It is my purpose, in the present discourse, to shew that, while these writers propose their scheme for the express purpose of getting rid of what they are pleased to term difficulty and inconsistency in the received doctrines of the Christian Church, they themselves present for our acceptance, and receive without scruple many difficulties which are more important; and that, on this ground alone, their scheme is by no means entitled to a preference, in the judgment of any reasonable person.

In proceeding to do this, it is not my intention to enter into a particular examination of the manner in which they propose to interpret scriptural texts, and thereby to prove that the great doctrines of our Lord's Divinity, and of the Atonement effected by His death, are not contained in holy Scripture. I abstain from entering upon this subject, because it is my real opinion that the unsoundness of their interpretations, and of their reasonings founded upon them, have been often most triumphantly proved *; insomuch that nothing remains on this topic to be done, unless it be to take care that the answers to their arguments be as fully and as frequently brought before the public, as the arguments themselves.

*For confutations of Unitarian arguments, I would particularly refer, amongst numerous other treatises, to Leslie's Dialogues with a Socinian, and to Lawrence's and Rennel's Remarks on the Improved Version.

I propose to confine my observations in this discourse to the two following points, which appear to me not to have been set forth before the public as fully as their importance deserves *; and which involve most serious difficulties connected with the scheme proposed by the modern Unitarians. I am prepared to maintain that, on the ground of these difficulties alone, independently of many other objections which have been often most successfully urged against them, no rational and judicious Christian will deem their creed more consistent with the true meaning of Scripture, or will accept it as more simple, easy, and probable, than the received creed of the Christian Church.

The first point to which I shall advert is this. Supposing the Unitarian interpretations to be admissible in point of construction, it cannot be denied that, speaking of them in general, they are not the most plain and evident and obvious interpretations of the particular texts. Allowing this to be the case, I maintain that it is quite impossible to believe that the all-wise God, from whom the Unitarians allow that the revelation of the Gospel proceeds, would have permitted it to be conveyed to men in terms which, according to their scheme, lead, in the most obvious sense, to important error, and from *See Note A a.

which the real truth can be derived, only by departing from the plainest, and having recourse to far-fetched and less obvious, interpretations.

The second point, to which I propose to advert, is this. The Unitarians, while they contend that our Saviour was merely a human being, still allow, and strenuously contend, that he exhibited throughout his life the greatest consistency of character, and the perfection of moral excellency; and they place him, on this ground, above all the other prophets that have ever appeared. Now, I am prepared to maintain that, if it could be believed that he was merely a human being, he must rank in a very low station as to consistency and excellence of character. It is quite undeniable that he frequently and in various manners claimed for himself peculiar connexion with God, and used expressions respecting himself which excited in others the notion that he was more than a human being; that he knew these notions were raised in the minds of others, and that he did not take any steps to remove them. If then it could be believed that he was merely a human being, the opinion must also be maintained, from which every Christian will shrink with abhorrence, that he wilfully encouraged mistakes respecting his own nature and dignity, that he was vain-glorious to the greatest excess in claiming divine

232

ON MODERN UNITARIANISM.

which the real truth can be derived, only by departing from the plainest, and having recourse to far-fetched and less obvious, interpretations.

The second point, to which I propose to advert, is this. The Unitarians, while they contend that our Saviour was merely a human being, still allow, and strenuously contend, that he exhibited throughout his life the greatest consistency of character, and the perfection of moral excellency; and they place him, on this ground, above all the other prophets that have ever appeared. Now, I am prepared to maintain that, if it could be believed that he was merely a human being, he must rank in a very low station as to consistency and excellence of character. It is quite undeniable that he frequently and in various manners claimed for himself peculiar connexion with God, and used expressions respecting himself which excited in others the notion that he was more than a human being; that he knew these notions were raised in the minds of others, and that he did not take any steps to remove them. If then it could be believed that he was merely a human being, the opinion must also be maintained, from which every Christian will shrink with abhorrence, that he wilfully encouraged mistakes respecting his own nature and dignity, that he was vain-glorious to the greatest excess in claiming divine