and estimation, humble as it was, was as great in the last as in the first period of his ministry. To decline a possible distinction, and to lay aside a distinction already possessed, are certainly things very distinct; nor is it easy to conjecture why, if the former was intended, the latter is expressed: besides that, admitting such a confusion of language to be possible, the conception conveyed bears no relation to the form of God.

The words of the apostle evidently suppose that our Saviour possessed, in the first instance, some great and extraordinary distinction; that, in the execution of his commission, from motives of pure benevolence, he submitted to a state of great comparative meanness and humiliation. The order of the words, as well as the very species of excellence they are designed to illustrate and enforce, necessitate the placing of the dignified attribute first. But on the hypothesis of the simple humanity of Christ, the real order of things, the actual course of events, is just the reverse. Our Saviour, on that hypothesis, was elevated immensely above his native condition by his delegation as the Messiah, and from a state of extreme obscurity and poverty, he became, in consequence of it, possessed of the form of God. His poverty and meanness compose the first stage of his history; and whatever elevation above his equals he afterward possessed, was purely the effect of his appointment to the office of the Messiah. So that in the office he sustains he exhibits a marvellous instance of incredible elevation from meanness, instead of affording a striking example of voluntary humiliation. On the Socinian hypothesis, the whole of what is truly admirable is, that a mean and obscure individual should have been raised from so much meanness, not that he voluntarily submitted to it. It must be obvious to the thoughtful and intelligent that this hypothesis completely frustrates the design of the passage, and presents the whole matter in an inverted position.

His public undertaking, in the room of affording an unparalleled instance of condescending benevolence, is the greatest example of eminent virtue conducting to illustrious honour the world ever witnessed.

In a complex train of action, involving considerable space of time and a great variety of events, if there be any conspicuous feature insisted on in the character of the agent, it ought to be of such a nature as to pervade the whole mass. The benevolence and condescension of our Lord are uniformly represented by the inspired writer as actuating him in the whole course of his proceedings, as the chief spring of his conduct, so as to characterize his whole undertaking. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," saith St. Paul, "how that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich." His giving himself for the church is celebrated as a most interesting instance of condescension and love. But if, apart from his public engagements, as the great Teacher sent from God, he possessed no separate nor original dignity,—if to these engagements he is indebted for all that distinguished him above the meanest peasant in Galilee, what candour or sobriety appear in such representations? If we listen to the writers of the New Testa

ment, his undertaking the office he sustained was a proof of matchless humility; if we look to the facts, we find all the honour he ever possessed was the pure result of these offices. That it is possible to combine with such views of his character the admission of an eminent portion of virtue, we are far from denying; but it is not that sort of virtue, nor includes any of that sacrifice of personal honour and interest, which such representation supposes.

ས.

ON THE SPIRIT AND TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM.

PSALM XIX. 7.-The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

THE minute examination of the minor parts of a great and complex object will not suffice to give us a just conception of it, unless it is joined with an attentive survey of it as a whole. We have hitherto been occupied with the consideration of the errors of the Socinian or Unitarian system in detail. We have endeavoured to evince the opposition of several of its fundamental tenets to the clear, unequivocal testimony of Scripture; and in the course of the inquiry have felt the necessity of descending to minute distinctions and tedious discussions. Could we even suppose the reasoning employed in the several branches of this extensive argument to have wrought all the conviction we could wish, the conclusion might still continue destitute of an adequate impression of the general character and tendency of the system against which these discourses have been directed. Instead of attempting a recapitulation of the topics discussed and the arguments adduced, useless as it would possibly be if slight and general, and insufferably tedious if accurate and extensive, allow me to close these lectures by directing your attention to some of the distinguishing characteristics of the system designated by the appellation of Modern Unitarianism.

I. It will occur to the most superficial observer to remark, that as far as it differs from the orthodox, it is almost entirely a negative system, consisting in a bold denial of nearly all the doctrines which other denominations are wont to regard as the most vital and the most precious. It snatches from us almost every thing to which our affections have been habituated to cling, without presenting them with a single new object.

It is a cold negation, a system of renunciation and dissent, imparting that feeling of desolation to the heart which is inseparable from the extinction of ancient attachments, teaching us no longer to admire, to adore, to trust, or to love-but with a most impaired and attenuated affection-objects in the contemplation of which we before deemed it

safe, and even obligatory, to lose ourselves in the indulgence of these delightful emotions.

Under the pretence of simplifying Christianity, it obliterates so many of its discoveries, and retrenches so many of its truths,—so little is left to occupy the mind, to fill the imagination, or to touch the heart,—that when the attracting novelty and the heat of disputation are subsided, it speedily consigns its converts to apathy and indifference. He who is wont to expatiate in the wide field of revelation, surrounded by all that can gratify the sight or regale the senses, reposing in its green pastures and beside the still, transparent waters, reflecting the azure of the heavens, the lily of the valley, and the cedar of Lebanon, no sooner approaches the confines of Socinianism, than he enters on a dreary and melancholy waste. Whatever is most sweet and attractive in religion, whatever of the grandeur that elevates, or the solemnity that awes the mind, is inseparably connected with those truths it is the avowed object of that system to subvert; and since it is not what we deny, but what we believe, that nourishes piety, no wonder it languishes under so meager and scanty a diet. The littleness and poverty of the Socinian system ultimately ensures its neglect, because it makes no provision for that appetite for the immense and magnificent which the contemplation of nature inspires and gratifies, and which even reason itself prompts us to anticipate in a revelation from the Eternal Mind.

By stripping religion of its mysteries, it deprives it of more than half its power. It is an exhausting process, by which it is reduced to its lowest term. It consists in affirming that the writers of the New Testament were not, properly speaking, inspired, nor infallible guides in divine matters; that Jesus Christ did not die for our sins, nor is the proper object of worship, nor even impeccable; that there is not any provision made in the sanctification of the Spirit for the aid of spiritual weakness, or the cure of spiritual maladies; that we have not an intercessor at the right-hand of God; that Christ is not present with his saints, nor his saints, when they quit the body, present with he Lord; that man is not composed of a material and immaterial principle, but consists merely of organized matter, which is totally dissolved at death. To look for elevation of moral sentiment from such a series of pure negations would be "to gather grapes of thorns, and figs of thistles,"-to extract "sunbeams from cucumbers."

II. From hence we naturally remark the close affinity between the Jnitarian system and Deism. Aware of the offence which is usually taken at observations of this sort, I would much rather waive them, were the suppression of so important a circumstance compatible with doing justice to the subject. Deism, as distinguished from atheism, embraces almost every thing which the Unitarians profess to believe. The Deist professes to believe in a future state of rewards and punishments, the Unitarian does no more. The chief difference is, that the Deist derives his conviction on the subject from the principles of natural religion; the Unitarian from the fact of Christ's resurrection. Both arrive at the same point, though they reach it by different routes,

Both maintain the same creed, though on different grounds: so that, allowing the Deist to be fully settled and confirmed in his persuasion of a future world, it is not easy to perceive what advantage the Unitarian possesses over him. If the proofs of a future state upon Christian principles, be acknowledged more clear and convincing than is attainable merely by the light of nature, yet as the operation of opinion is measured by the strength of the persuasion with which it is embraced, and not by the intrinsic force of evidence, the Deist, who cherishes a firm expectation of a life to come, has the same motives for resisting temptation, and patiently continuing in well doing, as the Unitarian. He has learned the same lesson, though under a different master, and is substantially of the same religion.

The points in which they coincide are much more numerous, and more important, than those in which they differ. In their ideas of human nature, as being what it always was, in opposition to the doctrine of the fall; in their rejection of the Trinity, and of all supernat ural mysteries; in their belief of the intrinsic efficacy of repentance, and the superfluity of an atonement; in their denial of spiritual aids, or internal grace; in their notions of the person of Christ; and, finally, in that lofty confidence in the sufficiency of reason as a guide in the affairs of religion, and its authority to reject doctrines on the ground of antecedent improbability;—in all these momentous articles they concur. If the Deist boldly rejects the claims of revelation in toto, the Unitarian, by denying its plenary inspiration, by assuming the fallibility of the apostles, and even of Christ himself, and by resolving its most sublime and mysterious truths into metaphors and allegory, treads close in his steps. It is the same soul which animates the two systems, though residing in different bodies; it is the same metal transfused into distinct moulds.

