The late Sir James Smith has also left on record, that he used to receive the sacrament, without any particular object, but Christian communion.

Would Paul have done this?

Has not a member of Mr. Belsham's congregation published a book dedicated to him, written too (according to the Monthly Review) "with the elegance of a gentleman, and the temper of a philosopher," and endeavouring to prove," that the doctrine of a supernatural origin of Christianity is neither consonant with reason, NOR USEFUL ΤΟ VIRTUE. Would PAUL have sanctioned such a dedication, or asserted such a position? Does not Belsham himself tell us (Calm Enquiry, p. 230), that "it is an indignity to the human understanding to maintain the doctrine of Christ's Deity, upon our present evidence?" if the apostles, unlearned men, are supposed to have written Greek according to the classics. Would Paul have said this? It would be easy to multiply proofs from the published statements of Unitarians, that they have not, when occasion has required, refused to sit in judgment on their Redeemer, and brand him with moral feebleness, prevarication, and duplicity; stating that St. Paul himself, who is now so vigorously claimed as a Belshamite, was not more inspired than the rash and presumptuous scribblers, who have ventured to condemn him of mental inability, illogical reasonings, and absurd and inconclusive argumentation, and who have set up human reason, nevertheless, as the standard of divine revelation, refusing to believe what reason will not admit, and sinking the doctrines of Christ into a mere system of political economy; or, what is worse, into a series of riddles, to puzzle and amuse the speculative and profane.

If I had traced the progress of Unitarian opinions abroad, we should have seen a depth deeper than this-a depth where none but the scoffer and Atheist can dwell. Even Priestley himself tells us, that he was "once a Calvinist, and that of the straitest sect; then a high Arian; next a low Arian; then a Socinian; and, in a little time, a Socinian of the lowest kind (i. e., a Unitarian), in which Jesus Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Moses, or any other prophet. He says also," he does not know when his creed will be fixed." Now Priestley's authority is, with Unitarians, paramount to law, gospel, and everything else. By the confession of this modern founder of Unitarianism, let the unestablished see the

nature of that persuasion;-how it perpetually descends, step by step, till, at last, it pauses in death, or leaps alive into that pit, whence is the "facilis descensus Averni."

The Neologists of Germany are certainly distinct from the Unitarians; but they have become what they each are from the working of the same principle, the unhallowed, unchecked use of reason. Mr. Mardon (p. 48) is inclined to think the German theology is not the result of Unitarianism; and he freely declares "his opinion, that men have been driven into them to avoid the extremes of Trinitarianism, and that the inculcation of Christian Unitarianism is the true corrective of the disorder!" All this is very true, and yet is as false as it is true. "Christian Unitarianism," indeed! Is not that, Trinitarianism?

"

But, what has been my object in this discussion? has it been to bring this as a charge against EVERY Unitarian, whether layman" or "PREACHER?" God forbid! But to shew to what Unitarianism leads—to what it directly leads, -to what it cannot help leading, when once the mainspring of the system works unchecked; for, as human reason is over all, (or, at least, made the umpire in the contest between opinions,) what is to prevent the downward descent of that system, to the lowest realms of darkness and despair, if human reason be ever dishonest, incapable, or ambitious?

I say, then, and I say what I am ready "to maintain" on evidence, that Unitarianism is not what it appears in the rounded periods and delicate painting of its admirers; not the soft and pleasing picture of "pleasurable feeling" only, a creed" scriptural, rational, simple, commending itself to the understanding;" but a painted and varnished image of death in the livery of life, a creed unscriptural, irrational, complicated, and not commending itself to the understanding of any, but those who have already resolved, that understanding shall erect its own standard of belief;-for, let what can be said about the "mystery" of the "popular theology," Unitarianism is not to be defended, except by an apparatus of proofs and criticism, (the character of which I have already proved) unsuited to the comprehension of the poor and unlearned, to whom the gospel is the legacy of heaven.

And now, before I conclude,-let me, once and for all, assure Mr. R., that I disclaim the office of judge in this matter (Reply, p. 14). I have merely stood up as an advocate of that cause and that gospel, which, I believe in my conscience, Mr. Rowntree's published opinions degrade and disgrace. I have stood up to plead that cause in the presence

of them, who may be led by a specious appearance of human reason, to eschew the "bread of life" for

Sorrow's most detested fruit,

"Like to the apples on THE DEAD SEA'S shore,
"All ASHES to the taste....

If, however, I wanted evidence to assert the unholy tendency of Unitarian opinions, I need not go further than to the written documents of their defenders. Priestley himself complains, that the Unitarian societies of his time did not flourish : their members easily desert them.' Voltaire says, in his time, "the Unitarians held no religious meetings.' In the present day, Unitarians convict themselves of the non-observance of the sabbath,―of indifference to prayer,-neglect of the means of grace, and a hundred other inconsistencies. Wilberforce said justly, that "Unitarianism is a sort of half-way house between nominal orthodoxy and absolute infidelity, where sometimes a person, indeed, finally stops; but where, not unfrequently, he only pauses for a while, and then pursues his progress."

