mitted; but we think that it was more evincive of moral depravity, than of true greatness.

Dr. Priestley was undoubtedly a man of some learning and talents; but such an attack upon Moses, was a high evidence of his infidelity, and no ornament to his character. With all his erudition, study, and mental force, the best of his writings fall infinitely beneath the sublimity of the Holy Scriptures. The one shows the learned, ingenious, and studious mind; but the other bears the obvious marks of true Divinity, and is a bright display of the moral glory of God. There is as wide a difference, therefore, between the productions of a Priestley, and the writings of Moses, as there is between earth and heaven! There have been many in the world, not inferior to Dr. Priestley in any respect, who have differed greatly from him in relation to the Scriptures; and, no doubt, it is the case now, and will be to the end of time. To speak otherwise, would be a manifestation of moral blindness, and insensibility to the beauty of truth and holiness.

In direct opposition to the Apostles, Paul and Peter, and some of the Prophets, Dr. Priestly has said, "That the books of Scripture were written by divine inspiration, is a thing to which the writers themselves make no pretensions. It is a notion destitute of all proof; and has done great injury to the cause of christianity." But in advancing unqualified and daring assertions, in opposition to Prophets and Apostles, Dr. Priestly was actually a "magnanimous" writer! In his first letter to Mr. Burn, he has the temerity to declare, "That in no sense whatever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God in all the New-Testament."

On this astonishing assertion, Dr. Fuller makes the following remarks: "The method taken by this writer, to enable him to hazard such an assertion without being sub

ject to the charge of downright falsehood, could be no other than that of laying a kind of arrest upon many sacred passages, as being either interpolations, or mistranslations, or something that shall answer the same end; and by these means, imposing silence upon them as to the subject in dispute." "To be sure," says the Dr. "we may go on, killing one Scripture testimony, and stoning another, till at length, it will become an easy thing to assert, that there is never an instance in all the New-Testament, in which our opinions are confronted. But to what does it all amount? When we are told that "Christ is never so much as called God in the New-Testament;" the question is, whether we are to understand it of the New-Testament as it was left by the sacred writers; or, as corrected, amended, curtailed, and interpreted, by a set of controvertists, with a view to make it accord with a favorite system."

It has been made to appear, that Dr. Priestley pointedly denies, that the Scriptures are the fruit of divine inspiration. He viewed them only, "as faithful records of past transactions." But, as the writers of the Scriptures declare that they were inspired, if Dr. Priestley is right, then they have told us a palpable falsehood; and, therefore, they cannot be considered as faithful historians, nor even as honest men. Viewing the case in this light, it cannot be said that the Scriptures are a proper test of truth and duty. If the Dr. is correct, they may be summoned to answer at the bar of reason; and if they do not approve themselves to its decisions, are as liable to be condemned as any other writings. It is entirely impertinent on this calculation, to exhort any man to go "to the law and to the testimony," to know what he should either do or believe.

Dr.Priestly, however, is not alone, in such daring attacks upon the Holy Scriptures. The Rev. T. Lindsey says,

in relation to the Person of Christ, "It must be owned, to have been left in obscurity in the Scriptures themselves, which might mislead readers, full of heathen prejudices." But if the Scriptures are calculated to "mislead" men, in judging of Christ, they are not very well adapted to inform them on any other subject; and, therefore, they must be in a great measure useless, unless it be to afford matter for religious controversy. A writer in the Monthly Review, agrees with Mr. Lindsey in saying, "The nature and design of the Scriptures, is not to settle disputed theories, nor to decide upon speculative controverted questions, even in religion and morality." It must be acknowledged, I think, that this is in fact, a plain denial of the inspiration of Scripture, and a rejection of it, as being the proper rule of truth and virtue. Another writer of this class, says of St. John, "If a concise, abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories, is to be called sublimity of speech, I own John to be sublime: for there is scarce one discourse of Christ, which is not altogether allegorical, and very hard to be understood." But to go on, another author of the same stamp says, "I shall not a little glory if I shall be found to give some light to Paul's darkness, a darkness, as some think, industriously affected." Let us hear another of the Anti-Trinitarian school, in relation to the historical events of the NewTestament, saying, "These narrations, true or false, are only suited for ignorant, uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion." He adds, that "Moses, according to the childish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to one people, and hating all other nations." In a note on 2 Peter, 1.21. "The 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." It is said

by one of these writers, "Peter spake then according to the conceptions of the Jews; and the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revelations." "Let any

Mr. Blackwall says, concerning these men, of the followers of these worthy interpreters of the gospel, and champions of Christianity, speak worse, if they can, of the ambiguous oracles of the father of lies." The Rev. R. Wardlaw says, "From the views of inspiration, which these writers entertain, we are prepared to hear-for it is mournfully consistent-one of them charging the sacred penman with using language, even on the most important subjects," to which they themselves probably annexed no very distinct ideas; "and another accusing the author of the admirable epistle to the Hebrews with, "far fetched analogies and inconclusive reasonings." Citations of of this kind might be multiplied; but sufficient has been said, to show the spirit of our Anti-Trinitarian opponents, and their manner of treating the Holy Scriptures.

If it should be said, however, that the faults of some writers ought not to be charged to the Anti-Trinitarians in general; I answer, let but one of all their writers be produced, who has expressly avowed his belief in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and I will acknowledge the propriety of the remark. The statements that have been made, are proper samples of the community at large, as far as I have been able to extend my observations.

My authorities, for what I have said, are, Dr. Fuller, and the Rev. R. Wardlaw-gentlemen, deservedly esteemed in the Christian world, and whose character, as writers; for information, piety and truth, stand far above impeachment. Unlimited reliance, therefore, may be placed on the accuracy of what has been advanced, as the sayings of Anti-Trinitarian authors. In Fuller's Letters, and

THE ONLY STANDARD OF TRUTH.

209

Wardlaw's Sermons, the books and pages are expressly mentioned. My statements, however, will not be disputed; for the thing, could not be done with success.

In the view of what has been said, it amounts to very little with our opponents, whether 1 John 5. 7, is a genuine text, or a forgery; for they deny the inspiration of the whole Book of God; and, therefore, if that passage were proved to have been written by St. John, all that they would have to do, would be to suppose that he had not given sufficient attention to the subject-was not properly informed respecting that doctrine, and that his reasoning is inconclusive. This observation will apply to every passage that they contest, as being either inserted or mistranslated. With such conceptions of the Scriptures, it must be expected that, they will dispute their authority without any fear, whenever they perceive them to be in opposition to their preconceived and darling system.

The opposition which is made in this town, to the doctrines that I have been defending, is very great. The youth are exposed to the contagion. They behold the controversy; but the want of years and experience, incapacitate them, in a great measure, to understand its merits. No doubt, they have supposed, that each of the contending parties were equally willing to abide by the decision of the Bible, in our translation; and, therefore, I feel myself under indispensible obligation to give them suitable information on the subject. Supposing that I should, through a false delicacy, decline the painful task, and they be left to embrace that destructive scheme; how should I answer it to God! How should I dare to meet them in the world of Spirits! Would this excuse me there, that some of my hearers disliked to hear controversy? No; a cringing, dependent mind, is infinitely unsuitable for a gospel minister. If I know my own heart, it is not for victory nor for party

D D