when he says, Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;" and adds, that" the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains, as divine revelation." Concerning the reasoning of the Apostles, Dr. Priestley says, " We are tɔ judge of it, as of that of other men, by a due consideration of the propositions they advance, and the arguments they allege." That men, who entertain such views concerning the Scriptures, will not, and according to their own opinions ought not, to receive the declarations of the Scriptures, in any other manner than that, in which they receive the declarations, contained in every other book, is obvious to the least consideration. If the Scriptures were not written and the writers do not pretend that they wrote, by particular divine inspiration; then they, certainly stand on the same footing with all other books; and the writers are undoubtedly to be regarded, as Dr. Priestley says, merely in the character of Historians and witnesses.

If Christ and the Apostles were fallible men, and St. Paul has actually reasoned fallaciously; then undoubtedly their reasonings, and all their doctrines, are to be examined in the same manner, as those of other men. If the Scriptures were not designed to settle speculative opinions or doctrines, even in morality and religion; then it is plain, that they must be settled, if settled at all, by some other tribunal: and there is no other tribunal, but our own reason. If the doubts of conscience were not intended to be solved by the Scriptures, then, certainly, the mind must solve them, so far as it can, for itself. These Gentlemen have, therefore, prescribed a rule for themselves, which every man may certainly know beforehand, even without reading their works, they could not fail to follow for no man ever believed the Scriptures not to be an infallible rule of direction in these things, who did not also make his own reason his directory; unless he, indeed, implicitly submitted to the dictates of his fellowmen. In truth it would be difficult to find a man, who does not distinctly perceive, that there is no other directory.

Accordingly, every reader of Unitarian books must have observed, that the writers evidently refer the interpretation of the Scriptures to their own pre-conceived opinions, or the previous

decisions of their own reason. That is, they form their system of Theology, and then make use of the Scriptures to support, or countenance, it. Wherever they find passages, whose obvious meaning will countenance their own opinions, they make the most of them, by admitting this meaning. Wherever the obvious meaning, that is, the meaning derived from the language, according to customary use, or according to the tenour of the discourse of which it is a part, will not countenance their opinions, they contrive for it some other meaning, which will better suit those opinions.

That the Unitarians have actually conducted in this manner, can be made abundantly evident by an appeal to their writings. One strong proof of this conduct is found in the Arian notion, that Christ is a delegated god. The present occasion will permit me to exhibit but one, out of several modes, in which the truth of this declaration may be evinced. Christ is undeniably many times asserted in the Scriptures to be God. These assertions are as unqualified, and absolute, as those, in which the Father is declared to be GoD. They are also accompanied with a great variety of declarations, in which are ascribed to him, without any qualification, all the attributes, actions, and relations, attributable to God, exclusively of those which belong to the Father as such; and are also followed by the very same worship, unconditionally required, and actually rendered to him by inspired men, and by the host of Heaven. Now from all these assertions I will withdraw the name of Christ, and substitute that of the Father. Let me ask, Would any of the Arians have ever thought of denying, that the name GOD, in any one of these passages, did not mean the true and real GOD, but only a God by delegation? To this question there can be no answer, but a nega tive. Whence, then, do they refuse to acknowledge the same passages to mean the same thing, as they now stand? Plainly for this undeniable reason, that they have beforehand determined, that God is not, and cannot be Tri-personal, or Triune. In this determination, however, they are unhappy, as being unwarranted, not only by the Scriptures, but also by that very Reason, to which they make so confident an appeal: for nothing is more

opposed to both, than that a finite, dependent being can have these things ascribed to him with truth.

On the same grounds do the Socinians declare Christ to be a mere man; not because he is not abundantly declared to be God in the Scriptures; but because they pre-determine by their reason, that a person cannot exist by the Union of GOD with man; and that God cannot be Triune. Let any man read their comments on the Scriptures, relative to Christ; and he will see this to be abundantly shown by the nature of the comments, and the words in which they are uttered.

