pon which Unitarianf c2us reontemna'tl "T':, T^'^. *''^" ^'^^^ nor sin, nor holiness nor lifp nn^^i f^ ^^'*^^' ^«^> "^"^ ^»an> nor anx. ol*'- — ' ' "^^ ^^^^^'^ »«»" earth, nor hp«vn«' ' .im.elC«^n7wh-\rrp? tHrS ot &S£ \' / \ 1 55 haze of Unitarian speculation, as when we view them in the glass held up to us by apostles and prophets. Here we have the true picture in all the warm colours of life ; but in the other case, we can make out nothing, but that an imitation of it in some sort seems to have been intended, and even of this, we cannot feel sure; all that is not different, is so distorted and disguised, as to give the idea of an attempt at imposition rather than imitation. We do not say there is not a word of reason in this sermon, • but we have not yet met with one paragraph that could be called reasoning. If the substance of a discourse were in itself reason- able, the last thing in the world we would think of doing, would be to complain that it was set before us, without any parade of reasoning. But in a sermon decrying every other mode of mter- preting Scripture but the Unitarian one, and boasting of it, as that which in some pre-eminent manner " Scripture sanctions and reason approves," we expected that some show of proof would be attempted. The thing is not self-evident, and it is disputed. To say that here it is not proved were little to the purpose, and would come far short of the fact. No proof is attempted. We only learn that something of the kind was intended from certain forms of speech which indicate conclusions drawn from reasoning. Thus, after his appeal to the " Rational Faculty,*' and the Reli- gious element," as above exhibited, he concludes : « 80 does the Gospel, as interpreted by Unitarians, justify itself « to the capacities of our being. But there are also deep wants « ill this nature of ours, wants which religion alone can relieve. " It is needed for the protection of our frailty, for the satisfaction « of our best desires, for the comfort of our sorrows ; and in re- " spect to the demands which each class of these wants makes « upon a true religion Unitarian Christianity fulfils the condi- " tions required of it." , , . . . Whether it be simplicity on the part of the writer, which mis- takes assertion for proof, and declamation for reasoning, or dis- ingenuous calculation on the simplicity of others, that led him to suppose they would mistake the one for the other, we do not know, but whether from simplicity or disingenuousness, it is sure enough he does not deal much in reasoning. He is never tired of asserting that the doctrines of his system are most Scriptural and most rational, but of such assertions, neither from Scripture nor reason does he think it necessary to furnish us with any proof. He brings forward, it is true, a few texts to establish the doctrine of the Unity of God. They are amply sufficient for the purpose, but then who disputes the point ? He might have taken this for ,i-j —til * , ^^^(^e o* oil Rnf (\f\oa ho nnnfft P.Vftn onft passage on which those who assert the Deity of the Son, rely for establishing their assertion, in order to show that they have mis- 66 MtisO' any one, much SLn™!. ^..'"'''Jy " "<" "•« ''ay to tarian, are foun'ded on &rioZ T^i'>' "!» "'"""■"'» "f Dni- dMngenuousne,,, i„ his mafc hYXJ'JLT ' '''"' "''»"«> discussion. In sDeakinir nfri^u ■ .^ ""^ *"P'<'* now under cities and wan"s Krifure t"!rr'' "•'.?""«"• '» ""e eapa^ mitted, or could not ^denied 'f h,. 'fK*^' "'/" "^"^ «">«■• «- m the divinity of all sects flfe Si. .if " '? ' •'""""»'' P'»«e to this sonrce^in support of hU system 'XTC''^lf'""'PP'«" of the. manner in which he TonJnM^.i we neither approve something like a pecXritv of IT„1^.— ^^P**'' «' " """•« peals! nor of the eiten. In vJi.-i.'l ''*"*"''■" '" "nake such ap- ten'g the trJ^* of ^"l Z^tnintr^A '" ""'"1"' '""''"^ are intended to show iharthTl^L;- ^" "t"""'^^' therefore, their religion to theTaDa^ki«lS^ "?^ '," "■« suitableness of «eans peculiar to UuftSs and 7h*,f -"^ ""■" '""»"' " ''X "» siderabfe discussion "sreoZ'dZfo Pi, '" 'T' "*'* ""»« «»»- any such boas.i,^ is nJlTfolKsTof b'o'a^tit"'''''''^''*''' """ vo&rdo's^^trL^tt "T??' «--'^''^- opened, in which thpS!!^ j '"''•'*'=' "^ religion can be of our presint cWdSTs nTf»™x ^^ .*''^ '^"'«''' '» ""o wants this is Le to wrobomte ouJ fell " ^i"r"'"^ ""■ Sometimes in our religion as rKevefau', f i^ and deepen our convictions our admiration at the wistm Sisl^et*-''- ^""1'"''"*' '» ^^^''^ trived to serve all the purpotsS^WoK* r''" . '«''«" «''>•'- other times to call forth rnr SS '""'"«'' 't was intended, at had so carefully consMerd fn .h» ' '""*■!?' ""« •=»"'""«■•. ^ho and made snchVmX ^vision t Th"-'^^^^^ "^ ""' »"'«"<"'. niinnlest particnlarriC , „f L, Mh ,"«"«, »"PP"ed to the' to try the claims nf this, . *?' "">' "'ould not be willing by a^fu-'^dLelZil^'jif ■"'''•'»' of the UnitaZs^ There uot a preSr of «fv u" "^"1?""^ »■" «'"« S^nnd not kindle, and h Xrt beat \vh wr''"",!"?'''^ ^^^ ''»'''<» lengehlmtoacontest in th?.fi.r'f ■■* a Unitarian to chal- our^estmen, some of our ver^t,i .t"'^"'!:'"'- ^''' «""« »f highly esteemed ministers wnJu h ' °"'^'' ""' f^'^^P' niost come'forward to th^ ve^v LZ ib»T'.,?""*'?7 '" ""'^ ««»*, of eloquence and little snbtn.v } -^^u^ ^^^ ''"'' f«^ SMs ability for the strife of orS/ '?""*•='' ^"^ »» «»«'« "or i...™:„~ ...-■... """ -9' ordinary controverav. hn. ,„i.i, i ,. 