other helps unneceffary. Now I have more than once given my reasons for this conduct. It is, in short, this, 'Chriftians are not agreed in the interpretation of fcripture language; but as all men are agreed with refpect to the 'nature of historical evidence, I thought that we might perhaps better determine by hiftory what was the faith of 'chriftians in early times, independently of any aid from the fcriptures. And it appeared to be no unnatural pre'fumption that, whatever that should appear to be, such 6 was the doctrine of the apoftles from whom their faith was derived; and that by this means we fhould be pos'feffed of a pretty good guide for discovering the true sense of the fcriptures.'

If, after reading these paffages, you ftill have no clearer idea of the nature and object of my late difquifitions, concerning the opinions of early times, than you had when you wrote your Letters to me, I am not able to do any thing more for you, and my conduct must still remain as inexplicable as ever.

Your curious allufion, p. 28, to my floundering in the toils of popish fophiftry in this inquiry fhews, if you have any meaning at all, your total mifapprehenfion of this bufinefs. For I have had little or nothing to do with any writers that are ever called popish; having quoted only those chriftian fathers with whom the doctrine of the trinity originated, and whofe own account of it I have faithfully exhibited, that my readers might fee from what principles this strange doctrine of three perfons in one God (a doctrine as abfurd in itself, and in every possible explanation of it, as it is abhorrent to the whole tenor of revelation) first rose, and how differently, and abfurdly, it has, in all its stages, been explained. It was not therefore my floundering, but the floundering of the fathers of your own faith, and your own flounderings, who have followed them, that has contributed to your amusement, as well as mine.

What you quote from Mr. Seed, in vindication of the conduct of those learned individuals, as you call them, p. 6,

who

who have thought it neceffary to meet me on the ground of history, is notoriously false in point of fact. "The anti"trinitarians (fays he) first introduced metaphyfics into "the queftion, on purpose to perplex it with laboured ab"ftractions, and ftudied refinements; and then the Catho"lics were obliged, though reluctantly, to follow them "through all their mazes and windings, to fhew that the "doctrine would abide the test of metaphyfics. For if fome "men's understandings, like the earth under the curfe, will "be fruitful of little elfe but thorns and briars to entangle " and perplex; it is a duty incumbent on the labourers in "the vineyard to weed the foil, and not let the doctrine be over-run and choaked by them."

t

Now there is no inftance of any Unitarian having had recourse to metaphyfical reasoning till the platonizing fathers, the authors of the doctrine of the trinity, did fo. It is this doctrine only, and not that of the Unitarians, that requires any metaphyfics. Had all chriftians been content, as the Unitarians are, with confidering the fupreme Father as the one true God, and Jefus, like Mofes and other prophets, as a man fent of God, no nice distinctions had been necessary. For God and man are very different beings. But when Christ was first represented as an attribute of the Father perfonified, and then as God equal to the Father, a distinct divine perfon, and yet not another God, then came in metaphyfics,that is, the most subtle diftinctions, or rather the moft palpable nonsense on the one hand, in order to reconcile. the most manifest contradictions, and accurate discussion on the other, to fhew the infignificance of fuch distinctions.

I am, &c,

LETTER

LETTER IV.

Of the Doctrine of Inspiration.

REV. SIR,

HE subject of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, on which

THE

you enlarge so much, I have no occafion to difcuís with you, because I allow the infallibility of the writers as far as the question between us is concerned. Befides, our difference on this head is not fo great as you would give your readers to understand. For you allow, Note, p. 27, inaccuracies, of fome kind or other, in their writings, and fay that, "where there was no extraordinary occafion to in"terpofe, God did not think fit to interpose in an extra"ordinary manner." We adopt, therefore, the same rule, and only differ in our application of it; you confidering those as extraordinary occafions, which I fee in a different light; and as you judge by your own reafon, what those extraordinary occafions are, I do the fame by mine, which is only setting up the reafon of one man against that of another, and not against God, which you perpetually infinuate that I do.

