wherein they can be allowed to be diftinguished from others. For what profeffors of chriftianity are there, who profefs to worthip a plurality of Gods? Trinitarians profefs alfo to be unitarians: they, as well as their opponents, believe there is but one God. To give focinians this name therefore exclusively, would be granting them the very point which they feem fo defirous to take for granted, that is to fay, the point in debate. Names, it may be faid, fignify little; and this fignifies no more on one fide, than the term orthodox does on the other. The writer owns, when he firit conceived the defign of publishing thefe Letters, he thought fo: and intended all along to use the term unitarians. What made him alter his mind was, his obferving that the principal writers in that fcheme have frequently availed themselves of the above name, and appear to wish to have it thought by their readers that the point in difpute between them and the trinitarians, is, Whether there be three Gods, or only one? If he had thought the ufe of the term unitarians confiftent with juftice to his own argument, he would have preferred it to that of focinians; and would also have been glad of a term to express the fyftem which he has defended, inftead of calling it after the name of Calvin; as he is aware that calling ourselves after the names of men (though it be merely to avoid circumlocution) is liable to be understood as giving them an authority which is inconfiftent with a conformity to our Lord's command, Call no man mafter upon earth; for one is your mafter even Christ. He may add, that the fubftance of the following Letters was written before the riots at Birmingham. His regard to juftice and humanity made him feel much on that occafion for Dr. Priestley, and others who fuffered with him; but his regard to what he esteems important truth made him feel more. The injury which a doctrine receives from those who would fupport it by the unhallowed hands of plunder and perfecution, is far greater, in the efteem of many, than it can receive from the efforts of its avowed adverfaries. For his own part, he has generally fuppofed that both the contrivers and executors of that iniquitous bufinefs, call themfelves what they will, were men of no principle. If, however, thofe of the high-church party, who, instead of difavowing the fpirit and conduct of the mifguided populace, have manifeftly exulted in it, muft be reckoned among the trinitarians; he has only to fay, they are fuch trinitarians as he utterly difapproves, and concerning whom he cannot fo well exprefs his fentiments and feelings as in the words of the patriarch: Inftruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my foul, come not thou into their fecret; unto their affembly mine honour be not thou united: for in their anger they flew a man, and in their felf-will they digged down a wall. Curfed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel! Deteftable, however, as were the riots at Birmingham, no one can plead that they render the religious principles of Dr. Priestley less erroneous, or lefs pernicious; or an oppofition to them, upon the fair ground of argument, lefs neceffary. On the contrary, the mere circumftance of his being a perfecuted man will have its influence on fome people, and incline them not only to feel for the man, the gentleman, and the philofopher, all which is right; but to think favourably of his religious opinions. On this confideration, if the following Letters would, previous to that event, have been in any degree proper and feasonable, they are not by any thing that hath fince occurred, become improper or unfeasonable. Since the first edition, the author has attempted in fome places to ftrengthen his argument, and to remove fuch objections as have hitherto occurred. The principal additions will be found in Letters IV. and XV. The note, towards the latter end of the former, was occafioned by a report, that Dr. Priestley complained of being misreprefented by the quotation in the firft page of the preface. This note contains a vindication, not only of the fairnefs of the quotation from Dr. Priestley, but of another to the fame purpose from Mr. Belfham, and an answer to what is advanced on its behalf in the Monthly Review. |