57 > i- e r to meet such a challenge as this. But, however boIdJy such an one might advance to this trial of strength, with whatever con- fidence in his deeply experimental knowledge of the wants of sin- ful humanity he might open his well-mounted battery of Scrip- ture truth, sure that he had all the necessary munitions in full supply and ready at hand, we fear, that like red-hot bails shot agamst an ice-berff, all his exhortations and expostulations and arguments wonld be quenched in the cold " Rational Faculty" of the Unitarian, and recoil without effect from his heart, hardfe^ed through a vain conceit of its own righteousness. The writer of this discourf«e says, with no little self-complacency, that there is nothing in his system at which reasoa " needs to stand aghast," as there is in some others. Of this we shall say nothing, but sure we are every humble warjn-hcarted Christian, would " stand aghast" on finding that there were men, and men calling theip- selves ChristiaBfs, who saw no need of a sacrifice for sin, nor of any of those things connected with it in the doctrine of our Re- demption by Christ, of all which he feels such constant and press- ing need, that it is the never ending theme of his wonder, grati- tude, and praise, that his wants and necessities had been so well discerned, and so abundantly and carefully provided for. He would assuredly « stand aghast" at bein^ told there are some ' who say they search the Scriptures and cannot find such things, and that they are so little wanted by man, that the wise God can never be supposed to have furnished them, that they are the mere dreams of a doting superstition, and to be no otherwise es- teemed than as a " superfluity of naughtiness." The wants of Unitarians seem to be so different from those of other Christians, to use Dr. Channing's words, the ** results of their experience," are so different, that what is truth to the one is no truth to the other, however plainly a man may declare it unto them. This argument of the Unitarians will therefore seem of weight only to those " whose modes of thought and mass of impressions," are the same as their own. The argument is used by all parties, and, no doubL produces less or more effect in the hands of all. We must therefore have some more sure word of testimony than this, to produce on behalf our system, before we can expect the palm of superiority to be yielded to it by others. Nothing, we should think, but the plain testimony of Scripture can ever establish the truth of p* Christian doctrine. In whatever way a man may find his own individual Faith confirmed, he has no right to demand the Faita of others for any statement in behalf of which he is not prepared not mewly to assert, but to prove from Scrintnre. tha* ** thus saith the Lord." * 7 - It is on this principle of adaptation to the wants of our nature that the Church of Rome mainly relies, for establishing the neces- 88 nf ^.if. ? '"'*""*!.* ^."''** J" "'" "•'"«' »f "''gion, as tlm writer of this discourse denies this dogma, it may sitisfy him that IMs pi-incipio .s no infallible test of th'e truth of a relirions creed No one can read what Catholic writers have to say on Jhissub: ject, without feeling that their arguments drawn from the waSu of our nature, must have great weight with many minds from the circumstance, that man is so placed, that he muToftenTt only believe, and hope, but act in the midst of dou"?s and fear" which wealten his hands and discourage his heart when it i- much to be desired, that Le could find some ready wky of Ll^i eff tlT'i*':'' """^ "iJ? r^i'"^"^' ""distracted S/set Wm^ self to do what vras needfol to be done, witn all his taUt Sm^h a want ,s not only a real want, but a Very pressing one i"n many eaes onlywedo not believe that the Po'pe can supply {"as ittle do we believe that Unitarian ChristiaiHty <:an supprmkny real and very urgent wants of onr nature, which arefel bv thi great body of mankind, whether Unitarians fee them or not and th may be one reason why their system never becomes gen<^ 'l^ 7."". '«" •» gej nd of some form of deeply experimental Christianity when the experience has departed and the form re- mains In New England Unitarianism seems to be the ehrst Tf seek .« hir^rr'' "^.."y' "" '■<"'' "•''. «»•«» those who vai^y seek to bring it back. There was something in it human as weU as something divine. What was human and has S 1^1, wel remain buried ; but while this spectre of Unitari'anTsm Ts exulting o.er its grave, the Christianity which lived in PurUan- m IS not deadi-it liveth still-it worketh still-it I mgh7; m ted IZ ^Zu' 'T" f '"r"""'™ ^^'^^ UnitarianTcoii muted to the earth, and put under ground, placing their watch and setting their seal on the mouth of the sepulchre BuT it i,' long since the Lord of life in Christians arose.'^ Many hf^e seen Siew'„"f H^"^"? • '■" Tl '•"™''- Mo" •'» ■"" cease^o be bo™ anew of Hjs Spirit, and thus receive power to become the sons of God, because Unitarians have, to their own satisfaction proved that we are all sufficiently the sons of God through Adam Ind need not to receive any such title by adoption, S we ^?have nattre jZZ"-""^' / ^^^'^y^"' "« »" inheritance by Use ft'woSd „„ h •'"".°''r,'''.'"/P"'' some wants in our world else t would not be in it ; but it does not supply those want, fn supply which God sent His Son into the worKll of sTaceld ruth Unitarianism, too, will die! Die, we be ieve^ of imre inanition, as soon as the forms of Chri»ti«niL tZ^/l.''"!^ quickened into life. It is only on the husk8"orthe';;Sd forms It can live. Over the living Christian it has no power, and U™- 1 I 59 tarlans, we are persuaded, know themselves that it has none. Whenever they come in contact with the truir Spiritual minded worshipper of Christ, learned or unlearned, do they not intuitively feel, lor this man we have no message. If we tell him of our 1-aithj he will mourn over our delusion,— if we speak of our superior light, he will compassionate our blindness,— if we talk to him of reason and Scripture and truth, he will pity us as know- ing nothing as we ought to know, as men who thinking them- selves to be something, when they are nothing, deceive them- Aniong the wants of our nature which Unitarian views of Christianity will not supply and which Unitarians deny to be a want, IS that of a doctrine of reconciliation with God, through the blood of an atoning sacrifice. Into the Scriptural argument on this subject we do not now enter. But we observe, that when L nitarians deny this to be a want of our nature, they contradict all history. For various as have been the religious forms adopted by mankind, they all, or almost all, included something of this kinJ. We observe the Jesuits, who know the wants of human nature, as well perhaps as any men, are particularly anxious to represent Protestantism as Socinianism, that is, a religion without a sacrifice of expiation, knowing well that the doctrine of the mass, or of any other sacrifice, will come nearer to the wants of the human heart, than the doctrine of reconciliation to God with- offt any sacrifice at all. But seeing we all contrive to satisfy some of the cravings of our Spiritual nature, in ways which it must be very doubtful whether God will approve of, anil all feel wants and cravings which ought not to be satisfied nor supplied, this appeal on behalf of any religious system, that it meets our wants, must always be held a very doubtful proof that the system 18 true, and has proceeded from God. We can place no great dependence upon a judgment which depends so much upon a man's present « mass of impressions" for its truth. It may be one thing to-day, and another and very different on the next. We proceed, therefore, to consider the last ground on which he says Unitarianism rests for its justification, its agreement with Scripture. ." We take our Faith from the Bible. Unitarian Christianity II IS the Christianity of the New Testament. We find it there on every page, and we find there nothing which suggests to m a dif- ferent exposition of the Divine will The Bible is in our favour u Sr®"" beginning to end. The whole of both the Old and the New Testament must be misconstrued to yield any other than * a Unitarian interpretation. The general tenor of' Scripture is cleariy and strongly in favour oLour views, and particular pas- sages, numberiess in amount, Tonfirm the impressions which 60 « we derive from the prevalent complexion of thought and style ot expression. Let an unbiassed reader take up the Bible for the first time, and peruse it carefully, without commentary or friend near hjm to suggest what it ought to mean, and the con- viction would grow stronger upon him as he proceeded, from ^^ writer to writer, that they knew nothing about Trinilariinism, It ?u "1*"^ ®* t ^ doctrines which we have discarded from our theology Let hicj then fall upon such passages as these :— ^ Hear Israel, the Lord thy God, is one Lord.' » This is Lite eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.' ' To us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ ;' and these are specimens of innumerable similar declarations- and what judgment could he form, but that the Bible recognizes the dis- tinctlon on which we insist between Him who alone is God, and Hira who 18 the Mediator between God and man " We have not given every word of his appeal to* Scripture, for we omitted a sentence or two, which seem merely a repetition of the same thing; but we have given no words but his own, and left out no text or a luslon to a text of Scripture. Our readers have before them all he has thought proper to say on the subject. It will be seen that the first sentence might have served for the whole. « We take our Faith from the Bible ;» for, if we will not believe this on the word of the writer, he disdains to furnish us with any further proof. The texts he has seen fit to quote So not furnish us with anything of the kind. We venture to say they are, each of them, to be found appended as proofs to the articles of every « accepted Christian creed ;" brought forward there too. be it observed, for the very same purpose that they are brought forward by this writer, to prove, namely, that there is but One God, and that there is a distinction between God the father, who sends, and the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Me- diator, who IS sent He says, indeed, that they prove the very distinction on which Unitarians insist; but this we must take oil his own word. One of the texts he has not even quoted fully, r/fu '^T.'7» ^^'"'j'^' ^^"'^ '''^"s we read it : " There is One God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and Une Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him " But what we find fault with is, that he has not quoted nor con- sidered those passages of Scripture on which Trinitarians rely for .hq justification of that distinction in the Godhead, on which they msist. Besides, as we have observed before, there are many very essential diflFerences between the doctrines of Unitarianisra ana those OI our cnmrnnn flhriafianifir r.« «*»,^- „„ui^„i- !• «c « iU i /. .1 r^'V".' '-'""^tvj ^ vrn uiSSCI BUUjCUlS, US Well as on that of the Trinity, to prove which an appeal to the Scrip- ture was very necessary. But'in truth he has made nothing but our j> t 61 an empty appeal to Scripture, shadow of proof for his peculiar views from the Scripture, he adduces none. If, as he says, the New Testament, from beginning to end, is rn his favour, why has ho not cited some passage on the points about which we differ, instead of tliose in which we agree. We agree that there is only one God ; we agree that there is a dis- tinction between God the Father, and Jesus the Mediator; has he brought forward a single text to establish the nature of the distinction, or has he examined one text on which we rely, *o prove that this distinction implies a distinction in the Godhead ? Of what use is it to appeal to the general tenor of Scripture, and say that there is nothing there which suggests to us a dif- ferent exposition from the Unitarian one, with the fact staring us in the face in every page of the History of the Church, that the greal body who, in every age have been called Christians, read the Scriptures under a different impression. Was there nothing in the sayings of our Lord, to suggest a different exposition, when the Jews accused Him of blasphemy for making Himself equal with God ? This recklessness of assertion, and foolishness of boasting is puerile in the extreme. We might just as well say, that there is nothing in the constitution of the human mind vvhich leads it to hesitate about accepting the Trinitarian exposi- tion, as to say the whole tenor of Scripture is so clearly and strongly in favour of the Unitarian one, as not even to suggest anything different. The early commenced and long continued controversy on the subject, beginning with our Lord's personal ministry among the Jews, and not yet ended, will lead every one acquainted with the history of the dispute, to condemn all such sweeping assertions as unworthy the advocate of either system of Interpretation. It Is childish to make them, and the grown-up man who does so has no right to complain, if he be told, like a petulant