tenor; and plain literal fenfe of fcripture is in our favour, "that they are only particular texts, and those ill-understood, ' that you avail yourselves of; and we say, that there is no 'difficulty in interpreting even those texts in perfect con'fiftency with the unitarian doctrine, if the true idiom of 'the language be confidered.

ર

You complain of my not reading, but only looking through authors. But furely, you cannot have even • looked through the very Letters of mine that you are profeffedly replying to. Let me therefore, bring again before 'your view, a paragraph or two in thofe Letters, which, as far as pretenfions go, directly contradict your confident. affertion. See p. 90, where you will find as follows: “I "will venture to fay, that for one text in which you can "pretend to find any thing harfh, or difficult to me, I will engage to produce ten that fhall create more difficulty to you. How strangely must you torture the plainelt language, and in which there is not a fhadow of figure, to "interpret to your purpose, 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is one "God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Chrift

Jefus. I Cor. viii. 6. To us there is but one God, the Fa"ther, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Fefus Chrift, by whom are all things, and we by him; or "that expreffion of our Saviour himself, John xvii. 2. That "they might know thee, the only true God, and Jefus Chrift "whom thou haft fent. Never upbraid us Unitarians with "torturing the fcriptures, while you have these, and a hun"dred other plain texts, to ftrain at, and to bend to your "hypothesis; befides many general arguments, from reason "and the fcriptures, of more real force than any particular "texts, to answer.'

This, Sir, was certainly anfwering your challenge to produce one plain text in favour of the unitarian doctrine 'before it was thrown out. I appeal to yourself for the 'obvious fenfe of the paffages 1 have now recited; and you fay, p. 23, "It is a principle with me, that the true sense "of any phrase in the New Teftament is what may be ❝ called

1

"called its ftanding fenfe, that which will be the first to occur to common people, of every country, and in every 66 age."

I would also refer you to a small piece I lately published, entitled, A general View of the Arguments for the Unity of • God, and against the Divinity and Pre-existence of Chrift, from Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from Hiftory, which you seem to have feen, as you refer to my two-penny pamphlets, for this is fold for two-pence. There you will find, not only that Socinians pretend to have the clear sense of scripture in their favour, but many of those paffages 'expreffive of that clear fenfe, produced. I there observe, p. 10, that "the fcriptures contain the clearest and the "moft express declarations, that there is but one God, with"out ever mentioning any exception in favour of a trinity, "or guarding us against being led into any mistake by such general and unlimited expreffions." And if this language, as you fuppofe, always refpected the multiplicity of gods among the heathens, why is this one God, in the New Testament always called the Father, and even the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift; and why are we no where 'told that this one God is the trinity, confifting of Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft? This, Sir, is the language ' of your litany only. The Bible used in our conventicles, • contains no fuch barbarous jargon.

"I would also recommend to your perufal another pam' phlet of mine, called, An Appeal to the serious and candid Profeffors of Christianity, of which more than ten thousand have been fold for a penny each; and of this I have lately. • published a new edition, and have annexed to it the remarkable Trial of Mr. Elwall, of Wolverhampton, in this 'neighbourhood, for his publications in defence of the Socinian doctrine. These fmall publications of mine have, I ' trust, done much good, though you will call it much mif'chief, in this country. I rejoice in perceiving the increase of this good, or this mischief, every day; and I have no doubt of the fuccessful spread of religious truth by means

• of

of these publications, notwithstanding all you can do to ' counteract them.'

It may appear strange to quote fo much from my own writings; but is it not more strange that your conduct, Sir, should make this of mine neceffary? The quotations, however, abundantly prove that, whether I understand the scriptures or not, I am not afraid to appeal to them, and that I even make the great hinge of this controversy to turn upon them; though you infift upon it that I professedly reject the argument from the fcriptures, as impertinent and inconclufive.

