Ib. p. 32.

The leading design of John the Baptist * * was * this:—­to prepare the minds of men for the reception of that pure system of moral truth which the Saviour, by divine authority, was speedily to inculcate, and of those sublime doctrines of a resurrection and a future judgment, which, as powerful motives to the practice of holiness, he was soon to reveal.

What then?  Did not John the Baptist himself teach a pure system of moral truth?  Was John so much more ignorant than Paul before his conversion, and the whole Jewish nation, except a few rich freethinkers, as to be ignorant of the “sublime doctrines of a resurrection and a future judgment?” This, I well know, is the strong-hold of Socinianism; but surely one single unprejudiced perusal of the New Testament,—­not to suppose an acquaintance with Kidder or Lightfoot—­would blow it down, like a house of cards!

Ib. p. 33.

 —­their faiths in the efficacy of their own rites, and creeds, and
  ceremonies, and their whole train of ‘substitutions’ for ‘moral duty’,
  was so entire, and in their opinion was such a ‘saving faith’, that
  they could not at all interpret any language that seemed to dispute
  their value, or deny their importance.

Poor strange Jews!  They had, doubtless, what Darwin would call a specific ‘paralysis’ of the auditory nerves to the writings of their own Prophets, which yet were read Sabbath after Sabbath in their public Synagogues.  For neither John nor Christ himself ever did, or indeed could, speak in language more contemptuous of the folly of considering rites as substitutions for moral duty, or in severer words denounce the blasphemy of such an opinion.  Why need I refer to Isaiah or Micah?

Ib. p. 34.

  Thus it was that this moral preacher explained and enforced the duty
  of repentance, and thus it was that he prepared the way for the
  greatest and best of teachers, &c.

Well then, if all this was but a preparation for the doctrines of Christ, those doctrines themselves must surely have been something different, and more difficult?  Oh no!  John’s preparation consisted in a complete rehearsal of the ‘Drama didacticum’, which Christ and the Apostles were to exhibit to a full audience!—­Nay, prithee, good Barrister! do not be too rash in charging the Methodists with a monstrous burlesque of the Gospel!

Ib. p. 37.

—­the logic of the new Evangelists will convince him that it is a contradiction in terms even to ‘suppose’ himself ’capable of doing any thing’ to help ’or bringing any thing to recommend himself to the Divine favour’.

Now, suppose the wisdom of these endless attacks on an old abstruse metaphysical notion to be allowed, yet why in the name of common candour does not the Barrister ring the same ‘tocsin’ against his friend Dr. Priestley’s scheme of Necessity;—­or against his idolized Paley, who explained the will as a sensation, produced by the action of the intellect on the muscles, and the intellect itself as a catenation of ideas, and ideas as configurations of the organized brain?  Would not every syllable apply, yea, and more strongly, more indisputably?  And would his fellow-sectaries thank him, or admit the consequences?  Or has any late Socinian divine discovered, that Do as ye would be done unto, is an interpolated precept?