In

from what was intended by the original writers. That this was fometimes the cafe, is evident from the variations we find in the different copies, and, indeed, it is acknowledged by Trinitarians as well as ourselves, however much we may differ in our opinions with regard to fome particular texts. order, therefore, to fatisfy ourselves refpecting the authenticity of any paffage, we have recourfe to the following rule; we compare the copies with each other, and then confider the connection; and judge from the preponderance of evidence.

But here, perhaps, it will be objected, that the common people have neither time nor opportunity for fuch researches. It is, however, easy to furnish a fatisfactory reply. When it is their wifh to fatisfy themselves refpecting the truth of a particular doctrine, let them confult the general tenor of the fcriptures; and if this frould be found to be in favour of the doctrine, and there should be a few paffages only which make againft it; in order to reconcile these paffages with the general tenor, let them ftudy the connection. Should difficulties ftill remain, they muft carefully examine on which fide the preponderance of evidence lies, and make the opinion, which is attended with the lefs degree of evidence, fubmit to that which is attended with the greater, and they will not be far from the

truth.

I

I proceed to obferve, that we do not, in all cafes, profess to understand the scriptures in a literal, but fometimes in a figurative fenfe. Were we always to understand them in their literal fenfe, we muft, with the Papifts, believe the doctrine of tranfubftantiation for Chrift, we are informed, "took bread, and brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body." But this is a doctrine which Trinitarians, as well as ourfelves, reject with abhorrence. And what are our reafons for rejecting it? Because it is a doctrine in itself abfurd, and not countenanced by other paffages of fcripture. We fay, therefore, that our Saviour, in this inftance, is not to be understood literally, but figuratively. And why may not this be the cafe in other inftances? Unitarians are of opinion that it is. But in all the inftances they produce, they are willing, as in the cafe of tranfubftantiation, that the connection and the tenor of scripture fhall determine it.

Again; though we admit the authenticity of the books of the Old and New Teftament, we do not hold ourselves obliged to believe every private opinion of the different writers, but thofe doctrines only which they were commiffioned by God himfelf to reveal to the world. It was evidently the opinion of the perfon who wrote the book of Joshua, that the fun went round the earth; but it has fince been demonftrated to be false, and has long been difcarded.

difcarded. It was alfo the opinion of the evangelifts, that the lunaticks, of whom they give us an account in their hiftories, were poffeffed by demons; and this was the prevailing notion of the times. There are, however, few thinking perfons now, who do not confider thefe poffeffions as á fpecies of infanity.

I have made this remark in confequence of the reprefentation Mr. Hawker has given of Dr. Prieftley, (a) and which there was no neceffity for him to have given. For neither Dr. Priestley, nor any other Unitarian of whom I know any thing, ever thought it to be an opinion of the apoftles, that Chrift made the world. He only fays, "As it is not pretended, that there are miracles particularly adapted to prove, that Chrift made and fupports the world, I do not fee, that we are under any obligation to believe it, merely because it was an opinion held by an apostle." (b) By which he means, that had it been a mere private opinion of an apostle, which he was not commiffioned by our Saviour to make known, and which he wrought no miracle to confirm, he fhould not confider himself as bound to believe it. Had Chrift himself declared, that he was the maker of the world, or had the

(a) Page 7. note.

(b)Hiftory of early Opinions concerning Chrift. vol. i. p. 63.

the apoftles over declared it, as coming from the lips of Chrift, Dr. Priestley would have been as ready to have believed it as Mr. Hawker. But fuch an idea does not appear to us ever to have entered their minds.

Lastly, I observe, that though we allow the dif ferent writers of the New Teftament to have written the books attributed to them, we are not of opinion, that they were under a plenary inspiration at the time they wrote them. It does not appear to us, that there was any neceffity for it, as it was an easy matter for them, without fuch fupernatural aid, to give a true relation of the things they had feen and heard. And, indeed, a critical examination of the four gofpels feems to afford pofitive proof that they were not. For, though they agree in their general statement of facts, there are certain little circumstances in the account of which they difagree, (c) and which, on the fuppofition they were under a plenary infpiration at the time they wrote, cannot be accounted for. So far, however, are thefe differences, in our opinion, from weakening, that they confiderably strengthen,

our

(c) Matthew mentions two demoniacks as having met our Saviour when he went into the country of the Gergofenes: Mark and Luke mention only one. Compare Matt. viii 28

our belief in chriftianity. They convince us, that the evangelifts were not combined together to impofe a cheat upon the world, but that they wrote their respective hiftories, according to the beft of their recollection, without confulting one another.

I conclude this chapter bv affuring my reader, that though I have thus freely expreffed myself on the fubject of infpiration, I am nevertheless perfuaded, that the evangelifts and apoftles were honeft men, that the facts they have related are true, and that they have taught no doctrines authorita ively, which they were not commiffioned to teach by their bleffed master. With respect to the point in difpute between Mr. Hawker and myself, and every important doctrine of chriftianity, I am willing to abide by their teftimony.

-34, with Mark v. 1.-20, and Luke viii. 26-40. Matthew and Mark inform us, that the transfiguration of Christ took pla e fix days after his declaration to the difciples, that fome of them fhould not tafte of death, till they had feen the fon of man coming in his kingdom: Luke informs us, it was about eight days after it. Compare Matt. xvii. 1. and Mark ix. 1. 2, with Luke ix 27-28. Matthew fpeaks of both the thieves that were crucified with Jefus as reviling him: I uke informs us, it was only one of them. Compare Matt xxvii. 44, with

Luke xxiii. 39-44. Matthew and Mark fpeak only of one angel who appeared to Mary Magdalene on the morning of our I ord's elurrection: Luke and John relate that there were two. Compare Matt. xxviii. 2, and Mark xvi. 5, with Luke xxiv. 4, and John xx. 12.