A 556573
12 s6d
1
FIXOURRISPENINSULAMAMCNAM.
Ett
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
la 184-713
Sisem. Vad
IB 17
11111111
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VERITAS
LBRARY
OF THE
110cm
TUE BOR
CIRCUMSPICE.
5111811811 SETTIRISTINITIGIISIKINI!
1118111MULKISHTIRILIINIT
tonttuimitoto
ВХ
9842
P95
}
NON
CIRCULATING
Ρ Α Μ Ρ Η Σ Ε Τ 8,
V I z.
محارم بهمن 96
Dr. Prieſtley's Letters to Dr. Geddes and Dr. Price
Dr. Prieſtley's Letters to Dr. Horſley, Mr. Barnard,
Dr. Knowles, and Mr. Hawkins, 3 Parts
S
<
)
)
>
.
>
1
PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCXCI.
Defences of Unitarianiſm for the Year 1787
CONTAINING
L E T T E R S
TO
THE REV. DR. GEDDES,
то
THE REN. DR. P R I C E, PART II.
AND TO
The CANDIDATES for ORDERS in the Two UNIVERSITIES,
PART
II.
Relating to Mr. Howes's Appendix to his fourth Volume of
Obſervations on Books; a Letter by an UNDER-GRADUATE
of Oxford, Dr. CROFT's Bampton Lectures, and ſeveral other
PUBLICATIONS.
By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F. R.S.
.
1
AC. IMP. PETROP. R, PARIS. HOLM, TAURIN. AUREL. MID.
PARIS. HARLEM. CANTAB, AMERIC. ET PHILAD: SOCIUS.
Meliora ſuperſunt
Sæcula. Non omnes veniet Lethæus in annos
Ifte fopor. Poterunt, diſcuſſis forte tenebris,
Ad purum priſcumque jubar romeare nepotes.
PETRARCH AFRICA,
BIRMINGHAM
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY PEARSON AND ROLLASON,
AND SOLD BY J. JOUNSON, NO. 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-PARD, LONDON.
MDCCLXXXVIII.
(PRICI TWO SHILLINGS AND SIX-PANCI]
15423
CBRIDE FOUNDAT
305-
PASSMORE
EDWARDS
LIBRARY
DIAOM
:
>
6
1
1
i
i
1
1
1.
}
!
English
krafton
3-11-30
31806
THE
"panis alv.
P
P. R E F A C
E.
A
S I wiſh not to trouble the public
unneceſſarily with the defence of
what I have written on the ſubject of the
divine unity, and it is become phyſically
impoſſible for me to make particular replies
to each of my opponents, I propoſe for the
future to write one pamphlet annually, in
which I ſhall take notice of every thing
that I ſhall think deſerving of it, in ſuch
publications in favour of the doctrine o
the Trinity (from the ſtate of things in early
times) as the preceding year ſhall produce.
If
any thing ſhould require more ſpeedy ani-
madverſion, I may perhaps be permitted to
make uſe of the Gentleman's Magazine, as
I did with reſpect to Mr. Howes.
I have been in expectation of the preſent
year (which is now almoſt expired) produc-
ing
A 2
iy
PRE FACE.
i
ing treatiſes of more conſequence than it has,
done. However, I am willing to give all
my opponents whatever time they may think
neceſſary to the due perfection of their
works. Some time muſt alſo be allowed to
their waiting for, and complimenting, one
another; as each of them ſeems deſirous of
ſhifting the burden to ſhoulders more able
to bear it than his own. Thus Mr. Madan
“ leaves me for due correction to the ſupe-
“rior abilities, and erudition of Dr. Horf-
ley, Mr. Howes, and the amiable and
“ reverend dean of Canterbury.”—If I do
" not ſmart under the maſterly ſcourge
" of Dr. Horſley,” he ſays,
66 it is a bad
ſign for me.” All, however, that I can
do is to invite this tremendous ſcourge,
and the production of it is not more fin-
cerely deſired by Mr. Madan than it is by
myſelf.
Let Dr. Horſley then (now that his pe-
riod of eighteen months is expired) appear
again in ſupport of his attack on the vera-
city of Origen, or of his church of orthodox
Jewiſh
PRE FACE.
Y
i
1
Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, after the
time of Adrian. As he has been pretty
well comforted for his defeat, he cannot
doubt of his being amply rewarded for a
complete victory. Let Mr. Howes alſo pro-
ceed with his argument to prove the late
origin of Unitarians. The public are will-
ing enough to give them a favourable hear-
ing, and certainly expect to hear from them.
They are alſo looking for the great work of
Dr. Horne, and ſomething unknown, but
ſomething conſiderable, from Mr. White, as
well as from others, whoſe names, having
only been mentioned in diſcourſe, I have no
right to call upon here.
Every year (with fatisfaction I ſee it)
brings this important controverſy nearer to
its proper termination; and the attention
that is actually given to it, at home and
abroad, and which increaſes continually,
Mhews that the contempt with which fome
profeſs to treat it, as if it could have no
ſerious conſequences, is only affected; and
that if it was in their power to come forth
with any advantage themſelves, they would
A 3
not
:
yi
PRE FACE.
not fail to do it. I am happy to find that
the forward zeal of many prevails over the
ſuperior diſcretion of others, and will not
ſuffer the buſineſs to ſleep. And the pub-
lications on one ſide will be the means of
procuring a hearing for thoſe on the other,
my labour.
As my antagoniſts in general are very li-
beral of their compliments to each other,
and (in order to encourage others to under-
take what they think proper to decline)
promiſe them an eaſy victory, ſo ſome of
them combat one another, which will ſhorten
labour. Thus Dr. Croft makes little
account of Mr. Parkhurſt's and Mr. Madan's
argument from the plural form of the word
elohim, and Mr. Howes leaves the character
of Origen unimpeached, and Dr. Horſley's
Orthodox Jewiſh Church without defence.
Some of them contend for the abſolute equa-
lity of the Son to the Father, and others
plead only for any thing that can, by any
conſtruction, be called divinity. I need not
mention the oppoſition between the Arians
and Trinitarians, as they do not profeſs to
defend the ſame ground,
$
.
I am
P R E F A C E.
vii
I am fingularly happy in having an op-
portunity of addreſſing a few more letters to
Dr. Price, in conſequence of the Appendix
to the ſecond edition of his Sermons, and I
more particularly congratulate our readers
on the acquiſition of ſuch a controverſial
writer as Dr. Geddes. I feel a ſatisfaction
that I cannot expreſs - in diſcuſſing this
important queſtion with ſuch men as theſe.
It would even give me pleaſure to have an
opportunity of acknowledging any miſtake
they ſhould point out to me. Why is it
that, excepting only the dean of Canter-
bury, the members of the church of Eng-
land cannot write with the ſame liberality,
ſuch as becomes gentlemen, ſcholars, and
chriſians ? When the hiſtory of this contro-
verſy ſhall be written by an impartial hand
(and ſuch a one I doubt not will in due time
be found) the champions of the eſtabliſhed
church will not appear to the moſt advant-
age, either with reſpect to the condition of
their
arms, or their temper, and ſkill in the
uſe of them.
How
1
viji
PRE FACE.
1
How long this controverſy will laſt, or in
what form I ſhall continue my part in it,
is impoſſible for me to ſay. My preſent in-
tention is to proceed with writing Letters
to the Candidates for Orders in the two Uni-
verſities, and, at a proper time, to cloſe the
whole with a ſerious addreis to the bench
of biſhops, and the legiſlature; after which
I thall have done all that I apprehend to be
in
my power to promote an important and
deſirable reformation,
E RR A T A.
N. B. (b) ſignifies from the bottom of the page.
Page 1. 1. 5. for Father, read Fathers.
37.1. 11. (b) for prepoſition, read propofition.
72. 1. 5. (b) for pretended, read the pretended,
79. 1. 8. for bave, read to have.
107. 1. 4. for of it, read of the Trinity:
139. 1. 8. for Mr. Burgh, read Dr. Burgh.
THI
C Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ S.
1
LETTERS to DR. GEDDE S.
Letter I. Of the Do&trine of the Scriptures, and
that of the Apoftolical Fathers
page I
Letter II. Of the Nicene Council
7
Letter III. Of the State of Unitarianiſme in the
primitive Times
Letter IV. Of the Degree of Chriſ's Divinity,
and the Concluſion
25
14
LETTERS to DR. PRICE.
36
Letter I. Of the Influence of the Do&trine of Philo-
Sophical Neceffity on that concerning the Perſon of
Chriſt
33
Letter II. Of the Propriety of praying to Chriſt
on Arian Principles
Letter III. Of the Silence of the three firſt Evan-
gelifts concerning the Doctrine of the Incarnation,
and of the Doctrine of the primitive Ages of Chrif-
tianity
41
Letter IV. Of Arguments from particular Texts,
and thoſe drawn from the Reason of Things; and
of
2
CONT EN T S.
of the Connexion between any Opinion concerning
the Perſon of Chriſt and the Belief of Chriſtianity
in general
49
Letter V. Of the Meaning of John vi. 32, and of
Chriſt diveſting himſelf of the Power of working
Miracles
54
Letter Vl. Of the Influence of Prejudice and Ima-
gination in interpreting Scripture
бо
Letter VII. Of the Moſaic Hiſtory of the Fall of
Man, and the Concluſion
Pall of
Letters to the Candidates for Orders in the
two Univerſities.
|
87
Letter I. Of Mr. Howes's uncandid Inſinuations 71
Letter II. Of the Doctrine of the Ebionites 79
Letter III. Of the true Meaning of a Palege in Ter-
tullian, and another in Epiphanius, quoted by Mr.
Howes
Letter IV. Of Mr. Howes's Charge of a wilful Ana-
chroniſm in the Age of Plotinus
97
Letter V. Several groſs Miſtakes of Mr. Howes,
with reſpect to the Tenets of ancient Seats 103
Letter VI. Of ſeveral Publications of leſs Note, and
Among them Mr. Madan's
Letter VII. Of a Letter addreſſed to me by an
Under-graduate
117
Letter VIII. Of Dr. Croft's Bampton Leatures
133
Addition to the Letters relating to Mr. Howes 142
LETTERS
4
109
1
1
1
Ļ E T T E R S
TO THB
REVEREND DR. GEDDE S.
!
.
4
5
1
1
1
1
i
TÖ THE
REVEREND DR.
G E D D E S.
L E T T T E R
I.
Of the Doctrine of the Scriptures, and that of the
apoftolical Fatber.
เด
REVEREND SIR,
I
Have feldom received more ſatisfaction than I
have done from the peruſal of the Letler you
have been ſo obliging as to addreſs to me, in or-
der " to prove,” as you ſay, “by one preſcriptive
argurnent, that the divinity of Jeſus Chriſt was
"the primitive fenet of chriftianity." You write
with a candour becoming a chriſtian, and a Ca-
tholic, not in name only, but in real ty; while
others, whoſe general ſyſtem of chriſtianity is more
nearly the ſame wiih my own, have engaged in
the ſame controverſy with a ſpirit highly unibe-
coming the character they profeffed.
1
Cc
Different as your opinions are from mine, you
ſay, p. 5. " I grant that you are a chriſtian as well
" as I, and embrace you as my fellow diſciple in
Jeſus. And if you were not a diſciple of Jeſus,
is ſtill I would embrace'. you as my feilcw man.”
In return, I can do no leſs than embrace
you
ini
both characters. I do it from my heart; and I
B
hope
2
LETTERS TO THE
hope that nothing in my addreſs to you will give
the lie to my profeſſion. We are fellow Chrif-
tians, fellow men, and joint enquirers after truth;
willing, I doubt not, to affift each other in our
enquiries, as juſtly efteeming truth to be the
moſt valuable of all acquiſitions, by whomſoever
it be found.
1
In one circumſtance relating to this controverſy
I, however, differ from you. You expect, p. 350
the ableft defenders of the doctrine of the divi-
nity of Chriſt in the church of England. On the
contrary, I expect them in your church of Rome,
in which it originated. It is a doctrine which the
church of England only received from you, and
without any alteration whatever. It is therefore
Atill your proper tenet, and what you ſhould confider
yourſelves as peculiarly bound to defend. The
members of the church of England, will naturally
look up to you for the defence of that tenet,
which, without any particular examination, they
received from you; and they may perhaps abandon
it, if its proper parent ſhould be unable to main-
tain it. . For their fakes, therefore, as well as your
own, it behoves the members of your church to
exert themſelves on this occaſion.
Beſides the ſuperior liberality of your ſenti-
ments in general, there is a frankneſs and candour
in your conceſſions, that I have not found in any of
my numerous opponents. You acknowledge that
you do not find the doctrine of the divinity of
4
Chriſt
Rev. Dr. GED. DE S.
3
Chriſt in the Old Teſtament; you are not very
confident that you find it even in the New; and
you make no difficulty at all of giving up the ar-
gument, ſo much inſiſted on by Dr. Horſley,
from the writings of the apoſtolical fathers. “ The
“ figures," you ſay, p. 67, “ the alluſions, and
" the prophecies of the Old Teſtament, by them-
felves, preſent to the unprejudiced reader no ex-
plicit idea of the abſolute divinity of the pro-
« miſed Meffiah-and I muſt confeſs, if we had
“no other clue to guide us, I ſhould be inclined
" to conclude the Meffiah to be a mere man,
" though endowed with privileges above the reſt
" of mankind. On New Teſtament ground I
" think I could make a firmer ſtand, and fight
it with you at leaſt on equal terms. Among many
« ambiguous texts that may be urged againſt your
ſyſtem, there are certainly three or four, the
" force of which cannot eaſily be eluded. Wit-
is neſs the hard ſtrainings that have been made by
- yourſelf, and your party, to give them a plau-
« fible Socinian interpretation; whilſt they ſeem,
" at the very firſt ſiglit, expreſsly calculated to
“s juſtify the doctrine of your adverſaries.”
I wiſh that, in the proſecution of this argument,
you would mention the three or four texts, on
which you lay ſo much ſtreſs. In the mean time,
I would aſk, whether there be not many more
than three or four, or even than three or four-
ſcore texts, which teach the great doctrine of the
ſole divinity of the Father, ' much more unequi-
vocally
B 2
+
L ETTERS TO THE
vocally than any of your three or four unnamed
texts, do that of the divinity of the Son? I ſhall
on this occaſion; call to your recollection only, a
few of them. Matt. xix. 7: Why calleſt thou me
good. There is none good, but one, that is God. Mark
xii. 32. There is one God, and there is none other but
be. John xvii. 3. That they might know thee, the only
true God. Rom. xvi. 27. To Godonly wife-through
Jeſus Chriſt. Cor. viii. 6. To us there is but one
God; the Father, of whom are all things, and we in
bim; and one Lord Jeſus Chriſt by whom are all
things, and we by him. Epli. vi. 6. One Lord,
one faith, one baptiſm; one God, and father of ally
who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Tim. ii. 5. There is one God, and one mediator be-
tween God and men, the man Chriſt Jefus. Jude
4. Denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jeſus
Chriſt.
ܘܚܲܪܐ:ܝܙܪܝ
7
How often do we read of the God, as well as the
Father, of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt? And is it not the
uniform cuſtom of the writers of the New Teſta-
ment to name God and Chriſt as contradiſtinguiſhed
from each other? What hard ſtraining, Sir, muſt
it not require to give to any of the above-men-
tioned texts, which have not ſo much as the ap-
pearance of ambiguity in them, a plauſible trinita-
rian interpretation ?
T!
You reſt this great controverſy, as far as it is to
be decided by the ſcriptures, on three or four texts,
and what appears to be their ſenſe at firft: fight
only.
+
1
"REV. DR. GEDDE S.
$.
Only.. : But you know, Sir, that the true ſenſe of
many paſſages of fcripture, as well as of other
writings, is by no means what it ſeems to be at
firft ſight, eſpecially when the language is figura-
tive; and that a compariſon of them with other
paffages is often neceſſary to explain them. There
cannot, therefore, appear even to yourſelf to be
any great ground of confidence here. And I
might well aſk you, whether it be not extraordi-
nary, that a doctrine of fo great' magnitude as
that of the divinity of Chriſt, and which draws
after it conſequences of fo much importance in
practice, as well as theory (eſpecially the worſhip-
ping of him as the fupreme God; and which at
firſt ſight, you muſt acknowledge directly 'militates
againſt the doctrine of the fole divinity of the one
God and Father of all, expreſsly called the God and
Father of Jeſus Chriſt himſelf) ſhould reſt on three
or four texts, of which you can only ſay that, 20
firſt ſight, they appear to be in your
favour.
The doctrine of the unity of God is unqueſtionably
that of a thouſand texts, and is implied in the
whole tenor of ſcripture. This no perſon ever
did, or can deny. And did not the doctrine of
three perſons in this godhead, if it be a truth, re-
quire to be declared in as explicit a manner, if
it was meant to be inculcated at all? As to the
divinity of Chriſt, an ingenious man would eaſily
find as many plauſible arguments for the divi-
nity of Moſes.
B 3
If
1
3
?
6
LETTERS TO THE
If the doctrine of the trinity be clearly taught
in the ſcriptures, how comes it that yourſelf,
« after reading the beſt Athanaſian, Arian, and
« Socinian gloffariſts,” could be, as you ſay,
p. 11. " Athanaſian, Arian, and Socinian, by
“ turns ?” This, Sir, is not my caſe. The Atha-
nafian and Arian gloſſariſts only make me a more
confirmed Unitarian.
If adoration be really due to Chriſt from his
followers, as you ſay, p. 4, why have we ſo litile of
either precept, or example of it in the ſcriptures?
Could Origen have written fo expreſsly as he has
done againſt praying to Chriſt, if it had been thự
practice of chriſtians from the earlieſt ages ?
Of the writings of the apoſtolical Fathers, you
frankly and juſtly ſay, p. 11. « fome are loſt,
" others imperfect, and others interpolated, and
“ together afford but an ambiguous commentary
" on an ambiguous text."
I am, &c.
LETTER
Roy. DRGEDDE S.
7
L E T T E R II.
Of sbe Nicene Council.
O
REY. SIR,
N what, then, do you fix your foot, and what
is the real ground of your faith in the doc-
trine for which you contend? When I had read
the title page of your pamphlet, I for ſome time
proceeded no farther, but amuſed myſelf with
conjecturing what your great preſcriptive argu-
ment; that argument which rendered all others
unneceſſary, might be; but really, Sir, all my
conjectures were wide of the truth, for I own
I ſhould leaſt of all have expected it where you
imagine you have found it. But my readers ſhall
hear yourſelf on the ſubject.
“In this dubiety," you ſay, p. 12, “I look
“ about for ſomething more explicitly ſatisfac-
tory, and this I think I find in the formal de-
" ciſion of the Nicæan council.” When I had
diſcovered this, I was no leſs at a loſs in conjec-
turing how any deciſion of ſuch a council as that,
called for ſuch a purpoſe as that was, by ſuch a
perſon as Conftantine, and eſpecially at ſo great
à diſtance of time from the age of the apoſtles,
could at all anſwer, or even feem to anſwer, your
purpofe.
On
BA
8
LETTERS TO THE
On this ſubiect you ſay, p. 14, “ I aſk you
« whether you think it in the finalleſt degree pro-
“bable, that three hụndred and eighteen of the
principal paſtors in the chriſtian church, con-
“ voked from the three parts of the then known
“ world, could poſſibly combine to eſtabliſh a doc-
“ trine different from that which they had hither-
to taught their reſpective flocks, and which they
“had themſelves received from their predeceſ-
“ fors in the miniſtry ?-You muſt then, I think,
“allow that, at this period, the belief of the di-
“vinity of Jeſus, was the univerſal belief of the
“ chriſtian churches of Aſia, Africa, and Europe.”
This then, Sir, is what you call, p. 19, your
“ invincible preſcriptive proof of the divinity of
“ Chrift," and much eloquence you employ on the
ſubject; but I own I fee in it little of argument,
or even of plauſibility. For the greater perſpicuity,
I ſhall ſtate my objections to what you have urged
in a number of obſervations, that their ſtrength,
whether viewed ſeparately or jointly, may be
more diſtinctly ſeen; and at the ſame time, that if
there bę any latent fallacy in them, it may be
more eaſily detected.
(
Firſt, You call the Nicene Fathers, p. 18, “the
repreſentatives of the whole chriſtian church.
Now, in my opinion, they repreſented the chrif-
tian church in no other ſenſe than our Houſe of
Lords might be faid to repreſent the Engliſh
nation. There was no Houſe of Commons in that
aſſembly. There were none to ſpeak the ſenti-
ments
Rev. DR. GE D DE S.
9
ments of the common people, which I have ſhewn
at large, and from the acknowledginents of ſeveral
of thoſe Fathers themſelves, to have been very
different from theirs.
Secondly, This celebrated council, being held
in the year 325, is too remote from the age of the
apoſtles to be expected (conſidering the influences
to which the learned chriſtians had been expoſed)
to retain the primitive doctrine concerning Chrift.
The doctrines of Plato appear to have been in
the chriſtian church as early as the age of Juſtin
Martyr, who wrote about A. D. 140. From that
time almoſt all the learned chriſtians imbibed
them; and the conſequence of this was ſuch a rapid
departure from the primitive doctrine, that we
could not reaſonably expect to find it among
ſuch
biſhops as were aſſembled at Nice in 325.
i
This confideration alone furniſhes a ſufficient
anſwer to your irrefragable preſcriptive argu-
ment. Had the council been held in the age
immediately following that of the apoſtles, or had
the learned chriſtians confined themſelves to
the ſtudy of the ſcriptures, and known nothing
of heathen philoſophy; had no enemy ſown tares
among the good ſeed, your argument would have
had ſome weight. But this council being held
two centuries and an half after the age of the
apoſtles, and near two centuries after the intro-
duction of Platoniſm into chriſtianity, I cannot
allow it to have any weight at all.
Thirdly,
10
LETTERS TO THE
«
Thirdly, I need not remind you, Sir, who
appear to know human nature, and mankind,
very well, and who acknowledge, p. 12, that
" the Fathers aſſembled at Nice were, both feve-
“rally and conjunctly, an aſſembly of fallible
ment," that the inclination of the einperor (who
appears by his ſpeech to them to have been deeply
tinctured with the doctrines of Plato) and that of
chofe biſhops who had his confidence, being well
known, there would be a great leaning to their
opinion; and that the more conſcientious of thoſe
who, if they had attended, muſt have been under
the diſagreeable neceffity of oppoſing it, would
find excuſes, and ſtay at home. Three hundred
and eighreen was far from being the whole num-
ber of Chriſtian biſhops in that age.
Fourthly, If you conſider the part that either
Conftantine himſelf, or the profeſſed enemies of
Arius, took in the buſineſs of this celebrated
council, you muft acknowledge that very little
can be faid for the liberty of it. I ſhall only call
to your recollection a few circumſtances men-
tioned by Tillemont, to whofe authority, or im-
partiality, you will not object.
On declaring himſelf a Chriſtian, Conſtantine
wus extremely deſirous to promote the unity of the
church, an-l for that purpoſe firſt wrote by Hofius
to Alexandria on the ſubject. This meaſure not
fucceeding; at the earneft requeſt of Holius, and
Alexander biſhop of Alexandria, he fummoned
the
1
II
Rev. Dr. ĠED DE S.
the council of Nice, but not till he had threatened
the clergy among the followers of Arius with
ſerving in the public offices, if they did not quit
the ſociety of fo wicked a maſter, and agree to
the
pure
faith of the church,
When Conſtantine came to the council he
omiited nothing in his power to make the Fathers
unanimous in their deciſions. Many of the friends
of Arius were induced to join in his condemnation
for fear of baniſhmerit, to which Arius himſelf,
and two of his firmer friends, were actually fent,
After this the emperor ordered all the books of
Arius to be burned, and thofe who concealed
them to be put to death. Theſe are ſome of the
particulars relating to the conduct of Conſtantine.
The greateſt oppoſers of Arius, thoſe who
may
be called his perſonal enemies, were Alexander,
Athanaſius, and Hoſius. The laſt had preſided
in a council at Alexandria, in which Arius was
condemned. Athanafius calls him the conductor
of all the councils. Alexander had ſo much
influence at the council of Nice, that he is faid
to have been the maſter of all things in it. Atha-
naſius alſo had great weight there; and had it
depended upon him, Arianiſm had been extin-
guiſhed in it. Hoſius compoſed the creed, bug
Athanafius himſelf aſliſted in it.
Theſe, Sir, are only tranſlations of different
paffages in the hiſtory that Tillemont gives of
the
.
12.
LETTERS TO THE
the council of Nice. Do you then, who are not
ignorant of human nature, or human affairs, fay
what chance Arianiſm, if it had been the truth,
could have had in thoſe circumſtances, or how far
a declaration agreeable to the genuine and primi-
tive doctrines of chriſtianity was to be expected
from the Fathers at Nice.
A
Fifthly, In the very next reign, when the
emperor was an Arian, there were as numerous
afſemblies of Arian biſhops, in the ſame part
of
the world, as there were of Trinitarian ones at
Nice; and a little before the council of Nice,
there were aſſemblies of the clergy both in Bythy-
nira, and Paleſtine, which Tillemont calls councils,
which were in favour of Arius. So that, hy thę
fame mode of reaſoning which you have adopted,
it might be proved that Arianiſm was the primitive
doétrine concerning Chriſt.
}
Sixthly, Your argument, admitting the juſtneſs
of your medium of proof, will prove a great deal
too inuch. For it will not only prove that the
primitive doctrine was the divinity of Chriſt in
general, but alſo that kind of divinity which thoſe
Fathers aſcribed to him, a kind which I imagine
that yoy, Şir, will not maintain; for it is not the
preſent Catholic doctrine, and indeed ſoon ceaſed
to be ſo, as I have ſhewn at large in my Hiſtory
of early Opinions concerning Chriſt. Thoſe Fathers
univerſally held that the divinity of the Son was
greatly inſerior to that of the Father, and had its
origin
1
RP. DR G E D DE S.
13
grigin in the reaſon of the Father; which having a
been firſt in him as an attribute, afterwards became
a perfon. Will you, or any perſon, at this day,
maintain that this was the primitive doctrine con-
cerning Chriſt, that which was held and taught
by the apoſtles?
concern.
Seventhly, The council of Nice was held for the
expreſs purpoſe of the condemnation of one par-
ticular opinion, in which the Unitarians had no
. It was to condemn the doctrine of
Arius, who held that Chriſt was a creature, pro- ;
duced from nothing (Ex twv xx ovlw) and that there
· was a time when he was not, In oppoſition to
this, the Trinitarians held that the Son was no
creature, but of the ſame ſubſtance (quaro:O) with
the Father; and that, having been the proper
reaſon of the Father, there could never have been
any time in which he was not; for that then the
Father would have been without reaſon. Such,
you weil know, was the reaſoning of the time on
the ſubject.
i
For many
On theſe two opinions, the Unitarians could
much more eaſily adopt the language of the
Trinitarians, than that of the Arians. For
of them alſo had learned to philoſophize, though
not ſo much as tlie Trinitarians; and acknow-
ledging, as all Unitarians do, that a divine power
refided, and acted, in Chriſt, they fuid that this
divine power:was that of the Father, and therefore
might be ſaid to be the Father; who, being in
Chriſt,
14
LETTERS TO THE
Chriſt, did the works by which his divine miffion
was evidenced. They therefore thought them-
ſelves authorized to ſay that the Father and the
Son were one and the ſame, and of courſe quoioioi
or of the ſame ſubſtance. A Sabellian, therefore,
might adopt the language of the council of Nice.
This is acknowledged by the learned Beaufobre.
And Marcellus of Ancyra did moſt vehemently
oppoſe Arius in that council; à conduct which
the Arians never forgave him.
I am, &c:
>
LË T T E R III.
Of the State of Unitarianiſm in the primitive Times.
Rev. Sir,
1
HE preceding obſervations, in my opinion,
furniſh a ſufficient anſwer to your irre-
fragable preſcriptive argument. But, to my great
ſurprize, you farther ſay, p. 32. « If the divinity
“ and pre-exiſtence of Chriſt was not a ténet of
“ primitive chriſtianity, there muſt have been a
« period, prior to the Nicæan council, when it
“ was accounted a hereſy, and when the non-
w divinity was as univerſally taught, as the ſole
« orthodox
Rev. Dr. GEDDE S.
13
is
« orthodox doctrine. Be pleaſed then to point
out that period, and prove that it exiſted, not
" by negatives, preſumptions, and arguments from
improbability, but by clear poſitive teſtimony.
“ For until you do this, I ſhall always conlider
" the deciſion of the Nicæan fynod as an irrefra-
“gable proof, that the divinity of our Lord was
“ an original article of the Catholic faith."
Again you ſay, p. 20. “ I think you ſhould
“ have endeavoured, and been able, to thew when,
« and by whom, and in what manner, ſuch an
important revolution was brought about, who
was the firſt broacher of the novel opinion, what
“ oppoſition it met with, which of the apoſtolic
“ ſees was the firſt to embrace it, and by what
“ wonderful influence it got poffeffion of all the
“ reſt; without noiſe, without reſiſtance, without
“ any of thoſe circumſtances that always attend
" the introduction of a novelty in matters of re-
ligion, eſpecially when the contradictory of ara
“eſtabliſhed opinion is attempted to be intro-
" duced."
Now all this, or as much of it as any reaſonable
man can require, I have actually done, in my
Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Chriſt. By a
diſtinct exhibition of the doctrines of Platoniſm,
by an abundant proof of their having been adopted
by the chriſtian Fathers, and froin the near refem-
blance between them and the doctrine of the Trinity
in the firſt ſtage of it, I think I have made it moſt
evid.nt,
16
LETTERS TO THE
evident, that it had that origin, and no other.
No child ever proved its own parent more clearly
than this does.
I have alſo ſhewn, in the fulleſt manner, that
the Trinitarian doctrine was conſidered as an inno-
vation, and that it give the greateſt offence to the
common people, though, by the plauſible repre-
ſentations, and frequent apologies, of the learned
chriſtians, they were kept tolerably quiet; till by
means of the overbearing influence of the govern-
ing powers, and alſo that of the great fee of Rome, ,
all oppoſition to the novel doctrine had no effect;
notwithſtanding the ſtrongeſt remonftrances did
not fail to be made againſt it in every period.
I have ſhewn, Sir, that it was univerſally ac-
knowledged by the chriſtian Fathers, Antenicene
Nicene, and Poſtnicene, that the firſt converts
to chriſtianity, Jews and Gentiles, were ſo firinly
perſuaded of the ſimple humanity of Chriſt, that
the apoſtles themſelves did not chuſe to teach
openly and clearly any other doctrine. I have
ſhewn that thoſe Unitarians were never conſidered
as Heretics, notwithſtanding their opinión differed
ſo much from that which was held by thoſe who
afterwards appropriated to themſelves the title of
Catholic. I have produced a variety of other
evidence, of the moſt ſatisfactory kind, to prove
that the primitive chriſtian church was Ünitarian,
and to no part of it have you ſo much as adverted
in your Letter ; ſo that in the idea of theſe Fathers,
3
the
Rey. DR. GEDDE S.
17
the believers in the ſimple humanity of Chriſt were
not a few obſcure ſectaries, as you call them, p. 5.
1
You make very light of the Ebionites, p. 16,
But, according to the teſtimony of Origen, they
were the whole body of Jewiſh chriſtians, of whom
ſome, he ſays, believed the miraculous conception of
Jeſus, and others did not, but none of them believed
his divinity. Is their opinion and teſtimony to be
eſteemed of no value, when ancient doctrines are
ſought for? If this be not the poſitive teſtimony
you require, what is ſo?
You do not even appear to be apprized of the
great object of my work, which was not only to
trace the riſe and progreſs of the doctrine of the
trinity, but alſo to ſhew that, though the learned
chriſtians, from Juſtin Martyr to the council of
Nice, held the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt,
the greater part of the common people were believers
in his ſimple humanity.
I
Beſides, the more learned chriſtians may eaſily
be ſuppoſed to have departed from the primitive
doctrine concerning Chriſt, as they were peculiarly
expoſed to influences, which muſt have operated
very powerfully to produce that effect; whereas
the common people were not ſubject to thar dan-
gerous influence, and therefore were much more
likely to retain the original doctrine tranſmitted,
from the apoſtles, who certainly were not Plato-
niſts, and indeed could never have underſtood ſuch
C
a ſyſtem
18
LETTERS TO THE
a ſyſtem as that of the Nicene Fathers. Univerſal
experience and obſervation fhews, that old opinions
are longeſt retained by the common people, and
that innovations begin with the learned and ſpecu-
lative. Theſe things, fir, you ſhould have noticed,
if
you had propoſed to make any effectual reply to
my work.
I am not much leſs ſurprized at the following
paragraph in your letter.
“ Is it not ftrange,'
you ſay, p. 23, “paſſing ſtrange, that, in not one
of thoſe aſſemblies” (viz. about forty councils
held after that of Nice) “ neither at Alexan-
dria, nor Antioch, nor Cæſarea, nor Sardica, nor
" Jeruſalem, nor Conſtantinople, nor Sirmium, nor
Milan, nor Rome, nor Rimini, there ſhould not
“ be a ſingle voice raiſed in favour of Socinianiſm,
a ſingle pen employed to defend it, . a ſingle
“ authority quoted in its ſupport. And that while
" the whole body of chriſtians were engaged in a
controverſy about two opinions, both equally
'« falſe, the only true dogma ſhould be overlooked,
" ſhould be rejected, ſhould be anathematized by
all? This I confeſs is to me inconceivables,
“ in the nature of things, hardly poſſible.”
Had I not the moſt perfect confidence in your
impartiality, and love of truth, I ſhould have con-
cluded from this paragraph, that you had not ſo
nuch as read the work on which you have animad-
verted. I cannot help ſuſpecting, however, that,
imagining your one preſcriptive argument to be
abundantly
4
..1
.
19
REV. DR. GED DE S.
1
abundantly ſufficient for your purpoſe, you con-
tented yourſelf with giving but a ſlight attention to
the greater part of my work, and that the few
traces which the hafty peruſal of it left in your
mind were wholly effaced at the time of writing
your Letter to me.
Nay, the ſurprize you expreſs would have been
precluded, if you had ſufficiently attended to what
you yourſelf juſtly ſay of the hiſtory of the times
which followed the council of Nice, p. 22, viz.
that in them Arianiſm and Athanafianiſm alter-
“nately triumphed.”. Unitarianiſm was not the
object of any of thoſe councils, except thoſe which
were called on the account of Photinus, and we
have no particulars of what paſſed in any of them.
At that cime the emperors, and leading biſhops,
were all either Arians or Athanaſians; and having
to combat with one another, they overlooked the
Unitarians, whoſe party was then ſo low (not with
reſpect to numbers, but to rank and confideration) that
they had nothing to fear from them. How then
is it inconceivable, that their opinions ſhould be
anathematized by both parties, when they were
equally hoſtile to both.
1
To anticipate my reply to ſome part of the pre-
ceding paragraph, you add, p. 24,
- You will ſay
“ perhaps, that even at that time Socinianiſm was
« not intirely without its witneſſes among the
“ biſhops themſelves, and refer me to Paul of
Antioch, and Photinus of Sirmium. That both
C2
" theſe
-
:
us but this ſerves only to give a greater degree of
LETTERS TO THE
o theſe were in ſome meaſure Socinians, I grant ;
៤
«ftrength to my argument. For in what light was
their doctrine conſidered by their fellow biſhops,
" and what were the conſequences of their teaching
a it? They were regarded as blaſphemous inno-
“ vators, threatened with immediate depoſition, and
“excommunicated by both parties *. If you think
" then that you can avail yourſelf of ſuch a teſti-
mony, you are welcome to uſe it; and you may
“ add all the other ſimilar teſtimonies you can glean
" through all the preceding ages, from Paul of
66. Antioch up to Cerinthus : all this, when put in
"the balance with the teſtimony of the Nicæan
Fathers, to me appears a grain againſt an hundred
so weight."
.
In this paragraph, and in this alone, you look
back to the time preceding the council of Nice;
and the ſtate of things being very different in the
different periods of that time, what you ſay does not
apply to them all alike. The Unitarians were by
Ao means conſidered in the ſame light from the age
of Cerinthus, which was that of the apoſtles, to
that of Paul of Antioch, and much leſs that of
Photinus, though you make no difference in the
caſe. In that of Cerinthus, and long after, they
were ſo far from being conſidered, or treated, as
beretics, that it was univerſally acknowledged that
Unitarianiſm was the only doctrine which the un-
* In the time of Paul of Antioch Arianiſm had no exiſtence.
learned
;
Rev. Dr. G É Ď D E S:
21
learned chriſtians had been taught, even by the
apoſtles themſelves ; and they were ſo far from
being excommunicated; that by the confeffion of
their adverſaries; 'till the publication of John's gof-
pel, after the deſtruction of Jerufalem, there was no
other opinion among the common people. No
creed, no ſentence of any council, „ever preſumed
to call them heretics. On the contrary, they boldly
charged the Trinitarians, as ſoon as they appeared,
notwithſtanding all their apologies, and the art with
which their doctrine was introduced, as innovators
in the ſcheme of chriſtianity. In the time of Ter-
tullian the major pars, the majority of chriſtians held
this language, and the mangos, the multitude, in the
time of Athanafius.
· If you even confine your attention to the writers
in defence of Unitariniſm, who always 'bear a very
ſmall proportion even to the reading and thinking
part
of any fect, and a ſtill ſmaller to thoſe who do
not read and think, but follow the leading of others
(which is the caſe with the great maſs of all ranks
of men) they will not appear ſo inconſiderable as you
haſtily repreſent them (eſpecially as it is allowed that
the generality of the learned chriſtians were addicted
to Platoniſm) beginning with Symmachus, and
ending with Photinus, who, in the late age in which
he lived, was ſo popular in his diocefe, that three
fynods, under an Arian emperor, were neceffary to
expel him; and who continued writing to an ad-
vanced age, treating every doctrine 'except the
Unitarian with juſt contempt. "Anong other trea-
tiſes
C3
G
!
22
LETTERS TO THE
tiſes he wrote one on the ſubject of hereſy; and
though, in the early ages, this term had been fyno-
nymous to Gnofticiſm, it is very poſſible that, as
his enemies had treated him as an heretic, he, who
appears to have had no dread of them, treated them
as heretics in return.
Two fynods were neceſſary to condemn even
Paul of Antioch, and the power of the emperor was
called in to expel him from the epiſcopal houſe,
notwithſtanding his accuſation contained many
articles beſides matters of doctrine. It appeared
probable to Dr. Lardner, that both Firmilian of
Cappadocia, and the famous Gregory of Neocæſarea,
favoured him. That the dioceſe of the latter
(warmed with Unitarians, in a much later period,
is evident from the epiſtles of Bafil, which are very
inſtructive, and give us a clear idea how unpopular,
even among the clergy of thoſe parts, were the
great defenders of orthodoxy in that age. Low as
you may think the Unitarian intereſt to have been
after the council of Nice, I doubt not but that an
Unitarian emperor, or perhaps an Unitarian pope,
would foon have turned the ſcale in its favour.
But it pleaſed divine providence that the genuine
doctrine of the goſpel ſħould then have no ſupporç
from ſuch quarters; and that it ſhould now revive
by its own evidence, when all kings, all popes, and
all biſhops, are ſtill againſt it.
« In the works of the Antenicene Fathers," you
ſay, P: 33
" whether genuine or fpurious, there
(is
1
Rev. Dr. G E D D E S.
23
4 is not, I think, beſides the Clementine Romance,
“ a ſingle work that ſpeaks directly the language
ss of Socinus,".
But you well know that many were written, and
you cannot wonder that they are not now extant.
Let not the orthodox reproach us with the want of
that evidence which they may have been the means
of fuppreſſing,
Conſidering the time when the Clementine
homilies were written, as early probably as the
writings of Juſtin Martyr (in my opinion prior
to them) much more may be inferred from
them in favour of unitarianiſin than you ſeem
willing to allow. The author of that work was
a learned chriſtian, and a fine writer; much fupe-
rior to Juſtin Martyr,
He diſcuſſes at great
length the philoſophical opinions of the apoſtolic
age, which were then generally oppoſed to chriſ-
tianity, but which were afterwards incorporated
into it. But he combats them ſolely on unita-
rian principles; and not only ſo, but without
giving any hint of there being any other, held by
chriſtians, on which they were, or could be, com-
þated; whereas the platopizing Fathers, who
wrote againſt the famé general principles, went
upon quite different ground,
Now is it probable that ſo ingenious and learned
a writer could do this, and be acquainted with
any other mode of proceeding? Conſidering the
C4
number
LETTERS TO THE
0
nuniber of incidents, and diſcourſes, introduced
into that work, I think it highly probable that, if
the writer had even known of ſuch perſons as
platonizing chriſtians, or their doctrine of the logos,
he would have made ſome mention of it there;
it had fo near a connexion with his ſubject. I
am therefore ſtrongly inclined to ſuppoſe that he
had never heard of ſuch a writer as Juſtin Martyr,
and that the doctrine of the logos, as the reaſon of
the Father, which laid the foundation for the ſubfe-
quent doctrine of the Trinity, as it is now held, had
not been ſtarted in his time. Conſequently, I am
inc'ined to think, that when this work was com-
poſed, there were no claffes of chriſtians beſides
Unitarians and Gnoſtics.
When all theſe things and many more you will
find in my work) are conſidered, can you ſay, as
you do, p. 25. that, “ When the whole is put into
the balance with the teſtimony of the Nicene
“ Fathers, it is no more than 4 grain againſt an
hundred weight?” Indeed, ſir, the things that
ought to have been weighed were either never puț
into the balance, or it was held by a very unequal
hand,
I am, &c,
LETTER
Rév. DR. GE D'D'ES.
