truth generally affented to, and well SERMON

understood.

Of thofe adverfaries of Chriftianity, who advance with schemes of religion in their hands, I will mention only two. The one is he, who disclaims all revelation; and bows down to the fantastic idol of moral fitness: an univerfal rule of action, as he represents it; and in all inftances a fufficient one, as he affects to believe it. Under the other character are understood those, who beneath the mask of Christianity employ their fecret efforts against it: who infiduously affume its name, and scarcely that ;* who, while they fay, Lord! Lord! are fedulously undermining that Lord's authority, dignity, and power. That advances against it, with the air and port of an open and avowed enemy: this enlifts under its banner, only to

* In common with the Mahometans and Jews, the Socinians affect the appellation of UNITARIANS,

deceive;

I.

SERMON deceive; thus employing against it the

I.

double powers of hoftility and fraud: that bids bold defiance; this, like the false disciple, betrays with a kifs. We will examine the general features of each their particular pretenfions will, in the course of the fubfequent lectures, be with more minuteness investigated.

By thofe underminers of the Christian Faith, it will be obvious to my audience, that I have in my eye the spawn of the antient Ebionites, the revived fect of the Socinians; whofe principal aim is not the denial of the Trinity, nor of the Divinity, nor Pre-existence of Chrift, nor of any other fingle article of Chrif tianity thofe may be fteps; but their masked design is an object of larger extent. Some diflike one gospel, and some another; and of those, which they admit, they hold themselves at liberty to believe just as much as they please. They were firft ftiled Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nazarenes: for those several fects,

though

I.

though differing in appellation, fprung up SERMON much about the fame time, and in their fundamental doctrines were nearly the fame. They acknowledged Jefus to have been the Meffiah; but acknowledged him, with that defective apprehenfion of his nature and dignity, characterised by our Lord himself; feeing they faw, but did not perceive; and hearing, they heard, but did not understand. The uniform tenor of the gospel evinces a requifition of faith greater than the bare acknowledgment, that Jefus was the Meffiah: his true difciples were further required to believe him to be the Son of God. Thus when our Lord asked them, whom they conceived him to be; Peter answered, thou art Chrift, the Son of the living God. And at his trial the high prieft in folemn terms adjured him to tell them, whether he were Chrift, the Son of God. Hence we learn what was the true faith; and how far that of the Ebionites was defective. They admitted him to be the Meffiah, but rejected the evangelical account of

his

SERMON his Divinity: they pretended to believe I. him to have rifen from the dead, but allowed him no more than human

Those were the tenets, on which modern Socinianifm has been built: from its origin to the present day, a very contracted fect; and in the long fucceffion of feventeen hundred years continually dying away, and reviving. Paul of Samofate, bishop and patriarch of Antioch, was their great luminary: with all the influence of his ftation, he propagated his doctrines; in which, finding himfelf refolutely oppofed, he with all the meanness of a temporalist abjured them. The ftorm a little over, the reftlefs fpirit of innovation induced in him a fecond attempt to revive them: when the neighbouring bishops affembled themselves at Antioch; and, after a fair and candid difcuffion, unanimously condemned them: condemned those particular tenets, the denial of Chrift's Divinity, and of

Ι.

his descent from Heaven. And the opi- SERMON nion, the whole Chriftian Church in that early age entertained of those tenets, forms a powerful argument against them.

But I intend not in this difcourfe a Hiftory of Socinianifm; and therefore pafs over Theodotus, Symmachus, Artemon, and others; even the great Socinus himself, a man of fhrewd parts, but who wanted much the ballaft of learning: only remarking, that the doctrines, to which those Herefiarchs objected, themselves plainly faw were founded on the exprefs word of fcripture; and therefore the scriptures, fo afferting them, fome rejected, and others endeavoured to explain away. But it is not the rejection of this, or that scripture doctrine, which will fatisfy our modern Socinians: with affected regard for Chrift, their brother, their teacher, and friend, they difown him as their Lord; and of his fupremacy and original reject his own

account: