so very plain a business, and for which I have so frequently given the plainest reasons, could be so greatly misunderstood and misrepresented, is, I think, not a little extraordinary. "It has as often," you say, "as I have considered the subject, appeared to me in a high degree preposterous to advert to early opinions in proof of a doctrine which, from its nature, can ultimately be determined by the Scriptures only. Discussions of this nature,' you say, "can do little more than excite the sneer of infidelity, and are manifestly incongruous and absurd."† Again, you represent them as "an ingenious attempt to bring the only decisive mode of proof into discredit," and call my arguments" mediums of proof which, in the determination of this controversy, are little better than learned impertinences."+ As it is evident that you have never read, or, which comes to the same thing, have never considered what I have already advanced on this subject, I shall once more place before you two of the passages which sufficiently explain the reasons of my conduct. To the author of Primitive Candour I say, "I am not a little surprised that this learned and ingenious writer should need to be informed, that, to ascertain the opinion of the Christian world in the age immediately following that of the apostles, cannot but be of great use in order to ascertain the opinion of the apostles themselves, and, consequently, the true sense of their writings. There may be many causes which, at this distance of time, may mislead us in our interpretation of their writings; but they must have been understood by those for whose use they were written, and who could have had recourse to the writers themselves to explain their meaning, if it had been doubtful. "I have no doubt but that, if this writer himself could clearly prove, from independent evidence, that the common people among the early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, were such Trinitarians as he is, he would make no small account of the fact, as being nearly decisive in proof of the apostles having been Trinitarians, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in their writings. I think that I can prove that the Christians of the early ages were Unitarians; and this is one reason, independent of my own interpretation of their writings, why I conclude that the apostles were so."§ * Letters, p. 5. (P.) Ibid. p. 28. (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 6. (P.) § See Vol. XVIII. pp. 567, 568. In my letter to Mr. Barnard, I say to the same purpose, "You think it extraordinary that I should have recourse to such guides as the fathers to settle my opinion concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, thinking, I suppose, that the study of the Scriptures might render all other helps unnecessary. Now, I have more than once given my reasons for this conduct. It is, in short, this: Christians are not agreed in the interpretation of scripture language; but as all men are agreed with respect to the nature of historical evidence, I thought that we might, perhaps, better determine by history what was the faith of Christians in early times, independently of any aid from the Scriptures. And it appeared to be no unnatural presumption that, whatever that should appear to be, such was the doctrine of the apostles from whom their faith was derived; and that by this means we should be possessed of a pretty good guide for discovering the true sense of the Scriptures. If, after reading these passages, you still have no clearer idea of the nature and object of my late disquisitions, 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 allusion to my "floundering in the toils of Popish sophistry" in this inquiry,† shews, if you have any meaning at all, your total misapprehension of this business. For I have had little or nothing to do with any writers that are ever called Popish; having quoted only those Christian fathers with whom the doctrine of the Trinity originated, and whose own account of it I have faithfully exhibited, that my readers might see from what principles this strange doctrine of three persons in one God (a doctrine as absurd 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 absurdly 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, § See supra, p. 56. + Letters, p. 28. (P.) ↑ Jeremiah Seed, a clergyman, who died in 1747, and whose published sermons have been admired for their eloquence. He appears to have held a Trinity, according to the system of Waterland. § Letters, p. 61. (P.) who have thought it necessary to meet me on the ground of history, is notoriously false in point of fact. "The Antitrinitarians," says he, "first introduced metaphysics into the question, on purpose to perplex it with laboured abstractions, and studied refinements; and then the Catholics were obliged, though reluctantly, to follow them through all their mazes and windings, to shew that the doctrine would abide the test of metaphysics. For if some men's understandings, like the earth under the curse, will be fruitful of little else but thorns and briars to entangle and perplex; it is a duty incumbent on the labourers in the vineyard to weed the soil, and not let the doctrine be over-run and choked by them." Now there is no instance of any Unitarian having had recourse to metaphysical reasoning till the platonizing fathers, the authors of the doctrine of the Trinity, did so. It is this doctrine only, and not that of the Unitarians, that requires any metaphysics. Had all Christians been content, as the Unitarians are, with considering the supreme Father as the one true God, and Jesus, like Moses and other