25
.
:
L É T T E R
ER IV.
Of the Degree of Chriſt's Divinity, and the Concluſion.
REV. SIR,
I
Cannot clofe theſe letters without animadvert-
ing upon another circumſtance on which you
touch much too lightly. “My taſk,” you ſay,
P. 5. “is barely to Thew that the divinity of Jeſus
“ Chriſt was, in fome ſenſe or other, an original
« article of belief;" and again,P: 33.
“In what
preciſe ſenſe I ſhould underſtand his godhead,
" I might be puzzled to determine.".
Had this language been addreſſed to the apoſ-
tles, they would probably have replied, Thou bringest
ſtrange things to our ears. For they do not appear
to me ever to have heard of ſuch a thing, as kinds,
or degrees, of divinity. In the ſcriptures nothing
is ſaid but of one kind of proper divinity. Men-
tion is there mate of one true God, and of many
falſe gods, but of no inferior
. kind of true God. We
read of God, and of creatures; but of nothing of
an intermediate nature, Mofes, indeed, and ma-
giftrates in general, are called gods, but it is only
by way of figure. There was nothing divine in
their natures; and in this ſenſe all men may be
termed gods, with reſpect to brụte creatures. If
this
I
26
LETTERS TO THE
this be all the divinity that you aſcribe to Chriſt,
I ſhall certainly have no objection to it. Being
my lord and maſter, he is, in this fenſe, alſo my
god; but in no other. But as he is never, in any
ſenſe, called God in the ſcriptures, I do not think
myſelf authorized to uſe that language.
If therefore Chriſt be God at all, in the ſenſe
in which the ſacred writers uſe the terin God,
he muſt have every eſſential attribute of divi-
nity. He muſt be felf-exiſtent, eternal, omni-
preſent, omniſcient, and almighty, the maker and
conſtant preſerver of all things. Nay more, if
more can be ſaid, he muſt be the one God and Fa-
ther of all, even the God and Father of our Lord
Jeſus Cbrift. For the fcriptures know no other
God beſides this.
The whole doctrine of inferior gods, ſuch as the
platonizing Fathers made Chriſt to be, is down-
right beatben, and a manifeſt departure from the
faith originally delivered to the faints. According
to this true faith, there is but one God, and one mere
diator between God and men, the man (not the infe-
rior God) Chrift Jefus. But from being an infe-
rior God, in the ſpace of about two centuries (for
it required that time to advance ſuch a ſtep) this
inferior God, became in the imagination of chrif,
tians, to be God equal to the Father.
1
1
Shocked at this ſentiment, learned chriſtians
feemnow to be very generally endeavouring to
get
1
1
I
REV. DR. GEDDES:
..
27
get back to the doctrine of an inferior God, and
for this purpoſe ſome become Arians, and others
endeavour to make out kinds and degrees in divi-
nity, as there are kinds and degrees among crea-,
tures. But reaſon and common ſenſe revolt at
the fuppoficion; and be aſſured, the chriſtian
world will not be able to find any reſt, tell they go
back to the primitive doctrine of one God, and of
men approved of God, by ſigns and wonders which
mighty in word and deed, a man whom God ſent, by
whom God ſpake, whom Gọd raiſed from the
dead, and who will come again in the glory and
power of God his Father, to raiſe the dead, to judge
the world, and to give to every man according to
his works,
1
This, Sir, is the chriſtianity which I profeſs,
and it is a religion as plain as it is practical. It
is worthy of God, and approves itſelf to the rea-,
ſon of man. And why ſhould we be fond of a faith
with which reaſon is at variance, and to which it,
muſt be facrificed? Is this a ſacrifice pleaſing to
God? Can we wonder at the number of ſenſible
unbelievers in the Chriſtian world, when they
find that they mult abandon their reaſon before
they can adopt religion, which is the caſe when
ſuch doctrines as the Trinity (that of three divine
perſons in one God) are held out to them, and
they are told that they cannot be chriſtians with-
out receiving them? While this is our conduct,
with one hand we invite men to come within the
pake
1
1
28
LETTERS TO THE
pale of the church, while with the other we ſhut
the door againſt them. This door, I wiſh to
throw fairly open, and therefore I invite men to
bring their reaſon with them when they become
chriſtians, and by no means to leave it behind
them.
Far would I be from drawing off your åtten-
tion from the great work in which you are en-
gaged, and from which I have the greateſt expecta-
tions, in conſequence of believing you to be fin-
gularly qualified for it. Your Prospectus, which
I read with wonder and delight, is a pledge of it.
But if you could find leafure, I could wiſh that
you would at leaſt attempt the execution of what
you ſuppoſe ir.ay be done, when you ſay, p. 34.
" It would not, I imagine, be a very difficult,
“ though it would be a tedious taſk, to refute all
" the arguments, and anſwer all the objections,
« which your party hare been long employed in
collecting, from thoſe ſtore-houſes (the chrif-
stián Fathers) and which you, Sir, have ſummed
ci up in ſo maſterly a manner in your laſt great
« work. With abilities far inferior to yours, I
« could, if at leiſure, erect, from the ſame mate-
erials, out of which you have reared fo fpe-
s cious an edifice, a fabric of a different order, as
plauſible I truſt, and compact as yours, without
being under the ſuſpicious neceſſity of garbling
" and rejecting as you have done."
.
This language, Sir, is by no means of a piece
with
Rev. Dr. GEDDE S.
.29
1
the purpole you mention. But I am confident
with the liberality of the reſt of your letter, and
ſhould not have been uſed without proof. Many
a tedious volume as I have looked through, at leaſt
a hundred folios, Greek or Latin, without counting
thoſe of ſmaller ſize, I am not conſcious of hav-
ing, in any proper ſenſe of the.word, garbled any
of them, or of having rejected any thing that
could throw light on my ſubject, whether it made
for or againſt me; though I may have overlooked
paſſages of both kinds. On this account, I moſt
ſincerely wiſh that others may go over the ſame
ground after me, and with more diſcerning eyes.
As you think, however, that, without taking ſo
much trouble, the materials that I have collected
would ſerve to conſtruct a fabric of a different na-
ture, I wiſh you would try to make them anſwer
you might as ſoon take down the elegant cylindri-
cal monument in Grace Church-ſtreet, and with
the ſame ſtones erect a parallelopepidon. If you
ſhould not be able to command ſufficient leiſure
yourſelf, I wiſh you would perſuade ſome other
learned perſon of your communion to undertake
the work, and aſſiſt him with your counſel.
As I believe you to be a man of a truly candid
and ingenuous mind, and that you really write as I
do, for the ſake of promoting truth, I flatter my-
ſelf that you will not fail to let me, and the public,
hear from you again on the ſubject. If you feel
any force in my reply, have the honeſt courage to
5
acknowledge
30
LETTERS TO THE
of
acknowledge it. If not, let us know what armour
it is that defends you. In this I aſk no more than
I hold myſelf ready to give to you, or any other
my opponents. It is what all writers owe to
that nioſt reſpectable tribunal, before which we
are pleading, the chriſtian world. We ought,
therefore, to acknowledge our cauſe to be unten-
able, if we think it to be ſo, as well as to defend it
while we think it defenſible. As for myſelf, like
an honeſt general, ſucceſsful or unſucceſsful, I
will give as fair an account of my killed and
wounded, as of the trophies I may gain, or the pri-
Soners 1 may take.
.
With the trueſt reſpect, I an,
Rev. Sir,
Yours ſincerely,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BIRMINGHAM,
DECEMBER, 1787.
:
!
.
L E T T E R S
S
TO THE
Rev. Dr. P R I CE.
!
|
:
1
TO THE
Rév.
DR.
P R I CE.
L E T T E R I.
Of the Influence of the Doctrine of philosophical
Neceſhty on that concerning the Perſon of Chriſt.
DEAR FRIEND,
I
CANNOT forbear acknowledging the fatif-
faction I have received from the perufal of the
Appendix to your late Sermons, in which, with a
Candour that does you the greateſt honour, you
have, as you ſay, p. 371, “ ſtated ſome of the
“ moſt important of Dr. Prieftley's arguments, that
* our readers may be able to form their judgment
« on the points about which we differ.”
It is, I believe, our joint and earneſt with, that
the public may form a right judgment in the caſe;
and therefore I ſhall, without any apology, make a
few remarks upon the view that you have given
of my arguments. On ſeveral of the heads you
have contented yourſelf with ſimply reciting them,
D
and,
34
LETTERS TO THE
and, with an almoſt unexampled generoſity, have
left them, without making any reply, to make
what 'impreſſion they may upon our readers. In
other caſes you have been led, perhaps uninten-
tionally, farther into the controverſy, and in theſe
I ſhall take the liberty to accompany you.
You ſay, p. 374, that you and I cannot agree
on the ſubject of the creation of all things by Cbrift,
becauſe I ſuppoſe that "there is but one proper agent
“ in nature; the whole being a piece of machinery
depending upon the ſole will of that great Being
“ who framed the whole, and put it in motion."
This. I do indeed acknowledge, and I conſider it as a
great and glorious truth, without which all would
be darkneſs, confuſion, and deſpair. But it ap-
pears to me that this has nothing at all to do with
our preſent diſcuſſion; becauſe, as Arians or Uni-
tärians, the queſtion between us is ſimply whether the
volitions of Chriſt (originating in himſelf or in
another) gave birth to the univerſe.
You may as well ſay that you and I can never
agree about the author of any particular book, your
own Sermons, for inſtance; for that, if there be but
one agent in the uņiverſe, he was the only proper
author of them. But upon this principle, he was
alſo the author of my remarks upon them. Ad-
mitting that there is a ſenſe in which God is the
author of every thing, good and evil, there is
likewiſe a certain and definite fenfe, in which there
are other, and very different agents, and which
will
5
1
خيا
REV. DR. PRICE:
36
will allow us to ſay that your Sermons were written
by you, and my remarks on them by me.
Now it is only in this ſenſe that we are to con-
ſider whether Chriſt made the world ; and I may as
well ſay that he did not make it, believing that is
exiſted before he himſelf was made, as you that
he did make it, believing as you do, that he exiſted
before it was made, and that his volitions and ex-
ertions were, in ſome way or other, inſtrumental
in making it. Here, therefore, is a clear ground
of argument and diſcuſſion between us, and my
being an advocate for the doctrine of philoſophical
neceſſity, and you for that of philoſophical liberty,
has nothing to do with it. The one is a queſtion
between us as metaphyſicians, and the other as theo-
logians. Do not, therefore ſay, as you do, P. 375,
" that on this account, it is impoſſible that we ſhould
“ think alike of the nature and dignity of Chriſt,
« and of the importance of his agency." You
muſt know that, notwithſtanding every difference
in this reſpect, many perſons have thought alike on
this ſubject; many Neceffarians having been Arians,
and many of their opponents Unitarians:
32
I am, &c.
1
D2
LETTER
1
36.
LETTERS TO THE
L E T T E R II.
Of the Propriety of praying to Cbrift om Axico
Principles.
DEAR FRIEND,
I HAD maintained that, upon the Arian prin.
ciples, which you defend, Chriſt ought to be
conſidered as a proper object of religious rexcrship.
"This," you fåy, p. 374,' “ I afferted on the
fùppofirion that a believer of this do&ritte bei
" lieves apo the creation of this world, and all its
dependencies by Chrift, in ſuch á fenfe as to
imply that be ſupports all things by the word of
" bis power,"—that he is always prefent with us,
&c. But you add chat, “ he who will conſider
* what I have ſaid on the fubject of the formation
" of the world by Chrift, p. 143, &c. will find
et that I have no ſuch ideas as theſe."
>>
That I Mould be thought to have, iza any
reſpect, imiſ-ſtated your opinion, or to have
drawn any unfair concluſion from it, gave me
much concern, becauſe both were equally re-
mote from my intention. But after a careful rea
peruſal of your Sermons, I muſt own that I cannot
help ſeeing them in the ſame light; and therefore
being of opinion, that what you advanced will
fully authorize the concluſion I then drew from it,
In
1
R.:. Dai PRICE.
37
In p. 140 and 141, you apply to Chriſt what is
ſaid in Heb. i. 1, &c. John i. 1, &c, and Coll.
i. 6, &c, Now in the firſt of theſe paffages it is
expreſsly faid that be upbolds all things by the word
of his power; and whether you underſtand this of
his own proper power, or that of God his Father,
it certainly implies his conſtant inſpection of, and
intimate preſence with, every thing that he has
made; which you ſay comprehends this world,
and all its dependencies.
In the ſecond paſſage, not only is it ſaid that all
things were made by him (i. e. the logos) and with
out him was not any thing made that was made, but
that in him was life, and the life was the light of
met.. And in the laſt of the three paſſages it is
ſaid that Chriſt is before all things, and by him all
things confift.
i
Surely then in theżn is contained, even totidem
perbis, the very prepoſition which you ſo ſtrongly
diſclaim; ſo that, admitting the creation of the
world by Chriſt, I do not ſee how you can heſitate
to admit that be upholdeth all things by the word
of his power, that he is the giver of life, and that
by him all things confift; and conſequently that he
is poffefred of every attribute that is requiſite
to conſtitute him a proper object of religious
worſhip, viz. omniſcience, and a capacity to ſup-
ply all our wants. He muſt be able to hear and
Anſwer all our prayers.
Beſides,
D 3
38
LE T Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
Beſides, the ſacred writers always aſcribe the
government of the world to the maker of it, whoever
he be. The ſame Being is our maker, and pre-
Server, and we are expreſsly required to worſhip,
and low down, and kneel before him, as ſuch. In
whatever ſenſe, therefore, it be true that Chriſt is
our maker, in the ſame ſenſe he muſt be our
governor, preſerver, and benefactor, and therefore
juſtly entitled to what we call religious homage.
$6
You ſay, indeed, p. 382,
" It ſhould not be
forgotten that by religious worſhip I mean
prayer
addreſſed to an inviſible Being, ſuppoſed
"always preſent with us, and the diſpoſer of our
" lot. The honour, obedience, and gratitude,
therefore, which we owe to Chriſt do not amount
"to religious worſhip. The former is a part of
“our duty as chriſtians. The latter we ought to
“ confine to that one inviſible Being, who is the
“ fupreme diſpoſer of the lots of all beings, and
" of whom we know that he is a conſtant witneſs
“ to our thoughts and wiſhes."
.
Now, upon the Arian hypotheſis, muſt not Chriſt,
who actually made Adam and all men, and who,
though in a manner incomprehenſible, and in-
viſible to us, ſupports all things by the word of bis
-power, be always, and moſt intimately preſent
with us? And having all power both in heaven
- and in earth, though as the gift of God, is he not
the immediate diſpoſer of our lot. That he is not
the Supreme, and ultimate diſpoſer of it, does not
exclude
REV. DR. PRICE.
39
!
exclude him from being the proper object of our
addreſſes. If ſo, a child ought never to have
recourſe to his own father, but to God only, on
whom both himſelf and his father depend.
Accordingly, the propriety and obligation of
praying to Chriſt has been actually felt, and ac-
knowledged, by all Arians till the preſent times.
They have always paid him a worſhip which they
uſually termed mediatorial, to diſtinguiſh it from
that which they conceived to be appropriated to
his God and Father. I am informed that it was
the conſtant practice of as reputable a perſon as
any among the Arians, or any chriſtian miniſters
now living, I mean Mr. Micaiah Twogood of
Exeter, to addreſs a prayer to Chriſt whenever he
adminiſtered the Lord's Supper. In this he acted
in perfect conſiſtency with his principles. For
why ſhould he not pray to a Being who, he be-
lieved (though as the inſtrument, and by the com-
mand of God) actually made and ſupports him,
who muſt, of courſe, though inviſible, be preſent
to him, and who is to be his final judge.
I muſt therefore maintain, that it is the neceſſary
conſequence of Arian principles, that Chriſt be
conſidered as the proper object of religious wor-
ſhip, and that his not being propoſed to us in that
character by the ſacred writers, is a proof that
they were not Arians; and that however we may
now underſtand their language, they did not really
D4
mean
49
LETTERS TO THE
mean to ſay that he was the maker of the viſible
world; and conſequently that this is no genuine
doctrine of revelation.
2
Since then Chriſt, on the principles of Arianiſm,
is both the proper object of religious worſhip, and
alſo expreſsly called God, even that God by whom
all things were made. I cannot help ſaying that
Arians believe in more Gods than one, and there-
fore that they are by no means intitled to the ap-
pellation of Unitarians. All that you can ſay is
that one of your Gods is ſubordinate to the other, .
But ſuch was alſo the belief of the Pagans; and
upon this principle they might diſclaim the appel,
lation of Polytheiſts, or Idolaters. When the logos
is called God, it is evidently in a very different
ſenſe from that in which Mofes is called a God to
Pharaoh, or in which men may be called Gods with
reſpect to brute animals: There is no compariſon,
or figure of ſpeech, implied in the former caſe,
as there evidently is in the latter. The logos ią
truly and properly God, both in name and power.
I am, &c.
1
1
LETTER
REV. Dr. PRICE.
41
{
L E T T E R
III.
t
:
Of the Silence of the three firſt Evangeliſts. concern-
ing the Doctrine of tbe Incarnation, and of the
Doarine of the primitive Ages of Chriſtianity.
DEAR FRIEND,
I
Am rather ſurprized that you, who do not pre-
tend to believe the univerfal inſpiration, or the
infallibility, of the apoſtles, ſhould lay fo much
ſtreſs as you do on the literal interpretation of a
very few particular paffages in their writings, and
at the fame time overlook general conſiderations,
ſuggeſted by their writings, which appear to me to
be of infini:ely more moment in deciding the queſ;
tion between us. The filence of the three firft eyan-
geliſts on the ſubject of the incarnation of Chriſt
inuſt
appear, if properly attended to, of more real
conſequence in ſupporting my opinion than a hun-
dred ſuch particular texts as you allege can be in
ſupport of yours. Only aſk yourſelf, whether, with
your preſent ideas on the ſubject, you could fit
down, and deliberately write an account of Chriſt,
for the uſe of ſtrangers and poſterity, without
ever calling him any thing more than a man, or a
propbet, and without ſaying any thing of his incar-
nation; when you knew (as the evangeliſts muſt
have done) that to the perſons for whoſe uſe you
wrote
LETTERS TO THE
}
sind
Evinden
1
dence of increase
wrote, the doctrine muſt have been abſolutely
novel, and muſt have appeared in the higheſt de-
gree
wonderful. And yet, of all the evangeliſts,
it is John only who, without expreſsly aſſerting it,
is thought to allude to this' attoniſhing circum-
ftance relating to their common maſter, a circum-
ftance which, in the opinion of all Arians, does
him. ſuch infinite honour, and exhibits the chrif-
tian ſcheme to ſuch advantage, that every thing
ſhort of it is conſidered as little better than deiſm.
Without this doctrine you Arians even think
the force of Chriſt's example to be greatly lef-
fened. “His quitting his pre-exiſtent dignity,
< and degrading himſelf to the condition of inortal
man, in order to ſave men;" you conſider,
p. 153,'as “an inſtance of benevolence to which
as we can conceive no parallel, and which is pro-
« bably the admirațion of angels.” And yet you
will not find even in John, that our Saviour makes
any
merit of this condeſcenſion, as an inſtance of his
love for the human race; though it is evident he did
not wiſh to conceal any circumſtance that would
tend to enhance the value of it in the eſteem of his
diſciples. For he, juſtly and repeatedly, enlarges
on the greatneſs of his love for them. Now what
is it that he himfelf mentions as the greateſt evi-
them, which is what any other man might have
done, and which we are expreſsly required, by his
his example, to do for one another. But what was
all this, in your idea, to his quitting his pre-exiſtent
dignity?
CG
$
1
REV. DR. PRICE:
43-
t
dignity? The biſhop of Clogher, 'after deſcrib-
ing the humiliation of Chriſt in afſuining a
human body, ſays, “ the dreadfulneſs of the
“ ſtate to which he thereby reduced himſelf is
hardly conceivable to us, becauſe we were ne-
"ver ſenſible of any thing better than our pre-
« fent exiſtence. For any being, which had ever
" enjoyed the happineſs of heaven, and had been
" in poſſeſſion of glory with the Father, to be de-
prived thereof, and to be ſent to dwell here, in
" this world, encompaſſed within the narrow limits
of this earthly tabernacle, and the heavy organs
as made of fleſh and blood; it muſt, literally ſpeak-
“ing, be, to ſuch a þeing, a hell upon earth."
But why do we find nothing of this in the
evangeliſts? If you will look into an excellent-ar-
ticle lately publiſhed in the Theological Repoſitory,
you will ſee that, much as we read in the ſcriptures
concerning thelove of Chriſtto us, and alſo concern-
ing our love to him, the ground of it is never faid
to be that with which you feel yourſelf fo deeply
impreſſed, p. 155. This writer examines every text
in which mention is made of the love of Chriſt,
through the whole of the New Teſtament, and he
no where finds any mention of, or alluſion to, a
greater ground for it than his love to us, manifeſted
by his ſuffering and dying for us. Could the
greater ground that ſtrikes your imagination fo
much, viz. his condefcenſion to become incarnate
for us, have been overlooked by all theſe writers,
if, in their idea, this great event had ever taken
place?
1
LETTERS TO THE
place? Your own feelings and conduct demon.
ſtrate it to be impoffible.
In one ſingle paſſage indeed, 2 Cor, viii. 9. wo
read, Ye know the grace of our Lord Jeſus Chrift,
that though be was rich, yet for our Jakes he became
poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich,
But the phraſes being rich, and being poor, are not
ſynonymous to a ſtate of pre-exiflent glory on the
one hand, and a voluntary abdication of it, on the
other, though ſuch an interpretation ſuits your
hypotheſis. Unitarians, you know, think the
paſſage admits of a different and more natural
interpretation, agreeable to their principles. At
any rate, however, you would never reſt a doc-
trine of this magnitude on the ſuppoſed meaning
of a ſingle expreſſion, manifeſtly figurative.
?
Conſider alſo the near connexion, there is be-
tween the ſuppoſed miraculous conception of Chriſt
and his incarnation, and ſay whether it be at all pro-
bable, that any perſon profeſſing to write the hiſtory
of the former, as Luke does, and Matthew is ſup:
poſed to do, ſhould relate the particulars of it,
and not mention the latter, if they had known
any thing of it? Do any Arians, even now (with-
out writing a regular hiſtory of Chriſt, but only
incidentally mentioning the ſubject, as in ſermons
and other diſcourſes) ever ſpeak of this body mi-
raculouſly prepared for him, without mentioning
the dignity of the inhabitant for whom it was pre-
pared? If you attend to the ſubject, the filence of
theſe
1
REV. DR. PRICE .
thefe two evangeliſts concerning the doctrine of
incarnation cannot but appear extraordinary, even
to yourſelf. In my opinion, Mark could not have
failed to have mentioned the miraculous concep-
tion in his hiſtory of Chriſt, had he ever heard of
ibot, and much leſs would any of the evangeliſts
have fuppreſſed the mention of ſo much more
wonderful a circumftance relating to their maſter,
as that of his incarnation, if they had known
any
thing about it.
:::.....
7
« How important,” you alſo very naturadly ſay,
p. 115, “mukt be the ſervice which Chriſt, as a
being of a very ſuperior nature to man, came
ak to performs." And yer it is never defcribed
in terms that give us an idea of its being
more than any other man might have per-
formed He preached, he declared the will of
God, and performed miracles in his name (at
the famae time exprefsly declaring what, according,
CQ your fgiften, muſt have been an equivocacion
that he could do notring of bimſelf, and that the
Father within bin did the works.) and lastly he
died, and by the power of God his Father he was
raiſed from the dead. Now is not all this
pre-
dicable of a man, and does it not beſt ſuit the cha-
racter of a man, a man, as Peter calls him, m-
proved of God, by Signs, and wonders, wbich God did
by him?
í
Permit me now to make ufe of another argu-
ment, and though you may think it has no great
weight,
:46
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R S TO THE
?
weight; yet appears to me to have much more thani
the literal interpretation of a hundred ſuch par-
ticular texts as thoſe on which you lay ſo much
Atreſs. : It is well known that ideas frequently rea
curring to the mind will ſoon find proper corre-
fponding terms. This was the caſe with the doctrine
of the:trinity, that of tranſubſtantiation, and many
others. Here you agree with me that the doctrines,
and the correſponding terms made their appear-
ance about the ſame time, and that this circum-
ſtance is a proof of the novelty of thoſe doctrines
with reſpect to the age of the apoſtles? Now is
not the argument juſt as good when applied to
the doctrine of incarnation in general. If John's
phraſeology of the word becoming fleſh had been ge-
nerally underſtood to mean the aſſumption of a
human body by a ſuperangelic fpirit, it would not
have long remained in that ſtate of circumlocution.
Had the idea been on the minds of chriſtians in the
$; whole of the apoſtolic age, as much as it was in
the third and fourth centuries, and as it is upon
your own mind at preſent, it could not have failed,
in my opinion, very ſoon to have produced the
more conciſe and expreſſive term incarnation. It
would foon have been the burden of the ſong with
both the enemies and the friends of chriſtianity.
But no ſuch thing appears, though we find it im-
mediately on the Platonizing fathers having got
the notion of a perſonified logos.
.
-
No ſuch terms as perſonified logos, or incarnation,
are to be found in the writings of the apoſtles.
Whenever
19:-.:
Rev. Dr.' PRICE..
41
1
1
منذ بدا
Whefiever they ſpeak of Chriſt they always call
him a man; and certainly the term ſuperangelic
being, or fome equivalent expreſſion would have
eſcaped them fome time or other, if they had con-
ceived it to be applicable to him. The author
of the epiftle to the Hebrews ſpeaks of him as, in
his 'nature, a little lower than the angels (quoting
from the Pfalmift an expreſſion applied to men in
general, though he ſpeaks of him as in dignity ad-
vanced far above them. Now would he not as
readily have ſaid that he was in nature, as well as
in rank and pre-eminence, by divine appoint-
ment, ſuperior to angels, if he had really thought
him to be fo? Some of Paul's epiſtles were writ-
ten near thirty years after he had devoted his whole
time to the propagation of the goſpel, and there
are other writings in the New Teſtainent of a ſtill
later date; and yet in none of them do you find
the proper term by which you now expreſs the
moft wonderful, and the moſt important doctrine
of the chriſtian fyſtem. Is there nothing extra-
ordinary in this; if the doctrine be really true ?"
But the argument to which I wiſh more parti-
cularly to draw the attention of learned chriſtians,
is that which I derive from the ſtate of things in
the age immediately ſucceeding that of the apof-
tles; conſidering the opinion of the great body
of chriſtians, in that early age, as one good me-
thod of aſcertaining what was the doctrine of the
apoſtles, and conſequently the true ſenſe of their
writings. Now I maintain, that no ſuch opinion
as
48
LITTERS TO THE
as that for which you contend had any exiſtence
till the beginning of the fourth century. Before
that time, viz. about the beginning of the ſecond
century, the Platonizing chriſtians bad adapted the
idea of the divinity of Chriſt, as the
perſonified, but una
creased, logas of the Father, united to a human body
and a human ſoul, while the common people held
theoriginal doctrine of the ſimple humanity of Chrift
but I affert that your opinion, viz. that the intelli-
gent principle in Chriſt was of a ſuperangelic naturen
and yet created out of bothing, that it ſuperſeded the
uſe of a proper human.foul, and that fuch a created
being was the creator of the world under God, was
not adopted by any ſect of chriſtians whatever,
learned or unlearned, till about the time of Arius.
And could the true doctrine of the apostles. bave
been immediately loft, and have remained un-
known to all the chriſtian world, from their time
till fo Late a period? In all this time were there
no chriſtians who underſtood the true ſenſe of
the ſcriptures on a ſubject, which was the uni-
verfal topic of difcuffion, as it has been from that
age to this day ? On this topic, I have long
called for the reply of learmed Ariars, of this
and other countries, but hitherto I have called in
vain
I am, &c.
LETTER
REV. DR. PRICE.
49
L E T T E Ri IV.
Of Agruments from particular Texts, and thoſe
drawn from the Reaſon of Things; and of the
Connexion between any Opinion concerning the
Perſon of Chriſt and the Belief of Chriſtianity in
general.
r
TOU
DEAR FRIEND,
OU are pleaſed to ſay, p. 391, that mime is
the only Socinian hypotheſis which you
could adopt, if you were to leave your preſent
ſentiments, without rejecting chriſtianity: I cannot
wonder at this, becaufe it appears to me to be by
far the moſt rational ſyſtem of chriſtianity, and
being the moſt defenſible, it is ſuch as thoſe who
hold it, are the leaſt likely to give up. But I fee
nothing of the ſuperior ſenſe in diſcerning, of the
Superior candour in acknowledging it, which you
afcribe tomne. It is only diſcerning and acknow-
ledging that a man is a man, that without divine
illumination one man could not know more than
any other man, and that without fupernatural
affiftance he could not do more than another man.
So far am I from thinking that it requires any
torturing of the ſcriptures, to make them ſpeak
Е.
this
i
30
LETTERS TO THE
this language concerning Chriſt, that I think it is
the only ſenſe that can be put upon them without
torture. It is the only one that is agreeable to
the uniform tenor of them.
On the contrary,
your opinion of one man being the maker of the
world, and of all other men, though I once
believed it myſelf, now appears to me a moſt
extravagant hypotheſis, anſwering no purpoſe but
that of giving a literal interpretation to a very
few texts, which much more naturally admit a
different conſtruction. For you muſt know that,
in many cafes, the literal interpretation of an
expreſſion is the moſt unnatural of all others.
If you look off from thoſe few texts, and attend
to the reaſon of things, which is better than a
hundred commentators, you cannot ſo much as
imagine any reaſon why the redemption of man-
kind from ſuperſtition and fin, with its attendant
death (which is the only redemption that is ſpoken
of in the ſcriptures) ſhould require the incarnation
of fuch a being as your logos ; and you give up
many advantages which ariſe from the idea of a
man like ourſelves being, employed as a meſſenger
from God to man. In my opinion, the Trini-
tarian doctrinę is much more plauſibly ſupported
both hy paſſages of fcripture (for its advocates
quote ten for your one) and by reaſon;, as they
allege that ſin, being of an infinite magnitude,
requires an infinite ſatisfaction; ſo that your logos,
or even Dr. Clarke's, the eternal creator of the
whole univerſe, was unequal to it.,
TO
I
REV. DR. PRICE.
51
To you, I know, I need to make no apology for
this freedoın; and I am perſuaded you will bear
with me if I ſay farther, that as the Arian hypo-
theſis roſe conſiderably later than the Trini-
tarian, ſo I doubt not it will vaniſh before it. I
do not expect to ſee the extinction of thé Trini-
tarian doctrine, becauſe it has got ſuch hold of the
common people, and has alſo the ſupport of the
civil powers; but, according to the courſe of
nature, I may hope to ſee an Arian conſidered
as a rare phenomenon.
You have done me juſtice, and yourſelf credit,
by producing at length my arguments for ſup-
poſing that by the power given to Chriſt, of
raiſing the dead, and judging the world, nothing
more was meant than ſuch a power as might have
been imparted to any other man. But I wiſh
you
had offered ſomething in reply to them before you
had pronounced, as you do, p. 392, that my
ſcheme is “ ſuch as cannot be adınitted without
“ either torturing the ſcriptures, or renouncing
o their authority."
In my opinion, and that of many others, what
you have quoted from my Letters is an eaſy and
natural account of the phraſeology on which you
build ſo much, and an illuſtration of it by its
actual uſe on different occafions. For this I appeal
to our common readers; as alſo whether the
inſinuation of any danger of renouncing the
E 2
authority
1
52
LETTERS TO THE
O THE
authority of the ſcriptures cught to have been
thrown out ſo lightly. For it may be ſuppoſed that,
in your ſerious opinion, the belief of chriftianity
itſelf is incompatible with my idea of it.
-
Indeed, my friend, we are not qualified to judge
for one another in this caſe. Otherwiſe, conſidering
how incredible your doctrine appears to me, viz.
that of a created being, in the form of a man, and
not at all diſtinguiſhable from other men by any
viſible property or circumſtance whatever (one who
was born and died; who ate, drank, and ſlept,
like oi her men, and who did nothing that any other
man, equally aided by God, might not have done)
being the creator of the world, that I might be
tempted to ſay that no ſcheme can be true which ſup-
poſes it. For it is not poffible that your mind ſhould
more revolt at my opinion, than nine does at yours.
But I check myſelf before I draw any ſuch con-
cluſion. For the plain hiſtorical evidence of the
certainty of thoſe facts which eſtabliſh the truth of
chriſtianity, is ſo very clear and ſtrong, that though
I ſhould ſte that the belief of them would draw
after it the belief of that doctrine, I ſhould not heſi-
tare to embrace it ; ſo that I fhould very contentedly,
and thankfully, be an Arian rather than no chrif-
cian. Indeed, ſo unſpeakably valuable is the great
hope of the goſpel, the revelation of a future life,
that I would admit almoſt the whole ſyſtem of
popery, and ſhut my eyes to every thing that only
appeared
4 4
}
REV. DR. PRI CE.
53
appeared incomprehenſible, and not an abſolute con-
tradi&tion, rather than abandon it. And notwith-
ſtanding what you have here, and elſewhere incau-
riouſly dropped, I am confident, you would con-
ſent to be not only almoſt, but altogether, what I am,
an Unitarian, a Neceffarian, and even a Materialiſt,
rather than no chriſtian at all. By this time you
muſt have ſeen that I am far from being ſingular
in my opinions; and you cannot ſay that as yet
there appears any ground of apprehenſion from
them. Of the dead we may ſpeak, and where was
there a better chriſtian than Dr. Jebb?
But though with myſelf, and ſome others, who
were both educated chriſtians, and have given
particular attention to the evidences of chriſtianity,
they will preponderate againſt theſe difficulties, it
may not be the caſe with all. Many perſons will
very naturally firſt conſider what is propoſed to
them, before they give any attention to the evidence
for it at all; and when they are told that, if they
embrace chriſtianity they muſt believe that the world
was made by an inhabitant of Judea (for in that
light, however the thing may be diſguiſed, and
ſoftened, to your mind, it will appear to them) it
is very poſſible the buſineſs may end there, and
they may inquire no farther about it. If this be
made a neceſſary preliminary, I am fatisfied, from
my own obſervations, that we muſt for ever deſpair
of the converſion of the Jews.
E 3
This
54
LETTERS TO THE
This was not the caſe with Arianiſm when it
was ſtarted. For it found the world in the belief
of pre-exiſtence and incarnation; ſo that neither
philoſophers, nor the vulgar, faw any thing to
object to it on that account. But the caſe is widely
different now.
I am, &c.
!
1
L E T T E R
V.
Of the Meaning of John vi. 32, and of Chriſt diveft-
ing bimjelf of the Power of working Miracles.
Y 902
DEAR FRIEND,
OU ſay, p. 392, that John vi. 32, Wbat and if
you ſhould ſee the Son of man aſcend up where be
was before, " is as deciſive a declaration of Chriſt's
“pre-exiſtence as words can well expreſs.” But
the phraſes this is my body, and except ye eat the
fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have
ño life in you, are as expreſs declarations of the
doctrine of tranſubſtantiation. Alſo what our Lord
ſays of the Comforter, literally interpreted, is as ex.
preſs a declaration of the perſonality of the Holy
Spirit. And yet you receive neither of theſe doc-
trines. He ſays, John xvi. 7. 13. If I depart I
will
5
Rev. DR. PRICE.
55
will fend him unto you, and he ſhall not ſpeak of himſelf,
but what foever be ſhall bear, that Mall be Speak, and
be cerill Anew you things to come. He Jhall glorify ine,
for be shall receive of mine, and ſball foow it unto
you. On your principle, of literal interpretation,
we have here an account of a perſon clearly diſtinct
from God, or Chriſt.
If we will allow of no figures of ſpeech, in ſuch
books as thoſe of fcripture, we muſt admit the
greateſt abſurdities. And you cannot feel more
reluctance to admit the figurative interpretation of
this paſſage in John, than Luther felt to give a ſimilar
interpretation to thoſe paſſages which ſeem to aſſert
the real preſence of Chriſt in the eucharift; as you
may fee in the Hiſtory of the Reformation by Beau-
fabre, a work which I have juſt peruſed with the
greateſt ſatisfaction.
On Carolſtadt's defending the doctrine of Zuinglius
on the ſubject of the euchariſt, he ſaid, “ Two
“perſons wrote to me on the ſame ſubject; and
“even treated it with more ability than Carolſtadt,
« not torturing the words of ſcripture as he did;
" but I find that I am taken, and have no way
“ to eſcape. For the text of the evangeliſt is too
plain, and too expreſs, to admit of any other
“ ſenſe." Vol. iii. p. 124. And when the Land-
grave propoſed a conference at Marpurg between
the German and Swiſs divines on the ſubject,
“ Luther premiſed that he would not depart from
s the literal ſenſe of the words This is my body,
E 4
" becauſe
56
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
becauſe, they appeared too clear, and expreſs, to
"admit any other, and, that he would not hear ſenſe,
“ or reaſon, when God had ſpoken." Vol. iv. p.148.
The whole diſcourſe in which this expreſſion, on
which you lay ſo much ſtreſs, accurs, is full of the
ſtrongeſt figures. For good reaſons, no doubt,
our Lord ſeems to have intended by it to ſtagger
and confound his hearers. All the diſciples, except
the twelve, abſolutely left him upon it, and even
they were in great danger of being offended. And
it is an expreſſion in this very enigmatical diſcourſe
(continued indeed, but in the fame ſtrain, after the
multitude had left him) a diſcourſe in which nothing
is expreſſed in a natural manner, that you inſiſt
muſt be interpreted literally.
Beſides, the literal interpretation of this very
paſſage, does not in reality accord with the fenti-
ments of Arians, or of any feet of chriſtians, except
thoſe of the Poliſh Socinians. For it would imply
that the human nature of Chriſt had been in heaven;
becauſe it is ſaid, not that the Son of God, but
that the Son of man had been there. Beſides, the
phraſe where he was before, is not ſynonymous to
beaven, nor is the time when the Son of man was
there, or any where elſe, mentioned in this paſ-
ſage; ſo that much muſt be ſupplied before it can
be made to ſay much to your purpoſe.
Though I reject your interpretation of this text,
I do not pretend to be quite ſatisfied with any other
interpretation
-
)
1
REV. DR. PRICE.
57
interpretation of it. I am, however, abundantly
ſatisfied that .yours is not the trųe one.
And this
is far from being the only text about which the beſt
critics cannot entirely pleaſe themſelves, For my
part,
I ſhould much ſooner have recourſe to the
idea of Chriſt's actual aſcent into heaven, or of his
imagining that he had been carried up thither, in a
vifion, which (like that of Paul) he had been able
to diſtinguiſh from a reality, at the time that he re-
ceived his commiſſion, than to yours, of his hav-
ing exiſted in an unembodied ſtate before the cre-
ation of the world, and his having left ſome ſtate
of great dignity and happineſs, when he came
hither,
That this hypotheſis is no proper clue to our
Lord's real meaning, is I think ſufficiently evident,
from the utter impoffibility of the apoſtles under-
ſtanding him to mean any ſuch thing. For, no
doubt, they, at that time, conſidered their maſter,
though the Meſſiah, as a mere man, who had no
more pre-exiſted than they themſelves had.
1
I cannot help obſerving, on this occaſion, that
neither yourſelf, nor any other perſon, has attempted
any ſolution of the difficulty I ſuggeſted, from the
ſilence of the writers of the New Teſtament with
reſpect to the diſcovery of the pre-exiſtent dignity
of Chriſt, whenever it was made to them. To
have been informed that Jeſus, with whom they
had lived in the greateſt intimacy, as a brotber, was
their maker, muſt have aſtoniſhed them as much as
if
:
i
58
Τ
LETTERS TO THE
if they had been told that John the Baptiſt had
been that great ſuperangelic being; becauſe they
were no more prepared to receive the one than
the other. But what traces do you perceive of
the apoſtles being impreſſed as they muſt ne-
ceſſarily have been, upon the diſcovery of a thing
of ſo extraordinary a nature ? How muſt fuch an
opinion have been ridiculed by the unbelieving
Jews. And what marks do we find, in the Acts
of the Apoſtles, of their having ſo much as heard
of ſuch an opinion being advanced by any chriſ-
tians? It is as evident from this conſideration as
any negative can be, that no fuch opinion as that
of Chriſt having been the maker of the world, was
ever taught by the apoſtles; and therefore any in-
terpretation of their writings, which implies their
teaching it, muſt be wrong, whether we be able
to hit upon the true ſenſe of them or not.
To be explicit with you, I would not, as you
ſay, p. 394, “build an article of faith of ſuch
“ magnitude, on the correctneſs of John's recol-
" lection, and repreſentation, of our Lord's lan-
guage.
So ſtrange and incredible does your
hypotheſis appear to me, that rather than admit it,
I would ſuppoſe the whole verfe to be an interpola-
tion, or that the old apoſtle dictated one thing, and
his amanuenſis wrote another. For you would not
ſcruple to ſay as much if you had found any paf-
fage, in which it was ſaid that Moſes, or any of
the old prophets, had been the maker of the
world.
As
Rev. Dr. PRICE.
59
As to the difficulty which you ſuggeſt, p. 396,
about Chriſt, diveſting himſelf of his power of
working miracles, when he never properly had
any ſuch power (which in your excellent fermon
on the reſurrection of Lazarus, you yourſelf ad-
mit) it is, in my apprehenſion, no difficulty at all.
