of all the principles and consequences of the Unitarian scheme, not to be found in any other work of so small a compass; that I think it may not be unacceptable, to subjoin to these pages, a brief abstract of it as described by the author. A summary of the tenets of this enlightened sect may furnish matter of speculation, not merely curious but instructive to those who are not yet tinctured with its principles; and to those who are, it may perhaps suggest a salutary warning, by showing it in all its frightful consequences. Unitarianism, it is true, has not yet made its way into this country, in any digested shape; but wherever there are found to prevail, a vain confidence in the sufficiency of human reason, and a consequent impatience of authority and control, with a desire to reject received opinions, and to fritter away by subtle distinctions, plain and established precepts; there the soil is prepared for its reception, and the seed is already

sown.

No. XI.-ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN UNITARIANS AND

SOCINIANS.

PAGE 23. (1) The doctrine stated in the text, is that maintained by all the Socinian writers. It may be found so laid down (Theol. Rep. vol. i.) in the first article, written by Dr. Priestley, under the title of Clemens. It is however to be noted, that Doctor Priestley, his follower Mr. Belsham, and others of the same theological opinions, disclaim the title of Socinian; and desire to be distinguished by that of Unitarian, for the reason assigned in the preceding number. Mr. Belsham goes so far as to say, (Review, &c. p. 227,) that his "Creed is as far removed from that of Socinus, as it is from the peculiar doctrines of Mr. Wilberforce." Indeed, to do Socinus justice, it must be admitted that the Creed of the Unitarian differs materially from his. He had not reached the acme of modern illumination. He had not sufficient penetration to discern the various mistakes in the application of scripture, and the numerous errors in reasoning, committed by the evangelists and apostles, which have been detected and dragged to light by the sagacious Unitarian. He had not discovered that Christ was the human offspring of Joseph and Mary. He had not devested our Lord of his regal as well as his sacerdotal character, and reduced him to the condition of a mere prophet. He had weakly imagined that by virtue of his regal office, Christ possessed the power of delivering his people from the punishment of their sins. But Doctor Priestley has rectified this error. In his Hist. of Cor. (vol. i. p. 272.) he expressly points out the difference be

tween himself and Socinus on this head. "It immediately follows," he says, "from his (Socinus's) principles, that Christ being only a man, though ever so innocent, his death could not, in any proper sense of the word, atone for the sins of other men. He was, however, far from abandoning the doctrine of Redemption, in the scripture sense of the word, that is, of our deliverance from the guilt of sin by his gospel, as promoting repentance and reformation; and from the punishment due to sin, by his power of giving eternal life to all that obey him.—But indeed, if God himself freely forgives the sins of men upon repentance, there could be no occasion, properly speaking, for any thing farther being done, to avert the punishment with which they had been threatened."

This passage, whilst it marks the distinction between the Socinian and the Unitarian, fully opens up the scheme of the latter. But on this system, it may be curious to inquire, in what light the death of our blessed Lord is represented, Dr. Priestley (Theol. Rep. vol. i. p. 39.) gives us this information." Christ being a man, who suffered and died in the best of causes, there is nothing so very different in the occasion and manner of his death, from that of others who suffered and died after him in the same cause of Christianity, but that their sufferings and death may be considered in the same light with his."-This extraordinary assertion exactly agrees with what is recorded of Solomon Eccles, a great preacher and prophet of the Quakers; who expressly declares, “ that the blood of Christ was no more than the blood of any other Saint." (Leslie's Works, fol. vol. ii. p. 195.)-Thus strangely do the philosophy of Doctor Priestley, and the fanaticism of the Quaker, concur with that which both would pronounce to be the gross absurdity of Popery. For if the death of Christ be viewed in the same light with the death of any other martyr, the invocation of the Popish saints may appear a consequence not so revolting to Christian piety. That the lines of error, in their manifold directions, should sometimes intersect, if not for a certain length of way coincide, is not however matter of surprise.

But, the death of Christ being treated in this manner by Doctor Priestley and his Unitarian followers, one is naturally led to inquire what their notions are of his state subsequent to his resurrection. Mr. Belsham (Review, &c. p. 74.) gives us satisfaction on this head. The Unitarians, he says, here entirely differ from the Socinians; for that the latter hold the "unscriptural and most incredible notion, that since his resurrection he has been advanced to the government of the Universe: but a consistent Unitarian, acknowledging Jesus as a man in all respects like to his brethren,

regards his kingdom as entirely of a spiritual nature.” We are not, however, to suppose our blessed Lord altogether banished from existence; for this gentleman admits again, (p. 85.) that he is "now alive," somewhere," and without doubt employed in offices the most honourable and benevolent;"-in such, of course, as any of his brother-men, to whom he is above described as in all respects similar, might be engaged. On this, and other such wild blasphemies of this sect, as represented by Mr. Belsham, see the Appen

dix.

No. XII.-ON THE CORRUPTION OF MAN'S NATURAL STATE.

PAGE 24. (m) They who may wish to see this subject extensively treated, will find it amply discussed in Leland's work on the Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation. In Mr. Wilberforce's PRACTICAL VIEW also, we meet with a description of the state of unassisted nature, distinguished not less unhappily by its truth, than by its eloquence.

After a forcible enumeration of the gross vices into which the heathen world, both ancient and modern had been sunk; and this not only amongst the illiterate and the vulgar, but also amongst the learned and the refined, even to the decent Virgil, and the philosophic Cicero; he proceeds in the following animated tone, to examine the state of morals among those who have been visited by the lights of the gospel.

