read." The authority of the whole book might very safely be staked upon the fulfilment of the 9th chapter alone, in the history of the Saracens and Turks: if any one can read Mr. Elliot's explanation of that chapter, in his great work on the Revelations, and have a shadow of a doubt on the inspiration of the book, it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to convince him of any thing. But what is all this, it may be asked, to a poor illiterate person, who can't get at such books, and is totally ignorant of history? This is a question that applies to many other cases, besides the one immediately before us, and will be considered more fully in a future lecture on the Christian ministry. "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers."-1 Cor. xii. 28. If therefore you will not condescend to make use of God's ordinance, but are resolved to be your own teachers, any mistake you may fall into through ignorance, must of course come under the condemnation of what St. Peter calis "willing ignorance. You all have opportunities of applying to some Christian minister or other, who will no doubt be glad at any time to show you the proofs of the genuineness and inspiration of this, as well as the other books of Holy Scripture: so that, if at the day of judgment, you should be found to have rejected any part of God's word, from not knowing the evidence for it, you. will be utterly without excuse, because you might have known it. To set up your own judgment against that of the whole Church, without even knowing the grounds on which the Church decided, certainly displays a spirit, the very reverse of that, to which God's direction is promised- "The meek will he guide in judgment." Ps. xxv. 9.

And this leads us to the question, whether the awful words of our text apply only to this book, or to the whole Bible. Now every one must allow that, strictly speaking they belong primarily and in an especial manner to the Revelations alone, nor can their application be proved to any thing else. But for myself, considering their peculiar position, at the close of the last of the inspired books, not one of which has such a warning attached to it, (while there appears no reason why the rejection of this book should incur greater guilt than the rejection of any other, especially before the fulfilment had thrown such an additional weight of evidence in its favour,) 1 cannot doubt for a moment, that this solemn declaration was dictated by the Spirit to St. John, for the express purpose of showing, that the volume of inspiration, which had been gradually filling up and receiving one addition after another for 1500 years, was now closed, and teaching us to guard the sacred treasure with holy awe, that it might be handed down pure and entire from generation to generation. Here a difficulty

may be raised, with regard to the many doubtful passages, and various readings in our Bibles, concerning which the best scholars have always been so divided in opinion. It may be argued, that if a certain passage be genuine, those who reject it must be guilty of taking from the word of God; if it be not genuine, those who receive it must be equally guilty of adding to the word of God. This depends upon circumstances: partly upon the degree of evidence there is for or against the particular text, and partly upon the spirit in which the individual has examined that evidence, and whether he has used all the opportunities that may have been within his reach for coming to a just decision, But whatever doubtful points may arise, there are some which will admit of no doubt; as for instance, when a number of persons with little or no learning, in the teeth of every manuscript and version in the world, and supported only by the groundless assertions and ingenious cavillings of some daring adversary, reject whole books, as the Song of Solomon and the Revelations, merely because they cannot understand them; or whole chapters, as the two first of Matthew and Luke, because what is related in them won't suit their theory. Such persons may contrive to persuade themselves that these are no part of the original Scriptures; but if such wilful ignorance affords them any excuse at the day of judgment for taking from God's word, then assuredly will the Church of Rome be held guiltless for all "the blood of the saints" with which scripture pronounces her "drunken," because, as Jesus foretold, they thought they were thereby doing God service. John xvi. 2.

With regard to the genuineness and inspiration of scripture, the differences amongst Unitarians are endless; but not one of them that ever I met with or heard of, certainly none of their great writers or leading men, acknowledge the full inspiration of the whole Bible. And it is important to observe, that though they so differ, one receiving this part and one that part of scripture, one placing this degree and one that degree of confidence in it, yet they all treat it on exactly the same principle, the very principle on which the avowed Deist treats it. They both admit just as much of the Bible, and yield it as much authority, as they can make agree with their own opinions. The Unitarian thinks he can make a great portion of scripture interpreted with a certain degree of freedom, meet his own views, and therefore he receives it: the Deist sees that none of it will agree with his view, and therefore he rejects it all. The principle is exactly the same. Each of them say practically, We will admit just as much as we can understand, or as we choose to believe, and nothing more. Consequently the lower a Unitarian descends in the scale, that is, the nearer

he approaches the Deist, the more of scripture he rejects, and the greater irreverence he treats it with. The celebrated Unitarian Belsham declared, that the only difference between French Deism and the gospel of Christ, was the fact of the resurrection of a human being; and that any part of the Bible which taught any thing else, was either an interpolation, omission, false reading, mistranslation, or erroneous interpretation. So you may imagine what he brought the Bible to; the only thing it taught, beyond the simple morality of a virtuous infidel, was the resurrection of a human being. Another, Dr. Priestly, says that the sacred writers give "lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings." Another, Steinhart, tells us, that the "accounts in the New Testament, whether true or false, are only suited for ignorant uncultivated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion." Another, Semler, on St. Peter's declaration that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," says, that he here speaks according to the conceptions of the Jews, and that the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as Divine revelations." Another, Engeden, says that St. John's part of the New Testament is written "with concise and abrupt obscurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of allegories." Another, Gagneius, glories in having given a "little light to St. Paul's darkness, a darkness as some thing studiously affected." Another, Evanson, says, "The gospel histories contain gross and irreconcileable contradictions." Mr. Martineau, whom I have already quoted, says, " that there is no likeness whatever between the God of Abraham and the God of Jesus Christ." And Mr. Joseph Barker, speaking of the difference between the Old and New Testaments, calls the Bible " 'a two-mouthed guide, and double-tongued director."* These few extracts show how useless it would be to attempt examining any particular doctrine, until we have settled the ground on which we are to stand. And this is always the first thing to be done in controverting any heresy from Popery downwards. You will almost invariably find, that false teach