Had Jeſus (to ſuppoſe an impoffibility) been in-
clined to exert a miraculous power of an impro-
per kind, or at an improper ſeaſon, I have no
doubt but that his inclination would have been
over-ruled, by that great Being by whoſe power
alone he acknowledged that the miracles were
wrought. But when his will perfectly coincided
with thąt of his Father, it is not at all extraordi-
nary, that he ſhould be ſaid to renounce a power
which he had exerciſed, when he only ceaſed to
requeſt the farther uſe of it, from a full convic-
tion that it ought not to be exerciſed any longer.
You ſay, p. 396. that “ the goſpel hiſtory gives
“ us reaſon for believing that Chriſt poffeffed a
power
of working miracles more permanently,
as well as in a higher degree, through the fpirit
w which was given him without meaſure." But
ftill, if it was through the ſpirit which was given to
him, it was no power of bis own, and is therefore
no argument for his pre-exiſtent dignity, and ſu-
perior nature, but the contrary. For the ſame
might have been imparted to any other 'man.
Nay he himſelf does virtually affert as much, when
he ſays, that when he ſhould be removed from them,
his apoſtles would do greater things than he had
done.
60
LETTERS TO THE
1
done. For if they did greater things, they muſt
have had greater power. If one paſſage muſt be
interpreted literally, why not another? Have Arians
the excluſive privilege of chuſing what texts to
interpret literally, and what figuratively?
I am, &c.
1
L E T T E R
VI.
Of the Influence of Prejudice and Imagination in
interpreting Scripture,
i
DEAR FRIEND,
IN
N reading the hiſtory of controverſies, which
tends to throw great light on the principles of
of human nature, and the human mind, we are
perpetually aſtoniſhed at the groſs miſtakes of very
able and very honeſt men. But the wonder al-
ways ariſes, from our not placing ourſelves pre-
ciſely in their ſituacion, and eſpecially from our
not conſidering the fixed principles, they had ac-
quired in their earlieſt years. Nothing ſurpriſes
Proteſtants of the preſent day more than the diffi-
culty with which the doctrine of tranſubſtantia-
tion was abandoned by the firſt reformers, an ex-
ample
1
Rivi DR.PRICE.
66
1
ainple of which we have in the conduct of Lu--
ther mentioned above. But whatever a man's :
fixed principles are, and however they were ac-
quired, he argues from them as indubitable
maxims, and likewiſe interprets ſcripture by them.
Luther's conduct (however it may appear to
us who were not educated with his prejudices) in
his obſtinately adhering to the literal interpretation
of the words of Chriſt, is more excuſeable than
that of the Arians, with reſpect to the doctrine of
creation by Chriſt; becauſe it is well known, that
the term creation is uſed in the ſcriptures in two
ſenſes, one of which implies nothing more than a.
renovation, or change; as when men are ſaid to be
created anew in Chriſt Jeſus, and God is ſaid to
create Jeruſalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
Conſequently, we are not obliged by the uſe of
any word, in the ſcripture ſenſe of it, to ſuppoſe
that Chriſt properly created any thing. And
though the word logos is applied to Chriſt in the
book of Revelation, where he is, or at leaſt is
ſuppoſed to be, meant by the perſon whoſe name is
called the word of God, yet when the word of God is
faid to create any thing, it is never to be under
ſtood of Chriſt, but of the power of the Father
only, as when it is ſaid that by the word of the Lord
were the heavens made, and all the hoſt of them by
the breath of his mouth.
1
On this account, I cannot help conſidering
your literal interpretation of thoſe texts, which
aſcribe
62
L ETTERS TO THE
aſcribe the creation of the material world to Chrift
.
as, in reality, unnatural. I cannot, however, help
approving of your conduct in one reſpect, viz.
in connecting the doctrine of the pre-exiſtence
of Chriſt, with that of his creation of all things.
For certainly the ſame texts of fcripture prove
both, or neither. Beſides, if no great office be
afçribed to him before his incarnation, it cannot
be known whether he was any thing more than a
human ſoul, for which no hody had been imme-
diately provided (and which, according to your
idea of an unembodied ſoul, was altogether inca-
pable of action, or even ſenſation) ſo that all the
Sublime of the ſcheme, that which recommends it
to many, abſolutely vaniſhes.
There is in every general ſcheme of chriſtianity,
(as you call the doctrine concerning the perſon of
Chriſt) ſomething that forcibly ſtrikes the ima-
ginațion; ſome leading principle, or maxim, which,
whether it be expreſsly found in the words of fcrip-
gure, or not, is at leaſt ſuppoſed to be implied, and
alluded to in them. Thus the Trinitarians think
it abſolutely neceſſary that the infinite evil of
“ ſin be atoned for by the ſufferings of an in-
“ finite Being;” and though they find no ſuch
maxim in the ſcriptures (but in fact the contrary,
as in all ſuch paſſages as thoſe in which God is
faid to forgive ſins for his own ſake, his name's fake,
or his mercy's fake) yet they cannot but think
that Chriſt muſt neceſſarily be God, having ſome-
thing to do that God only could execute.
Others
.
69
cannot
REV. DR.' PRICE.
Others are ſtruck with the idea of “the fame
perſon being the maker of the world, the me
« dium of all the divine communications with it,
therefore be ſatisfied without fuppofing Chriſt' to
be.poffefred. of powers equal to the making of the
world, and confequently to have been of a ſuper-
angelic nature. Dr. Clarke even fcrupled to call
him a creature, but conſidered him as a kind of
neceſſary appendage to the almighty Father, as
the hand by which he operated.
Nothing of this, however, is found in the ſcrip-
tures; and whenetter mention is made of the crea-
tion of the heavens or the earth, it is always aſcribed
to the Father only, who ſtretched out the heavens by
himſelf, without any affiftant, or inſtrument what-
ever; but ſtill the idea is ſo ſplendid, and cap.
tivating, that the imagination cannot quit it. You
however, compelled by the evidence of ſcripture
(which repreſents the Father as not having ſpoken
to mankind by his fon till the laſt days) content
yourſelf with making Chriſt equal to the creation
of the earth and its appendages, and fancy (for
you
muft excuſe me, if, fince it is not contained
in the ſcriptures, I ſay you only fancy) that ſome
miſchief had been done to this world by an an-
gelic being, which could only be repaired by a
being of a ſuperangelic nature, though the miſ-
chief be undefinable, and the manner in which the
remedy. (viz. the death of Chriſt) operated be
equally
1
6
LETTERS TO THE
equally undefinable, which certainly throws an
obfcurity over the ſcheme.
i
។
Laſtly, Others being ſtaggered at the idea
of Chriſt having made the heavens and the earth
(a province which he never claimed himſelf, and
which is never expreſsly aſcribed to hiir.) are
ſatisfied with giving him ſimple pre-exiſtence; with-
out determining his rank in the ſcale of being at all,
or knowing when his being commenced. This I
conſider as the pooreſt of all ſchemes, and leaſt
worth contending for, as you alſo ſeem to think by
not adopting it.
All this while the ſimple doctrine of Chriſt be-
ing a man, though he is always ſo called in ſcrip-
ture, and he is always repreſented as having felt
and aćted, in all reſpects, like a man, affifted by
God, is wholly overlooked, becauſe there is no-
thing in it to ſtrike the imagination. They ſee no
grandeur or beauty, in the ſcheme to make it
deſirable to them; and yet in the writings of the
apoſtle Paul we find a general maxim which ap-
plies to no other ſcheine whatever, viz, that as by
man comes death, so by man comes alſo the reſurrection
of the dead. Thus, in my opinion, many, over-
looking the plain ſenſe of ſcripture, teach for
doctrines the.vain imaginations of men.
1
You no doubt ſee my opinion in ſome ſuch
unfavourable light; and nothing remains but that,
with
:
0
Rev. Dr. 'PRICE
63
with mutual candour, we exhibit our reſpective
opinions with their proper evidence; being all of
us perſuaded, that the time is coming, when the
whole chriſtian world will embrace our opinion,
and that in due time, all thoſe who now think dif-
ferently from us, will come to think juſt as we do,
and wonder that they ſhould ever have thought
otherwiſe.
4
I am, &c.
I
L' E T T E R
VII.
1
Of the Mofuic Hiſtory of the Fall of Man, and the
Concluſion.
YO
DEAR FRIEND;
OU enlarge very much, in this Appendix, on
the opinion I have advanced concerning the
Moſaic hiſtory of the fall of man, and you had re-
preſented it (though it ſeems without knowing it
to be mine) as “ unworthy of particular notice;"
and yet when you come to ſtate
come to ſtate your own opinion
on the ſubject, I cannot perceive any ground for
ſuch an opprobious diſtinction between them. I
conſider the accounc that Moſes has given as his
F
own,
i
1
66
LETTERS TO THE
own, ſince he no where ſays that it is not; and
conſequently the beſt that he could colleet from
tradition; and having particularly examined it,
I fcrupled not to call it a very lame one. I wiſh,
however, that inſtead of the term lame, 'I had ſaid
imperfeet, which has the ſame meaning, and might
have given-leſs offence. Now, what do you ſay of
it? “ I am inclined, p. 376, to look upon the
“ Moſaic hiſtory of the creation, the fall, the de-
« luge, &c. as a popular hiſtory, which ſhould be
« read with great allowances, for the antient man-
“ ner of inſtruction by emblems and hieroglyphics.
“ But I pay more regard to it than Dr. Prieſtley
“ ſeems to do.” That no doubt you do. But then
I ſee no reaſon for this ſuperior regard. If it be
after all but a popular hiſtory, and of courſe noc
ſtrictly and philofophically true, and if the inter-
pretation be ſo very difficult, what can we cer-
tainly learn from it? Interpret this as you do the
paſſages that ſpeak of the creation of all things
by Christ in the New Teſtament, and ſee what it
will then make for Arianiſm.
:
1
You ſay, on this occaſion, p. 376, that I do not
of allow of ſcriptural authority.” But indeed, my
friend, you ſhould have expreſſed yourſelf with
more caution. No man can pay a higher.regard
to proper fcriptural authority than I do; but neither
I, nor I preſume yourſelf, believe implicitly every
thing that is advanced by any writer in the Old
or New Teſtament. I believe all the writers,
without exception to have been men of the greateſt
probity,
4
REV. DR. PRICE:
67
4
probitý, and to have been well informed of every
mug of conſequence of which they treat; but at
the ſame time I believe them to have been men,
and conſequently fallible, and liable to miſtake
with reſpect to things to which they had not given
much attention, or concerning which they had
not the means of exact information; which I take
to be the caſe with refpect to the account that
Mofes has given of the creation and the fall of
man,
It is on this principle only, that the evidence of
revelation can be defended; and if we go upon
any other, we load ourſelves with inſurmountable
difficulties, as you would have been ſtill more fen-
ſible of, if you had written as much as I have done
in defence of revealed religion. Do not then
fay, in ſuch general and unqualified language,
that I do not allow of ſcripture autbority. For if
that was the cafe, I could not be a believer in re
velation, which I am confident is not your opi-
nión, or an opinion that you would be the means
of propagating among others, who, on your au-
thority, would be ready enough to adopt it, and
propagate it ſtill farther.
I do not, in this letter, diſcuſs the ſubject of the
fall of man, becauſe I have already advanced what I
think ſufficient about it, and what I have as yet feen
no reaſon to retract, in the Theological Repoſitory
under the ſignature of PAMPHILUS. For the
fame reaſon neither do I now ſay any thing in de-
fence
1
F2
68
1
L ETTERS, &c.
fence of what I there advanced on the natural
fallibility and peccability of Chriſte. But I
that, inſtead of ſeeing my opinions merely exhi-
bited, with every circumſtance that can tend to
make them appear frightful, and excite the horror
of the generality of readers (which is all that has
yet been done by any of my opponents) they
would produce their ſtrong reaſons againſt them,
They can hardly ſuppoſe that ſuch conduct will
much affect me, and its effect on our readers is
only temporary, and may be unfavourable to their
purpoſe in the end. When the moſt frightful ob-
jects have been viewed very often they ceaſe to
appear frightful, and it is no uncommon thing for
men to become the moſt attached to thoſe things
to which they at firſt had the greateſt averſion.
As to the doctrine concerning the perſon of
Chrift, you and I do not differ ſo much, but that
we agree in this, that, at the laſt day, the inquiry
will not be what we thought of him, but whether
we have obeyed his commands, and eſpecially that
great command, of loving his brethren, and con-
ſequently of ſhewing all poſſible candour to them.
Looking for, and haſting unto, that great day; I am,
With the affection of a brother,
Dear Friend,
Yours ſincerely,
J. PRIESTLEY
BIRMINGHAM,
NOVEMBER, 1787.
1
:
L Τ Τ
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R S
1
TO THE
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS
IN THE
Two Univerſities of Oxford and Cambridge.
F3
:
**
.
-
5
1
.
1
1
:
?
TO THE
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
L E T T E R I.
Of Mr. Howes's uncandid Infinuations.
GENTLEMEN,
Am happy to find that, in conſequence of the
Addrefs which I took the liberty to make to
you, on the ſubject of fubfcription to afticles of
faith, and of the preſent controverſy relating to
the perfon of Cbrif, others have likewiſe addreſſed
themfelves to you; and as I do not wiſh to have
fairer umpires in the caſe, it is with peculair ſatiſ-
faction that I once more ſolicit your attention, and
before your tribunal make my defence, in anſwer
to ſeveral charges advanced againſt me by different
perſons, and eſpecially by Mr. Howes, a learned
member of your church. Thefe charges affect
my late theological writings in general, my moral
character, and the merits of the queftion in debate.
>
F4
According
72
LETTERS TO THE
1
According to Mr. Howes (Appendix to his fourth
volume, p. 7.) my Hiſtories of the Corruptions of
Chriſtianity, and of early opinions concerning Jeſus
Chriſt, with the tracts I have written in defence of
them, are "a huge maſs of hiſtorical, critical,
" metaphyſical, and theological romance," and
not of an inſtructive or entertaining kind, as ro-
mances might be. Speaking of Epiphanius,
whoſe authority, you know, is not the higheſt
among the chriſtian Fathers, he ſays, p. 41. “If
“ I found a hundredth part of the miſtakes, inac-
e curacies, and romances in the hiſtory of Epi-
phanius, as in Dr. Prieſtley's own hiſtories, I
“ ſhould readily give him up as an incompetent
ss witneſs.
ⓇC
Alluding to my ſmall pretenſions to philofophy,
he fạys, p. 23: ".While oſtenſibly they pretend
« to act upon philoſophical principles, they in
“ reality, only diſplay a diferent mode of exert-
« ing a blind and impetuous ſectarian zeahliand
“daily commit the ſame waxages with their pens
upon the venerable remains of chriſtian anti-
quity, which their predeceffors, the Mahometan
Unitarians, did with fire and ſword, by deſtroy-
ing or mangling all the authentic memorials of
the chriſtian religion in anţient ages; and this
C. in order to favour pretended high antiquity of
" their own Unitarian rect, of the exiſtence of
“ which I can in.fact find no evidence before the
age of Socinus in 1500 after. Chriſt, but at leaſt
( not in the two firſt centuries,
As
;-
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, '&c.
573
As to my pretenſion of having truth for the
object of my inquiries, Mr. Howes abſolutely
ridicules it, as you will find in the following ex-
ordium to his laſt work, which is ſo eloquent,
that I cannot forbear giving it intire.
« The
ſpirit of deſputation," p. 1.' is like a magic
glaſs, which inverts the whole creation; that
" is no longer light which we ſee, nor that real
< ſubſtance which we feel ; it teaches us to doubt
" even our own exiſtence; all the attainments of
.“ human ſcience, all the ancient traditions of re-
mligion, all the memorials of written hiſtory, all
* the flow and accumulated knowledge of paſt
ages, are made to diſappear like a viſion, are
Fe diſplaced, diſtorted, and annihilated, whenever
they ſtand in the way of a new and favourite
hypotheſis; which has been haſtily perhaps taken
istiup at firft by a falſe ſpirit of philoſophy, nurſed
by · the ſubtle fpirit of metaphyſics, and de-
« fended by a wrangling ſpirit of diſputation ;
r6 all of theſe ſufficient enemies to truth to be
s both able and willing to disfigure every feature
“of it, and this alſo in the very moment when
" the moſt flattering promiſes are made of an
« inviolable attachment to truth and truth only.
(
“Few," he ſays, 'p. 15; “ too few perhaps,
may be inclined along with myſelf to ſearch for
truth with caution and candour, or to embrace it
es when diſcovered. Therefore, it has been for the
“ few alone that my obſervations have been cal-
6 culated. From thoſe who bring religious or
s diſputatious prejudices along with them I can
“ expect
:
L E T T E R S T O T H E
74
s expect no good; if while they oftenſively profeſs
" the cauſe of fruth only, they bring with them a
" lurking envy at the emoluments of the eſtabliſhed
“church; and though called by Elijah to follow
“him to heaven, if they have their thoughts ſtill
” fixed upon earth, upon unyoking the oxen, and
“partaking of the tythes, &c. all fuch, before
" they approach the hallowed ground of truth, muſt
« firſt put off the old man that is corrupt, according
to deceitful lufts, and be renewed in the Spirit of a
right underſtanding, both to will and to do ac-
* cording to the good motions of reaſon." Theſe
general ſentiments of Mr. Howes are, no doubt,
very juſt, though oddly enough expreſſed. The
queſtion is, whether a beam in his own eye does
not prevent his ſeeing a mote in that of another,
i
1
So far am I, according to Mr, Howes, from
being a ſearcher after truth, or loving the light,
that I rejoice in darkneſs, and wiſh to be covered
with it. Speaking of my repreſentation of the fenſe
of Epiphanius, he ſays, p. 122, “ Such a conduct
« tends only to introduce confuſion. This, how-
"ever, may be more acceptable than perfpicuity,
" to thoſe whoſe beſtevidence for their affertions is,
« let the darkneſs cover us." On this occaſion I
thall only ſeriouſly fay, that if this account of my
views. be true, if I do with that darkneſs may cover
me, the dreadful imprecation will be fulfilled.
Though Mr. Howes has taken much pains to re-
preſent me as an unbeliever in chriſtianity, and a
tecret enemy to it, I am, gentlemen, a ferious
believer in it; and I hope that both my writings
and
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
75
and my conduct will ſhew, to the unprejudiced,
that I truly reſpect it, and that I ſhall never violate
the ſpirit and precepts of it ſo much as Mr. Howes
has done in this moſt unchriſtian infinuation.
Beſides charging me with a total diſregard to
truth, Mr. Howes more than inſinuates that my
principal motive in writing is to get poffeffion of
the tythes, and other emoluments, of the eſtabliſhed
church. My moſt ſerious enquiries, he ſays, p. 3,
" are often interlarded with warm ejaculations, which
betray a longing with after tythes, &c. Is this
conſiſtent in thoſe who profeſs only a regard for
truth.” Quoting ſome expreſſions of mine he
fays, p. 12, “ ſuch language may be ſuitable to
" the party zeal of a ſectary, who makes it his
“ buſineſs to fight againſt eſtabliſhments unleſs he
"can partake of them, as I have ſhewn from his
“ own words Dr. Prieſtley wiſhes to do. Buc
this is not conſiſtent with my own views or
56. practice.”
Now, .gentlemen, if any credit be due to my
uniform profeſſions, or to my conduct, I wiſh, and
fhall do my endeavour towards effecting, the utter
downfall of all eccleſiaſtical eſtabliſhments, together
with their tythes, and every thing elſe belonging to
then. Other writers upbraid me with my violence
this ſubject. Beſides, if I really were what
Mr. Howes repreſents me to be, no believer in
chriſtianity, and deſtitute of all regard to truth,
why might not one eſtabliſhment ſuit my purpoſe
on
as
1
76
L E T T E R S TO THE
as well as another? and why have I applied no part
of that addreſs, and aſſiduity, which are generally
aſcribed to me, io get ſome preferment in the
church? Conſidering my connexions, few perſons
will doubt but that, if this had been my object, I
might have made a better proviſion for myſelf in
the church, than I am likely to make out of it.
/
But how is it that Mr. Howes proves that my
intention is to get poffeffion of the tythes, &c. from
my own words. It is as follows: Having expreſſed
my wilh, as I frequently have done, for the utter
aboliſhing of all eſtabliſhments, I mentioned, in
my late Diſcourſe on free Inquiry, a more equitable
mode of eſtabliſhing chriſtianity, which might be
adopted in preference to the preſent; ſaying "the
“ moft equitable thing would be to allow Uni-
“ tarians the uſe of a church, when their proportion
“ of the tythes, &c. would be. fufficient for the
maintenance of a miniſter of their own perſua-
“ fion.” Again, in my Sermon preached at Leeds,
I ſay, '56 all who are intereſted in the ſupport of
" theſe anti-chriſtian eſtabliſhments, which uſurp
an undue authority over the conſciences of men,
" and whoſe wealth and power are advanced by
" them, are in a ſtate of confternation, &c."
“ By a compariſon of the above two paſſages,”
Mr. Howes ſays, Note, p. 3,
“it appears that Dr.
Prieſtley would not conſider eſtabliſhments as
« anti-chriſtian, in caſe the power and wealth of
" the Unitarians were advanced by them, and that
« fuch
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
77
ſuch an eſtabliſhment would not be to ufurp an
Sundue authority over the conſciences of men.
“ For what authority has an orthodox eſtabliſhment
at preſent over the conſciences of men, except
" the influence ariſing from what he clſewhere calls
" the preſent excluſive advantages of eſtabliſh-
"ments ?"
1
If you, gentlemen, can ſee the force of this rea-
ſoning, you are better ſkilled in the art of logic than
I pretend to be. The fair conſtruction of the pal-
fages, without any help from my moſt unequivocal
language elſewhere, is that all ecclefiaftical elta-
bliſhments are anti-chriſtian, that all of them uſurp
an undue authority over the conſciences of men; and
that, inſtead of wiſhing to partake of their emolu-
ments, I ſhall rejoice in their downfall; but that
if they cannot be taken down altogether, it might
be better to fix them on a broader baſis, ſo that
they might comprehend all the ſerious profeſſors
of chriſtianity, Unitarians as well as others, which
is actually the caſe in North-America. Mr. Howes,
by his imprudence and intemperate zeal, is, unknown
to himſelf, contributing more to the diſcredit, and
conſequently to the downfall, of the church eſta;
bliſhment of this country, than I am doing; and
if abler and better adviíed men do not interfere, and
better meaſures be not adopted, the ruin of it will
be accompliſhed much ſooner than I had ventured
to expect. But I am not ſo violent a reformer as
to wiſh to imitate the members of the church of
England, when they made che aft of uniformity;
in
789
LETTERS TO THE
in conſequence of which two thouſand conſcientious
miniſters were deprived of their livings, and many
exchanged them for priſons. I would not deprive
any man of his preſent emolument, but would
fecure it to him for his life, even that which Dr.
Horſley has gained for his important ſervices in
writing againſt myſelf.
1
>>
Having defcanted upon my Dedication, Mr.
Howes condeſcends to beſtow fome reflections on
my title page, ridiculing my profeſſing myſelf a
philoſopher, is my title page,” he ſays, p. 13,
« fecs forth in full ſhew, although indeed little will
« be found within correſponding to real philoſophy,
“except hard words." Then, in his Note, he
recites thoſe additions to my name, which you
will
find in the title page of theſe Letters, in the uſe of
which, as it is the univerſal practiſe, I was not
aware of there being any thing reprehenſible. Not
one of the foreign titles was directly, or indirectly,
folicited by myſelf. For a confiderable time I
declined the use of them, though contrary to uni-
verſal cuſtom. I then prefixed them to my philoſo-
phical writings only; but being informed that as
my other writings went abroad, it would be con-
fidered as an affront to the ſocieties which, juſtly
or unjuſtly, had beſtowed thein, if they were
omitted, I have very lately begun to prefix them to
moſt, but not to all my publications.
· Had not Mr. Howes ſo expreſsly diſclaimed all
the arts of controverſy, and afferred that all his ob-
fervations
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
79
fervations were on books, and not on authors, it
might have been thought that ſome of the remarks
I have animadverted upon were of the latter claſs.
For my own part, I profefs to be a controverſial
writer, becaufe I conſider fair controverſy as a
valuable means of diſcovering and aſcertaining
truch; but I ſhould think myſelf diſgraced by ſo
much of the art of it as you muſt ſee have been
adopted by Mr. Howes, even in what is quoted in
this introductory letter, which I conclude by ſub-
fcribing myſelf,
Gentlemen,
Your very humble Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
1
!
j
r
L E T T E R II.
.
Of the Do Erine of the Ebionites.
GENTLEMEN,
AVING given you ſome idea of the temper
with which Mr. Howes engages in this con-
troverly (though on his ſide it muſt by no means
be fo denominated) and of the opinion which he
entertains of myſelf, and of my writings, and alſo
of
!
803
LETTERS TO THE
211
of himſelf and his writings, I now proceed to the
queſtion in debate.
.
I
The poſition which I have endeavoured to eſta-
bliſh in my Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Chrift,
is thàt the primitive church was, properly Úni-
tarian, that the great maſs of common unlearned
chriſtians continued to be fo till near the council
of Nice, and that it was a conſiderable time before.
Unitarianiſm was conſidered as beretical. I have
alſo endeavoured to ſhew at large, that the doctrine
of the Trinity had its origin in Platoniſm. · Both
theſe poſitions Mr. Howes denies.
He even
denies the exiſtence of any ſuch doctrine as that of
Unitarianiſm (which he quaintly calls bumaniſm) in
the two firſt centuries, and is inclined to do it even
till the time of Socinus, or about the year 1500.
He denies it both with reſpect to the ortbodox,
and the beretics. " Dr. Prieſtley,” he ſays, p. 8,
“ has not, and cannot fix upon any one chriſtian
“ ſect of the firſt ages (as I defy him to do) whom
“ he can prove to have diſbelieved in the divinity
“ of Chriſt.” In the title page of his work, le
ſays, “ no ſuch chriſtians ever exiſted except in
Utopia, during the two firſt centuries, as thoſe
« whom Dr. Prieſtley calls ancient. Unitarians,
" that is, who were not believers in the divinity of
“ Chriſt, in ſome mode or other.".
1
។
aſſertion as this, I feel as I lould do if I were
required to prove that there were any ſuch people
as
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
81
as the ancient Britons, and that the Saxons were
intruders in this country. For to deny them is
equally to abandon all faith in hiſtory. Mr. Howes,
indeed acknowledges that he is nearly at leaſt
fingular in his opinion. " It is a ſubject,” he ſays, .
p. 8," which has never been ſufficiently attended
to by former writers, who have too readily con-
“ ceded, or rather acquieſced without enquiry, in
" the confident aſſertions of the Unitarians, that
" there did exiſt, in the two firſt chriſtian ages, ſome
“ ſects who diſbelieved the divinity of Chriſt.”
If therefore I be in an error, it ſeems that I am not,
like Mr. Howes, ſingular, or nearly ſingular, in it.
I err in good company, and in that of the orthodox
as well as that of the heterodox; and if I have
adopted a miſtake, I have not the guilt of being the
firſt co ſtart it.
6. All
As Mr. Howes cannot deny but that ancient
fects of chriſtians are ſaid by the earlieſt writers to
have called Chriſt a mere man, he ſays, p. 36,
“ the evidence produced by Dr. Prieſtley that the
« Ebionites believed Chriſt to be a mere man, is
« only by ſome brief and ſummary expreſſions,
" found in ſeveral of the Fathers, when they were
“reaſoning on ſome other ſubjects, wherein they
“ had no intention of explaining the whole of the
« Ebionitiſh creed, but introduced incidentally, only
“ ſo much of it as made for their own reaſoning in
“ thoſe particular paſſages.” We ſhall foon ſee how
this hypotheſis accords with the facts.
+
G
I have
i
82 LETTERS TO THE
I have clearly fhewn that, by the confeffion of
call the chriſtian Fathers, who were certainly intereſted
to deny the fact if they could, neither Chriſt him-
felf, ifor any of the apoſtles before Jolin, taught
his pre-exiſtence or divinity with clearneſs, äid that
the chief reaſon which they aſſigned for it was,
that the prejudices of the Jews, in favour of their
Mefliah being a mere man, were ſo ſtrong, that
their nýinds would have revolted at it. The chriſ-
tian world in general, therefore, not having been
inſtrueted in theſe doctrines, could not have believed
thêm till after the time in which John publiſhed his
goſpel, which was generally ſuppoſed to be after
the death of the other apoſtles, and the deſtruction
of Jeruſalem. But before this time chriſtianity,
in its Unitarian ſtate, was received in almoſt every
part of the Roman empire.
However, great changes in opinion are never
brought about ſuddenly, or without circumſtances
which prove their reality; and ſince we cannot find
the leaſt trace of any change having been produced
in the chriſtian world by the writings of John, we
are neceſſarily led to infer, that the notion of John
Having taught the doctrines of the pre-exiſtence
and the divinity of Chriſt is an improbable hypo-
theſis, though the beſt that could be thought of to
account for a fact, the reality of which the chriſtian
Fachers could not deny, viz. the exiſtence of Uni-
tarianiſm in the great maſs of the common people
in their own times, and thoſe immediately pre-
ceding them.
I have
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
83
)
Thade thewn that all the Jewiſh chriſtians were
called Ebionites or Nazarenes, and that, according
to the unanimous teſtimony of the ancients, they
did not believe in the pre-exiſtence, or the divinity
of Chriſt, though Tome of them believed in his
miraculous conception. It is pretended that
beſides Che Ebionités avid Nazarenes, who are
acknowledged to have been unbelievers in the
divinity of Chriſt, there were other Jewith chrif-
tians who believed that doctrine. But I find
no trace of any ſuch perfons. Since Mr. Howes,"
however, denies that even the Ebionites or Na-
zarenes diſbelieved that doctrine, it may be uſeful
to produce ſufficient authority for the common
opinion, in reply to him; and not to trouble you
with unneceſſary quotations from original writers,
in doing this I ſhall, in moſt caſes, content myſelf
with referring you to my Hiſtory of early Opinions
concerning Chriſ, in which you will find the pal-
fages at full length.
The firſt chriftian writer who mentions the
Ebionites by that name is Irenæus ; and nothing
can be more evident than that, contrary to what
Mr. Howes afferts, his argument ſhews that he
could not have conſidered them as believing the
diyinity of Chrift.
is God will judge them,” he
Tays, vol. ii. p. 279, “ and how can they be
faved, if it be not God that works out their
"ſalvation upon earth.”.: Again he ſays, p. 280,
if they perſiſt in their errof, not receiving the
“ word of incorruption, they continue in mortal
G2)
fleſh,
“
84
LETTERS TO THE
1
fleſh, and are ſubject to death, not receiving
“ the antidote of life.”
1
I appeal to you, gentlemen, whether this writer
could have argued in this manner, or have
expreſſed himſelf ſo harſhly, if he had conſidered
the Ebionites as believing the divinity of Chriſt.
This teſtimony of Irenæus is alone abundantly
fufficient to prove that, in his opinion, the
Ebionites were no believers in the divinity of
Chriſt.
i
Tertullian, whom you will find Mr. Howes
quotes as holding a different opinion, ſays, vol. iii.
p. 204, that ". Ebion did not believe that Chriſt
“ was the Son of God," probably meaning that
he thought him to be the Şon of, Joſeph. But not
perſon I apprehend ever diſbelieved the miraculous
conception, and at the ſame admitted the divinity
of Chriſt, whether the connexion between theſe
opinions be neceſſary or not.
iso
The teſtimony of Origen is particularly ex-
preſs. He ſays, vol. ii. p. 166, “ thoſe of the
* Jews who believed Jeſus to be Chriſt are called
*** Ebionites. Of theſe," he ſays, “ ſome thought
*** him to be the ſon of Jofeph and Mary, and
csc others of Mary' only and the Holy Spirit, but
-“ did not believe his divinity."
This is ſo contrary to Mr. Howes's aſſertion,
that he thought it neceſſary to make'an obſervation
upon
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
85
1
upon it.
“ If Origen's words," he fays, p. 83,
« be attended to, it ſeems evident that he never
" meant to apply the appellation of Ebionites to
ss the Jewiſh chriſtians in general, in any other,
so than in a loofe ſenſe, juſt as the members of the
“ church of England are called Calviniſts; mean-
“ing only as to their general principles, and not
" that they are lineally deſcended from the original
« Calvinifts in Switzerland.” But certainly they
would not be called Calviniſts at all, if they were
not ſuppoſed to hold the diſtinguiſhing principles :
of Calviniſm. So ..neither' would Origen have
aſſerted of the Ebionites in general, that they
diſbelieved the divinity of Chriſt, and that all the
Jewiſh believers were called Ebionites, if it had
not been his opinion that the Jewiſh chriſtians in
general, and even thoſe before his own time, held
the opinion which he aſcribes to them, The pro-
bability will always be, that bodies of men receive
their doctrines from their anceſtors.
1
p. 168,
Euſebius almoſt copies Origen in his account
of the two ſorts of Ebionites, ſaying, vol. iii.
they think. Chriſt to be merely a man, like other
men;" and of thoſe who believe the miraculous
conception he expreſsly ſays, “ they by no means
« allowed that Chriſt was God, the word, and
so wiſdom.”
1
Epiphanius, whoſe authority Mr. Howes pre-
tends to be in his favour ſays, vol. iii. p. 209,
« Ebion
G3
86 L ETTER Ş TO THE
E
“ Ebion himſelf believed that Chrift was a mere
man, born as otạer men are,
With reſpect to the Nazarenes, whom I have
proved to be the very ſame witủ the Ebionites,,
Theodoret ſays, val, ii, D. 183," they are Jews,
“ who own Chriſt as a righteous man,” which he.
would never have contented himſelf with ſaying
if he had fuppofed that they believed in his divinity.
Epiphanius could never have conſidered the
Nazarenes as believers in the divinity of Chriſt,
when he repreſented them, vol. iii. p. 185; as
people who, on hearing the name of Jeſus
only, and the miracles performed by the apoſtles,
« believed on him." It is evident that he con-
idered them as not having heard of his divinity,
and he ſpeaks of doth the Ebionitęs and Naza-
fenes, p. 140, as requiring to be taught the divinity
of Chrilt by John.
I have no occaſion to purſue this evidence any
Farther, as all the later writers, without exception,
agree with thoſe that I have already quoted. I
fhall therefore cloſe my preſent letter, and in my
next conſider what Mr. Howes has advanced to
invalidate thiş evidence.
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS; &c.
88
1
L E T T E R UI,
of the true Meaning of a Paſſage in Pertullian, and
another
. in Epiphanjus quoted by Mr. Howes.
:
GENTLEMEN,
THE
HE paffages on which Mr. Howes lays the
the greateſt ſtreſs are one or two in Epipha-
nius, who, as I have obſerved, aſcribes to ſome
of the Ebionitęs a tener of the Gnoftics, viz. that
the Chriſt was a ſuper-angelic created being, who
deſcended into Jelus at his baptiſm, in which I
doubt not. he aſcribes to them the opinion of the
Cerinthians, and this is not mạch to be wondered
af, aş the Cerinthians were Jewiſh chriſtians, as well
as the Ebjonites. The pallages may be ſeen in
my Hiſtory, vol. iii, p. 206. But in them he
ſpeaks of this Chriſt of the Ebionites as created,
and what divinity can that be ? Mr. Howes, in-
deed, ſtrangely talks of degrees of divinity. But
this is to me as incomprehenſible as the doctrine
of the Trinity. "In regard to the degree of di-
vinity,” Mr. Howes ſays; p. 107a
* whether
" the Chriſt of the Ebionitęs, was a ſuperior, of
“only, a ſubordinate divinity, or no divinity at
all, but merely a ſuper-human ſpirit, this is a
" queſtion of debatę hetween the orthodox' and
" the Arians, and not hetween the orthodox and
" the
G4
88
LETTERS TO THE
“the humaniſts." I think, however, that, if Mr,
Howes maintains that the Chriſt of the Ebionites
was God, and I maintain that he was not, the
queſtion is between him and me, if there be any
queſtion between us at all, . If this Chriſt had ng
divinity at all, ſurely I am juſtified in ſaying that
the Ebionites did not believe the divinity of
Chriſt in any ſenſe of the word, and Mr. Howes
can have no reafon for conteſting what I ad-
vance.
wity:* Wire
Mr. Howes imagines that he has found two
authorities to ſupport the opinion which he had
aſcribed to Epiphanius. The firſt is from Ter-
tullian, whom I ſhall quote more at length than
Mr. Howes has done, and ſhew that he has groſsly
miſapprehended his meaning. The paſſage is in
his treatiſe De Carne Chrifti, ſec. xiv. in which,
having ſpoken of Chriſt as being made lower than
the angels, he ſays, that "it was as man, having
" the fleſh and the ſoul of man. But as the
“ ſpirit of God, and the power of the Moſt
“ High, he could not be lower than the angels,
" being God, and the ſon of God. As much,
“ therefore, as, when he carried the man, he was
« leſs than the angels, by fo much when he car-
“ried the angel, he was not leſs than they. This
" opinion may agree with that of Ebion, who
ric
ſuppoſed Jeſus to be a mere man, only of the
« feed of David, that is, not the ſon of God;
clearly however in ſome reſpects more glorious
i
? than
1
89
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, Sóc.
« than the prophets, ſo that an angel may be ſaid:
« to have been in bim, as in Zachariah, though ic
" is never expreſsly ſaid fo concerning Chriſt *.
$
“ From this paſſage,” Mr. Howes ſays, P: 33,
« it is plain that the Ebionites did not look upon
« Jefus himſelf as the Chriſt, or chief agent; but
" only as the receptacle of a fuperior agent; and
66 whether this angel be conſidered as partaking
" in any degree of a divine nature, or not, yet
“ this makes no difference of any moment. It
«s was ſtill not Jefus, a mere man, who was, ac-
cording to them, the Chriſt, but ſome ſuperior.
being, of an intermediate nature between divi-
nity and humanity."
.
Now, certainly; what Mr. Howes calls' a dif-
ference of no moment, viz. whether this Chriſt
was God, or not, is, as I have obſerved, the only
difference between him and me: But he totally
miſconſtrues the paſſage, the meaning of which is
as follows. Tertullian deſcribes the doctrine of
the Ebionites, by ſaying that they believed Jeſus
Minuifti eum modicum quid citra angelos, quomodo vide-
bitur angelum induiffe, fic infra angelos diminutus, dum
homo fit, qua caro et anima et filius hominis ! Qua autem
fpiritus Dei et virtus altiffimi non poteft infra angelos haberi.
Deus fcilicet ét Dei filius. Quanto ergo dum hominem gefat
minor angelis factus eſt, tanto non dum angelum geſtat. . Po.
terit hæc opinio Hebioni convenire, qui nudum hominem, et
tantum ex remine David, id eft non et Dei filium conftituit
Jefum. Plane angelis aliquo gloriofiorem urita in illo angelus
fuiffe dicatur quemadmodum in aliquo Zecharia.
4
to
go:
L E T T E R S TO THE
to be a meremas but to give him fome advantage
over other prophets, they ſaid that an angel ſpake
in bim (nor ta bin)This is all that according to
Tertullian, they acknowledged. But they did not
fay that this angel was any part of Chriſt, or united
to him, but 4 very different being. Tertullian.
indeed fays how far, in his own opinion, their doc-
wine might be reconciled with that of the ortho-
dox, as: the divine principle in Jeſus might be
called an angel
. But this is intirely his own con-
truction, and a very harſh onę, by which he miſ.
repreſents the tenets of the orthodox themielves;
according to which the divine principle in Chrift
was na angel, but the uncreated legas of the Fa-
ther, that principle which created all angels. Such
is this boaſted authority for the concurrence of
Tertullian with Epiphanius, in inaintaining that
the Ebionitęs were believers in the divinity of
Chrift; when both of them, in other paffages,
clearby aſſert the very contrary.
In this very paffage Tertullian mentions his
own opinion as that of Chriſt being God, and the son
of God, i. e. as poſſeſſed of divinity, and that of the
Ebionites as of his not being the Son of God, that is,
as the ſon of Joſeph, and having nodivinity. Beſides,
he repreſents the opinion of the Ebionites, as that
of there being only ſuch a difference between Chriſt
and the other prophets, as between Zachariah and
the other prophets, in conſequence of an angel
ſpeaking in him, and not to him. But will Mr.
Howės himſelf ſay, that it was their opinion,
that
1
99
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &ę.
that Zachariah, in conſequence of an angel ſpeak
ing in, bim, and not to. kins, was himſelf an angel
of, a: God?
}
But Mr. Howes pretends to have the authority:
of Theodoret, as well as that of Tertullian in fup-
Fort
of that ºf Ępiphanius, But even here his argu-
ment is more extraordinary than that from Tertul-
lian. You will naturally inagine, that if Theodoret..
had really been of opinion, that the Ebionites were
believers in the divinicy of Chriſt, he would have
advanced it in that ſection of his hiſtory, which is
appropriated to the opinions of the Ebionites. I
ſhall therefore recite the whole of that fection,
Having, in the firſt book of his Heretical Fables,
given an account of the Gnoſtics, who held the
doctrine of two principles, he praceeds in his fer
cond book, to give an account of thoſe who, be
ſays, held a directly oppoſite doctrine. « The firſt of
« this phalanx" he ſays, “was Ebion, which in
" the Hebrew language ſignifies Poor. He ſaid,
as we do, that there is one. uncauſed being, and
« that he is the maker of the world, but that our
« Lord Jeſus Chriſt was born of Joſeph and
Mary, being a man, but excelling in virtue and
purity all other men, and living according to
es the law of Moſes. They uſe no other goſpel
“than that according to the Hebrews, and call
“ the apoſtle,” meaning Paul, “ an apoftate, Of
“ theſe was Symmachus, who tranſlated the Scrip-
6.tures of the Old Teſtament from Hebrew into
" Greek,
9:
-
,
LETTE R S TO THE
“Greek. There is, however, another diviſion of
« them befides this, "having the fame denomina-
« tion (for they alſo are called Ebionites) and in
“every thing elſe agree with the former, but ſay
« that our Saviour and Lord was born of a virgin,
$c They uſe no other goſpel than that according to
“ Matthew; they keep their fabbath as the Jews
« do, but they alſo obferve the Lord's day as we
«« do* »
This is the whole of the ſection of Theodoret
concerning the Ebionites, and do you perceive in
it; Gentlemen, any trace of his ſuppoſing that the
Ebionites were believers in the divinity of Chriſt?