You add, indeed, that befides this plenary inspiration where it was neceffary, the authors were "fo far fuperintended in "writing as to fecure them from all error." But this, Sir, is arbitrarily afferted, and more than your own general maxim requires. For had Paul, for example, forgotten himself, and left his cloak fomewhere else than at Troas, you would hardly have thought that a proper occcafion for a divine interpofition, to rectify the mistake. Now there is no error that I ascribe to the apoftles of any more confequence to the real object of their miffion, than fuch a mistake as this. As to the perfon of Christ, it was impossible, without any inspiration, for the Apostles to be under any mistake about

it;

it; and what they thought of him, both before and after his refurrection, is evident from their language concerning him. Before that event they confidered him (Luke xxiv. 19) as a prophet mighty in word and deed, before God and all the people; and after the descent of the holy fpirit, when you suppose them to have been divinely illuminated, as a man approved of God by miracles and wonders and figns which God did by him (Acts ii. 22) whom men had put to death, but whom God had raised from the dead. These are all characters descriptive of a prophet, and what the Jews meant by that term is well known. Mofes was a prophet, Samuel, Ifaiah, Jeremiah, &c. were prophets, that is, men inspired by God, not themfelves Gods. Such a prophet, therefore, no doubt, the apoftles and early chriftians took Christ to be, when they gave him that name, and ascribed to him those characters.

Though I have no occafion, as I have obferved, to dif cufs the fubject of infpiration with you, I cannot forbear quoting fome extraordinary paragraphs of yours relating to it, especially fome of thofe in which you reprefent the conSequences of my opinions, that our readers may judge for themselves how confiftent they are with your declaring p. 23, that you would not wantonly place my opinions. "in an invidious point of light. Many of our readers, however, will probably think that the word not is here inferted by an error of the press, because the following paragraphs will do much better without it-"I would not

'

wantonly place your opinions in an invidious point of "light; but I would seriously alk, may not any man, con"fiftently enough with your doctrine, fet up a defence of "the worst opinions, and even excuse the most villainous "practice by only alleging, that the paffages of fcripture "which condemn, or prohibit his conduct are not of divine "authority? This confequence, Sir, however fhocking "to common sense, and subverfive of every found principle "of morality, feems to my mind, the neceffary result of "this dangerous opinion. For, let the ftable bafis of in

fallible

fallible inspiration be once destroyed, and it will inevitably 46 follow, that the authority of the New Teftament must "revert to private judgment.

"It is feriously incumbent (p. 25) upon Dr. Priestley, "before he utterly renounces the authority of fcripture, to "produce fome more efficacious and explicit ground of moral "obligation. Your theory of inspiration appears (p. 26) to

my understanding, big with every mifchief. I tremble, "(ibid) at the application of your principle! Under its "aufpicies the decalogue is not more fecure than the apoftolic "teftimony. For if the reafon of the individual is to be the "fole umpire in matters of faith, why not in the choice of "conduct alfo? It is evident, Sir, from your own example, "that there is no authority which this reafon may not dis

tr

pute, and it requires but little difcernment to perceive, "that when once the authority of the legiflature is called "in question (whether that authority be human or divine) "an opportunity only is wanting to justify disobedience, "It is in this view that your opinions are worse than ridi❝culous. P. 27.

"The licentiousness of opinion (p. 27) generated by a love of innovation which difdains fubmiffion to every authority "that may be fufpected to interfere with the interests of "Unitarianifm, &c.*

*It is fomething extraordinary that Mr. Burn fhould afcribe fo very. much to a mere defire of promoting Unitarianifm. For if I be the man that he describes, what can Unitarianifm do for me, and therefore why should I be fo much concerned for it, and especially make myself so obnoxious as I have on this account? In this fituation certainly the most natural, as well as the moft candid, fuppofition is, that I embrace Unitarianifm, and endeavour to propagate it, because I confider it to be the cause of important truth, which it becomes every man to respect, and to promote. What other recommendation can it have for me, or any other man, in this country, according to the laws of which it is confiscation of goods and imprisonment for life to profefs it? But we think we ought to obey God rather than man, at any rifque. There must be fome ftrange charm in Unitarianifm, if, as Mr. Burn feems to fuppofe, independent of a love of truth, of a regard to intereft, and of every other rational motive that can actuate the human mind, it should have this great power over men. Why should not Trinitarianism operate in the same manner ?

Laftly,