I have observed, that the Arians are unhappy in choosing this position as the basis of their distinguishing doctrine; because it is unwarranted either by Reason, or Revelation. Both they, and the Socinians, are unhappy on other accounts. They know not, and cannot know, by any dictates of Reason, that God is not Triune. The Nature and Manner of his Existence, so far as this subject is concerned, lie wholly beyond their reach, and beyond that of all other men. We cannot even begin to form ideas concerning them. It is, therefore, idle and fruitless to form propositions about them; still more idle to reason and conclude; and still more idle to make such conclusions the basis of our Faith in a case of such magnitude. All that we know, or can know, is just that, and that only, which God has been pleased immediately to reveal.

The same observations are, with the same force, applicable to the Doctrine of the Union of the divine and human nature in the person of Christ. Of this subject we literally know nothing, beside what is revealed.

That a mere man, also, can have these names, attributes, actions, and relations, and this worship, ascribed to him, with truth, is not only unaccordant with reason, but common sobriety, or decency. A few more instances of this nature; which, because I have not the means of multiplying examples, nor time for such a purpose; I shall select wholly from Dr. Priestley's Notes on the books of Scripture.

In his notes on the first chapter of John, Dr. Priestley informs us, that the word Aoyos, which, you know, is translated the Word, is nothing more than the power of God, by which all things were

made; and therefore, he says, it was no distinct, inferior principle, but God himself. On this explanation I shall make but one general remark; (viz.) that this is the only known instance, in which an attribute of God, either in sacred or profane writings, has been asserted to be God. If St. John, therefore, had this meaning, he has used language to express it, which was, probably, never used by any other human being*. Having premised this remark, I shall proceed to examine the soundness of the explanation, by the most unobjectionable of all methods; (viz.) the substitution of the explanation for the thing explained; Power and God, for the Word, or Aoyos; as being the two things, which the term Aoyos is, successively, declared to denote. This experiment, to which no Socinian can object, shall be first made with power. In the beginning was the power of God, and this power was with God, and this power was God. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by it, and without it was not any thing made, that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. It was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not. It came unto its own, and its own received it not. But as many as received it, to them gave it power to become the sons of God; even to them that believe on its name, and the power was made flesh, and dwelt among us; (and we beheld its glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the FATHER,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of it, and cried, saying, This was it of which I spake It that cometh after me is preferred before me, for it was before me. And of its fulness have we all received, and grace for grace. For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Dr. Priestley says the Power was God; St. John says, It was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. According to his comment, therefore, God became flesh, and dwelt among us. According to his comment, also, this Power was Christ; for he says it dwelt among us, full of grace and truth: but St. John immediately subjoins, grace and truth came (that is, into this world) by Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.

* 1 John iv. 16 to be hereafter explained.

This passage, formed in the very manner prescribed by Dr. Priestley himself, in his explanation, certainly can need no comment from me.. I shall only say, that if there is a Socinian in the world, who can make the parts of it, taken together, mean any intelligible thing, I think I may safely yield him the point in controversy.

Let us now make the trial with the other term, God. In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God. Two verses more will suffice. And God was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, (the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No one hath seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Once more, let us try the same experiment with the Superangelic being of the Arians. In the beginning was a super-angelic creature, named the Word, and this super-angelic creature was with God, and this super-angelic creature was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by this su per-angelic creature, and without him was not any thing made that was made. I presume, I need proceed no farther. That interpretation of a passage can need nothing added to it, which makes God himself say, that a creature was in the beginning with God, and was God; and that, although he was himself creat ed, or made; yet he made every thing that was made; and of course made himself. I had designed to subjoin two or three more specimens ; but the time will not permit me to recite them. That, which I have recited, will serve to show to what lengths the interpretation of the Scriptures, according to our preconceived opinions, will lead men of superior learning and abili ties. At the reading of this only, how can we avoid exclaiming, Who is this, that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

On this plan of interpretation at large I ask, Can it, in any respect, consist with what the Scriptures say of themselves? The prophet Isaiah, (chapter viii. 29,) says, To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

All Scripture, says St. Paul, is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for VOL. II.

23