cide upon doctrines which are professedly objects of faith, and not proposed for the purpose of rational investigation. What! they exclaim, must we renounce our reason in order to become orthodox? We answer, by no means, but use it aright, by confessing that He, whose understanding is boundless, has revealed to his rational offspring truths beyond human comprehension. If they reply, We count it absurd to believe any thing which we do not comprehend; we answer, that, to be consistent, they must count it absurd to believe at all; for whatever we fully comprehend is rather an object of our knowledge, than of our faith.

With men of their description, who either model the Sacred Oracles to a conformity with their creed, or resolve the whole mystery of man's redemption into a metaphor, it is ordinarily in vain to dispute; for until they relinquish the egregious errors upon which, as so many first principles, they form their hypothesis, they will continue to treat with contempt every answer which may be off red to their objections against the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, and every other with which it is connected.

Christians, in general, by not condescending to dispute against Atheism, have done more to stop its progress than they could possibly have done by wasting their time in answering every objection, which impiety, ignorance, and perverted genius and learning have urged against the being and attributes of God. And who does not know that Wesley and Whitefield, together with their early associates in the ministry, by preaching the grand doctrines of the gospel, without calling the attention of their hearers to Socinian cavils, did more in arresting the progress of Socinianism than had been done for a century before, by all the learned works published in defence of orthodoxy. They who maintain evangelical truth, by arguments sufficient for the purpose, without stooping to answer every cavil which may be gravely or wittily urged against it, contribute more towards its progress, than they who waste much time and labour in replying to such cavils. Against any doctrine fully proved, the most ingenious arguments are invalid. If we must suspend our belief of the doctrines opposed to Socinianism, till we are sure that we have heard and answered all the arguments which have ever been urged against them, it will necessarily continue suspended through life; for we can never obtain certainty on the subject. But those doctrines have been fully proved, and that repeatedly; and therefore there is no necessity, in order to our being satisfied that they are the dictates of plenary inspiration, to listen to the fallacious arguments, or blasphemous assertions by which they are opposed by either ancient or modern Socinians.

Would an army, to which the defence of an invaded country was intrusted, deserve the name, which would employ that strength in the erection of fortifications, in which to defend itself against

every attack of the enemy, which, if exerted manfully in the field, would vanquish or expel the invader. And shall the soldiers of. Christ be those only who can content themselves in thus laboriously wasting their time and energies, in what does but honour their enemies? When the blessed Redeemer of mankind, after his resurrection, and just before his ascension to the right hand of God, addressed his disciples, and enforced in one word that, in the performance of which he promised to be with them always, even unto the end of the world, what was his language? Was it, Give logical and learned definitions of every truth you advance, and answer every objection which may be urged against "the truth?" No; but "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

Had St. Paul, instead of declaring with apostolic authority, the whole counsel of God, descended to the task of answering the objections urged against Christianity, by Jewish rabbies and Grecian philosophers, they would have found him more work than, though aided by plenary inspiration, he could have accomplished; and consequently left him no time for preaching the gospel. The Jewish rabbies were then as dogmatical in maintaining that Jesus Christ could not possibly be the promised Messiah, as the Socinians are now in maintaining the impossibility of his being equal to, and one in essence with the eternal Father. The former appealed to the inspired writings, in proof of their being justified in rejecting Christ, with as much confidence as the latter do to reason, in proof that they are bound to oppose the doctrine of his proper Godhead. The learned, ingenious, but highly-conceited Greeks, full of their boasted wisdom, adopted a method different from that of the Jews, in opposing Christianity. They sought after wisdom; maintained as strongly as any of our Socinians that they were "sincere inquirers after truth;" laughed at the doctrine of a resurrection; and opposed Christianity, as an absurd hypothesis. They could easily have proposed difficulties which would have taken up more than all the time of the twelve apostles to solve, and then have laughed at their solutions. In short, had the method adopted by many learned divines, who have written in defence of Christianity, been adopted by the apostles, we should at this day have had no Christianity for which to contend. But, St. Paul and his apostolical brethren, under infallible guidance, proceeded authoritatively to preach Christ crucified, though unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; and the result was, that numbers, by means of such preaching, became wise unto salvation. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?

Defences of the Christian religion have often been conducted in such a manner as to produce an effect directly contrary to that intended by their authors. On this subject we avail ourselves of the

following sentiments, which we transcribe from a work of a modern divine: It has often happened that the writings of men, sometimes no less benevolent in their intentions than able in their exertions, have not only done no good to the cause of religion, but great injury. They have revived old cavils and objections, or invented new, in order to display ingenuity in refuting them; cavils and objections which nave frequently been answered, or which might never have occurred; but which when once they have occurred, produce suspicion and unsettled notions on topics never doubted, and among honest men whose faith was firmly established. Such conduct is like that of a physician, who should administer doses of arsenic to his patients, in order to prove to them, at their risk, the sovereign power of his nostrum. The venom, finding a constitution favourable to its operation, triumphantly prevails over its antidote, and the preventative remedy cannot rescue the sufferer from his hapless fate."

That Socinianism is unscriptural, is fully proved in a series of letters by the late Rev. John Fletcher to Dr. Priestley; and that the New Testament writers, on the supposition of their not believing in the proper Godhead of Christ, were destitute of common sense, is demonstrated in a series of letters by the Rev. Jos. Benson to the Rev. John Wesley. These two tracts contain, in our opinion, a more safe as well as certain antidote against the poison of Socinianism, than many large volumes that have been published against it.

