"title of a Hiftory of the Corruptions of Christianity, among which the Catholic doctrine of the trinity "holds a principal place."

Now I fee nothing fo very extraordinary in my attempt. I have only done what has been done by every other perfon, who has endeavoured to refute the doctrine of the trinity, or any other effential article of established churches. However, as you seem to have taken fo particular an alarm in this cafe, I am willing to hope you will exert yourself with proportionable vigour; when, in your apprehenfion, it is no less than to fave a falling ftate. Before I enter upon the fubject itself, I muft endeavour to fet you right with refpect to two preliminary circumftances.

Whether it be to my credit or not, I muft obferve, that you make my reading to be more extenfive than it is, when you fuppofe me to have borrowed my principal arguments from D. Zwicker, or Epifcopius. I do affure you, Sir, I do not recollect that I ever met with the name of Zwicker before I faw it in this publication of yours. For Epifcopius I have the higheft reverence; and I thank you for informing me that, though an Arian himfelf, he was convinced that the chriftian church was originally what is now called Socinian.

On the other hand, by your recommending Bishop Bull's defence of the Nicene faith fo very ftrongly, and not mentioning any other modern writers, you feem to have overlooked, or to have un dervalued

undervalued, several works which may certainly be very useful to thofe who wish to form an impartial judgment on the fubject of this controversy; efpecially Whitby's Difquifitiones Modefte, in answer to Bishop Bull, and his Replies to Waterland, with feveral pieces in the Socinian Tracts, in three small volumes 4to. But I am more particularly furprized that you fhould not have mentioned Dr. Clark's celebrated Treatife on the Trinity, which is calculated to be of the greatest use to those who would study this fubject; containing all the texts that relate to it, most advantageously arranged for the purpose, together with fome very useful references to the christian fathers. There are feveral parts of that work which I would take the liberty to recommend to your own particular attention.

You charge me with arguing in a circle, faying, p. 12, "It is the profeffed object of his under"taking to exhibit a view of the gradual changes "of opinions, in order to afcertain the faith of "the firft ages. And he would ascertain the faith "of the first ages in order to fettle the fenfe of "the fcriptures in difputed points. He is there"fore not at liberty to affume any fenfe of the "fcriptures, which, because it is his own, he

may be pleased to call the clear fense, for a proof "that the original faith was fuch as would confirm "the fenfe he wishes to establish."

"So long," you fay, "as the fixth page of the. "first volume of Dr. Priestley's Hiftory fhall be B 2

extant

c extant, the mafters of the dialectic art will be at "no lofs for an example of the circulating fyllo"gifm." But unless they be provided with one already, you must look out for them elsewhere, as this you have now pitched upon will not answer their purpose, if they be really masters of the

dialectic art.

Had I produced no other proof of the unitarianism of the fcriptures, befides that of the primitive church, and alfo no other proof of the unitarianism of the primitive church, befides that of the scriptures, I should have argued in a circle. But you will find that I have been far from doing this.

Is it not ufual with all writers who wish to prove two things, which mutually prove each other, to obferve that they do prove each other; and therefore, that whatever evidence can be alledged for either of them is fully in point with refpect to the other? Now this is all that I have done with refpect to the unitarianifm of the fcriptures, and of the primitive church, which prove each other; only that, in my Hiftory, I do not profess to enter into the separate proof of the unitarian doctrine from the fcriptures.

This I there take for granted had been fufficiently done already by myself and others; and I therefore proceed to prove the unitarianism of the primitive church from independent evidence; only observing that the unitarian doctrine having been taught by the

apostles

apostles is likewise a proof of the same thing. But this I could not fuppofe would have any weight with those who are trinitarians, though it was not improper to mention it with refpect to others, with whom it would have weight.

might have urged another kind of argument against both the divinity and the pre-existence of Christ, viz. from the doctrine of the materiality of man, which I prefume has been fufficiently proved in my Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit. I maintain that there is no more reason why a man fhould be fupposed to have an immaterial principle within him, than that a dog, a plant, or a magnet, should have one; because, in all these cases, there is just the fame difficulty in imagining any connexion between the visible matter of which they confift, and the invisible powers of which they are poffeffed. If univerfal concomitance be the foundation of all our reafoning concerning caufes and effects, the organized brain of a man must be deemed to be the proper feat, and immediate caufe of his fenfation and thinking, as much as the inward ftructure of a magnet, whatever that be, is the cause of its power of attracting iron.

This is a very short and plain argument, perfectly confonant to all our reasoning in philosophy; and it is conclufive against the doctrine of a foul, and confequently against the whole fyftem of pre-exiftence. If then Peter, James, and John, had no pre-existent ftate, it must be contrary to all analogy

to fuppofe Jefus to have pre-exifted. His being a prophet, and having a power of working miracies, can make no juft exception in his favour; for then every preceding prophet must have pre-existed.

I think I have alfo proved in my Difquifitions, that the doctrine of a foul, as a fubftance diftinct from the body, and capable of being happy or miserable when the body is in the grave, was borrowed from pagan philofophy, is totally repugnant to the fyftem of revelation, and unknown in the fcriptures; which fpeak of no reward for the righteous, or punishment for the wicked, before the general refurrection, and the coming of Chrift to judge the world.

I might therefore have urged that, fince the doctrine of Chrift's pre-existence, is contrary to reason, and was never taught by Chrift or his apoftles, it could not have been the faith of their immediate difciples, in the firft ages of chriftianity. This argument will have its weight with thofe who reject the doctrine of a foul, and make them look with fufpicion upon any pretended proof of the doctrine of Chrift's pre-existence, and of its having been the faith of the apoftolical age, as well as their previous perfuafion that fuch is not the doctrine of the fèriptures. And fince all the three pofitions are capable of independent proof, the urging of them would not have been arguing in a circle, but the adducing of proper cellateral evidence.

I am, Sec.

LETTER