On the contrary, is it not evident that he repreſents
them as believing his mere humanity. I really
think that if Mr. Howes himſelf had feen this ar-
(.
would never have claimed the authority of Theo-
1
* Ταυτησι δε της φαλαγγG- ηρξεν Εβιων, τον Πωχον δε 8τως
Εβραιοι προσαγορευσιν. "ΟυγG- ενα μεν αγεννήθoν εφη, παραπλησιως
ημιν, και αυλον εδειξεν ειναι τα κοσμε δημιεργον, τον δε
κυριον
Ιησεν
χρισον εξ Ιωσηφ και της Μαριας εφησε γεγεννησθαι, ανθρωπον μεν ονία,
αρετη δε και καθαρόληλι των αλλων διαφερονία, καλα δε τον Μωσαικος
πολιτευονία νομον. Μονον δε το καλα Εβραιες ευαγγελιoν δεχονίαι, τον
δε αποσαλoν αποσαίην καλεσι. Εκ ταίων ην Συμμαχ, ο την παλαιας
γραφην εκ της Εβραιων μελαθεικως εις την Ελλαδα φωνην. Αλλη δε
σαρα
ταύτην συμμορια την αυλην επωνυμιαν εχεσα, Εβιωνεις γαρ και
αλοι προσαγορευονίαι, τα αλλα δε απανία συνομολογει τους πρόθεροις,
τον δε σωληρα και κυριον εκ παρθενα γεγεννησθαι φησιν. Ευαγγελιω δε
τω καλα Ματθαιον κεχρηνίαι μονω, και το μεν σαββαλον κατα τον
Ιεδαιων τιμωσι νομόν, την δε κυριακην καθιερέσι, παραπλησιως ημιν.
doret, ,
1
Į
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
93
doretHow then does he pretend to it?: Not
directly, but very indirectly indeed.
Epiphanius,” he ſays, p. 45, " in his brief
" ſummary concerning the Elceſaites, ſays they
“ held nearly the ſame opinion in all things with
" the Ebionites,”-now that the Elceſaites be-
lieved “in the deſcent of a divine Chriſt, and
his union with the humanity of Jeſus, is proved
by all writers, but particularly by. Theodoret,
co who ſays they believe that there is one unbegot-
ten being, and him they call the maker of all
things; yet they do not ſay that Chriſt was one,
“ but that there was one above, and another be-
“ low, and that he had formerly dwelt in many
“perfons, but that at laſt he deſcended. Jeſus
" alſo, as Elxai ſays ſometimes, was ex deo; but at
“other times he calls him a ſpirit, and ſometimes
ſays that a virgin was his mother; in other writ-
ings however, not even this. Again, he ſays,
" that he paffeth into other bodies, and that ad
“ every time he appeared differently."
CC
CC
Thus becauſe ſuch a writer as Epiphanius ſays
that the Ebionites agreed nearly in all things with
the Elceſaites, and according to Theodoret theſe be-
lieved the deſcen:of a created Spirit called Chriſt,into
Jeſus, the Ebionites believed the divinity of Chriſt.
Many things are wanting to make this a good fyllo-
giſm. I ſhall not even take the trouble to point them
out. Thaï the Chriſt of the Elceſaites was not god
is evident, from his ſuppoſed tranſmigrations.
Mr.
94
I ETT E R S TO THE
Mr. Howes fuppofes, p. 3o, that both Epipha-
nius and Tertullian borrowed their account of the
Ebionites from Juſtin Martyr's loſt treatiſe againſt
Heretics. But there is not the leäft probability in
the conjecture. It is imponible to read the two
remarkable påffagtes in which Juftin gives an ac-
cờunt of bereſiës : ( fee 'mỳ Hiſtory, vol. i. p. "290)
without being ſatisffed that, in his idea, the Ghof-
tics were the only heretics. Of the Unitarians he
ſpeaks with reſpect, and even apologizes to them
for differing from them.
A circumſtance of extreme improbablity in
Mr. Howet's fcheme, 'fufficient of itſelf to'explode
it, is that all the difference berween the Ebionites
and the orthodox was the time in which the union
between the divine and human nature in Chrift
"took place; the orthodox ſaying it was at the
conception of Jeſus, and the Ebionites at his bap-
'tilm. For he ſays nothing of any difference be-
tween them with reſpect to his ſtrange notion of
the kind, or degree of divinity. But can any perſon
feriouſly believe that ſo ſınall a difference as this
could have been the occaſion of fo inuch animo-
fity as the orthodox ſhewed towards the Ebionites?
If the only difference had been the circumſtance of
time, this would have been principally inſiſted upon
in their cenfurės; â's, if the point of difference had
been the degree of diviñity, the degrée would have
Béén infifted upon, and not divinity, or no divinily,
Which'is alwaộs the cafe.
I
Mr.
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
95
Mr. Howes thought it of fome conſequence to
fix the origin of the Ebiohites, whom I have ſüp-
poſed to be coeval with the apoſtles. On the
contrary, Mr. Howes ſays, p. 58. “We find to
« certain proof of the exiftence of any Ebionites
before 98. . It is the time when the Father's
ſuppoſe John to have written his goſpel, which
« determines the date of the riſe both of the
is Ebionites and the Nazareñes, as ſectariés.”
60
To prove that the Ebionites were fubfequent
to Aquila and Theodotion, Mr. Howes’quotes
Irenæus, p. 56, who, after citing their interpre-
tation of a Hebrew word, fäys, quos fecuti Ebionita,
ex Jofepbo eum genitum dicunt.
This argument is curious, as it is evident that
all that Irenæus meant, was that the Ebionitės
agreed with Aquila and Theodotion (who were,
in fact of their own body, and therefore could not
be prior to them in the interpretation of the
word in queſtion. According to Jérom (Set vol.
iii. p. 220) Theodórion was an Ebionite, and cer-
cainly not the firſt of the ſect. So alſo was Sym-
machus, who was coremporary with Juſtint Mar-
tyr. Befides Eufebius-fays, 'vol. lit. p. 169, that
" the denomination of Ebionites was given by the
« firſt heralds of our Saviour," which certainly
carries them to the age of the apoſtles.
The late date of John's goſpel, which Mr.
Howes (áył the chriſtian Fathers füppoled, is
greatly
96 LETTERS TO THE
A
greatly favourable to my purpoſe. For they all
repreſent him as the firſt who taught with clear-
neſs and effect, the doctrines of the pre-exiſtence
and divinity of Chriſt. For the later this was
done, the longer time there had been for the doc-
trine of the ſimple humanity of Chriſt to eſtabliſh
itſelf.
What Mr. Howes has undertaken, in his laft
publication, is to prove that all the ancient heretics
were helievers in the divinity of Chriſt, reſerving
for a future opportunity, p. 126 (which I hope will
come foon) to prove that all the orthodox (or
thoſe who, being in communion with the Catholic
church, were not deemed beretics) believed it. But
he has confined himſelf to the denominations of
Ebionites and .Nazarenes, who were Jews, omitting
the GentileUnitarians, of whom Juſtin Martyr ſpeaks
with great reſpect, though profeſſing to take the
liberty of thinking differently from them, as I
have ſhewn at large in my Hiſtory, vol. iii. p. 278,
&c. Mr. Howes is equally ſilent with reſpect to
the Alogi of Epiphanius, and who, he ſays
(Hær. 51. ſect. 12. Opera, vol. i. p. 423)
were oppoſed by the apoſtle John; ſo that ac-
cording to him they muſt have exiſted in the
age
of the apoſtles.
Thus, Gentlemen, I willingly make you the
the judges between Mr. Howes and me. Epi-
phanius himſelf, you ſee, only ſuppoſed the Ebio-
nites to have aſſerted with the Cerinthians (in
which
)
i
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c. 91
which it is almoſt certain that he was miſtaken)
that the Chriſt entered into Jeſus at his bap-
tiſın, but he acknowledges that they did not fup-
poſe that this deſcending Chriſt was God; and his
farther evidence from Tertullian and Theodoret,
in ſupport of what would avail him nothing if he
could prove it, is moſt palpably weak and inſuf-
ficient.
I am, &c.
-
>
L E T T E R IV.
IV.
Of Mr. Howes's Charge of a wilful Anachroniſm, in
the Age of Plotinus.
Y
GENTLEMEN,
OU have ſeen ſeveral ſpecimens of Mr.
Howes's bold charges, and his very lame
ſupport of them. I ſhall now preſent you with
another even bolder than the preceding, and ſtill
worfe ſupported.
With an air of inſolent triumph he ſubjoins to
the title page of his work (and he inferts the ſame in
all his public advertiſements of it) -" together
H
" with
1
1
98
LETTERS TO THE
“ with another curious ſpecimen of romance, in
« his late Hiſtory of Early Opinions concerning Chriſt,
in regard to Plotinus being made by him to
« inſtruct the firſt chriſtian Fathers in the Plato-
“ nic catechiſm, a whole century before Plotinus
" was born."
no means true.
This, Gentlemen, it gives me real concern to
ſay, is nothing leſs then an abſolute falſehood, both
in words and ſenſe. It is even deſtitute of all
colour of truth. From reading what Mr. Howes
ſo confidently aſſerts, you would unavoidably
conclude that I had repreſented the chriſtian
Fathers as quoting Plotinus, or borrowing ſome-
thing that came from him, which however is by
Mr. Howes quotes no paſſage in
my Hiſtory in proof of his affertion; but you may
look it through; and I am confident you will find
no ſuch thing, nor any thing from which it can be
inferred. As what Mr. Howes advances on this
ſubject is not very long, I ſhall copy the whole of
it from p. 127, &c.
“Dr. Prieſtley ſuggeſts in his Hiſtory of Chrif-
« cian opinions, vol. i. in proof of the chriſtian
philoſophers about the time of Juſtin having
“ firſt expelled humaniſm, and introduced the
« doctrine of Chriſt's divinity, that they had bor-
"rowed their notions of the Trinity from the later
“ Platoniſts, as they are commonly called. Now
« Piotinus was the oldeſt of theſe later Platoniſts,
« and he was not born until after the year 200 ;
< how
1
!
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
99.
« how then could Juſtin, about the year 140, bor-
"row any thing from the later Platoniſts. Yet
“not ſatisfied with ſuggeſting this monſtrous ana-
« chroniſm, both by his arrangement, and ex-
" preſſions in the body of his new hiſtory, in ſuch
" a manner as muſt neceſſarily lead his readers
“ into an error concerning the poſſibility of the
" fact; Dr. Prieſtley has taken care moreover 'to
« confirm them in this error in his biographical
“chart prefixed to his firſt volume: for behold
os there Plotinus is placed as being born foon
rs after the year 100, and a little before Juſtin
r. Martyr, ſo as to make him old enough to
“ teach the Platonic catechifin to Juſtin; where-
* as, in reality, Juſtin was long dead before
w the birth of Plotinus; who did not flouriſh until
« about the year 240; therefore a whole cen-
to.tury later than where Dr. Prieſtley has placed
is hin in his chart. What dependence then can
be placed on the expoſitions of fcripture, or the
« affertions in hiſtory, by thoſe who can thus
rs make dead chriſtians to be inſtructed by pro-
phane philoſophers, who were not born until 20
« or 30 years after the death of their pretended
“ ſcholars?"
Now, ſo far have I been from ſaying that Jul-
tin Martyr, or any of the chriſtian Fathers, quoted
Plotinus, that I no where ſay that they adopted
the principles of any of the later Platoniſts, but of
Platoniſm in general. Examine all my quotations,
and you will find that they refer to Plato only. If
any
H2
>
)
)
3
100
LETTERS TO THE
any thing that I have ſaid ſhould imply more, it
is a caſual overſight.
If I had ſaid that the chriſtian Fathers adopt-
ed any principles of the later Platoniſts, as dif-
ferent from thoſe of Plato himſelf, there would
have been no anachroniſm in it. I ſhould only
have repreſented them as adopting the principles
of the ſchool, which principles I ſhew to have
exiſted by means of the wri:ings of the later Pla-
toniſts. With the fame colour of truth Mr.
Howes might have ſaid that I had made Juſtin
Martyr the ſcholar of Jamblicus, Julian, or even
Proclus, who lived in the year 600. For I
For I quote
them as much as I do Plotinus, and for the ſame
purpoſe, viz. to aſcertain what were the doctrines
of their ſchool..
If Mr. Howes meant to aſſert that Plotinus
was the founder of the fect of later Platoniſts,
which is the only fenfe in which his calling him the
oldejt can be to his purpoſe, it is notoriouſly falſe.
He himſelf quotes Petavius, as fiying that “ Plo-
“tinus was the ſcholar of Ammonius," and in the
faire place he quotes without cenſure my faying
that “ thoſe who are uſually called the later Pla-
toniſts were thoſe philoſophers, chiefly of Alex-
“ andria, who a little before and after the com-
" mencement of the chriſtian æra, adopted the
general principles of Plato.” If then the ſchool,
and its tents, exiſted before the chriſtian æra; what
anachronifini is there in making thre chriſtian Fa-
4
thers
1
.
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c. 101
thers borrow from it. Does not Philo appear to
have imbibed the principles of this ſchool, as much
as any of the chriſtian Fathers? Did they not
therefore exiſt long before Plotinus?
Mr. Howes ſays I have ſuggeſted this mon-
ftrous anachroniſm both by my arrangement,
« and my expreſſions, in the body of my hiſtory,
which is abſolutely falſe. For in the book itſelf,
as you will fee, vol. iv. p. 353, I give the
age
of
Plotinus right, ſaying that he died in 270 aged 66 ;
though, by ſome accident, perhaps the miſtake of
the engraver, the name is placed in the Chart,
juſt a century wrong; which, if I were tº explain
to you the mechanical method of drawing fuch
charts, I could ſatisfy yo! was the eaſieſt of all
miſtakes. In my large Chart of Biography, which
I could not mean to depart from, but really,
thought I had copied, Plotinus is placed where he
fhould be,
1
Thus, Gentlemen, can a man, who profeffes to
diſclaim all the arts of controverſy, write. I could
not have imagined that any perſon could have
ſuſpected another of attempting ſuch an impoſition
as Mr. Howes charges me with putting on the
public, an impoſition, that a ſchool boy might
have detected and expoſed, as well as Mr. Howes.
I ought, however, to except · Dr. Horſley who
charged me with wilfully fallifying the common
Engliſh tranſlation of the New Teſtament. I ſhould
'bluſh, and retire for ever from the fight or converſe
H 3
of
102
1
LETTERS TO THE
of ſcholars, if I had been convicted of ſuch a
piece of miſerable chicanery as this of Mr. Howes.
Theſe are the boaſted champions of modern or-
thodoxy. Had any Unitarian endeavoured to
take ſuch an advantage of his opponent in contro-
verſy, I ſhould have thought it neceſſary to diſclaim
all connexion with him. Let us ſee how Dr.
Horne, and others, advocates for the doctrine of
the Trinity, will act on this occaſion. How
different from this conduct of Mr. Howes is that
of Dr. Geddes. If I ſhould be obliged to ſur-
render at diſcretion, it would be a pleaſure to
give my ſword to fo generous an adverſary,
Two inconfiderable miſtakes Mr. Howes has
obſerved in my Hiſtory, which I ſhall correct, and
which I ſhould have acknowledged with gratitude,
if there had been any appearance of generoſịty .
or candour in the intimation. I had rendered
Bdenupov abominable rites; whereas Mr. Howes, with
great probability, conjectures,.p. 73, that it means
the abomination with which, according to Epi-
phanius, the Ebionites held other people. He
alſo juſtly obſerves that I had no foundation for,
ſaying that the word Ebion (and not Ebionite) waş
not mentioned by Tertullian.
I am, &c.
:
LETTER
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS; &c.
103
1
:
Chrift;
L E T T E R V.
Several groſs Miſtakes of Mr. Howes, with reſpeet
to the Tenets of ancient Sexts.
GENTLEMEN,
R. Howes, undertaking to correct
MR
mif-
takes, ſhould have been careful to make
none of, his own: and yet I will venture to ſay
that, excepting, and hardly excepting, Dr. Horf-
ley, there is no example of any perſon in modern
times having made ſuch groſs blunders as he has
done, in his account of the tenets of ancient fects;
confounding the opinions of the Gnoſtics with
thoſe of the Ebionites, both of them with thoſe
of the Arians, and indeed all three with the
though no ſchemes can be more clearly: marked
as diſtinct, by all who have treated of them. He
might as well have confounded them all with
Judaiſm, or Paganiſm itſelf.
my
Only read the following paragraphs, and then
judge whether Mr. Howes or myſelf have travelled
moſt in Utopia, or have dealt moſt, in romance.
After afferting, p.33, that, according to Epiphanius,
the opinion of the Ebionites was, that." it was not
“Jeſus, a mere man, who was the Chriſt, but
H
<< fome
H 4
1
..
3
LETTERS TO THE
104
“ ſome ſuperior being, of a divine nature, or of
an intermediate nature between divinity and
“ humanity,” he adds, “ this was alſo the chief
principle of the Arians, only with ſome vari-
“ ations in other reſpects. How then can Dr.
“ Prieſtley affert that the chief principle of Aria-
“ niſm was not ancient among the chriſtian ſec-
( taries.
Arianiſm was, in fact, but a varied
copy of Gnofticiſm and Ebionitiſm.
It bor-
“ rowed their chief principle of a created Chriſt,
“and only accommodated it a little more to the
“ mode of orthodoxy, by ſuppoſing that the cre-
“ated Chriſt, of an intermediate nature, to have
"s been united to humanity at the miraculous con-
es ception of Mary, inſtead of a miraculous union
" to the humanity of Jeſus at baptiſın.' Paulus
of Samoſata varied this doctrine a little more
“ ſtill; and only a little, by ſuppoſing, that the
« divine Chriſt, inſtead of being created before
" the creation, was firſt created by God, out of
" his unmanifefted logos, at the conception of
Mary; ſo that Paulus was in fact as much a
« believer in the divinity of Chriſt as the Ebionites
and Arians.?
Let Mr. Howes produce any Arian, ancient or
modern, who will ſay that he believes in the divinity
been created, is a moſt palpable contradiction.
He ſays that the Arians ſuppoſed their created
Chrift, of an intermediate nature, to have been
united to humanity. Now in humanity was always
ſuppoſed
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
ID 5
ſuppoſed to be included all that is eſſential to man;
the ſoul, as well as the body. But no. Arian ever
held that Chriſt had a human ſoul. According to
them the created logos occupied the place of one.
1
In my detail of the principles of the Gnoftics
and thoſe of the Arians, you will find that, in one
reſpect, they did reſemble each other, though the
latter were far from copying the former. Thoſe
Gnoſtics who held that Jeſus had a real human
body believed that he had alſo a hyman ſoul. For
according to them, he was, in all reſpects, like
another man till his baptiſm; but they ſaid that a
ſuperangelic ſpirit, or the Christ, then came into
himn. The orthodox Fathers alſo aſſerted two intel-
ligent principles in Chriſt, the human ſoul, and the
ụncreated logos; whereas the Arians, retaining the
doctrine of the logos (not the Chriſt of the Gnoftics
ſuppoſed it to have been created, not uncreated.
But then they found it unneceſſary to retain the
human ſoul; it being juſtly deemed abſurd that
two created intelligent principles fhould be in one
perſon.
What Mr. Howes here afferts of Paul of Samofata
is, I will venture to affert, a ſtrange and abſurd
fabrication of his own, for which, to adopt his own
language, I defy him to produce any authority,
ancient or modern, That Paul was as much a
believer in the divinity of Chriſt as the Ebionites
or Gnoſtics is certain, becaufe none of them
believed in it; but that the divine Chriſt was firſt
«
$
created
.
known we diſclaïin.
106 : LETTERS TO THE
is created by God out of his unmanifeſted logos,
is a notion that muſt have been utterly incompre-
henſible to this Paul, or to any man who endea-
vours to affix ideas to words.
Similar to this extravagance are the following
curious affertions of Mr. Howes, p. 109.
« The
“. Ebionites were the mere ſpawn of the Cerin-
“thians, and the very dregs of abſurdity and ſuper-
“ ftition ; juſt as the modern humaniſts are the
« humble imitators of the pretended philoſophical
Gnoſtics in general.
What there is in common between the modern
Unitarians and the Gnoftics, Mr. Howes ſhould
have ſpecified. According to him the Gnoſtics
were believers in the divinity of Chriſt, whereas we
diſclaim that notion, in every ſenſe of the word.
It is the very cauſe of the great indignation againſt
us that we do ſo. According to all antiquity, the
Gnoſtics believed the pre-exiſtence of Chriſt, and
that he was of a nature ſuperior to that of man,
ſelf will hardly ſay that we believe, with the Gnof-
tics, that the world was not made by the ſupreme
Being, but by a ſubordinate evil agent, or that
this evil agent gave the law of Moſes. In what
then do we reſemble them?
1
When I read theſe ſtrange aſſertions of Mr.
Howes, and his opinion, p. 117, that “the popular
theology of the Jews is to be found in Philo,"
I fancy
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
107
1 fancy myſelf to be in a new world of antiquity,
and that ſome Pere Hardouin has recompoſed all
the chriſtian Fathers, and all the other books relating
to eccleſiaſtical hiſtory that I have ever read, or
heard quoted before. When you read this, judge,
gentlemen, whether the new heavens and new
" earth for chriſtian men” (of which Mr. Howes
ſpeaks, p. 2, as created by me) be found in my
writings or in his.
Among Mr. Howes's other miſtakes concerning
the Arians, he does not, however, maintain with
Dr. Horney, that there is no difference between
their doctrine, and the orthodox doctrine of the per-
fonification of the logos. He alſo admits the veracity
of Origen; and ſo far from contending that there
was a church of orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians, at Je-
rufalem after the time of Adrian, he finds, p. 90,
that there was but a very ſmall one before that time,
By Mr. Howes's quoting the Caraites, p. 35,
“ becauſe they cannot be ſuppoſed to be infected
“ with the notions of more modern rabbinical Jews,
“ but rather to tell us the true opinion of the
" "original Jews," I am willing to hope that he does
not now lay the ſtreſs that he did before on the
writings of the Cabbalifts, in proving that the Jews
were always Trinitarians, and expected the ſecond
perſon of it in their Meſſiah, a notion which none
of the chriſtian Fathers could find among them ;
though they would, no doubt, have been as glad
to
catch at it as Dr. Allis; Mr. Howes, or Mr.
Parkhurſt.
10,8 L E T T E R $ TO THE
Parkhurſt. Mr. Howes, however, expreſſes his
approbation, p. 112, of Mr. Parkhurſt's late pub-
lication againſt me, in which he endeavours to prove
the doctrine of the Trinity from the form of the
word elohim, I can have no objection to Mr,
Howes, Dr. Horſley, and Mr. Parkhurſt continuing
to admire one another, but they would do better
for their cauſe, if they could agree a little more
than they do, in the principles on which they der
fend it.
1
}
Mr, Madan alſo joins Mr. Parkhurſt in urging:
the argument from elohim. But Dr. Croft, in his
Bampton Lectures, diſapproves of it, “ Perhaps
ço
too much ſtreſs," he ſays, p. 64, " is laid upon
to the expreſſion, Let us make man in our image.
“The plural is frequently applied to one only, and
the language of conſultation is evidently uſed in
şi condeſcenſion to human infirmity. It may be
dangerous," he adds, « to reſt an article of faith
fe upon that which may be a mere idiom."
I am, &c,
LETTER
:
1
109
!
5
1
ve ;
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, EC.
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R VI.
Of ſeveral Publications of leſs Note, and among them
Mr. Madan's.
GENTLEMEN,
I Cannot pretend to notice every thing that has
been addreſſed to me on the ſubject of this con-
troverſy. The tracts to which I have not parti-
cularly replied are of two characters, ſome being
written in the way of humour, and the reſt of in-
only thing that is really wanting is ſerious argument.
Excepting one of the publications of Mr. Whita-
ker*, who will find himſelf ſufficiently anſwered in
my Letters to Dr. Geddes, every thing I have ſeen
of the argumentative kind relates to the doctrine
of the ſcriptures ; with reſpect to which ſo much
has been advanced by myſelf and others, that I
think it unneceſſary to ſay any thing farther. In
'this we are, as it were, come to iſſue, and the
public muit determine between us. It is to the
* I would recommend to Mr. Whitaker the peruſal of Mr.
Wiche's Obſervations on the debate now in agitation conoerning the
divine unity, in a letter to himſelf, as containing many things
deſerving of his conſideration, as well as that of all who give
any attention to this controverſy, and written with a truly
chrißian fpirit.
argument
lio
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
argument from antiquity that I particularly wiſh
to draw the attention of the learned ; and in this
few have as yet made their appearance,
and thoſe few, as you muſt have perceived, have
been very little acquainted with the ground they
have ventured to tread.
field very
Some of my opponents, evidently diſtruſting the
power of argument, have more than hinted at the
propriety of calling in the aid of the civil magiſtrate ;
but none of them have done this ſo loudly, and ſo
diſtinctly, as Mr. Madan, who ſays, Letters, p. 145,
that “the chriſtian religion is a part of the com-
“ mon law of this country, that our kings are its
nurſing fathers, and our queens its nurſing
-“ mothers; that it has always been held that
blaſphemy and profaneneſs, written, printed, or
adviſedly ſpoken, are indictable, and puniſh-
« able; and that puniſhments inflicted for theſe
« offences were never inore deemed perſecution
“ than the convicting a perſon of profane curſing
" and ſwearing; "and my works, he ſays, "might
« furniſh matter for a trial at the next Stafford
« aflizes;" but hints that it might not be proper
to permit the trial to be printed, like that of Mr.
Elwall.
I need not ſhew you, Gentlemen, that Mr.
Madan's maxims will juſtify all the perſecutions
that have been in the world, from the
age
of the
apoſtles to the preſent time, as they were all in
purſuance of the laws of the countries in which
they
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
III
they were carried on. It is happy for the cauſe
of free enquiry and truth, that the ſpirit of the
preſent times only permits ſuch monſters as theſe
to ſhew their teech and claws, and what they
would do if they had the power. Mr. Madan
thould propoſe himſelf as a candidate for the
next vacancy in the office of inquiſition in Spain
or Portugal, if his maxims would do even for
thoſe countries at preſent. Unhappily, he was
born too late.
0
Much ſtreſs has been laid by ſeveral of my
opponents,'on
my
frank acknowledgment to Dr.
Price, that “I did not know when my creed
“ would be fixed.” This, however, I muſt con-
tinue to ſay, while I continue my enquiries, and
profeſs, as every fair enquirer will do, to be de-
termined by any new and ſtronger evidence that
ſhall be preſented to me. And this is certainly
no diſadvantage to my readers, who, I hope, will
not be moved by my authority, but only by the
evidence that I lay before them; and that will al-
ways be the ſame, and have the ſame weight,
though my idea of its weight ſhould change ever
ſo often.
Did not Luther go on changing his opinions
till a very late period of his life, and was he ever
reproached with it, except by the catholic party,
whoſe fpirit, I am ſorry to ſay, is too apparent
in
the defenders of the church eſtabliſhment of this
country? But ſimilar ſituations will dictate fimi-
lar
1 12
E ETTERS TO THE
lar modes of thinking and reaſoning. Was it not
highly honourable in Dr. Whitby, at a late period
of a life devoted to ſtudy, and after having re-
peatedly defended the doctrine of the Trinity, to
declare himſelf an Arian, and to defend that opi
nion in his Laſt Thoughts ? Equally honourable
was the change of opinion of the late excellent
Biſhop of Carliſle, who from being an 'Arian be-
came :a: Socinian, and in the laſt edition of his
Confiderations, &c. carefully expunged every paf-
fage that had expreſſed his belief of the pre-exiſt-
ence of Chriſt. Let me claſs with ſuch men as
theſe, and not with thoſe who are determined to
hold their preſent opinions, whatever they be, ác
all events, and who ſhut their ears to all con-
viction; for ſuch muſt be all thoſe who cenſure
my conduct.
Another of my opponents (but I am not now
able to ſay which) ridiculing the Biſhop of
Landaff's truly uſeful publication for the uſe of
young clergymen, amuſes himſelf with the idea
of the perplexity of a Welch curate, who ſhould
not be able to tell which ſcheme of faith, con-
tained in that work, he ſhould adopt; not con-
fidering, or perhaps not knowing, that the chief
uſe of reading is to make men think, and form
fyftems for themſelves; and that every perſon of-
ficiating as a chriſtián miniſter, whether reſiding
in Wales or elſewhere, may reaſonably be fup-
poſed to do this. Perhaps this acute reaſoner
would find á difference between treatiſes bound
up
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c. 113
up together, uniformly printed, and publiſhed by
the ſame perſon, and ſuch as are publiſhed ſepa-
rately. Or perhaps, having his head full of the
idea of ſubſcription, he might think that nothing
is to be read that is not alſo to be ſubſcribed.
;
Several of my opponents, as well as Mr. Howes, ,
have amuſed themſelves, and their readers, with
the letters, &c. I have lately ſubjoined to my
name, in the title pages of ſome of my publica-
tions, under the idea, as I muſt ſuppoſe, of their
reflecting ſome ridicule upon me, though they
do not ſeem to have been able to make out their
meaning. If this circumſtance be any diſgrace
to me, it is my misfortune, and ſhould entitle me
to their compaſſion, as it was not of my feeking.
None of them, however, reflect any diſhonour'on
either of our Engliſh univerſities.
This buſineſs reminds me of what is told of Dr.
South, who being reflected upon by Biſhop Sher-
lock, on account of his wit (of which the biſhop
might think that he made an improper ufe) replied,
that “it might have pleaſed God to have made his
lordſhip a wit." 'Let my adverſaries therefore
ſpare me on this ſubject, ſince it might have hap-
pened, that their names ſhould have had the ſame
appendages with mine.
Some, as any thing is eaſier than cloſe argu-
mentation, have even amuſed themſelves with
I
the
9
114
LETTERS TO THE
-
the number of my publications, and others with
my mottos; and perhaps they may find ſome in-
ſtruction as well as amuſement in them.
I have been ſometimes amuſed with what has
been ſaid of myſelf, and my opinions, of which
fome, who have addreſſed letters to me, feem to
have been as ignorant as they have been of my titles.
I need not obſerve that I have been inoft unmerci-
fully ſtripped by them of every commendable qua-
lity of mind, natural or acquired, and of every
kind of literature that is requiſite to my writing
on the ſubjects which I have prefumed to diſcuſs.
But it is my pride (rank pride, and haughtineſs of
ſoul, as the poet calls it) on which they have en-
larged the moſt. No man, I ſuppoſe, can pre-
ſume to think for himſelf, and much leſs to teach
others, but he muſt be proud.
:
“ It is unqueſtionably pride,” ſays one of them
to you, “ which has brought on your preſump-
“tuous teacher that wwpwors, that blindneſs and
*s hardneſs of heart, the one as conſequential of
" the other.” To avoid this pride you can do
no leſs than implicitly receive what your teachers
think proper to preſcribe to you; and perhaps,
that huinility may have its perfect work, it may be
adviſeable to ſign the following form preſcribed
by a proteſtant fynod in France, “I receive and
approve, all that is contained in this confeſſion
« of faith, and promiſe to perſevere therein to my
6 life's
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
11:5
* life's end ; and never to believe or teach any
" thing not conformable to it.” See the preface to
Jortin's Remarks on eccleſiaſtical liftory, vol. i.
P. 17. Indeed, I do not ſee that any thing ſhort
of this will ſatisfy your tutors that your creed is ab-
ſolutely fixed; and without this you will be in the
fame reproachful ſituation with myſelf.
This gentleman adviſes the Dean of Canter-
bury to have nothing more to ſay to me, and he
even wiſhes that I may never ſee what he addreſſes
to you, “ becauſe his letter was written without
"any view to convert me, but to preſerve you."
But if this had been his object, he ſhould have
circulated his Addreſs in the univerſities only, and
not have advertiſed it for public ſale.
As to my religion, it is, according to this can-
did writer, “ without a ſoul, without a bible
« (that is worth your attention) without a church,
rs and without a Saviour." What this ſentence
wants in truth and ſenſe, it makes up in ſound, .
A father, more careful of the orthodoxy than of
the honeſty of his ſon Charles, informs him, p.
21, that all good and wiſe men in every age
“ have thought it their duty to coinply with
Po the eſtabliſhed religion of their country, and
" that he only ſubſcribes the thirty-nine articles
“ as a layman, and as terms of peace, and com-
munion."
I 2
According
- 116
LETTERS TO THE
1
According to theſe wife maxims, his dear
Charles ought to be a pagan with pagans, a Ma-
hometan with Mahoinetans, and a chriſtian only
with chriſtians; that is, he is to be of no religion
at all; and then, indeed, he may ſubſcribe any
thing. This is the wiſdom that is aſcribed to the
vicar of Bray, who, in all the revolutions in this
country, about the time of the reformation, like
a wiſe and good man, was conſiſtent in keeping
his preferment. What this wife father meant by
fubfcribing as a layman, or as a term of peace and
communion, is beſt known to himſelf. I am ut-
terly unable to divine it ; and as little would it
have been comprehended by thoſe who framed
theſe articles, who certainly meant to enforce conta
Sent in matters of faith.
The fame excellent judge of this controverſy
who ſays, p. 25, that he is “no bigor to ortho-
doxy" (in which I verily believe he fayš true)
and that “when he was a young man he was in-
“clined to think freely on theſe ſubjects, and was
" a little ſtaggered at the doctrine of the Trinity,”
ſpeaks of the opinion of Dr. Clarke, and even
that of Dr. Price, as " differing from orthodoxy
" by a night diſtinction," whereas he fays that my
opinions (which are infinitely nearer to thoſe of
Dr. Price than Dr. Price's are to the ſtandard of
orthodoxy) “ approach very near to thoſe of
“ Hobbes and Spinoza, in their atheiftical ten-
dency." and p. 9, that on my principles F
may
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, · 117
.
&c.
may as well give up the belief of a deity; as
" that of the Trinity." You' will not, I hope,
expect from me a ſerious confutation of ſuch
abſurd calumny as this.
I am, &.
i
1
: L; E T T E R
VII.
Of a Letter addreſſed to me by an Under-Graduate.
GENTLEMEN,
THE
HERE is another publication I ſhall take
more particular notice of, not that it has
more of real playſibility in it, but becauſe it has
been more noticed by the world, and becauſe it
is written by a young man, an Under-graduate of
Oxford, perhaps the very Charles to whom the
preceding letter is addreſſed. Indeed, he appears
to be a very docile youth. The oldeſt fellow of
a college could not have imbibed his father's
maxims, or have profited more by the fermons
delivered at St. Mary's, than he has done. After
learning himſelf, he juftly thinks himſelf fuffi-
ciently qualified to teach others.
1
I 3
So.
IIS
5
LETTERS TO THE
So perfectly indifferent is this well tutored
young man, to the purſuit of truth, that he ludi-
crouſly repreſents myfelf, and all who are engaged
in it, p. 5, as John Gilpin, and the man at Hughes's,
and himſelf and his friends as unconcerned ſpec-
tators, ſtanding aghaft at our performances. Two
centuries ago, Luther and Melanchon, Zuinglius
and Calvin, were the performers, and the Catholics
in general the gaping crowd.
I
After I had written my Letter to Mr. Pitt, I
thought I had gone top fár' in repreſenting the
Engliſh univerſites as ſtagnant waters, offen-
“ five to the neighbourhood," and really meant:
to make a public retraction of its but I ſuſpended
this deſign, when I peruſed this letter, which was
read with applauding avidity by many, and was
never cenſured, as it ought to have been, by the
heads of the Univerſity; though it abounds with
ſuch maxims, and reaſonings, as ought to be re-
probated as nuiſances in every free country, or
where there is the leaſt regard to truth and inte-
grity. For your inſtruction, Gentlemen, I ihall
animadvert upon a few paſſages in that perform-
ance, and eſpecially on thoſe in which the author
defends your fubfcription to the thirty-nine ar-
ticles of the church of England, at the time of
matriculation; a thing fo. manifeſtly abſurd,
thaț the very mention of it is fufficient to expoſe it.
To make an oral profeffion, amounts,” he
fays, P: 252
“ to the ſame thing with ſetting our
hands
7
1
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
119
« hands to a paper which contains it. But who,
“ from the beginning, was ever admitted into the
« chriſtian church without firſt having made ſuch
" a profeſſion?"
But, he is greatly miſtaken, if he imagine that
any perſons were admitted to the profeffion of
chriſtianity, in the primitive ages, without allow-
ing time to be inſtructed in the principles of it,
and without giving ſome evidence that they ſaw
· reaſon for making the profeſſion, Suppoſing that
any perſon had come to an apoſtle, and ſaid, “ Ihear
you teach a religion which is called the chriſtian.
“I am intirely ignorant of it, or of the reaſons
by which it is ſupported; but if you will pleaſe
“ to baptize me, I may learn theſe particulars after-
“ wards.” Do you think that any apoſtle would have
baptized ſuch a perſon? Did not the chriſtian
church in the early ages always keep perſons a con-
ſiderable time in the claſs of catechumens, in which
they were regularly inftructed in the principles of
chriſtianity, before they were admitted to baptifm.
Now is any thing like this done at your univer-
fițies? Do the perſons who admir ſtudents, and
receive their ſubſcriptions, tell them that, before
they can be admitted to the privileges of the place,
they muſt ſignify their aſſent to a certain number
of articles of faith, and that it behoves them to
conſider whether they can admic them, or not?
Do they give you proper time for this confidera-
tion, and refuſe to receive your ſubſcriptions
14
unleſs
2
)
I 20
LETTERS TO THE
unleſs you can give an account of the articles to
be ſubſcribed, and of your reaſons for afſenting
to them ? Indeed, I fear that the conduct of the
heads of your univerſities is very different from
that of any minifters in the chriſtian church for a
long period of time.
This young gentleman makes another objec-
tion to the abolition of ſubſcription which I
ſhould never have thought of, when he ſays, p. 6,
" I cannot renounce paganiſm and embrace chrif-
tianity, might a heathen have ſaid; for though
“ I now think the former to be falſe, and the lat-
“ ter to be true, I will not pretend to ſay when
my creed will be fixed. I may, on farther ex-
“ amination, think exactly the reverſe.” With
this, thoſe who receive a man's preſent confeſſion
of faith have nothing to do. The apoſtles did
not refuſe to admit a perſon to baptiſm becauſe he
might afterwards apoftatize, though they knew
this to be a poſſible caſe, becauſe it often happened.
When you ſubſcribe your thirty-nine articles,
you do not, I imagine, engage never to think
otherwiſe. This would be curious indeed. How-
ever, not having been educated in your univer-
ſities, I may be ignorant of their conſtitution;
and if this be the caſe, it is an objection to your
ſubſcriptions with which I was not acquainted.
Another ſentiment in his letter is even more
extraordinary than would be the practice of ſub-
ſcribing for life ; as it implies a degree of obſequi-
ouſneſs,
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
IEI
ouſneſs, and abjectneſs of mind, at which I ſhould
have thought that the ſpirit of any man, and eſpe-
cially that of a young man, and an Engliſhman,
muſt have revolted. If” ſays he, p. 27, “ the
“compilers were miſtaken in an article, it is, in-
“cumbent on our governors, when convinced of
« ſuch miſtake, to alter or expunge that article.”
Nothing then, it ſeems, is incumbent on yourſelves.
You muſt receive whatever your governors are
pleaſed to preſcribe; and ſhould they think pro-
per to give you the articles of a Popiſh, a Preſby-
terian, or a Mahometan creed, you have nothing
to do but to ſign them. You do not even claim the
liberty of expoſtulating with your governors.
Every thing they do muſt be from their own
motion.
1
The ſame fervile diſpoſition appears in another
paſſage of his letter, p. 25, “You exhort us to affo-
ciate and pray relief from ſubſcription to the arti-
« cles of the church of England. Why? that we
“ may be free to change as you have changed. But
« Sir, we deſire not to do ſo.” That is, he does
not wiſh to have the power of changing, not even
of getting right, if he were ever ſo far wrong.
Here, he diſcovers plain marks of the chain, which
the wolf diſcovered on the neck of the well fed
dog in the fable, and of its having been worn a
conſiderable time. Let me range at large, and
liave, at leaſt, the power of going where I pleaſe,
though I may ſometimes go where I ſhould not.
For
1
122
L E T T E R S TO THE
1
For the ſame reaſon for which this Under-graduate
contemptuouſly rejects his religious liberty, he
would no doubt reject civil liberty alfo; and I ſup-
poſe he would be equally proud of both his chains.
What he farther ſays on the ſubject of authority,
(which has no meaning at all, if it do not mean au-
thority in matters in religion, or receiving a creed
impoſed by others) is in the higheſt degree dif-
graceful in any place of liberal education, which
ought to be devoted to enquiry after truth, and
the uſe of our reaſon and beſt judgment in the
enquiry. “You are an enemy,” he ſays, p. 28,
“ to authority. But when all is faid, in many in-
“ſtances it muſt take place. Some things we
« muſt at firſt receive on the authority of our pa-
“ rents, others on that of our tutors, and others
“on that of our governors, eccleſiaſtical and civil.
“ In all, or any of theſe, it is poſſible we may
« afterwards diſcover or think we diſcover, er-
Indeed, Gentlemen, if errors ſhould not
be found, or, which is the ſame thing with reſpect
10 ourſelves, be ſuppoſed to be found, in a creed
conſiſting of thirty-nine complex articles, compoſed
above two hundred years ago, in the very dawn of
the reformation from popery, by perſons who now
exerciſe their own reaſon on the ſubject, it would
be very extraordinary indeed. But of theſe ac-
knowledged errors, and the conſequence of requir-
ing a ſubſcription to them, this Under-graduate
makes very light,
"rors.
« We
4
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
123
+
.“ We pity,” he adds, p. 28, “ with all our
“ hearts, the poor old gentleman of fixty, who la-
s mented with ſo many tears, to you his confeſſor,
(having perhaps unfortunately firſt taken you for
« his tutor) that he had ſubſcribed to the doctrine
“ of the Trinity, and the incarnation of the ſon of
" God. Inconveniences may follow in every
“poſſible caſe; but of inconveniences we muſt
“ chuſe the leaft; and it is better that a few indi-
“viduals ſuffer temporal loſs, than the church
« ſhould profeſs no faith, through fear of profeſſing
a falſe one." All this, you cannot deny, might
have been ſaid, and even with more plauſibility
than at preſent, before the reformation. The ad-
verſaries of Luther might have ſaid to him, “we
" muſt have a creed, and this creed may contain
But it is better that it ſhould be fo,
" than that we ſhould have no creed at all; and as
" to thoſe who cannot ſubſcribe to i:, let them
" leave the church, and the emoluments of it to
ç thoſe who can.” But who then, Gentlemen,
would be left in it. Not the inquiſitive, or the
the conſcientious, but as many of the unthinking,
the diſhoneſt, and unbelievers, as could get into
it. And when once you have admitted ſuch cha-
racters as theſe, you have no means of getting
them out. They will promiſe and ſubſcribe any
thing.
errors.
The maxim that “authority once eſtabliſhed
" muſt be ſubmitted to,” which is ſhameleſsly
avowed
1
124
LETTERS TO THE
ayowed by Dr. Balguy, is wonderfully convenient
for this writer's purpoſe. It may be compared to
a coat chat equally ſuits heat or cold, wet or dry,
and will carry you through the world. For, go
where you will, among Papiſts, Mahometan's, or
Pagans, you will find authority; and to this, of
whatever kind it be, and in what manner foever
it has been eſtabliſhed, this tame Under-graduate
will make no difficulty of ſubmitting.
* I cannot ſufficiently expreſs my indignation at
ſuch profligate maxims; and I muſt ſay that the
ſeminaries in which they are taught are nothing
leſs than nuiſances in a free country. But I truſt
there is a proſpect of better things even in Oxford.
This Under-graduate, however, I perceive, has no
idea of any other chriſtian churches than ſuch as
are framed on ſuch maxims as theſe.
is church without any confefſion,” he ſays, p. 27,
66 which thould receive into its boſom all the
o different ſects, and diſcordant opinions, now roam-
« ing about the world, we have no conception of
os ſuch a church; nor, if ſuch a one could be
46 framed, or when framed ſubſiſt for a twelve-
« month, do we deſire to be members of it?"
" As to a
60
In this caſe then, he would not have been a
member of the church that was eſtabliſhed by the
apoſtles. For they required nothing beſides faith
in the divine miſſion of Chriſt, as the term of con-
munion with them; and this is the only article of
faith that is properly eſſential to chriſtianity. This
is
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
125
is the maxim of Unitarian churches, which have
ſubfifted many twelvemonths, and which, I doubt
not, will ſubſiſt when the church of England, as by.
law eſtabliſhed, ſhall be forgotten.
So much more liberal are even the modern
Catholics than this Under-graduate of Oxford, that I
lately heard a moſt reſpectable prieſt of that com-
munion ſay, that he would have nothing in any
public liturgy, or confeffion of faith, but what all
chriſtians, in all ages, and at all times, could agree
in. Quod ſemper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,
was his language, which I am informed was alſo
that of the excellent Hales of Eton, a member of
the church of England. Where, Sir, muſt this
Under-graduate have lived to have got ſo con-
tracted, and ſo dark a mind; when the ſunſhine of
liberality has reached even the church of Rome?
Muſt it be ſaid that the very laſt footſteps of
bigotry thall be in Oxford.
Before he can be authorized to pronourice, as
he now takes upon himfelf to do, what may, and
what may not exiſt, and exiſt with advantage, in the
world at large, he muſt look beyond the precincts
of your Univerſity. A man who has never ſeen
or heard of any animals beſides thoſe of England,
would ſay that the elephant and rhinoceros were
mere chimeras.
Go upon the continent, and you will ſee what
you cannot in England, many Catholic and many
Proteſtant
i
126
LETTERS TO THE
Mwiko
دی.ادیب
Proteſtant ſtates, admitting to offices of the higheſt
truſt and power, perfons of all religions indiſcrimi-
nately. And go to North America, you will ſee a large
country, of greater extent than the whole of Europe,
in many parts of which there is a ſtrong general
ſenſe of religion, without the civil eſtabliſhment of
any particular mode of it; and yet the people live
at peace, and in good harmony with one another.
Theſe things are deemed impoſſible at Oxford, but
ihey are realized in the world.
nents.
· As to the many particular opinions of which this
writer lightly, very lightly indeed, deſcants, I ſhall not
enter into them in this letter to you (it being evident
that he has not yet read my Diſquiſitios on Matter
and Spirit, which he takes upon himn to cenſure,
and acknowledges, p. 29, he had not read Mr.
Lindſey's Sequel any farther than p. 87) but I hold
myſelf ready to diſcuſs them with more able oppo-
That the genuine ſenſe of ſcripture, and the
general tenor of it, are clearly in favour of what I
have advanced, I have no doubt; and as to the
principal of them, on which every thing elſe of
conſequence depends, I am now, in my Hiſtory of
early Opinions concerning Chriſt, earneſtly calling
upon his ſuperiors, ſuch as Dr. Horne, Mr. White,
and Mr. Howes, to prove the exiſtence of that
doctrine which he holds ſo ſacred, in the three firſt
centuries of chriſtianity; a period in which there is
no want of records, to prove what were the opinions
of both the learned, and the unlearned. The evi-
dence which I have produced, that the chriſtian
church
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
127
1
church was originally Unitarián, has now been
fome time before the world, and it challenges the
moft rigorous examination of his maſters.
93
i
This Under-graduate ironically thanks me, p. 45,
for “ my compliment to your Univerſities, as re-
fembling pools of ſtagnant waters, ſecured by
« dains and mounds, and offenſive to the neigh-
« bourhood. If you would wipe away the re-
proach, make a proper outlet for your ftagnant
water; let learning flow at Oxford as freely as the
Iſis in its neighbourhood; and admit not only any
native of Great-Britain, but any inhabitant of the
world, to enjoy the advantages of it, unfettered by
your illiberal ſubſcriptions. When I am aſked, as
I often am, by foreigners, at which of our Uni-
verſities I was educated, and am obliged to ſay in
reply, that at neither of them would myſelf, or
any ſon of mine, be admitted to ſtudy, I bluſh for
you, and for my country. You ought to bluſh
for yourſelves. When I was lately at Oxford,
and was ſtruck beyond my expectation with the
noble advantages for ſtudy of which you are poſ--
feſſed, I could not help ſaying with Horace, Cler
éget indigụs quiſque, te divite? A profeſſor in the
Univerſity of Cracow, who lateiy viſited me, and
who had come through Oxford in his way to Bir-
mingham, told me he was abſolutely aſtoniſhed to
find that ſuch a ſeminary as that is was not open to
all the world, and that he ſhould hardly have
believed the fact, if he had not been informed of id
at
1:28
LETTERS TO THE
at the place. In his own Univerfity he ſaid the
profeſſors indeed muſt be Catholics, but the ſtudents
might be of any religion. He ſaid they had ſeveral
Proteſtants, and ſome Jews. In another part of
Poland he informed me that there is an Univerſity,
countenanced by the government, in which all the
profeſſors are Proteſtants. With reſpect to libe-
rality we ſhall foon, to appearance, be once more
the diviſi toto orbe Britanni. Let thoſe bluſh
whom it may concern.
.
I am ſorry to ſee fo able a writer as Mr. Paley
(whoſe work is, in ſeveral reſpects, very juſtly
admired in the Univerſities) defend the ſubſcription
to the articles of the church of England on ſo very
poor a ground, as a ſuppoſition that it was the
intention of the compilers of them to exclude from
the church only the Papifts, the Anabaptiſis, and
the Puritans; and therefore that any perſon who
belongs to none of theſe claffes may ſafely ſubſcribe
them. “ They,” ſays he, p. 181, “who contend
'" that nothing leſs can juſtify ſubſcription to the
so thirty-nine articles, than the actual belief of each
" and every ſeparate propoſition contained in them,
“ muft fuppofe that the legiſlature' expected the
« conſent of ten thouſand men, and that in per-
petual fucceffion, not to one controverted propo-
si fition, but to mariy hundreds. It is difficult to
“ conceive how this could be expected by any, who
“ obſerved the incurable diverſity of human opinion
upon
all ſubjects ſhort of demonſtration,”
But
is
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
129
1
But how are we to judge of men's intentions,
but by their language. Abſurd, no doubt, it was
to expect what Mr. Paley ftates; but the compilers
of the articles certainly did expect it, or they would
have had recourſe to different and ſhorter expedients.
Had they meant nothing more than to exclude
Papiſts, Anabaptifts, and Puritans, they would
have confined their ſubſcription to ſuch articles as
were inconſiſtent with their peculiar tenets. Can
Mr. Paley believe that, if any of them had been
aſked, whether he did not mean to exclude all Arians,
and Socinians from the church of England, he
would not have replied in the affirmative? And
therefore according to Mr. Paley's own ideas, none
of then ought to ſubſcribe.
1
It is now, I find, very much the cuſtom to ſay,
that you may ſafely ſubſcribe the thirty-nine articles
of the church of England, provided you think that
it is, upon the whole, the beſt conſtituted of all the
eſtabliſhed churches, or that you think it pre-
ferable to any of the fects of the diſſenters, though
there are many things that you diſapprove of in it,
and many of the particular articles that you do
not think to be true.
>
But can you think that this was the idea of thoſe
who framed the articles, or has there been any act.
of the legiſlature ſince their times that authorizes
ſuch a ſubſcription ? And certainly there is no
other power that has a right to define the meaning
of fubfcription.
K
If,
1
LETTERS TO THE
130
نجم
If, however, this be your own real meaning in
ſubfcribing, honeſtly declare it at the time of
ſubſcription, and ſee how it will be received. AE
preſent, when you ſubſcribe to all the articles
together (which is the ſame thing as ſubſcribing to
each of them ſeparately) you aſſert ſome truths,
and ſome falſehoods. But is there any other caſe
in which the telling of ſome truths with excuſe the
telling of any falſehoods ? What would you think
of any man who, when upon his oath, ſhould do
ſo in a court of juſtice? And is not a deliberate
ſubſcription a thing as folemn as that, and cafe
that requires as ſcrupulous an adherence to exact
truth?
Beſides, if a general preference of the conſtitution
of the church of England would juſtify your ſub-
ſcription to all her articles, you ought- at leaſt to
have examined whether it is intitled to that pre-
ference, by a careful compariſon of it with other
churches; and you ought to be particularly upon
your guard, left the external advantages of an eſta-
bliſhed and endowed church do not lay fome bias on
your judgment. But can you ſay that you have
done any thing of this at the time of your fub-
ſcription, whether at matriculation, or afterwards ?
Far would I be, gentlemen, from leading you
to deſpiſe your tutors, or your parents, or to refift
any proper authority, as ſeveral of my opponents
more than inſinuate. I know the feelings of both
parent and tutor, and am ſenſible how neceſſary it
is
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
131
is that young perſons ſhould ſubmit, and in ſome
caſes even implicitly, to their ſuperiors. But there
is a power to which myſelf, my children, and my
pupils, are equally ſubject, and to this we all owe
the greateſt deference. We are all the children of
God, and he is ſtiled the God of truth; and you
need not be told that you muſt obey God rather
iban man.
As
you
value the favour of God, therefore, you
muſt reſpect truth, and ſincerity; and on no con-
ſideration, at the injunction of no authority what-
ever, ſhould you declare, in any form, that you
believe any doctrine to be true, when you know
that you have not duly conſidered it, and therefore
cannot tell whether it be ſo or not. The doctrine
being in itſelf true will not excuſe you.
Your
declaration implies that you believe it to be true,
and conſequently that you have ſeen ſufficient reaſon
to believe it, that is, that you have duly examined
it. Otherwiſe you might juſt as well ſubſcribe the
thirty-nine articles at your baptiſm, or have your
godfathers or godmothers ſubſcribe them for
you.
Let me recommend to your peruſal an excellent
work of the late Archdeacon Blackburne, intitled
the Confeſſional, in which you will ſee every pretence
for ſubſcribing what is not really believed expoſed
as it ought to be. But ſurely this is a caſe that
cannot require any arguing. Had not the temp-
tation to ſubſcribe, and che inconvenience of not
ſubſcribing, been ſo great, we ſhould never have
heard
K2
132
LETTERS TO THE
heard of ſubſcription to the thirty-nine articles, as
articles of peace, or communion, or any other of,
thoſe wretched ſubterfuges that we now hear off
but which would have been reprobated with the
greateſt indignation by the framers of the articles,
as they are by thoſe who ſubſcribe bona fide at
chis day.
1
What Dr. Croft ſays of the clergy applies with
equal force to all who join in worſhip with them.
"What ought to be imagined,” he ſays, p. 129;
“concerning thoſe who enter the holy temple, and
“ offer ſupplications to God the Son, and God the
“ Holy Ghoſt, and yet diſbelieve them to be objects
“ of adoration? Is not the ſin of hypocriſy and
“ duplicity aggravated when committed in the
« more immediate preſence of him unto whom all
“hearts be open, all deſires known, and from whom
" no ſecrets are hid?” Unleſs, therefore, you really
believe Chriſt to be a proper object of worlhip, you
ought neither to ſubſcribe a declaration that he is
ſa, nor, on any account, join in ſuch worſhip.
I am, &c.
1
.
LETTER
1
!
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
13.3
i
LË T T E R VIII.
Of Dr. Croft's Bampton Lectures.
TH
GENTLEMEN,
HOUGH Dr. Croft's Sermons do not imme-
diately concern myſelf, yet as they relate to
the ſubject of my addreſs to you, I cannot wholly
paſs them without notice. He avows himſelf a
friend to freedom of enquiry, but advances many
things utterly inconſiſtent with it; and the gene-
ral tendency of all his diſcourſes is evidently to
diſcourage it. But his own faith is ſo great, that
it is the leſs to be wondered at, that he ſhould
expect to find a conſiderable degree of it. in
others.
1
*7x
« If tranſubſtantiation,” he ſays, po 124,
prayers for the dead, purgatory, or any other
part of their inſtitution” (viz. that of the ca-
tholics) " which Proteſtants reject, had been
« found in the facred writers, our oppoſition
« would be unwarrantable. We ſhould be found
"to fight againſt God.” This brings to my
mind the ſtory of a good old woman, who, oh
being aſked whether ſhe believed the literal truth
of Jonah being ſwallowed by a whale, replied,
and added, that if the fcriptures had ſaid that
Jonah
ردالا
K3
!
LETTERS TO THE
134
Jonah ſwallowed the whale, ſhe ſhould have be-
lieved it too. How a man can be ſaid to be-
lieve what is, in the nature of things, impoſſible,
on any authority, I cannot conceive. Perhaps
Dr. Croft can explain the mental proceſs by
which it is performed.
This writer has formed the higheſt idea of the
importance of a civil eſtabliſhment of religion,
and he aſcribes every miſchief to ſectaries ; while
others, who are ſufficiently attached to an eſta-
bliſhment, have the generoſity to acknowledge
that fectaries are of ſome uſe, at leaſt, like an
oppoſition to government. “ If our Jeruſalem,
he ſays, p. 169, were at unity with herſelf, if her
“ inhabitants all ſpake the ſame thing, if there were
“ no diviſions among them, &c. the general in-
« tereſt of chriſtianity would daily be improved.
Now it requires but little diſcernment, and a
little knowledge of hiſtory, and of the world, to
ſee that the reverſe of this muſt be true. The
Catholics might with the ſame reaſon fay of
their church what Dr. Croft does of the church
of England, and might exclaim againſt the refor-
mers in general, as much as he does againſt
the diffenters of this country. But is not the
ſtate of the catholic church much improved ſince
the reformation ? And is it not equally evident
that the clergy of the church of England are much
more learned, and more exemplary in their con-
duct, in conſequence of there being diffenters, and
thoſe
i
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
135
1
thoſe not deſpicable? Is not an uſeful emulation
excited by this means ? What learned works are
produced by the divines of Sweden and Denmark,
where there are no diffenters?
Sectaries, no doubt, give the divines of the
eſtabliſhment ſome trouble, as we ſee in the
pre-
ſent controverſy; but the Dean of Canterbury
allows that the diſcipline is not without its uſe.
Does not the oppoſition they meet with make
them give greater attention to their principles ;
and if they be well founded, will they not ſtand
the firiner in conſequence of it? It is nothing
but error, that can finally ſuffer by diſcuſſion.
Truth ever ſeeks the light, and challenges inveſti-
gation.
Dr. Croft himſelf when, in his laſt ſermon, he has
worked himſelf up to ſome degree of courage, ap-
pears to entertain no doubt with reſpect to the iſſue
of
any conteſt, and I dare ſay, ſmiles at my grains
of gun-powder. “ The attempts to overturn
« our eſtabliſhment,” he ſays, p. 195, “have
“ met with no ſucceſs equal to the fanguine ex-
pectations of our adverſaries. . The numbers
“ of the diſcontented bear no proportion to the
« whole eccleſiaſtic body, many of whom ſearch
" the ſcriptures, peruſe the Fathers, and conſult
.so every ſource of information with unremitting
k zeal and induſtry. The ſpirit of inquiry ought
se not to be reſtrained by human laws, and to
" that
K4
1
138
LETTERS TO THE
fe that fpirit alone we wiſh to be indebted for the
permanence of our church.'
$6
This is the language of courage, and of gene-
rofity; but this paragraph is by no means in
uniſon with many other parts of the ſermons. In
ſome of them he almoſt adopts the language
of deſpair, “We are ſurrounded,” he ſays, p.2,
by ſo numerous an hoſt of adverſaries, that we
66 muſt be cautious how we put on our ſpiritual
Farmnour, and left we expoſe to danger the walls
“ of our defenced city. All our vigilance will
66 be ſcarce fufficient for the conflict," The
prayer that follows is that of men who find them-
ſelves reduced to the laſt extremity, “May he
« who teacheth man knowledge, and giveth
fk ſtrength for the battle, ſupport and aſſiſt us,
May he give a bleſſing to the weakeſt and moſt
" imperfect endeavours, and may zeal and fin-
" cerity compenſate for the weakneſs of our per-
66 formances,” that is, may God give to our weak
arguments all the effect of ſtrong ones, which I
fuppoſe he expects from the infatuation of their
oppoſers. This diffidence, you obſerve, is ex-
preffed in the very opening of his firſt diſcourſe.
And in the courſe of his work he drops ſeveral
hints of the propriety of a little human, as well as
divine aid In p. 131, he mentions “a juſt
extent of power,” the uſe of which prudence
alone reſtrains, and that we “ ſhould have no rea-
"s ſon to complain if we were reſtrained by the
" civil
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
137
of civil magiſtrate from expreſſing our ſentiments
on certain ſubjects.”
Though one of his texts is Luke xii. 57. Yea
ond wby, even of your felves, judge ye not what is
right, he ſays, p. 92, the “ principle which has
given a ſanction to all the wildneſs and extrava.
gance of enthuſiaſts and ſectaries is this, what-
- ever right any body of men claim to ſeparate
« from a church once eſtabliſhed, the ſame right
every
individual
may
claim to form a ſyſtem of
s doctrines and opinions for himſelf,” and alſo
p. 76, “it was an abſurdity reſerved for modern
« days, to imagine that every man was qualified,
“ and authorized, to frame a ſyſtem of belief for
« hiinfelf.” Now does not his text ſufficiently
authorize any man to do this, and did not Luther
act upon that authority? Did not Calvin form a
fyſtem of belief for himſelf, before any ftate
adopted it :
Dr. Croft ſpeaks with particular caution on the
doctrine of the Trinity, and confiders all attempts
to explain it as one of the abuſes of reaſon. “That
every perſon," he ſays, p. 126, “ in the ever
“ bleffed Trinity is God, and Lord, no one
denies, who believes in the Trinity; but to
6 ſpeak of them collectively, as three Gods, and
" three Lords has an air of polytheiſm.” But
ſurely it would be no abuſe of reaſon, but a capital
uſe of it, to fhew that this is nothing more than an
air
138
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
.
air of polytheiſm, and not the reality. For, after
ſaying that the Father is God, the Son equally
God, and the Holy Ghoſt God alſo, it is very
natural to count them up, and ſay that then
there muſt be three Gods, fince it1+1=3. It
muſt certainly be a very laudible uſe of reaſon to
extricate men from this great difficulty reſpecting
revelation.
i
It is always deemed a great advantage to be
able to deviſe familiar illuſtrations of abſtract
pro-
pofitions. Few of them can be proved to fatif-
faction that are incapable of it. And had this
doctrine been likely to receive any advantage
from attempts to explain it, it can hardly be
doubted but that Dr. Croft would have recom-
mended, rather than have diſcouraged them,,
This writer enumerates feveral other abuſes of
reaſon; but if you conſider them all, you will find
that they agree in this one circumſtance, viz. that
the diſcuſſion of the articles he ſpecifies would
probably be attended with ſome inconvenience
to the eſtabliſhed ſyſtem,
He ſays, p. 78, “Nor can we forbear wonder-
< ing that, after the Defenſio fidei Nicæna, pub-
“ liſhed by an eminent prelate, and after a late
“ abſtract of the opinions of the Fathers of the
“three firſt centuries, the author of which re-
“ ceļved from this place a juſt tribute of grati-
6 tude,
1
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
139
“ tude, the unlearned ſhould be told that the di-
“.vinity of the Son and Holy Ghoſt was a doc-
e trine of a later date."
!
In my turn, I may be allowed to expreſs my
ſurpriſe, that any perſon, who has given the leaſt
attention to the preſent controverſy, ſhould hold
this language. I allow all that Biſhop Bull and
Mr. Burgh afcribe to the Fathers of the ſecond
and third century; I allow that they held the doc-
trine of the divinity of the Son, at leaſt; but it was
in a qualified ſenſe, and by no means the ſame that,
was maintained after the council of Nice. I have
alſo diſtinctly ſhewn whence the notion of theſe
Fathers was borrowed; but what I maintain, and
by evidence drawn from their own writings, is
that while the learned chriſtians were Trinitarians,
the common people, who had no knowledge of
Platoniſm, were ſimply. Unitarians; and that
therefore the probability is that ſuch was the faith
of the apoſtles. Let Dr. Croft, or any future Bamp-
ton lecturer, examine and refute my arguments if
he can. In my opinion they cannot chuſe a more
important, or more a ſeaſonable topic. "What ſig-
nifies thundering from a diſtant baſtion, when the
enemy is breaking open a gate, where the artillery
cannot reach him. Let the moſt ſtrenuous efforts
be made where the danger is moſt preſſing.
1
I obſerve that one of the ſubjects particularly
fpecified by Mr. Bampton is, “the authority of
k! the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the
« faith
3
140 I Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
"faith and practice of the primitive church.”
Let the heads of colleges, then (who, I find, have
the nomination of the preacher) appoint a perſon
the moſt eminent for his acquaintance with eccle-
ſiaſtical hiſtory; and let him be directed to prove,
in oppoſition to what I have advanced, in my. Hif-
tory of Early Opinions concerning Chriſts that the
great body of unlearned chriſtians in the primi-
live times were Trinitarians. You have every
advantage for theſe reſearches at Oxford, whereas
we, who are not permitted to ſtudy at either of
your univerſities, can only be ſaid to gather the
crumbs that fall from your table.
.
Rejoicing that you enjoy noble advantages for
which I have often ſighed, and hoping that they
will not be loft upon you,
I am, Gentlemen,
Your fincere well-wiſher,
J. PRIESTLEY.
1
1
I
P. S. I fhall take this opportunity of acknow-
ledging a miſtake I made in my former Letters,
and alſo in the firſt edition of my Letter to Mr. Pitt;
having been ſince informed that, at Cambridge, the
thirty-nine articles are not ſubſcribed at matricu-
lation, but only on admiflion to the degree of
maſter of arts; though the ſtudents there are
obliged to attend the ſervice of the church of Eng-
land from the firſt, and to declare that they are
bona
2
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c. 141
bona fide, members of it when they commence
bachelors. I hope that the attempt which the
members of that univerſity are now making to
relieve themſelves ſtill more, will be attended
with ſucceſs.
I muſt likewiſe inform the purchaſers of ſome
of the copies of the ſecond edition of my Letter to
Mr. Pitt, that I had been led into a miſtake with
reſpect to the votes of the biſhops concerning the
writ de Hæretico comburendo. A perſon on whoſe
information I had perfect confidence gave me the
account, and wrote the note p. 13, for me. The
leaf containing it was cancelled as ſoon as I dif-
covered the error, and any perſons, by ſending to
she publiſhers, may have their copies rectified.
.
N.B. The Letter relating to the Under-graduate
of Oxford was written before the report of its author
being the Dean of Canterbury reached me; and as
the writer begins with ſaying, "I am one of the
young men to whom you have offered your fer-
« vices, as a director of their theological ſtudies ;
it is barely credible that a man of his character,
Inhould affirm what cannot be termed leſs than an
abſolute falfebood. If the report be without founda-
tion, the Dean will, no doubt, take an early oppor-
tunity of diſclaiming a publication ſo unworthy of
him.
/
A
142
· LETTERS TO THE
!
An ADDITION to the LETTERS relat-
ing to Mr. Howes.
N expreſſing my ſurprize that Mr. Howes
ſhould aſcribe the Extraets from Theodotus
in Clemens Alexandrinus to Theodotus the Tan-
ner by (which means he makes one of the ancient
Unitarians a believer in the pre-exiſtence, and as
he alſo thought, in the divinity of Chriſt) he ſaid,
in his former publication, p. 13, “ in regard to
“Theodotus, this will be diſcuſſed afterwards." and
as I had obſerved that the learned editors of Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, viz. Sylburgius and Potter,
were not of his opinion, he adds, “ At preſent I
ſhall “only obſerve, that if modern authority were
capable to decide the queſton, I can produce
" as good authority on my ſide, that of Cave and
“ M. Simon; but I form my judginent from in-
« ternal evidence in thoſe extracts themſelves.”
50
As Mr. Howes, in his laſt publication, has ſaid
nothing on this ſubject, though, according to the
arrangement of his materials, I think he ought to
have done it, I ſhall content myſelf with giving an
extract from Dr. Lardner's account of the dif-
ferent perſons of the name of Theodotus, in his
Hiſtory of Heretics, p. 370.
Firſt.
CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS, &c.
143
« Firſt, A Valentinian, Cave, in his account of
« Theodotus the Tanner, afcribes to him all the
opinions which he has collected out of the orien-
" tal doctrine, ſubjoined to the works of Clement
“ of Alexandria. But that is confounding things
" as different and oppoſite as can well be. Theo-
“ dotus the Tanner is reckoned among thoſe who
“ did not allow Jeſus to have exiſted before his
"nativity of Mary, which is very different from
“ the ſentiments repreſented by Cave from the
“ above-mentioned work. And yet Fabricius
“ ſeems to have been of the ſame opinion with
“ Cave. Tillemont perceived that the Theodorus
“ mentioned in theſe extracts, was a Valentinian.
• Beaufobre had no doubt of it, and ſays he
" Aouriſhed about the year of our Lord, 130.”
I quote Dr. Lardner, becauſe Mr. Howes ſeems
to have ſome reſpect for his judgment and impar-
tiality. In his laſt publication he ſays, p. 44,
“ It may be obſerved as truly wonderful, that
" Dr. Lardner, if inclined to Unitarianiſm, ſhould
<< have left no accounts behind him of the Ebio-
" nites, Nazarenes, or Elceſaites. One ſhould
“ have thought that thoſe pretended founders of
“ his own ſyſtem would have been the firſt to
" claim his attention. I cannot then but ſuſpect
" that they have been ſuppreſſed, becauſe they
“proved too plainly the belief of the Ébionites
" in the divinity of Chriſt. For Lardner was of
" too inquiſitive, and too rational a turn of mind,
“ to have thus neglected altogether the important
hereſies
144
LET TERS, &c.
“ hereſies of the firſt centuries, while he treated
minutely of ſeveral inconſiderable ones; and
“ he was apparently too honeſt to have iniſed
« his readers with reſpect to the real tenets of the
“ Ebionites and Nazarenes. Hinc ille biatus. This
" is the more ſtrange, becauſe he does give ſome
« account of thoſe fects in his other works, but
nothing any way favourable to their being the
<< founders of humaniſm."
What Dr. Lardner would have done if he had
lived to have publiſhed his own work, no man
can tell. That he conſidered the doctrine of the
Nazarenes as no proper hereſy, and yet totally dif-
ferent from that of the Trinitarians or Arians, is
evident from his four poſthumous diſcourſes, in which,
after treating of theſe two ſchemes, he conſiders,
and recommends, p. 40, “the doctrine of the
« Unitarians or Nazarenes;" his account of which
correſponds exactly to what is commonly called
Socinianiſm, of which it is wel} known that he was a
zealous advocate, as Dr. Price, in his Appendix,
P. 393, obferves. Let Mr. Howes read his Letters
on the Logos, which led me to adopt his opinion.
But I fhould not much wonder if Mr. Howes
ſhould hereafter expreſs fome doubt of
an Unitarian. Indeed, of the two,
Indeed, of the two, it appears to
me quite as eaſy to prove that there are no Uni-
tarians ac preſent, as that there were none in the
primitive ages of chriſtianity.
1
my being
А СА.
.
1
Defences of Unitarianiſm for the Years 1788 & 1789.
CONTAINING
L. Ε Τ Τ Ε
RS
Τ Ο
DR. H O R S L E Y,
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's,
то
THE RE V. MR. BARNARD ,
THE REV. DR. KNOWLES,
AND
THE REV. MR. HAWKINS.
BY JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.
AC. IMP. PETROP.R. PARIS. HOLM, TAURIN, ITAL. HARLEM.
AUREL. MED. PARIS, CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAD, SOCIUS.
Facta minis quantum diftent.
OVID,
BIRMINGHAM, ,
PRINTED BY J. THOMPSON,
FOR J. JOHNSON, N°72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, LONDON.
[PRICE THREE SHILLINGS AND SIX-PENCE.]
ܕ
܀
t
ܝ
ܝܚ.
. .
ܝ
ܗ
1
A
Τ Η Ε
P R E F A CE.
HAVING undertaken the defence of the
Unitarian doctrine, or rather of this
one poſition, that unitarianiſm was the faith
of the primitive church; but not being
willing to trouble the Public unneceſſarily
on the ſubject, I propoſed to make one
annual reply to ſuch publications of my
opponents as ſhould make their
appearance
in the courſe of each year. This I did for
the years 1786 and 1787; but nothing of
any conſequence having been produced in
the year 1788, I had no occaſion to write
at all. The caſe has been ſomething different
this
year.
For though it will ſufficiently
appear that the advocates for the doctrine
of the trinity have publiſhed nothing that
is in the leaſt degree formidable, enough
has been done to giveſ me an opportunity
of ſhewing how little the cauſe of unita-
rianiſm has to fear from any thing that the
A 2
keeneſt
1
1
1
iv
PRE FACE.
keeneſt
eyes
of its adverſaries can diſcover
to its prejudice.
If any man was ever intereſted in the
ſupport of any cauſe, it is the preſent Biſhop
of St. David's in that of trinitarianiſm; and
yet I think there is hardly an example in
the whole hiſtory of controverſy,, of any
man having made ſo poor a figure as he has
done in this. Sparing nothing that the
force of language could ſupply to bear down
his adverſary (with what temper others will
judge) I appeal to the impartial reader
whether all his arguments have not only
been totally without weight, but in general
deſtitute even of plauſibility.
: Profeſſing to prove my incompetency in the
ſubje&t, he has given moſt abundant proofs
of his own, and even of his deficiency in
the learned languages. He has ſhrunk from
the defence of moſt of the articles which he
undertook to diſcuſs, and has totally failed
in the few that he did ſelect, eſpecially with
reſpect to his church of orthodox Jewiſh
chriſtians at Jeruſalem after the time of
Adrian, and the want of veracity in Origen,
who
P R E F A C E.
V
who appeared by his writings to know of
no ſuch church. Even theſe miſtakes were
borrowed from Moſheim; ſo that, in all
probability, he was, before the commence-
ment of this controverſy, intirely unac-
quainted with all thoſe original writers with
which he ought to have been particularly
converſant.
This, indeed, is moſt evident both with
reſpect to himſelf and his late ally Mr. Bad-
cock, from the manner in which they took
up my quotation from Athanaſius. It is
clear that the very idea of the apoſtles not
chuſing openly to teach the doctrine of the
trinity, becauſe it would give offence to
their hearers, was abſolutely new to them;
though I have ſhewn it to have been the
opinion of all the chriſtian Fathers without
exception, who mention the ſubject; ſo that
my conſtruction of this paſſage of Atha-
naſius is abundantly confirmed by all the
writers who either preceded or followed
kim; to ſay nothing of ſuch me
Beaufobre and Dr. Lardner having under-
ſtood it exactly as I did, and of my anta-
goniſts being unable to produce the opinion
of
as
A 3
vi
P R E F A CE.
of
any writer whatever in favour of theirs.
To call my conduct in this buſineſs, as they
ſcrupled not to do, a fraud and an impoſition,
diſcovers, I will not ſay, their own readineſs
to take ſuch an unfair advantage themſelves
(for I hope that no man is capable of ſuch
complicated folly and wickedneſs, as in more
caſes than one, they have aſcribed to me)
but of ſuch groſs ignorance on the ſubject
as is barely credible, with reſpect to men
who voluntarily undertook to criticiſe an-
other.
On this ſubject (with reſpect to which I
am willing to appeal to the moſt prejudiced
of my readers, and which, when it is well
conſidered, will appear to be, in fact, deci-
ſive in favour of the Unitarian doctrine
having been taught by the apoſtles) the
Biſhop of St. David's, in both his laſt pub-
lications, has been abſolutely ſilent; and I
am perſuaded he will continue to be ſo.
Mr. Badcock charging me with a wilful
perverſion of the paſſage in Juſtin Martyr,
in which he is alſo countenanced by Biſhop
Horſley, is another inſtance of a premature
triumph
1
1
PREFAÇ E.
vij
triumph of the ſame kind; diſcovering both
their ignorance of the ſubject of this contro-
verſy, and of a very common idiom of the
Greek language. This charge I will alſo
venture to ſay the Biſhop of St. David's will
not repeat.
As to Dr. Knowles and Mr. Barnard, on
whom I next animadvert in this publication,
nothing but my promiſe to notice every
thing that ſhould be advanced with reſpect
to the argument from antiquity could have
induced me to reply to them. But though
they are evidently deficient in a knowledge
of chriſtian antiquity, they appear to me to
have given more attention to it than the
Biſhop of St. David's, and they are his
ſuperiors both in judgment, and in candour.
They are capable, I am perſuaded, of ſeeing
their own deficiency, and of acknowledg-
ing it.
Mr. Hawkins I produce as an inſtance of
the fatal faſcination of ſplendid eſtabliſh-
ments on a mind truly ſenſible, and in other
reſpects ingenuous. From the knowledge
I have of him I will venture to ſay, that
had it not been for this foreign influence
A.
4
(which,
;
viii
PRE FACE.
1
(which, however, he may not perceive, or
ſuſpect) he would no more have profeſſed
his belief of the thirty-nine articles of the
church of England, after maturely abandon-
ing the church of Rome, or have under-
taken the defence of the doctrine of the
trinity, than myſelf. But that a man of his
good ſenſe, and good difpofition, and ſo
well qualified as he is to write on any
ſubject with which he is acquainted, ſhould
argue ſo weakly as he has done, both with
reſpect to the doctrine of the trinity, and the
ſubject of ſubſcription, cannot, I am per-
ſuaded, be accounted for on any other prin-
ciple.
I have not ſcrupled to conſider Mr. Haw-
kins's General Defence of the Principles of the
Reformation, in a Letter to Mr. Berington
(with a copy of which he favoured me) in
conjunction with his Expoſtulatory Addreſs
to myſelf; as a book printed, and circulated
without any reſtriction, is ſufficiently pub-
liſhed. Beſides, the reaſons given in his
Preface for not chuſing a more extenſive
circulation, as they relate to the Catholics
only, do not at all affect any of the paſiages
on which I have animadverted. It is a work
which
1
PREF A CE.
ix
which muſt do the writer credit, in a variety
of reſpects; and both Mr. Berington and
myſelf wiſh that it was more generally
known. It is for the intereſt of truth, for
which we all profeſs to be advocates, that
every queſtion of conſequence ſhould be
diſcuſſed in the freeſt and moſt public
manner.
I have waited in vain for the re-appearance
of three other of my antagoniſts, viz. Mr.
Howes, Dr. Geddes, and the Dean of Canter-
bury. But as they have been ſufficiently
urged to produce every thing that they had
to allege, and they have all had ſufficient
time for the purpoſe, I muſt conclude that
inclination is wanting. Whether this want
of inclination, has ariſen from any con-
ſciouſneſs of a want of ability to fulfil their
engagements to the Public, muſt be left to
the conjecture of our common readers. For
with reſpect to this alſo they are filent.
I have alſo waited to no purpoſe for the
appearance of ſome Arian learned in eccle-
fiaftical hiſtory, to combat what I have ad-
vanced concerning the non-exiſtence of their
doctrine before the time of Arius; ſo that
the field of controverſy is now divided be-
tween
X
PR E F A CE.
tween the two oppoſite parties of Trini-
tarians and Unitarians, neither of whom
will allow that there is any juſt medium
between their opinions.
I cannot help congratulating the friends
of free inquiry on the attention that is given
to the ſubject of this controverſy, and the
happy effects of this attention, indifferent,
or diſtaſteful, as it is to many. Though
the ſuperior orders of the clergy do not,
for reaſons that may eaſily be conceived,
engage in the public diſcuſion, it is frequently
the ſubject of their charges to the clergy, of
which that of the Biſhop of Peterborough,
noticed, page 168, is one inſtance. But
another proof of a ſingularly curious nature
appears in a Bill that was to have been
brought into the, houſe of commons in
favour of the Catholics the laſt fefſion of
parliament. For among the Proviſos in this
bill, the ſeventh in number is the follow-
ing, which I give verbatim from a printed
copy put into my hands.
" PROVISO, THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT
EXTEND TO PERSONS WRITING AGAINST
THE TRINITY."
This
PRE FACE.
xi
This bill was not actually brought into
parliament, but it had been ſettled with the
miniſter, and the ſeveral articles of it had
undergone much diſcuſſion. That this
pro-
viſo was not inſerted by the Catholics is
very evident; nor could it have any mean-
ing with reſpect to them; ſince they can
no more be ſuſpected of a diſpoſition'to
write againſt the doctrine of the trinity,
than againſt that of tranſubſtantiation, both
of them being equally fundamental articles
of their creed. The real aſpect of this
clauſe, therefore, muſt be towards fome
perſons who are known to diſbelieve that
doctrine, and who may be ſuſpected of an
intention to write againſt it; and the inti-
mation it conveys is, that no favour is to
be ſhewn by government to ſuch perſons.
But what is ſufficient to my purpoſe is, that
it ſhews, in the ſtrongeſt light, the extreme
apprehenſions of ſome perſons in power (no
doubt either biſhops, or ſtateſmen influenced
by biſhops) on the ſubject of this contro-
verſy.
As to the intimation, given in ſo awkward
and round about a manner, that no favour will
be ſhewn by the preſent government to thoſe
who,
xii
PREFACE.
who, like myſelf, write againſt the doctrine
of the trinity, it is ſufficient to inform them,
of what they might have diſcovered them-
ſelves, that our ſilence is not to be procured
by ſuch means. If we be ſilenced at all, it
muſt be by argument, not by ſuch implied
tbreats. Let miniſters of ſtate direct the
biſhops to defend their cauſe by writing,
and let not biſhops ſo evidently betray their
want of confidence in argument, as to en-
gage the miniſtry to oppoſe us by laws.
Though both the methods will be inef-
fectual, there will be greater propriety in the
former than in the latter.
This controverſy having continued ſeveral
years, and ſo much attention having been
given to it, that there can be no doubt
but that thoſe who are moſt intereſted in
the defence of the doctrine of the trinity
muſt have produced all that they could
allege in its favour, both the parties may
now be ſuppoſed to be come to an iſſue; ſo
that we may leave the deciſion to our proper
judges, the learned Public. As to myſelf,
I do not wiſh to tire my readers with a
repetition of the ſame anſwers to the ſame
arguments; and I am as little ambitious of
having
ز
H
.
