the loveliness of Jesus in the scriptures and by them be made wise unto salvation.

I really think that it is not unworthy of the most rational of all the Rational Dissenters to enquire seriously into the cause of this growing neglect of the scripture which you speak of; and should it be found that it is in the ministry itself, suitable measures for remedying the evil will, I hope, be thought the next object worthy of attention. It does not appear to me, that any thing has a more direct tendency to bring the scriptures into a contemptible disuse, than the manner of preaching practised by some ministers, whose orations or harangues seem to have no dependance upon, or connection with, the sacred writings. Lectures on natural or indeed moral philosophy, are very far from leading the soul to Jesus as its all-sufficient dependance, and however excellent as a science, is contemptible, base, and spurious, when it assumes the name of gospel. Were Jesus Christ, and him crucified, more the preacher's theme, and instead of embellishing his composition by the flourishes of art and science, he studied to recommend the word to every man's conscience, I think the people would be under a necessity with the Bereans to search the scriptures, that they might know the truth of the doctrine.

Now, Sir, to come to a conclusion, give me leave to observe to you that, if to despise and vilify the Orthodox because they differ from me; if to boast of my own superior knowledge; if to hold sentiments in private, which I dare not openly avow; if to abolish church officers, and let go the reins of discipline; and if to disuse the scriptures is what is called Rational Religion, I must beg to be excused from embracing her, notwithstanding, I am, Sir,

Your sincere well-wisher,
and humble servant.

To the Rev. Joseph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S.

LETTER X.

Reverend Sir,

MANY months are now elapsed, since I did myself the honour of transmitting to you nine familiar Epistles, written according to the humour, which happened then to be regent in my fancy.

Humour which then happened to be regent,' &c. In the letters referred to, the Author was of opinion, that the weakness, absurdity and contradiction, joined with

But alas, had I been as impatient for your answer, as Mr. Enfield is said to have been, on a similar occasion, I might by this time, through a tedious disappointment, have been reduced to a state of either death or insanity. But although I have had the mortification to receive no answer, I cannot prevail with myself to decline the pleasure of writing to you again, how much soever you may be ashamed of your connections with such an absurd writer. Especially as you persist in your resolution to vilify the person of my only Lord and Saviour; to divest him of his Godhead, without which nothing can render him amiable and lovely in the eye of an awakened sinner. Besides, I consider myself as bound to a further correspondence with you, from a passage near the end of my fifth letter in the former packet, intimating my resolution to address you again, whenever you should see meet again openly to write against the doctrine of CHRIST'S DIVINITY. You have now, Sir, furnished the occasion, and virtually called upon me to resume my pen, according to promise, by the publication of your Appeal to the serious and candid professors of Christianity;' and your Familiar illustration of certain passages ' of scripture.' When the above pamphlets first came abroad, I paid little regard to them, seeing they were anonymous; but they being now ascertained the productions of your intrepid pen, I have thought proper to peruse them with attention, and to animadvert upon them after my own manner; a manner with which, by this time, you are in some measure acquainted.

6

6

I do not mean to give you a regular answer, to the pamphlets in question; no, Sir, I leave regular answers to regular, thinking people, who can have patience and leisure to follow you from page to page, and from line to line; I shall at present satisfy myself with attending to one single article, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST,' Concerning which, we differ as widely as possible. In perusing your penny Appeal, I was amazingly struck, with the force and propriety of the concluding paragraph, in article FIFTH, which militates against the divinity of IMMANUEL; and which I think proper here to transcribe; notwithstanding it will give you some reason to conclude, that I begin at the wrong end of my work, which you know some people can do and make nothing of it. The great Creed of the Mahometans,' say you, is, that there is One God, and Mahomet is his Prophet. Now 'that Mahomet is not the prophet of God, it is to be hoped, they may, in time, be made to believe; but we must not ex'pect, that they will so easily give up their faith in the unity of 'God.'

Being engaged in the same great work of Reformation with yourself, and wishing to see true and undefiled Religion diffusing

a spirit of ostentation, obvious in Dr. Priestley's religious pamphlets, were more proper subjects of ridicule, than of serious disquisition: he therefore refers here to the manner, or form, not to the matter or substance of those letters.

itself from sea to sea, from the river even to the ends of the earth; I have thought of a coalition of the Mohammedan and Christian religions, as the most feasible scheme. Therefore I altered the Mohammedan Creed, and read it thus. 'There is

'but ONE GOD, and JESUS is his Prophet.' This, Sir, is admirably adapted to the Rational scheme, and may well be called the Socinian's Creed; between which, and that of the Mohammedans, there is but barely the difference of one syllable, and that too not very material, on your supposition, that both Jesus and Mohammed are but men like ourselves. You know, Sir, it is a matter of vastly momentous controversy, which of two persons, by nature on an exact level with each other, and with ourselves also, shall be by us, exalted to pre-eminence, according as they shall severally appear to be entitled, by their Doctrines, and their Labours, to promote the good of mankind. The question then will be, Whether the Mohammedans shall receive the prophet JESUS, who is but a man like themselves; or Rational Christians shall receive the prophet Mohammed, who is also a man like themselves, and as they allow, a man of the first attainments? The solution of this important question shall be the subject matter of the following Epistles, which I hope will furnish you with two or three hours precious entertaiment.

But before I proceed to this solution, you will please to give me leave to lay a suitable foundation, for the coalition of parties, which I have proposed between Mohammedans and Rational Christians; by pointing out their essential agreement, respecting the person and offices of JESUS CHRIST. For if we can but find, that there is no essential difference between the Mohammedans and Rational Christians, respecting his person; names, circumstances, and such lesser matters, may the sooner be got over. So that if we succeed, the eastern world may either become Rational Christians, or what you call the Rational part of the western world may become Mohammedans. Which of the two shall be the event, is not very material; the difference appearing either very trivial, or the advantage greatly on the side of the Arabic prophet, as perhaps the sequel may discover.

