ridiculous, it does not follow that there were not many things both ridiculous and improbable in those books which they received, nor is their sanction binding upon us to believe all that they believed. We are fully competent to determine what is reasonable; and, considering the state of the Christian world in the fourth century, we are more competent than they were to determine between truth and falsehood. We enjoy a much freer exercise of our reason; and therefore ifit appears to us that the New Testament contains many things which cannot be proved to the satisfaction of our minds, it will avail but little to say that the compilers of the canon received many writings as divine which contain ed their own condemnation, for so do our clergy at this day, if they believe in the New Testament. But, says Christophilus, they could not reject them, for they had been believ ed so long before. That the credulity of the first Christians, in an age and among a people of barbarous ignorance, had received as true the recital of events the most contrary to reason and the senses, and these facts had been believed for three hundred years, is no proof of their truth to us, who are better qualified to judge of it. The miracles of the Roman Catholic church were as firmly believed as those of Christ and his apostles; and the belief of the one completely invalidates in my opinion the authority of the other, because we see how easy it is for ignorant people to believe in what is marvellous. Are there not books now in existence-are there not authors now living-who believe in the miracles of popery ? How then can we wonder that the miracles of Christ were believed in the early ages of Christianity? And if they were so believed, how could the compilers of the canon refuse to receive them into their sacred list, particularly when those which they rejected contained nothing else worthy of being received? for it must be allowed that the New Testament contains much excellent morality, and that the character of Jesus is marked with many strong traits of a sublime enthusiasm. On the whole, therefore, the selection of those writings which compose the New Testament, in preference to those which were rejected, is by no means an evidence of their divine original; it is only a proof that they were believed to be divine by a credulous and ignorant people-a people unused to the exercise of their reason, and accustomed to a belief in miracles and prodigies! Christianity is not true because it was believed to be true when it first came into the world-it must be proved to be true by evidence suited to the present enlightened state of men. I remain, &c..

Welbeck Street, Dec. 1811.

W. BURDON.

LETTER TO MR. COBBETT, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE

SIR,

TRINITY.

BUT for your observations on this doctrine, in the Political Register of last week, the public would wonder by what singular concatenation of events and circumstances your name could be associated with the subject of this letter! But for your interference in a matter so completely beyond your reach, and out of your latitude, it would have been as much in character for me to have addressed Mr. COATES, or Mr. KETCH, or Mr. MOLINEUX, or Mr. anybody else, as Mr. COBBETT, on the Doctrine of the Trinity.

You, Sir, are a writer deservedly popular, though I doubt whether your mean and artful attack on Christianity will increase either your popularity, or (what is of more importance to you) your income from the sale of your paper. But as among the many who in common with myself admire your political writings and speculations, there may possibly be some individuals too ready to adopt your reasonings, and embrace your conclusions, however destitute of argument, or deficient in evidence, I feel myself justified in attempting to expose your poor and pitiful attempt to throw odium on Revealed Religion. But not to deal in words, and to show that there are Christians who are not afraid of" free discussion," I shall first insert the whole of your paper on the Trinity, before I proceed to remark upon it.

66 POLITICAL REGISTER, MAY 15, 1813.

"The TRINITY.-This seems an odd sort of topic for a Political Register; but, it belongs to politics as much as war does, it having become the subject of Acts of Parliament, and being now, if the news-papers tell us truth, about to become the subject of a new Act. -This Act will, if passed, make a much greater change in the re-. ligion of this country than has ever yet been made. It strikes at the root of Christianity itself. Now, mind, I say this as my deliberate opinion; and the reasons, on which I found this opinion, I will state fully, when I have inserted the report of the proceedings in the Houseof Commons.

