80 sotwrUmL [Booz I. have produced infidelity in France, 8petri, and elsewhere; but it never succeeded in promoting pure sad undefiled religion. The Church of Rome accuses Protestantism of producing Socinian- ism, and that this heresy is the legitimate result of following the Pro- testaat rule. They also assert that the divinity of Christ cannot be proved from Scripture, and that the principles of their church are in direct opposition to the $ocinian or Unitarian heresy. Now we think we can prove the contrary of nil this, so as to show unequivocally that the charge of producing heresy, in reference to Socinianism, cannot justly be charged against the Protestant rule. On this the follow- ing otmervations are offered :- First. TI? $ocinia? does r?ot adopt tb Protestf?t rule: ?r m be, witA l?'ol?riet?, b? rmtlted at all a?mtg Protestants. The l*rotemnt rule is the all-sufficiency of Scripture, interpreted by the legitimate canons of interpretation, under the direction and illumi- nation of the Holy Spirit; or, in other words, the orthodox Protcetaat rule is the entire canon of Scripture, accepted and received as a divine revelation, interpreted according to the proper rules of language, re- qniring the illumination of the Holy Spirit. This is not the role of the Socinian; nor are these the foundations of his opinions. He denies and rejects many pan8 of the canon of Scripture; he also rejects divine influence, sad transgresses the law8 of sober interpretation by a rash self-sufficiency. The position, therefore, of the orthodox and hetero- dox Protestant is totally different; their rule of faith is different. and the result different. In fact, the creed of the Sot'mien is formed pre- ?o?ly to his approaching the Scriptures; sad his business with them is to adjust them according to his previously received creed. His doc- trine sad the doctrine of Scripture are altogether different. The ortho- dox Protestant has a role of faith wholly divested of absurdity and diffi- culty. The Papist's rule is involved in the vicious circle. The first is foumied on the unity of the divine communications, while the latter supposes such a comm,mlcatiou insufficient. $ecoad/y. Catholics assert tl?. the divinit? of GArist cassot by proo? But we c? show that Sc?pmre f?y main? ? doc?e. To �e o?ox Pm?s?t, in ? defence a?t the Socinisa ?d ?e Ca?olic, ?e Sc?pmre is a li?a ?p?, or ? ?t, on w? ?es are ?cg?d such p?sa?s ? ?e foaow?g :--Im?uel, ? wi? ? ;?e Word w? ? ;--I and ?e Fa?er are ?e ;--who is o?r ?1, ? blessed for e?er ;?e ? ?d, ? our SaCour Jesus Chd? &c. Now what d?s the Soc? do with ?1 ?is ? Why, he h? ? ?-fo?ed cm?, and he h? a?l?ly seffied the thing ?foreh?d, the these t?n? can? be. And in order ? reconc?e t? ? a ? feted reverence for Sc?p?, he h? mcou?e ? ?etat?, ? imerpretafion is omni?m. Give a ?n ?at, ?d he fears noting. Gmmm?ic? m? with him wffi signify ricing. And ?H ?y man, not a bedInure, say ?at the Socinian delves h? creed from Scripture--?m ?y ?a?ati?, ?d therefore j?t inte?re?tion ? We say ?ammaficM, not l?M, for we do not r?e ?m ? beheve t?t Christ w? a vine, ?y more ? t?t he w? t? pe? when ? i?ituted ?e 8?e? of ?e sup?r?ne in ?,'? ?e ? h ?e ?e? w?ch he h?d h ? o? ?.
�
