the Christian system; and what becomes of that system if the scriptures be not the word of God? What other foundation than this has the Christian system -Ask any man why he is a Christian; why he believes in orginal sin; why he believes in the redemption; why he believes in the resurrection. Ask him this; and what is his answer? Does he show you, or pretend to show you, how nature or human reason led to the circumstance of the fall of man on account of his eating of an apple? Does he pretend to show you the necessity or justice upon any principles of our feeble human reason, of a most virtuous man being executed as a malefactor, in order to appease the wrath of his own father, towards those who in addition to their other manifold sins were guilty of that of murder, and that too of the most atrocious kind, being veiled under the garb of legal justice? Does he go to nature, does he attempt to show you facts or human reasoning, that dead bodies will re-assemble their scattered dust, re-assume corporeal shape and substance, and be re-animated with life?-Does the believer in original sin, in the redemption, and the resurrection, do any of this?No, he attempts no such thing. He tells you that frail bu man reason is out of the question; he tells you that it is above the reach of the human mind to know how things are thus. But he says he believes they are thus, BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES SAY THEY ARE THUS. And, then ask him, why he believes what the Scriptures tell him? His answer is, that THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE WORD OF GOD, and therefore what they contain must be true.-Now then, is it not a necessary conclusion from these premises, that if the Unitarians believe that the Scriptures are not the word of God, they are not and cannot be Christians? They cannot believe in original sin, in the redemption, or the resurrection. I say they cannot; because they have no foundation for such belief other than the word of God; and as they deny there to be any word of God, they cannot entertain the belief necessary to constitute a Christian.

"These opponents of mine treat my Theological knowledge with great contempt; and I am very glad they can do it with justice; for, I should think my time very shamefully wasted, if I had spent it in reading the wranglings of Theologians, or in endeavouring to settle points of faith; and the more especially, as there are settled laws, and indeed express acts of parliament, to regulate my faith and my wor ship.-Aye, say the Unitarians, but every rational creature ought to think for himself. Well, and so do I; but of what use is it for me to waste much thought upon a subject

that has split the whole world into sects, who not unfre quently have cut each other's throats, for the sake of a pretended love of God?--It is much better for me to hold my tongue as to the matter; and I should not now have meddled with it, if it had not, as I have shown, been so closely connected with political consequences.

"But, now again, as to Mr. Smith's Bill. It will be remembered, that that Gentleman said, that the UNITARIANS had no objection to the other Act of Parliament, which required a declaration of belief in the Holy Scriptures generally. We see however that my antagonist does not believe in the Holy Scriptures; and that he speaks too in the name of his sect. I knew I should bring this out. He was com pelled to deny the Scriptures to be the word of God; or he must have laid down his arms at once before me, who, by the help of Crutwell's Concordance, could have poured out upon him such broadsides of texts as would have reduced him to his native dust in a minute.-Well, here he is, then. Here is one of the high priests (for such I am told he is) of the sect, in whose behalf Mr. Smith's Bill was to operate, or is to operate, declaring that he does not believe the Scriptures to be the word of God; while Mr. Smith, in the introducing of his bill, says, that they have no objection to the declaration of a be lief in the Scriptures generally; so that, it appears, that the "tender consciences" of this sect only wanted to be released from all prohibition to deny, in fact, the divine origin of the Scriptures. What is believing in the Scriptures? What does the phrase mean?-Does it mean, that the believer thinks that there are such writings? Does it mean, that he believes that they are the works of mere men, and that some part of them are true and some false ? If this be the meaning of the phrase, it is of no more amount than to say that he be lieves in Hume or any other historian.-No. This is not the meaning of the phrase, as contained in the Act of Parlia ment, which Mr. Smith did not want to be repealed. The phrase, as there contained, means a belief that the Scriptures were written under the influence of divine inspiration; that they are the word of God conveyed to men by his command; and, of course, that they are in all their parts true.-That is the meaning of the Act of Parliament, which Act would still remain in force; and then I should be glad to know what relief the "tender conscience" of this gentleman will receive from a repeal of the Act relative to a belief in the Trinity. If their consciences require that they should be at full liberty to ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity, because they disbelieve in that doctrine, will they not also want li

66

berty openly to deny the divine origin of the scriptures al together? I said that itmust lead to this. To this it has led ; and for my part, I can see nothing now to be done, but to PUT DOWN Such publications as deny the Scriptures to be holy; or to pass an Act to do away all penal statutes 'whatever relative to religion, or to discussions relative to religion. It ought to be borne in mind, too, that our judges have uniformly laid it down, that Christianity is a part of the law of the land; and that it was not under any statute, but under the interpretations of the Common Law, that Mr. Eaten was found guilty and punished.-Now, what did Mr. E ton do? Why he published a book, denying the truth of the Scriptures generally; and, does not the Unitarian do the same? This Gentleman, who attacks me in in so rude a manner, does not, indeed, deny the truth of the whole of the Scriptures, neither did Mr. Eaton's book. It did not deny the truth of those assertions, that men ought to love one another; that we ought to do as we would be done unto; that we ought not to lie or steal, or covet our neighbours' goods; that we ought to be charitable and forgiving; that servants ought to be faithful to their masters, and wives obedient to their husbands; that we should abstain from shedding innocent blood; that in short we ought to be kind and just.—Mr. Eaton's book denied none of this; if it had, it must have quarrelled with the religion of the Braming, and with all other religions in the world, as well as with that of Jesus Christ. But, it did no such thing. It denied the divine origin of Christ, and that was all. It attempted, to support this denial by endeavouring to prove that the prophecies in the Old Testament, relative to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ, apply to quite other mat ters, and not at all to those events and circumstances. Now, pray, what did this book do more than the Unitarians do? And, why should an act be passed to enable them to do with impunity that which Mr. Eaton has been so heavily punished for doing?

"As being intimately connected with this subject, let me notice the petitions now before parliament, from divers re ligious sects, to be at liberty to go and teach the people under the sway of the East India Company in Hindostan. Church people, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catho lics, and I know not how many more, are running this race of conversion.-If these petitions were granted, it must, of course, be with a view of giving effect to the prayers of the petitioners; and, can it possibly enter into the head of any wise legislator, to lay, thus, the foundation of everlasting

divisions and feuds in a country, for which he has to make laws? It is one thing to tolerate these several sects, in a country, where, for the sake of its peace and happiness, it is unfortunate that they already exist; this is one thing, but to create such divisions is quite another thing.

"What is to become of the souls of all the Hindostanians, who have heretofore died, if a belief in Christianity be necessary to the salvation of those who are now alive, and of those hereafter to be born, is a question which I must leave for theplogians to settle. But if Christianity be necessary to the Hindostanians now, and that it is so the petitioners assert, will any man say, that, before missionaries are sent to convert them, it ought not be settled what Christianity is? It is well known, that the sects, which have petitioned Parliament, differ as widely from one another in their belief as it is possible for men to differ. The Calvinists will tell their hearers, that it was decreed, by an all-powerful being, before they were born, that they should either go to heaven, or to hell; and, that, though it was so decreed, their going to hell, if they do go thither, will be their own fault.-The preachers of free-will will tell their hearers (who may be the same persona), that this doctrine was hatched in the brain of a morose, savage, treacherous, tyrannical, bloodyminded man of Geneva, who seems to have fashioned his God after his own image, and cursed with the same dis position and passions.-The Protestants will tell the Hindostanians, that the Catholics are idolators, and the Catholics will tell them that the Protestants are heretics. Yet both will be sent to convert them to Christianity. The Catholics will tell them, that they act under the autho rsty of the Pope, who is God's vice-gerent upon earth; and the Protestants will tell them that this Pope is no other than a poor decrepit old man, and withal, not much better than a cheat. The Catholics will tell them, that each of their wafers contains the real body and blood and limbs of Jesus Christ; and, if this should be too much for them to swallow, the Protestants will quickly open their throats by most solemnly assuring them that each wafer is really nothing more than a little innocent flour and water.-The Trinita rians will tell them, that, on account of the original sin in eating of the forbidden fruit, all the people of the whole world, the progeny of the original sinners, became worthy of damnation but that the Almighty Father and Maker of all things, in pity to mankind, sent his only begotten Son into the world, who offered himself as a sacrifice to appease his father's wrath; that he, being God himself too, was

executed between two thieves; and that this operated as a redemption in favour of the people in the world, and also in favour of those that had died and were to be thereafter born. But, if the Unitarians get amongst them, they will tell them that the whole of this is a ridiculous story from beginning to end; and that they are not to believe in any of those parts of the Bible which relate to it; though, by the bye, I see that the Unitarians are joining with other sects in the printing and circulating, without any commentary, the whole of this same Bible.-The Churchmen will teach them that Bishops derive their office from those men whom Christ himself set over his people; and the Presbyterians will declare to them, with equal positiveness, that this office is a remnant of the trappings of the old scarlet whore of Babylon.

"Amongst them all, let us suppose, that there will be men, animated with real benevolence, and under the guidance of sound sense, who will, as a good and sensible man in the Church always does, endeavour to wean their hear. ers from those notions and prejudices which lead to the commission of cruelty and injustice; who will teach them, that the road to happiness, here and hereafter, is the road of good works; that to be well is to do well; and that the reward, in the case of either good or bad, is pretty certain to follow the desert.-Let us suppose, that some such men will find their way to India; and, if I could be assured that no other sort of men would go, I should be for granting the prayer of the petitioners; but, on the side of such men, and, indeed, before them in the race of proselytism, would go the ranting, roaring, canting, bellowing Methodist, who would tell them, that good works, that honesty, sobriety, industry, benevolence, were nothing at all; that faith was every thing; that good works, in place of saving them, might tend to their damnation; that the blacker the sinner the brighter the saint; that, in the words of one of their favourite leaders, a man, to be regenerated, must first be more than nine-tenths damned; that they need not trouble their heads about what they do, so that they get grace, which they will feel come into them by the agitation of their bodies.

Now, reader, I put it to your good sense, whether any Member of Parliament, in his sober senses, can reconcile it to his conscience to let loose such a scourge upon a people? I, for my part, would as soon consent to let loose upon them, if I could have the power, all the plagues of Egypt.-I should say to these petitioners, before I let you go to India to teach Christianity, let me see that you are of one mind as