1
1
>
PRE FAC F.
X111
having the laſt word, for the ſake of its being
fo, as the Biſhop. of St. David's; and it
muſt be ſomething more ſpecious, at leaſt,
than
any thing that I have yet feen from
him, or any other of my antagoniſts, that
will convince me of the propriety of writing
any more of theſe Defences. At a proper
time I ſhall probably, in imitation of my
antagoniſt, reprint all my Tracts in this con-
troverſy, and then I ſhall have an oppor-
tunity of noticing any thing that I may
thirik deſerving of it. My backwardneſs to
write, when I have been properly called
upon, has not yet been complained of.
I had propoſed to conclude this contro-
verſy with a ſerious Addreſs to the Bench of
Biſhops, and to the Legiſlature of this country.
But I do not know that it will be neceſſary;
as nothing I could ſay, would be materially
different from what I have already, and
repeatedly, advanced on ſeveral other occa-
ſions. In this, however, I ſhall be deter-
mined by the circumſtances in which I may
hereafter find myſelf. I particularly recom-
mend an attention to what I have briefly
urged in the concluſion of my Hiſtory of the
Corruptions
xiv
PRE FACE.
Corruptions of Chriſtianity, my Hiſtory of Early
Opinions concerning Chriſt, and my Letter to
Mr. Pitt.
MOL EFTY
Εχθρον de
Αυλις αριζηλως ειρημενα μυθολογευειν. .
HOMERI ODYSS.
Birmingham,
January 1, 1790.
1
.
1
i
'
.
1
i
тн Е
C O N T E N T S.
LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
LET TER I.
1
PAGE
OF his Lordſhip's avowed Object to depreciate his
Antagoniſt
I
L E T T E R II.
of the Charge of Want of Candour in Dr. Prieſtley 10
L E T T E R III.
Of the Charge of borrowing from Zuicker
17
L E T TER IV..
Of the damnatory Clauſe in the Athanafian Creed 20
LET TERV.
Of the Phrafe, Coming in the Fleſh
25
L E T T ER VI.
Of the Meaning of the Word Idiota in Tertullian 29
L E T T E R VII.
Of Heretics according to Irenæus
32
LETTER
1
хуі
CONTENTS.
PAGE
L E T T E R VIII.
Of the Origin of the Son from the Father's Con-
templation of his own Perfections
36
L E T T E R IX.
of the Church of orthodox Jewiſh Chriſtians at
Jeruſalem, and of the Veracity of Origen 49
L E T T E L X.
The Concluſion
61
LETTERS TO THE REV. MR. BARNARD.
L E T T E R I.
Of Mr. Barnard's Idea of Unitarians
77
L E T T E R II.
Of Mr. Barnard's Arguments from the Scrip-
tures
83
L E T T E R III.
Of Mr. Barnard's Hiſtorical Arguments of a pre-
fcriptive Kind, in favour of the Doctrine of the
Trinity
86
L ETTER IV.
Of Mr. Barnard's direct Hiſtorical Arguments in
favour of the Doĉtrine of the Trinity
91
L E T T E R V.
Of the Council of Nice, and the Creed which was
eſtabliſhed by it
98
LETTER
CONTENTS.
xvii.
LET TER VI.
PAGE
The Concluſion
103
A LETTER TO THE REV. Dr.
KNOWLES
109
LETTERS TO THE REV. MR. HAWKINS.
L E T T E R I.
Of the ObjeEt and Spirit of Mr. Hawkins's Ad-
dreſs
119
I 29
L E T T E R II.
Of Inconſiſtencies in Mr. Hawkins's Ideas of the
Nature of Subſcription
LETTER III.
Of a Latitude in the Interpretation of the Articles
of the Church of England, and of the Script:res
being a Commentary on the Articles
140
L E T T E R IV.
Of the State of Things among the Diſſenters, and
the Difference between the Churches of Rome
and England
149
L E T T E R V.
Of the Difficulties attending the Subject of Sub-
fcription to Articles of Faith
156
LETTER
1
b
1
1
xviii
CON TEN T S.
PAGE
L E T T E R VI.
Of the Dottrine of the Trinity, and particularly
of Diſtinctions in the Godhead
160
L ET TER VII.
A Compariſon between the Doctrine of Tranſub-
ftantiation and that of the Trinity; of the
Damnatory Clauſe in the Athanaſan Creed, and
of ſome Arguments for the Doctrine of the
Trinity from the Scriptures
LETTER VIII.
The Concluſion
179
182
AN APPEN D I X.
Of the different Senſes in which a Subſcription to
the thirty-nine Articles has been vindicated by
Divines of the Church of England
185
1
1
L E T T E R S
то
DR.
HORS LE
L E Y,
LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVID's,
Hæc qui facrilegis auſit convellere verbis,
Schiſmaticus fit, et hæreticus ;-
et in mentem quicquid tibi fplendida bilis
Suggeret. Huc omnis tonitrus, huc fulgura linquze
Congere, proque focis hic depugnetur et aris.
Animi non mores exuit atros
Veſtis Hyperboreas ſuperans candore pruinas.
BUCHANANI FRANCISCANUS,
1
1
1
2
L E T T E R S
TO
Dr.
H 0 R S LE 1,
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's, .
L E T T E R I.
Of his Lordſhip's avowed Object to depreciate his
Antagoniſt.
MY LORD,
FTER waiting, I believe, nearly twice eighteen
months, the interval between your two pre-
ceding publications in this controverſy, I am happy
to ſee you make your appearance in it once more.
Your Lordſhip’s greateſt admirers have not wiſhed
for this event ſo ardently as myſelf, and my unitarian
friends; becauſe we conſider your publications in
this controverſy as contributing in an eminent man-
ner to the propagation of that great truth for which
we think it glorious to contend, and which you
oppoſe. The fact unqueſtionably is, that ſince the
commencement of this controverſy, the progreſs of
unitarianiſin has been rapid, compared to what it
B
ever
2
LETTERS TO THE
ever was before, and more within the church of
England than among the Diſſenters, though among
them the number of converts has been conſiderable.
Truth will never fail to recommend, and eſta-
bliſh itſelf, notwithſtanding, and even by means of,
all oppoſition; but your Lordſhip’s mode of oppof-
ing it is ſo ſingularly efficacious in promoting it,
that of all my antagoniſts I have always had the
greateſt ſatisfaction in replying to you. Beſides,
Now as your motions are (owing to the natural
indolence of which you complain) your Lordſhip
ſeems to be the moſt alert of all the members of
your church who are engaged on the ſame ſide of
the queſtion with you. Mr. Howes, whoſe expe-
dition was the greateſt at one time, has, I fear,
wholly declined the conteſt, and Dr. Horne's great
work, ſo long promiſed, and ſo eagerly expected,
I now almoſt deſpair of ever ſeeing. As to Dr.
White, he ſeemed to promiſe, or rather threaten,
'much, but, alas! he has performed nothing at all.
He may want the aid of my quondam admirer,
Mr. Badcock,
On the whole, had I been permitted to chuſe my
own antagoniſt, by expoſing of whoſe arguments,
and manner of conducting the controverſy, I might
avail myſelf the moſt, I ſhould certainly have made
choice of your Lordſhip. After ſeeing your firſt
ſet of Letters to me, I ſaid to ſeveral of my friends, ,
that if I could have dictated the whole of your
performance myſelf, it ſhould have been juſt what
I found
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
3
I found it to be; your arguments were ſo extremely
futile, and your manner of urging them giving me
even more advantage than I wanted, or wiſhed for.
The principle of your Lordſhip’s attack upon
me, and the obječt of it, avowed in your firſt pub-
lication, and repeated in the preface of this, is
indeed moſt abſurd. “ It ſeemed,” you ſay, p. 4,
« that the moſt effectual preſervative againſt the
“ intended miſchief would be to deſtroy the writer's
“ credit, and the authority of his name; which the
“ fame of certain lucky diſcoveries in the proſecution
" of phyſical experiments had ſet high in popular
“ eſteem, by proof of his incompetency in every
“ branch of literature connected with his preſent
ſubject. For this declared purpoſe a review of
ç the imperfections of his work in the firſt part,
“ relating to our Lord's divinity, was made the
ſubject of a charge delivered to the clergy of the
« Archdeaconry of St. Albans.”
This curious plan of your Lordſhip’s to deſtroy
my reputation will probably bring to the minds of
many of our readers the ſtory of Creeſus. When
he formed the deſign of making war upon Cyrus,
he ſent to conſult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi ;
and the anſwer he received was, that, if he engaged
in that war, he would overturn a great empire. He
did ſo, and an empire was overturned; but that
empire was his own. This, my Lord, would apply
to your Lordſhip, if that could be ſaid to be over-
turned, which was never eſtabliſhed.
Had
' B 2
4
LETTERS TO THE
Had your Lordſhip reflected ever ſo little on the
hiſtory of literature, you muſt have perceived that
no ſuch plan as this ever has ſucceeded, nor is it
poſſible, in the nature of things, that it ever ſhould.
No work of man, eſpecially one of an hiſtorical
kind, and of any conſiderable extent, ever was free
from imperfections; and therefore, upon your prin-
ciple, the credit of no hiſtorical work whatever
could ſtand; and yet there are many works of this
kind in the higheſt reputation, with far more ac-
knowledged imperfections than you have pretended
to diſcover in rnine; not to ſay that you have been
completely foiled in all your attempts to diſcover
any error, of the leaſt conſequence to my main
argument. Would it deſtroy the credit of the late
Dr. Johnſon with reſpect to his knowledge of the
Engliſh language, to point out faults in his ſtyle, of
which many might be found? Was Newton no
philoſopher, becauſe he made a miſtake in one of his
experiments; or no mathematician, becauſe he is
ſaid to have committed an error in one of the de-
monftrations of his Principia ?
1
No writer perhaps, except yourſelf, ever made
greater miſtakes in eccleſiaſtical hiſtory than Mr.
Whiſton; yet no perſon who is acquainted with
them will ſay that his writings of this claſs are
no uſe. The real value of every work comes in
time to be juſtly appreciated. Allowance is made
for errors and imperfections, and due credit is given
to every man, and to every production, for what is
juſt, and will bear examination. This is all that I
deſire,
1
LORD: BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
5
defire, and I am confident that I ſhall not be dif-
appointed. As to all premature attempts to decry
any particular work, or any particular man, fuch
as your Lordſhip’s, and thoſe of your allies, as you
call them, with reſpect to me, they always operate
in favour of what is thus attempted to be cried down.
Becauſe no perſon will take the trouble to give an
alarm, where he apprehends no danger.
After the contemptuous manner in which your
Lordſhip affects upon all occaſions to treat me,
both with reſpect to knowledge and integrity, you
may eaſily perceive that it has no effect in inſpiring
others with the ſame ſentiments. It is not even
believed that you really entertain them yourſelf.
You make me deſtitute of the very rudiments of the
Latin and Greek languages, and altogether unac-
quainted with the writers of chriſtian antiquity.
You pretend that I purpoſely miſquoted the com-
mon Engliſh tranſlation of the Bible, in order to
impoſe upon my readers. You now ſay, p. 488,
in a peculiar folemn manner, that you would not
upon oath, and perpetually repre-
ſent me as acting from the worſt principles that can
actuate a writer, or a man. But all perſons for
whoſe good opinion I have the leaſt regard, really
conſider all this, if it be not affectation, as a kind of
inſanity, and we cannot help thinking that your mind
is affected in the ſame manner as that of the knight of
La Mancha, who miſtook a wind-mill for a giant,
and a fock of ſheep for an army. Your Lordſhip’s
peculiarly haughty and indignant phraſeology only
ferves
take my
evidence upon
B3
6
LETTERS TO THE
ſerves to amuſe your readers by the ſingular curioſity
of it.
The manner in which your Lordſhip affects to
fpeak of my Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Chriſt
cannot mortify any writer. I ſhall quote it for the
entertainment of my readers. " The author is well
“ aware that Dr. Prieſtley will charge him with one
“ capital omiſſion; that he hath taken no notice of
any thing that may be contained, relating to the
“ various points of this controverſy, in Dr. Prieſtley's
Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Chriſt; that
large work in four volumes, the reſult of a whole
“two years ſtudy of the writers of antiquity, which,
" as it hath been publiſhed ſince Dr. Prieſtley's laſt
“ Letters, may be ſuppofed to contain better argu-
ments, or at leaſt his old arguments in a better
“ form. The only apology to be made is a ſimple
“ declaration of the truth. Not conceiving himſelf
“ obliged to engage in the inſipid talk of reading ſo
long a book, without better hope of information
“ from it than his paſt experience of the writer's
“ knowledge in the ſubject gives; Dr. Prieſtley's
" adverſary is as ignorant of the contents of that
o work as he could have been had it never been
publiſhed. It is reported, indeed, that the work,
« whatever may be its merits, has a very now ſale.
« Of confequence it has found but few readers. The
“ antagoniſt of Dr. Prieſtley, were he better ac-
quainted with its contents, would ſtill diſdain to
“ do the office of midwife for this laborious birth.
“ He would not, by an unneceſſary and unſeaſonable
“ oppoſition
i
CC
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
7
oppoſition to neglected arguments, be the inſtru-
~ ment of drawing four volumes, fraught, as the
very title imports, with pernicious heretical theo-
logy, from the obſcurity in which they may
“ innocently rot in the printer's warehouſe.” Pre-
face, p. 12, 13.
C
60
Now, my Lord, I am confident that my expec-
tation of your producing any thing new and valuable
on the ſubject of my hiſtory, is in reality leſs than
yours concerning me; and yet had you, in the
courſe of this controverſy, produced a work of the
fame extent, on the ſame ſubject; more engaged as
I am in buſineſs of various kinds than I can ſuppoſe
ſo indolent a man as your Lordſhip to be, I ſhould
have had the curioſity at leaſt to look into it. I
therefore cannot help ſuſpecting, with many others,
that there is another reaſon for your not reading
my work (if what you ſay of it be literally true)
and a reaſon that is not at all to its diſadvantage.
Slow as the ſale of fo large a work, on ſuch a
ſubject, muſt be expected to be, it produces its
effect, and will do ſo ſtill more, the more it is
conſidered; and of this, I doubt not, you yourſelf
háve ſome ſecret ſuſpicion; and that if your Lord-
ſhip thought that your conſidering and anſwering
it would have done more than your filence, indolent
as you are, you would have been rouſed to a little
more exertion. But where there is no hope of ſuc-
ceſs there can be no motive to action. At preſen
your Lordſhip’s conduct may be compared to that
of a general who ſhould ſay to his antagoniſt, “Sir,
<< I ſhall
B 4
1
8
LETTERS TO THE
“ I ſhall return the fire of your ſmall arms; but as
“to your cannon, I ſhall not trouble myſelf about
“ them.” But you, my Lord, have ſo ill returned
the fire of the ſmall arms, that I do not wonder at
your willingneſs to turn away from artillery of a
large ſize.
As if you could not depreciate your antagoniſt too
much, which, however, leſſens the importance of
your victory over him, you now ſpeak of my philo-
fophical diſcoveries (which on a former occaſion
you thought proper to mention with ſome reſpect)
as merely lucky ones. On this ſubject I ſhall not
make any defence; for fortunate, no doubt, I have
been, as I have always readily confeſſed. But every
philoſopher knows, that a ſeries of ſucceſs of twenty
years continuance could not be wholly fortuitous;
and ſome praiſe is always due to activity in any
uſeful
purſuit.
If I were diſpoſed to imitate your Lordſhip’s
contemptuous treatment of me (which, however, I
flatter myſelf is only affected) I might inquire
concerning your diſcoveries, the effect of luck, or
otherwiſe, and I do not know where to look for
information concerning them.
Of your Commentary on the works of Newton,
undertaken, as you ſay, “Societatis Regiæ Londinenſis
" adhortatione, et ſummo Optimatum atque literatorum
“ totius Angliæ favore;" from which the world was
led to expect a work that would do credit not only
to
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's:
9
to yourſelf, but to the nation which had produced
the original, I know as little as you do of my
Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Chriſt, and there-
fore I can ſay nothing of my own knowledge; but
mathematicians of my acquaintance do not ſay that
it does much credit to either, and that your Notes
illuſtrate no real difficulty.
The depth of your Lordſhip's knowledge on the
fubject of this controverſy has been fufficiently ex-
plored; and what you have publiſhed in the form
of Sermons *, though at the requeſt of grave biſhops,
on other ſubjects of theology, are truly curioſities
of the kind, and have contributed to the amuſement
of ſuch of my friends as have had time to ſpare
for the peruſal of them. But as, I hope, the Public
will not be influenced by your mere opinion con-
cerning me, or my writings, ſo neither do I deſire
that they ſhould be influenced by mine concerning
you, or yours. Our arguments are before them,
and I deſire nothing more than a candid attention
to them.
I am, &c.
* One of theſe, viz. an Ordination Sernion, has been well animad.
verted upon by Mr. Wakefield, and another by the anonymous author
of A Letter to his Lordſhip, occafioned by his Sermon on the Prinicple
of Vitality in man.
.
LETTER
IO
LITTERS TO THE
L E T T E R II.
Of the Charge of Want of Candour in Dr. Prieſtley.
1
MY LORD;
PROFESSING, as you ſomewhere do, to ( ſtrike
“ at your adverſary without remorſe” (and, as
I may add, without judgment or diſcretion) and
perhaps perceiving, by the impreſſion which your
writings have made upon others, that you had in-
dulged your pride and reſentment rather more than
became a chriſtian, or more than anſwered your
purpoſe, you ſeemed willing, at leaſt, to bring me
in as a ſharer in your guilt, and charged me, p. 294,
with “ dividing the clergy into two claſſes, the
ignorant, and the inſincere.” In anſwer to this
charge, I ſaid that I could not pretend to recollect
all that I had written, but that I was confident I
never meant to ſay what you aſcribed to me; that I
had frequently declared the very contrary, in the
very frankeſt manner; and that if I had advanced
any thing which by a fair conſtruction ſhould amount
to the charge, I retracted it, and aſked pardon. In
a generous mind this kind of reply would have ex-
cited ſome generous ſentiment; but it is to miſtake
the ſoil to expect any ſuch produce from your
Lordſhip
After
1
1:
II
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
After being frequently called upon to cité the paf-
ſage on which your charge was founded, you now
produce one in which I ſpeak of trinitarians in
ge-
neral (but without any particular view to the clergy,
many of whom are not trinitarians) as perſons who,
“ if they were ingenuous, would rank with Socinians,
“ believing that there is no proper divinity in Chriſt
« beſides that of the Father, or elſe with Tritheifts,
holding three equal and diſtinct Gods.” You
alſo
quote two other paſſages, in one of which I
ſpeak of ſome perſons as writing ſo weakly in de-
fence of the doctrine of the Trinity, that it is barely
poſſible that they ſhould be in earneſt; and another
in which I ſuppoſe that ſome defenders of the eſta-
bliſhed religion are inſincere. But who will ſay
that the whole of any claſs of men, defenders of an
eſtabliſhment or not, are ſincere ? Muſt complai-
ſance require us to ſay that there are no bad men in
the world, or that any particular claſs of men is free
from them, when truth requires the contrary, and
candour allows that there are many who are good ?
If what I have ſaid with reſpect to ingenuouſneſs had
been interpreted by the general ſtrain of my writings,
the controverſial ones not excepted, it would have
been aſcribed to what I have more than once ſaid of
that ſecret influence of motives, of which the agent
himſelf is not diſtinctly apprized, and what only a
rigorous examination of himſelf, and a compariſon
of his conduct with that of other men, 'can enable
him to diſcover. In this ſenſe many worthy perſons
are
12
LETTERSTO THE
1
are far from being thoſe ingenuous and impartial
inquirers after truth that they take themſelves to be,
not perceiving the real ſource, or tendency, of their
principles.
As this is a ſubject to which I wiſh that more
attention were given, I ſhall take the liberty to make
a pretty large quotation from what I advanced con-
cerning it in the very firſt of my controverſial tracts,
viz. Conſiderations on Differences of Opinion among
Chriſtians, addreſſed to Mr. Venn, and I do it the
rather, as that pamphlet has now been long out of
print, and having fully anſwered its purpoſe, will
hardly ever be reprinted. A ſmall part of it was
quoted before.
“Very few of the actions of men,” p. 41, "have,
I believe, one ſimple cauſe. We are generally in-
fluenced by a variety of motives in whatever we
do. It therefore behoves us the more carefully to
diſtinguiſh the influences to which we are ſubject,
and under which we really act.”
« When perſons expreſsly avow the motives of
their conduct, not to acquieſce in their declarations
has the appearance of queſtioning their veracity;
becauſe it is taken for granted, that every man muſt
know the principles of his own conduct. But the
human mind is ſo complex a thing, that there is
great room for ſelf-deception, eſpecially in caſes
where the paſſions and affections are ſtrong, and
when
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
13
when they occaſion ſimilar emotions, as well as
produce ſimilar effects. In this caſe a by-ſtander
may be a better judge than a man's ſelf. A zeal
for our opinions, and a zeal for our party, on the
advancement of which our own perſonal reputation
and influence depend, are neceſſarily connected, and
reciprocally promote one another. For the ſame
reaſon, a dinike of opinions has an affinity with the
diſlike of thoſe who hold them, as men who are em-
barked in an intereſt oppoſite to ours, and whoſe
credit and authority obſtruct our own; and all the
emotions of mind that are excited by the ſame ob-
ject, how different foever they be originally, by fre-
quent aſſociation mix together, ſo that the parts of
that complex feeling which reſults from their union
are no longer diſtinguiſhable. When two perſons
who have had frequent intercourſe, have been a long
time at variance, and the ſubjects of their contention
have been numerous, can either of them analize the
ſudden emotion they will feel in an unexpected
meeting?
• We often begin to act from one motive, but,
as we proceed, we come inſenſibly within the in-
Auence of others; ſo that in ſome caſes the habit
ſhall continue, though the original motive ſhould
ceaſe to have any influence at all; and yet it may
be impoſſible to ſay in what part of this progreſs
the influence of one motive ceaſed, and that of
another began; the change of principle and charac-
ter having been inſenſible, and altogether imper-
ceptible.
- The
14
LETTERS TO THE
« The application of this doctrine may be made
both by thoſe who are provoked at others for hold-
ing opinions which they think damnable, and by
thoſe who laugh at them for opinions which they
think ridiculous. In many caſes, I am ſatisfied,
that the pure love of truth is on both ſides abſorbed
in paſſions of a very different nature. I would over-
look every thing in a man who meant nothing but
to inform me of any thing that he thought me
ignorant of; but they who have that pretence in
their mouths only, when it is far from their hearts,
though they may deceive themſelves as well as
others, are by no means intitled to fo favourable a
reception.
“ It behoves us, however, carefully to diſtinguiſh
between this latent inſincerity, under the influence of
which men deceive themſelves, and that direEt pre-
varication with which thoſe who are engaged in
debate are too ready to charge one another, as if
their adverſaries knowingly oppoſed, or concealed,
the truth. This laſt is a crime of ſo henious a
nature, that I ſhould be very unwilling to impute
it to any perſon whatever. For a man voluntarily
to undertake the defence of what he thinks to be
error, and knowingly to pervert the ſcriptures in
order to make them favour his purpoſe, argues the
heart to be fo totally void of all principle of rectitude ;
it is ſuch an inſult upon the God of truth, and ſuch a
contempt of his judgments, that I think human
nature could never be ſo depraved as to be capable
of it, and that no ſituation in human life could ſup-
ply
1
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
IS
ply a ſufficient temptation for ſuch conduct. There
are ſuch well known inſtances of the force of
pre-
judice, that I had rather aſcribe any opinion, how
abſurd ſoever, in any man, how intelligent ſoever in
other reſpects, to wrong judgment, than to a bad
heart. I can hardly imagine any caſe in which the
chance would not be in favour of the former.
“ If theſe remarks be juſt, with what caution
ſhould we cenſure any perſon with reſpect to a point
of mere ſpeculation. How ſhould I be affected at
the day of judgment to be convinced of the integrity,
and perhaps the right judgment alſo, of an adverſary
whom I ſhould have treated in an illiberal and in-
ſulting manner.” P. 4, &c.
Whether you, my Lord, will allow the truth of
theſe obſervations I cannot tell. You certainly have
not acted upon them, either with reſpect to the excel-
lent Origen, or myſelf. But I have not copied the
above for the uſe of your Lordſhip; conſidering you
to be a perſon to whom ſome of them are ſo far appli-
cable, that I do not expect the leaſt benefit from
the faireft and juſteſt repreſentation of any thing
connected with this controverſy; and yet without
thinking ſo ill of you, as you profeſs to do of me.
That your Lordſhip is in this ſtate of mind,
deſtitute of what I call perfect ingenuouſneſs, is evident
from the turn that you have given to a paſſage in my
Sermon to which I had referred you, in anſwer to
your charge of groſs illiberality. I there ſpeak in
the
1
16
LETTERS TO THE
1
the higheſt terms that I could of the good under-
standing, and the fincerity, both of many Catholics,
and members of the church of England, even
o thoſe who are ſenſible of the corruptions and
“ errors of the ſyſtem in which they are entangled,
« and yet have not been able to break their chains."
Of this you ſay, p. 295, “ It is a long paſſage,
“ in which he profeſſes to hold the church of Eng-
« land in no leſs eſtimation than the church of Rome,'
which I might have done without thinking well of
either of them. This I cannot call a fair and in-
genuous conduct, becauſe it gives your readers (many
of whom, I believe, never read any thing of mine)
a falſe idea of what I write. Beſides, I ſaid nothing
directly about the two churches of England, or of
Rome, but of the members of them; being openly
hoftile to the syſtems, but friendly to their adherents.
.
I am, &c.
1
LETTER
1
:
17
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
L E T T E R III.
Of the charge of borrowing from Zuicker.
MY LORD,
THOUGH my rule in controverſy is by no
means your Lordſhips's above-mentioned, viz.
" to ſtrike without remorſe at whatever in your
“adverſary you find to be vulnerable, in order to
“ deſtroy his character and credit;" I muſt, now
that I am upon the ſubject of latent diſingenuouſneſs,
produce an inſtance which has much the appearance
of it in your Lordſhip’s conduct to me.
1
You charged me, p. 9, with having “ produced
“ few, if any, arguments, but what are found in the
“ writings either of Zuicker, or Epiſcopius.” From
this it might naturally be concluded, that you had
compared my arguments with thoſe of thoſe two
writers, and had found them to be the ſame; which
implies that
you had ſeen, and peruſed, their works.
I entertained no doubt of it myſelf; and taking it
for granted that your Lordſhip had the work of
Zuicker, or had acceſs to it (and it being a book
that I had never ſeen, and could not by any means
procure) I deſired a common friend to apply to
you for it. Your anſwers, which were different at
different times, convinced him that you had never
ſeen the book at all. It has ſince been ſent to
C С
me
18
LETTERS TO THE
me by a learned foreign correſpondent, and I find
Zuicker's views of the ſtate of opinions in early
times to be ſo different from mine, that I am con-
fident, if you had ever ſeen his work, you had never
read it. For if you had, you could never have
afferted that I had borrowed from him at all.
Zuicker ſays, p. 16, that Juſtin Martyr, beſides
availing himſelf of his Platonic principles, derived
his notion of a trinity from the fpurious verſes of
Orpheus, which he ſuppoſes to have been written
by ſome diſciple of Simon Magus. He alſo makes
Simon Magus the parent of the Praxeans, Patri-
paffians, and Sabellians, p. 17. Now theſe opinions
are fundamentally different from mine. I ſuppoſe
Juſtin Martyr to have borrowed from nothing
beſides his Platoniſm; and he was ſo far from being
friendly to Gnofticiſm, which was the offspring of
the ſchool of Simon Magus, that he wrote a treatiſe
againſt it. And I conſider the Praxeans, Patri-
paſſians, and Sabellians, as no other than philo-
ſophical Unitarians.
1
1
Except theſe opinions, there is nothing of much
conſequence in the work of Zuicker beſides a proof,
very much detailed for ſo ſmall a treatiſe as his is,
of the chriſtian Fathers before the council of Nice
not having believed the equality of the Son to the
Father; and this, if I had read nothing of antiquity
myſelf, I might have borrrowed from Dr. Clarke,
and twenty other writers, as well as Zuicker.
1
I ſubmit
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
19
I ſubmit it to the reader, therefore, whether
your
Lordſhip appears to have been perfectly ingenuous,
in ſaying that I had borrowed from Zuicker, or
whether you did not advance this charge at random,
without any more knowledge of Zuicker's work
than you got from Biſhop Bull.
While I am on the ſubject of Zuicker, I ſhall
obſerve that he had no doubt, p. 114, but that, in
the paſſage of Jerom, the true ſenſe of which has
been debated between us, the writer meant to aſſert
the identity of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, with
reſpect to every thing of importance.
Zuicker alſo makes a good obſervation, p. 110,
on the manner in which Auſtin introduces his ac-
count of the Ebionites, immediately after that of
the Nazarenes, which is, Ebionæi Chriſtum etiam
tantummodo hominem ducunt; “The Ebionites alſo
fuppoſe Chriſt to be a mere man.” As if it implied
that the Nazarenes thought the ſame, though he had
not expreſsly aſſerted as much in his account of them,
the word etiam intimating as much. I am inclined
to think that Auſtin bad written this in the account
of the Nazarenes, but that the clauſe is now loft.
I cannot elſe account for the inſertion of etiam, alſo
in the next ſentence.
I am, &c.
C 2
LETTER
20
LETTERS TO THE
..
L E T T E R IV.
Of the damnatory Clauſe in the Athanafian Creed.
MY LORD,
So ready is your Lordſhip to charge me with the
groſſeft ignorance, that you moſt egregiouſly
expoſe your own, or, which is worſe, your diſpoſition
to cavil, when you ſay, p. 287, “ Dr. Prieſtley, I
“ believe, is the only writer who ever confounded
two things ſo totally diſtinct as an anathema and
“ an article of faith, which he conceives the damnatory
clauſe in the Athanaſian creed to be.”
The idle punctilio on which this remark of your
Lordſhip’s turns, relates to the acts of thoſe councils
in which it was the cuſtom to make a creed, and
then to annex anatbemas to it. But this creed of
Athanaſius is no act of any council. You neither
know who compoſed it, when it made its firſt ap-
pearance, or how it came into the public offices of
the church. From the ſtructure of it it is evidently
a mere creed, containing nothing beſides propoſitions,
which were apprehended by the compoſer to be
entitled to the firmeſt faith; and that this damnatory
clauſe in queſtion is one of thoſe propoſitions, is
evident both from the form and the place of it.
It
!
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
21
It is not only introduced both at the beginning,
and at the end of the creed, but, as if that was not
ſufficient, it has a place in the middle likewiſe; thus,
“Whoſoever will be ſaved, before all things it is
« neceſſary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith
except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
“ without doubt he ſhall periſh everlaſtingly.
Thus this celebrated creed begins. About the middle
we find the following clauſes. “He therefore that will
« be ſaved muſt thus think of the trinity. Further-
“ more it is neceſſary to everlaſting ſalvation that
“ he alſo believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord
“ Jeſus Chriſt.” Laſtly, it cloſes with this fentence,
« This is the catholic faith, which except a man
“ believe faithfully he cannot be ſaved.”
Do not theſe anathemas, or damnatory clauſes,
contain real propoſitions ; and does not the perſon
who pronounces them affirm the truth of thoſe
propoſitions ? Can any perſon ſeriouſly fay, that
they who do not believe all the articles of this
« creed ſhall without doubt periſh everlaſtingly,”
without believing that they will periſh everlaſtingly
for their diſbelief? Could any plainer terms have
been contrived for the purpoſe? How, then, are
theſe celebrated damnatory clauſes, as your Lordſhip
ſays, no part of the creed, when every perſon who
profeſſes to believe the whole of courſe receives theſe
parts.
1
Had the word anathema only been uſed, it is
poſſible that the force of it might not have been
attended
C 3
22
LETTERS TO THE
i
attended to by the compoſer; it being too common
to make uſe of words, eſpecially in learned and
foreign languages, without attending to their ſtrict
meaning; and your Lordſhip ſays it is ſo uſed in
your Eccleſiaſtical Canons, when, it is applied to
thoſe who ſpeak diſreſpectfully of the book of com-
mon prayer (though I would not anſwer, as your
Lordſhip does, for the compilers of thoſe canons
not intending eternal damnation by it) but where
the words periſh everlaſtingly are expreſsly and re-
peatedly uſed, there can be no doubt with reſpect to
the nature of the anathema. The damnatory clauſe
ſo expreſſed is moſt unqueſtionably an article of
faith, and certainly of a moſt ſerious and alarming
kind. Indeed, my Lord, it is trifing with your
readers, and an inſult on common ſenſe, to talk of
any real difference between this damnatory clauſe,
and the other parts of the Athanafian creed.
Whatever profeſſion, therefore, your Lordſhip may
inconſiſtently make of your charity, and, notwith-
ſtanding your idle parade about meeting me in
heaven, when I believe you would be ſorry to meet
me any where, and are not very fond of meeting
me in this controverſy; unleſs my everlaſting dam-
nation be an article in your creed, you have ſub-
ſcribed the moſt ſolemn form of words that can be
deviſed by man without meaning any thing at all
by them; and why then may you not have ſubſcribed
every thing elſe with as little truth? Many, no
doubt, do ſubſcribe in this light and careleſs manner,
which ſhews the dreadful effect of the habit of
ſubſcribing
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
23
.
ſubſcribing. It leads to the utter perverſion of the
plaineſt meaning of words, and opens a door to
every kind of inſincerity. By your Lordſhip's own
confeſſion you yourſelf no more believe what you
have ſubſcribed with reſpect to this creed, than you
do the Koran.
V
Indeed, your Lordſhip's account of the trinity
is a very different thing from the doctrine of this
creed. For you ſuppoſe a manifeſt ſuperiority in
the Father, and yet in repeating this creed you can
ſay of the three perſons, that “none of them is
“ afore or after the other, none is greater or leſſer
« than another.” Were you, my Lord, perfectly
ingenuous, and were your mind perfectly unbiaſſed,
you could not but ſee, and would certainly ſhudder
at, the abſurdities and contradictions in your decla-
rations, and feel the ſame horror at ſubſcribing,
that I do.
If your Lordſhip defends theſe damnatory clauſes
on the principle of meaning nothing at all by them,
you vindicate the common curſing and ſwearing
that we every day hear in our ſtreets; where profane
perſons are continually ſending their own ſouls,
and the ſouls of other people, to hell, with as little
meaning as your Lordſhip pretends to. If the
phraſe periſh everlaſtingly does not mean periſh ever-
laſtingly, your Lordſhip ſhould have informed us
what it does mean. It is certainly no bleſing, but
a curſe, of ſome kind or other.
CA
I do
24
'LETTERS TO THE
I do not wonder that men of enlightened and
ingenuous minds, ſuch as Archbiſhop Tillotſon,
ſhould expreſs a wiſh that they were well rid of this
creed. But others, I fear (now, my Lord, mark
my uncharitableneſs) would not be ſorry if the
language of it was ſtill more harſh, that by the
obligation to ſubſcribe it there might be fewer com-
petitors for thoſe emoluments which may be obtained
by ſubſcription. For all your ſubſcriptions do not
exclude unbelievers in all religion, natural and re-
vealed; perſons who, on ſuch terms as you offer,
will ſubſcribe any thing that is rendered to them.
If you would have fewer of theſe, either in the church,
or out of it, you muſt throw out every thing from
your creeds and ſubſcriptions which any ſincere
chriſtian, or believer in the divine miſſion of Chriſt,
cannot confcientiouſly aſſent to. Thus, however,
you 'may fay, Socinians might enter; and you may
prefer the ſociety of unbelievers to theirs; becauſe,
whether in, or out, of the church, they will give you
much leſs trouble.
1
Indeed, my Lord, the oppoſers of all reformation
will always have trouble from the zealous friends of
it. We think it our duty to cry aloud, and not ſpare,
when we ſee ſuch abominations in the public worſhip
of almighty God as are to be found in all the civil
eſtabliſhments of chriſtianity in the world; corrup-
tions borrowed from heathen polytheiſm, and which,
in their nature and effects, are very ſimilar to it.
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
25
:
1
LE T T E R V.
Of the Phraſe, Coming in the Fleſh.
MY LORD,
LORI
YOUR
OUR Lordſhip maintained at large that the
phraſe coming in the fleſh, applied by the apoſtle
John to Chriſt, neceſſarily implies a pre-exiſtent ſtate.
I think it a ſufficient anſwer, that the Jews, by
whom the 'phraſe was uſed, had no ſuch idea; ſince
it is well known that they characterized the Meſſiah
by the phraſe be that is to come; when, at the ſame
time, it is ſo well known that I ſhall not trouble
myſelf to repeat the proof of it, that no Jews ever
expected any other than a mere man for their
Meſſiah. By him that was to come they meant the
perſon who had been promiſed them, as to make his
appearance in due time.
1
1
When, therefore, the Meſſiah was come, and a
queſtion aroſe concerning his nature, whether he had
real fleſh, or not, it was certainly not unnatural for a
Jew, who believed that Chriſt, or be that was to
come, was a real man, and had real fleſh, to expreſs
his opinion by ſaying, that Chriſt was come in the
fleſh, and yet your Lordſhip ſays, p. 421, that “no
“ reaſon can be deviſed why they (the Jews) ſhould
s make choice of ſuch uncouth myſterious words
« for
26
LETTERS TO THE
.
« for the enunciation of ſo ſimple a propoſition,
“ which they might eaſily have ſtated in terms in-
capable of miſconſtruction.” Now, conſidering
the phraſeology to which the Jews had been long
accuſtomed, in ſpeaking of the Meſſiah, I appeal to
our readers whether there be any thing peculiarly
uncouth, myſterious, or unnatural in it.
I alledged a paſſage in the epiſtle of Polycarp, in
which I thought, and ſtill think, that the fame
phraſe (evidently borrowed by him from the apoſtle
John) indicates nothing more than fimple humanity,
in oppoſition to thoſe Gnoftics who maintained that
Chriſt had not real fleſh; becauſe in the very fame
ſentence, he gives two other characters, which
evidently apply to the Gnoſtics only. I therefore
concluded that the former clauſe was only another
part of the deſcription of the ſame claſs of men.
Had he meant to deſcribe the Gnoftics, by enume-
rating their moſt diſtinguiſhing tenets, he could not
well have expreſſed himſelf otherwiſe. This, how-
ever, I ſhall argue no farther, but ſubmit to the
judgment of our readers.
Your Lordſhip now alleges a paſſage from the
epiſtle of Barnabas, which you ſay, p. 422, “ is
very deciſive, in which the alluſion to a prior
« condition of our Lord is manifeſt, and ſo neceſſary.
“ to the writers purpoſe, that if the phraſe be under-
« ftood without ſuch alluſion the whole ſentence is
« nonſenſe.” It is as follows: " For if he had not
" come in the fleſh, how ſhould we mortals, ſeeing
o him,
-
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. 27
. DAVID's.
.
« him, have been preſerved, when they who behold
« the ſun, which is to perish (and is the work of his
" hands] are unable to look directly againſt its
rays.” I ſhall continue the quotation a little
farther from Wake's tranſlation, p. 167, “ Where-
« fore the Son of God came in the fleſh for this
“ cauſe, that he might fill up the meaſure of their
“ iniquity, who have perſecuted his prophets unto
« death; and for the ſame reaſon alſo he ſuffered.
" For God hạth ſaid of the ſtripes of his fleſh, that
they were from them; and I will ſmite the ſhep-
“ herd, and the ſheep of the flock ſhall be ſcattered.
" Thus he would ſuffer, becauſe it behoved him to
“ ſuffer upon the croſs.” &c.
Now, though the writer of this epiſtle might
believe that Chriſt pre-exiſted, and made the world,
it does not follow that he conſidered this phraſe
coming in the fleſh as neceſſarily implying ſo much;
and the general and obvious ſenſe of the paſſage is:
complete without ſuppoſing any reference to a pre-
exiſtent ſtate at all. For it is only this, that he
could not have been the object of our ſenſes, and
could not have ſuffered upon the croſs, as was fore-
told concerning him, if he had not had a body that
was capable of being ſeen, and of ſuffering. Since
the reaſoning of this writer is ſo clear, without any
alluſion to a pre-exiſtent ſtate, it adds greatly to the
probability of the clauſe [which is the work of his
hands] which is omitted in the old latin tranſlation,
being an interpolation; and it is not doubted by any
men
28
LETTERS TO THE
men of learning that there are evident marks of
interpolation in all the remains of the writings of .
this age.
Beſides, if Chriſt be a compound being, conſiſting
of foul and body, beſides the divinity; and if Chrift
came from heaven, this ought to apply to the whole
and not to any part of him only; and then his fleſh
and his human ſoul, muſt alſo have pre-exiſted, and
have come down from heaven as well as the divine
logos. I am ſatisfied, however, that both Polycarp,
and the author of this epiftle, in its original ſtate,
whoever he was, alluded to nothing more than the
opinion of thoſe Gnoftics who held that Chriſt had
no real body, and therefore that, though he was come
according to the propheſies concerning him, he was
not come in the fleſh.
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's,
29
1
..
L E T TER VI.
Of the meaning of the Word Idiota in Tertullian.