Though Unitarians repel, with sufficient indignation, the charge of symbolizing with Deists, when advanced by the orthodox, they are so conscious of its truth that they sometimes acknowledge it themselves. In a letter to Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestley, speaking of the celebrated Jefferson, President of the United States when he arrived at America, says, "he is generally reported to be an unbeliever;" he adds, "but if so, you know he cannot be far from us."

(Here introduce the passages from Smith's Testimony, Vol. I.) There was a certain period in my life when I was in habits of considerable intercourse with persons who, to say the least, possessed no belief in Christianity. Of these, it was never my lot to meet with one who did not avow great satisfaction in the progress of Socinianism; they appeared to feel a most cordial sympathy with it, and to view its triumphs as their own. They undoubtedly considered it as the natural opening through which men escape from the restraints of revealed religion; as the high road to that complete emancipation which awaits them in the regions of perfect light and liberty.

Whoever has attentively investigated the spirit of modern infidelity must perceive that its enmity is pointed chiefly to those very doctrines which Unitarians deny; that their dislike is not so much to the grand

notion of a future state of rewards and punishments, which sober Theists admit, as to the belief of the fall and the corruption of human nature, which are professed as the basis of the doctrine of redemption. It is, as it originally was, the cross of Christ which is foolishness to these Greeks; and here our opponents are confederated with them, and affirm themselves most faithful and zealous allies. Infidels, however they may dissent from the pretensions to a revelation, will feel no lively interest in impugning it while it imposes no necessity of believing what materially contradicts their prejudices and passions. Their quarrel is not so much with the medium of communication as with the doctrine conveyed: and here Socinianism offers a most amicable accommodation, by assuring them of a future state, in which the perfections of the Supreme Being oblige him to render them eternally happy. These men are not so perverse as to feel any repugnance to a Deity who has no punitive justice, and an eternity which has no hell. It is the constant boast of our opponents, that their system gives them such an advantage in an attempt to win over infidels to the Christian cause, by its being purged of those doctrines which afford the chief matter of offence; and in this representation there is doubtless some appearance of truth. But whether, upon that account, they are likely to be more successful in converting [them] than ourselves, may well be made a question. For, in the first place, they will not find it so easy a task as they suppose to convince them that the obnoxious tenets are not the doctrines of the gospel; and next, if they should succeed in this, the difference between their system and pure Theism is so slight and inconsiderable, as to make it appear a matter of great indifference which they adopt. Unless they are prepared to call in question the moral attributes of Deity and a future state, they are all in possession of the Unitarian gospel already, and that by a mode of acquisition more flattering to the pride of reason. In a much vaunted seminary, or college, as it was called, established above thirty years back, for the avowed purpose of propagating Unitarianism throughout the kingdom, I have the highest authority* for affirming that a great proportion of the students became skeptics and unbelievers, and of none more than from those who attended the theological lectures. Had that institution continued, it bid fair to become the most prolific hot-bed of infidelity this country ever knew. Among those who had an education completely Socinian, it is matter of palpable observation, that infidelity has prevailed to a great extent; nor will the genuine tendency of that system have an opportunity of completely developing itself, in this respect, until the existing generation is swept away. In the denomination where it chiefly prevails, it has recently supplanted Arianism, under which the greater part of its present disciples were educated, so that its influence in the formation of character has been shared with a preceding system, which, however erroneous, is far removed from that total abandonment of all the peculiarities of the gospel which is involved in the Socinian creed.

* Hackney College. The authority here referred to is that of the late Dr. Abraham Rees, who was one of the professors.-ED.