"Mr. WM. SMITH said, he believed no opposition would be. made to the motion he was about to submit to the House, and he therefore would not take up two minutes of their attention. The Act of King William, known by the name of the Toleration Act, denied to persons who disbelieved in the Trinity the benefit of toleration. An Act of the 19th of his present Majesty required only the general belief in the doctrines of Christianity and the Scrip tures; but it so happened, that though by the Act of the 19th it was not necessary to subscribe the Articles of the Church of England, professing the belief in the Trinity, the Acts of the 9th and 10th of

King William were not repealed. By these Acts, persons who in writing or conversation deny the existence of any of the persons of the Trinity, are disabled in law from holding any office civil, ecclesiastical, or military, on conviction; and if a second time convicted, they are disabled to sue or prosecute in any action or information, or to be the guardian of any child, and liable to be imprisoned for three years. The only object of his Bill was to do away these penalties. He said the liberal act which was past last year was highly creditable to the liberality of the ministers of this country, and the times in which we lived. The only question now for consideration was, whether those persons dissenting from the Church of England should be still liable to the penalties of the Acts of King William. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill for granting farther relief to the different persuasions of Christians in this country, who disbelieved the Doctrine of the Trinity.-THE SPEAK ER observed, that the regular course was to move first, that the motion should be submitted to a Committee of the whole House; which was accordingly done.-LORD CASTLEREAGH said, he certainly did not see any reason to object to the principle of the bill. When the Bill was before the House, he would then be enabled to see if there was any thing in the mode of granting the relief liable to objection.-The House went into a Committee, when leave was moved for and obtained to bring in the Bill in question.'"

66

Now, as the reader will understand, if this Act pass, any person may, with impunity, openly talk, pratc, or preach, that the Doctrine of the Trinity is a false Doctrine.-What then is this doctrine? Our Church tells us, unless we believe in it we must be damned; the belief of it is, as our Church says, absolutely necessary to salvation; and to allow people openly to say that it is a false doctrine, what is this but to allow people to do their utmost to procure and ensure our damnation; and pray, what did Mr. Paine, or Mr. Eaton, or any body else, ever do, or attempt to do, more than this?-But, I am before my story. What is the Doctrine of the Trinity? Why it is this. That GOD, the Maker of the universe, the Creator and Sustainer of all things, did, through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost, assuming the shape of a Dove, beget upon the body of a woman, his son Christ. That Christ, so begotten, was GOD; and that the Holy Ghost was GOD; and yet that there were not, and are not, three Gods, but only one God.-There are persons who deny this. They say they do not believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are one God; they deny that the two latter are gods, and acknowledge only as God, God the Father.-Who is right and who wrong, I have not the presumption to say; but this I say, that both are not right; that one of the two is wrong; and, I further say, that he who denies the divinity of Christ is no Christian; whence it follows, that, in my. clear opinion, the proposed Act, if passed, would be a sanction to the open preaching against Christianity.-The divinity of Christ is the basis of Christianity. If he was not God; if he may be considered in any other light; if he may be considered as something less; where is the

