Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

If, at the same time, the doctrines, thus renounced, are of high importance to the Christian system; and those, which distinguish it from all philosophical systems of Theology; then it will appear, that the renunciation of these doctrines is an error of dangerous influence, and deeply to be regretted ; and, as it grows necessarily out of the renunciation of the divinity of Christ, that that is an error also, of the same unhappy nature.

The 1st of these doctrines, which I shall mention, is the doctrine of human Depravity.

This doctrine, it is believed, has been fully evinced, in these discourses, to be a doctrine of the Scriptures. If it has not; it must have arisen either from the weakness, or the inattention, of the Preacher; for no truth is more clearly declared in any book, than this doctrine in the Scriptures; and none is more amply supported by the evidence of fact. In the Scriptures we are taught, in the most unequivocal language, that all men have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; that all are concluded under sin; that all are by nature children of wrath; being children of disobedience; that all are shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin. These declarations, to which the whole history of man gives the fullest attestation; and to which there is not even one solitary contradiction in fact; certainly stand with the Unitarians for nothing, or for nothing like what the words themselves customarily mean. In their view, we are not by nature children of wrath, as not being children of disobedience; we are not shapen in iniquity, nor conceived in sin; we are not concluded, or shut up, together, under sin; and every imagination of our hearts, as they believe, is not evil from our youth. 2dly. The impossibility of Justification by our own Righteousness is another of these doctrines.

To justify is to declare a being, placed under a law, to be just, or righteous, or, in other words, to have done that, which the law required. Mankind are placed, as subjects, under the law of God. They have not done what the law required; and therefore cannot, with truth, be declared to have done it; or, in other words, they cannot be justified. Accordingly, St. Paul, after having proved at length that all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners, says, Therefore by deeds of law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. And, again, If there had been a law, which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have come by law; but, if righteousness come by law, then Christ died in vain. But the Unitarians, in a vast multitude of instances, (for it is not true of them all) utterly deny this doctrine; and hold, that we are justified by our own repentance and obedience; both of which, they teach, are accepted for their own sake. GOD, therefore, is exhibited by them, as justifying us, in direct opposition to the express language of his law: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. He that doeth these things shall live by them; but the Soul, that sinneth, shall die. In direct contradiction

to these declarations of GoD himself, they hold, that the soul which sinneth shall not die; and that he is not cursed who does not continue in all things, written in the law, to do them: while he who doeth not these things shall yet, according to their scheme, live. Thus, although God has declared, That heaven and earth shall pass away, sooner than one jot, or tittle, of the law shall fail; their doctrine teaches us, that the whole law, so far as its penalty is concerned, shall fail, with respect to every person who repents. Not even an entire, unmingled repentance is demanded; nor a pure, uncontaminated future obedience. Both are professedly left imperfect. All the former sins are imperfectly repented of; and all the future obedience is mixed with sin. On the ground of this repentance, and this obedience, GoD is expected to justify man, still placed under a legal dispensation.

3dly. Another Doctrine of the same nature is the doctrine of Christ's Atonement.

The Unitarians, to whom I referred under the last head, as not holding the doctrines opposed to it, are those who admit the Doctrine of Christ's Atonement. This I suppose to be true of some of the Socinians, and some of the Arians. Some of the Socinians hold, that the fulness of the Godhead dwells, and will through eternity dwell, in Christ, bodily. What is supposed by them to be the proper import of this declaration, I know not that they have explained; and therefore may probably be unable to divine. So far as I can conjecture their intention, I should believe, with Dr. Price, that they really make Christ GOD; and therefore may not unnatur ally suppose, that he accomplished an expiation for the sins of men. If this conjecture be just, they harmonize substantially with Praxeas, because, as they deny a distinction of persons in the Godhead, they must suppose the Father, by a mysterious union, to have dwelt in the man Christ Jesus; and, thus influencing and directing all his conduct, to have accomplished, through him, an atonement to himself: Doctrine on account of which Praxeas and his followers were called Patripassians; as believing, that the Father himself suffered. Some of the Arians, also, have acknowledged, that Christ made an atonement for the sins of men. In what manner this was done, or can be done, by a creature, a subject of law and government, all whose obedience is due to the utmost extent of his powers, and circumstances, and through every moment of his existence, for himself; for his own justification; I know not, that they have attempted to explain. I rather suppose, that, though professed enemies to mystery, they choose to leave this, as a mystery which allows of no investigation. How an Atonement can be made by such a being, and how it can be accepted by GoD, in accordance with the Doctrines taught in the Scriptures, I confess myself unable to discern. Still it is but just to observe, that an Atonement is believed by a number of both Socinians and Arians to have been made by Christ. Dr. Priestly, and most, if not all

done, says St. Paul, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, those persons, who experience this change of character, are said to be born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; that is, they derive this change of character not from their parents, nor from their own efforts, nor from the efforts of any man, but from God.

But this change the Unitarians deny, and the agency of the Holy Spirit in effectuating it in the mind of man. Nay, they deny the existence of the Holy Spirit as a person, or agent. As a substitute for regeneration they declare mankind to become better in a gradual manner, by their own will, or efforts, and the efforts, or will, of their fellow-men, to such a degree, that God will accept them. In this manner they make the immense splendour of apparatus for our Redemption and Sanctification; and all the magnificent exhibitions of Christ and the Holy Spirit, terminate in this: that Christ came to declare divine truth to mankind, and to prove it to be divine truth; and that men, assenting to it with the understanding, change themselves by the ordinary efforts of a sinful fhind into such a character, as is denoted in the Scriptures by being born again, and created anew. Such, it would seem, was not, however, the opinion of St. Paul, when he said, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them; for they are spiritually discerned.

