SERMON VI.

Unitarianism a Perversion of the Gospel.

GAL. I. 7.

"There be some that would pervert the Gospel of Christ."

THE Galatians had embraced the gospel with the warmest affection. They regarded the preachers of it with high veneration, and delighted in its doctrines as the greatest and most interesting truths which they had ever contemplated. But these transports were not of long duration. When the charm of novelty was gone, they became indifferent to that which had interested them so strongly, and were disposed to adopt very opposite schemes, which were recommended to them by plausible language and insinuating arts. Such versatility of temper, and such instability in principle, were unworthy of them as men, and disgraceful to them as Christians. The apostle was filled with shame and grief on account of their folly, and with a holy displeasure at their fickleness and infatuation, and resolved to write to them to convince and to reclaim them. He knew that, though this was one of the most necessary and useful offices of friendship, it is often attributed to prejudice and hostility by those who are too proud to be blamed, and who imagine that they only are their friends who are disposed to support them in every thing. In order to shew that he had the tenderest solicitude for their welfare, he be

gins his epistle with the usual expressions of benevolent regard. When these were finished, he expresses how much he was astonished and shocked at their be ing so soon removed into another gospel; and, in the most solemn manner, invokes the vengeance of hea ven on all who should preach any other tenets than the doctrines of the grace of God. He considered the Galatians as deluded by ungodly and artful men, and labours to exhibit their seducers in their true colours, and to give faithful warning against their schemes.

In every age the church has been troubled with such perverters of the gospel, and against them her ministers must maintain "the faith of Jesus." The Socinian heresy, under the title of Unitarianism, has been disseminated of late with great keenness; and though we are far from supposing that it will be received by many, and though we know that you are established in the present truth, yet it may tend to excite and to strenghten your gratitude and your zeal, to shew, that this scheme is false and pernicious, and that it is opposite to all that is most valuable in the gospel, and pious in Christian feeling.

Let us consider, in the first place, how the promoters of this scheme pervert the gospel of Christ.

1st, They wrest the plainest and most direct statements of the gospel. The Deity, and the atonement of Christ, are so clearly stated in Scripture, that the opponents of these doctrines, in order to evade the arguments drawn from such passages, have had recourse to every subtilty and artifice of criticism, by which such texts might be made to bear a different sense. In opposition to the testimony of the best manuscripts, they have asserted that some texts are interpolations, and have insisted on expunging passages from the sacred record which they found it impossible

to bend to their views. In other cases, they suggest such changes in the reading, or in the construction, as may render them less hostile to their creed, or may neutralize their testimony altogether. At other times, they explain texts in a sense most remote from their obvious meaning, regardless how low and frivolous their explication may be, if the obnoxious doctrine is kept away; and by having recourse to the convenient supposition of eastern metaphor, many of the brightest testimonies of Scripture are represented as flights of imagination, which are utterly inadmissible in sober argument. In proof of these assertions, I may state their expunging the first and second chapters of the gospel by Matthew, and their representing the persenal qualities and acts ascribed to the Holy Ghost as the language of figure.

Out of many passages which might be adduced to shew how they torture the plainest texts into a meaning quite opposite to the scope of the passage, I shall select the following:-In the beginning of the second chapter of the epistle to the Philippians, in order to recommend humility, Paul states the amazing condescension of our Lord, "who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as aman, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." The meaning of this passage, Socinians have asserted to be, that Christ did not grasp at divine honours, or seize them as his prey, which is a sense not only unauthorized by the phrase, but directly opposite to the argument of the Apostle. For what humility

would there have been in a mere creature, not aim

ing at equality with the Most High, or declining that to which he had no title.

I may refer also to that text in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," which some of them insist should be rendered "God is thy throne for ever," though it is contrary to the idiom of the Greek language, and de grades the Deity into a symbol of authority.. I shall only mention, as another instance of this perversion, their representing the devout exclamation of Thomas," My Lord and my God," as the language of unmeaning surprize, like what is common in the world, when any thing striking is heard or seen. But such language would have been censured, not applauded, by his Lord, and to attribute it to this disciple, is insulting to his feelings, as well as his character. Had the advocates of our Lord's Deity supported it by such criticisms, the bitterest sarcasms would have been employed to expose their ignorance and presumption. I will only say, that these passages may well be relied on, since this is all that can be brought to invalidate their testimony, and that a claim to critical ingenuity, can with Ho propriety be made by any who can avail themselves of such pretexts as these.

The same remarks may be applied to the methods by which they attempt to set aside the plainest statements of our Lord's vicarious sufferings, and represent that death as intended only for an example of patience and courage, which was endured in our room and stead, as the punishment of our crimes, and as the ransom of our souls.

2d, They explain away its brightest principles. They boast that they have restored Christianity to its primitive simplicity, and describe its peculiar doc

trines as the dogmas of scholastic theology, which, in the times of ignorance, were received with superstitious veneration. They assert that they have purified the temple of God from the idols, the rubbish, and the fantastic ornaments which disgraced it; that by the lights which they have opened, they have dispelled its gloom; that by the candour and charity which they have so successfully inculcated, the noise of disputation will soon cease around it, and that Jews and Mahometans, finding no objects of worship but such as they have served in their mosques, and their synagogues, will bring into it their honour and their glory. If we examine these audacious pretensions, we will find that what they exclude from the gospel is all that can recommend it as a ground of hope to sinners, and that the doctrines which offend their pride of reason shine with divine wisdom.

It is the brightest glory of Christianity, that it represents God "as so loving the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life." But how low and feeble is the idea of divine love which this language conveys, if we must understand it of the appointment of a mere man to inform us that God will save us on our repentance and amendment. Consider this gift as that of his Eternal Son, to suffer and to die for us, and how great seems his goodness!

The atonement for sin which our Lord made in his death, and his victory over the powers of darkness, are splendid parts of the gospel, and have filled the minds of the pious with gratitude and wonder, from age to age. But how different are their views of the cross of Christ, who assert that no atonement was necessary; that Jesus died as the mere victim of human violence; that there was no more virtue in his death than in that