T

Laftly, you more than infinuate that I am determined to oppose the authority of fcripture, notwithstanding these horrid confequences, when you fay, p. 17, "an inspira "tion, Sir, which leaves a man in ignorance, and qualifies "him to blunder on those very points which it was the "defign of his miffion to reveal, may be a defireable thing "to those (if fuch men there be) who have systems to main"tain in oppofition to its authority."

On what you fay of the decalogue itself not being safe with me, of my calling in question the authority of the fupreme legislature, and my making the reafon of the individual the fole umpire in matters of faith, which, you say, will justify all disobedience to the laws of God, I must remark with some severity but with justice.

The pofitions abovementioned are no applications of any principle of mine, though you are pleafed to call them so. This whole ftring of affertions is nothing less than the groffeft and moft unfounded of calumnies, for which you have no authority at all, not even that of an inference from any thing that I have advanced; though that would be unfair to ascribe to me; fince no man is properly answerable for any thing more than he himself allows.

Where, Sir, have I said that the reason of the individual is the fole umpire in matters of faith? I call upon you to produce any thing that I have written that will bear fuch a conftruction. You must abfolutely have been reading Bolingbroke, Hume, or Voltaire, and have imagined their writings to be mine. I think I may fay that no man now living in this country, nor perhaps in any other, has written more to prove the very reverse of what you ascribe to me, viz. the infufficiency of human reason, and the neceffity of divine revelation.

The two truly great doctrines of revelation, are those of the unity of God, and the refurrection of man to a future life; neither of which, in my opinion, could the unaffifted reafon of man have difcovered, and leaft of all the latter. But though you virtually deny one of thefe doctrines, by maintaining

maintaining a trinity of divine perfons, or Gods; and though you, in fact, supersede the other, by the doctrine of a foul, thereby rendering the refurrection of the body of no value at all, I do not charge you with denying revelation. Both thefe infringements of the great truths of revelation, I would farther obferve, were made by human reafon, or philofophy, as in my writings I have abundantly proved. They arose from the vain fpeculations of men, operating to undermine the great and distinguishing doctrines of revelation. It is you, Sir, therefore, and not me, who fet up reajon against revelation.

That your notions on the fubject of infpiration and the authority of fcripture, are extremely crude, and indigested, or else that you do not know how to exprefs your own meaning, is evident from your supposing, p. 32, that the fenfe only, and not the authority of fcripture, is to be determined by reason, and from your faying that otherwife "our "faith, contrary to the fcripture, will stand in the wisdom " of man." But, pray, Sir, how do you actually judge of the authority of feripture, if you fet afide the use of reason? You have two books, for example, prefented to you, the Bible, and the Koran, and the authority of each is to be determined. If, instead of the use of reafon, you have recourse to what you here oppofe to it, viz. the infallibility of the apoftolic teftimony, how are you to afcertain this? You are not to take the mere word of the apoftles, for their infallibility, any more than that of Mahomet for his. Certainly, then, you must have recourse to this fo much dreaded and reprobated reason, if you make a wife decifion at all. You will hardly say that God, or the apostles, have revealed themselves to you perfonally, and told you which of these two books is to be your infallible guide. Or if they have revealed themselves to you, they have not to me, and many others; and in a matter of this confequence we shall not take your word, or any man's word. We require the proof of your inspiration, and of the degree of it, and shall judge of the evidence you produce by our own reafon only.

R

When

When you next declaim in this random manner against the use of reafon, remember the old faying, that "No man "is against reafon, till reafon is against him." Notwithstanding I refuse to surrender my reason to you, or to any man, the Bible, rightly understood, is as much my religion, as it was that of Chillingworth, yourself, or any other Protestants, though you fuppofe, p. 29, that I renounce it.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.

Of the immoral Confequences of my Opinions.

