and, if you choose, our admiration for the extensive literary acquirements of the Unitarian writers allow us to put them on the same list with those great names? Nay, will not even good plain sense forbid us to imagine, that men, who owe all the knowledge they may posses of learned languages to their hard studies of grammars and dead authors, should be as thoroughly acquainted with all the niceities, native proprieties and significations of terms, various turns and constructions of phrases, &c. &c. as those who, to the inestimable advantage of being born in the very countries, in which these languages were spoken as the English is amongst us, have added unremitting application to arrive at perfection in their own language? Will Unitarians easily persuade any one, that the Americans in general, who study the French in their own country, speak and understand the French as well or better than a Frenchman by birth, who has made a particular study of his own mother tongue? As little will they persuade us that they understand the Greek tongue better than the Greek Fathers, and the Hebrew better than the ancient Jews. But the ancient Jews have always understood, as we Christians do, not only the oracles of the prophets, but also those of Christ, as I have often remarked, and as I have shown elsewhere.

The Greek Fathers, too, from St. Ignatius down to Theophylact, not one excepted, have always interpreted the disputed texts of the old and new law, that have a bearing on the divinity of Christ, as the christian world, at present, understand them. Let, now, the reader himself decide, to which of the two sides he is to listen in preference.

At least, as critics, some will say, the Unitarian writers must be allowed to be without competition. Look at their learned works, their commentaries on the scriptures, their scholia, their new English improved editions, with critical notes, &c. &c.

He that is acquainted with the Unitarian productions, will soon be made sensible, that, although much merit is generally due to their writers, for the lucidus ordo, and judicious arrangement of matters, still, there is much repetition of the same

arguments, that their logic is generally at variance with the first principles of reasoning, and that, since our libraries are filled with a quantity of critical works, on the scriptures and languages, the task of composing new commentaries on those subjects, of publishing new editions of the Bible with notes, interspersed with some Greek or Hebrew words, has become much less difficult, and requires, perhaps, a lesser degree of knowledge in those languages, than would be required to write but half a page of St. Basil or Chrysostom's works.

As to Unitarian criticism, it cannot be denied that it is unique in its kind, and exactly the reverse of what all wise men have hitherto followed, and of what wisdom dictates. First. When, in former times, some doubt arose about the signification of a word, or meaning of a sentence, antiquity was carefully consulted, and regard paid to the wisdom and learning of past ages. The Unitarian divines set all this aside. Secondly. The greatest veneration was ever had even for the smallest particles of the sacred writings, and that, from an innate sense of respect which every one feels to be due to the Word of God. The Unitarians hesitate not to reject whole parts of the scriptures, of the genuineness of which there was never the slightest vestige of doubt.* They alter the very text, and sacrilegiously substitute their own words for those, which the Holy Ghost had dictated to the sacred penmen, for no other reason, but because the sacred text cannot be pressed, otherwise, into their service. Whenever a word happens to occur, either in the Old, or in the New Testament, which speaks too loud in support of the christian mysteries, they are sure either to transpose it, or to change its case, number, termination, or tense, or to ransack all the lexicons, or prophane authors, to make it appear, that the word. in question may absolutely be used in a sense different, or even opposite to that, which the christian world has always understood it to convey. Thus, at every turn, we are gravely told, that, without any departure from the grammatical con

* See the I. and II. chapters of St. Matthew and Luke, in Wakefield's and the improved edition of the N. T.

+ See ibid.

struction, the text may be read so and so, and bear such and such a meaning. And what has grammar to do with the oracles of the Most High? Was it, perhaps, the object of the Holy Ghost, when he inspired the sacred writers, to dictate to them some finished piece of oratory or grammar? Was he, perhaps, restricted to the rules of grammar? Did not the Holy Ghost know better than Unitarian writers, what words to select, and what order and construction to adopt, for his exalted purposes? In what, then, does the learning of these new teachers consist? In the unhallowed attempt to reform the work of the Holy Ghost, and in making of the scriptures a grammatical construction: that is, in turning the Word of God into the word of man, and the doctrines of heaven into the reveries of scholiasters. If it be considered a criminal attempt in private men, to alter, not only the sentences, but even the very words of the civil law, or of a last will, on the frivolous ground, that those words and sentences are not altogether grammatical, what must we think of the procedure of those new doctors, who dare to do this in the very word of God? A cursory glance given to the Unitarian publications, and especially to the pretended improved edition of the NewTestament, and the translation of the New-Testament, by Wakefield, will convince my readers, that, far from having exaggerated matters in the above strictures, I have rather fallen short from what might and ought to be said.

UNITARIANISM

PHILOSOPHICALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY EXAMINED.

NO. XIII.

Letter VI, page 242. Coll. ii. 9. "For in him (Christ,) dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead, bodily or corporally." "The word Godhead, (says Mr. Sparks,) means the same as Deity or God. What is meant by the fulness of God, we can ascertain, by comparing this passage with others. In the preceding chapter, the apostle says, "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell." This fulness, then, was something, which he had received from the Father, and consequently, was not any thing which he possessed as an independent and self-existing being. In writing to the Ephesians, the apostle expressed a desire," that they might be filled with all the fulness of God." Ephes. iii. 19. If we consider it an evidence that Christ was God, because the fulness of God dwelt in him, why should not the same inference be drawn, in regard to the Ephesians? The fulness of God, means the abundance of gifts, and of blessings, conferred by him."

Here we have, again, the old way of reasoning. The fulness of God, in the adduced texts, signifies the abundance of divine gifts, therefore it denotes the same in the text under consideration! This is exactly as if, after I have advanced this proposition: of all the Constitutions in the world, that of the United States is the best; you would obstinately pretend, that, because, Constitution, at times, is taken for one of our frigates, it signifies the same in the above proposition; and conclude thus: Constitution is sometimes taken for one of our frigates, therefore, it every where has that signification! Behold a speci

men of Mr. Sparks's reasoning, which, indeed, runs through all his Letters, so uniformly, that he may truly be said to have scrupulously followed the precept of the Roman bard: "Servetur ad imum qualis ab incæpto processerit, et sibi constet."*

Now to the argument. The disparity between the nineteenth verse of the third chapter to the Ephesians, and the text in question, is obvious. In this, all the fulness of the Godhead is said to dwell, not in a temporary or transient, but in a permanent and stable manner. For this is the proper signification of the Greek word naтon. Secondly. All the fulness of the Godhead is said to dwell bodily or coporally, which, according to all critics and interpreters, means, truly, really, substantially. But nothing like this, occurs, in the text to the Ephesians; in which, moreover, the very subject-matter sufficiently indicates, that, by the fulness of God, the apostle can mean nothing more than an abundance of heavenly gifts; for he expresses there, a desire "that they might be filled with all the fulness of God; "`he, therefore, necessarily supposed, that they were not as yet filled with the fulness of God, and that, of course, it was not essential to them, and did not dwell in them corporally. On the contrary, in the ninth verse of the second chapter to the Colossians, the object of the apostle evidently shows, that by all the fulness of the Godhead, he understood the Deity itself; for he there gives the reason why the Ephesians should not listen to the philosophers to learn true wisdom, but to Christ only, "because, says he, in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," that is to say, because he is the eternal and uncreated wisdom and truth, in "whom all the treasures of wisdom and science are hidden." Col. ii. v.

As to the 19th verse of the first chapter to the Colossians, "Because in him it has well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell," whether we understand it of Christ as God, or as man, the inference of Mr. J. S. is equally wrong. For if understood of Christ as God, it is manifest that as such he received

*Horat. de Arte Poet.