Finally; the Unitarians reject the inspiration of the Scriptures. "The scriptures," says Dr. Priestley were written WITHOUT ANY PARTIC"ULAR INSPIRATION, by men who wrote accor"ding to the best of their knowledge, and who, "from their circumstances, could not be mista"ken with respect to the greater facts of which "they were proper witnesses; but (like other

66

Mr.

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."* Belsham very explicitly tells us, that "The "scriptures contain a very faithful and credible "account of the Christian doctrine, which is the "true word of God; but they are not them"selves the word of God; nor do they ever as"sume that title: and it is highly improper to "speak of them as such, as it leads inattentive "readers to suppose they are written under à "PLENARY INSPIRATION, to which they make "NO PRETENSION."+

To this list of Unitarian opinions, I might add, if it were necessary, a number of other * History of Early Opinions, IV. p. 4. 5. † Review, &c. Letter I.

articles; such as the materiality of the soul-the consequent denial of a separate state, of activity or even consciousness, between death and the resurrection ;-the denial of the existence of either Devils or good Angels; and the rejection of all sanctity in the Sabbath. But my limits forbid me to multiply particulars; and I would by no means allow myself to do any thing that might look like unduly darkening the horrid picture.

From this summary view, it is evident that Unitarianism, according to the statement of one of its most zealous friends in the United States, consists rather in NOT BELIEVING;" and that the principal difficulty which it has to encounter is to "make men zealous in Refusing "TO BELIEVE."* It is plain, also, that Unitarians reject EVERY ONE of what we deem the PECULIAR and ESSENTIAL doctrines of the Gospel. According to this scheme, there is no other than a mere human, fallible, and peccable Saviour; no real redemption by the blood of Christ; no justification by his merits; no Holy Spirit to sanctify our depraved nature; no prevailing

* Mr. Wells's Letter, contained in a " Brief History of the Pregress and Present State of the Unitarian Churches in America.

Intercessor; nothing that can with propriety be called GRACE: all—all is figurative, cold, inadequate and unsatisfying.

In short, Christianity, if Unitarianism be the truth, is nothing more than a republication of the religion of nature, with very small additional light. A future state, a pure morality, and the efficacy of repentance, form the sum total of its discoveries; and men are left, after all, to accomplish their own salvation.

I repeat, that you are by no means to understand me as asserting, that all Unitarians adopt every one of these opinions. But I have no doubt that they are all adopted by the generality of that denomination. Be not deceived, then, when the charge is denied, ever so strongly, by individuals, who wish to avoid the odium of sentiments which are found shocking to popular feeling. The question is, not whether some who call themselves, and who desérve to be called, Unitarians, believe every article in the list which I have given; but whether the leaders of their sect, at present, in Europe and America, do not, substantially, so believe; and

whether the spirit of their system does not go the whole length of my statetment.

Such, then, is Unitarianism. How far it differs from Deism, I leave you to judge. Mr. Belsham, who is now at the head of the Unitarians in England, gives it as his opinion, that Unitarianism differs with respect to no important doctrine from the system of the deistical Theophilanthropists of France. Speaking of those Deists, he explicitly says, "Their profes"sed principles comprehend the ESSENCE of "the Christian religion."* And, truly, I can recollect no feature of the Christian religion admitted by Unitarians, which is not substantially admitted by serious Deists, except the divine mission of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection of the body; and both these are maintained by Mahammedans. It follows, then, that they reject ALL the PECULIAR doctrines of Christianity.Now the question which you are called upon to decide, is, whether those who occupy this ground are CHRISTIANS, and ought to be acknowledged as such? And it is a question which can hardly fail of coming home to your consciences almost * Review, p. 217.

every day that you live. You reside in the midst of Unitarians. They are daily thrown into your company. They converse on their favourite opinions. Their publications are continually offered for your perusal and you are often tempted, if not solicited, to attend on their preaching. The questions then, how you ought to estimate their opinions; how to treat their persons; how to act with regard to their publications; how to consider their preaching; whether you ought to regard them as Christians at all; whether their congregations ought to be called Churches of Christ; and whether the ordinances which they administer, ought to be sustained as valid ?-are questions which you must decide, at least practically. You cannot evade them. If you forbear to answer them in words, you must and will answer them by your actions. It is my confident hope that you will not attempt to evade a decision; and it is my earnest desire to aid you in deciding these momentous questions in such a manner as God and your own consciences shall approve.

The slightest glance at the subject will enable you to perceive that this is no sectarian dispute.

E