boy, to go to his books and mind his studies, till time and reflection, and the words of the wise teach him modesty and sense, and make him such a one as a man might argue with. Such another childish assumption is this, that an unbiassed reader of the Bible would never be led to think of Trinitarianisra. B'ui where, or when could such a reader have been found ? Will the writer of this discourse, or any other person, venture to assert that it was possible to have received instruction in the religion of the Bible in any one age or country from any class of religious teachers from the days of the Apostles till now, without receiving a bias to one side or other of this question ? Did the writer really believe that it was a possible thing to read the Old and New Testaments, without having the mind in some way or other ex- .ci 3d about this question ? We doubt it. For ourselves we feel just about as certain as that we are now alive, that if all who 62 participa.i„„ i,. ,he gS d wa'reraaiTwUh"u''.:;H' ^*"'"" but w^ do w.n7r^ J:\h y tr„ UT tLnhf v'^V"' f"' ^'" ' wprp it nn# fnr #K„ -^ ^^' ^"'^^ *"6 New Testament ..ser'ed'forthe'tndSsi™ „7"'"'<'-"''".. ".P^-age which we jeeli.,n'o?S doe we S Sti L^h ^''''''l' T" "«' '»■ a believer in ihT^o^Ll. Whoever said this, whether ;„ ": 5. f,?"./*^? Scriptures or not, understood hnfh iL Sn.:!_ tures teach any other doctrine than the Divine Unity?" To which we answer of course, no where docs any part of Scripture teach any other doctrine. But there are passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which do not teach it in the Unitarian sense. Besides, though they wish to have it tiiouglit so, the Trinity is not the doctrine which lies in the heart of the Unitarian controversy. They reject the notion of a vicarious sacrifice for sin ; and in so doing, what can they make of the whole Mosaic economy ? By doing this they place man in such a relation to God, that no part of Scripture, either In the Old or the New Testament can be made to apply to it. This, no doubt, the writer perceived when he delivered the above sentence on Socinianism. But we proceed to the passage In which Redemption by the death of Christ is so Unequivocally denied, or rather rejected with affected abhorrence : " As Unitarian Christians, we differ from the self-styled Ortho- " dox of this and other lands— in our doctrine concerning the " atonement. We believe in an atonement, and in the atone- " ment ; in an atonement needed by every sinner, by which he " shall be reconciled to God, and in the atonement of which " Christ is the instrument, by bringing the sinner to God, that he " may be forgiven and justified. Nay, more ; we believe that " the atonement was the great object of Christ's mission, even as he said, * the Son of man is come to seek and to save that * * which was lo8t,» and that in this purpose we find the solution " of the mystery which overhangs his cross. But we cannot— "and we thank God that we do not—believe in a vicarions " atonement which would subvert our notions of justice, and teach " us to look upon the Heavenly Father as an Infinite Despot. " We must use strong language on this point. We reject with " abhorrence a doctrine which despoils the Divine character of " its glory, and takes from the Divine law Its most urgent sanc- " tlons. We can call that a gracious Providence which hides " instruction beneath chastisement, but we cannot call that a re- " velation of grace which shows us the Sovereign of the universe " refusing forgiveness to contrite offenders except on conditions " which they are utterly unable to fulfil, yet which are held to be " fulfilled by a technical evasion that would be sanctioned by no " Court of justice In the civilized world. Our doctrine of the " atonement is a doctrine of parental love ; the popular doctrine " of the atonement, If It were not connected with the Divine " Name, we should describe as a doctrine of cunning tyranny. " Such, I am constrained to say, painful as Is the association, Is " the light under which It seems to me to present the God and " Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I know that this dogma is " set forth as the sinner's only ground of hope. Strange affirma- *' tion 1 and yet stranger blindness, that cannot see the Invlta- '- * ■m mm m ^ i W W 64 " tion of a free mercy illuminating^ every page of the New Testa- " ment. Mercy, oh how much needed by man, how freely exer- " cised by God ! Let not the condition of man be mistaken by " the sinner, let not the character of God be misrepresented by " the theologian." That the word atonement may have some such meaning put upon it, as to enable Unitarians to say, they believe in an atone- ment, or in the atonement, is neither worth the admitting nor de- nying, as whether they tell us or not what they mean by an atonement, we are left in no doubt as to what they do not mean. They believe in no atonement through the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. They may well speak of a mystery overhanging the Cross of Christ, according to their views of the object of his suffering- and death. To them it must- be a great mystery, under which nothing lies hid, and out of which they neVer expect to see anything revealed. This seems to us the nature of their whole system, there is nothing hid under it, and nothing brought to light by it. It is a manifest lie. It seeks to represent the deep things of God, as what a man might hold up between him and the light, and fairly examine them through and through. It is not enough to say of it that it does not speak the truth in righteousness—it does not speak the truth at all,- neiti .r of God nor of man, nor of itself. The thought which is in its own heart it will not plainly declare. It believes in an atonement, in the clonement, and a mystery overhanging the cross, but what these words may mean when employed as the symbols of its Faith, is a mystery which it does not explain. It borrows the words, in which the Spirit who scarcheth all things, has revealed the unsearchable councils and purposes of God, in which to clothe its beggarly elements of human reason aind specu- lation, that the shame of its nakedness might not appear. Let it take to itself the