The present occasion will not permit me particularly to follow this subject any further. It will be sufficient to mention, summarily, several other doctrines, which have been denied by Dr. Priestly and his followers.

Our Saviour says, A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Dr. Priestly, on the contrary, informs us, that the human spirit is constituted only of organized Matter: that is, of flesh and bones. St. Paul tells us, that, when he is absent from the body, he shall be present with the Lord. Dr. Priestly holds, that Paul was nothing but body; and therefore could not be absent from the body, unless the body could be absent from itself. When the body dies, the soul, according to Dr. Priestly, terminates both its operations, and its being, until the resurrection, then to be created again; and therefore is not, and cannot be, present with the Lord, until after that period. The Scriptures assert the existence of Angels, of various orders, both good and evil; and delineate their characters, stations, actions, and enjoyments. Dr. Priestly utterly denies, and even ridicules, the doctrine, that evil angels exist; and labours very hard to disprove the existence of good angels. I do not remember, that he expressly denies it; and am not in possession of the volume, in which his opinions on this subject are expressed, but he says all, that is short of such an explicit denial; and plainly indicates, that he does not believe them

[graphic]

Beyond all this; he denies the plenary inspiration of the Apostles; and declares, that we are to acknowledge them inspired, only when they say they are inspired: and this, he says, we are to do, because the Apostles were honest men; and are to be believed in this, and all their other declarations. Dr. Priestly says expressly, that he does not consider the books of Scripture as inspired, but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to mankind; with every particular of which we cannot be too well acquainted. The writers of the books of Scripture, he says, were men, and therefore fallible. But all, that we have to do with them, is in the character of historians, and witnesses, of what they heard and saw; like all other historians, they were liable to mistakes. "Neither I," says he to Dr. Price," nor, I presume, yourself, believe implicitly every thing, which is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testament. I believe them," that is, the writers, 66 to have been men, and therefore fallible." And again; "That the books of Scripture were written by particular divine inspiration is a thing, to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence of Christianity." The reasonings of the divine writers, he declares, we are fully at liberty to judge of, as we are those of other men. Accordingly, he asserts St. Paul in a particular instance to have reasoned fallaciously; and maintains that Christ was both fallible and peccable. Other English Socinians unite with Dr. Priestly in these sentiments: while Socinians of other nations proceed so far, as to treat the writers themselves, and their books, with marked contempt. In these several things there is plainly an utter denial, that the Scriptures are a Revelation from God. To all these opinions Dr. Priestly was once directly opposed: for he was once a Trinitarian, and a Calvinist. The inference seems, therefore, to be necessary, that he was led to them all by his denial of the Deity of Christ. A similar transformation appears to have been undergone by many other Socinians; and something very like it by no small number of Arians. The observation of Mr. Wilberforce, therefore, seems to be but too well founded, when he says; "In the course, which we lately traced from nominal orthodoxy to absolute Infidelity, Unitarianism is, indeed, a sort of half-way house, if the expression may be pardoned; a stage on the journey, where sometimes a person, indeed, finally stops; but where, not unfrequently, he only pauses for a while; and then pursues his progress."

IV. The last objection, which I shall make at the present time against the doctrine of the Unitarians, is its Immoral Influence.

Mr. Belsham says, " Rational Christians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion." Dr. Priestly says, "A great number of the Unitarians, of the present age, are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion: and there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in them, than is observable in VOL. II.

5

others." He also says, that he hopes they have more of a real principle of Religion, than they seem to have. He further allows, that Unitarians are peculiarly wanting in zeal for Religion.

At the same time, Dr. Priestly acknowledges, that Calvinists have less apparent conformity to the world; and that they seem to have more of a real principle of Religion, than Socinians. He also acknowledges, that those, who, from a principle of religion, ascribe more to God, and less to man, than other persons, are men of the greatest elevation of piety. Wilberforce declares it to be an unquestionable fact, that Unitarians are not, in general, distinguished for superior purity of life; and that Unitarianism seems to be resorted to by those, who seek a refuge from the strictness of the practical precepts contained in the Bible.

That these representations are just, I consider as completely proved by Dr. Fuller in his letters; and no less completely the immoral tendency of the Socinian system.

It is, also, a well known truth, that Unitarian Churches are in general moderately frequented on the Sabbath; that the sermons of their preachers are generally cold; especially on the peculiar duties of Religion; that they have never formed, nor united with others in forming, Missions for the propagation of the Gospel among the Heathens and Mohammedans; nor distinguished themselves by any discernible earnestness in the cause of practical Christianity. On the contrary, their own declarations, too numerous to be here recited, teach us abundantly, that in the view of a great part of them, almost all the seriousness, fervour, and selfdenial, that deep sense of sin, and that prayerful, watchful and strenuous opposition to temptation, which their opponents esteem indispensable to salvation, are mere enthusiasm, superstition, or melancholy. Christianity, with them, seems to be an easy, pleasant kind of Religion; unincumbered by any peculiar restraints; admitting without difficulty of what are usually called the pleasures and amusements of the world; and only confining them within the bounds of delicacy and politeness. Can this, let me ask, be taking up the cross, denying ourselves, and following after Christ?

« PoprzedniaDalej »