example of REPENTANCE in the Scriptures, are totally incongruous and uncalled for, upon the theory which denies man's lost condition, and his salvation by a process of redemption. FAITH, too, undergoes an essen tial change. It is no longer faith in Christ. His doctrine or his mission are its objects; but not, as the New Testament states it, his person, as a surety, a sacrifice, a mediator: and much less than any thing else can it be called, in the language of Scripture, faith in his BLOOD,' a phrase utterly incapable of an interpretation by Unitarians. Nor is it possible to offer up PRAYER to God in the name of Christ, though expressly enjoined upon his disciples, in any sense which would not justify all the idolatry of the Roman Church, in availing themselves of the names, the interests, and the merits of saints.

3. "LOVE to Christ, which is made so eminent a grace in internal and experimental Christianity, changes also its character. It cannot be supreme, for that would be to break the first and great command, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, if Christ himself be not that Lord our God. It must be love of the same kind we feel to creatures from whom we have received any benefit, and a passion, therefore, to be guarded and restrained, lest it should become excessive and wean our hearts and thoughts from God. But surely it is not under such views that love to Christ is represented in the Scriptures; and against its excess, as against creaturely attachments, we have certainly no admonition, no cautions.

་ ་་ !

4. "The general and habitual exercises of the affections of TRUST, HOPE, JOY, &c. towards Christ, are all interfered with by the Unitarian doctrine. This has, in part, been stated; but if the Redeemer were not omnipresent and omniscient, could we be certain that he always hears our prayers, and knows the source and remedy of all our miseries? If he were not all-merciful, could we be certain he must always be willing to par

don and relieve us? If he were not all powerful, could we be sure that he must always be able to support and strengthen, to enlighten and direct us? Of any less being than God, we might suspect that his purposes might waver, his promises fail, his existence itself, perhaps terminate; for, of every created being, the existence must be dependent and terminable."

The language, too, I say not of the Church of Christ in all ages, for that that has been formed upon her faith, but of the Scriptures themselves, must be altered and brought down to these inferior views. No dying saint can say, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,' if he be a man like ourselves; and the redeemed neither in heaven nor in earth can dare to associate a creature so with God in divine honors and solemn worship, as to unite in the chorus, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever!'

"The same essential changes must be made in the doctrine of Divine agency in the heart of man, and in the church, and the same confusion introduced into the language of Scripture. Our salvation by Christ does not consist only in the expiation of our sins, &c., but in communication of divine grace and power, to renew and sanctify us and this is every where in Scripture attributed to the Holy Spirit, as his peculiar office in the economy of man's salvation: it must therefore make a fundamental change in the doctrine of divine grace and assistance, to deny the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For can a creature be the universal spring and fountain of divine grace and life! Can a finite creature be a kind of universal soul to the whole Christian Church, and to every sincere member of it? Can a creature make such close application to our minds,know our thoughts, set bounds to our passions, inspire us with new affections and desires, and to be more intimate to us than we are to ourselves? If a creature be the only instrument and principle of grace, we shall soon be tempted

either to deny the grace of God, or to make it an external thing, and entertain very mean conceits of it. All this has been felt so forcibly by the deniers of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, that they have escaped only by taking another leap down the gulf of error; and at present the Unitarians deny that there is any Holy Ghost, and resolve the whole into a figure of speech.

"But the importance of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity may be finally argued from the manner in which the denial of it would affect the credit of the Holy Scriptures themselves; for if this doctrine be not contained in them, their tendency to mislead is obvious. Their constant language is so adapted to deceive, and to compel the belief of falsehood, even in fundamental points, and to lead to the practice of idolatry itself, that they would lose all claim to be regarded as a revelation from the God of truth, and ought rather to be shunned than to be studied. A great part of the Scriptures is directed against idolatry, which is declared to be that abominable thing which the Lord hateth;' and in pursuance of this design, the doctrine that there is but one God is laid down in the most explicit terms, and constantly confirmed by appeals to his works. The very first command in the decalogue is, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me;' and the sum of the law, as to our duty to God, is, that we love HIM with all our heart, and mind, and soul, and strength.' If the doctrine of a Trinity of Divine persons in the unity of the Godhead be consistent with all this, then the style and manner of the Scriptures are in perfect accordance with the moral ends they propose, and the truths in which they would instruct mankind; but if the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures, then is the language of the sacred books most deceptive and dangerous. For how is it to be accounted for, in that case, that in the Old Testament, God should be spoken of in plural terms, and that this plurality should be restricted to three? How is it that the very name Jehovah should ge given to each

6

of them, and that repeatedly, and on the most solemn occasions? How is it that the promised incarnate Messiah should be invested, in the prophecies of his advent, with the loftiest attributes of God, and that works infinitely superhuman, and divine, honors should be predicted of him? and that acts and characters of unequivocal divinity, according to the common apprehensions of mankind should be ascribed to the Spirit also? How is it that, in the New Testament, the name of God' should be given to both, and that without any intimation that it is to be taken in an inferior sense? That the creation and conservation of all things should be ascribed to Christ; that he should be worshipped by angels and by men; that he should be represented as seated on the throne of the universe, to receive the adorations of all creatures; and that in the very form of initiation by baptism into his church, itself a public and solemn profession of faith, the baptism is enjoined to be performed in the one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? One God and two creatures! As though the very door of entrance into the Christian Church should have been purposely made the gate of the worst and most corrupting error ever introduced among mankindtrust and worship in creatures, as God; the error which has spread darkness and moral desolation over the whole. pagan world!

And here it cannot be said that the question is begged that more is taken for granted than Unitarians will allow; for this argument does not rest at all upon what the denier's of our Lord's Divinity understand by all these terms, and what interpretations may be put upon them. This is the popular view of the subject which has just been drawn from the Scriptures; and they themselves acknowledge it by resorting to the arts and labors of far-fetched criticism, in order to attach to these passages of Scripture a sense different to the obvious and popular one. It is so taken, and has been taken in all ages, by the wisest men and most competent critics,

1

to be the only consistent senses of the sacred volume a circumstance which still more strongly proves, that if the Scriptures were written on Unitarian principles they are more unfortunately expressed than any book in the world; and they can, on no account, be considered a Divine Revelation, not because of their obscurity, for they are not obscure, but because terms are used in them which convey a sense different from what the writers intended, if indeed they were Unitarians. But their evidences prove them to be a revelation of truth, from the God of truth, and they cannot therefore be so written as to lead men, who use only ordinary care, into fundamental error; and the conclusion, therefore, must inevitably be, that if we must admit either on the one hand what is so derogatory to the Scriptures, and so subversive of all confidence in them, or, on the other, that the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit is there explicitly taught, these is no medium between absolute infidelity and the acknowledgment of our Lord's Divinity; and, indeed, to adopt the representation of a great divine, it is rather to rave than to reason, to suppose that he whom the Scriptures teach us to regard as the Saviour of our souls, and as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; he who hears our prayers, and is always present with his Church throughout the world, who sits at the right hand of God, in the glory of his Father, and who shall come at the last day, in glory and majesty, accompanied with ministering angels, to judge all mankind and to bring to light the very secrets of their hearts, should be a mere man, or a created being of any kind."Watson.