ed to support this doctrine. Whereas every Unitarian perfectly well knows, that the unity of God is as entirely, and as professedly, holden by Trinitarians as himself; that none of their arguments are directed against it; and that this point has never been, and never can be, in debate between him and them. That the doctrine of the Trinity involves, or infers, the existence of more Gods than one, every Unitarian has a right to prove; and may with perfect fairness prove, if he can. But to insinuate, that Trinitarians believe the existence of more Gods than one, and to treat them as if they thus believed, when it is perfectly well known that every Trinitarian disclaims such belief with indignation; is conduct, which, in my view, admits of no justification.

2dly. The Unitarians customarily undertake to prove that Christ is a man; and thence triumph also, as if they had refuted the doctrine of their opposers. Now it is well known to every Unitarian, that the Trinitarians with one voice acknowledge Christ to be a man; and that this point, therefore, is not in controversy between him and them.

It is wholly disingenuous, therefore, to insinuate that it is in debate; or to attempt to make it a part of the controversy, when they know, that Trinitarians as uniformly hold it as themselves. Of these facts, however, they usually take not the least notice, but appear to consider both points as the principal topics in debate. Such conduct in their antagonists the Unitarians would censure with severity.

I shall conclude this discussion with two observations.

The first is, that the Unitarians are extensively disagreed concerning the person of Christ. The Arians consider him as a super-angelic being: The Socinians partly as a man, in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and partly as a man, differing from other men only by being wiser and better: The Sabellians, as God manifested in one manner. The Patripassians, as the Father living, and suffering, in the man Jesus Christ. Some of the Unitarians hold, that he created the Universe; some, that he made an atonement for sin; some that he ought to be worshipped; and some deny all these doctrines. This difference is derived from two sources: one is, that their reason, or philosophy, dictates nothing concerning Christ, in which they

can harmonize. The other is, that the Scriptures in no very satisfactory manner support either of their opinions. But it ought to be observed, that this very difference is of such a nature, as strongly to indicate, that the Scriptures exhibit Christ as God. The second observation is, that Unitarianism has an evident tendency to infidelity.

This is strongly evident in the manner, in which the Unitarians speak of the Scriptures; the insufficiency which they attribute to them for settling religious doctrines; and the superior sufficiency, which they attribute to Reason. It is evident, also, in the laxness of their ideas concerning what genuine religion is; their want of veneration for the sabbath; their want of attendance on the public worship of God; and their devotion to the pleasures and amusements of life.

Dr. Priestley acknowledges, that "the Unitarian Societies do not flourish; that their members have but a slight attachment to them, and easily desert them."

Voltaire also says, "that down to his own time, only a very small number of those, called Unitarians, had held any religious meetings."

Dr. Priestley also says, that "many Unitarians have become more indifferent to religion in general, than they were before; and to all the modes and doctrines of religion." Concerning himself, he says, "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, 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 also says," he does not know when his creed will be fixed." This I consider as the true progress, nature, and tendency, of Unitarianism. The end of this progress in most men is easily foreseen. Let him, therefore, who finds himself inclined to think favourably of these opinions, consider well, before he embraces them, what will probably be the final termination of his religious system.

SERMON XLII.

INCARNATION OF CHRIST.

I

ROMANS viii. 3.

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

HAVE, in several preceding discourses, endeavoured to settle the meaning of the phrase, God's own Son, used in this passage of the Scriptures. This was indispensably necessary, at the opening of all the observations, intended to be made concerning the doctrines of the Christian system. As these doctrines are truths partly unfolding to us the character and conduct of this wonderful person, and partly disclosing to us the consequences of his interference in the behalf of mankind; as his character, in a greater or less degree, affects every doctrine of what is appropriately called the Christian Religion; and as those, who set out with different views of his character, proceed farther and farther asunder, so as to form in the end entirely different systems of religious doctrine; it became indispensable, that this great point should, as far as possible, be fixed at the beginning. If the attempt to do this has been successful, in the degree which I have hoped, it will contribute not a little to settle on a firm foundation most of the doctrines, which remain to be investigated. My own views concerning them, it will, at least, contribute to explain.

In this passage we are informed, that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. The meaning of this phrase, (the likeness

of sinful flesh,) will be obvious from similar phrases in Philippians ii. 7, 8, He was made, or, as it is in the original, He existed, in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man. In the first of these phrases, the original word, quowar, is the same with that translated, likeness, in the text. In the second, it is mar; a term of a kindred signification, denoting form, or fashion. In the passage in Philippians, the phrases, He existed in the likeness of men, and, He was found in fashion as a man, denote, that he was a real man. In the text, the phrase, the likeness of sinful flesh, denotes, that he was sent in real flesh; here figuratively called sinful, because it is in all other instances, except that of Christ, the flesh, or body, of sinful beings.

The Doctrine, contained in this passage, is, therefore, the following:

THAT CHRIST, WHEN HE APPEARED IN THIS WORLD, WAS A

REAL MAN.

This doctrine, like that of the Deity of Christ, has been extensively disputed.

The Heretics, generally, who embraced the Gnostic philosophy, denied Christ to have been a man. Some individuals, and some classes, held, that he was clothed in a body of air; that he suffered only in appearance; and that Judas Iscariot suffered in his stead.

To all these and the like doctrines, they were led by philosophizing on this subject. It is a just observation of Lardner, that "Heretics were, in the general, men of a curious and inquisitive turn of mind, and greatly indulged this disposition, which led them to speculate on many points of doctrine, concerning which the Scriptures had afforded little or no light. When the Scriptures were in some cases inconsistent with their notions, they were for making them yield to their philosophical opinions. Thus the simplicity of truth was banished, and endless divisions arose." Tertullian, also, says, that "heresies are derived from philosophy; and that secular wisdom is a rash (or fool-hardy) interpreter of the Divine nature, and disposition." These observations are with equal force and justice, applicable to heresies of modern days, and those of the ancients; and few of either will be found to have arisen from any other source, beside a philoso

phy, too proud, or too knowing, to submit implicitly to the testimony of God.

There are two modes of conduct, with respect to Religion, in which the mind may be justly said to act rationally. One is, to determine, antecedently to our knowledge of a revelation, as well as we can, what is religious truth, by our Reason; the other, to find out, and embrace, when we have become acquainted with Revelation, what it declares to be religious truth. In the former of these situations, Reason is our only guide. In the latter, its only business is to discover whether the professed Revelation is a real one; and, after this point is settled affirmatively, to discover, and receive, whatever it declares. God has now become our guide; and, as He can neither deceive, nor be deceived, our duty is to receive his testimony implicitly. Had this plain and equitable rule been uniformly followed, Christianity would never have been thus distorted; nor the Church rent asunder by such lamentable divisions.

The reason why the Docetae, one class of the ancient Unitarians, denied Christ to be a man, was the general principle of the Gnostics; that moral evil has its seat in Matter. Hence they held, that the human soul, which they believed to have been originally pure, derived its contamination solely from its union with the body. It was no unnatural consequence, for those, who embraced this doctrine, to adopt the impossibility of an union between God and the human body; since such an union was, of course, supposed to be capable of contaminating even the Divine purity.

Their philosophy, therefore, seems necessarily to have led them into the conclusion, that Christ, whom they believed to be God, was never united to a human body. In the same manner has the philosophy of other sects led them, also, to embrace doctrines, directly opposed to the express declarations of the Scrip

tures.

That Christ was a man in the absolute sense, is easily made evident by many kinds of proof, and by almost numberless passages of Scripture.

1st. He is called a man, and the son of man, in a very great multitude of instances.