"The Christian Church was scarcely formed when in different places there started up certain pretended reformers, who, not satisfied with the simplicity of that religion which was taught by the apostles, set up a new religion drawn from their own licentious imaginations. Several of these are mentioned by the apostles, such as Hymenæus and Alexander. The influence of these new teachers was but inconsiderable at first. During the lives of the apostles their attempts toward the perversion of Christianity were attended with little success. They however acquired credit and strength by degrees; and even from the first dawn of the Gospel laid imperceptibly the foundation of those sects which produced afterward such trouble in the Christian Church.

"Among the various sects that troubled the Christian Church, the leading one was that of the Gnostics. These self-sufficient philosophers boasted of their being able to restore mankind to the knowledge (gnosis) of the supreme Being, which had been lost in the world. Under the general appellation of Gnostics are comprehended all those who, in the first ages of Christianity, corrupted the doctrine of the Gospel by a profane mixture of the tenets of the oriental philosophy, with its Divine truths.' (Mosheim, book i, part ii, chap. v.) From these 'knowing ones' arose, in the first and second cen→ tury, a rich harvest of heretics and heresies, of which, not to mention them in detail, the reader may find an ample account in the first volume of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. A few specimens would show that the apostles acted wisely when they cautioned their disciples against every thing destructive to the simplicity of the Gospel, and that they were not mistaken in the results of this unnatural coalition of philosophy and revelation, which they predicted. There is no observation capable of fuller proof, than that religion, through all ages of the Christian Church, was more or less pure according to the alloy of philosophy or human reason mixed up with it. There was scarcely a heresy in the primi

tive Church that was not imbibed from Plato's academy, Zeno's portico, or some vain reasonings of the pagan wise men. In latter ages the schoolmen rejected Plato, and exalted Aristotle into the chair of Christ, says Tilenus, (Til. Syntagm., part ii, disp. 16, thes. 31,) esteeming him the god of wisdom who could not err. And the controversy long subsisted to which of them an appeal lay for the determination of truth. Such is the vain arrogance of human reason, as to have puffed up some in every age to promise they would show us the truth by the mere light of it, and maintain it as the only rule of faith. Philosophy and vain deceit' have always proved highly injurious to the purity of religion, and the great objects of faith which are supernaturally revealed.' (Dr. Ellis.)

"Since philosophy has fallen into the hands of sincere and devout Christians, who valued above all learning "the faith delivered to the saints," and "contended" for that faith as the truest wisdom, it has been much reformed. But so long as it is human wisdom, it will never be fit to take the lead of revelation. Modern philosophers, as well as those of antiquity, whenever they attempt to model their creed by the rule of their reason, show themselves capable of the greatest absurdities. With our Unitarian divines, (as they are pleased exclusively to denominate themselves,) it is a first principle that "reason directs to whatever is true in speculation." To set reason free from the fetters of education, they have renounced the doctrine of human depravity, and of eternal punishment. Thus inspired with unlimited confidence in their own understanding, and divested of all apprehension of eternal consequences, they are induced to reason cautiously and frequently, and learn to reason well.' So says one of themselves.* And what can be more reasonably expected from them than that they should all reason alike?

* Mr. James Yates, in a sermon on the grounds of Unitarian dissent, preached at Glasgow, pp. 16, 17, 22, 23.

But their one, perfect, infallible, and unchangeable guide, which directs to whatever is true in speculation,' is far from leading them all in the same path..... A few lines from the author just mentioned will amply illustrate their agreements and their differences.

