came to save only the then generation of men. He must have taken care too that they should be preserved, for the same reason, and by the same power. Where then are they?

But it is readily allowed that if there be any records of divine doctrines, the Scriptures are they. Now the individu◄ als who wrote them, wrote to the world, and must intend that the world should understand them ; "to the poor, the Gospel was preached," and therefore it was preached (so far as relates to its leading and momentous doctrines, those I mean absolutely necessary to salvation) in plainness, and simplicity of speech, and is to be interpreted in the most obvious sense. The Socinian tells us that some of the plainest texts in the New Testament are to be understood in a figurative, or allegorical, or metaphorical sense. I answer, for the reasons just given, that except in texts where this is so obviously the case, as that they would be absolutely unmeaning in any other sense, or in any other sense contradict another plainer text, the Scriptures are never to be thus understood. If they have a concealed and remote meaning, their inspired writers have written with less skill, and benevolence, than it is possible to suppose in men so wise and good, and writing under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit. If the Gospel (with the exceptions above made) is to be interpreted in any other than the most obvious sense, it is not a blessing, but a curse; it does not plainly point out to us the high road of eternal life; but shewing us many different roads, of which one alone is right, it leaves our understandings bewildered. and confounded.

You will be told my friends, that the Scriptures are mistranslated; but so long as these two questions, viz.

1. Has that small body of men denominated Socinians. collectively so much general learning, and especially so great a knowledge of the original Scripture languages, as

* By supposing that the writers in the New Testament were not inspir. ed, we must inevitably impute to the Almighty, either want of consistency, or want of power.

produced?

So long, I say, as these two questions may be an in the negative, so long may we rest satisfied with t sent translation of the Scriptures. It is a translation as relates to the spirit of it, and the essential truths it lays open to our view, in whose excellence, the grea of learned men throughout the christianized world In every christian country has the belief of Christ's d ty and atonement, and the doctrine of the trinity, bee by an immense majority of those who have made the ject their study, and whose learning has qualified th form an adequate judgment. But you will also be tol our own clergy acknowledge the incorrectness of the sent translation. This however is an assertion with

proof, and as I am unquestionably at liberty to oppos sertion to assertion, I will take upon me to say, tha clergy, though they confess it possible to make present translation more perfect, (as what form of w may not be made more perfect?) yet do not acknowledg possibility of any honest translation, which could affect of the leading doctrines of our Church. If, in a large body there be some unsound members, who conti to draw support from the Church after they have cease believe her tenets, let them answer it to their God, I not reproach them; but if men like these there be, neit should we attach to their opinions any weight, nor the cinians boast of such associates.

THE

CHAP. VII.

On the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

HE bulk of Christians less stand in need of reasoning to shew them what is right, than of exhortation to practise what they already know to be so we most of us understand our duty, better than we perform it. Nevertheless so long as there shall exist a difference of opinion amongst us, on a point so important, as whether this or that particular mode of believing the Scriptures. be the only one effectual to salvation; so long it can never be impertinent to inquire what those Scriptures do really declare. To examine into a cause so momentous, as that compared with it all others sink into insignificance, can never be superfluous, or unwise; and ought never to be irksome. Earnestly, but mildly to endeavour after the establishment of our own religious opinions, and the disproof of every thing which opposes them, is not being bigoted; it is merely to manifest as much zeal in the cause we have undertaken, as shall give to our professions the stamp of sincerity, and to our conduct the character of benevolence. To do less, must leave our love for our fellow creatures more than doubtful. For can we possibly, with a spark of philanthropy in our breasts, feel indifferent whether our neighbours shall, or shall not, forsake opinions which we think most dan◄ gerous, to adopt others which we have adopted only because we think that our everlasting happiness rests upon them? And if we have this spark of good will, is it possible that we should use no efforts to effect that, which we confess to be so very desirable ? Yet by half the Christians we meet no such efforts are used, and their inactivity leaves upon our minds the conviction, either that they are not sincere in what they profess, or else

that they lack that spark of humanity which, if they had it, could not possibly let them be thus lax.

With a sincere conviction that our future happiness depends upon adopting a certain mode of conduct, from a certain prescribed motive, and a sincere love for our neighbours superadded to this conviction, it is as impossible that we should not make some efforts, both to confirm those who think with us, and to convert those who differ from us, as that we should let a beloved child run into the fire without making an effort to save him. Who would tamely see a fellow creature rushing upon a precipice, whilst there appeared any chance of rescuing him ?.

Where there are two opposite opinions, one of which must be right, because God has declared it so, the other must be wrong; and a wrong opinion in a matter so important as religion, must be of dreadful consequence when there is a possibility of attaining a better; and this, to one of the contending parties, there obviously is.

Both parties agree to admit something, which something is, that God has declared one of their two opinions to be right; and that to espouse it, is to observe the terms on which only, God has offered salvation to Christians. We pretend not to set limits to the mercy of the Almighty, but if we have any reasonable ground to expect future reward, or escape from future punishment, it is from the Gos pel alone, for there alone is salvation promised, and a probable way of obtaining it declared. It is promised to those who believe and obey, and to believe is made as necessary a condition of salvation, as to obey. Now there can be only one belief of the Scriptures which is right; there can therefore be only one set of Christians, who have made their own that belief, on which, joined to good works,hangs the salvation promised to those on whom the Gospel has shed its light, and though no doubt attainable, thro' Christ's atonement, by all who act up to the best light within their reach, yet to Christians alone promised. There can in strictness be only one of the contending parties,

theirs. But let us remember that both cannot be right; they are opposite as light from darkness; and it is not a small matter about which they differ; either one insults the allowed author of our salvation by degrading his di vine nature to mere humanity; or the other insults the majesty of God by associating a man with him in the government of the universe. Here then is a case in which the "mode of faith" cannot be a matter of indifference, for of two given modes, either one is blasphemy, or the other idolatry. I trust that every Socinian in England would tax me with insulting him, if I could suppose that he thought the mode of faith" indifferent, or call him agraceless zealot" for thinking us in a most dangerous state. If he be consistent and sincere, he cannot think otherwise.

If to those who have had "the Gospel preached unto them," to have a right belief of the Scriptures, joined to a right practice of its doctrines, be the only reasonable ground for expecting salvation, then the sceptic has obviously no reasonable ground for such expectation, and the only debate is between those who believing the Scriptures, do yet believe them differently.

I proceed to examine into the grounds on which the established Church of this kingdom, holds those doctrines which distinguish her from Socinians.

It is not my intention to inquire what was the faith of the early Christians, (that has been decided by abler heads to have been Trinitarian") but as we possess the Scriptures pure and unsophisticated, to make those Scriptures speak for themselves. First however I will beg leave to transcribe two tranlated passages of early Christian writers; one of Justin Martyr, who wrote about 106

* See amongst other works written for this end, Milner's Church history. Q