Orthodox christians hold, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God; and that all which they contain is to be received as truth, ON THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.-But by the principal Unitarian writers, and, so far as is known, by Unitarians generally, the plenary inspiration of the scriptures is denied. The scrip tures," says Dr. Priestley,* "were written without any par ticular inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances, could not be mistaken, with regard to the greater facts of which they were properly witnesses; but (like other men subject to prejudice) might be liable to adopt a hasty and ill grounded opinion, concerning things which did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge, and which had no connexion with any thing that was so. We ought all of us, therefore, to consider ourselves fully at liberty to examine, with the greatest rigour, both the reasonings of the writers, and the facts of which we find any account in their writings; that, judging BY THE RULES OF JUST CRITICISM, we may distinguish what may be depended on from what may not.” Mr. Belsham says, "The scriptures contain a faithful and credible account of the christian doctrine, which is the true word of God; but they are not themselves the word of God, nor did they ever assume that title; and it is highly improper to speak of them as such; as it leads inattentive readers to suppose they were written under a plenary inspiration, to which they make no pretension; and as such expressions expose christianity, unnecessarily, to the cavils of unbelievers."

History of Early Opinions, vol. iv, p. 5.

Review of Wilberforce, p. 19.

"Perhaps I may be charged with having made a distinction in this place, which gives an unfair representation of Unitarians, inasmuch as they also profess to derive their arguments from scripture. But whether that profession be not intended in mockery, one might be almost tempted to question; when it is found that in every instance, the doctrine of scripture is tried by their abstract notion of right, and rejected if not accordant:-when by means of figure and allusion, it is every where made to speak a language the most repugnant to all fair, critical interpretation; until emptied of its true meaning, it is converted into a vehicle for every fantastick theory, which under the name of rational, they may think proper to adopt:-when in such parts as propound gospel truths of a contexture too solid to admit of an escape in figure and allusion, the sacred writers are charged

Though all Unitarians may not be ready fully to adopt the language or the sentiments on this subject of Dr. Priestley, Mr. Belsham, or others, mentioned in the note below; yet I believe very few, if any of them, admit the plenary inspiration of the scriptures. But, Sir, if the plenary inspiration of the scriptures be denied, where shall we stop? How shall we determine what is the word of God, and what is not? What other test, or criterion, of truth have we, than REASON?

Accordingly the Unitarians very generally seem to have adopted "the fundamental rule" of the old Socinians, "That no doctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in its origin, all whose parts are not level to the comprehension of the human understanding; and that, whatever the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the perfections of God, his counsels and decrees, and the way of salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and filed down, in such a manner, by the transforming power of art and argument, as to answer the extent of our limited faculties."* That this is the principle, and this the labour of Unitarians, no one who is conversant

as bunglers, producing "lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings," (Dr. Priestley's 12th Letter to Mr. Burn) and philosophy is consequently called in to rectify their errors:―when one writer of this class (Steinbart) tells us, that "the narrations," (in the New Testament) "true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion;" and again, that "Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to one people, and hating all other nations:". '—when another, (Semler) remarking on St. Peter's declaration, that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, says, that "Peter speaks here according to the conception of the Jews," and that "the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revelations:"(Dr. Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Ch. Hist. No. 3, pp. 66, 71.)—when a third (Engedin) speaks of St. John's portion of the New Testament, as written with "concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories;" and Gagneius glories in having given "a little light to St. Paul's darkness, á darkness, as some think, industriously affected:"-when we find Mr. Evanson, one of those able commentators referred to by Mr. Belsham in his Review, &c. p. 206: assert, (Dissonance, &c. p. i,) that "the evangelical histories contain gross and irreconcileable contradiction," and consequently discard three out of the four, retaining the gospel of St. Luke only, at the same time drawing his pen over as much of this, as either from its infelicity of style, or other such causes happens not to meet his approbation." Magee on Atonement, Notes, No. 14.

Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Cent. 16. chap. 4.

with their writings can doubt. Denying the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, they hold themselves at liberty to subject those sacred writings to all the torture of the most rigorous criticism; not for the purpose merely of deciding upon “various readings," of elucidating obscure passages by reference to ancient customs and manners, or of ascertaining the true meaning of the original words, and their most natural sense in the connexions in which they occur; but for the purpose especially, of explaining the different parts in such a manner as to make them yield a meaning conformable to their views of what is rational. In this mighty work human reason appears in all its pride, and the wisdom of this world in its highest glory.

