fully, I doubt not) by Mr. Lindsey, nothing, surely, can be more irrational, more inconsistent, and more self-contradictory.

Mr. Haynes, we are told, paid but little regard to any human scheme or to any human explanation. And yet, upon the mere strength of his own explanation of Scripture, he was FULLY PERSUADED of the truth of his sentiments concerning God and Jesus Christ. In other words, he was FULLY PERSUADED upon the mere strength of what, even by his own shewing, was worthy of but little regard.

Accordingly, as Mr. Lindsey yet further informs us, Mr. Haynes, though he pronounced ALL human interpretations of Scripture, and therefore obviously his own among the rest, to be undeserving of the least notice, absolutely declared: that He himself had NO DOUBTS, NO SCRUPLES, NO SECRET MISGIVINGS,

pounder can shew, from clear and distinct historical testimony, that he has merely brought again to light a long-suppressed and a once universally received primeval doctrine. Divine or doctrinal truth must needs be from the very beginning: and, if from the very beginning a doctrine has not subsisted, that circumstance alone demonstrates its palpable falsehood. There cannot be a more hopeless fatuity, than either to assert or to expect a new doctrinal discovery in the field of Theology. The asserter of any such new discovery is a mountebank: and the expectant of it is an idiot. ID ESSE VERUM, QUODCUNQUE PRIMUM: ID ESSE ADULTERUM, QUODCUNQUE POSTerius. Tertull. adv. Prax. § 2. Oper. p. 405.

that he either WAS, or even MIGHT BE, mistaken. But, on the contrary, he assured his friends: that He had A FULL AND ENTIRE PERSUASION, that his own foundation was MOST CERTAIN AND INFALLIBLE'.

The truth of the matter is that, although Mr. Haynes claimed to found his sentiments upon the word of God ALONE, he really founded them upon HIS OWN PRIVATE EXPLANATION of that word; while yet, with singular inconsistency, he at the same time professed to pay small regard to ANY human scheme or explanation.

His foundation, in short, as he gravely assures us, is most certain and infallible. But his certainty and his infallibility rest upon the mere authority of a man. And Mr. Lindsey will teach him, that the authorities of men are nothing.

3. Exactly the same remark applies to the parallel dogmatism of Dr. Priestley.

When speaking of the Bible, this writer asserts: that He himself, Dr. Priestley to wit, is IN FULL POSSESSION of that strong-hold of his faith 2.

2

'Lindsey's Sequel to Apol. p. 20—23.

Priestley's Works, vol. xviii. p. 567. Yet Dr. Priestley treats this strong-hold of his faith somewhat unceremoniously : for he denies the authority of the Bible to be final.

After claiming to have shewn, that there is no such doctrine as that of the Trinity in the Scriptures: he boldly adds; that,

IF IT HAD BEEN FOUND THERE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE

Now, in the very nature and necessity of things, it is certain that the Bible cannot be the strong

FOR A REASONABLE MAN TO BELIEVE IT; as it implies a contradiction, which no miracles can prove. Hist. of Early Opin. Introd. sect. iv. Works, vol. vi. p. 33, 34.

I. We may safely concede to Dr. Priestley, that a revelation. from God cannot propound a contradiction: but it does not, by any necessary consequence, seem thence to follow, that, what Dr. Priestley deems a contradiction, is really such. A more modest, and (I will venture to add) a more rational, inquirer would not have professed his predetermination to reject a doctrine, even if revealed in Scripture, on the very insufficient ground: that such a doctrine, to his finite reason, antecedently APPEARED to be a contradiction. He would rather, I think, have been humbly satisfied: that no REAL contradiction could subsist in a doctrine, which, in point of fact, was revealed in Scripture.

II. Be this, however, as it may, Dr. Priestley denies the authority of the Bible to be final, while yet he compliments it with the title of the strong-hold of his faith. Professedly he would not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, even if it could be clearly ascertained, as a naked matter of fact, that that doctrine is taught in the Bible. In such a supposed case, which may peradventure turn out to be a true case, he would reject his stronghold the Bible, rather than believe what the Bible teaches.

III. When a person has once laid it down antecedently, that the doctrine of the Trinity CANNOT be true: he must inevitably come to the perusal of Scripture, not with any intention of LEARNING what may be there revealed, but with a full resolution of so expounding Scripture as to compel it to speak his own sentiments and thus to enable him to declare that he FINDS in it a b

VOL. I.

hold of Dr. Priestley's faith, until he shall have first so interpreted it as to enforce its agreement with his own system.

But, in the business of interpretation, the authorities of men are nothing: and the authority even of Dr. Priestley is only the authority of a man.

Therefore Dr. Priestley's faith, being founded merely upon his own interpretation of Scripture, which interpretation rests merely upon his own human authority, is founded, as Mr. Lindsey will teach him, upon nothing.

III. Discarding, then, the contradictory language of some antitrinitarian writers; that The point at issue between them and their opponents must be decided by Scripture ALONE, while yet The authorities of men in the interpretation of Scripture are NOTHING : we may now say; that The dispute, between the modern Trinitarian and the modern Antitrinitarian, is really a dispute, not respecting THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE, but respecting THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION

OF SCRIPTURE.

system which he had already predetermined to be the truth independently of Scripture.

Accordingly, the result of Dr. Priestley's biblical inquiries is precisely such as might have been anticipated.

He came to the sacred volume with a full resolution, not to LEARN what it does teach, but to FIND in it what he had pronounced it ought to teach.

The reason of this is obvious.

Though each disputant professes to appeal to SCRIPTURE as his voucher and authority: each, in truth, appeals to HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIP→

TURE.

For, let his reasons be valid or invalid, still, in point of fact, each maintains: that his own interpretation of Scripture, to the exclusion of the interpretation proposed by his opponent, ought assuredly to be adopted.

The naked scriptural dispute being thus finally brought, as, in the judgment of plain common sense, it always must be finally brought, to the question of INTERPRETATION: however each party may be satisfied with their own particular view of Scripture; yet, since each party strenuously denies the propriety of the interpretation respectively advocated by the opposing party, and since without some tangible proof more cogent than mere dogmatical assertion neither party can have a right to demand from the other party an implicit admission of this interpretation or of that interpretation, I see not, how the dispute can ever be controversially settled, save by the adduction of some unexceptionable UMPIRE, to whom both parties may be willing to submit, or at least to whom an impartial bystander will allow that they ought to submit. Now exactly such an UMPIRE has been excellently