MY LORD,
YOUR Lordſhip ſtill maintains that the word
idiota, which Tertullian applies to the major
pars credentium, means idiot in Engliſh; and with
great labour, no doubt, you have at length made out
no leſs than ten ſignifications of this word, and one
of them, p. 427, is ſtupid, dunce, booby, &c. But for
this, which is the only one to your Lordſhip’s pur-
poſe, you . produce no authority from any writer
whatever ; except fome dictionary makers, whom
the learned Bentley would have called, “very idiots
« in Greek and Latin” for their pains; the only
fynonyms that he allows being illiteratus, indoctus,
rudis. Remarks on Free Thinking, p. 118. Your
ninth, and harſheſt ſenſe of the word, in any antient
writer, is that in Cicero, where it is applied to thoſe
who wanted taſte in the fine arts, and among them
he ranks himſelf, quemvis noſtrum, &c.
Acknowledging, as I have no objection to do,
that by this word Tertullian meant to expreſs ſome-
thing more opprobrious than by fimplices, or even
imprudentes (though the latter is not very evident)
it
1
30
LETTERS TO THE
!
it muſt be ſuch an epithet as he thought applicable
to the greater part of chriſtians; and ſurely he
would not chuſe to call them idiots, or even dunces
and boobies.' Out of humour he was, no doubt,
with thoſe who could not reliſh his ſublime doctrine
of the trinity, and who thought it to be an infringe-
ment upon the great doctrine of the ſole monarchy of
God the Father, but he could not impute it to a natural
defect in point of underſtanding, it being ſo very
évident that the bulk of mankind are not deficient
in that reſpect.
1
However, it is of no conſequence by what epithet
Tertullian, or any other writer, ſhould chuſe to
denominate the common people; for they are the ſame
in all ages, and therefore we are as good judges as he
could be. The major pars credentium, or the great
maſs of chriſtians, were no doubt unlearned, not
having had the advantage of a liberal education;
but they did not therefore want underſtanding, or
had leſs natural good ſenſe than the learned. And
conſidering in what the learning, of that age con-
fifted, and how it tended, as I have ſhewn, to miſ-
lead men with reſpect to their ideas of the divine
nature, it is infinitely more probable that the plain
good ſenſe of the common people would form a
right judgment in this caſe than all the knowledge
of the learned; to ſay nothing of the greater proba-
bility of the common people longer retaining the
original doctrine concerning Chriſt. For, whether
your Lordſhip like the obſervation or not, it is
univerſally
1
1
1
31
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
univerſally true, that old opinions are to be looked
for among the common people, rather than among
the learned and ſpeculative.
1
You ſay, p. 432, that the natural ſenſe of Ter-
tullian's words is that, “ this ſcruple,” viz. their
objection to the doctrine of the trinity, “ was incident
chiefly to perſons of that deſcription; not that it
“ was to be found in the whole body of the common
people. He inſinuates that perſons of that weak
“ character only, were liable to that alarm.” But
certainly in Tertullian's idea this objection to the
doctrine of the trinity, or rather this dread of it,
was common to all thoſe whom he calls finplices,
imprudentes, and idiota, for he makes no exception;
and of ſuch he ſays, the greater part of chriſtians
conſiſted. Conſequently, by his own reluctant con-
feſſion, the majority of the chriſtians of his age,
whatever he might chuſe to call them; were uni-
tarians, and dreaded (expaveſcebant) the doctrine of
the trinity, even in the qualified ſenſe in which it
was then maintained; when there was no idea of
the proper equality of the Son to the Father, and when
it was thought that there was a time when he did not
exift. For ſuch unqueſtionably was the opinion of
Tertullian himſelf.
Thus, my Lord, your elaborate' defence of your
uſe of the word idiota, is mere loſt labour, and ren-
ders your ignorance ſtill more conſpicuous than it
was, by the addition of incorrigible obſtinacy in
error.
I am, &c.
1
1
1
32
LETTERS TO THE
L E T T ER
VII.
Of Heretics according to Irenæus.
MY LORD,
A NOTHER queſtion between us is, who were
the heretics of early times, and I have ſhewn,
by a ſeries of quotations from the earlieſt writers to
thoſe of a pretty late date, conſidering the nature of
the queſtion, that the Gnoſtics only were conſidered
in that light, as holding aſſemblies ſeparate from
thoſe who called themſelves the catholic church. I
had ſaid that Irenæus, though he wrote a large
treatiſe againſt heretics, and expreſſed great diſike
of the Ebionites, had not called them heretics. In
one paſſage I ſaid I had once been of opinion that
he had applied that epithet to them; but that on
reconſidering it I was of a different opinion, and I
am ſo ſtill, notwithſtanding what your Lordſhip has
advanced in reply to me.
I farther added, that “ if there was any other
paſſage in which Irenæus called the Ebionites
« heretics, I had overlooked it.” Such a paſſage,
however, your Lordſhip now produces, p. 455,
for among other heretics he there enumerates the
Ebionites. But this is of no conſequence to my
argument; and if I had attended to the paſſage I
ſhould
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's, 33
ſhould have produced it myſelf, as I have never
failed to do with reſpect to every thing elſe, that
appeared to me to be of any conſequence, whether
it made for me, or againſt me.
But there is an
evident reaſon why the Ebionites were pretty foon
conſidered as heretics, and a reaſon which did not
affect the Unitarians among the Gentiles.
For
the Jewiſh chriſtians, on account of their uſing a
different language, held ſeparate aſſemblies from thoſe
who uſed the Greek tongue; and beſides Jerom ex-
preſsly ſays they were deemed heretics only on the
account of their attachment to the inſtitutions of Moſes.
I had farther ſaid, that it was contrary to Irenæus's
definition of hereſy to conſider the Ebionites as heretics.
To this your Lordſhip fạys, in your uſual ſtrain of
politeneſs, when you think you have any advantage,
p. 456, “ he will confer a mighty obligation upon
“ the learned world, if he would be pleaſed to give
“ information in what part of the whole work of
“ Irenæus that definition may be found.”
I anſwer, that a ſtrictly logical definition of hereſy
may not perhaps be found in Irenæus, for ſuch defi-
nitions are not common in ancient writers. But he
repeatedly ſays, that concerning all heretics, which
does not in the leaſt apply to the Ebionites, which is
fully equivalent to what I'faid; and ſince you have
not read my Hiſtory of Early Opinions concerning
Chriſt, and probably never will do it, I ſhall take
the liberty to copy a few paſſages to this purpoſe
from it, vol. I. p. 275, &c.
D
Irenæus
34
LETTERS TO THE
Irenæus conſidered Simon Magus as a perſon
from whom all heretics ſprung. But his doctrines
were thoſe of the Gnoftics, and ſo oppoſite to thoſe
of the Unitarians, that they were never conſidered
as having the fame ſource. Of all heretics, he ſays,
that “they drew men off from him who made and
governs the world, as if they had ſomething
higher and greater to ſhew than he who made the
“ heavens and the earth, and all things therein.
". They all agree,” he ſays, “ in the ſame blaſ-
“phemy againſt the Maker of all things.” “ The
sc doctrine of Valentinus comprehends all hereſies,
“ ſo that in overturning his ſyſtem all herefy is
“ overturned. They alſo blaſpheme in ſuppoſing
“ the Maker of all things to be an evil being, and
they blaſpheme our Lord by dividing Jeſus from
« the Chriſt. There is a connexion,” he ſays,
“ between all hereſies, except that Tatian advanced
“ ſomething that was new." He ſpeaks of all here-
tics as “ having quitted the church,” and as “ tax-
ing the holy preſbyters with ignorance, not con-
ſidering how much better is an ignorant perſon
" who is religious (idiota religioſus) than a blaſ-
phemous and impious ſophiſt.” He likewiſe ſays,
that « all the heretics were much later than the
“ biſhops to whom the apoſtles committed the
“ churches.”
06
It would be loſing my own time, and that of my
readers, to ſhew that none of theſe characters, which
this writer applies to all heretics, belonged to the
Ebionites, and therefore that to have been conſiſtent
with
1
35
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
with himſelf, Irenæus ought not to have conſidered
the Ebionites as heretics.
As to your Lordſhip’s curious attempt to find an
agreement between the Gnoſtics and the Ebionites,
I ſhall leave it without any remark to the judg-
ment of our readers. In ſome reſpects, no doubt,
the Unitarians and Trinitarians are agreed; but it
does not therefore follow that they would both be
referred to the ſame claſs of chriſtians. There were,
as I have ſhewn at large, Jewiſh Gnoftics, and
being Jews, they might be called Ebionites; but
they all believed that the ſupreme God, the God and
Father of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, both made the
world, and gave the law by Moſes, which are the
very reverſe of the doctrines that Irenæus afcribes
to all heretics.
I am, &c.
.
D 2
LETTER
1
1
36
LETTERS TO THE
-
L E T T E R VIII.
Of the Origin of the Son from the Father's Contemp-
lation of his own PerfeЕtions. .
MY LORD,
THIS letter I ſhall devote to that moſt curious
ſubject, the origin of the Son from the Father's
contemplation of his own perfections, which your Lord-
ſhip has thought proper once more to bring before
the public; but which I ſhould have thought a
judicious friend would have adviſed you to keep as
far as poſſible out of ſight. You expreſs yourſelf,
however, with more diffidence than before, which is
a thing unuſual with your Lordſhip.
You juſtly ſay, p. 458, “In a ſubject fo far
« above the comprehenſion of the human mind as
“ the doctrine of the trinity muſt be confeffed to
be, in all its branches, extreme caution ſhould be
“ uſed to keep the doctrine itſelf, as it is delivered
« in God's word, diſtinct from every thing that has
“ been deviſed by man, or that may even occur to
“a man's own thoughts, to illuſtrate or explain its
" difficulties. Every one who has ever thought for
any length of time upon the ſubject cannot but
« fall inſenſibly, and involuntarily, upon ſome
“other of repreſenting the thing to his own mind.
way or
56 In
)
1
1
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
37
* In this manner every one who meddles at all with
“ the ſubject will be apt to form a ſolution for
“himſelf, of what ſeemed to him the principal
o difficulties. But ſince it muſt be confeſſed that
" the human mind in theſe inquiries is groping in
“ the dark, every ſtep that ſhe ventures to advance
beyond the point to which the clear light of
“ revelation reaches, the probability is that all theſe
private ſolutions are, in different ways, and in
“ different degrees, but all in ſome way, and in ſome
degree, erroneous; and it will rarely happen that
“ the ſolution invented by one man will ſuit the
“ conceptions of another. It were therefore to be
“ wiſhed that, in treating this myſterious ſubject,
men would not, in their zeal to illuſtrate what
« after their utmoſt efforts muſt remain in ſome
parts incomprehenſible, be too forward to mix
“their private opinions with the public doctrine.
Nay it ſhould be a point of conſcience,” you add,
“ with every writer to keep any particular opinions
« he may have formed as much as poſſible out of
ſight, that divine truth may not be debaſed with
" a mixture of the alloy of human error,” &c.
This conduct, my Lord, would have been good
policy, but in the pride of your underſtanding you
were not able to obſerve it, and in your imprudent
forwardneſs to illuſtrate what is in itſelf fo palpably
abſurd as to be incapable of illuſtration (as much
as it is of proof) your Lordſhip produced a ſenti-
ment ſo ſupereminently abſurd, as to have con-
tributed not a little to the entertainment of our
D3
common
38
LETTERS TO THE
common readers; and what your Lordſhip has now
added on the ſubject will, if I be not miſtaken,
conſiderably add to their amuſement.
Your Lordſhip’s original obſervation, to which
you now, by abridging it, give a different turn,
was as follows: Tracts, p. 55, “ The ſenſe,” viz.
of a paſſage in Athenagoras, “ is, that the perſonal
« ſubſiſtence of a divine logos is implied in the
very idea of a God; and the argument reſts on a
“principle which was common to all the Platonic
“ fathers, and ſeems to be founded in ſcripture, that
«. the exiſtence of the Son flows neceſſarily from the
“ divine intellect exerted on itſelf, from the Father's
“ contemplation of his own perfections. But as
“ the Father ever was, his perfections have ever
« been, and his intellect has ever been active. But
“ perfections which have ever been the ever-active
“ intellect muſt ever have contemplated; and the
contemplation which has ever been muſt ever
« have been accompanied with its juſt effect, the
perſonal exiſtence of the Son.”
Such, my Lord, was the original text, which is
now ſhrunk up into a very ſmall compaſs, viz.
that “ the exiſtence of the Son,” p. 460, “ flows
“ neceſſarily from the divine intellect exerted on
« itſelf,” and which not being dilated, as it was ſo
curiouſly done in your Lordſhip's firſt publication,
might have eſcaped my notice. Accompanied with
your former illuſtration it ſtruck me, and I believe
moſt of your readers who gave any attention to it,
as
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
39
1
as ſomething uncommonly ridiculous; and I main-
tained that it was alſo moſt notoriouſly falfe in point
of fact, and betrayed an utter unacquaintedneſs with
every thing of primitive antiquity on the ſubject.
And this opinion, notwithſtanding your Lordſhip’s
elaborate vindication of yourſelf, I ſtill maintain.
For according to the moſt obvious conſtruction of
the paſſage, the production of the Son was abſolutely
neceſſary, and did not at all depend upon the will of
the Father; whereas according to all the Platonic
Fathers before the Council of Nice, the generation
of the Son was the voluntary act of the Father, and
an act not exerted from all eternity (which if it had
been neceſſary it could not but have been) but which
took place in time, viz. juſt before the creation of
the world, and for the purpoſe of that creation. In
the work which your Lordſhip has not read, and
which it is therefore more neceſſary for me to quote,
is the following evidence of this.
CC
Tatian repreſents the Father as having been alone
before the creation of the world, that at bis will the
Logos came out of him. Theophilus ſays, that
according to John, God was at firſt alone, and
“the Logos in him.” Clemens Alexandrinus ſays,
that " the Father was God before he was a Creator,
“ but, being good, he choſe to be a Creator and a
« Father; and he ſpeaks of the Son as deriving his
" origin from the will of the Father.”
inquire about the generation of the Logos, ſays
Hippolytus, “ God the Father generated whom he
pleaſed, and as he pleaſed.”
Tertullian
« Do you
(C
D4
40
LETTERS TO THE
Opinions concernino
Tertullian expreſsly ſays, that “God was not
« always a father, or a judge; ſince he could not
“ be a father before he had a ſon, nor a judge before
“ there was fin; and there was a time when both
“ fin and the ſon, which made God to be a judge
" and a father, were not.” Ad Hermogenem, cap.
3. Opera, p. 234
Novatian (or rather Novatus) ſays, nothing was
before Chriſt but the Father, and that the Son was
generated from God when he choſe.
“ God,” ſays
Lactantius, “ before he undertook the conſtruction
“ of this world generated an incorruptible ſpirit,
" which he called his Son." Euſebius, ſpeaking of
God's intending to form the material world, ſays,
“he thought of making one to govern and direct
“ the whole.” He alſo ſays,
light is emitted
“ from the ſun neceſſarily, but the Son became the
image of the Father from his knowledge and
« intention; and that when he pleaſed, he became
- the Father of a Son.” “ We believe,” ſays
Athanaſius, “ that God generated the Son fpon-
" taneouſly, and voluntarily.” Hiſtory of early
Were not theſe writers, my Lord, Platonic
fathers, according to all of whom your Lordſhip
ſays, that the generation of the Son was neceſſary.
If theſe be not Platonic fathers, pleaſe to inform us
who were ? And yet you have the aſſurance to
ſay, p, 464, “ To me it is matter of aſtoniſhment
Ķs that any one can read ſome of the paſſages which
« Dr.
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
41
" Dr. Prieſtley himſelf has produced from Athena-
goras, Tatian, Tertullian, and others, and not
perceive that this notion was common to all thoſe
" writers, and is the principle upon which all they
“ have ſaid upon the ſubject reſts.”
In a later period, when the idea of the equality of
the Son to the Father was advanced, the orthodox
divines were obliged to give up their opinion of the
voluntary generation of the Son, and to make his
exiſtence as neceſſary as that of the Father himſelf;
but ſtill their idea was not the ſame with your Lord-
ſhip’s, viz. that it was the neceſſary reſult of the
Father contemplating, that is viewing himſelf. This
is a peculiar mode of neceſſary origination, for which
your Lordſhip finds no colour till you come to a
much later period than that of the Platonic fathers;
and after all it is no more than a colour that you
find
in the writings of any theologians for this curious
and ſingular notion. Baſil, you find, ſays, that the
Son came forth from intelleet, as no doubt he muſt
if he came from the Deity, who is generally repre-
ſented as pure intelle£t ; but he does not ſay that this
coming forth was a neceſſary conſequence of the
Father's contemplating himſelf.
From the Fathers you paſs to the Schoolmen; but
from none of them do you produce any quotation at
all; nor does your Lordſhip’s general account of
their opinions, even in your own words, imply, that
any of them had that preciſe idea which you
have
given
+
1
42
LETTERS TO THE
given out. For generation by intellect, or by will,
is not ſufficiently definite for your purpoſe.
Coming down lower, in your laborious ſearch
after nonſenſe, than the Council of Trent, you do,
I acknowledge, find a ſimilarity to your opinion in
words. For in the Catechiſmus ad Parochos, p. 467,
you find mention made of “a wonderful fecundity
" of God the Father, that by contemplating, and
“ exerting his intelligence upon himſelf, he begets
a Son, the exact counterpart, and equal of him-
« felf.” But here the word contemplating means only
thinking, and not a mere viewing of himſelf, which is
the idea that your Lordſhip’s language ſuggeſts; nor
is this exerting of intelligence upon itſelf, by which
the Son was begotten, faid, or intimated to be,
neceſſary, which your Lordſhip makes it to have
been. The other paſſages which you quote are all
of them from writers ſubſequent to the Council of
Trent (which I own I was not much acquainted
with, and which it is probable your Lordſhip knew
as little of as myſelf, till you found it neceſſary to
look out for ſome authority or other, modern if not
ancient, for your curious imagination) expreſs no
more than this; and therefore none of them are at
all to your purpoſe.
But ſuppoſing that theſe writers ſhould have had
the ſame idea with your Lordſhip, my ignorance of
this circumſtance would not, as you ſay, p. 464,
"evince my ignorance of the religious opinions of
every
«
| LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
V
43
every age, and how much the oldeſt things are
o novelties to me;" but only my ignorance of ſuch
things as I imagine our readers will think to be
hardly worth knowing. In all chriſtian antiquity,
to which my inquiries have been chiefly, confined,
no ſuch idea as yours occurs. Your Lordſhip is
obliged to go even beyond the age of the ſchool-
men for ſomething only like it; fo that I was abun-
dantly juſtified in ſaying that, on reading your
account “ I fancied myſelf got back to the darkeſt
" of the dark ages, or at leaſt that I was reading
“ Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or Duns
“ Scotus."
3)
You do very well, my Lord, to forbear quoting
any of thoſe texts of fcriprure (though you ſay, p. 461,
many phraſes of holy writ ſeem to you to allude
"to it)" on which you are of opinion that this
“ curious notion ſeems to be founded.” You might
well ſuppoſe that you had already afforded the pro-
phane too much matter for their diverſion.
I alſo cannot help commending your prudence in
ſaying, p. 476, “ about the truth of the opinion,
" I have declared that I will not diſpute, and I
“ ſhall keep my word.”
It is much better to
acknowledge an error tacitly, by giving up the
defence of it where it is moſt neceſſary, than not
to acknowledge it at all.
As your Lordſhip, however, has thought proper
to bring this curious ſubject once more before the
public,
44
LETTERS TO THE
public, I wiſh you had not contented yourſelf with
endeavouring to find authorities for your opinion
among authors which, if they could be found, would
only be treated with ridicule, but have anſwered my
other queries neceſſarily ariſing from it. A reduktio
ad abſurdum is always deemed a ſufficient refutation
of any propoſition. Now, among other things, I
obſerved, that, if the Father's contemplation of his
perfections neceſſarily produced a Son, this Son,
being in all reſpects equal to the Father, and conſe-
quently having the ſame perfections to contemplate,
and of courſe the ſame power of contemplation, muſt
have produced another Son.
.
That
you may the more diſtinctly perceive the
force of this reaſoning, I ſhall repeat concerning the
Son, what you ſay of the Father; ſince you muſt
allow that, mutatis mutandis, it muſt be equally juſt
in one caſe as the other. « As the Son ever was,
« his perfections have ever been ; and his intellect
« has been ever active. But perfections which
<< have ever been the ever active intellect muſt ever
« have contemplated; and the contemplation which
“ has ever been muſt ever have been accompanied
“ with its juſt effect, the perſonal exiſtence of a Son,"
which in this caſe will be a grandfon.
The ſame reaſoning will equally apply to the Holy
Spirit ; ſo that this divine perſon alſo, by the con-
templation of his perfections muſt produce a fon;
and the ſame being true of all the fons, and grand-
fons, and great grandſons, &c. &c. &c. of theſe
divine
.
1
I
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
45
divine perſons (to ſay nothing of the neceſſary repe-
tition of the ſame proceſs with reſpect to them all)
we have here a ſource of multiplication of divine
perſons ad infinitum; and what expedient can you
apply to ſtop the progreſs of this wonderful fecundity,
when there is danger of its exceeding its juſt bounds,
your Lordſhip does not ſay. This, you will ſay, is
burleſquing a grave ſubject. But, my Lord, it is
yourſelf who have burleſqued it, and not l; and
your Lordſhip alone is anſwerable for all the ridicule
which your officious explanation has brought upon
the doctrine, and upon yourſelf. If a man will ſay
ridiculous things, he muſt be content to be the
ſubject of ridicule. This I hope will be a caution
to you in future, eſpecially if you ſhould feel your-
ſelf tempted to enter into any ſimilar explanation of
the miraculous conception.
Your Lordſhip had done much better to have
kept to the original idea of the Platonic fathers,
which was, not that the generation of the Son was
the neceſſary, or voluntary, effect of any exertion of
the Father's intellect, but that he was that intelleet,
or his reaſon itſelf. This appears to have been very
nearly the idea of Biſhop Sherlock, who ſays, that
the Son is the Father's reflex knowledge; ſo that he
underſtood the doctrine of the Platonic fathers much
better than your Lordſhip. To this, however, one
of his anſwerers in the Unitarian TraEts, vol. I. makes
a very pertinent reply, ſimilar to what I have juſt
obſerved with reſpect to your Lordſhip's peculiar
idea. “ But the Son,” ſays he, “ being an infinite
" and
2
46
LETTERS TO THE
" and moſt perfect mind, is undoubtedly able to
“ reflect upon his own wiſdom and knowledge; and
• thus, as well as the Father, to beget a fon; and this
“ ſecond fon in the trinity may, by the ſame means
« and reaſon, beget another, and ſo onwards to
infinity. Thus according to this maxim, that what
are faculties in us are perſons in God, there may
“ be, nay there muſt be, an infinite number of
“ perſons in God. Apage!” A Defence of the brief
Hiſtory of the Unitarians againſt Dr. Sherlock's Anſwer
in his Vindication of the holy Trinity, p. 28.
If I could ſuppoſe that your Lordſhip had ever
looked into ſuch books as theſe Unitarian Tracts,
which have been publiſhed about a century, I could
almoſt think that you had borrowed your idea from
this anonymous anſwerer of Biſhop Sherlock, who
puts that conſtruction upon his words, though they
do not appear to me neceſſarily to imply what he
deduces from them. For he ſuppoſes, with your
Lordſhip, that the Son was produced by a reflection
upon the Father's knowledge; whereas the Biſhop
makes him to be his reflex knowledge itſelf.
1
As to what your Lordſhip ſays of my raſh defiance,
which I have again the raſhneſs to repeat, let our
readers now judge. “ Dr. Prieſtley's ralh defiance,
p. 476, I may place among the ſpecimens with
“ which his Hiſtory, and his Letters to me abound,
“ of his incompetency in this ſubject, and of the
effrontery of that incurable ignorance, which is
ignorant even of its own want of knowledge.”
Many
destrona
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
47
Many perſons will be of opinion that the ignorance
(which your Lordſhip deſcribes as itſelf ignorant )
and alſo, that the effrontery (or boldneſs, which I
ſuppoſe is itſelf bold) of which you here ſpeak are,
indeed, to their great ſurprize, to be found ſome-
where; but it will now be evident that they are not
with me.
As this letter relates to a ſubject which many
perſons will not be able to contemplate with much
gravity, I ſhall ſubjoin to it another article of a
ſimilar nature.
2
This controverſy affords many inſtances of differ-
ent perſons being very differently affected by the ſame
repreſentation of things. Your Lordſhip ſays in your
Note, p. 49, That God ſaying, Let us make man,
Gen. i. 26. “ deſcribes a conſultation between the
perſons of the Godhead," and that “ this is ſhewn
“ with great brevity, but with the higheſt degree of
« evidence, and perſpicuity, by Dr. Kennicott.
Now, my Lord, had any perſon beſides a Trinitarian
ſuggeſted the idea of any thing that could be called a
conſultation, being held by the three perſons in the
Godhead, you would have ſaid that it was blaſphem-
Ous; ſince a conſultation among different perſons
implies a previous ignorance of each other's ſenti-
ments, and ſomething like debate ; and conſequently
difference of opinion; and that in a conſultation among
three perſons, if a propoſal did not pleaſe any one
of them, the other two would carry it by a majority.
But the idea being ſuggeſted by yourſelves you ſee
nothing
5
✓
48
LETTERS TO THE
nothing abſurd in what is moſt obviouſly and moſt
ridiculouſly ſo.
I would farther. obſerve, that a conſultation among
the perſons of the trinity clearly ſuppoſes the ſame
diftinétion in theſe perſons as that which ſubſiſts in
any three men, each of whom has a train of think-
ing peculiar to himſelf, and independent of thoſe
trains that are going on in the minds of the other
two; ſo that whatever they be called, they muſt in
reality be three Gods. If, however, ſuch a conſul-
« with the higheſt degree of evidence,
“ and even perſpicuity," as your Lordſhip ſays, be
inferred from this phraſeology of Moſes, is it not a
little extraordinary that no Jew ever made the ſame
inference from the paſſage?
tation may,
I am, &c.
1
LETTER
i
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
49
L E T T E R IX.
Of the Church of orthodox Jewiſh Chriſtians at
Jeruſalem, and of the Veracity of Origen.
MY LORD,
То O make it appear at all probable that the
doctrine of the trinity was taught by the apoſtles,
your Lordſhip has very juſtly thought it neceſſary
to find it among the Jewish converts, who cannot
be ſuppoſed to have altogether abandoned the faith
which they received from them. That many of
them were ſo far from receiving this doctrine, that
they held it in abhorrence, you cannot deny; but
your Lordſhip maintains that, notwithſtanding this,
there was a church of Trinitarian Jews at Jeruſalem
even ſubſequent to the time of Adrian; and becauſe
what Origen, who muſt have known the fact, ſays
concerning the Jewiſh chriſtians is inconſiſtent with
ſuch a ſuppoſition, you fcruple not to call him a
wilful liar. To filence “ an adverſary,” you ſay
(Letters, p. 260) “he had recourſe to the wilful
" and deliberate allegation of a notorious falfhood*.”
* As this is nothing leſs than the lie direct, it may be well for his
Lordſhip of St. David's that Origen is not now living, and actuated
by the inodern notions of honour.
E
Origen
50
LETTERS TO THE
Origen evidently makes all the Jewiſh chriſtians
to have been Ebionites, and the Ebionites to have
been of two kinds, viz. thoſe who held the doctrine
of the miraculous conception, and thoſe who denied
it; but he ſays that neither of them admitted the
divinity of Chriſt. So poſitive a teſtimony as this,
from ſo reſpectable a character (the moſt ſo, I will
venture to ſay, that his age, or that any age, can
boaſt) one would have thought, could not have
failed to have ſome weight with perſons who had
not intirely bid farewel to ſhame, and who were
not determined to ſupport an hypotheſis at any rate.
It is not only the teſtimony of a man of the greateſt
purity of character in all reſpects, but delivered in
the face of all the world, who could not but have
known it to be a falſhood, if it had been one; and
therefore could not have had any other effect than
to expoſe himſelf. It is, in fact, to ſuppoſe that a
man of the greateſt integrity in the world would tell
a lie in circumſtances in which the greateſt liar
would have told the truth.
This account which Origen has given of the
Ebionites is alſo given by him as an expreſs contra-
diction to what his adverſary had ſaid with reſpect
to a known faet, his ignorance of which he is expof-
ing. Would he, then, have knowingly expoſed him-
ſelf to the charge of purpoſely miſrepreſenting the
very thing which he was there charging his enemy
with miſrepreſenting? Moreover, this treatiſe of
Origen was written by him late in life, and is the
moſt elaborate of all his compoſitions; ſo that there
can
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
51
can be no doubt of its having been written with the
greateſt circumſpection. It is a defence of chrif-
tianity, then perſecuted, againſt the heathens who
were its perſecutors. In theſe circumſtances, would
not a heathen philofopher have rejoiced to expoſe
ſuch a writer as Origen, and the cauſe in which he
was engaged; glad as the heathens always were to
load the chriſtians with unmerited calumnies of the
moſt atrocious kind?
If ever any man had a motive to keep himſelf
within the bounds of truth it was Origen in this
particular cafe, a man who was conſidered as at the
head of the chriſtians, and of whom the greateſt men
which that and the following age produced, ſuch as
Dionyſius of Alexandria, Firmilian of Cappadocia,
and Gregory of Neocæſarea, were the greateſt ad-
mirers. Would ſuch men as theſe have been fo
wonderfully attached, as they are known to have
been, to Origen, if he had been a wilful licr ?
Can it then be ſuppoſed that ſuch a man as this,
in the circumſtances in which he wrote, would have
aſſerted concerning the Jewiſh chriſtians in general,
that they were all Unitarians, though fome of them
were believers in the miraculous conception, if it
had been notorious (as, if it had been true, it muſt
have been that there was then exiſting a whole
church of Trinitarian Jewiſh chriſtians in Judea, the
country in which he reſided a great part of his
time, and in which he probably wrote this very
treatiſe? Such a church, eſpecially in Jeruſalem,
could
E 2
52
LETTERS TO THE
could not but have been highly reſpected, as the
common mother of all chriſtian churches. Could
he alſo have ſaid of theſe Jewiſh chriſtians, that they
adhered to the peculiar laws of their anceſtors, when
it could not but have been equally notorious that
they had deſerted them?
If we look into hiſtory, we ſhall find no mention
of
any ſuch church of Trinitarian Jewiſh chriſtians
who had abandoned the inſtitutions of Moſes, or of
the biſhops of it, though many tranſactions are
recorded in which they could not but have been
concerned, in common with other churches, and
their biſhops. And if there Jewiſh chriſtians formed
a church, it muſt have been ſeparate from the Greek
church, and have had ſeparate biſhops; for the
congregation could not have underſtood the Greek
language.
This circumſtance your Lordſhip. intirely over-
looked when you aſſerted, Letters, p. 59, that theſe
Hebrew chriſtians were of the “ church of Jeruſa-
« lem, when that church was under the government of
biſhops of the uncircumciſion.” What connexion
could they have with a church, the public ſervice of
which they could not have underſtood ? Worſhip-
ping in an unknown tongue was hardly introduced
at fo early a period. And leaſt of all can it be
ſuppoſed that the Jews would have abandoned a
language ſo reſpectable for its antiquity and ſacred-
neſs as their own, for the Greek, or any other
whatever.
All
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
53
All the accounts of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem
by Adrian are ſuch as are abſolutely inconſiſtent
with the ſuppoſition of the exiſtence of any ſuch
church. They all ſay that, after this event, no Jew,
without making any exception in favour of chriſtian
Jews, was allowed to remain in the place; and they
expreſsly ſpeak of the new church which was formed
in the place, as conſiſting wholly of Gentiles, perſons
who made uſe of the Greek language, Marcus being
their firſt biſhop. All modern hiſtorians of credit,
ſuch as Fleury and Tillemont, as much intereſted
as yourſelf to find an orthodox Jewiſh church at
Jeruſalem, or any where elſe, underſtood theſe hif-
torians exactly as I do.
To this maſs of evidence from the cleareft facts,
and the ſtrongeſt probabilities, your Lordſhip oppoſes
what is moſt likely to have been a mere idle ſtory
picked up by Epiphanius, of Aquila (the ſame who
tranflated the ſcriptures from Hebrew into Greek)
being appointed by Adrian 'to ſurvey the works
which he was erecting at Jeruſalem, and being
converted to chriſtianity by Jews who had returned
from Pella; though he exprefsly ſays that this return
was after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem by the Ro-
mans, and not after the diſperſion by Adrian.
You now ſay, p. 371, “ But the queſtion is
« not at what time the Jewiſh chriſtians whom
Aquila found at Ælia had returned thither, but ať
66 what time he converſed with them. Epiphanius
ſays he converſed with them at the time that he
E 3
$6 was
1
+
1
54
LETTERS TO THE
was ſuperintendent of Adrian's works at Ælia,
“ At that time, therefore, there were Hebrew chrif-
“ tians ſettled at Ælia, or they could not then have
si converſed with Aquila.”
But ſurely, my Lord, as I obſerved before (third
ſet of Letters, p. 24.) though you have not thought
proper to notice it," it muſt be of conſequence to
" this argument to know whether Aquila was reſid-
ing at Jeruſalem after the deſtruction of that city
by Adrian; and this is more than Epiphanius
“ ſays, or is at all probable in itſelf. For the re-
building of Jeruſalem by Adrian, in which Aquila
" is ſuppoſed to have been employed by him, was
« undertaken in the thirteenth year of his reign,
" a year before the revolt of the Jews, and it was
not till the eighteenth of Adrian that they were
intirely ſubdued.”
Your Lorpſhip may well ſay that I have embar-
raſſed your argument with chronological difficulties ;
and when chronology is againſt a man, he is naturally
againſt chronology. Find, if you can, any evidence
of Adrian carrying on any works at Jeruſalem after
the deſtruction of that city by him; or find, if you
can, in any writer, of more or leſs credit, the mention
of Aquila, or of any Jew whatever, employed by
Adrian or not, as reſiding in Jeruſalem after that event.
Your argument requires that there ſhould be both
chriſtian Jews, and Aquila to be converted by them,
at a period when I aſſert, on the authority of al}
ancient hiſtorians, and in no contradiction even to
Epiphanius,
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
55
Epiphanius, your own authority, that neither Aquila
to be converted, nor any Jewiſh chriſtians to convert
him, could have been in the place. Let the reader
now judge which of us two gets rid of our difficulties,
as you ſay, p. 371, “ by making poſitive teſtimony
“ ſubmit to our theories." What I ſay is from the
cleareſt and moſt indiſputable teſtimony; and what
you ſay is from theory only, unſupported by any
teſtimony whatever, nay in direct contradiction to
every teſtimony which thoſe times furniſh.
“ I maintain," you ſay, p. 371, “ that there is
« no reaſon to believe that the Hebrew chriſtians
“ quietly ſettled at Ælia before the Jewiſh rebellion
“ were included in Adrian's edict for the baniſhment
“ of the Jews.” But were not Hebrew chriſtians
Hebrews, or Jews, and were not all the Jews, with-
out any diſtinction of chriſtians or nó chriſtians,
baniſhed both from that place, and from the diſtrict,
by Adrian?
Your Lordſhip's attachment to theory, and your
inattention to faets, in this caſe, is not a little curious.
To make Jeruſalem a ſafe aſylum for the chriſtian
Jews after the revolt of their countrymen, you ſuppoſe,
what is indeed probable enough, that the chriſtians
had no concern in it. But that they were noticed, and
favoured by the emperor on that account, is a mere
conjecture. You add that, “ had they not diſcarded
“the Jewiſh rites they might have been miſtaken
“ for Jews,” and therefore, following your theory,
according to which they were not miſtaken for Jews,
and
E 4
1
LETTERS TO THE
56
and neglecting all authority from fałt, and contrary
both to all probability and the uniform teſtimony of
all antiquity, you ſay they had diſcarded thoſe rites,
which is nothing more than an inference from a
· conjecture.
On the contrary, all antiquity ſays that the Jewiſh
chriſtians, without making any diſtinction, were
rigorouſly attached to the obſervance of their law.
Nothing can be more evident that they were ſo dur-
ing all the time of the apoſtles; who alſo, Paul
himſelf not excepted, conformed to every punctilio
of the Moſaic ritual, and never authorized any
beſide the Gentile converts to neglect it. A ſyſtem
of peculiar rites is, I doubt not, to diſtinguiſh that
remarkable nation, chriſtians or not, to the end of
time; and without being confounded with the reſt
of the world, they are to be, if there be any truth
in prophecy, the moſt diſtinguiſhed nation upon
earth. Of this I think I have given ſufficient proof
in the Theological Repoſitory, a work from which
you, my Lord, though a biſhop, might learn much,
though it is not probable you ever will.
After theſe obſervations I ſubmit the following
curious paragraph of your Lordſhip’s, p. 499, to the
inſpection of our readers. " The diſturbed foun-
"dations of the church of Ælia are again ſettled.
" I could wiſh to truſt them to their own folidity
" to withſtand any future attacks. I could wiſh to
“ take my final leave of this unpleaſing taſk of
hunting an uninformed uncandid adverſary through
.66 the
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
57
co
- the mazes of his blunders, and the ſubterfuges of his
fophiftry. But I have found by the experience of
" this conflict that a perſon once engaged in contro-
“ verſy, is not entirely at liberty to chuſe for himſelf
" to what length he will carry the diſpute, and when
“ he will deſiſt. I perceive that I was guilty of
an indiſcretion in diſcovering an early averfion to
" the continuance of the conteſt. My adverſary
“ perhaps would have been leſs hardy in aſſertion,
~ and more circumſpect in argument, had I not
given him reaſon to expect that every affertion
“ would paſs uncontradicted, and every argument
“uncanvaſſed. Unambitious as I therefore ſtill
« remain of the honour of the laſt word, be it how-
“ever underſtood that, if Dr. Prieſtley ſhould think
proper to make any further defence, or any new
« attack, I am not pledged either to reply, or be
“ filent.
CC
My Lord, in humble imitation of your Lordſhip's
ſtyle, I will ſay, the foundations of your church of
Trinitarian Jews at Jeruſalem, after the time of
Adrian, are again, and I will venture to ſay, for ever,
overturned; and a church, the foundations of which
were attempted to be laid on the groſſeft calumny,
and on the ruins of the faireſt character that chrif-
tian hiſtory has to exhibit, could not expect any
better fate. And it has fallen where it ought to have
done, on the head of the architect. To this hardineſs
of aſſertion, of an uninformed and uncandid adverſary,
it is perfectly indifferent, to himſelf whether your
Lordſhip reply, or be ſilent. He only wiſhes to
have
1
58
LETTERS TO THE
have a reply, becauſe he is perſuaded that the great
cauſe which you oppoſe will be promoted by it.
If your Lordſhip ſhould make a freſh attempt to
rebuild this favourite church, I hope you will lay
its foundations deeper than on an idle ſtory of Epi-
phanius. For it is not very probable that ſuch a
man as Aquila, a Jew, and a tranſator of the ſcrip-
tures, conſequently a ſtudious and pious man, ſhould
have been employed by Adrian in fuperintending
any works of building or fortification; without con-
fidering what you add to this account, or rather in
contradiction of it, that this was when all Jews were
baniſhed from the place, and Adrian had no works
to conſtruct there.
If, however, you will, for want of a better, build
on ſo precarious an authority as this, at leaſt take
the pains to underſtand your author; and allo conde-
fcend to give ſome ſmall degree of attention to
the humble ſubject of chronology. Otherwiſe, how
pompouſly and magiſterially foever your Lordſhip
may write, a plain tale will be ſufficient to put you
down.
As to your other proofs of the want of veracity
in Origen, I am very willing to abide by the defence
that I have already made of him in my third ſet of
Letters to you. Let our readers judge between us.
I ſhall only obſerve that, ſuppoſing you to have
proved all that you there pretend, it would amount to
nothing more than ſuch trifling overſights and incon-
Gítences
LORD. BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
59
ſiſtences as the wifeſt and beſt of men, and eſpecially
voluminous writers, muſt be ſubject to, and ſuch as
by no rneans affect a man's character for veracity.
It is not from things of ſo flight a nature as theſe
that you can be authorized to ſuppoſe, or ſuſpect,
that ſuch a man as Origen would be guilty of fo
Aagrant a violation of truth in the circumſtances
which I have ſtated, as you have had the aſſurance
to charge him with.
Your Lordſhip now joins me with Origen, con-
ſidering us as ſo much alike, that you ſay, p. 488,
" This art, which Dr. Prieſtley is ſo apt to employ,
“of reducing an argument which he would refute
by well-managed abridgments to a form in which
“ it may be capable of refutation, indicates ſo near
"a reſemblance between the characters of Origen,
r and his Hyperaſpiſtes, in the worſt part of Origen's,
" that perhaps I might not be altogether unjuſtifiable
“ were I to apply to the ſquire, the words which
“ Moſheim ſo freely uſes of the knight, Ego huic
“ TESTI, ETIAMSI JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFESTO
FUMOS VENDIT,
CONFIRMO.”
ME NON CREDITURUM ESSE
To this conjunction of myſelf with Origen I
heartily fay, Amen. May my character be that of this
great man, with all his faults; and then it will be as
far removed as I wiſh it to be from that of the preſent
Biſhop of St. David's, whom I ſcruple not once
more to call (as I have abundantly proved the truth
of the accuſation) a falſifier (though I believe not a
wilful
60
LETTERS TO THE
wilful falſifier) of hiſtory, and a defamer of the charaĉter
of the dead.
