indeed been the opinion of some grave and intelligent persons long before you or I was born. The change of conduct amongst your churches is altogether as obvious as the revolution of their sentiments from Orthodox to Rational is remarkable, the cause of which you have ingeniously accounted for in the conduct of their ministers. It is indeed astonishing that, in the days of Orthodoxy when all the Dissenters were as you think absurd and irrational, yea even idolaters, that their churches should have been on a regular gospel plan, and that their more Rational descendants in these days of such enlightened reason should confessedly be destitute of the common requisite of growth, or ' even the continuance of any society whatever.' This being evidently the case with them, your censure, that with all their 'superior knowledge they are destitute of what they call common 'sense,' seems to be extremely pertinent and judicious. That a goodly measure of common sense fell to the lot of my old friends the puritanica Dissenters, notwithstanding their idolatry, in worshipping the Son according to the divine command,§ even as they worshipped te Father, and other absurdities of which they were guilty as you clearly demonstrate, page 50. In your very friendly debate with your Rev. brother Enfield you have in great modesty laid the charge of idolatry against all Athanasians, and expressed your wonder that he should endeavour to vindicate them from your charge, as he is said to have done in his trimming business of a Dissenter,' &c. You know the Puritans. in general were Athanasians, and therefore, according to you, Idolaters. Moreover you are pleased frequently to give as an hint of the absurdity and inconsistency of the Calvinistica doctrines, which being considered as the opposite of Rational doctrines, must by you be understood as irrational; of course the case stands thus, the old Puritans were both irrational and idolatrous, yet after all had common sense enough to form their churches upon a regular gospel plan, as you tell us, and to main tain a strictness of discipline subservient to the best of purposes.' Nor was this the case in one or two communities as a wonder of order amidst their absurdities: but on your own testimony it was so universally, for all the Puritans and Presbyterians formed their churches upon this plan.' It is very strange, Doctor,

Dr. Priestley's Letter to Mr. Enfield. + Page 13.

✰ Page 133.

John v. 23. "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him."

"The English Puritaus, however, so early as Q. Elizabeth's reign, proposed to change the churchwardens and overseers of the poor into elders and deacons, Neale, vol. i. page 232. They held that the elders joined with the ministers should be overseers of the manners and conversation of all the congregation; that they should be chosen out of the gravest and most discreet members, that they should also be of some note in the world, and able if possible to maintain themselves. As far, sayg Dr. Priestley, as their circumstances would permit, all the old Puritans and Presby

that with all your Rationality, this regular form of a church and the discipline to which it is subservient should be now almost 'universally grown into disuse with you.' According to the easy rules of common sense, it must be very difficult to account for it, how men who are inconsistent and irrational should maintain regularity and order, whilst the Rational and intelligent, or as you more emphatically stile them, persons of superior knowledge, have not even the remotest idea of church order; insomuch that as you say, there is hardly the face of any thing that may 'be called discipline among you.'

You cannot think, Sir, how it pleases me to find such a gentleman as yourself, touching so frequently on the marvellous: of which we have yet another instance in page 37, the whole 'system of discipline among the Independents has no countenance in our only rule of faith and duty, and no example for many 'centuries in the Christian church.' That this should be the case, is not so strange, as to have it asserted by Dr. Priestley; who in the last passage I had the honour of quoting from him, highly applauds the same system of church discipline. Had you read, Dr. Owen on Church Discipline for the old Puritans, and Mr. Maurice's Social Religion exemplified, on the part of modern Independents, you must have seen that there is in fact no material difference between them. Therefore how that of the old Puritans was so regular and orderly, and this of the Independents so universally unscriptural, absurd, and dangerous, are matters of no small importance, and will require a genius not inferior to your own to determine. Nevertheless, were I to give my own sentiments upon the subject, I should think that, an almost

'perfect uniformity of faith, and also the religion of the heart with respect to God,' are far from being proper objects of ridicule, and should suppose that this may have at least a remote likeness to what the apostle means by being of one mind,' and surely an almost perfect uniformity of faith is better than to have no faith at all; which if I understand you aright, you suppose may be the case with not only Rational Dissenters, but even with their very officers. In this manner truth might be propagated more silently; and if once the elders or the 'majority of them were convinced, there would be less difficulty ' in bringing over the rest.'†

'Tis very true Sir, that when gentlemen of the Rational order are pleased to take the propagation of truth into their own hands, they have need to use all their cunning, and go as silently about it as possible; though to be sure the scriptural method of propagating the gospel was somewhat more noisy, and its first

terians formed their churches upon this plan; but this regular form of a church,and the discipline to which it was subservient, are now almost universally grown in to disuse among us."

Page 34.

+ Page 112.

preachers lifted np their voices like a trumpet, and shunned not to declare the whole council of God: but I suppose that two schemes so very different as the gospel preached by the apostles, and Rational Religion as defined by Dr. Priestley, must needs require methods of propagation equally different. I have always been of opinion that truth could hold up her countenance in the face of the sun, but you seem to be of a contrary opinion; and as I am not yet satisfied in my own infallibility, I shall not be too strenuous in this point, but shall reserve my anathema till a fitter occasion.

I really wonder whether or not you are serious, Doctor, in advising your people to choose elders whether they are convinced of the truth, or enemies to it? I have been so accustomed to consider Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus, as containing good and authentic rules, for forming a just idea of the qualities of church officers, that with me an elder who is not as yet convinced of the truth, appears to be an odd kind of an animal; but no matter for that, seeing I have not the honour of being counted a Rationalist. Yet in our way of judging of things by common sense without any pretence to superior knowledge, we should think a man who is yet unconvinced of the truth, however rich, far from being the fittest man in the world for watching over the conversation of a religious society. Moreover, we should be apt to conclude that a consistory formed of one Rational minister, and twelve unbelieving elders, is such a convention, as the wisdom of all the apostles could not have devised.

There is yet another thing in which the first preachers of the gospel and you are by no means agreed as to the choice of church officers; and what is very observable, Sir, is, that what you take to be a necessary quality for office power was never once thought on by them, any more than you have thought of what they accounted necessary. In page 86, you direct that one of the 'wealthiest be chosen for an elder.' But they never once thought of riches or poverty in the case of choosing deacons, but simply directed to choose men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost' as very sufficient through divine assistance for sustaining offices in a gospel church. After all it must needs be confessed that churches which are established upon a different foundation, will require officers possessed of different qualifications: how far this may be the case with the Rational Dissenters, I hope you do not expect me to determine. One thing I must take the liberty of cautioning you against, Doctor, and that is to beware of flattering yourself that you are the first who found out that riches are a necessary qualification for a church officer; for I can assure you that the Orthodox Dissenters themselves, absurd as you think them, have been in possession of this secret for time immemorial, and in the whole extent of this great metropolis you will not find one poor man a deacon in any church whatever,

providing always that there be any rich men belonging to the community. Ay, Sir, so universal is this rule, that you cannot give a tradesman a better character as being a good man in worldly circumstances, than to say he is a deacon of such a church; therefore it will be ungenerous for you in future to pretend that Rational Religion dwells wholly with your people, seeing have proved to a demonstration that in the article of choosing their officers, the Orthodox are as Rational as your selves. Further, if my informer deceives me not, the Sandemanian church in St. Martin's-le-Grand, that mirror of gospel simplicity, is pretty observant of the same rule, and her elders are thought to stand upon a par with the deacons of other churches, in respect to the good things of this life. Indeed it is pretty obvious, that those same elders, who receive nothing for preaching, are full as comfortable as the Dissenting ministers who live entirely by the gospel. I cannot but admire their prudence in choosing to be put into trade, whereby they may procure hundreds instead of the few scores of pounds usually raised by snbscription. This wise choice hath two very great advantages attending it; first, it gives them an authority equal to that of rich lay elders, because of their equal independency; and secondly, it gives them authority to treat those ministers with contempt, whose subsistence entirely depends on the subscriptions of their people. Indeed, Sir, to be put into an handsome way of trade by the generosity of a church, is at least equivalent to a very good annual stipend; besides the many other advantages connected with it. How then can you pretend that reason dwells only with you, seeing the very Sandemanians themselves outstrip you in making comfortable provisions for their preachers, even when they give themselves out to be the most disinterested race of human beings? I give it as my opinion, that whenever the Orthodox shall take it into their heads to make provision for their teachers after the example of that only church in St. Martinsle-Grand, they will find but little opposition from their ministers, who would be every whit as well contented with two hundred pounds per annum, in a way of trade, as with one hundred in a way of subscription; and I dare answer for it, that the good women their wives will unanimously vote for the Sandemanian plan, whenever the affair is agitated.

As you observe, Sir, with respect to yourself, so I may say that, I am far from censuring those persons who are merely 'misled,' yet I think they are very worthy of censure who, pretending to superior knowledge themselves, neglect the true, the only spring of spiritual intelligence more and more every day, as you tell us, is the case with the Rational Dissenters of your acquaintance; with whom, it is notorious that the scriptures are every day more neglected, so that it is justly to be feared that in a few generations. our posterity will have but a

very imperfect idea of the contents of those sacred books, which with me is by no means an incontestible proof, either of their superior knowledge or piety, and may be thought by some to be but a very flimsy ground for their boasted Rationality. I am entirely of your opinion that the scriptures are grown almost into a total disuse with the Rational Dissenters; ministers as well as people; for such of them whom I have heard preach, most evidently drew more of their matter from Plato, Socrates, and Seneca, than from the disciples of our Lord in their writings of inspiration. That posterity is likely to have but a very imperfect idea of the contents of those sacred books must certainly be admitted, seeing so many teachers have already attained to that degree of Rationality. When the apostles of your persuasion first began to exclaim against creeds, confessions, and systems in general, it was done under a pretence of adhering more closely to the inspired writings. Creeds, articles, and confes sions of faith, bodies of divinity, and catechisms, are all gone, Dr. Priestley; and must the bible itself likewise be superannuated? What rule do you think those gentlemen will next embrace? Dr. Harwood has done all that could be expected from such a circumscribed genius to throw the New Testament into a more polite and gentleman-like form, but alas! there is this small disadvantage attending his (what shall I call it?) version, that ven Rational gentlemen, possessed of the smallest degree of either piety or common sense, can hardly give him thanks for his labours. But that the bible which we make use of should grow daily into more general disuse is what might reasonably be ex pected, seeing it is so very full of Orthodoxy, and testifies very solemnly against the leading sentiments of the Rational Dissenters. When the old fashioned bible is grown into absolute disuse with your people, and they are unanimously agreed to have a new one, better adapted to their views of things, if they should do me the honour to petition my advice on the occasion, I shall refer them to the Rev. Dr. Harwood who may as well undertake to make a new bible as to mend the old one. If they can but procure a bible of Dr. Harwood's composing, with annotations by George Williams, gentleman's servant, his intimate friend, they will be on a fair way of being as Rational as the most rational of Indians.

Now, Dr. Priestley, to give you another proof of my freedom with you, which is always a token of friendship, give me leave to tell you that the Orthodoxy which I approve, is all summed up, and lies very obvious in this little old bible of mine; nor do I hope ever to be able to hold a man to be rational or irrational, but as he adheres to or departs from, the lovely beauty of its divine contents. I think I shall envy no man his Orthodoxy on the one hand, nor his Rationality on the other, if I may but see

* Page 69.