"But," "says he, "you give up the heathen nations as indefensible; and wish rather to form your estimate of man, from a view of countries which have been blessed with the light of revelation.-True it is, and with joy let us record the concession, Christianity has set the general tone of morals much higher than it was ever found in the Pagan world. She has every where improved the character, and multiplied the comforts of society; particularly to the poor and the weak, whom from the beginning she professed to take under her special patronage. Like her divine Author," who sends his rain on the evil and on the good," she showers down unnumbered blessings on thousands who profit from her bounty, while they forget or deny her power, and set at nought her authority. Yet, even in this more favoured situation, we shall discover too many lamentable proofs of the depravity of man. Nay, this depravity will now become even more apparent, and less deniable. For what bars does it not now overleap? Over what motives is it not now victorious? Consider well the superior light and advantages which we en

joy, and then appreciate the superior obligations which are imposed on us. Consider well," &c.

Yet in spite of all our knowledge, thus powerfully enforced and pressed home upon us, how little has been our progress in virtue? It has been by no means such as to prevent the adoption in our days of various maxims of antiquity, which when well considered, too clearly establish the depravity of man." Having adduced several instances in proof of this assertion, he thus proceeds; "But surely to any who call themselves Christians, it may be justly urged as an astonishing instance of human depravity, that we ourselves, who enjoy the full light of revelation; to whom God has vouchsafed such clear discoveries of what it concerns us to know of his being and attributes; who profess to believe that in him we live, and move, and have our being; that to him we owe all the comforts we here enjoy, and the offer of eternal glory purchased for us by the atoning blood of his own Son that we, thus loaded with mercies, should every one. of us be continually chargeable with forgetting his authority, and being ungrateful for his benefits; with slighting his gracious proposals, or receiving them at best but heartlessly and coldly."

"But to put the question concerning the natural depravity of man to the severest test; take the best of the human species, the watchful, diligent, self-denying Christian, and let him decide the controversy; and that, not by inferences drawn from the practices of a thoughtless and dissolute world, but by an appeal to his personal experience. Go with him into his closet, ask him his opinion of the corruption of the heart; and he will tell you, that he is deeply sensible of its power, for that he has learned it from much self-observation, and long acquaintance with the workings of his own mind. He will tell you, that every day strengthens this conviction; yea, that hourly he sees fresh reason to deplore his want of simplicity in intention, his infirmity of purpose, his low views, his selfish unworthy desires, his backwardness to set about his duty, his languor and coldness in performing it: that he finds himself obliged continually to confess that he feels within him two opposite principles, and that he cannot do the things that he would. He cries out in the language of the excellent Hooker, "The little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had him in our debt books; our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, and pardon our offences!” (Wik berforce's Practical View, p. 28-37.)

M

Such is the view which a pious and impressive writer has given of what, all who reflect must acknowledge, to be the true condition of man. Another writer, not less pious and impressive, (Mrs. Hannah More,) has, with her usual powers of eloquence, presented the same picture of the moral and religious history of the world, in her admirable Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education. To observations similar to those of Mr. Wilberforcé on the doctrine of human depravity, she adds this remark. "Perhaps one reason why the faults of the most eminent saints are recorded in scripture is, to add fresh confirmation to this doctrine. If Abraham, Moses, Noah, Elijah, David, and Peter sinned, who, shall we presume to say, has escaped the universal taint?" (H. More's Works, vol. iv. pp. 330, 331.)

How easily is this question answered by the follower of Priestley or I may add, (strange as the combination may appear,) of Wesley! The former produces his philosopher, the latter his saint, in refutation of such unworthy and dis paraging notions of human nature. They differ indeed in one material point. The one contends, that by his own virtuous resolutions he can extricate himself from vicious propensities and habits; whilst the other is proud to admit, that the divine favour has been peculiarly exerted in his behalf, to rescue him from his sins. The one denies, that he was ever subject to an innatè depravity: the other confesses that he was, boasts even of its inveteracy, but glories that he has been perfectly purified from its stains. But both are found to agree most exactly in that vain self-complacency which exults in the reflection that they "are not as other men are;" and in the arrogant presumption that they are lifted

The contemptuous language, which the over-weening Methodist is too apt to employ, with respect to all who are not within his sanctified pale, but more especially with respect to the clergy of the establishment, affords but too strong a justification of this charge, as it applies to him. The clergy are uniformly with religionists of this description, “dumb dogs," "watch men who sleep upon their posts," "priests of Baal,” “wolves in sheep's clothing," &c. &c. Indeed Mr. Whitefield informs us in his works, (vol. iv. p. 67.) that Mr. Wesley thought meanly of Abraham, and, he believes of David also:" whilst, of Mr. Wesley himself we are told, that "wherever he went, he was received as an apostle;” and that “in the honour due to Moses he also had a share, being placed at the head of a great people by him who called them," &c. Hampson's life of Wesley, vol. iii. p. 35. Coke's life of Wesley, p. 520.)—Mr. Wesley has taken care to let mankind know, that Methodism "is the only religion worthy of God" (Hamps. vol. iii. p. 30.) and the miracles which repeatedly attested his divine mission for the propagation of this religion, he has most copiously recorded throughout his Journals-Whoever wishes to form a just idea of the pernicious extravagances of this arch enthusiast, and of his followers, will find ample satisfaction in Bishop Lavington's Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists compared, (a book, which B. Warburton, in one of his private letters to his