REV. SIR,

WITH

ITH refpect to all the immoral confequences that you so liberally afcribe to my opinions, I fhall content myself with faying, that if your principles be confiftent with fuch manifeftly unjust and injurious infinuations, by which nothing could be meant but to render my character odious (though with a view, as you may fay, to the advancement of truth) I disclaim fuch principles, unknown and unexamined, and prefer the extreme of herefy, with candour, to the most perfect orthodoxy without it. As the Indian faid to the Spanish priest, who would have persuaded him to be baptized in the article of death, threatening that if he did not fubmit to that ceremony, he would certainly go to hell, whither all his ancestors had gone before him, that "he chofe to go to his ancestors, rather than to any place whither the Spaniards went;" fo, Sir, judging of the tree by its fruits, I fhall willingly take my chance with pious, virtuous, and candid Unitarians, with fuch men as Dr.

Lardner,

Lardner, Dr. Jebb, &c. who brought no railing accufations against any man (though fentenced by your church without doubt to perish everlastingly) rather than with those who fcruple no mifrepresentation, or abuse, to promote their cause, though in itself it thould be ever fo good. Fearing God, and refpecting his truth, I hope I fhall never fear what man may say of me, or do to me, least of all in another world, where, happily, your power does not extend.

Had you, Sir, been more attentive to our Saviour's excellent and plain rule in judging of men, viz. By their fruits ye fhail know them, you would not have been fubject to fuch dreadful alarms about the confequences of my opinions, or any others, as you now either are, or affect to be. You say that my fentiments are big with every mischief, that they attack the very basis of moral obligation, that they are unfavourable to the interests of society, that even the decalogue itself is unfafe, that all principle being gone, nothing but opportunity is wanting to justify disobedience. To alarm your readers, if possible, ftill more, you add, p. 27, " to those who "confider the influence that, in the concurrence of events, "favourable to innovation, fuch opinions may have on the "conduct, it is a truly ferious concern.

Had I taught principles profeffedly atheistical you could not have expreffed greater apprehenfions than these. For when all moral principle is destroyed, men are prepared for every villainy. With thefe ideas I fhould not wonder if you should advise the immediate apprehenfion of all Unitarians, left you should not be able any longer to fleep in your beds, or travel the public roads in fecurity, or let your wives and daughters fhould be exposed to the most brutal outrages. For there is nothing that human nature is capable of, so atrocious that you do not think us actually ready to perpetrate.

But pray, Sir, have you confidered what time it will require for fuch principles as ours to operate, and produce their proper effect? For if they have any tendency to produce mischief, it cannot lie dormant for ever. If, according

to our Saviour, moral principles may be compared to a tree, there must be a time for its bearing fruit. Now to say nothing of primitive times, these very principles have been publicly profeffed in many countries of Europe, at least, ever fince the reformation. I myself have taught them more than thirty years. Many others are as indefatigable in the business as myself, and it is universally acknowledged, and pathetically lamented by many, that they gain ground every day, and pray, Sir, what do you actually see, to make you tremble in this manner? If our lives had not been as fober, and exemplary, as yours, indifferent fpectators would have perceived it, and have taken the alarm as well as you; but if no apparent mischief has arifen from our principles in three hundred years, I fhould think you might difmifs your fears, and conclude that it was merely a falfe alarm that had agitated you so much.

Befides, I could with to quiet your fears on your own account. For the many fleepless nights which your apprehenfions, if real, muft neceffarily have caused you, accompanied, of course, with much earnest prayer and fafting, must in time affect your health. This conftant trembling, fafting, watching, and praying, will foon wear any man, more corpulent than you are, to a fkeleton; unless, with Falstaff, grief should have a contrary operation with you, and blow you up a like a bladder.

Confider then, I fay again, for the fake of your own peace of mind, and health of body, what time you think our principles may require to operate, and whether that time may not be actually elapsed, so that you may make yourself eafy about them. If they be big, as you fay, with mischief (and especially with every mischief, crimes of every kind and degree, including treafon, murder, burglary, &c.) they must fome time burst; if they attack the basis of moral obligation, with any vigour, it must sooner or later give way: and if nothing but opportunity be wanting for the commencement of our outrages (all moral principle being totally gone) it must have occurred in a reasonable space of time. Indeed,

fuch