things of God, and not the words only, and it will become something, but it will cease to be Unitarianism. Let Unitarians take firm hold of any one truth they possess, and act upon it, and try to live up to it,— of this one for instance, that God is, and is the rewarder of such as diligently seek him, and they will find it drawing them nearer and nearer to the true mystery of the cross, that great mystery of Godliness, God mani- fest in the flesh. " We cannot," he says, " and we thank God that we do not, «* believe in a vicarious atonement, which would subvert our notions » of justice and teach us to look upon the Heavenly Father as an '* infinite Despot. We reject with abhorrence a doctrine which <' despoils the Divine character of its glory and takes from the " Divine Law itr^ most urgent sanctions. We can call that a gra- " cious Providence which hides instruction beneath chastisement, 05 << but we cannot call that a revelation of grace, which shews us the " Sovereign of the Universe refusing forgiveness to contrite offena- « ers, except on conditions which they are utterly unable to fulfil, « yet which are held to be fulfilled by a technical evasion that « would be sanctioned by no Court of Justice in the civilized " world. . TT .X • • •* Were it not our design rather to expose Unitananism as it really is, than to refute its wild, unfounded, blustering assertions, we would have much to say to the above rhapsody of aflfected indignation and abhorrence. Our object is to shew that m the mouths of Unitarians, to use the words of this writer, the lan- guage of Scripture, is " perverted to be a symbol of unbelief. These arguments are of no force, and have no application, unless they are understood to be directed against the truth and inspira- tion of the Bible. If there be one doctrine more than another, of which it can be said that every thing connected with it must be decided by searching the S« ipturcs, it is the doctrine of the atonement by the death of Christ. . , x ^^ 4u^^„„h The " self-styled orthodox" may have misunderstood through iffnorance, or misrepresented from some worse bias of the under- standing, what the Scriptures do teach on this highly interesting and deeply important question, which is the true centre of every reliffious system which either is or pretends to be Christianity, but their mistakes can only be corrected by a direct appeal to bcripture. It is error on this point, rather than on the nature of the Divine Unity, from which Unitarians start in describing their circle of fallacy. It is well known that the Doctrine of the Trinity and of God manifest in the flesh, is intimately connected with the doc- trine of the atonement, in every Christian system. We do not assume the truth of our own view, nor assert the falsehood of that patronized by Unitarians. Nor assuredly against such an opponent as this, would we waste time in establishing the one or refuting the other. We pnly ask every reader, candid or uncandid, to notice the way in which this man, professing to take Scripture for his guide in the formation of his Faith, deals with this peculiarly Scriptural doctrine. How does he treat this ques- tion to which no answer can be given unless it be drawn from Revelation? Where is now his appeal to " the whole tenor of Scripture, with its general tone and style of expression to support his deniai of a vicarious atonement ? His audacity of impudence could go far, but here it stops short. The slightest allusion to Scripture in this way might have call- ed up a host of recollections dangerous to his cause. \Tin,pr« «..o h;a « «artion!flT naasaffes of Scrioture without num- TT iJCtU cllV liter I't.^'—- » £ p- n ' . 1 AUd.AU her " out of which he might have selected a few to show that there !(! 66 «ould not be within the compass of the Revelations of (inA thn mmfestation of The Lamb Ln from the fSS of the^^^^^^^^^ nei of the ungodly who believe. Why could he not find room for so much as one? How often has he proclaimed? "Hear "SfthilKnnfo**?' would support him in proclaiming? « JJ! Lov a" people, there is no ransom for sin to be found in « tl fl T" ^^T^ °^' ^° **^^ ^^'^^ beneath. The Lord himself -iZ^i ?o fntrnrr'"^/!.'^'^^ ^«"^^' ^' ^«"^d be a horHb le « wirld wi f i« ^ • '® "i'** ^ *^i"? «' ^ «^c"fi^e f«r tbe sin of the "^f *i; ." •!• ^^""^S'"*'^^'/^^ heaven, no tribunal in any part of the civdized world would admit of such a technical evasion of justice. Every man must bear the full burden of his n'JSi y or tr^T'f ''^**^^2* ^ Redeemer, saved without a Sr ust'- " fied without a sacrifice of atonement." Why not one nassa 1 nf God, not heard from, his lips on this occasion ? Are Prophets and #onld''f^^^^^^^^^ '"t'*/ '^' "*«"^™^"t ^" «"e«t and dumb ? «^^[ **^^J/?T>"?d no utterance from the mouths of the ^PrTwU-^T" IT^ °^ *^^ sophistical expositions of his e^ct^ Whvf^fJ'^r}' '""^^ '^' ^«'d «f <^«d of none Ifte an «iS f oU • f ''' "v appearances,^ is there not something i w I P.?®^* *? Scripture, if only to make the true doctrine look of GoS"^' '^Z^^^ " Tl'^ ^!!i*^"^" interpretation oHJe Word rfnS?.« •: ""^ ^"^^'J * V^^'« *^^"^« does he here venture to have recourse i^wasBot^afe on such a subject to approach Scrioiure ground at all What then does he do? He appKo the '^^^^^ tional -Facu ty," to the "modes of thinking," the "mass of cT.Tt 'WT^"^ ^^^"^ '" ^i^kednest a world" kho^t wa^mJ^K'* S- ''^ ^T "?i ^^' S«" ^'^en rie came, though was made by Him, and would not receive Him. though He came to make His soul an oflFering for its sin. ' ^ an^rtlA™^" *''f ' '"'t ^'"*^j''* '» «»eh a manner, has he Sh !f *^^ej^Pect^e should believe him, when he says his Faith is founded on Scripture ? When we set his bare assertions at naught, we place them at their true value. ButTre he offers asUfS ^''^'' 'P'"'^°' ' '''' *^'"^ ^" ^^' Serrn, we can assure him, and reasons are to weighed. This one we shall He rejects the doctrinft nf a v?nQr,v»„o «♦ x -_... , ffard had to the question, whether or not it is laid downin the iregard 67 Scripture as the foundation of a sinner's hope in GK)d. For tmy thing he has said, or appears to care, it may or may not be taught in Scripture. What he says is, " we neither do nor can be- lieve in this doctrine, because it subverts our notions of justice." What notions of justice he and other Unitarians entertain we know not. We shall not therefore enter into any enquiry as to- their general correctness. Perhaps they do not much differ from our own. We have no reason to suppose they do. What we object to is their making their own notions of justice, a measure by which to try the justice of the ways of God. That he acts upon' the principle that this is a proper method of proceed- ing is obviousy for he considers an appeal *to it as sufficient to preclude the necessity of searching the Scriptures to see whether these things be so or not. When a man says, he does not, and thanks God that he cannot believe any particular doctrine, this is as much as to say he would not and could not believe ity though it were testified to him by an angel from heaven. To the same , purpose is his fortifying this decision, framed according to' his own notions of justice, by an appeal to what would be considered cor- rect principles of jurisprudence in any Court of Justice in the ci- vilized world. Now all this clearly shews, that he considers our notions, that is human notions of justice, to be a proper standard by which to try the justice of God, in any of his dealings towards the children of men. But this we desire with equal distinctness to deny. We will not say what might or might not be sanctioned in any Court of Justice in the civilized world, for many things are, juid have been sanctioned, in all or most of them, which might with no great impropriety be called technical evasions. But as we have no desire to evade the question, whether our notions of Justice be a proper measure ly which to try the proceedings of Ood^ we say without hesitation, that according to our notions, no Court of Justice upon earth ought to sanction the principle of vicarious punishment. Though we believe every Father in his little family Court of Justice does sanction many little things on something like an approximation to this principle, and so greatly rejoices when one child is found willing to be the substitute in enduring the mortification or suffering the punishment due to another, that for the sake of the general harmony and love such noble conduct is fitted to produce, he gladly embraces the few opportunities thus presented of pardoning the offender, as a just tribute to the mag- nanimous sacrifice. He feels this to be no technical evasion of the claims of justice, but on the contrary, that it would shock, not only every generous, but every just feeling of his own heart, and in the hearts of his children, were such travail of the soul in the loving sufferer, not to be satisfied by grace extended to the cul- Snlw ^**<^»f «*JV* had been undergone. Rut we are not now undertaking the defence of the Scripture doctrine of a vicarious atonement, which needs none, and can receive none at our hand, iafof- " *j»fght and depth, and length and breadth in this raani- lestation of love in Christ which passeth knowledge, fn HilTn''!?** *^ ""^^^ manifest, is, that it is a false principle, oil 5. .* ^^^ ^*""®* ^*^® ^^*«<* ^n any particular way because accordingtoour notions of justice, He ought not so to have acted, we admit, that it would be unjust in any Court of Justice upon earth to sanction the principle of vicarious punishment. We know from what we have seen in Unitarian writers that here it 7lu ^!^^^' ?® 5^?" ™®*" *® say that justice is one thing upon earth and another thing in heaven ? Now we mean to sav noth- ing on such a wide subject of enquiry at all. Our mind is not able to grasp all the particulars of so extensive an induction, even It they were withm our reach, which they are not. Those wha raise such questions must answer them for themselves. If with- out answering them, the point cannot be decided, whether we are able trona our noti^^ns of justice to pronounce what would be iust or unjust on the part of God, it cannot be decided at all. We fiave looked into books of philosophy and also occasionally into books of jurisprudence, and while we are satisfied that there are such principles as principles of general equity, by which the con- duct of man towards men ought to be regulated, and in confor- mity with which laws should be framed to guide the decisions of the judges m courts of law, yet to us it appears that substantial justice IS best administered, according to the rules of some defi- nite code of law, duly prescribed and promulgated for putting an end to all controversies. Even these attain the end very imper- lectiy. But on principles of strict abstract justice, we doubt whe- tber any controversy could ever be brought to an end, if parties on all sides were to be heard till they had no more to say on tlieir own behalf which could wear any colour of justice. We believe, however, that between the law written on our heart, the law written in the Bible, the law of the land, and the law of public opinion, we are all able, in ordinary circumstances, to pro- nounce witH tolerable certainty when a man has and when he has not acted justly. Our notions of justice suffice for such a iudff- mentasthis. , •» "s We are men, and we know with tolerable exactness, what in particular circumstances it is righteous for a man to do. We try hini by Jj^^se^ rules jvhich should regulate our own conduct, and as ^8 IS wound by the laws of the same nature which he posseases in common with us, we can do so without going very far astray. * > . I , But we are men and not God, and do not know, and cannot judge Him in the same way. The law of our nature is not the law of Hisj—what may be righteoua in Him, may be very un- riffhteous in us. But we will try the principle on a particular case, as we feel very diffident in dealing with such a subject m general terms, and would not have spoken so confidently, if we had not a particular case in view, which we think decides the with regard to the case in hand, with regard to which, it is said in the discourse, that the doctrine of a vicarious atonement by Christ represents God as acting unjustly, we have to observe, that in making this charge, the writer of course takes for granted that Christ is not God ; those who think they see any injustice in this proceeding, see in Jesus only a man, if we view Him going through the transaction, as God as well as man, an end is at once put to all speculation on the question of its justice. We wish, therefore, to test the principle on which it is attempted to get aside the testimony of Scripture, concerning the doings ot God by an appeal to the notions of justice, current among men, by trying this principle, as a rule for deciding with regard to some of His more ordinary dealings with us, than this awful mys- tery of godliness seen in the atoning death of Christ, m virtue of which the redeemed are called in Scripture the " Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood." A case of this kind is not one by which to try the principles even of God's own ordi- nary providence. We wish to abate the arrogance of presump- tuous men, by an appeal to some less overpowering instance of the unsearchableness of His ways, that they may know how far past our finding out are all His judgments, and how vam a thing it is, to think to try Him by the test of even His own righteous law, which He has given to us as the guide of our life, and which if we keep, we shall do no iniquity, neither shall any unrigiteous- ness be found in us. But it is no part even of this law, His own law. to enable us to sit in judgraenfupon Him, or pronounce con- cerning the righteousness of His ways. The case ot a vicarious atonement could not be brought into, nor tried in any Court of Justice upon earth. It is no principle in human jurisprudence, except in matters of money or service, or the thousf'jir^ affairs of - suretyship about which decisions are pronounced every day, i^ sneak of which in such a case, would be only to affront the (^reat doctrine of our Redemption. We are content it be allowed to stand alone without an analogy whereby to justify it, so long as we have the clear testimony of Scripture to assure us that it is true. 15UI we snau suppose u i;aoc tt«iv« »..g,..v ,,. ,.i-_ -- — ,, Court of Justice upon earth, or sent before a jury of mtelhgeut 70 one of oar brethren to the VoZw^riff .W <"'"«e™«g ««»ne prove, or have it admitted that Km V ^'^P?'* ^ »''<">M 6nt sippoae the follSg th Sgl t™ Drovid"°w" /J? '"""''"•• him not denied, and thi „Ti?tT- P^"?'?" "gamst him, or by Snppose it proved that he w^te''°" "^ •■'' """-Jnct wi hheld^ when the foul deed Was dJf ^^'J^f ""' """i """ding close by murderer's ISr-thaThTna 17"' P'^ectly a«lre of the wherewith it was Zpetra ed h«v „I . ^f^"} '■"» "» band, Bse to which it woKfrot -Z L T''*.'? '""T'edge of the ing of his danger, ?hough'heV7u?deasilfh» *''5 ^'"'"' "" '^''"- easured his esrane — thit Z * j f '^ ''"''* ^""^ ">. and thus sassin, thoughTUd have dol ."„' TfJ' "■" "o^ "^ ""e as- ofhu'hand,i even atX^f g?rh»;/y '*« ««™ stretching out to be al establishet! powerless before itwareffectrd? W^' t„^'' T?' '"'ve fallen been our own duty in such a 11 »! t ''^' '^''"''' ""ave been any man's duty in sich a pf=!' ''«,''"»«' what would have this man's duty in i "as" am^'n^' know therefore what was him, and condemn hS^cScf w"if " J"?''ST"' """^erning him and by ithe is ffuntv a„Z '"J"'* "i*" ^r which to try would trv Rni hv Mi/i ^' *"" ''*»^^ condemned. But jf t e seTref^e in ifh^m Bv fS' ™""^^""' ?™ "^"t"!''. ', or of all thelarth do S' Z ^^t' "" k^'- "''*" "^* '^c /u'dge by the rules whMde court/ .f tT.' ^^"^ '" *7 -' »»duct " modes of thought," and the « mai^f^L"?"'' "»'!''' ''^ ""' "W" assu.dly fan i4 i^rsfriS: err :L7eL2'll%- '^^^ " .«.«.nans therefore wish to obtain any cfedTtlo'tbeiV vj„:e- . n ment, that they receive the Scriptures as the Word of God, they must put themselves to the trouble of shewing, that their doc- trines are there revealed, and that ours are not. This senseless raving about what is righteous or unrighteous for God to do, can pass for nothing but so much unmeaning rant, or something worse. We have seen how a Unitarian preacher, without troubling himself about Scripture, allows himself to rail, at the bare men- tion of a vicarious atonement, as subversive of all law and justice, while yet it is hardly possible to attach any meaning to passages of Scriptare occurring in almost every page, without supposing that this very principle of a vicarious atonement is the very one to which we are to look for our hope of acceptance with God. To shew how differently others judge, as zealous for the glory of God, and the salvation of men, as rational, and as sound in their jiotions of justice, as any Unitarian can hope to be esteemed by any but himself ; we shall quote a passage from the writings of Dr. Chalmers. Let us hear what this great and good divine, and truly humble and pious Christian, says on the same subject. We could easily have selected passages speaking more directly on the value which Christians set on the doctrine of deliverance from punishment, by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, but we prefer this one, as shewing how very differently the same subject will appear to different persons, ^s viewed through their differing " masses of impressions" and *^ results of experience ;" and how uncertain therefore all conclusions drawn from such sources are, when they cannot be supported by saying, " Thus it is written, and thus saith the Lord." Many Christians hesitate to admit the doctrine of the imputa- tion of Christ's righteousness , in order to our justification, vvho do not hesitate to admit that their sins were imputed to him, when he suffered and died for them on the cross. Still more, stumble at the imputation of Adam's guilt to all his posterity, but with all who believe in Christ, the question on all these points must be left for decision to the testimony of the Word of God. When they give or ask a reason for the Faith that is in them, it must still run in this form, " thus it is written, and thus we read in tli« Scriptures of truth." The passage we are ahout to quote, was evidently composed late in life, and delivered to the students under his instruction, as the result of much reflection on the doctrines of Scripture, and a matured experience of their practical power over the life and conversation : " We confess that we hailed it as a great acquisition, when W€ a nrsi became acquainted with Edwards's view oi ** imputation, and rejoiced in it as another instance of the accord- « fhlfl'^^'''' "''•''''"'■ ^:'"'*" *■>« s'-angellsm of the Bible and those discoveries which are gained by a deeoer insiVht i„/„ .fc« constitution of human natuif, or into^be el^et "o?