men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;' that 'all are concluded under sin;' that all are by nature children of wrath,' being children of disobedience;' that all are shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin.' These declarations, to which the whole history of man gives the fullest attestation; and to which there is not even one solitary contradiction in fact, certainly stand with the Unitarians for nothing, or for nothing like what the words themselves customarily mean. In their view, we are not by nature the children of wrath, as not being children of disobedience; we are not shapen in iniquity, nor conceived in sin; we are not concluded, or shut up together, under sin; and every imagination of our hearts, as they believe, is not evil from our youth.

2. The impossibility of justification by our own righteousness, is another of these doctrines.

To justify is to declare a being, placed under a law, to be just or righteous; or, in other words, to have done that which the law required. Mankind are placed as subjects under the law of God. They have not done what the law required, and therefore cannot, with truth, be declared to have done it; or, in other words, they cannot be justified. Accordingly, St. Paul, after having proved at length that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners, says, Therefore by deeds of law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.' And again, ‹ If there had been a law, which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have come by law; but, if righteousness come by law, then Christ died in vain.' But the Unitarians, in a vast multitude of instances (for it is not true of them all,) utterly deny this doctrine, and hold that we are justified by our own repentance and obedience, both of which, they teach, are accepted for their own sake. God therefore, is exhibited by them, as justifying us in direct opposition to the express language of his law: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.' He that doeth these things shall live by them; but the soul, that sinneth, shall die.' In direct contradiction to these declarations of God himself, they hold that the soul which sinneth shall not die; and that he is not cursed who does not continue in all things written in the law, to do them: while he who doeth not these things shall yet, according to their scheme, live. Thus, although God has declared, that heaven and earth shall

pass away, sooner than one jot or tittle of the law shall fail;' their doctrine teaches us, that the whole law, so far as its penalty is concerned, shall fail with respect to every person who repents. Not even an entire, unmingled repentance is demanded; nor a pure, uncontaminated future obedience. Both are professedly left imperfect. All the former sins are imperfectly repented of; and all the future obedience is mixed with sin. On the ground of this repentance and this obedidence, God is expected to justify man, still placed under a legal dispensation.

3. Another doctrine of the same nature is the doctrine of Christ's atonement.

6

If

The Unitarians, to whom I referred under the last head, as not holding the doctrines opposed to it, are those who admit the doctrine of Christ's atonement. This I suppose to be true of some of the Socinians, and some of the Arians. Some of the Socinians hold, that the fulness of the Godhead dwells,' and will through eternity dwell, in Christ, bodily.' What is supposed by them to be the proper import of this declaration I know not that they have explained, and therefore may probably be unable to divine. So far as I can conjecture their intention, I should believe, with Dr. Price, that they really make Christ God, and therefore may not unnaturally suppose that he accomplished an expiation for the sins of men. this conjecture be just, they harmonize substantially with Praxeas, because, as they deny a distinction of persons in the Godhead, they must suppose the Father, by a mysterious union, to have dwelt in the man Christ Jesus; and thus influencing and directing all his conduct, to have accomplished, through him, an atonement for himself: a doctrine on account of which Praxeas and his followers were called Patripassians; as believing that the Father himself suffered. Some of the Arians also have acknowledged that Christ made atonement for the sins of men. In what manner this was done, or can be done by a creature, a subject of law and government, all whose obedience is due to the utmost extent of his powers and circumstances, and through every moment of his existence, for himself, for his own justification, I know not that they have attempted to explain. I rather suppose that, though professed enemies to mystery, they choose to leave this as a mystery which allows of no investigation. How an atonement

can be made by such a being, and how it can be accepted by God, in accordance with the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, I confess myself unable to discern. Still it is but just to observe, that an atonement is believed by a number of both Socinians and Arians to have been made by Christ. Dr. Priestley, and most if not all the modern Socinians, and many of the Arians, though I am not able to say how many, utterly deny, so far as my knowledge extends, any atonement at all; and thus take away from the Christian system what the great body of the Church has in every age esteemed the capital doctrine in the scheme of redemption, and from mankind every rational hope of escape from future punishment. The only encouraging declaration to sinners, exclusive of those which are founded on it, which I can find in the Gospel, is this; that Christ has redeemed us from under the curse of the law by being made a curse for us.' Accordingly, this declaration, repeated in very numerous forms, is everywhere insisted on in the Gospel, as the commanding theme, and as the only consolation to apostate men. If the doctrine contained in this declaration be taken out of the Gospel, mankind are left wholly under the dominion of law, and must necessarily suffer its penalty.

In my own view, Dr. Priestley, and those who accord with him in denying an atonement, are more consistent with themselves, or with the other parts of their system, than the rest of the Unitarians. He who denies the Deity of Christ, appears to me to cut off the possibility of any vicarious interference in the behalf of sinners. At the same time, the atone ment of Christ is so plainly, so frequently, and so unequivo cally asserted in the Scriptures, and the whole system of divine dispensations is made to depend upon it so extensively and ́essentially, that to deny it appears to me to be the same thing as to deny the Scriptures themselves. So necessary also, and -so consolatory is the doctrine of an atonement for sin to such beings as we are, as well as so abundantly asserted in the Scriptures, that I can scarcely suppose any man willingly to deny it, unless compelled by something entirely different from the Scriptures themselves, and from the nature of the doctrine. One error infers another. The error of denying the Deity of Christ has, I apprehend, compelled those who have adopted

it, to deny also all the doctrines which have been here mentioned, and particularly the atonement, notwithstanding they were opposed in this denial by so many express declarations of the sacred volume.

4. The doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, is also of the same nature.

As mankind cannot be justified by their own righteousness, it is absolutely necessary, if they are justified at all, that they should be justified by the righteousness of another. Accordingly, the Scriptures assert in the most direct and abundant manner, that we are 'justified by' mere grace,' or favour, on account of the righteousness of Christ, through that faith in him, in the exercise of which we give up ourselves to him, to be his here and for ever. As this doctrine is not only asserted in very many instances, and in the most express manner, but is also repeatedly proved in form, especially in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians; it would seem incredible that it should be denied by any man, who believed in divine Revelation. Still it is abundantly denied by Unitarians. Nor do they only deny the doctrine generally, but all the particulars also of which it is made up. Beside rejecting the atonement of Christ, and the justification supposed to be accomplished by means of it, and the influence which faith is supposed to have in securing such justification to us, they deny also, the very nature of the faith to which this influence is ascribed. The faith of the Gospel is an affection of the heart, being no other than trust, or confidence. With the heart,' says St. Paul, man believeth unto righteousness.' In direct opposition to this and many other passages of the Scriptures, the Unitarians, generally at least, consider faith as a mere assent of the understanding to probable evidence: the same which is called a speculative or historical faith. By this opinion they strip faith of the moral nature everywhere attributed to it in the Gospel. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.' But surely no exercise of the understanding was ever counted for righteousness to any man, or can possess any moral nature whatever. • Thou believest, that there is one God;' says St. James; thou doest well. The devils also believe, and tremble.' Certainly that affection of the mind of which devils are the subjects, cannot

possess moral excellence. • Without faith it is impossible to please God.' But surely the faith which pleases God must be essentially different from the faith of devils.

5. Another doctrine of the same nature is the regeneration of the human soul by the Spirit of God.

That without holiness,' or moral excellence, no man shall see the Lord,' is, I think, the irresistible dictate of reason, as well as the express declaration of the Scriptures; for it cannot be supposed, that the infinitely holy God can be pleased with creatures who are wholly destitute of such excellence, and who, being wholly sinful, have nothing in them which he can approve, or with which he can be pleased. That in us, that is, in our flesh,' or original nature, dwelleth no good thing;' no holiness, no moral excellence, is, as you well know, a declaration contained in the Scriptures. From these two doctrines thus declared, arises indispensably the necessity of such a change in our character as will make us the subjects of holiness. This change is in the Scriptures termed regeneration, being born again, being created anew; becoming new creatures, being renewed; and is expressed by other similar phraseology, and declared to be indispensable to our entrance into the divine kingdom. Except a man be born again,' said our Saviour to Nicodemus, he cannot see the kingdom of God: The production of this change is in the Scriptures ascribed, as his peculiar work, to the Spirit of God. Except a man,' says our Saviour again, Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God' that is, except a man have his mind purified by the Spirit of God, as the body is purified by water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Not by works of righteousness which we have done,' says St. Paul, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' Accordingly, those persons who experience this change of character, are said to be born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;' that is, they derived this change of character not from their parents, nor from their own efforts, nor from the efforts of any man, but from God.

But this change the Unitarians deny, and the agency of the Holy Spirit in effectuating it in the mind of man. Nay, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit as a person, or agent,