many of those people in Scotland, who would probably embrace the Anti-Trinitarian principles, would "be men more inclined to inquire after truth, than to apply it steadily to practice when found." His fears seem to have been great, lest this should operate against the triumphs of the cause in that nation.

It is expressly acknowledged by Dr. Priestley, that "a great number of the Unitarians," as he calls them, "of the present age, are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion; and that there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in them, than is observable in others."

Mr. Belsham also says, that "Rational Christians are often represented as indifferent to practical religion." Neither does he appear to deny the justness of the charge; but he endeavors to account for it, in a consistency with the truth and purity of their doctrines. Dr. Priestley does the same.

The writers of that school freely acknowledge, that practical Christians are not in a favorable situation to become Anti-Trinitarians. Dr. Priestley says, "Many of those who judge so truly concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it." Mr. Belsham concurs in this opinion, by saying, "Men who are the most indifferent to the practice of religion, will ever be the first to see the absurdity of a popular superstition, and to embrace a rational system of faith." These concessions very fully prove the point which I am endeavoring to prove and illustrate. These champions of Anti-Trinitarianism, you see, have unequivocally admitted, that an entire absence of religion is the best preparative for

conversion to their cause. Such irreligious characters

would not be willing to embrace the system, if they thought it at all favorable to practical piety. Seeing the point under consideration is allowed by the most able and zealous men of that party, and its truth is so obvious to all, we cannot be justly blamed for mentioning the thing-a thing on their part explicitly acknowledged.

Anti-Trinitarianism was very early planted in this town. It has spread to a considerable extent; and, therefore, you have had a fair opportunity to witness its practical effects on the hearts and lives of its admirers. As men, as neighbors, as members of society, they are, in general, very respectable; but I have not been able to discover in them much of that, which properly falls under the definition of practical religion. But if they are, in general, in the habit of conversing on solemn subjects in a serious manner; if they abound much in prayer and in praise; if they are strict observers of the holy Sabbath; if their attention to public worship is general and unremitting; these things must have fallen under your observation; and, of course, my remarks can have but little influence on your opinion. If their system were truly evangelical, it would, undoubtedly, produce these effects in some degree. But where these virtues are not found, there can be no religion in the heart. We must take these things into view, in forming a judgment concerning the expediency of embracing or rejecting that theory. From the statements of our writers, the concessions of theirs, and our own observations, we may be now prepared to decide on the question. If AntiTrinitarian doctrine is not productive of practical piety, we must conclude that it is not the Gospel of Christ. On the tendency of that plan, as it relates to public worship, Dr. Fuller says, "Where the Socinian and Arian doctrines have been taught, the congregations are gradually dwindling away, and there are scarcely a sufficient number left to keep

up

the form of public worship." He says further, "There is nothing in either of these systems that alarms the heart; and, therefore, the congregations where they are taught, unless kept up by the accidental popularity of a preacher, or some other circumstance distinct from the doctrine delivered, generally fall into decay." We are constantly witnessing, my hearers, similar effects of that scheme, in relation to public and family worship. Its effects, as to inward devotion, the judgment day must declare. As sufficient has been said to sustain the point in hand, we may proceed to

an

IMPROVEMENT.

1. From what has been said on this subject, we may see, that we have no inducement to change our present principles for Anti-Trinitarianism. That people, we know, choose to be distinguished from other denominations, by the name of Unitarians; but to that distinctive appellation, they have no exclusive right. The import of it is, believers in one God; but the name as justly belongs to us as to them. The difference between us has no reference to the number of Gods; but to the manner of the Divine Existence. As to the Unity of God, we have no disagreement with them. They, however, seem to labor greatly to make a different impression on the minds of the less informed part of men. When they have proved that there is but one God, and that Jesus Christ is a man, they appear to triumph-to take it for granted that we are confuted! But, to think of maintaining their cause, by proving points that we not only admit but vindicate, amounts to nothing but the blinding of the uninformed. Let them prove that there is no Personality in the Essence or nature of JEHOVAH, and that the Son and the Holy Ghost have no proper claim to Supreme Divinity, and then they will effect something to their purpose. But to think of

proving these things from the Scriptures, has always appeared to me as an idle undertaking. We are willing to admit, that people who dare to attempt this, are by no means deficient in courage. It is very necessary that they should be highly accomplished in critical learning; and that they should possess the art of evasion to a great degree.

In reviewing the subject, I think we may rest satisfied that Anti-Trinitarian doctrines are unscriptural—not adapted to the case of mankind--not of a very animating moral tendency-and can never commend themselves to the consciences of men, nor to the approbation of God. They will never satisfy the mind that has a proper sense of the Divine character-of the infinite evil of sin, and man's desert of eternal punishment.

op

An inspired writer says, "Salvation is not of works; lest any man should boast;" Eph. 2. 9; but in direct position to this, an Anti-Trinitarian writer says, " All hopes founded on any thing else than a good moral life, are merely imaginary, and contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel. The absolute manner in which they contradict the decided testimony of the Holy Scriptures, is truly surprising. But sufficient specimens of this have been exhibited, in the preceding sermons on this interesting controversy.

2. From what has been said on this subject, we may see, that the radical errors, held by our opponents, are wholly inconsistent with the Christian name. This point has been fully established by the Rev. R. Wordlaw, and Dr. Fuller. The views of the Anti-Trinitarians, of Christ and the Scriptures, differ but very little from the conceptions of the Deists and Mahomedans.* But as Christ is

*In the war against Christianity, the French infidels considered the Socinians as their worthy allies. They knew that Socinianism led directly to Deism; and that, in fact, many of those persons who called themselves Soci nians, were already Deists. Hence, Voltaire says to the King of Prussia, on

really the Supreme God, He can never acknowledge that class of men to be His disciples, whose system reduces Him to the humble level of a mere man. Neither can we, while we retain our belief of His proper Divinity, acknowledge that people to be our brethren in the Lord, who openly deny the doctrine-deny that, which forms the very glory of his character. We hold it to be utterly impossible, for any real Christian to maintain such princiciples. It is taking away the very foundation stone on which Zion is erected. I am not afraid to say, that there is not one in a thousand, of the Orthodox, who would differ with me in this opinion. Wherefore then, should I be thought peculiarly rigid, in this plain, but honest declaration? I am no more censorious in this case, than all the ministers and members of our churches are, who fully believe in the Trinitarian doctrines. Anti-Trinitarianism has been considered as a grand heresy, by the Orthodox, in every age. I have been informed, that Dr. Mason of New-York, in his plea for open communion, among the different Christian denominations, has entirely excluded them.

Notwithstanding the errors, into which, we believe the Catholic Church to have fallen, she has not so completely departed from the faith, as those, who glory in calling themselves Unitarians. She admits the Trinity in Unitythe Deity of Christ-His Atonement, and the sanctifying operations of the Holy Ghost. As she has has not entirely overturned the foundation of the Christian hope, no doubt, many of her members, in all ages, have been the

the 8th Nov. 1773, "What vexes me, is, that you do not establish a Socinian church, after having appointed several for the Jesuits. There are Socinians still to be met with in Poland; they swarm in England; and we have some of them in Switzerland. Julian would certainly have favored them. They hate that which he hated; they despise that which he despised; and they, like him, are worthy men." See Arminian and Methodist Magazine, page 534.[Commuicated by a friend.]