the belief of an intellectual superiority, which habituates them to entertain an unhesitating contempt for the very understandings of the orthodox: and their proselytes are complimented on their mental valour, in having broken the bonds of authority and the more tender influence of old connexions. The highest exercise of candour towards believers in the Deity and sacrifice of Christ, is usually coupled with a half-deriding pity for the weakness of their minds and the strength of their prejudices. Another circumstance is productive of a great effect. This is, the novelty and boldness, the learned aspect and the frequent plausibility, of the kind of criticism and interpretation by which Unitarian writers escape from the arguments of the orthodox. There are few temptations more dangerous to the religious principle, than Biblical erudition cultivated too exclusively and without a vigilant guard of devotion and humility. Unitarian criticisms have, also, very often, the recommendation of neutralizing or annihilating some consideration which might otherwise give serious alarm to the conscience. The most awful and awakening passages of scripture are pretended to have had all their application to men and cir cumstances no longer existing; and the heartmelting tenderness of the evangelical promises is often evaporated to a poor and unaffecting residue.*

* How did Christ and his apostles feel the condition of infatuated and impenitent sinners! How did they denounce the

It is also a fact which deserves the most serious and monitory reflection, that the ignorant statements, the unsound arguments, the loose. declamation, the unjust imputations, and even the virulent spirit, which have too often been employed on the side of truth, (thus inflicting deep wounds on that sacred cause, and conferring the most signal advantages on the opposite errors,) have had an extensive effect in urging to the inviting retreats of Unitarianism, those who have not been fortified with accurate knowledge of doctrines and evidences, or whose evangelical piety has not been strong enough to rise above injustice and unkindness.

It may be asked, whether that can be true, or, if true, whether it can be of any high importance in religion, which requires so much toilsome research and heavy criticism, for its

condemnation of the unbelieving and ungodly, the terrors of the Lord, the wrath of God revealed from heaven, the fearful looking for of judginent and the fiery indignation! With what holy earnestness and commiseration, with what tenderness and deep concern, did they warn, rebuke, exhort, and intreat men ! How," they cried, "shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation!" But, alas, what a contrast do the best and greatest of Unitarians exhibit, if the following passage may be taken as evidence!

"The firm faith that you and I have, that even the wicked, after a state of wholesome discipline (and that not more severe than will be necessary) will be raised, in due time, to a state of happiness, greatly diminishes our concern on their account." Dr. Priestley to Mr. Lindsey, in Mr. Belsham's Memoirs of Mr. Lindsey, p. 537.

explication and establishment; and whether it can be requisite to the faith and happiness of plain Christians, to believe doctrines thus circumstanced.

We reply, that the necessity of these laborious discussions is put upon us by those who misunderstand, or who oppose, what we deem sacred truth; that the adducing of scripture evidence, and the study of scripture doctrines, are in perfect coincidence with the daily habits of all sincere Christians, even in the lowest ranks of life; that it is but a small part of such persons that have the unhappiness of being plunged into the turbid waters of controversy; that the truths here vindicated lie so plainly and so extensively upon the surface of revelation, as to have produced this remarkable fact, that the generality of serious Christians, from the very earliest times of whose devotional exercises we possess any documents, have admitted those doctrines as the well-known truth of heaven, and have infused them into the whole constitution of their secret piety and their practical religion; and finally, that experience has proved that where the holy scriptures in any intelligible form have engaged the serious attention of untutored men, their usual operation has been to produce the deepest impression of the truth, excellence, and practical efficacy of those specific doctrines which Unitarians renounce.

As we cannot too highly estimate the value of divine truth, so it becomes us to be propor

tionately solicitous that we adorn our profession of attachment to it, with all in our tempers and conduct that is pure and lovely, upright and honourable, contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, and uniting the simplicity of holiness with the meekness of wisdom.

APPENDIX. No. I.

ON THE SUPPOSED UNITARIANISM OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS.

DR. PRIESTLEY conceived that he had elicited, from some hints and allusions of several of the fathers, the concession, that "the great body of primitive Christians, both Jews and gentiles," for the first two centuries and downwards, were Unitarians and believers in the simple humanity of Jesus Christ," and that the doctrine of the Deity of Christ was the invention of certain speculative persons, who were ambitious of relieving Christianity from the imputation of a mean and ignominious origin, and thus of rendering it more palatable to the gentiles, by representing its Founder as an incarnate God. Calm Inq. p. 398, 420. Dr. Priestley's Hist. Early Op. vol. iii. p. 158, &c. 233, &c.

The object of this work having been to investigate the testimony of the Scriptures alone, and the limits originally proposed having been greatly exceeded; as also this question on the testimonies of the fathers is likely to receive further and more satisfactory elucidation from the pen of the excellent and learned Bishop of St. David's; I trust it will not be deemed improper in me to pass this important topic with only a brief notice.

i. It appears to me that the representation of the opinion of the fathers, as maintaining a reserve of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, and its absence from the earlier writings of the N. T. is made too strongly. Dr. Priestley and his followers have availed themselves of hyperbolical and ill-judged expressions; but which ought, in equity, to be compared with other passages of the same writers, and with the general tenor of their works. A fair and extensive induction of ALL that Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. have advanced on this topic, would, I humbly think, present a result very different from that in which the Unitarians so exult. See p. 423, of this Volume. I add two