difficulty of the passages can be considered as removed by the interpretation which these solutions suggest.

Those who oppose the doctrine of the real existence of Satan suppose in general that the words Satan and Devil, are used as a prosopopœia, or personification, though what they are intended to personify they cannot agree [about]. Sometimes they are supposed to personify evil in the abstract; at other times, the Jewish magistrates and priests; at other times, the Roman magistrates and rulers; and at other times, a personal enemy to the apostle Paul in the church.

LECTURE XII.

ON THE SPIRIT OF SOCINIANISM.

Psalm xix. 7.-The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

I. It is a peculiar characteristic of this system, that as far as it is distinguished from the orthodox, it consists entirely of negations, and is marked by its possessing nothing of all, or nearly all, of those doctrines which the other parts of the professed disciples of Jesus Christ consider most precious and most saving.

II. Unitarianism has a close affinity to Deism.

III. Another feature in this system is its anti-devotional character. IV. A remarkable feature in the system of the Socinians is their mixture along with their doctrine of metaphysical speculation, which is more replete with danger than any of the errors before mentioned.

V. Another feature in this system is the tame submission to human authority, which seems to distinguish above all other persons those who compose the class styled Modern Unitarians.

VI. The last feature which I shall mention in the system of the Socinians is their zeal for proselytism.

IV.

ON CHRIST'S DIVINITY AND CONDESCENSION.

Phil. ii. 5-9.-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation.*

THAT species of excellence to which such language can be applied with sobriety, must be carried to a height and perfection which requires

* Mr. Hall's notes, here given, do not present an outline of the whole sermon, but merely a statement of the principal part of the argument. A tolerably full account of the entire sermon, as it was preached in London, in June 1813, will be inserted hereafter.-ED.

no ingenuity to discover it; it must strike all eyes, and ravish all hearts.

But since it is benevolence, not in the general idea of it, but under the specific form of condescension, that we are seeking after, we are under the necessity of looking, in the passage before us, for some obvious and striking contrast or opposition between the dignity of the Saviour, and those instances in which he appeared to depart from that dignity. A visible disparity must subsist between what he did, and what he might, from his pre-eminent elevation, have been expected to do. A part of the Saviour's character to which the inspired writers are continually adverting, and on which they dwell with impassioned energy, must unquestionably present itself in a very conspicuous light, so that no interpretation can for a moment be admitted, which requires much ingenuity to discover the very existence of that virtue it is adduced to illustrate.

There are two opposite opinions entertained respecting the person of Christ, to which, without adverting to the intermediate ones, we shall at present confine our attention, with a view to determine which of these accords best with the professed design of the apostle in introducing it, which is, to illustrate the wonderful condescension of the Son.

The first of these opinions involves the divinity of Christ, supposing him to be the proper Son of God, who assumed our nature into a personal union with himself; and, having in that nature lived a life of poverty and humiliation, expired on the cross for human redemption. The second considers him as a mere man, who had no existence whatever till he came into our world.

Now, let us consider which of these two opposite views best accords with the passage under consideration, contemplated as a professed illustration of his marvellous condescension, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." We are willing to admit the correction of the common version, suggested by our opponents, and consider the meaning of the latter clause, that he "did not eagerly retain the likeness of God." The force of the adverb which introduces the subsequent clause, and the general structure of the passage, appear to me to justify such an alteration; nor are we aware of any advantage occurring to the system we oppose by such a rendering. The Socinians suppose that the purport of this member of the sentence is to assert, that though our Lord was possessed of miraculous power, by which he might have drawn to himself that homage which is only due to the Supreme Being, yet he declined making such a use of these powers. The first instance of his matchless humility and condescension, on their hypothesis, is in his not impiously turning the weapons with which he was armed against their Author, thus employing himself to establish in his own person that which it was one great end of his mission to subvert. That humility with which the apostle was so much enraptured [consisted, then,] in not being guilty of the grossest ingratitude and impiety; in not betraying his trust by advancing his own honour and interest on the ruins of his from whom he derived his commission. That our Saviour could

not have acted the part which he is supposed to have declined in this instance will surely be admitted; but what a preposterous illustration is that of matchless condescension, which is placed in a mere abstinence from impiety and rebellion!

From the preliminary remarks we have made, I trust it must be sufficiently evident that this cannot be the illustration which St. Paul designed to furnish of unparalleled lowliness and condescension. It deserves to be remarked, too, that in this sense "the form of God" belongs equally to every person who has possessed miraculous powers to an extent not inferior to those exerted by our Saviour, which, as we learn both from the Acts of the Apostles and from the express language of the Saviour himself, was the case with his apostles. In consequence of those powers, St. Paul was on one occasion made an object of idolatry, which he disclaimed with the utmost vehemence and abhorrence; so far was he from assuming any extraordinary merit on account of declining so impious a distinction. Besides, let me ask, would such a use of the supernatural succours afforded our Saviour as to suffer them to be the occasion of his being worshipped have produced their withdrawment? If they would not, there must be some legitimate ground for his being worshipped inapplicable to every other case. If they would, what is there admirable in his declining to convert them to a purpose which he knew would issue in their extinction? Can the inspired writer be supposed for a moment to introduce, with so much pomp and solemnity, a branch of our Lord's conduct which the smallest portion of prudence sufficiently accounts for?

