temporary derangement; and, perhaps, Stephen might have had a short phrenzy-fit like Paul; and as for the story of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, that has been supposed to be nothing more than the narration of a vision.--or "scenical exhibition of images upon the mind of the entranced propliet.*

Consid. So that it is to be supposed, that Christ slept forty days and forty nights, and afterwards related his dreams.

Wiseh. Sir, such is the way our divines have solved the difficulty.

Consid. Do you mean, by all this, to prove that your system, if it deserve the name, has nothing to do with infidelity ?†

Harwood's New Testament.

Had Mr. Considerate entered more deeply into the controversy by arguing from the authority of the Scriptures against the sentiments of Mr. Wisehead, according to his new notions of the volume of inspiration, it could have been of no avail; for if men of such sentiments cannot succeed, by quirks and quibbles, and by the aid of the most unnatural far-fetched iuterpretations, the next business is to invalidate the book itself, agreeably to the samples above given: so that it is impossible. to deal with a Socinian, but as you would with a Deist. The arguments, therefore, taken up by Lardner on the Credibility of the Gospels, and again lately brought forward against the Deists by Paley,* will prove the best answers against the Socinian notions of the Bible. And I think those modern perverters of Christianity must know how widely they differ from the primitive Christians as it relates to the authority of the sacred volume. Brevity allows me to mention only some of the expressions during the first ages of the church, as they are to be found in Paley, p. 230-282. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, says, "these things the holy Scriptures teach, and all who were moved by the Holy Spirit."- Concerning the righteousness which the law teaches, the like things are to be found in the Prophets and the Gospels, because that

71

*Though no man has written better respecting the authenticity of revelation, yet few have gone so far in giving up many of the divine truths therein contained.

X 2

Wiseh. Sir, we disown the charge, we are not such infidels as to deny the divine mission of Jesus; though we believe he is in himself to be considered "as a mere man, and naturally as FALLIBLE AND PECCABLE, as Moses or any other prophet; * yet, that he was commissioned by the Supreme Being, to instruct mankind in the purest principles of mora lity, so far as he understood them; for, "though we admit that Jesus taught the truth in a popular way, yet we very much doubt, whether, in some instances, he properly and accurately understood it † ! ! !

Consid. Is this the voice of Mr. Wisehead, or the ghost of some departed infidel, that is uttering such dangerous and profane insinuations against the person and character of our blessed Lord? If this be his just character, what good can we get by following such an uncertain leader? and what can we

all being inspired, spoke by one and the same Spirit!" They are therefore frequently called the divine Scriptures" the sacred fountain of truth" and Origen (against Celsus,) declares, that both Jewish and New Testament Scriptures are believed in the Churches to be divine.

Novatus says, "That Christ is not only man, but God also, is proved by the sacred authority of the divine writings.-The divine Scripture easily detects and confutes the frauds of heretics;" and he calls them The heavenly Scriptures which never deceive." Further, in all the controversies between the Arians, Athanasians, and the admirers of Origen's platonic notions, however some of them differed from the truths contained in the Scriptures, yet they always acknowledged their decision was definitive: That they were the certain guide to truth, given for that purpose by God himself: "The divinely inspired Scriptures." I therefore observe, that the modern notion of the Bible, as it is now before us, presents us with one of the boldest attacks yet ever made on its sacred authority, and it is unsupported by all writers almost in every age of the Church, nor can they produce in support of such sentiments any other argument than bold unqualified assertions from their own authority. Had they searched into antiquity, they would have been more modest and better taught.

* Priestley's Letters to an Unbeliever, p. 33-35.

Priestley on Necessity.

expect from the Bible itself; but that it will distract and puzzle the minds of all who read it?

Wiseh. Dear Sir, I am sorry you should be so alarmed, but I only meant to soften matters, by shewing you, that it is no wonder if those well-intentioned men, who became the followers of Jesus, who was a fallible and peccable man, and had only. a popular way of preaching what he did not properly and accurately understand: I say it cannot be wondered at, if they also blundered, and mistook matters still more frequently than their master..