After reading your Letters, I fhall not wonder at your ftill perfifting in saying, that I even now reject the authority of fcripture. For I can fay nothing stronger on the subject than I have repeatedly done before. This conduct of yours puts me in mind of the humorous attempt of Dean Swift to prove against Partridge himself, that he was dead; and when the poor man replied, that if he was dead, he could not have answered him, the dean said that such an argument was to no purpose, as no man's evidence could be admitted in favour of himself. So you, Sir, will perhaps allege that, though the question between us is fimply whether I appeal to the fcriptures or not, my own actual and repeated appealing to them is to be confidered as no evidence at all. You will next, I fuppofe maintain that the publications are not mine. Indeed, there is no other method of fupporting your accufation of me, and of vindicating yourself. However, you will not easily find any other perfon who will chufe to lay claim to them.

LETTER II.

Of the Argument for the Divinity of Chrift from Heb. i. 8.

REV. SIR,

HAVING confidently afferted, and feverely cenfured, my

utter rejection and contempt of scripture evidence, in the controverfy concerning the person of Christ; you proceed to a particular inftance, as an exemplification of my conduct in it. And as it happens that I have actually confidered the very fame text that you produce for this purpose, our readers will have an opportunity of comparing your representation of my treatment of this paffage with my own actual treatment of it, in a treatife published long before your Letters were written, and probably long before you were of age to write at all; and the contraft will be not a little ftriking.

"I will endeavour," you fay, p. 10, "to ftate this opi"nion by an example. Suppofe the fixth verfe of the "forty-fifth pfalm. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and "ever the fceptre of thy kingdom is a right fceptre." "Let this, in connexion with its parallel place in the first 66 chapter of Hebrews, 8th verse, be the paffage adduced in "favour of Chrift's divinity; according to your hypothesis "there is no dependence to be placed on the argument, "because the apostle, in his application of this fcripture to "the Meffiah, was misled by a prejudice common among the Jews, refpecting this and other passages of the Old Testa"ment. In this statement, the principle at least of your "objection, is faithfully preferved; a principle which I fhall "now proceed to prove, has for its object, not the emenda❝tion of an interpolated paffage, nor the correction of such "casual errors as are incident to every writer of antiquity, " but the total demolition of revealed truth."

You

You then proceed to confider, and reply to, this treatment of the paffage in question, taking it for granted, that it was mine, at least that the principle, as you say, of my objection is faithfully preferved in it. With what fidelity let our readers now judge for themselves.

In my Illuftration of particular Paffages of Scripture, first published in the year 1772, I confider this very text; and after perusing your Letters, the reader must be surprized to find that, instead of going upon the principle of the writer being misled by any prejudice, fo that no dependence can be placed upon his argument, I actually explain it on the very oppofite principle, viz. of its being a very proper citation; the passage quoted not being at all misunderstood by the apostle, and fully proving what he had in view, which was not the divinity of Chrift, but his dignity, as conferred upon him by God; the character and authority of God, on which that of Chrift refted, being properly mentioned on the occafion. What I then wrote, and which I still approve, is as follows, p. 34.

Heb. i. 10. And thou, Lord, in the beginning haft laid the foundation of the earth, &c. As there are feveral ex'preffions in the first part of this chapter, which are not eafy to be understood, I fhall give a brief explanation of ' them all, in their order. The great objection which the 'Jews made to christianity being the meanness of Chrift's < appearance, and the ignominious death that he suffered; to obviate this, the author of this epiftle begins with re'presenting the great dignity to which, for the fuffering of death, Chrift is now exalted at the right hand of God. Having faid that, God, in these last days, had spoken to us by his Son, he immediately adds, ver. 2, whom he hath appointed heir, or Lord, of all things; by whom also he 'made, or appointed, not the material worlds, but the ages; that is the present difpenfation of God's government over * mankind, which is established by the gospel, the adminis 'tration of which is committed to the Son. Who being the brightness of his (that is God's) glory, and the express Q3 • image

<