66

66

"He made himself of no reputation," or, more literally, "he emptied himself," "he divested himself," the writer most unquestionably means, of somewhat which he heretofore possessed. But of what, on the hypothesis of the simple humanity of Christ, did he divest himself? As this clause commences the positive statement of the instances of his humility, preceded by, contrasted with the dignity involved in the attribute of being in the form of God," it seems necessary to understand it in relation to that prior dignity. But this, on the Socinian hypothesis, is impossible, since they place the form of God in his possession of miraculous energy, of those supernatural powers of which, from the time of his entering on his ministry, he neither divested himself at any time nor suspended the exercise. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ;" nor is there the slightest intimation throughout the whole evangelical history, that his humility was rendered conspicuous by his declining the exercise of miraculous powers. Here then the illustration, upon the supposition we are combating, completely fails at the very outset, from the total absence of that bold and striking contrast which the first member of the sentence leads us to expect. The form of God is attributed to him as the basis of a certain elevation, let its precise import be what it may. And when the antithetic form of expression prepares us to expect something opposed to it, our expectation is frustrated, and the form of God is still retained. Did this divesture consist of his descending from a superior station in society? But this he never possessed. His worldly rank

and estimation, humble as it was, was as great in the last as in the first period of his ministry. To decline a possible distinction, and to lay aside a distinction already possessed, are certainly things very distinct; nor is it easy to conjecture why, if the former was intended, the latter is expressed: besides that, admitting such a confusion of language to be possible, the conception conveyed bears no relation to the form of God.

The words of the apostle evidently suppose that our Saviour possessed, in the first instance, some great and extraordinary distinction; that, in the execution of his commission, from motives of pure benevolence, he submitted to a state of great comparative meanness and humiliation. The order of the words, as well as the very species of excellence they are designed to illustrate and enforce, necessitate the placing of the dignified attribute first. But on the hypothesis of the simple humanity of Christ, the real order of things, the actual course of events, is just the reverse. Our Saviour, on that hypothesis, was elevated immensely above his native condition by his delegation as the Messiah, and from a state of extreme obscurity and poverty, he became, in consequence of it, possessed of the form of God. His poverty and meanness compose the first stage of his history; and whatever elevation above his equals he afterward possessed, was purely the effect of his appointment to the office of the Messiah. So that in the office he sustains he exhibits a marvellous instance of incredible elevation from meanness, instead of affording a striking example of voluntary humiliation. On the Socinian hypothesis, the whole of what is truly admirable is, that a mean and obscure individual should have been raised from so much meanness, not that he voluntarily submitted to it. It must be obvious to the thoughtful and intelligent that this hypothesis completely frustrates the design of the passage, and presents the whole matter in an inverted position.

His public undertaking, in the room of affording an unparalleled instance of condescending benevolence, is the greatest example of eminent virtue conducting to illustrious honour the world ever witnessed.

In a complex train of action, involving considerable space of time and a great variety of events, if there be any conspicuous feature insisted on in the character of the agent, it ought to be of such a nature as to pervade the whole mass. The benevolence and condescension of our Lord are uniformly represented by the inspired writer as actuating him in the whole course of his proceedings, as the chief spring of his conduct, so as to characterize his whole undertaking. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," saith St. Paul, "how that though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich." His giving himself for the church is celebrated as a most interesting instance of condescension and love. But if, apart from his public engagements, as the great Teacher sent from God, he possessed no separate nor original dignity,-if to these engagements he is indebted for all that distinguished him above the meanest peasant in Galilee, what candour or sobriety appear in such representations? If we listen to the writers of the New Testa

ment, his undertaking the office he sustained was a proof of matchless humility; if we look to the facts, we find all the honour he ever possessed was the pure result of these offices. That it is possible to combine with such views of his character the admission of an eminent portion of virtue, we are far from denying; but it is not that sort of virtue, nor includes any of that sacrifice of personal honour and interest, which such representation supposes.

V.

ON THE SPIRIT AND TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM.

PSALM xix. 7.—The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

THE minute examination of the minor parts of a great and complex object will not suffice to give us a just conception of it, unless it is joined with an attentive survey of it as a whole. We have hitherto been occupied with the consideration of the errors of the Socinian or Unitarian system in detail. We have endeavoured to evince the opposition of several of its fundamental tenets to the clear, unequivocal testimony of Scripture; and in the course of the inquiry have felt the necessity of descending to minute distinctions and tedious discussions. Could we even suppose the reasoning employed in the several branches of this extensive argument to have wrought all the conviction we could wish, the conclusion might still continue destitute of an adequate impression of the general character and tendency of the system against which these discourses have been directed. Instead of attempting a recapitulation of the topics discussed and the arguments adduced, useless as it would possibly be if slight and general, and insufferably tedious if accurate and extensive, allow me to close these lectures by directing your attention to some of the distinguishing characteristics of the system designated by the appellation of Modern Unitarianism.

I. It will occur to the most superficial observer to remark, that as far as it differs from the orthodox, it is almost entirely a negative system, consisting in a bold denial of nearly all the doctrines which other denominations are wont to regard as the most vital and the most precious. It snatches from us almost every thing to which our affections have been habituated to cling, without presenting them with a single new object.

It is a cold negation, a system of renunciation and dissent, imparting that feeling of desolation to the heart which is inseparable from the extinction of ancient attachments, teaching us no longer to admire, to adore, to trust, or to love-but with a most impaired and attenuated affection-objects in the contemplation of which we before deemed it