Here is the primary point of difference between orthodox christians and Unitarians. The orthodox, holding the Bible to be the word of the living God, feel themselves warranted and bound to embrace as divine truth, every doctrine which they find revealed in that sacred volume, however humbling to reason it may be, however mysterious and incomprehensible. But the Unitarians, regarding the Bible in a very different light, are not restrained from using greater liberties with it; are not restrained from rejecting such doctrines, as transcend the comprehension of their own understandings, or do not comport with their views of what is rational; but glory in excluding all mystery from religion. Hence the name which they assume of RATIONAL CHRISTIANS; and hence the imposing superiority which they affect over those, who understand the scriptures in their natural and obvious sense, and believe in doctrines confessedly beyond the powers of the human mind to comprehend,

On the authority of the scriptures, orthodox christians believe that the one Jehoyah exists in a Trinity, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These we call three persons; because we have no better word by which to denote the distinction; and because THEY apply to each other the personal pronouns I, Thou, and He, and to themselves together, the plurals we, us, and our. This Trinity in the Godhead we acknowledge to be a mystery, which we pretend not to comprehend, and which we would not undertake to explain.

So too the eternal existence of God, in any mode, is to us a mystery; his omnipresence is a mystery; his omniscience is a mystery; his creating all things out of nothing by the word of his power, is a mystery. We find mysteries, indeed, in all his perfections and works; mysteries in natural religion, as well as in revealed; mysteries in every thing around us, as utterly beyond our powers to explain or comprehend, as that of the Trinity in the Godhead.

We believe this doctrine, because we find it in those scriptures, which we receive as given by divine inspiration. In the scriptures, the original Hebrew name, by which the Supreme Being is most commonly called, is plural: [Aleim, GODS.] In coincidence with this plural name, other plural words are used. "Let us make man in OUR own image." "Behold the man has become as ONE of us." "The knowledge of the Holy (in the original the HOLY ONES) is understanding.” "Remember now thy Creator (original CREATORS) in the days of thy youth." This remarkable use of plurals, which runs through the Hebrew scriptures, we think clearly denotes a plurality of what, as I before observed, we call persons. Yet we read, "Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God (our Aleim, GODS) is ONE Jehovah;" and of the unity of God we find in the scriptures abundant proof. To each of the Holy Ones, however, to the Father, to the Son, and to the Spirit, the scriptures ascribe divine names and titles,-divine attributes, divine works, and divine honours. The proofs of all this are so abundant and so memorable, that for my present purpose it is not necessary to cite even a specimen. Each of the THREE, therefore, we believe to be truly and essentially DIVINE, and all of them EQUAL in dignity and glory.

But this doctrine of the Trinity the Unitarians utterly deny: not because there is no proof of it in the scriptures; but because it is a doctrine, (as you repeatedly and emphatically pronounce in your Letter and Remarks,) "perplexing," "mysterious," and not to be "understood.”

The doctrine of the Trinity, we hold to be important, fundamentally important, in relation especially to the general doctrine of redemption and salvation revealed in the gospel. In the gospel, the Son, Jesus Christ is revealed as our Re

deemer and Saviour; the Holy Spirit, as our Sanctifier and Comforter. But who is Jesus Christ, and who is the Holy Spirit? With what feelings and affections, with what expectations and hopes, with what kind and degree of reverence and confidence, is it suitable that we should regard the one and the other? What is the nature, and what the extent of the work which they severally perform for us? and what the nature, and the extent of our obligations to them? These are most interesting questions: questions not merely of a specu lative nature, but of the first practical concernment, of the very highest religious importance. But by each of these questions we are directly referred to the doctrine of the Trinity; and to each of them infinitely different answers will be given, by those who believe, and those who disbelieve, this doctrine.

Who then is Jesus Christ? The apostle John in the first of his gospel, says, "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE." In the close of his first Epistle, he says "THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal life. St. Paul also speaks of "OUR GREAT God and Saviour JESUS CHRIST;" calls HIM, “GOD OVER ALL BLESSED FOREVERMORE," and says that "all things were made BY HIM and FOR HIM." Language of similar import is familiar to the sacred writers; who as before intimated, most abundantly and expressly ascribe to Jesus Christ DIVINE names, titles, attributes, works, and honours. Upon authority such as this, we believe that the Son is essentially divine, essentially equal to the Father.-And believing this, we feel ourselves warranted and bound to regard Him with all the feelings and affections, hopes and expectations, reverence and confidence, which a Saviour of infinite perfections, of illimi table riches of grace and of glory, can inspire or claim. The scriptures, however, teach us further, that the same "WORD," -who "was in the beginning with God and was God,"_"was made FLESH and dwelt among us;" that "He took on HIM THE SEED OF ABRAHAM,”—“WⱭS MADE OF A WOMAN, made under the law;" that though being in THE FORM OF GOD, he thought

99