boundary Once let the people be told that he was a man, and what becomes of the whole system? Take away the law, as it now stands, and see to what lengths men will go. Every one will give his opinion freely upon this point; the incarnation; the enunciation; the whole thing will become a subject of free discussion, and then it will puzzle any one to devise the means of criminating any man, who shall write upon the Christian system. Remove this great prop, and, in my opinion, down comes the fabric.-The morality of the Gospel is nothing in support of Christianity, which stands upon faith; and, if you take away the divinity of Christ, where is ground for your faith? The morality taught by Christ was taught long before his birth. There was, as our Clergy show us every day, nothing new in the morality. It was the super-natural things that took place in Palestine that were new; it was the miracles, the resurrection, &c. and, if you take away the divinity of Christ, what becomes of all these? To suppose, that God had a son, after the manner of men, is something so monstrous, so low, so degrading, so absurd, so ridiculous, that it cannot live for a moment, except in a mind brutified by ignorance. And yet, this you must believe, if you believe that God and his Son are two distinct persons, and in nowise united in essence. What, then, is your belief, Mr. SMITH, or, rather, the belief of those in whose behalf the Bill is to pass into a law? That Christ was not the Son of God? Is this their belief? If it be, with what decency do they profess to believe the Scriptures? With what decency do they call any one, and by way of reproach too, a Deist ?-You say, that the Act of the 19th of the present King, requires ONLY "the general belief in the Doctrines of Christianity and the Scriptures?" ONLY! Why, Sir, this Doctrine is the all-in-all. Without it there is no more in being a Christian than there is in being a Pittite or a Foxite, and, I should be very glad to see any one attempt to prove the contrary.No, if this part is taken away, the whole fabric totters. An Act of Parliament will, in such case, allow people openly to say, that the great Creed of our Church is a falsehood. Our Church lays down one point of faith as indispensable in order to obtain salvation; and the proposed Act will permit any one to say, at the Church door, that no man need believe any such thing, for that the assertion is false, and that one of the most venerable of the Fathers of the Church was a retailer of falsehoods.-What, then, you will say, perhaps, are people to believe what they cannot believe? "Cannot believe," pray what does that mean? The people, in whose behalf you bring forward the Bill, are, it seems, quite willing to be bound to a belief of the Scriptures; they believe, they are content to be bound to believe, that God came down, in the cool of the day, and walked in the Garden of Eden; that he came down and talked to Moses in a Cloud; that the Red Sea opened and formed a sort of walls while the Israelites passed over; that the Sun and Moon stood still at the command of Joshua; that the walls of Jericho fell down at the sound of a trumpet; that five loaves and a few small fishes filled thousands of hungry people : all this, it seems, they are willing to believe as well as we Church people; and why, I should be glad to know, are they to be permitted

openly to preach against the belief of Christ being God? Why do they not come at once, and ask for leave to deny the whole as well as apirt? They cannot comprehend how Christ can be God, by whom he was begotten. Oh, oh! And can they comprehend how the Devil came to take Christ up to the top of a high mountain, and to offer him all the kingdoms of the world? Can they comprehend how all the animals got into one single ark? Can they comprehend why Deborah and Barak sang the praises of Jael, who drove the nail through the head of Sisera, while he was asleep? No; they pretend not to comprehend these. They do however believe them as we Church people do; they do like us regard them as mystical; and why, I again ask, cannot they accompany us through the whole of our faith? -Besides, what do they mean by being forced to believe this or that ? they are forced to believe nothing; they are only forbidden to tell any body that they do not believe so and so. That is all. If they will but hold their tongues and their pens, they may believe or disbeleve just what they please. "Tender Consciences, indeed! and how are their consciences hurt, how are they violated, by a law which forbids the telling of folks that the Doctrine of the Trinity, a Doctrine some hundreds of years old, and taught by all our Bishops and Clergy, is false? They are not, as under some tyrannical governments, compelled to make open declarations that they do believe according to the Church; they are only forbidden to say that they do not behieve according to the Church; they may keep silence; that is their remedy; and I know not why they should be suffered to express their opinions about Christ, any more than I may not be suffered to express mine about the Regent, or his Judges, or his Ministers.-Let them hold their tongues and their pens, and their faith is absolutely without shackle !When Mr. Eaton was tried, the Attorney-general, Gibbs, called for punishment upon the old man, because his book was calculated to endanger the souls of the people, by causing them to disbelieve the Doctrines of Christianity. Now, of the Doctrines of Christianity, the principal one is that Christ is God; that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; and that these are not three but one. This our Church says we must believe, or we cannot be saved. What then, having Mr. Eaton's prosecution and punishment in our eyes, are we to think of a proposition for passing a law to permit people openly to preach that this Doctrine is false; that this faith, upon which the Church tells us our salvation absolutely depends, has no truth in it; and that we ought to believe no such thing?These are my reasons against the proposed Act. But besides these there are others. If the Unitarians are to have an Act passed to authorize them to preach against the Trinity, why should not the Deists have an Aet passed to authorise them to preach againt Revelation altogether. If one sect is to be indulged in denying what they do not believe, why not another sect in denying what they do not believe? If I am told that it is right to ease the Tender Conscience of the Unitarian, I ask why the Tender Conscience of the Deist is not to be considered? I have no objection to an Act of Parliament