In your conversion of the Mohammedans, to Rational Christianity, it will not be necessary that they should give up their faith in the Unity of God; their faith in this article being iden tically the same with your own, as will appear on the comparison. Were we even to attempt their conversion to real Christianity, they needed not to part with their belief of the UNITY of the divine Essence, only to adopt the TRINITY, into their faith in the Unity of GOD; as the opposite of Unity in this sense, was never received by real Christians in any age, not even by the Athanasians themselves. No, Sir, it is only a slander raised against them, by Gentlemen of learning, of natural virtue, and of Rational Religion; who, to serve a turn, will not scruple to belie

even their most conscientious neighbours. Witness the reverend Dr. Priestley's writings; especially his Essay on Church Discipline.*

To prove my assertion, that Mohammed's faith, and that of Dr. Priestley, are identically the same, respecting the unity of GOD, permit me, Sir, to quote your own words, a little descant upon them, and then quote the words of the great Prophet of Arabia. You say,t How is it possible that three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, should be separately, each of them, possessed of all divine perfections, so as to be true, very, ' and eternal GOD, and yet that there should be but one God? A truth which is so clearly and fully revealed, that it is not pos'sible for men to refuse their assent to it, or else it would, no 'doubt, have been long ago expunged from our Creed, as utterly 'irreconcileable with the more favourite doctrine of the Trinity. A term not to be found in Scripture. Things above our reason may, for any thing that we know to the contrary, be true; but things expressly contrary to our reason, as that three should be one, and one three, can never appear to us to be so.'

That the term TRINITY is not literally to be found in Scripture is allowed; but the same may be said of the characters, Rational Christians,' or Rational Dissenters;' also of that favourite phrase of yours, JESUS CHRIST is only a man like ' ourselves;' and many other phrases, which pass current enough with you, as well as with your neighbours. However, Sir, although it must be granted, the term TRINITY is not in the Bible, it must at the same time be owned, that the thing intended by it, is found therein, whilst that passage so adverse to yours, and the Mohammedan scheme, stands so firm, after all the laudable efforts of Rational Religion have, in vain, been exerted for its eradication. I mean--- There are THREE that bear record in Heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST, and these THREE are ONE.'

That this is above reason, to me does not very clearly appear; and that it is contrary to reason, as you are pleased to assert, is an affront offered to the soundest maxims of philosophy. That it is not above reason to allow, that three different principles may be requisite to constitute One Intelligent Agent, I hope Dr. Priestley himself is a living witness. You will permit me to observe, that, notwithstanding your vast capacity, you are an animal, formed of the earth like other creatures. The word animal you know is compound, and supposeth two principles, existing in the subject to which it is applied. For instance, a creature is a creature, whether it be dead or alive; but it is not an animal unless it be alive. Here is therefore one principle, acting upon another, to compose an animal Being; a principle which quickeneth, and a principle quickened, yet these are both

* Page 17.

† Appeal, pages 16, 17.

+ 1 John v. 7.

requisite to constitute animal existence. Besides these two principles, you have about you an immortal spirit, which must live for ever in a state of unspeakable bliss, or of infinite misery. This immortal spirit, dwelling in your animal frame, is that third principle which, joined to the other two, constitutes you a self-conscious intelligent Agent. These three, thus joined, do not make three men, but one man, so that it is neither contrary to, nor above reason, that One may be three, and three ONE; for although you subsist Soul, Body, and Spirit, you are not three Doctor Priestleys, but one Rational Dissenting minister, or one Doctor Priestley.

*

The light of the sun which shines around me, affects only my eyes, and is therefore very distinct from the heat of that splendid luminary, which warms my whole body. This observation led me to examine the sky, to see if there were not two suns; one, consisting only of heat, and the other only of fight. But I have not as yet found any, besides the old fashioned Sun, composed of light and heat, 'Two Principles, but one natural Luminary.' Even that little bit of fire, which falls to the share of some authors, in the coldest days of winter, discovers three somethings, which seem essential to its very being. There is Light, Heat, and Motion; without which, I believe, you never saw a fire kindled in your study. The light is very different from the heat, the heat from the light; and both are distinct from that motion discernible in the fire. And yet there are not on this account three fires, but one.

Now, Sir, that an ignoramus, or what is much the same in your sense, an Orthodox Dissenter, should assert, that three distinct principles cannot exist, in one intelligent being, is no more than might be expected from their absurdity. But that a Rational Dissenter, such an adept in philosophy as yourself, should assert, that the truth contained in that proposition is contrary to reason, is not so easily to be accounted for: especially as you are a living proof of it in your own proper person.

Indeed, Doctor, whilst I see you and myself, consisting of soul, body, and spirit, you must permit me to deem it rational to believe, that the GODHEAD may subsist in FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST.----But if you ask, how these THREE are ONE, and this ONE is THREE? I must beg to be excused from giving

By principle, the Author does not mean that from which the sun derived its existence; but that which is essential to its existence.

Principles in physic, or of a natural body is something that contributes to the essence of a body; or whereof a natural body is primarily constituted. Chamber's Dictionary.

Which authority, I presume, will warraut the observation immediately following upon the fire.

No more is aimed at here than to shew, that, among creatures, many may be pointed out, whose very being depends upon the union of distinct principles: The Author, invariably considering all attempts to explain the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, as daring and impious. What is scen may be defined in time: what is unseen, must be left to eternity to unfold.