™ „,"aU„S metaphysical science. It is the parallelism which the ScrhZrp "S'of cm:,",''' • iTP"""'"" »' ^-^''■»'' g«i't and thelpn! tat on of Christ s righteonsness, which has broken no this il. L-'iri."'.' ?"'" '^^".^ " '" be-becanse not consistent eUher rim™, I ? ,*'T™t' "' ' i." '^'■'"O' »' ^i"" the findings expt rimenlal Uiristianity. If even the most perfect of the reeeSl rate on earth had no higher desert to trust in than the dS^ bis ne»y obedience, it would not avail for his iustification eemg that his best services are alloyed by the sad mix?Sre "^ instigation of Ins remaining infirmities; and therefore it,? that he prize, as the most sacred and excel ent of all his tfeasnres ' the righteousness of Christ, which he is invited to rn»tfw' •' G^d"' "tYf ^hf r If "" "r "- plea for'll; anoe w^h «! .^" . . •"'° "l^'ie^er, or the man who is saved in ChrisL » thus taken into favor, in virtne of a direct part and interest n J ' T'^ ?' ■"'. ^'■'5'" ^'^^' ">« "lediator o? the New S. «the^ and r^^'rA"." """t'*'" ""> Pa^lle'i^mTetween •< .„!i I : ? A , '««^n«r Adam, the man who is not a believer and l<«t m Adam, is an outcast from the Divine favor in Se of a direct part and interest in the guilt of him' whoil God las been pleased to deal with as the ripresentativ'e of Si Ws no^ y on the principles of jurisprndfence, is in every way as mvf terious, or as ninch beyond the ken of our natural Semmenf as the jurisprudence of the other ; and there s as great r^.Ton why on the first imputation as well as the second.^and on he "ra1.h":r]i;'K':S;-''-''< ^'«'^« '"-'^efe'-et ?mu,rM'':TlrT' ^"^H'" "r be^ laid hold of as an oj: poitunity, to establish on the authority of reason and ScriDtiirp deri "L': lnorl"Ti.r"',' ""' '" ^"'^ """ "'-'" eS es' aenve no support, either from reason or Revelation: The fiiNt IS not necessary it is done in each of our pulpits from day to day in the preaching of the Gospel, so as to commendft to eTeJv man s conscience. For the second we thought "would be S effec ual ly accomplished, by setting in as Z 7^1 as we vance' i^ tha f nf7" ■'""'■ '^'="P'"''^. ""^^ '>'«' '^<^^^^^^ '» ad- vance III behalf of their opinions, and f this discourse be a f-iip E'™!" «* '"cir reasoning, it 'needs no other JeX! t VZ ■uting a„j- erroneous tenets they may choose to 'advance,' they 73 must put forward some very diflferent defence of their system than that which we have passed under review. They must put for- ward one in which they themselves furnish the arguments on which they rest their doctrines, and not a set of mere boastful assertions of their truth, reasonableness, and foundation in Scrip- ture. Had we endeavoured to overthrow the dogmas of this discourse, we must have first invented reasons and then answered them, which would have been to fight very uncertainly, and as one that beateth the air. To defend ourselves against what we deem the repetition of slanders, which have already been replifid to for the thousandth time, seems alike unprofitable and va.n. It is not thus the Scriptures teach us to put to silence the igno- rance of foolish men. To instruct the ignorant, is what not only every Christian, but almost every man, is ready to do, and to do it in a spirit of kindness. To remove prejudices, which silently oppose the reception of the truth, is what every teacher of right- eousness seeks to do, with all the discretion and tenderness he may be so fortunate as to possess. To meet, and resist, and re- pel, the assaults of such enemies as assail the citadel of the Church, with the weapons of their own warfare, the carnal wis- dom of man. Is a task which those who are appointed to watch over and guard it, should never neglect nor decline. But when men profess to be soldiers of Christ, who are not, and seek to enter in amongst us, we must shut the gates in their face, and ' hold no parley with them, till we have them fairly on the outside. The question of questions between us and them is, are they or are they not Christians ? The more opportunities they take to tell us what Unitarianism is, the more occasions will they afiford us of testing whether it be Christianity or not, and this is the principle on which it should be tried. Our enquiry ought not to be whether their religion be or be not a rational religion, but whether it be the Christian religion or no ? We have no need with them, to enter into questions about differences on minor points, as in our contests with each other, for a whole religion is in debate between them and all others who bear the Christian name. We have no need to enter into debates with them about the truth of Scripture, as with the unbeliever, for whether Christianity be of God or of man, if it be Unitarianism, it is another Gospel than that which we all suppose we have received. Is Unitarianism Christianity ? is the point to which this con- troversy should be steadily held down, by all who desire to see Unitarianism treated in the world as it deserves. It is, we be- lieve, an Impostor, and to be treated as such. Their having to print the title, " Christian Church " over their places of worship, and publish Discourses, to prove that Unita- 74 rians are Christians, shews that their claims are felt to be of a yerjr dubious and equivocal character. This is one thing which Unitarianism seems to do in the worid. It proclaims that the Church of Christ is not hid, and cannot be so buried under the rubbish of man's inventions, as to become utteriy unknown and undistinguishable in the v^imd, hi every sect which this Uni- tarian preacher has enr-^e, at.^. J denounced, from the Church of Rome to the Baptists, men of this world recognize in some of their members disciples of Christ. There is in some of all these something which, to them, savours of the Bible, and does not savour of this worid, and they can distinguish the Saviour, but somehow or other, even to the unbeljp oi, oi iiiis religion of the Bible Unitarianism savours not. il -q^FINIS.^' r