"In order to convey a just idea of the constitution of Unitarian societies, it is necessary to premise, that, while we are united by a few great principles, there are numerous topics of inferior consequence respecting which we differ in opinion among ourselves. All Unitarians agree in denying that Jesus Christ was the eternal God; and that he is the object of religious worship. Some of them, however, believe that he was employed, as an instrument in the hands of the Deity, to create the material world, though not possessed of underived wisdom and independent power: others believe only in his preexistence. Some go still farther, maintaining that he was simply a human being, but conceived in the womb of the virgin according to the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke's Gospels: others see reason to believe that those chapters are interpolations, and therefore deny the doctrine of the miraculous conception. In like manner all Unitarians agree, that the death of Christ was an incalculable blessing to mankind: some, however, do not presume to determine the exact manner in which it conduces to the good of men, while others think that the mode of its beneficial operation may be distinctly pointed out; but all reject the Trinitarian doctrines of satisfaction and vicarious atonement, believing, not that Jesus saves his followers from the everlasting misery to which they are supposed to have been doomed in consequence of the sin of their first parents, but that he saves them, by the force of his doctrines, precepts, and example, from vice, ignorance, and superstition, and from the misery which is their natural result. The ordinance of baptism is a subject on which we entertain various opinions; some of us practise the baptism of infants, others of adults, and some think that

the use of water may be omitted entirely. Concerning the question of an intermediate state, and the philosophical doctrines of materialism and necessity, we either remain in doubt or espouse opposite sides. On these and other points, which have been debated by orthodox Christians with rancorous animosity, we agree to differ.' (Mr. Yates Sermon, pp. 13-15.)

Mr. Yates ought to have the thanks of the Christian world for speaking the truth. This curious passage shows that reason, as well as nature, has her frolics. The few great principles' in which the Unitarians agree, Mr. Y. has carefully laid down; viz. 1. The free and unbiassed use of the understanding on religious subjects.' 2. They ought to offer prayer and adoration to God, the Father, only. 3. They regard holiness of heart, and excellence of conduct, as the only means of obtaining salvation."

"These three great Unitarian principles will not prevent the effect of our observations on the passage which we have cited.

"There is one part of this exposition of Unitarianism on which we may properly enough remark before we enter into the heart of it. Mr. Y. has shown that his friends are not yet agreed on the philosophical doctrines of materialism and necessity.' But ought they not to know from whence they take their departure, when they set out on their voyage of discovery? When Thales, while contemplating the stars, fell into a ditch, how, said a woman, should you know what passes in the heavens when you see not what is just at your feet? Again ought they not to determine whether or not there is a spirit in them, before they assure themselves that they can without assistance from above find out God, who is a Spirit? An apostle thought that none but the spirit of a man can know what is in man. they think that, without a spirit, they can know the things of God. If all the phenomena of perception, reason, memory, will, and various affections, joined with

But

the unequivocal and uniform testimony of Divine revelation, cannot assure a Unitarian that he has a spirit distinct from his body, how can his reason, prove to itself that there is a God who is a Spirit? Where then is the reason, which is a partial revelation of God, his nature, attributes, and will?' If a man's reason be not satisfied on this point, how can he on Unitarian principles believe the testimony of a revelation which contradicts his reason? Or, if a contradiction be not admitted, how can his reason be a fit rule by which to judge whether that doctrine of revelation be true. This one concession is subversive of the whole fabric of Unitarianism, which is like a kingdom divided against itself. Once more ought they not to be assured that their (what name should it have?) spirit is free, has liberty, and is not bound down by the chains of irresistible necessity, before they assure themselves that they are entering on a free inquiry?

"Leaving them to consider how far it is proper to begin their reasonings where they now end them, let us examine the points in which they agree, and those in which they differ.

1. "Their agreement is all in negatives. They are only agreed about what is not. They agree in denying that Jesus Christ is the eternal God, or the object of religious worship; and in rejecting the doctrines of satisfaction and vicarious atonement, as well as the doctrine of original sin and everlasting punishment. That is, they agree in renouncing these doctrines of the Bible.

2. "But in things positive, though led by the same infallible guide, which directs to whatever is true in speculation,' they agree not at all. They are not agreed whether Jesus Christ was the 'instrumental' Creator of the world, or a mere man. They are not agreed in what manner the world is benefitted by the death of Christ. They are not agreed whether baptism, (i. e. washing,) should be administered with or without wa