When these words were quoted in a public discussion by the Rev. W. Cooke, Mr. Barker in his reply read about half a page of the work in which they occur, and then added, "Now, if after this partial quotation, and wicked misrepresentation of my meaning, you can ever trust a man that shall pretend to give an account of my sentiments from my books, without looking at them for yourselves, you will deserve to be deceived." Why the whole passage is a laboured attempt to prove that the Bible is, what it is there called in as many words, “a two mouthed guide, and double-tongued director; and that without a single saving clause! This is certainly one of the boldest controversial manœuvres I ever met with. Is it possible any audience could be entrapped by it? And yet the Reporter's note is-(Loud applause.) No wonder people are not very eager to accept Mr. Barker's challenges. It may be a want of moral courage, but I for one should certainly dread his powers!

ers and heretics of all kinds endeavour to shake your confidence either in the purity, the completeness, or the authority of God's word: and these, especially the latter, (which comes under the head of Inspiration) we shall now proceed to examine.

To begin with the New Testament.-We have historical proof from heathen as well as Christian writers, that about eighteen hundred years ago a set of men issued forth from Judea to preach a new religion, which rapidly spread and received the name of Christianity. Before we can examine into the truth of that religion, we must first know what it is. This the New Testament professes to teach us. It comes to us as written by the very men, who first preached Christianity throughout the world. The question is, how are we to know, that it was written by them? We answer, Just in the same way we know that any ancient work was written by the person whose name it bears-by a continued chain of evidence from that time to our own. How do you know that John Bunyan wrote the Pilgrim's Progress, or that Napoleon was beaten at the battle of Waterloo? Because every body says so, and always has said so; and there's a degree of general consent, that puts a thing beyond all reasonable doubt, Of course it would be quite impossible here to bring forward the evidence for the authenticity of each book in the New Testament; nor is it necessary, as Unitarians in general admit them. There are plenty of books, in which any doubter may find the proofs fully and satisfactorily given; especially Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, and Paley's Evidences of Christianity. The particular objections, which are raised against the two first chapters of Matthew and Luke, will be considered, when we come to the subject of the Incarnation of the Son of God. The book of Revelations has been spoken of already. If any other parts are objected to, we must refer you to the works just mentioned, or others of a similar kind. One great means however of shaking people's confidence in the Bible we must not omit to mention; and that is, by persuading them, that the text of Scripture was so altered and corrupted in copying one manuscript from another before printing was invented, and the meaning of it so falsified by mistranslation, that it is impossible now to tell what the Apostles wrote, and that our authorised version is quite an unsafe guide. No doubt there are many various readings, and it is often difficult to say which is the true one; no doubt there are some passages, the translation of which might be improved, especially by the removal of some obsolete words; but there is not a single important doctrine of the Gospel, that cannot be proved from texts of Scripture, about which there is

no dispute, and which are correctly translated in our version. With regard to the various readings, instead of the dishonesty and carelessness, with which the early copyists are charged, it is perfectly notorious, that the greatest possible pains were taken to keep the text pure, and every copy subjected to the most scrupulous and rigid investigation. And how thankful should we be to the watchful providence of God, which has preserved his word to us after this length of time in such purity, that Dr. Kennicot, after thirty years devoted to the examination of Hebrew manuscripts, "expressed something like regret that his labour was lost, because he found out no important variations after all his researches. But a pious friend, who heard him, consoled him by saying, Doctor, your labour is not lost; for it results in this great fact, that your labour has tended to show the preservation and the incorruptness of the volume, on which our hopes are placed." Nor ought we to be less thankful for the admirable translation of the Bible we possess in our authorised version; which, although about three centuries old, stands yet unrivalled. Of Dr. Conquest's mischievous attempt to supplant it, the most complimentary thing that can be said is, that it is vastly inferior to it: and with regard to the "Improved Version of the New Testament," published some years back by the British and Foreign Unitarian Society, it is stated by Dr. Byrth, Rector of Wallasy, that at a time when he was leaning to Unitarianism, a perusal of that work completely rescued him, by shewing him what gross perversions of Scripture were necessary, in order to maintain the Unitarian theory. The conclusion therefore we come to is this; that an unlearned person, who has no opportunity of turning to the original languages or consulting critical works, may buy a common English Bible for the sum of tenpence, and feel confident that he possesses what is practically the pure unadulterated word of God; which will teach him no error, but by the Spirit's blessing guide him into all saving truth. Here however you'll say I'm anticipating; and so I am. We have as yet only shown the New Testament to have been really written by the first preachers of Christianity. The grand question now comes as to the truth of the religion they preached.

On examining the New Testament then, we find, that the Apostles' preaching consisted partly of some facts which they related, and partly of some doctrines which they taught. The first question evidently is-did the facts they relate really occur? Now with regard to the main outlines, especially the death and resurrection of Jesus, the evidence even from opposers of Christianity who lived in those days is so plain, that no one can attempt to dispute it. But