When we have to contend with professed infidels, we call their attention to the powerful and decisive evidences, both internal and external, by which the truth of Christianity is supported; and if these, properly stated, do not produce conviction, we have no hope of producing it, by answering the petty objections which they continue to urge against revealed truth. Thus we take a short method, which experience has proved to be the safest and best, with the avowed opposers of Divine revelation. It is our decided opinion, that to make the truth of Christianity a question of popular and lasting debate, after its having been so often and satisfactorily proved, would be, to say the least, to call the attention of our readers from practical godliness, to the unprofitable task of listening to every objection which perverted reason can urge, or has ever urged in defence of infidelity. In this country infidelity was found to be rapidly advancing in its career, during the period that the most laboured, learned, and able defences of Christianity issued from the press. Nor was it arrested in its progress by such defences, but by plain and powerful gospel preaching. The clear and full statement of revealed truth is ever found to be the best confutation of infidelity. Of the justness of this remark, the great body of pious ministers in the united kingdom, whether Churchmen, Dissenters, or Methodists, seem so

66

thoroughly persuaded, that they seldom lay out their strength, from either the pulpit or the press, in answering objections against Christianity. Intent upon the great work in which they are engaged, they proceed to preach repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;" and the blessed effects of their labours are, the spread of gospel principles and the prevalence of practical godliness. Did they, instead of adopting this method, waste the greater part of their time, as too many have done, in repelling attacks, from which the citadel of revealed truth has nothing to dread, they would ill answer the grand end of their ministry, viz. " to turn sinners from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God."

Whether any more attention ought to be paid to the objections of Socinians, than to those of professed infidels, may be a matter of doubt among many of the advocates of true Christianity; but it does not admit of any, that if the time and talents expended by the orthodox, in answering their frivolous and absurd cavils, had been faithfully laid out in spreading the plain truths of the gospel, Socinianism would long since have had extremely few abettors. An offensive war in its favour, may, without any difficulty, be carried on to the end of time; for what requires less sense, or religious principle, than ability to propose difficult questions on theological subjects, and multiply objections against every truth which, from its nature, admits of no more than moral proof. Subjecting Divine truths, confessedly mysterious, to the rack of reason, and attempting to support them by arguments drawn from metaphysical disquisitions, is the most effectual method which satan himself could devise for the purpose of bringing them into contempt. Nor let any imagine that, in speaking thus, we remonstrate against the use of reason in matters of religion, but maintain its rights; for what is more reasonable than to embrace doctrines, however mysterious, the truth of which is attested by plenary inspiration; or more absurd than to confound matters of faith with those of science. But this, with all their boasted rationality, the Socinians constantly do, in their attacks upon the doctrines of Christ's proper Godhead. They cannot comprehend, and, consequently, will not believe, that God and man are one Christ; and hence, to keep themselves in countenance, pronounce St. Paul "an inconclusive reasoner." By rejecting so considerable a part of the New Testament as that written by St. Paul, and as much beside as they find themselves unable to torture into a conformity with their creed, they do not meet the orthodox on Scripture ground, which is that alone on which their contest with them can possibly be decided.

Having, in these preliminary observations, noticed what we conceive to be the best method of opposing infidelity, and Socinianism, to which it is closely allied, we turn our attention to

Dr. Outram's two Dissertations. The first is a Dissertation on all the Sacrifices of the Jews, with remarks on some of those of the Heathens; and the second, which occupies no more than a small portion of the volume, is written on "The Sacrifice of Christ."

In the first chapter of his work the author states various opinions and arguments on the origin of sacrifices; having done which he adds, "These are the different opinions respecting the rise of sacrifices; a subject on which, for my own part, I would rather be altogether silent, than affirm any thing as certain. But (adds he) before I proceed I remark, that those who believe sacrifices to have originated in the free choice of each individual, though they may appear to express themselves in some places without due caution, yet refer the custom of sacrificing, not to the laws of nature, properly so called, which are indeed eternal and immutable; but to that class of institutions which may have been devised by natural reason as adapted and suitable to the public worship of God." (p. 17, &c.)

Here, upon the plain subject of sacrifices, our attention is called to laws of nature, eternal and immutable," and to "natural reason," as devising institutions "suitable to the worship of God." It is evident that the author, in common with many learned and orthodox divines of his day, attributed too much to "natural reason," which we have no reason to believe would, ever since the fall, if left wholly independent of revelation, have devised any method whatever of worshiping God. Infidels, from their views of "natural reason," and of "eternal reason and the nature of things," argue ingeniously against Divine revelation; and Socinians, who would not be thought inferior to them in point of rationality, reject, upon the same ground, the doctrine of Christ's atonement. But let us appeal to the living oracles of God, and in them we shall find a safe aud urrerring guide, however incapable we may be of making their dictates comport with our narrow and crude conceptions of "eternal reason and the nature of things."

The following extract from a note written by the translator, fully expresses our sentiments on the subject of the origin of sacrifices.

'Though the author professes, as he doubtless intended, to lay before his readers an impartial statement of opinions and arguments on both sides; the fuller detail and distinguished names brought forward in favour of the notion that sacrifices originated in human invention, are calculated to give to that hypothesis a preponderance to which it is by no means entitled. The assumptions by which its ablest advocates have endeavoured to account for the supposed invention, afford no satisfactory solution of the difficulties with which it is embarrassed.