day. "As great a difference," I replied, " as between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ as the true God, and the worship of an invisible, unmanifested, 'unknown God.' This led to further arguments and explanations, for I felt it my duty, and an act of charity to him, to undeceive him, if possible, on so important a point; knowing also that he had read some of our writings, but, it would seem, rather inattentively. Dr. Priestley seemed at first to labour under a similar mistake, when he addressed the members of the New Church as follows:

"My fellow-christians, it is with peculiar pleasure that I address any class of persons by this appellation; and I am happy to observe, that you value Christianity as much as I do." Ought not the New Church to be particularly on its guard, whether in writing, preaching, or conversation, lest it should give the least occasion to those out of the Church to draw such an inference? It is regretted that an article has appeared in the last number which may possibly confirm such notions with some; for, to say the least of it, it appears in the form of an apology for Unitarianism, and speaks of it as a close approximation to the New Church; whereas, in truth, we are wide as the poles asunder. A view of Unitarian theology, as below, may set the matter in its proper light, in the minds of those who may otherwise be deceived.

If we examine the sermons and lectures of the modern writers and ministers of that denomination, we find that the highest point, the very climax of their theology is, "morality." Hence the frequent occurrence of such terms, in their ablest writers, as,-" Christian morality,"-" moral sense," "moral good,"-"moral conduct,"

moral feeling,"-" moral sentiment,"-" moral nature,”—“ moral doctrine of the New Testament,"-"moral evidence," "moral punishment,”—“ moral discipline," and, indeed, moral every thing. These are phrases which are scattered over their pages profusely. But should the term spiritual appear, (of which they have no distinct idea,) it is noted as a new star in the firmament, which belongs to some other system. This word, therefore, may well appear in italics, to mark our wonder at the phenomenon; and the words Truth, Love, Order, may well appear in capitals; for in their high and important meaning in the theology of the New Church, and the meaning attached to them in Unitarian theology, how vast the difference! Between the two there is scarcely anything in common.

With regard to morality, we know how to appreciate it in civil and religious society, and to assign it its proper place in the "order" of N. S. NO. 62.-VOL. VI.

I

even

66

regeneration; but it reaches not the full height of its "standard." We know that the spiritual man is also a moral man; but that the merely moral man is not a spiritual man. This is abundantly shown in our writings, and is a doctrine based upon the Word of God, rightly understood. We know, also, that not only Unitarians, but Solifidians," too, (so called on account of the party to which they belong,) and indeed all others, if they are good "moral" men, upright and useful members of civil society, demand our respect, and we would do them every possible good, as far as it is in our power, not only morally but spiritually. In this respect, therefore, our attention need not be called exclusively to Unitarians. The noble and God-like principle of Christian charity, which is a prominent doctrine in our theology, extends the right hand of friendship to all such persons. I trust that no one who may have read the former article will think otherwise. As, however, the Unitarians are brought on the tapis in such terms of commendation, let us take a cursory glance at their theology. What are their notions of the Word of God? That it is a code of morality;—that it is not plenarily inspired. Of the inspiration of the writers, they speak as of men "turned into the petrified images and empty vessels of a physical or intellectual inspiration." This is burlesque.

Hence they proceed with an attempt to prove the "chronological and geographical inconsistencies in the writers," and the degree of "credibility," with which they should be received. This, no "Solifidian" will do. The Unitarian says, "Till it can be shewn that inspiration is co-extensive with omniscience, it must remain compatible with error." Similar to the views which they entertain of the Holy Word, are their views of "The Word made flesh." A learned writer and minister of this school says of the Lord, "Him we accept, not indeed as very God, but as the true image of God, commissioned to show the entire moral perfections of Deity." "The peculiar office of Christ is to supply a new moral image of Providence; and every thing, therefore, except the moral complexion of his mind, we leave behind, as human and historical merely, and apply to no religious use.' Dismal theology! Cold and lifeless as the aspect of the frigid zone ! As opposite to New Church theology as heat and cold, or as the arctic region, with its icebergs and snow, to the warm, cheering, fruitful climates of the globe. Indeed, in their writings the Lord is spoken of as a " delegate" from God; and it is well known that they would consider it gross idolatry to worship him. But others, who are not of the New Church, believe that Jesus Christ is God, and

many of the simple minded among them (I mean that " simplicity and godly sincerity" of which the apostle speaks) have no idea of worshiping any God but him. One of the most popular ministers of the Unitarian body has said and written as follows, that in Deut. xxix. 5, 6, "Moses is called God with a distinctness which cannot be equalled in the case of Christ." He is objecting to the appellation of God Man as applied to Jesus Christ. And the sarcastic and presumptive remark he makes upon that passage, which remark he intends to apply to our Lord, is this," What relief, let me ask, should be obtained from the difficulty of this passage, by being told that Moses had two natures in one person, and must be received as God Man ?" On the prophecy contained in Isaiah vii. 14, and applied in Matt. i. 23, to Jesus Christ, the same writer says that, "the name of Immanuel is not given to the Messiah by the prophet; and the citation of it in this connection by the evangelist, is an example of those loose accomodations, or even misapplications, of passages in the Old Testament by writers in the New."