Mrs. Toogood. Why, Mr. Wisehead, you quite shock me; it appears as though you believed next to nothing about our Blessed Saviour, or that there is scarcely either God or devil-though I don't join in with Mr. Lovegood, and his followers, in running down all man's merits; yet, I am sure, I don't know what we should do without our Saviour's merits also, to make up our deficiencies, after we have done our duty as well as we can.

Consid. Why, Madam, I am not a little alarmed, as well as yourself; for, according to this, almost the whole of Christianity, allowed by reason, is, whether Jesus Christ was a good man or an impostor, and even that is a matter of doubt, for now it seems he is peccable as well as fallible.

Wisch. Sir, I think I can make it out, that Jesus was actually peccable as well as fallible, though you seem to be so shocked at our "true Gospel," and rational notions of religion; and of this, I will give you an instance. He frequently accommodated his doctrine to the vulgar errors of the day and I have before observed, that the doctrine of angels and dvils was a pernicious tenet, and which tended to diminish our regard to the omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God; and though Jesus was his mere servant, yet" he seems to use the word soul, as

though expressive of something distinct from the body; but if he did, which, however, is not certain, he might do it in conformity with the prevailing opinion of the times, in the same manner as he applies being possessed of demons to madmen, and speaks to madmen as if they were actuated by evil spirits, though he CERTAINLY did not believe the existence of such demons *.

Consid. I think, Sir, you have now done the business completely.

Spitef. Though I hate Lovegood's enthusiasm, yet I think you are almost as far gone in infidelity as he is in enthusiasm. I really did not suppose that your rational religion would have brought you to all this!

Wiseh. Sir, I am only "removing the rubbish, which loads and disgraces the foundation †."

Consid. It appears to me, as if you were not only clearing away what you call rubbish, but foundation and all; but have you done, Sir?

Wiseh. No, Sir; I confess there are other erroneous and irrational notions which we equally disapprove for instance, "The doctrine of an intermediate state, or a state of conscious existence between death and the resurrection;" this must be discarded, if we are desirous to regulate our faith by the standard of reason, of truth, and of Christianity ."

1

Consid. Of Christianity! why did not Christ say to the thief, "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise?"

Wiseh. O, Sir, but you have not considered the proper rational interpretation of that text, as given by our learned divines; they only just alter the

* Priestley on Matter and Spirit.

Belsham's Caution.

stop,

+ Belsham's Caution.

and then it reads-" Verily I say unto thee this day; -thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

Consid. A capital proof indeed this, of the rationality of your divines! but do they mean this as an argument or a joke? for, according to this, I might say to a poor man who was half starving, "Verily I say unto you this day;-I will give you a loaf of bread;" and when, for several days I delay my promise, and he accuses me of a breach of my word, I have nothing to do but to say, he did not understand my stops; and that I was not bound to fulfil my promise for a month after I had made it." And again, if a physician says-"To-day I say; I'll visit such a poor man, ill of a fever;" but still delays till his patient dies, and is accused of cruelty; yet all this arose from their neglect, in not observing to mind where the physician designed to have made his stops: and the same sort of joke, (for I cannot call it argument,) has been played off by your divines, on the words of Thomas, when he said, My Lord and My God;" as if it was said in a fit of sudden surprise, and meant nothing. The exclamation can, therefore, only be accounted for, on the profane principle of " taking the Lord's name in vain." But it is well known that the Jews, even with a superstitious awe, abstained from mentioning the LORD's name, lest at any time they should take his sacred name in vain.

66

Wiseh. O, Sir, if you do not like this interpretation, you should remember, that I have already proved, that Jesus was both fallible and peccable; so that, in this respect also, he might be under the necessity ("though I do not think that our Lord or his apostles rightly understood the doctrine of necessity*,) of saying something he did not believe, in conformity to the prevailing opinion of the times.

* Priestley on Necessity.