prophets, as a man sent 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 personified, and then as God equal to the Father, a distinct divine person, and yet not another God, then came in metaphysics, that is, the most subtle distinctions, or rather the most palpable nonsense on the one hand, in order to reconcile the most manifest contradictions; and accurate discussion on the other, to shew the insignificance of such distinctions. I am, &c. LETTER IV. REV. SIR, Of the Doctrine of Inspiration. THE subject of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, on which you enlarge so much, I have no occasion to discuss with you, because I allow the infallibility of the writers as far as the question between us is concerned. Besides, our difference on this head is not so great as you would give your readers to understand. For you allow inaccuracies, of some kind or other, in their writings, and say that, "where there was no extraordinary occasion to interpose, God did not think fit to interpose in an extraordinary manner.' We adopt, therefore, the same rule, and only differ in our application of it; you considering those as extraordinary occa sions, which I see in a different light; and as you judge by your own reason, what those extraordinary occasions are, do the same by mine, which is only setting up the reason of one man against that of another, and not against God, which you perpetually insinuate that I do. You add, indeed, that besides this plenary inspiration where it was necessary, the authors were "so far superintended in writing as to secure them from all error." But this, Sir, is arbitrarily asserted, and more than your own general maxim requires. For had Paul, for example, forgotten himself, and left his cloak somewhere else than at Troas, you would hardly have thought that a proper occasion for a divine interposition, to rectify the mistake. Now there is no error that I ascribe to the apostles of any more consequence to the real object of their mission, than such a mistake as this. As to the person of Christ, it was impossible, without any inspiration, for the apostles to be under any mistake about it; and what they thought of him, both before and after his resurrection, is evident from their language concerning him. Before that event, they considered him (Luke xxiv. 19) as "a prophet mighty in deed and word, before God and all the people;" and after the descent of the Holy Spirit, when you suppose them to have been divinely illuminated, as "a man approved of God-by miracles and wonders and signs 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. Moses was a prophet, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c. were prophets, that is, men inspired by God, not themselves Gods. Such a prophet, therefore, no doubt, the apostles and early Christians took Christ to be, when they gave him that name, and ascribed to him those characters. Though I have no occasion, as I have observed, to discuss the subject of inspiration with you, I cannot forbear quoting some extraordinary paragraphs of yours relating to it, espe cially some of those in which you represent the consequences of my opinions, that our readers may judge for themselves how consistent they are with your declaring that you "would * Letters, p. 27, Note. (P.) 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 inserted 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 ask, may not any man, consistently enough with your doctrine, set up a defence of the worst opinions, and even excuse the most villainous practice, by only alleging, that the passages of scripture which condemn or prohibit his conduct, are not of divine authority? This consequence, Sir, however shocking to common sense, and subversive of every sound principle of morality, seems to my mind the necessary result of this dangerous opinion. For, let the stable basis of infallible inspiration be once destroyed, and it will inevitably follow, that the authority of the New Testament must revert to private judgment."* "It is seriously incumbent upon Dr. Priestley, before he utterly renounces the authority of scripture, to produce some more efficacious and explicit ground of moral obligation."+ "Your theory of inspiration appears to my understanding, big with every mischief. I tremble at the application of your principle! Under its auspices the decalogue is not more secure than the apostolic testimony. For if the reason of the individual is to be the sole umpire in matters of faith, why not in the choice of conduct also? It is evident, Sir, from your own example, that there is no authority which this reason may not dispute, and it requires but little discernment to perceive, that when once the authority of the legislature 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 ridiculous.‡ "The licentiousness of opinion generated by a love of innovation, which disdains submission to every authority that may be suspected to interfere with the interests of Unitarianism," &c.§ Ibid. pp. 26, 27. (P.) Letters, p. 23. (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 25. (P.) § Ibid. p. 27. It is something extraordinary that Mr. Burn should ascribe so very much to a mere desire of promoting Unitarianism. For if I be the man that he describes, what can Unitarianism do for me, and therefore why should I be so much concerned for it, and especially make myself so obnoxious as I have on this account? In this situation, certainly, the most natural, as well as the most candid, supposition is, that I embrace Unitarianism, and endeavour to propagate it, because I consider 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 im |