duty. By reading the whole themselves, they could hardly avoid receiving the deepest impreffions of the certainty, and importance of the great and leading principles, thofe which they would find the moft frequently and earnestly inculcated; and their particular opinions, having come less frequently in view, would be lefs obftinately retained. It was in this manner, I can truly fay, that I formed the most distinguishing my opinions in religion.

of

I do not say that this practice would have the fame effect with all perfons. I have no hopes of its fucceeding with those who are advanced in life. I would not even recommend it to them; fince the confequence of unhinging their minds, though by a conversion from error to truth, might poffibly do them more harm than good. Nor have I much hope of thofe who are hackneyed in controverfy, and to whom the methods of attack and defence, peculiar to any system, are become familiar. But I would earnestly recommend this method of studying the scriptures to young perfons, before their common sense and natural feelings have been perverted; and while they are capable of understanding the obvious meaning of a plain expreffion.

In this cafe I cannot help thinking, that, notwithstanding the feeming force of the texts that are continually in the mouths of those who call themselves orthodox; and notwithstanding our

present

present translation of the bible, which (being made by men who were fully perfuaded of the truth of that fyftem) is, in many places, much too favourable to it; yet that both the general tenor of the whole (which, with a person who reads the scriptures much, cannot but have far greater weight than any particular texts whatever) and alfo that numbers of emphatical fingle passages, would effectually overrule any tendency to that is commonly called orthodoxy.

To mention only a fingle inftance. Would not a constant attention to the general strain in which Mofes, all the antient prophets, John the Baptift, our Saviour, and the apostles, addrefs finners, wear out, in time, every trace of the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation? The language in which the Divine Being is uniformly reprefented as fpeaking, is, As I live, faith the Lord, I would not the death of a finner, but had rather that he should repent and live. Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die, ob house of Ifrael. What a folemn, and cruel mocking of mankind would this be, if the Divine Being, at the same time that he made this declaration, was purpofed that many, if not the greatest part of them, should not repent, but die without mercy.

SECTION

SECTION IV.

ET all the different fects and parties of christians attend with candour to the opinions and practices of others, and freely adopt whatever they are convinced is good in any of them. There is no fect or party but hath fomething belonging to it of an adventitious nature, and that is no neceffary part of the general fyftem; and let not our party prejudices blind us fo far, as to make us condenin and reject what is good in any fect of men, merely because they hold it; but be the fyftem ever fo bad, let us glean from it every good idea, and every useful cufWere all parties faithfully to attend to this, the very worst of them would be made tolerable, and they would all foon be brought nearer to one another in affection and mutual charity, if not in opinion alfo.

tom.

Let us all accuftom ourselves to the confideration of having one proper head, and make less use of other names, by way of party diftinction. We are to call no man father, or master upon earth; for we have one father, even God; and one mafter, even Christ. The ufe that is made by many of the authority of the Reformers, and others, appears to me to be an infringement of this injunction. The use of the names of

men

men tends much more to enflame a party fpirit,, than any other method of diftinguishing one another. Befides, by frequently calling one another Arians, Socinians, Calvinifts, &c. we are too apt to forget that all these are only different denominations of chriftians; and in order to raise an odium against their adverfaries, many scruple not, in so many words, to say they are no chriftians. Now had men kept to the diftinction of opinions only, I cannot conceive how any man could ever have been called a deift, or an infidel, who profeffed to believe the divine miffion of Chrift. But the terms Arians, Socinians, &c. eafily pafs into that of no chriftians. This, however, is a most base, and difingenuous proceeding; and those persons might, with the fame propriety, call their adversaries Maho

metans.

In all our difputes about different tenets, and modes of the chriftian religion, let us be careful not to lofe fight of the great end and defign of christianity in general, viz. that Chrift came to blefs mankind, in turning them away from their iniquities; to redeem (or deliver) us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. The chief thing,

therefore, that we fhould attend to, and the only rule for estimating the importance of any opinions, is their efficacy for this moral purpose. Let us, then, not fuffer ourselves to be deceived by mere words, and pompous founds: As to thofe who follow other rules of eftimating the

im-

importance of opinions, and who think that mere belief can be of any avail to recommend them to the favour of God; they ought, as I obferved before, to have very good reasons for their perfuafion. For, if once the above mentioned plain and obvious rule be quitted, it will not be eafy to find another that can be applied to any good purpose. After lofing this clue, men will be involved in an endless labyrinth. They will often cry peace, peace, to themselves, when there is no peace; and they will, alfo, often fear, where no fear is.

I have nothing more to recommend to the different fects and parties of chriftians, but to remember that we are all men; and to be aware of the force of prejudice, to which, as fuch, we are all liable. If we be not ftrangely infatuated indeed, we fhall be fenfible, that there have been great and good men of all parties. Ridley and Latimer, were men who entertained very different opinions, with refpect to the points which are now denominated orthodox; yet they were both burned at the same stake, and fuffered martyrdom with equal conftancy. This confideration alone, if fufficiently attended to, cannot fail, I fhould think, to ftagger the faith of thofe, who believe the favour of God to be confined to any one party, especially if they be naturally men of modesty and candour. As men, however, we are certainly all of us fallible, and liable to adopt opinions without fufficient evidence. Let us, therefore, as becomes reafonable beings, in

thefe