Word was made Flesh;" or, otherwise, whether or not, Christ was a mere man. After the subsequent arguments have been impartially considered, the Reader will determine in what degree the language is justified, which affirms, that Unless the Divine Nature of Christ be established, the whole Bible becomes an inexplicable labyrinth, where the mind is bewildered by contradictions and endless incongruities, whilst, with the admission of this truth, darkness vanishes, and a beam of ineffable light irradiates the whole Christian Economy.

The object proposed at this time is not of a sectarian nature; it is not to obtain the triumph of Arminianism, or Calvinism over some other section of the Christian world, but, on the contrary, to defend the outworks of Christianity itself, against the attacks, it must be said, of the most subtile and insidious class of Heretics that ever invaded the sacred precincts of Religion, confederated under the specious, but deceptive name of “Unitarian Christians." It is most painful to apply such language to a whole class of Religionists, but circumstances, like the present, may arise, when, not to denounce error, is to compromise truth.

Each doctrine which has become the subject of controversy, will be separately considered, on the authority of Scripture alone, with all the succinctness, compatible with perspicuity; when, it is hoped, the poverty and unfounded assumptions of the whole Socinian System will be made apparent. If this result should not be fully accomplished, it will arise from the incompetency of the agent, not the badness of the cause.

And here it may be noticed that one peculiarity is manifested by Socinians, in the promptitude with which they renounce old friends, without forsaking them; and assume new aspects, while their positions are stationary. After Socinians, in a general conclave, had issued their "New Version," under the surreptitious auspices of Archbishop Newcome, and which was to effect revolutions in the Theological World; being presented to the public, as the deliberate and aggregate wisdom of their whole "Committee of Management," they found that all the First Scholars of the day* concurred in denouncing, both the "Version," and its Notes, as a flagrantly vicious display of irreligion, and, what to Socinians must have been still more caustic, of "imbe

cility," and "defective scholarship." When this unexpected result became undeniable, and the current of public opinion set

*Archbishop Magee. Mr. Rennell. Bishop Burgess. Dr. Nares. Mr. Veysie. Bishop Middleton. Dr. Lawrence. Dr. J. P. Smith. Mr. Travers. Dr. Hales. Mr. S. T. Coleridge. &c.

in strong against their vaunted work, many of the leading members of the Conclave itself, joined in the condemnatory sentence; excluded it from their public services, and, under the untoward circumstances of the case, very complacently transferred the discredit, from themselves, to Mr. Belsham; the chief compounder. But, instead of the disclaimer being left to these irresponsible individuals, it ought to have emanated from the Committee, in their collective capacity, so as to exonerate the Society, of which they were the representatives. This procedure might have incurred blame, but it would have proved candour, in acknowledging the rashness with which they had, in an unguarded moment, sent a work into the world, so preeminently distinguished for "crude learning," and "extravagant glosses; which all perceived, and which they themselves could neither palliate, nor deny.

But there is another lineament in Socinians, arising out of the facility with which they change their phases, in accommodation to the pulse of the Public; that is, their exterior aspect, while they essentially stand on the same ground. The later Socinians deviated in some few particulars from their Founder; and the present race of Socinians, perceiving the general adverse feeling which their unchristian tenets excited, have apparently softened some of them down, yet without renouncing any one fundamental feature in their creed. Error here approaches in a more specious, and therefore the more dangerous form. While Socinians deny the Divine character of Jesus Christ, in every substantial meaning, whatever other modified sentiments they avow, they are, in the most legitimate sense, Socinians. Their relaxation of inferior doctrines may deceive the unwary, and induce them to regard the wolf with diminished repugnance, from his artificial covering, but his nature is the same.

The Religious public should be cautioned also on another point. The custom should be relinquished, into which some have inconsiderately fallen, of denominating Socinians, “Unitarians." Socinians not only, at present, thus describe them. selves, but very naturally prefer this misnomer, as it conveys an invidious import, and appears to imply that they alone worship one God, while Trinitarians worship three. This is a gross perversion of the truth, as has been shown a thousand times. But the phrase "Unitarian," is not only invidious, but it is inappropriate. Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians, of every name, are all Unitarians, which is the genera, whence all the individual classes proceed. Polytheism is now unknown in the civilized

world, and no one can equitably apply that epithet exclusively to himself which is common to all. For Socinians, therefore, to arrogate to themselves this title, is as unjustifiable as it would be in natives of Tartary to describe themselves as Men, and renounce the distinction of Asiatics. Conventional names are indispensable; and it should be remembered that Arminians do not pledge themselves to adopt the complete system of Arminius; nor do Calvinists subscribe indiscriminately to the whole Institutes of Calvin. On the same principle, Socinians may differ, on subordinate points, from Socinus, but their class of sentiments originated in him, and for ages sustained that accredited designation. If Socinians are now dissatisfied with their Leader, let them enlist under a different banner, and call themselves, Priestleyites, or Belshamites, but let them not assume, as a badge of their order, a dishonest name, and that for sinister ends.

Mr. Belsham, who was the leading champion of his sect, after the demise of Dr. Priestley, describes himself, in his review of Mr. Wilberforce, as a "Teacher of moral Christianity," and professes to admire, almost universally, the tenets of Lepaux, the Theophilanthrope of revolutionary France. The sentiments of this man's school were confessedly Deistical, approximating closely on Atheistic; and yet Mr. B. with admirable frankness, declares that, with the exception of the Resurrection, Lepaux's principles 'comprehended the essence of the Christian religion." (That is Mr. B.'s!) Let the partisans of Mr. Belsham, if they like it, assume the imposing designation of, Theophilanthropists. None will dispute with them the honour; and then they would be found marshalled under their true colours. If they object to this, not unsuitable name, they must, as honourable men, recur to that of Socinians; and by that appellative alone, others should invariably distinguish them.

66

The following pages will successively show that Socinianism is alike hostile to all Churches, and all Denominations; and, more especially, to the letter of the Bible, and the whole spirit of Christianity. The evidence here to be adduced, is addressed exclusively to those, who are competent to weigh the force of argument, and whose understandings are sufficiently unbiassed to admit the undeniable dictates of Truth. The following is a recapitulation of the order pursued, as well as of the subjects chiefly insisted upon; taking the sentiments as commonly held by the Socinian Body; subject, of course, to slight individual variations.

One of the principal tenets of Socinians, is, that our Lord

Jesus Christ was a mere man, the Son of Joseph and Mary. This heresy has been considered, and refuted, by the clearest scriptural evidence, in Essay the First.

Socinians, in one branch of their faith, accord with all Christians, by admitting that Christ will be our future Judge. The inconsistency of this belief in those who advocate, what they call, "The simple humanity of Christ," has been illustrated in Essay the Second.

The next tenet advanced by Socinians, is, the Materiality of the Soul, with its sleep of insensibility till the Judgment Day. The unscriptural nature of this faith has been pointed out in Essay the Third.

The next feature in the Socinian creed, is, the denial of the pre-existence of Christ. The baseless nature of this tenet has been shown in Essay the Fourth.

The next tenet of Socinians, is, the rejection of Eternal Punishment; or a belief, that all men, indiscriminately, will finally be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. The antiscriptural nature of this faith, with its pernicious tendency, has been shown in Essay the Fifth.

The next tenet of Socinians, is, the rejection of Satan, as a powerful, and malignant Being. This has been shown to be completely at variance with the whole tenour of Scripture, in Essay the Sixth.

The next tenet of Socinians, is, a denial of a Hell. This sentiment has been refuted by the clearest Scriptural testimony, in Essay the Seventh.

The next tenet avowed by Socinians, is, a rejection of the Doctrine of the Atonement, with the belief that Redemption is to be obtained alone by works, and not through the merits and sacrifice of Christ. The doctrine of the Atonement, it has been shown, is clearly taught in Scripture, and proof has been adduced that it is the cement of, and the most essential part of Christianity, in Essay the Eighth.

The next tenet of Socinians is a denial of the Holy Spirit, as distinct from the Father. This sentiment is shown to be inconsistent with the attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit, which are applicable alone to Deity, and are yet inapplicable to the Father-in Essay the Ninth.

The remaining portions of the work, (in the Second Part,) are of a more miscellaneous nature, although generally bearing on the subject of Socinianism, and in language as studiously moderate AS TRUTH WOULD ALLOW. After a serious and candid consider

ation of the body of evidence and argument here advanced, it will be for the discriminating Reader to determine whether Socinianism, in its whole system, be not vitally opposed to "the Doctrine of Christ," and the Religion of the Bible. That the sentiments, here entertained of Socinians, are in accordance with those of the whole Christian Community, may be inferred from the following citations.

"Our union with the Unitarians, [Socinians] is purely civil and secular. In religious matters, between them and the other Dissenters, there is an impassable gulf. There is not, there cannot be, any religious union or communion. Our differences touch those vital points which render it impossible."

Dr. J. P. Smith.

"The Socinian (who calls himself Unitarian) is, under the name of Christian, the decided enemy of Christianity, and under the guise of a translator of the New Testament, a deliberate falsifier of the Gospel: one who would clandestinely steal from the Christian, all that forms his consolation, and his hope." Archbishop Magee.

"To what skeleton-meagreness, to what an absolute nonentity is Christianity reduced by the avowed principles of Socinians. How thoroughly is it bereft of every thing peculiar, of every thing worthy of being even designated by a distinctive name; how much less of being the subject of all prophetic, and apostolic inspiration, of a four thousand years' preparatory administration of providence, and of the interposition of Omnipotence, by "signs and wonders, and gifts of the Holy Spirit" to attest, and recommend it to mankind!-I have the most friendly good will toward the persons of Socinians, such as should lead me to seek from Heaven, on their behalf, the influences of that Spirit, whose existence they deny, to bring them to that Saviour whose divine dignity, and atoning mediation they disown. I wish it to be understood distinctly, and without reserve, that my charity is confined to their persons; that toward their system I have no feeling but that of serious, and settled abhorrence: regarding it as a system which selects for a denial and proscription every thing that I conceive to be distinctive of Christianity; which divests it of all its principles of moral and spiritual influence; which destroys the hopes of a guilty world by subverting and sweeping away with the besom of destruction, their only foundation; which, in a word, annihilates the Gospel! With what other sentiments than those of grief and horror can I possibly contemplate it?" Dr. R. Wardlaw.