sages; and we can no more believe in the godhead of Jesus, than we can believe in the godhead of Abraham, of Moses, or of the martyr Stephen. Consid. Then to argue the point with you any longer, will be a mere waste of words: but I should like to ask you a question as to the state of religious worship among you; and, beyond the limits of a little decency and bare-weight morality, what are you, or what do you more than others? Where are your converts from sin to God? Indeed while you are thus lowering the standard of Gospel holiness, how can it be expected that any thing like vital godliness should exist among you? Dron. O Sir, the principles of virtue and morality, we hope, are in general strictly regarded by us? Consid. And so they ought, or you would be worse than heathens. Dron. But when you talk about vital godliness, we scarcely know what you mean. Consid. You, Sir, a Doctor in Divinity, and not know what strong expressions are often used in Scripture, explanatory of the nature and effects of genuine religion on the heart!"That we are born again-born of the Spirit-partakers of a divine nature," that we are to be "heavenly minded-spiritually minded"-that we must have "the mind of God"-to "mind the things of the Spirit" that we are to have within us "the mind that was in Christ Jesus"-that Christ should "dwell in our hearts by faith"--that he is "in us the hope of glory”— that " new hearts are to be given us, and right spirits created within us"-that we are to be "renewed in the spirit of our minds" that the "new man" is to be in us, which is "created in righteousness and true holiness :"—and that we are to be "new creatures in Christ Jesus."-Sir, such sort of expressions are innumerable; and are we to conceive that nothing more is intended by them than that we should be regulated by decency of deportment, and uprightness of conduct, virtues which a well-educated heathen may possess? Dron. Upon my word, Sir, I cannot enter into the meaning of these high extatic expressions; they can only be understood as relating to the implantation of a good disposition; or figurative expressions, of our being initiated into the new religion of the gospel. Consid. If then all these fine expressions mean nothing, the Bible consists of nothing but a set of over-worded absurdities; and if all the truths contained in it are to be reduced to nothing, what a mere waste of time is it to attempt a single argument from it! To speak with freedom, is not avowed Deism a thousand times more rational than such a system of preposterous Christianity? [Just then some customers came into the shop, and soon after that, another messenger to Dr. Dronish, to say that his dinner was waiting for him; which prevents the writer from pursuing the controversy any further— with this short apology.] Where the foundation of our hope is assailed, it becomes us to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. We have seen what Socinians make of the Scriptures: some of them they have marked by their Italics, as being of doubtful authority; others by their bad criticisms, they have endeavoured to explain away; while the whole of them, as they say, were written by inconclusive reasoners, whose minds were warped by prejudices, and who were liable to be deceived, so that it would be absurd to argue with them from these premises, if they had not set us the example. I ask, therefore, whether there is any one of the leading truths of revelation, as in general received among Christians, which they do not deny, excepting the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, though even in this they deny the existence of a conscious life, till after the resurrection takes place. It is somewhat remarkable and curious, that while they conclude they have a right to judge of revelation by their reason, they say they believe in the resurrection of the dead. Now, I ask, whether there be any one truth in the Bible more mysterious, and more completely beyond the reach of human reason, than that very doctrine; and if they, according to their assertion, are not to believe what they cannot comprehend, can we give them the least credit when they say they believe in the resurrection from the dead? But it may be said, if their flat and uninteresting system has nothing in it likely to attract the notice of mankind, why enter into a tedious controversy, when no bad consequences are likely to be the result? I answer, every person has a deal of natural infidelity in his heart. Socinianism and infidelity are near akin; and it is found a convenient stage for those who want a religion which allows a nearer conformity to the world, to stop somewhat short o Deism; and Socinianism seems to correspond with the wishes of their hearts. As some awkward efforts have been made, and are now making, to propagate these sentiments, others should be on the alert, and watch their progress. I therefore conceived, that an abridged state of the controversy, through the medium of these Dialogues, which have excited the public attention far beyond my expectations, might be of general good. Many most elaborate treatises are before the public on this controversy; but though inestimable in themselves, they are beyond the reach of many, owing to their price, and above the capacity of the generality of readers. In these additional Dialogues, I have taken some pains to compress much in a little room; and have not entered deeply into any of those criticisms which might have rendered the subject uninteresting and dry and so far as any of my plain readers are preserved from being drawn into the fatal vortex of Socinianism, I have my reward. If any of the Socinians complain of the style in which they have been treated, or of the language which has been used, they are only requested to look at their own, and to remember the heavy charges they have thought proper to exhibit against us, for our irrational idolatry, (as they term it) and for our belief of many truths which we conceive to be scriptural, though inconsistent in their esteem with common sense. Socinians and Deists are in perfect unison with each other, respecting the natural powers of man to regulate and to reform himself. Here the Socinians, in no degree fettered by the cold consent they give to the divine records, even with the Bible before them, by denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, deny at the same time all his powerful operations on the human heart. What a stab is this to the vital principle whereby alone we are enabled to love God! Every error is but Antinomianism in disguise. Nothing but the pure truths of the gospel will ultimately lead to purity of life. May my dear readers prove their faith to be genuine, by ever producing those "fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God !" DIALOGUE XXI. PETWEEN MR. WORTHY, MR. LOVEGOOD, EDWARD MORE NEWS FROM LOWER BROOKFIELD, PROVING THE EFFICACY OF THE GOSPEL ON THE VILEST OF SINNERS; OR, THE EVILS OF SEDUCTION DELINEATED. TE HE Reader may have discovered towards the conclusion of the first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy that something of an extraordinary nature had occurred at Lower Brookfield, which gave Mr. Spiteful and Madam Toogood an opportunity of further exemplifying their wicked spleen against the exemplary Mr. Lovegood, and the highly respected Mr. Worthy: fully evidencing how readily the tongue of slander can pervert by a malicious colouring, the best of actions, into the worst of crimes. On the very same morning that Mr. Considerate entered more deeply into the Socinian controversy with Dr. Dronish and Mr. Smirking, Edward, the landlord of the Golden Lion, whose conversion was noticed in a former Dialogue, comes to Mr. Lovegood, and begs his advice. Edward. Sir, if I don't interrupt you, I should be glad to lay before you the case of an unfortunate, but I believe, a really penitent young woman, now at our house. Loveg. You know, Edward, I am always happy to attend to every circumstance relative to poor penitents.Sit down, and tell me your story. Edw. Why, Sir, you may have heard that a gentleman (at east by his looks,) took lodgings, at a private house |