pointed out to us by Dr. Priestley: and his statement so bears upon its very front the impress of truth and reason, that no sober inquirer, I think, of either party, can possibly start any maintainable objection; least of all can the members of the Antitrinitarian School, since the UMPIRE in question has been spontaneously proposed by one of themselves.

The proposal of this UMPIRE, who is peculiarly unexceptionable because in truth he is called in purely to decide upon a question of FACT, I shall give in the precise words of his proposer Dr. Priestley.

The true doctrine, concerning the person of Christ, must be allowed to have been held by the Apostles. They, no doubt, knew, whether their Master was only a man like themselves, or their Maker.

Their immediate disciples would receive and maintain the same doctrine that they held.

And it must have been some time, before any other could have been introduced and have spread to any extent: and, especially, before it could have become the prevailing opinion 1.

1

1 Priestley's Reply to Animad. Introd. sect. iv. Works, vol. xviii. p. 23.

On the divine authority of the Christian Scriptures as a Rule of Faith, the American theologian, Dr. Channing is full and express but his deductions from those Scriptures rest not upon

1. In asserting, on the part of the primitive Church, the moral impossibility of error so far as

any more solid foundation, than his own gratuitous assumption of their accuracy.

Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians: and, WHATEVER HE TAUGHT, EITHER DURING HIS PERSONAL MINISTRY, OR BY HIS

INSPIRED APOSTLES, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives. Sermon at the ordin. of Mr. Sparks, p. 5. fifth Liverpool edit.

I. Whether, after such a declaration, Dr. Channing, like Dr. Priestley, would, with a high hand, reject the doctrine of the Trinity, even if he were evidentially satisfied, that, in point of fact, it is revealed in Scripture; I will not undertake to determine: I can only hope, that he would not be guilty of this strange. and unhallowed inconsistency.

That Dr. Channing thinks and believes his own interpretation of Scripture to be correct, I make no doubt: but the very strongest belief and persuasion, on the part of any mere dogmatical interpreter, is no PROOF.

1. Here lies the grand defect of modern Antitrinitarianism. IT IS A COMPLETE TISSUE OF HERMENEUTIC ASSUMPTION AND AS

SERTION.

Dr. Priestley, indeed, in his two Histories, as if conscious of this blot, has attempted to remove it, after the only mode in which it can be removed: with what success, may perhaps appear in the course of the following investigation. As for Dr. Channing, like the rest of his School, he gives us his own exposition of Scripture: but, if we ask for PROOF that his exposition is the true exposition, we shall vainly seek for any evidence more cogent, than his own belief and persuasion that he does give the true exposition.

Now,

respects the MERE FACT, What the Apostles did or did not teach to that Church concerning the nature

Now, so far as I can comprehend the principles of right reasoning, this is what is called a PETITIO PRINCIPII: or, in other words, it is to ASSUME the very point which ought to have been PROVED.

How do I know, that Dr. Channing's interpretation gives, as it professes, the real mind of Scripture? Why am I to receive the exposition of an Antitrinitarian, when he assigns no better reason for my receiving it; than that he himself pronounces it exclusively rational, and that he himself believes it to be true?

That Dr. Channing is sincere in his belief that he has hit upon the genuine exposition of Scripture, I may readily and safely admit. But what is this, in the way of suasive DEMONSTRATION?

2. Again I must repeat: that even the most honest conviction of Dr. Channing or of any other antitrinitarian divine, in regard to the perfect accuracy of his scriptural interpretation, is to me no PROOF, that he is really a sound interpreter. Without PROOF, my feeling is only that of the Incredulus odi. I ask for PROOF: and I am met by ASSERtion.

II. On the same mistaken principle of substituting mere dogmatism for direct evidence, Dr. Channing asks: How can the Protestant escape from Transubstantiation, a doctrine most clearly taught us, if the submission of reason, now contended for, be a duty? Ibid. p. 13.

K

1. Truly, a protestant Catholic, were he to work upon the basis recommended by Dr. Channing, would make but a sorry figure in the presence of an intelligent roman Catholic.

The latter would immediately ask him; and very reasonably, to boot, would he ask him: Why a Romanist is bound to take a Protestant's interpretation of our Lord's words, rather than his

of God and of Christ: I confess myself quite to agree with Dr. Priestley.

own interpretation of them; merely because the Protestant ASSERTS, that his interpretation of them is undoubtedly the true interpretation?

Were I a Transubstantialist, and were I treated by an opponent with nothing more cogent than DOGMATICAL ASSERTION; verily, I should remain a Transubstantialist to the end of my life: for I should obviously discern no reason, why, on the ground of bare asseveration, I ought to relinquish my exposition in favour of a protestant exposition.

2. But, in truth, until taught by Dr. Channing, I never was aware that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is clearly propounded in Scripture, whence it can only be dislodged by bringing the artillery of human reason to bear upon it. On the contrary, I had always conceived, with Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius and Augustine and Walafrid Strabo and Arnold of Bonneval, that our Lord himself guards us against a literal interpretation of his words, by telling us that it is the spirit which quickeneth, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and that his words are spirit and life. John vi. 63. See Tertull. de resurr. carn. § xxviii. Oper. p. 69. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 236, 237, 238. Athan. in illud Evan. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis. Oper. vol. i. p. 771,772. August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Walaf. Strab. de Reb. Eccles. c. xvi. Arnold. Tractat. de Coen. Domin. ad calc. Oper. Cyprian. vol. ii. p. 40.

3. No protestant Catholic, who understood the real ground of making good his difference from the Roman Church, would ever, mutatis mutandis, say with Dr. Priestley: that, even if the doctrine of Transubstantiation were assuredly found in Scrip

(1.) Clearly, I think, the primitive Church MUST, in all the fulness of absolute certainty, have known

ture, still he would not believe it. To use the phraseology of Dr. Channing, he escapes from that doctrine, without the least difficulty and without the least incongruity: because, as, hermeneutically, his Saviour directs him to understand and to interpret his words spiritually or figuratively; so, in matter of fact, he finds, that those words were so understood and interpreted by the primitive Church, and that all change of substance by the consecration of the elements was even totidem verbis explicitly denied. See August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Theodor. Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Gelas. de duab. Christ. natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422. Ephræm. Theopol. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. ccxxix. p. 794. Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. Oper. p. 144.

(1.) On this ground, he rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation and, if historical testimony were equally strong against the doctrine of the Trinity, he would equally reject that doctrine also. For, in that case, he would feel assured, that the trinitarian exposition of Scripture must be erroneous: because the doctrine in question could not be scripturally true, if the Catholic Church had invariably disowned and rejected it from the very beginning.

(2.) But the very reverse of this is the fact, as will amply appear in the course of the present purely historical inquiry: nor has the modern Antitrinitarian any thing to oppose to such direct testimony, save the mere DOGMATICAL ASSERTION that his own private interpretation of Scripture must be the true interpretation.

4. In short, the protestant Catholic rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the precise ground that he admits the doctrine of the Trinity.

(1.) If