To sum up all. I have in these pages offered evidence

IN

from ancient writers, who have denied the Unitarian claims, and from the ranks of their defenders. I have cited the Fathers, the Apostles, the Redeemer-their evidence is before us; I have adduced the testimony of the learned, that the evidence of the Fathers, the Apostles, and the Redeemer, has not been in my record corrupted; I have appealed to reason as well as Mr. R., and to the Scriptures also. I have asserted nothing I am unprepared to substantiate. The verdict' (p. 14) is not for either of us to give. There are two judges -one of the evidence adduced on earth-that public for whom Mr. Rowntree has written; and THAT OTHER HEAVEN, He, before whose judgment seat we must all shortly appear! If guilt there be in heresy, He alone can decide, He alone accord the certain and inevitable fate. If I did not believe Mr. R. to be sincere in his professions and conscientious in his zeal-I should not thus have answered his reply. He invites me to argument, persuasion, and truth-I have obeyed his wish, and that without impugning his moral honesty or the conduct of his life; which is I doubt pure and consistent, though only that which has been led by countless multitudes,' who

not

"Never sighed at the sound of a knell,

Nor smiled when a Sabbath appeared."

But I would persuade him, if he would listen to persuasion, I would persuade him, and all who hear him, to weigh well the opinions which may be formed by those, who, acting as

impartial judges, see an advocate driven to the resource of resolutely destroying evidence, smothering testimony, and keeping out of view all that the opponents advance to counteract his statements. I would persuade him by the mercies of Christ, who gave himself for a world of lost and miserable sinners, to weigh well the awful responsibility of watching for souls, as they that must GIVE ACCOUNT,' and what fearful reflections must be his, who shall by reasoning and sophistry persuade a single soul to peril its chance and certainty of salvation, by "denying the Lord-the Mediator-the Intercessor-the Redeemer-the Prince, who bought him!"

66

As an individual, it is indifferent to me in what tone or manner, or if it all, Mr. R. may "possibly reply;"—if he only reply to cavil, and make the worse appear the better reason, I may "possibly" decline to continue a discussion, which can only tend, upon his present plan of proceeding, to "serve his purpose," and to hinder truth, and occasion the enemies of the Lord,' those who profess nothing common to either of us, to blaspheme,' through our differences.

If Mr. R., for the sake of truth, and the conviction of his own mind, is willing really to investigate the matter, there is, probably, a way of so doing, more likely to advance these desirable ends, than pamphleteering his name before society, -that society too, which his faith brands as "idolatrous, and "of which," he says, "but one in 5000 are sincere believers in the doctrines they profess."

He knows where to find, if he be willing to submit his opinions to investigation, those authorities which can be consulted, and which, perhaps, may avail, under the influence of the Spirit of God; that would be a more satisfactory way of "proving innocence" in motive, than any other I can suggest; and I feel assured, that he would, by that means, disprove the appearance of his own desire to "assume a character" (p. 14), which, perhaps, attributing to others the sentiments which actuated himself, he did assume, when he not "anonymously" assumed the office of judge over the author of the Sermon on Col. i. 16, "CHRIST THE AUTHOR AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT," of the Unitarian interpretation of which text, Dr. Balguy has said, "Let not "such interpreters complain of the hardship of subscribing "to human articles. To all appearance, they will never be "at a loss, to accommodate any article to any doctrine."

APPENDIX.

No. 1.

I intend here, to point out a contradiction of Mr. R., by himself.

66

In his "Remarks," he says, (p. 9) that "there is a difference between the MORAL CREATION through the agency or "instrumentality of Christ, and the MATERIAL CREATION by "the Great Supreme.'

Further on, (p. 12) he denies "the actual formation of the "material world by Jesus Christ," and says, "there is no "resemblance to the language of Scripture in such an idea, "and that applied to the Creator." And at p. 13, he says, "no one would think of ascribing to him (CHRIST) the "attributes and perfections of the Supreme JEHOVAH," &c. In the "Reply," he says, (p. 6) that "the Supreme Being "himself, even the Father, is the Creator of all worlds." 1. Now, from these passages we learn, that Mr. R. excludes Christ from ALL participation in Creation whatever,—and that he is not Jehovah!

66

Again, in his lecture on Acts xxiv. 14, Mr. R. says, “If we were to ascribe to him ALL THE POWER AND PERFECTIONS OF DEITY, we believe we should strip him of the "highest excellence and glory of his character.

66

66

99

In the "Reply," (p. 6) he says, "That the Son of God was not the framer of the heavens, and the founder of the "earth; nor ought he, TO THE EXCLUSION OF "JEHOVAH, to be regarded under that character."

2. Now, from these passages we learn, that Mr. R. does not deny to Christ, the Son of God, SOME of the power and perfections of Deity, (though not ALL;) and that He MAY be regarded in conjunction with Jehovah, as having framed the heavens, and founded the earth.

By the first admission, Christ is excluded from all share in Creation; by the second, he IS NOT excluded from all share.

Thus do reasoners, who take Scripture in pieces to build up their own system therefrom, contradict themselves; and