which in due season received their proper accomplishment. They believe that he was crucified, dead, and buried; that on the third day by the power of God he was raised to life: that he appeared to his disciples at different times for forty days, affording them many sensible and infallible proofs of his resurrection from the dead; after which time he was in their presence miraculously taken up into the clouds, and withdrawn from all visible connexion with this world.

"3. The Unitarians also believe that within a few days after the ascension of Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, he fulfilled his pro mise of pouring out upon his apostles a miraculous EFFUSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, by which their minds were enlightened in the knowledge of truth, and inspired with zeal, courage and fortitude for its promulgation and defence; by which they were also at the same time endowed with various miraculous gifts and powers, and particularly with that of speaking divers languages, and of communicating the Holy Spirit to the first proselytes by im position of hands. And the Unitarians further believe, that immediately after this extraordinary event the apostles went forth to preach the gospel of Christ, first to the Jews and afterwards to the Gentiles; and that the extent and rapidity of their success were such as can in no other way be accounted for, but upon the supposition that the doctrine was true and that the miracles were incontrovertible.

"4. The Unitarians believe, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that God will JUDGE THE WORLD in righteousness by the MAN whom he hath ordained, of which he hath given assurance to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead. And that the hour is coming when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation. And this sublime and infinitely important dactrine they conceive to be the sum and substance of the christian revelation; the great object of which was to bring life and immor tality to light.

"Lastly, The Unitarians believe that the SCRIPTURES of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation from God, and that they are the only authentic repositories of his revealed will." P. 5.

Now this statement is extremely plausible, and will doubtless have its due effect in dazzling the eyes of those, who are little acquainted with other writings of the same author. Mr. Belsham has certainly a considerable power of language at his command, he can inflate inanity with high sounding words, till it swells into a bulky and an imposing form. But let us hear, Mr. Belsham in another place, where he has not called in the aid of expressions, to which common consent has attached very dif. ferent ideas from those which Mr. B. is known to entertain.

In

In another place*, the "promised Messiah" is represented as "a man, constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties;" and again †, "that when Jesus and his Apostles deliver opinions upon subjects unconnected with the object of their mission, such opinions, and their reasonings upon them, are to be received with the same attention and caution, with those of persons in similar circumstances, of similar education, and with similar habits of thinking." In the same work also, (p. 190.) Mr. B. asserts, that we have no sufficient data, satisfactorily to determine, whether Jesus, through the whole course of his private life, was completely exempt from all the errors and failings of human nature.

We now appeal to the plain understanding of our readers, and ask, whether a man, who both maintains and teaches such opinions respecting the person of Christ, can, according to the common acceptation of language, be termed a Christian. Mr. Belsham professes to believe that Christ was a prophet of the Most High, so also does the Mahometan, who, in point of belief, has full as much right to the name of Christian as himself.

Mr. Belsham has told us, "that the Unitarians believe upon the authority of Jesus. Christ, that God will JUDGE THE WORLD in righteousness by the MAN whom he hath ordained," &c.; Is this quite so certain? Let us hear Mr. B. again in his Calm Enquiry, p. 453.; "The Unitarians believe that Christ is appointed to raise the dead and to judge the world.”—This is all very plain and intelligible; but let us mark what follows: "With regard to the former, it is believed that he will be the instrument of his Father's power. With respect to the latter, whether the declarations concerning it are to be understood literally or figuratively, whether Jesus will be personally invested with some high official character, or whether nothing more is intended than that the final states of man shall be awarded agreeably to the declarations of the Gospel, cannot they think at present be ascertained. Probably, as is usual with prophetic language, the event will be very different from what the literal sense of the words would lead us to expect." Thus then it is probable, that he will not judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained. But Mr. Belsham, in another part of the same work, (p. 348.) proceeds still further, and strongly doubts the personal agency of Christ even at the resurrection. "The personal agency of Jesus in the general resurrection of

mankind, is not more distinctly asserted than his visible and im mediate agency in the dissolution of the Jewish polity. But as the event proves in the latter case, that nothing more was intended than a solemn and authoritative prediction of the catastrophe, it is not impossible but that it may be equally so in the former. And it is a fact certainly known and universally admitted, that in the language of prophecy, the prophet is often said to do that which he is inspired to foretell."

Thus then neither in the resurrection, nor in the final judgement, is the agency of Christ an article of the Unitarian faith. Proceed we now to their belief respecting the Holy Spirit. In the negative catalogue of their creed, given a few pages further on, we find,—

"The Unitarians do not believe in the PERSONAL EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, as a being distinct from the Supreme. They acknowledge that God himself is sometimes designated by the expression the Spirit of God. But they conceive that the sense in which the phrase Holy Spirit occurs most frequently in the New Testament, is that of the miraculous gifts and powers with which the apostles and primitive converts were endued in the first age of the church." P. 10.

