LETTER XV.

ON THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN

SOCINIANISM

AND INFIDELITY, AND THE TENDENCY OF

THE ONE TO THE OTHER.

Christian Brethren,

I Suppose we may take it for granted,

at prefent, That chriftianity is favourable to true virtue, and that infidelity is the reverfe. If it can be proved, therefore, that focinianifm refembles infidelity in feveral of its leading features, and has a direct tendency towards it, that will be the fame as proving it unfavourable to true virtue.

It has been obferved, and I think justly, that there is no confiftent medium between genuine chriftianity, and infidelity." The finalleft departure from the one, is a step towards the other. There are different degrees of approach, but all move on in the fame direction. Socinians, however, are not willing to own that their fcheme has any fuch tendency. Dr. Priestley appears to be more than a little hurt, at being reprefented by the bigots (as he politely calls thofe who think ill of his principles) as undermining chriftianity; and intimates, that by their rigid attachment to certain doctrines, fome are forced into infidelity, while others are faved from it by his conci

liating principles.* Many things to the fame purpofe are advanced by Mr. Lindfey, in his Difcourfe addreffed to the congregation, at the chapel in Effex Street, Strand; on refigning the paftoral office among them. We are to accommodate our religion, it feems, to the notions. and inclinations of infidels, and then they would condefcend to receive it. This principle of accommodation has been already noticed. in Letter III. And it has been fhown, from the example of the popith miffionaries in China, to have no good tendency. To remove every ftumbling-block out of the way of infidels, would be to annihilate the gofpel. Such attempts alfo fuppofe what is not true; That their not believing in chriftianity is owing to fome fault in the fyftem as generally received, and not to the

Here the late Mr. Robinson of Cambridge is brought in as an example; who, as some think, in an excess of complaisance, told the Doctor in a private Letter, that," But for

66

his friendly aid, he feared he should have gone from en"thusiasm to deism." Letters to Mr. Burn, Preface. To say nothing whether the use Dr. Priestley made of this private letter was warrantable, and whether it would not have beep full as modest to have forborne to publish to the world so high a compliment on himself; 'supposing not only the thing itself to have been strictly true, but that the conduct of Dr. Priestley was as strictly proper, what does it prove? Nothing, except that the region of socinianism is so near to that of deism, that now and then an individual, who was on the high road to the one, has stopped short, and taken up with the other.

temper of their own minds. Faults there are, no doubt: but if their hearts were right, they would fearch the fcriptures for themselves, and form their own fentiments according to the beft of their capacity.

The near relation of the fyftem of focinians to that of infidels, may be proved from the agreement of their principles, their prejudices, their fpirit, and their fuccefs.

Firft: There is an agreement in their leading principles. One of the most important principles in the fcheme of infidelity, it is well known, is, THE SUFFICIENCY OF HUMAN REASON. This is the great bulwark of the cause, and the main ground on which its advocates proceed in rejecting revelation. If the one, fay they, be fufficient, the other is unneceffary. Whether the focinians do not adopt the fame principle, and follow hard after the deifts in its application too, we will now enquire.-When Mr. Burn charged Dr. Priestley with making "the reafon of the individual the fole umpire in matters of faith;" the Doctor denied the charge, and fuppofed that Mr. Burn must have been "reading the writings of Bolingbroke, Hume, or Voltaire, and have imagined them to be his: as if none but profeffed infidels maintained that principle. This, however, is allow. ing it to be a principle pertaining to infidelity;

and of fuch importance, it should feem, as to diftinguish it from christianity. If it should prove, therefore, that the fame principle occupies a place, yea, and an equally important place in the focinian fcheme, it will follow that focinianifm and deifm must be nearly allied. But Dr. Priestley, as was faid, denies the charge; and tells us that he has writ"ten a great deal to prove the infufficiency of human reafon:" he alfo accufes Mr. Burn

of the groffeft and most unfounded calumny," in charging fuch a principle upon him.*

If what Mr. Burn alleges, be "a grofs and unfounded calumny," it is rather extraordinary that fuch a number of refpectable writers fhould have fuggefted the fame thing. I fuppofe there has been scarcely a writer of any note among us, but who, if this be calumny, has caluminated the focinians. If there be any credit due to trinitarian authors, they certainly have hitherto underflood matters in a different light from that in which they are here reprefented. They have fuppofed, whether rightly or not, that their opponents in general do hold the very principle which Dr. Priestley fo ftrongly difavows.

D d

Letter IV. to Mr. Burn.

But this is not all. If what Mr. Burn alleges be a grofs and unfounded calumny, it is ftill more extraordinary, that focinian writers fhould calumniate themselves. Mr. Robinfon, whom Dr. Priestley glories in as his convert, affirms much the fame thing, and that in his Hiftory of Baptism; a work published after he had adopted the focinian fyftem. In anfwering an objection brought against the baptifts as being enthufiafts, he asks; "Were Caf"telio, and Servetus, Socinus, and Crellius en"thufiafts? On the contrary, they are taxed "with attributing too much to reafon, AND THE

SUFFICENCY OF REASON IS THE SOUL OF THEIR SYSTEM. If the laft member of this sentence be true, and if Dr. Priestley have maintained the fame principle as much as any of his predeceffors; then is what Mr. Burn alleges true alfo, and no calumny.-Further: If Mr. Robinson's words be true, the fyftem of a Socinus, and of a Bolingbroke, however they may differ in fome particulars, cannot be very wide afunder. They may be two bodies; but the difference cannot be very material, fo long as thofe bodies are inhabited by ONE SOUL.

But was not Mr. Robinfon miftaken? Has he not inadvertently granted that which ought not in juftice to have been granted? Suppofe

* Page 47.