These recently published sentiments (moral, of course) tend to show that Unitarianism has not improved or approached nearer to the truth since the days of Priestley. Again, he discovers that in the Proem of St. John's Gospel "there is language which is no where employed by the other evangelists." Hear him account for this:-"He wrote in Asia Minor, where he was surrounded by Platonic influences; he was familiar with the terms, modes of thought, &c." [The italics are not mine.] His (St. John's) language is the very same which is the common stock and technical vocabulary of Philo, the Platonizing Jew." Now all this turning and twisting, with much more of the same kind, is to endeavour, if possible, to relieve themselves of the great doctrine taught in the first verses of that gospel, respecting Jesus Christ. The highest appellation they give him is, a “delegate,” a "vicegerent." Hence, the same writer says, on the passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, quoted from Psalm xiv. :-" Thy throne, O God," &c. that "all the power and dignity there ascribed to Christ, are described as acquisition after his ascension; that not till then was he accosted with the title of divinity previously applied to Solomon; not till then did he become greater than the angels, or receive an anointment of gladness above his fellows; not till then did he receive his heirship, his filiation, his vicegerency of God. Of his supreme Deity, scarcely could any more emphatic denial be conceived."

Such are the sentiments of Unitarians respecting the Lord, and which are said to be "sentiments approximating to those of the New

Church." I confess I am one of those who cannot perceive any approximation whatsoever. Let the writer I have before quoted, or any other of the same denomination, be told that their belief concerning "the person of the Lord" is a near approximation to ours, and I am much deceived if they would not laugh at the egregious folly of such a supposition. For what says that writer respecting the doctrine of the Trinity as held by the New Church? He says, "Every attempt to give consistency to the statement of the Trinity, has broken out into a heresy; and the Indwelling and the Swedenborgian schemes, are so many results of the rash propensity to seek for clear ideas in a form of unintelligible or contradictory speech." We thus perceive, that all they would give us in return for any attempt to make common cause with them, would be, to denounce us as Swedenborgian heretics; for the very mention of the Divine Humanity and God Man, is to them, "a form of unintelligible and contradictory speech."

What are Unitarian views of a hereafter? They believe indeed in an eternity of happiness, but deny that an eternity of torment or woe awaits the wicked. Hear the words of another champion in the cause" I have long regarded the belief of eternal punishment as one of those moral paradoxes which you cannot deny, and for which you cannot account." "The everlasting hell grew out of the mistakes of the vulgar, and the speculations of the learned. The doctrine of eternal torment derives much strength from ecclesiastical interests; and it is further sustained" (might he not have said in his case, denied?) "by all the logic of theological subtlety. There is not a single proof which can be urged in favour of a future life, which is not an irrefutable argument against future perdition. If a great number of immortals are to endure infinite pain, so far as they are concerned, the existence of a soul and the being of a God are infinite evils. Continued and extreme pain must either destroy its subject or itself, and then on this argument alone, we perceive that eternal torment is a theological figment, a nonentity and impossibility. "If the doctrine of eternal torment be true, no such attribute as divine mercy can have being; if this doctrine be true, the past is a wreck, and the future a curse." These views (he says) "are those of Unitarians in general." And the doctrine of "universal restoration" (he says) "is a blessed and beautiful doctrine." Is it not, in truth, a dangerous and an unscriptural one? And in vain we turn over their pages to other parts of their religious and moral scheme, in quest of more sublime and spiritual views.

Every part of the system is more or less corrupt. What unworthy and antichristian notions we find of the divine miracles performed by the Lord! Obsessions by evil spirits are turned into ridicule, and every endeavour is used to explain away the positive declarations of Scripture which relate to it. They were "physical calamities," -"natural and intelligible diseases, regular enough to fall under the cognizance of science, but which science had deserted and left, to the tender mercies of superstition; of which epilepsy and insanity are the most remarkable examples." "I believe," says the same writer, "that wherever demons are said to have been cast out, the only historical event described is, the cure of some physical or mental disease."

I have purposely abstained from lengthened comment, in order to relieve you from the trouble of curtailing the article, knowing also that the quotations will speak for themselves with every serious and reflecting mind. We see from the whole, that Unitarianism and Solifidianism are equally wrong; and when we find persons who professedly belong to the one or to the other, really approximating, in opinion and in life, to the truths and doctrines of the New Church, it is not because either of the former systems are improved, or have approached nearer to the verities of the New Church; but that the persons themselves have so far departed from the doctrines they are supposed to hold, and that their lives are better than their systems. The mind of the person is changed; but Unitarianism and Solifidianism remain unaltered; nor can the change be attributed to any thing like an approximation of their scheme to the New Church doctrines.

We have nothing better written on Unitarianism since the days of Hindmarsh, and I cannot do better than close this article with a brief quotation from the reply of that able defender, by his writings, of our doctrines, in his reply to Dr. Priestley:-" Christianity, if I apprehend it aright, is a system of religion that acknowledges the divinity of Christ; or, in other words, that Christ is God. In what sense, then, can a person be called a Christian, who does not acknowledge him as such? Does the bare belief of his being a prophet, like Moses or any other man, entitle you to be called after his name, any more than after the names of other prophets? Why, let me ask, do you call yourself a Christian, or a follower of Christ, if you believe Christ to be a mere man? You think it idolatry to worship Christ, and yet you consider it an honour to be called after his name! Now, I can safely and confidently take upon me to declare, in the