At that time I had not read any commentary on the scriptures, except that of Mr. Henry when I was young. However, seeing so much reason to be dissatisfied with the apostle Paul as a reasoner, I read _Dr. Taylor’s paraphrase on the epistle to the Romans_; but it gave me no sort of satisfaction; and his general _Key to the epistles_ still less. I therefore at that time wrote some remarks on it, which were a long time after published in the _Theological Repository_ Vol. 4. As I found that Dr. Lardner did not at all relish any of my observations on the imperfections of the sacred writers, I did not put this treatise into his hands; but I shewed it to some of my younger friends, and also to Dr. Kippis; and he advised me to publish it under the character of an unbeliever, in order to draw the more attention to it. This I did not chuse, having always had a great aversion to assume any character that was not my own, even so much as disputing for the sake of discovering truth. I cannot ever say that I was quite reconciled to the idea of writing to a fictitious person, as in my _letters to a philosophical unbeliever_, though nothing can be more innocent, or sometimes more proper; our Saviour’s parables implying a much greater departure from strict truth than those letters do. I therefore wrote the book with great freedom, indeed, but as a christian, and an admirer of the apostle Paul, as I always was in other respects. When I was at Nantwich I sent this treatise to the press; but when nine sheets were printed off, Dr. Kippis dissuaded me from proceeding, or from publishing any thing of the kind, until I should be more known, and my character better established. I therefore desisted; but when I opened the theological Repository, I inserted in that work every thing that was of much consequence in the other, in order to its being submitted to the examination of learned christians. Accordingly these communications were particularly animadverted upon by Mr. Willet of Newcastle, under the signature of W. W. But I cannot say that his remarks gave me much satisfaction. When I was at Needham I likewise drew up a treatise on the doctrine of _divine influence_, having collected a number of texts for that purpose, and arranged them under proper heads, as I had done those relating to the doctrine of atonement. But I published nothing relating to it until I made use of some of the observations in my _sermon_ on that subject, delivered at an ordination, and published many years afterwards. While I was in this retired situation, I had, in consequence of much pains and thought, become persuaded of the falsity of the doctrine of atonement, of the inspiration of the authors of the books of scripture as writers, and of all idea of supernatural influence, except for the purpose of miracles. But I was still an Arian, having never turned my attention to the Socinian doctrine, and contenting myself with seeing the absurdity of the trinitarian system.