The truth is, the primitive christians had never heard of their theses; they had never thought of anatomizing God, and therefore they said nothing about it. When it became the fashion for every body to EXPLAIN what nobody understood, forth came torrents of impenetrable jargon, great swelling words of no meaning, and for these christians became gladiators, and fought; and that, which had been said to the worst of the Jews, was too often said to the best of christians, Thou shalt die by the sword.

In these fatal disputes, that faith, which prevailed at court, was orthodoxy for the time; but very little regard was due to such orthodoxy, however wise it might be called, or however popular it might become. " Public wisdom,” says a great man, public wisdom is a mere Proteus; and, "not to consider it in pagan or Mohammedan "countries, amongst the Jews it once was the wis"dom of Ahab and Jezebel, and afterwards of "Annas and Caiaphas, and in christian regions "it hath appeared in an hundred shapes. It sets "out with a great shew of religion: it begins with "the gospel according to St. Matthew; and it of"ten ends in the gospel according to Mr. Hobbes.”

Here I was going to put a period to this letter; but three questions, which will naturally occur, seem to require answers. You will probably ask, how is it that wise and worthy men mistake this scriptural notion of Christ's divinity, and maintain

* Dr. Jortin.

erroneous opinions about it? Next, is this doctrine free from all difficulty, and liable to no objection? And lastly, what conduct ought a christian, who believes the divinity of Christ, to observe to one, who doubts or disbelieves it?

First: How is it that wise and worthy men mistake this notion of Christ's divinity, and maintain erroneous opinions about it?

A full answer to this question would require a perfect knowledge of all the operations of the human mind in investigating truth, of all the influences, that the tempers of the heart have over the operations of the mind, and of all the circumstances, which colour the objects of our meditation. Of this knowledge I am destitute, and therefore my answer will account for only a few, of many causes of error on this article.

1. Men mistake by not distinguishing objects of pure revelation, from objects of natural reason, and therefore they confound believing with reasoning. I am not required to believe any thing about the moon; it is a sensible object, and I am to look at it, and to reason about it. God requires me to believe the deity of Jesus Christ. Deity is an invisible object. I never saw, nor ever conceived an object analogous to it. I cannot reason about it; I believe it.

2. Men mistake by subjecting God to laws, which actually prevail in some cases, but which, we dare not say, prevail in all. The reverend Mr. Lindsey says, "Christ's character as mediator is UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE with the prac

tice of making him the object of religious worship. He CANNOT be God, and the minister of God."* Is Mr. Lindsey sure of this? Were we to grant, that nothing like this passeth among men, would it certainly follow, that nothing like this passeth in heaven? The possible world is a region unexplored, and it is rash to say GOD CANNOT be this, he CANNOT do that. St. Paul writes as if he thought God could do this. God hath accepted us in the beloved. We labour to be accepted of Christ. Christ will present a glorious church to HIMSELF. THE GREAT GOD, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, GAVE HIMSELF for us, THAT HE MIGHT redeem us from all iniquity, and PURIFY UNTO HIMSELF a peculiar people.||

3. Men mistake by affixing modern ideas to ancient terms. Every sensible writer considers ideas as the souls of words, and words as bodies, or as sensible objects, which express invisible ideas to the senses of others. As far as the poverty of materials will permit, such writers adapt expression to meaning. The sign remains for centuries, the thing signified by the inventor of the sign is volatile, and escapes, and each beholder first throws his own image upon the sign, next receives the reflection of it, and last imputes the same signification to the inventor of the sign. St. Paul had some determinate meaning under the word, which we render PERSON, and which he applies to God:

Apol. p. 126, 127. † Eph. i. 3, 6. 2 Cor. v. 9, 10. $ Eph. v. 27. Titus ii. 13, 14. ¶ Heb. i. 3.

but he had a different meaning under the same word, when he applied it to FAITH, and therefore we translate it SUBSTANCE;* and he used the same word in a sense different from both the former, when he applied it to BOASTING, and therefore we render it CONFIDENCE:† what are we doing when we dispute about ancient detached terms impregnated with modern meaning? Are we not fighting for a country, which belongs to neither of us? If there be such a thing as coming at a writer's meaning, we must do it by a careful attention to his scope, before the birth of our system. Should a word appear vague, indeterminate, obsolete, fight for it who will, he is the wisest man, who leaves it where he found it.

4. Men mistake by turning plain literal words into tropes and figures. By this kind of learning they disembowel religion, and present us with a gospel as gay, as hieroglyphical, and as dead as an Egyptian mummy. The gospel, as the Lord Jesus left it, was a word quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart: that is to say, it was a body of doctrine animated with grand motives, with the dignity of its author, the horror of its penalties, the united efforts of justice and love, displayed in the death of the cross, and in the immediate bestowment of heaven after death. But by the help of a certain art called Rhetoric,

* Heb. xi. 1. † 2 Cor. ix. 4.

Heb. iv. 12.

this body is killed for the sake of being embalmed. Jesus is a metaphorical God, hell is an eastern allegory, the devil is a prosopopeia, the atonement is a thing called a metonymy, the wicked are annihilated, and the virtuous sleep without dreaming till the heavens are no more. There can be no better canon of interpretation, than that which an amiable prelate * has given us: scripture is to be taken in that sense, in which the common people, who heard it at first, took it. Assuredly the common people never thought of these senses!

5. Learned men, who are ashamed to think with the populace, mistake through their dexterity at criticism. Criticism is a most valuable branch of literature; but, like every thing else, it is liable to abuse. One half of criticism is to find a fault, the other half to mend it; and many undertake the last, who are only capable of the first. An atheist turns critic, and relieves me from the difficulties, that attend natural and revealed religion; but, having freed me from these, he gives me the more, and the greater difficulties of atheism to digest. I dispose of the mysteries of christianity; but, I receive in return the mysteries, the absurdities, and the impossibilities of atheism. A sober christian eritic removes my difficulties on a certain passage of scripture, which regards, suppose, our Lord's divinity but he obscures and perplexes a thousand other passages, which ascribe to him more than humanity.

* The present Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Carlisle.