66

Let the reader compare this with the paragraph respecting the Holy Spirit in the positive creed, and he will there find it stated, that " Jesus fulfilled his promise of pouring out upon his apostles a miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit, by which they were endowed with various miraculous gifts and powers," &c. &c. Now the Holy Spirit, we are told, means either God himself, or miraculous gifts and powers. But in the passage above, "THE HOLY SPIRIT," cannot mean the latter, as they are represented to be its fruits. By the Holy Spirit they were endowed with miraculous gifts and powers." The expression must therefore designate God himself, and the passage in the Unitarian creed must mean, "that Jesus poured out upon his apostles a miraculous effusion of God himself;" that is, that an ignorant, infirm, prejudiced, and frail man, should pour out upon his disciples, or fellow-men, the Deity himself. This is a proposition at which even a Heathen would have shuddered for its impiety, if his understanding would not rather have stood aghast at its absurdity. And yet this is the doctrine of those who reject the Trinity, because they cannot understand the mode of its existence. Yet, says Mr. Belsham, in reply to an expression of his Lordship.

"We do not affect to approach the oracles of truth with any prostration of the understanding.Prostration of the understanding! God forbid! No, my Lord; if any one had charged as with

2

admitting

admitting as a revealed truth, as an oracle of God, as a doctrine of Jesus, a proposition which previously to its reception required a prostration of the understanding, we should have regarded it not only as more unfounded and irrelevant than any of these misconceptions under which our profession unfortunately lies in your Lordship's mind, but as a calumny more absurd and more injurious than any which the ingenuity and malignity of our bitterest adversaries have ever yet invented. If the christian religion itself were to require this debasement of the intellect, this prostration of the understanding, in those who approach it, I, for one, would reject it with disdain." P. 75.

The plain matter of fact, we conceive to be, that Mr. Belsham does not, because he cannot, admit such a clause in his belief; but that in attempting to swell out and make a handsome show of the articles of the Unitarian creed, he has unwarily admitted this absurdity.

Let us now consider the last article of the positive creed, and compare it, as before, with the fifth article of the negative creed.

"The Unitarians discover no evidence of the PLENARY INSPI RATION of the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Such an inspiration is not necessary to the object: it is not claimed by the writers: it is not supported by evidence either internal or external; and the supposition of it is clogged with insurmountable difficulties, and exposes revelation to the ridicule of sceptics. The Bible, the New Testament especially, though not itself inspired throughout, contains the word of God; and they who seek revealed truth seriously, diligently, and impartially, shall find it there." P. 11.

The Unitarians have not thought it prudent as yet to proclaim the extent of their scepticism upon this point. With respect to the New Testament, even in their own version, they have marked out no portion which they consider as uninspired, nor have they given us any criterion to distinguish inspiration. To the authenticity of a few passages they have indeed objected; but it is plain that the present objection is not directed against the authenticity, but the inspiration. It is not, that all is not authentic, but that all which is authentic, is not inspired. For, says Mr. B., "it is not claimed by the writers." We profess that we cannot quite comprehend the distinction between the "word of God" and "the inspired word of God," if it be not inspired, according to our comprehensions, it cannot be the word of God. Let us take it, however, as we will, it is a sweeping clause; and till it is more fully explained, and till the criteria for distinguishing between the inspired and the uninspired portions are declared, the authority of Scripture is generally invalidated, nor in any con

troversy

1

troversy with the Unitarians can it safely be appealed to as a joint authority or as a rule of faith.

We should be rather curious to know Mr. Belsham's opinion respecting the Old Testament; it is plain from his distinction in favour of the New, that he does not consider it all as the word of God. We know the opinion of Dr. Geddes upon this point, "of the absurdity of attributing inspiration to the writers of the early books of the Old Testament;"" of the juggle of the miracles said to be wrought by Moses;" "of the cruel and sanguinary character of the God of the Hebrews." Now as Mr. Belsham has professed himself so ardent an admirer of the *" venerable name of Geddes," it is not unfair to suppose, though we have no authority to assert, that Mr. Belsham in the main holds the same opinions. And if so, we wish to know, what difference can be. drawn in this, and most other points, between himself and that high priest of deism and infidelity, Lord Bolingbroke.

he

But we need not go far for evidence upon this important question, Dr. Priestley himself asserts, (Letters to a Phil. Unb. p. 159.) that "the history of the fall is a very lame account;", and again, in the Theol. Rep. Letters I. and II. to Mr. Burn, avows, that " some texts of the Old Testament had been improperly quoted by writers of the New. So Steinbart, Semler, and other foreign Socinians of later times, have asserted, that "the narrations of facts in the New Testament, whether true or false, are only suited to the ignorant and unlettered minds. who cannot search out the evidence of natural religion." In a literary journal also, which was, at that time, avowedly in the Unitarian interest, we find the following curious passage, "The nature and design of the Scriptures, is not to settle disputed theories, nor to decide upon speculative, controverted points, in religion and morality. The Scriptures, if we understand any thing of them, are intended not so much to make us wiser, as to make us better; not to solve the doubts, but rather to make us obey the dictates of our consciences."―Review of Horsley's Sermon, Monthly Review, March, 1793.

Now all these, and various other authorities which we could cite, tend, in the clearest manner, not only to undermine, but actually to question the claims of Holy Scripture as an authority in point of faith. As long as general objections against their plenary inspiration are urged, and no criterion is agreed upon to distinguish the inspired from the uninspired parts, so long its authority is merely nominal, as no one passage is exempted from that general suspicion, which, till its particular determination is known, must attach to all alike.

* Preface to Review of Wilberforce, p. ix.

Having