To fhew that I am not ambitious of having the
laſt word, except where I have ſomething of im-
portance to add, I alſo freely ſubmit to our readers
what
your Lordſhip has added in your fixth Differ-
tation concerning Jerom's orthodox Hebrew chriſtians,
in anſwer to the fourth of my third ſet of Letters.
That the Ebionites and Nazarenes were only two
names for the fame ſet of people, and that they were
all, as far as we know, believers in the ſimple
humanity of Chriſt, I have abundantly proved in
my Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning Jeſus Chriſt;
and certainly your Lordſhip's not chuling to look
into that work cannot be called an anſwer to it. Till
I do fee fomething at leaſt plauſibly advanced in
anſwer to what I have there alleged, I ſhall think it
unneceſſary to ſay any thing farther on the“fubject.
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVID's.
61
L E T T E R X.
The Concluſion,
MY LORD,
THIS
"HIS controverſy will, I hope, teach your Lord-
fhip and others, that whatever effect a bold,
contemptuous, and impoſing manner may have in
converſation, it is attended with no laſting advantage
in writing, when the big words, and haughty airs,
may be examined at leiſure, and their inſignificance
be ſeen through. Your Lordſhip's inſolence has
exceeded that of Warburton; but even his, learning
was not able to gain any lafting credit to the ſtrange
paradoxes that he advanced. They ſerved to amuſe
his cotemporaries, but are now almoſt funk into
oblivion. What then will be the fate of your Lord-
ſhip's paradoxical aſſertions, ſtill more extravagant
than his, advanced with greater effrontery, and yet
deſtitute of the leaſt ſupport in a real knowledge of
antiquity
On ſome of the ſubjects on which your Lord-
ſhip advanced to the charge with the greateft confi-
dence, my replies have been ſo effectual, that you
have not attempted any defence, eſpecially with
reſpect
1
1
1
LETTERSTO THE
|
62
reſpect of that paſſage of Athanaſius, in which he
accounts for the great number of Unitarians in the
age of the apoſtles, by ſaying that: “ the Jewiſh
“ chriſtians were ſo firmly perſuaded that their
“ Meſſiah was to be a mere man, that the apoſtles
" themſelves were obliged to uſe great caution in
" divulging the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt.”
This was the conſtruction that Beaufobre, Dr. Lard-
ner,
and I believe every other perſon who has quoted
the paſſage, put upon it, though, contrary to all
probability, you have maintained that he meant the
unbelieving Jews only, with reſpect to whom the
obſervation was wholly impertinent.
I have clearly ſhewn, by a ſeries of quotations
from writers of a very early to thoſe of a very
late period, that what I have aſcribed to Athanaſius
was the idea of the chriſtian writers in general, and
eſpecially that of Chryfoftom; ſo that I think it
will hardly be diſputed again; and yet what excla-
mations did not you, and your worthy ally Mr.
Badcock, make upon that ſubject, as if I wilfully
miſconſtrued the paſſage? But they were the excla-
mations of ignorance.
On this ſubject your Lordſhip has very prudently
choſen to be ſilent. An ingenuous mind, however,
would candidly acknowledge the force of an argu-
ment to which he was not able to reply. It has
more than once been done by Dr. Price, but not
once by the Biſhop of St. David's; and this is a
circumſtance
.
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 63
1
circumſtance that marks greatneſs of mind in the one;
and littleneſs in the other.
I ſhall farther obſerve, at the cloſe of this ſet of
Letters, that the haughtineſs your Lordſhip has
aſſumed as a churchman, and the contempt with
which you have always affected to ſpeak of Diſenters,
does not become a man whoſe grandfather, if I have
not been miſinformed, was a diffenting miniſter, and
whoſe father was educated for one. But perhaps
this very circumſtance may lead to the true cauſe
of the phænomenon; for ſuch is its operation on
ſome minds. Where the ſuſpicion of a leaning to
an old connexion will naturally fall, they think they
can never do enough to guard againſt that ſuſpicion.
This controverſy, I imagine, has not tended to
recommend the Diſſenters to your Lordſhip. It is
ſaid that ſince you have been Biſhop of St. David's.
you have refuſed to ordain any perſon educated in
the ſchool of a Diſſenter, particularly 'a moft re-
ſpectable one, which has ſupplied the dioceſe with
many of its moſt valuable clergymen; alledging
that, though they had received nothing more than
claſſical learning from Diſfenters, they would be too
friendly to them. It looks as if in every Diffenter
your Lordſhip dreaded a ſcourge to yourſelf. Your
Lordſhip’s dioceſe, however, is ſaid to abound with
them, and on this account you will probably con-
ſider it as another Augean ſtable. But it is not a
Hercules that is ſent to it; and I will venture to
predict that the number of Diflenters will not be
leffened
64
LETTERS TO THE
leffened by your Lordſhip’s means, any more than
the number of Unitarians in this country by your
controverſy with me*
Some time ago your Lordſhip advertized fome-
thing on the ſubject of the Corporation and Teſt Axts,
* Since the above was written, I have been informed that the Bishop
of St. David's has ſent the following circular letter to the clergy of his
dioceſe.
" REVEREND SIR,
"Sir Willian Manſell has declared himſelf a candidate to repreſent
" the borough of Caermarthen in the next parliament. I cannot refrain
s from declaring that he has my heartieſt good wiſhes. Mr. Phillips, the
preſent member, has received the thanks of the Diſſenters, for the
part he took in the late attempt to overthrow our eccleſiaſtical conſti-
“tution by the repeal of the Corporation and Teſt Acts. By this it is
eaſy to gueſs what part he is likely to take in any future attempt for
the fame purpoſe.
“ I hope that I ſhall not have the mortification to find a ſingle clergy-
“ man in my dioceſe, who will be ſo falſe to his own character, and
6 his duty to the eſtabliſhed church, as to give his vote to any man
s who has diſcovered ſuch principles.
“I am, Rev. Sir,
Aberguilly, " Your affectionate brother and faithful ſervant,
Aug. 24, 1789.
" SAMUEL ST. DAVID's."
This, I ſhould have imagined, was an unjuſtifiable interference of
a member of the upper houſe of parliament, in the election of members
for the lower houſe. Be this as it will, it certainly ſhews his Lord-
fhip’s great apprehenſions for the ſafety of the eſtabliſhed church, which
muſt be good news to the more violent Diſſenters. For if, in the
opinion of this ever watchful guardian, it he liable to be ſhaken by ſuch
a circumſtance as this, its foundation muſt be very weak indeed, and
conſequently its downfal may very ſoon be expected. It would, there-
fore, perhaps, have been better policy in his Lordſhip to have concealed
his apprehenſions by the appearance of a more fearleſs magnanimity.
To thoſe who have a better opinion of the ſtability of the church of
England, the idea of his Lordſhip muſt appear perfectly Quixotic. We
contider him as ſuch a character as the public has not been entertained
with ſince the days of Sacheverel.
but
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's..
65
I
but it was ſuppreſſed. Now is the time to bring
it forward; and we Diſſenters with much to ſee it;
not doubting but that, like every other production
of your Lordſhip’s pen, it will, with reſpect both to
ſentiment and language, be a curioſity of its kind.
From the manner in which I have taken the
liberty to addreſs your Lordſhip, on every ſubject
on which you have thought proper to reſume the
controverſy between us (and having had your choice,
it cannot be doubted but that you have aimed at
what you thought to be the moſt vulnerable parts).
Your Lordſhip may be confident that it will be
taken for granted, that you will make a reply, if
you think it poſſible to make one with effect;
efpecially as you now ſay that you are no longer
pledged to be filent, and you condemn your former
imprudence in prematurely declaring that
not continue this controverſy.
you would
Come forth then again, my Lord, and to all your
powers of language, be pleaſed to add thoſe of
argu-
ment. If you have hitherto only trifled, as an indolent.
man naturally might do, with an uninformed ad-
verſary, unfortunately ignorant of his own ignorance
(in which, however, your Lordſhip has obligingly
taken ſome pains to inſtruct him) trifle no longer.
You muſt by this time have ſeen the inconvenience
of it. To uſe your own high Platonic language,
Come forth with the full projection of all your energies,
and if poſſible, overwhelm me at once. Conſider,
my Lord, that while, in the late war, America was
F
thus
1
3
66
LETTERS TO THE
thus trified with, it was loft, and take warning by
that example. That, my Lord, was a fatal blow
to your ſyſtem of dioceſan epiſcopacy, and an un-
anſwerable argument againſt all that you can allege
in favour of the neceſſity, or expediency, of the
eſtabliſhment of any form of religion by civil power.
Build once more, if your Lordſhip can any where
find materials, your favourite church of orthodox
Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, or aſſail once more
the character of Origen. Bring new arguments to
prove that Tertullian's idiota were Engliſh idiots,
or deſcribe the curious proceſs by which a father
may generate a ſon by contemplating his own
perfections. You have topics enow, my Lord,
before you, and ſome of them muſt not be unworthy
of
your Lordſhip's wonderful talents.
As a ſtimulus to your Lordſhip, and others in
your church, who ought to be equally zealous in
the cauſe of orthodoxy, I ſhall remind you of the
animated exhortation to the ſtudy of the chriſtian
Fathers with which Cave concludes the Prolegomena
to his Hiſtoria literaria.
Having ſhewn the importance of theſe ſtudies
with reſpect to the Catholics he adds, “ Nor* are
“ new arguments wanting to the proſecution of
" theſe ſtudies, eſpecially from the unhappy itch of
* Neque ad profequendum hoc nobile inſtitutum nova nobis deſunt
argumenta, præfertim ab infauſta illa ingeniorum noftri temporis in
MaxOdošlav prurigine quæ tot antiquas hæreſes eccleſiæ catholicæ judicio
conſtanter
?
1
1
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
67
« heterodoxy in perſons of our own age, which has
“ revived ſo many ancient hereſies, which had been
conſtantly condemned by the church. The dif-
ciples of Arius, or rather of Photinus, are extend-
ing themſelves every where. Seeing their cauſe
“ condemned by the tribunal of the primitive church,
they attack antiquity itſelf, and trample upon the
“ venerable witneſſes of the primitive faith.
« The Nicene creed is a conſtant beam in the
eyes of theſe men, and they treat Athanafius,
Hilary, and the other champions of it, worſe than
dogs or ſerpents. They, however, boaſt of their
“ antiquity, but it is the offspring of the old ſerpent.
“ They have their Fathers, but whom? Ebion,
“ Cerinthus, Symmachus, Theodotion, Paulus Sa-
“ moſatenſis, Photinus, and others.
Theſe they
“ boaſt of as their predeceſſors, and the fathers of
“ their faith. As to the Catholic writers, they either
« reject them, elude the force of their arguments
by ſophiſtry, or, what is more extraordinary, en-
« deavour to draw them over to their party.
.
conſtanter damnatas, ab orco revocavit. Pomæria ſua longe latequo
nuper apud nos dilatarunt famoſiffimi hæreſiarchæ Alexandrini diſcipuli,
ſeu Photini potius gregalcs et aſſeclæ; qui cum videant pro veteris
eccleſiæ tribunali ſe cauſam ſuam ſuſtinere non poſſe, in ipfam infurgunt
antiquitateni, et venerandos primævæ fidei teſtes lacerant, conculcant,
execrantur. Perpetua his hominibus ſudes in oculis Nicæna fides
cujus hyperaſpiſtas Athanafium Hilarium, &c. cane pejus et angue
traducunt odio. Habent quidem fuam quain jactitant antiquitatem,
ſed antiqui illius ferpentis progeniem. Suos habent patres, ſed quos ?
Ebionem, Cerinthum, Symmachum, Theodotionem, Paulum Saino-
ſatenum, Photinum, et alios.
Hos venditant præcurſores ſuos; his fidei parentibus Unitarii noſtri
gloriantur. Catholicos aut aperte rejiciunt, aut eorum teſtimonia
fophifticis
Fa
1
68
LETTERS TO THE
“Our ſtudious youth, therefore, muſt be exhorted
“to be upon the watch, and muſt apply with all
“ their might to the works of the ancients; that,
protected by theſe arms, they may repel the attacks
“ of their adverſaries, anſwer their ſophiſtry, and
“ ſucceſsfully defend the cauſe of the Catholic, and
conſequently that of the Engliſh, church. Stand
ye in the way and ſee, and aſk for the old paths,
" where is the good way, and walk therein. Jeremiah
« vi. 16. Theſe writings will ſhew us the lurking
“ holes of the ſerpents. Theſe will bring us to the
very fountain of truth.
“ I ſhall conclude with an excellent paſſage from
“ Tertullian, 'If theſe things be ſo, it is plain
that whatever opinion agrees with the apoſtolic
churches, where our faith originated, it is to be
conſidered as true; ſince they, no doubt, hold
what the church received from the apoſtles, the
apoſtles from Chriſt, and Chriſt from God. And
! every doctrine is to be conſidered as falſe, which is
contrary to that truth which was taught by the
C
ſophiſticis argutiis illudunt, aut, quod caput eft, in ſuas fæpenumero
partes pertrahere nituntur. Evigilandum igitur ftudiofæ juventuti
lotiſque viribus fcriptis veterum gnaviter incumbendum, ut his armis
muniti adverfariorum tela retundant, fophifmata ſolvant, et eccleſiae
catholicæ, ac proinde Anglicanæ, caufam feliciter propugnent. State
ſuper vias & videte, et interrogate de ſemitis antiquis, quæ fit via bona
et ambulate in ea, Jerem. 6. 16. Hæc nobis ferpentum latibula
monftrabit, hæc ad ipſiſfunum veritatis fontem nos recta ducet. Clau-
dam hæc optimis 'Tertulliani verbis. De præſcript. Hæret. C. 21.
p. 209... Si hæc ita funt, conſtat omnem doctrinam quæ cuin eccleſiis.
apoftolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conſpiret veritati deputandum;
Gne dubio tenentem quod eccleſiæ ab apoſtolis, apoſtoli a Chriſto,
Chriſtus a Deo accepit; Oınnem vero doctrinam de mendacio præjudi.
candam
1
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 69
• churches, by the apoſtles, by Chriſt, and by God.
- You therefore who wiſh to exerciſe your curioſity
in things relating to your ſalvation, viſit the apof-
tolical churches, where the chairs of the apoſtles
ſtill are, and where their authentic letters are read,
'fo that you ſeem to ſee and hear them in perſon.
'De Preſcriptione, cap. 21. 36. Upon the whole,
if that be true which was the moſt ancient, and
that be the moſt ancient which was from the
beginning, and that was from the beginning which
'was from the apoſtles, it will be equally evident,
that that was from the apoſtles which is held facred
' in the apoſtolical churches.” Adv. Marcionem,
L. 4. C. 5.
« Furniſhed with theſe arms, let us defend our
own principles, and anſwer thoſe who aſk a reaſon
" of our faith, which we profeſs to be that which
“ is truly primitive, catholic, and apoſtolic. Such
" are our principles, that we have no reaſon to de-
« cline the diſcuſſion of them before the tribunal of
" the pureſt antiquity. Let us then abandon all
candam quæ fapiat contra veritatem eccleſiarum et apoftolorum et
Chriſti et Dei.--Ibid, c. 36. p. 215. Age jam qui voles curiofitateni
melius exercere in negotio falutis tuæ, percurre eccleſias apoſtolicas,
apud quas ipſae adhuc cathedræ apoftolorum ſuis locis præſident, apud
quas ipfæ authenticæ literæ eorum recitantur, ſonantes vocem, &
repræſentantes faciem uniuſcujuſque. Advers. Marcion; 1. 4. C. 5.
p. 415. Alibique, In Summa, fi conftat id verius quod prius, id prius
quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apoſtolis; pariter utique conſtabit
id effe ab apoſtolis traditum, quod apud eccleſias apoftolorum fuerit
ſacroſanctum.
His igitur armis optiine inſtructi ſimus, parati ſemper noftra tieri,
iiſque reſpondere, qui fidei noftræ (quam vere primitivam, catholicam,
apoſtolicam effe fanete profitemur) rationem requiſiverint. Neque
emim
F3
1
70
2
LETTERS TO THE
« uſeleſs purſuits, knotty trifles, violent contentions,
• ridiculous and abſurd diſputations; and let us paſs
“our time, not in places of public buſineſs, or
diverſion, running about like buffoons, attending
" the levees of the great, and courting their favour;
“ but in pulpits, in cathedral chairs, and in the
“ receſſes of our libraries; diligently applying to
« thoſe ſtudies which have for their object the good
«. of the church, the ſalvation of ſouls, the knowledge
“ of antiquity, and all uſeful literature."
“Do you eſpecially apply to theſe ſacred ſtudies
« with all your might who are bleſſed with ability
" and leiſure, who are high in rank, and in the
“poſſeſſion of thoſe emoluments which the piety
" of our anceſtors has confecrated as the rewards of
“ uſeful learning, and excitements to greater dili-
gence. Let us diſtinguiſh ourſelves by piety and
« ſacred literature. Let the venerable Fathers of
" the Catholic church be in everlaſting remembrance
" with us, and let their writings be held in the
“higheſt honour and eſteem. If my writings ſhall
emim is eſt ecclefiae noftræ ſtatus, ut pro fummo purioris antiquitatis
tribunali caufam dicere defugiamus. Faceſſat a nobis inutilis omnis
ftudiorum ratio, faceſſant difficiles nugæ, implacabiles rixæ, leves et
ludicræ diſputatiunculæ; ætatem teramus non in foro et prætoriis, non
agyrtaruin more furſum et deorſum curſitantes, non apud magnatum
Jimina fordidis obfequiis gratiam et favorein aucupantes, verum in
roſtris, in ambone, intra bibliothecæ denique clathros et cancellos,
eccleſiæ commodo, animarum faluti, antiquitatis cognitioni, bonifque
literis promovendis, gnaviter incuinbentes. Quin ergo agite voſmet et
ad facra hæc ftudia totis viribus, omnibus nervis contendite; vos,
inquam, maxime, quibus inelior indoles et liberius otium; dignitatibus
ornati, reditibus aucti, quos tanquam meliorum literarum præmia et
cumulatiores diligentiæ ſtimulos et incitamenta majorum pietas confe-
cravit,
)
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 71
« contribute in the leaſt to our better acquaintance
“ with theirs, I ſhall think that I have not laboured
« in vain."
!
This exhortation of this moſt excellent man,
whoſe writings, allowing for his prejudices, I highly
value, and endeavour to make the beſt uſe of, has
not been ſufficiently attended to by thoſe to whom
it was addreſſed. There would not elſe have been
ſuch a want of learned champions in this controverſy,
ſo few who have ventured at all upon the ground
on which I have invited them to meet me, and we
ſhould not have had ſuch crude opinions as have
been advanced by your Lordſhip, by Mr. Howes,
and by Dr. Knowles, who are the only perſons of
your church who have come upon it; thinking,
no doubt, they had ſome more knowledge of theſe
matters than their brethren, at leaſt more than
myſelf, who have no acceſs to your libraries, and
none of thoſe incitements which this writer men-
tions. If we apply to theſe ſtudies from the pure
love of truth, what may not be expected from the
members of your church, who have every motive
that heaven and earth can hold out to you to go
beyond us in them. Let not then the voice of
friends, and enemies, who concur in the ſame ex-
hortation, be heard in vain.
cravit. Vigeat apud nos pietatis et literarum ecclefiafticarum ftudium;
fint in æterna memoria venerandi eccleſiae Catholicæ patres; ſit ſcriptis
eorum fummus honor et æſtimatio, quorum notitiam fi hæc quam
contulimus fymbola vel tantillum promovebit, præclare mecum agi
putem, meque bonas horas bene collocaſſe judicabo.
IT
F4
1
72
LETTERS TO THE
If the general motives above-mentioned be not
fufficient, let particular premiums be propoſed in
your univerſities for thoſe who ſhall give proofs of
their proficiency in theſe ſtudies, and who ſhall give
the beſt anſwers to the arguments of Unitarians,
from the ſtate of things in primitive times. This is
now done in Holland, which is leſs intereſted in
this controverſy than Great-Britain. Your Lord-
fhip being now advanced to one of the higheſt
ſtations in your church, and profeſſing more energy
of character than other men, will be expected to do
ſomething towards the revival of theſe uſeful ſtudies;
the want of which you muſt by this time, whether
you will confeſs it or not, have ſufficiently felt. . In
this one thing then, my Lord, let us act in concert;
and if you have any generoſity in your nature, lay
open the ſtores of learning locked up at Oxford and
Cambridge to us poor ſectaries. Let the univerſities,
ſupported at the national expence, be free to every
inhabitant of Great-Britain, and of the world. Throw
down the illiberal guard of your ſubſcriptions to articles
of faith at matriculation, or graduation; and then
we ſhall ſee who will make the beſt uſe of thoſe
noble advantages, which now, with ſo much vigilant
jealouſy, you keep to yourſelves.
If you want a farther motive, conſider, my Lord,
not only what, with ſo much juſtice and energy,
your Lordſhip formerly urged concerning the obli-
gation incumbent on all perſons of your Lordſhip’s
high ſtation in the church to defend the eſtabliſhment
which ſupports you, but alſo the peculiar light in
which
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's.
73
which you have been placed with reſpect to this
very controverſy.
1
It is ſaid that your Lordſhip's biſhopric was given
you as a reward for your ſervices in the defence of
orthodoxy; though wiſdom would have dictated that
it ſhould have been made to depend upon your final
ſucceſs in it. However, you have every motive of
gratitude to urge you to exert yourſelf, as much'as if
your preferment ſtill depended upon it. And conſider,
my Lord, how much ridicule will be reflected upon
yourſelf, and your benefactors, eſpecially the learned
Lord High Chancellor of England, if it ſhould
appear that you have been rewarded for a ſervice
which you have not been able to perform; and that,
by provoking this conteſt, you have injured the
cauſe of which you are appointed the champion.
Conſider alſo that, high as your paſt ſervices
have juſtly raiſed you, your Lordſhip may ſtill be
higher; and to myſelf it will afford a particular ſatiſ-
faction, to addreſs you in the ſtyle of my Lord, your
Grace, after having paſſed from plain Dear Sir, and
Reverend Sir, to that of my Lord, your Lordſhip. But
perhaps your Lordſhip may refrain from a regard
to myſelf; left having been generally conſidered as
the means of your preſent advancement, I ſhould
(being, as you always repreſent me, naturally vain)
be too vain of being the inſtrument of your farther
exaltation.
Report
74
LETTERS,
&c.
Report ſays, that one of the wifeſt of your Lord-
ſhip's bench generally recommends ſilence with
reſpect to ſuch writers as myſelf. He himſelf
religiouſly obſerves it.
Abfiftamus, ait, nam lux inimica propinquat.
VIRGIL.
In all events, whether prudence ſhould dictate,
that it is a time to ſpeak, or a time to be filent, ny
motions will, with all juſt deference, be governed
by thoſe of your Lordſhip; being at all times, and
with all due reſpeet,
My Lord,
Your Lordſhip’s
Moſt obedient,
Humble ſervant,
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.
1
!
;
1
1
1
L E T T E R S
то
THE REV. JAMES BARNARD.
Mene igitur Socium ſummis adjungere rebus
Miſe fugis ? Solum te in tanta pericula mittam ?
VIRGIL.
-
1
.
;
I
1
L E T T E R S
Τ ο
THE REV. JAMES BARNARD.
]
L E T T E R I.
Of Mr. Barnard's Idea of Unitarians.
REVEREND SIR,
IT gives me peculiar pleaſure to ſee a perſon of
your perſuaſion undertake the defence of your
proper doctrine of the trinity; and indeed you
Catholics are the only conſiſtent defenders of it. I
was glad to find my friend, Dr. Geddes, engaged in
this diſcuſſion, and am concerned that he ſeems to
have dropped it; though I hope it is only in conſe-
quence of his being occupied about his tranſlation
of the Bible, a work for which he appears to be
ſingularly qualified. Since, however, he has quitted
the field, I am glad to find another perſon of his
communion ſo ready to defend his ground. I cannot
help wiſhing, however, that you had been poſſeſſed
of
78
LITTERS TO THE
of his candour. For in this, as well as in a know-
ledge of chriſtian antiquity, you ſeem to be deficient;
and both are requiſite to qualify you to enter upon
this controverſy with advantage.
!
CC
By ſaying, as you do, p. 321,
" that Unitarians
are thoſe that believe, or pretend to believe, the
goſpel,” you more than inſinuate that many of
us may be unbelievers; eſpecially as you add, “I
“ wiſh every Unitarian would candidly examine his
own heart, and ſee whether he has not endeavoured
“ to deceive himſelf, whether he has not laboured to
overcome the conviction of his own conſcience,”
&c. Now though I have juſt the ſame reaſon to
call in queſtion your chriſtianity, or ſincerity, I am
not diſpoſed to do it; thinking more favourably, I
hope, of mankind in general than you do; and not
being willing to charge any man with hypocriſy, or
malignity, without ſome more evident reaſon than
you can have in my caſe.
Your ſpeculations on the cauſes of the riſe and
progreſs of unitarianiſm, are not a little curious.
Beſides aſcribing the origin of it, in a general way,
to the devil, p. 345, you likewiſe endeavour to trace
it to its natural or phyſical cauſes.
« I cannot,
you ſay, p. 328, “ quit the general ſubject without
taking notice of what I imagine to be the motive
c which has induced fome learned men firſt to
« become Unitarians, and then to take ſo inuch
« trouble to oppoſe the doctrine of the trinity; and
ic
CC
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
79
“ it ſeems to me to be this. Fluſhed with their ima-
ginary ſucceſs in their philoſophical reſearches,
they began to think that nothing was beyond the
“ reach of their penetrating genius.” &c.
Now, excepting myſelf, I do not know of any
Unitarian writer who has applied to philoſophical
purſuits. Your deſcription does not at all apply
to the moſt diſtinguiſhed of the Unitarian writers,
Dr. Lardner and Mr. Lindſey.
Having made the devil the prime agent in this
buſineſs, you make the divine Being act a ſubordinate
part in it; for having repreſented the Unitarians as
men puffed up with their philoſophical diſcoveries,
you proceed to ſay, that “ to furniſh them with an
“ occaſion of exerciſing one act of humility, God re-
“ called to their mind the remembrance of the myſtery
“ of the trinity. As they found they could not explain
“ this incomprehenſible myſtery, inſtead of humbling
themſelves under the mighty hand of God, 1. Pet.
“ v. 6. and acknowledging themſelves unable to
comprehend heavenly things, John iii. 12. they
“ revolted againſt his goodneſs, and began to doubt,
" of the exiſtence of the trinity. From doubts they
“proceeded to a poſitive diſbelief, and then to
" an open denial of it. But dreading the name
" of beretics they were willing to give it to the
Gnoſtics only, merely becauſe the Ebionites and
“ Nazarenes did not teach the ridiculous doctrine
“of Æons, and thought that they were not com-
“ prehended under the general name of Gnoſtics,
" and
CC
I
1
80
LETTERS TO THE
1
" and therefore not conſidered as heretics by the
primitive church.” Whereas you ſay, p. 331,
« the Fathers conſidered all thoſe as comprehended
“ under the generical name of Gnoſtics, who by
any
doctrine whatſoever contradicted the doctrine
« contained in the ſcriptures, and conſtantly taught
by the apoſtolic churches,”
Now I am much more willing to acknowledge
the hand of God than that of the devil in this buſi-
neſs, though I do not think that you had ſufficient
authority to ſuppoſe it to have been employed in the
manner that you deſcribe; and I am very confident
that you were not divinely inſpired in giving this ac-
count of the ſtate of opinions in early times. For
nothing can be more evident, as I have abundantly
ſhewn, than that the Fathers in general conſidered
the doctrine of the Ebionites, or Nazarenes, as the
very reverſe of that of the Gnoſtics; the latter deny-
ing the proper humanity of Chriſt, and the former
his divinity. “And, if I may judge from my own
knowledge of the actual progreſs of unitarianiſm,
I muſt pronounce your account to be nothing better
than a romance. Indeed, Sir, you ſeem to be but
little acquainted with the hiſtory, or character, of
Unitarians; and you ſhould have taken pains to
acquire a little more knowledge of the living, as
well as of the dead, in order to qualify yourſelf for
appearing to proper advantage in this controverſy.
But how can I expect to eſcape cenſure for my
account of the opinions of the Ebionites, when you
tax
1
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
81
1
tax Origen himſelf with making the ſame blunder.
For, remarking upon his ſaying, that “ thoſe of the
Jews who believed Jeſus to be the Chriſt were
“ called Ebionites;" you ſay, p. 198, “there is
"evidently an inaccuracy in this account. For
“ thoſe of the Jews who were called Ebionites did
“not believe Jeſus to be the Chriſt. They made
“ a diſtinction between Jeſus and the Chriſt, for they
" ſaid that Jeſus was the ſon of Joſeph, and that at
« his baptiſm the Chriſt deſcended upon him from
“ above, in the form of a dove, and at the approach
“of his paſſion it flew away again, and left him.”
1
Now, of the two, I ſhould think it ſafer to depend
upon Origen's account than yours, eſpecially as it
agrees with that of all other ancient writers, who
repreſent the opinion of Jeſus not being the Chriſt
as peculiar to the Gnoſtics, and the opinion of the
Ebionites to have been that of Jeſus being the
Chriſt, but ſtill nothing more than a man inſpired by
God. Both you and the Biſhop of St. David's have
good reaſon to be offended with Origen; but you
are much more temperate in your anger, thinking
that he only wrote haftily, and by that means ex-
preſſed himſelf inaccurately; whereas the proteſtant
Biſhop ſcruples not to call him a wilful liar, as he
would no doubt have called any other man how
reſpectable ſoever (for no character I ſhould have
thought more ſacred than that of the great Origen)
whoſe account of things ſhould have contradicted
his own conceptions of them.
G
Having
LETTERS TO THE
Having ſtripped me of all pretenſions to chrif-
tianity, you very naturally ſay, p. 361, that you
conſider all thoſe who have been baptized by me
as no chriſtians. You are aſtoniſhed, you alſo ſay,
p. 286, that I “ do not reckon Mahometans among
“ Unitarians, and that I ſhould reject them merely
“becauſe they believe in the divine miſſion of Ma-
" homet. Why, Sir," you ſay, p. 287, “ ſhould
you object againſt them upon account of ſuch
ſcruples as theſe?” In this I ſuppoſe you
aim at
humour, and as I pretend to have nothing to do but
with argument, I ſhall leave it unanſwered. As to
the
great queſtion, who are chriſtians and who are
not, it will be decided by the proper judge, before
whoſe tribunal both you and I ſhall meer.
In the laſt place, however, having made many
attempts to penetrate into the hearts of Unitarians,
you ſuppoſe, p. 332, that I have “ a farther deſign
“in my writings than appears upon the face of
“ them.” For that I may have doubts, and by
putting Trinitarians upon defending their principles,
may wiſh to get thoſe doubts removed. If this be
the caſe, I may not be far from the kingdom of God.
It is a much more favourable ſuppoſition than moſt
of
my antagoniſts will allow. But indeed, Sir, I
muſt own that they are nearer the truth than you.
For I really have not the doubts that you charitably
aſcribe to me.
I am, &c.
LETTER
REV. JAMES BARNARD,
83
L E T T E R II.
Of Mr. Barnard's Arguments from the Scriptures.
REVEREND SIR,
YOU think it extraordinary, p. 334, that I
ſhould have recourſe to ſuch guides as the
Fathers to ſettle my opinion concerning the doctrine
of the trinity; thinking, I ſuppoſe, that the ſtudy
of the ſcriptures might render all other helps un-
neceſſary. Now I have more than once given my
reaſons for this conduct. It is, in ſhort, this. Chrif-
tians are not agreed in the interpretation of fcripture
language; but as all men are agreed with reſpect to
the nature of hiſtorical evidence, I thought that we
might perhaps better determine by hiſtory what was
the faith of chriſtians in early times, independently
of
any
aid from the ſcriptures; and it appeared to
be no unnatural preſumption, that whatever that
ſhould appear to be, ſuch was the doctrine of the
apoſtles, from whom their faith was derived; and
that by this means we ſhould be poſſeſſed of a pretty
good guide for diſcovering the true ſenſe of the
ſcriptures.
Even
you
and Dr. Geddes, though belonging to
the ſame communion, and one which ſeems better
calculated than any other to ſecure uniformity of
G2
opinion,
84
LETTERS TO THE
1
opinion, are by no means agreed in your inter-
pretation of the ſcriptures.' He, for example, finds
no authority whatever for the doctrine of the trinity
in the Old Teſtament, and but little in the New;
whereas
you
find abundant evidence of it in both.
You are ſurprized, you ſay, p. 11, “ that he ſhould
“ make ſuch an acknowledgment, as it is contrary
“ to the univerſal opinion of divines.” But indeed,
Sir, your own arguments from the ſcriptures are of
ſuch a nature, as, I dare ſay, will not induce him to
recede from his conceffion.
You ſay, p. 11. that Chriſt muſt be God becauſe
he is called Jehovah our righteouſneſs. But for the
ſame reaſon the city of Jeruſalem muſt be God alſo,
becauſe the ſame prophet, viz. Jeremiah, gives to
that city the very fame appellation*. You alſo ſay,
p. 31, that Chriſt muſt be God equal to the Father,
becauſe he is ſaid to be one with him; whereas Chriſt
himſelf expreſsly prays that his diſciples may be one
with himſelf and his Father, even as they two are
one. And when you ſay, as you ſomewhere do, that
this is neceſſarily to be underſtood of ſuch an union
as men are capable of with reſpect to God, which
is an union of will and affection only, and not of
nature; I anſwer that the text, in its plain and
obvious ſenſe (for which in this controverſy you
always contend) abſolutely excludes the idea of any
union between Chriſt and the Father, beſides ſuch
* A learned friend ſuggeſts, that the proper rendering of the original
is, " and this is the name by which they ſhall call Jehovah, viz. OUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS.
an
REV. JAMES BARNARD. 85
an one as his diſciples are capable of, and is there-
fore deciſive againſt an union of nature. Now I
really think that it would be much better to ac-
knowledge, with Dr. Geddes, that nothing is to be
inferred from the Old Teſtament, and but little from
the New, in fayour of the doctrine of the trinity,
than urge ſuch arguments as theſe, or any others
that you have produced from the ſcriptures,
Indeed, what you and all Trinitarians are obliged
to acknowledge, viz. that, though Jeſus Chriſt be
God, as well as man, he cannot be ſaid to be the
firſt principle and origin of the divinity, as you ſay,
p. 92, “this being the prerogative of the Father,"
is inconſiſtent with any proper equality of the perſons
in the trinity, ſuch as is aſſerted in the Athanaſian
creed, viz. that's in this trinity none is afore or
« after the other, none is greater or leſs than the
“ other.” For certainly that which is the principle
and origin to another, if there be any meaning in
the words at all, muſt be ſuperior to that with
reſpect to which it is the principle, or origin.
I am, &c.
G3
LETTER
&6
LETTERS TO THE
1
L E T T E R
III.
Of Mr. Barnard's Hiſtorical Arguments of a preſcrip-
tive Kind, in favour of the Doctrine of the Trinity:
REVEREND SIR,
IN
N this letter I ſhall conſider your preſcriptive
arguments, or ſuch as are better known by the
name of arguments a priori, in favour of the general
prevalence of the doctrine of the trinity in the
primitive times.
As a proof that the common people in the
primitive church muſt have been Trinitarians, you
fay, that the biſhops being ſuch, the common people
who learned of them, muſt have been ſo too. Suf-
pecting, however, that there might be ſomething in
the evidence that I produced to prove that the
common people were not Trinitarians, you ſay, it
would afford no evidence (though this is incon-
ſiſtent with what you ſaid before) of what it was
that the apoſtles taught; ſince it was not to the
common people, but to the biſhops and clergy, their
ſpiritual guides, that the doctrine of Chriſt was
committed.
“If,” you ſay, p. 141, “ he had given the
".common people a ſhare of adminiſtration in
ſpiritual
REV. JAMES BARNARD,
87
* ſpiritual matters; if he had made them the re-
pofitories, or truſtees, of his doctrine, &c. your
“argument would have infinite weight; but it was
“ to the apoſtles, and their fucceffors, that he com-
“ mitted the government of the church.”
N
1
CS
As to the common people, you. fay, p. 143,
"he commanded them to follow the faith of their
paſtors, Heb. xiii. 7. to be obedient to the paf-
tors, who ſhould have the rule over them, and
" to ſubmit themſelves to them, as they were to
give an account to God for the ſouls of all who
« ſhould be committed to their care, v. 17. He
“ declares that they who hear them, hear him, and
" whoſoever deſpiſes them, deſpiſes him, Luke x. 16.
" and he commands the paſtors of his church to
“ look upon all diſobedient and refractory perſons
“ as heathens and publicans; Matt. xviii. 17.” Pre
ſuming, then, that the common people well under-
ſtood and practiſed this implicit obedience to their
teachers, you ſay, p. 190, “ as thoſe biſhops taught
“their flocks the doctrines of the divinity of Chriſt,
" and the trinity of perſons in God; ſo it cannot be
« doubted but that the people believed and profeffed
“ the doctrine taught them by their paſtors, whom
they believed to have been appointed by the
Holy Ghoſt to feed and govern them.”
Now, Sir, you ſhould have argued with a pro-
teſtant on proteſtant principles. We ſay that the
teaching of Chriſt and of the apoſtles was not de-
livered, even in the firſt inſtance, to any body of
G4
men
88
LETTERS TO THE
men called clergy; but that they taught all perſons
indiſcriminately, having nothing to conceal from any
man; and there being nothing myſterious, or hard to
be underſtood, in the doctrines of the goſpel, the
common people, or the laity, were as good judges
of them as the biſhops. We alſo think it the duty
of
every man to think and judge for himſelf in all
matters of religion; and, in an affair of ſo much
perſonal importance, to ſubmit his faith to no perſon
as his ſpiritual guide. For what would it avail any
man who ſhould be led aftray in the paths of ruin
and deſtruction, that his ſpiritual guide, to whom
you ſay his foul was committed accompanied him
thither? We think it very evident from the book
of Acts, and the epiſtles of Paul, that the common
people among chriſtians knew nothing of this paljive
obedience to ſpiritual guides; and that in matters of
opinion the authority even of an apoſtle had no weight
with them, 'independently of the reaſons by which it
was ſupported:
1
I therefore ſay, that the common people, having
received the doctrine of the goſpel from the pureſt
original ſources, and having been leſs ſubject to
foreign influences, would retain them better than any
other claſs of men; and conſequently that the
opinions of the common people among chriſtians in
the ſecond and third centuries (in which we have the
means of aſcertaining them) affords a much better
indication of the doctrine of the apoſtles than the
opinions of their teachers; becauſe their teachers,
being then learned, and having imbibed the prin-
ciples
1
89.
REV. JAMES : BARNARD.
ciples of the heathen philoſophy, had been ſubject
to an influence from which the common people
were exempt. I have farther obſerved, and univerſal
experience proves the truth of the obſervation, that
in all caſes, ancient opinions are moſt firmly retained
by the common people; whereas the learned and
the ſpeculative are moſt apt to innovate; and it is
only after ſome time that they are able to draw the
common people after them.
1
As another argument that the majority of the
common people among the chriſtians in early times
were not Unitarians, you ſay, p. 135, that “the
"expreſſions contained in the liturgies are a demon-
“ſtrative proof againſt it.” But where, Sir, are
thoſe ancient liturgies? None that are now extant
are prior to the council of Nice, as is acknowledged
by all the learned of your own church. We are well
ſatisfied that in thoſe early times no liturgies what-
ever were in uſe; but that all thoſe who conducted
the public worſhip of chriſtians prayed, as well as
preached, according to their ability. This we think
to be moſt evident from all that we know of the
ſtate of things in the primitive times.
You think it a proof, p. 342, that there were
no Unitarians in early times, becauſe there were
no perſons who were diſtinguiſhed by that name.
But how could they be ſo diſtinguiſhed, when all
chriſtians were Unitarians ? They were only called
Unitarians, when there were Trinitarians to oppoſe
to them.
On
1
90
LETTERS TO THE
On the ſame extraordinary principle you ſay,
p. 255, “there is not the leaſt reaſon to wonder that
« neither Irenæus, nor Clement of Alexandria, ſhould
« take no notice of a ſect that never exiſted till after
they had finiſhed their works." They certainly
exiſted, but not as heretics, perſons out of the church,
or diſtinguiſhed by the appellation of Unitarians.
And what you ſay, p. 285, is far from being true;
" that the Unitarians, whether of the clergy or
laity, were excommunicated as ſoon as their
« obſtinate maintaining of their Unitarian principles
“ was known, is a fact ſo well atteſted by the hiſtory
a of thoſe times that it cannot be called in queſtion.”
I have certainly called it in queſtion, and you ſhould
have conſidered my arguments.
>)
.
I am, &c.
LETTER
.
9!
REV. JAMES, BARNARD,
1
L E T T E R IV.
Of Mr. Barnard's direct Hiſtorical Arguments in
favour of the Do&trine of the Trinity.
REVEREND SIR,
HAVING conſidered all your arguments, of the
preſcriptive kind, in favour of the primitive
church having been Trinitarian, I ſhall now attend
to what you have objected to my arguments, chiefly
from actual fačts, that it was Unitarian. I had men-
tioned the Clementine Homilies as affording a ſtrong
preſumption that the doctrine of the trinity, even in
its firſt and moſt qualified ſenſe, was unknown in
To this, to my great ſurprize,
you ſay, p. 371, “the Clementine Homilies were
probably a forgery of Photinus, or of ſome other
perſon, who not before, but long after the time of
Juſtin, wrote in defence of unitarianiſm." But
could a work mentioned by Euſebius, and ſeveral
other early writers, have been written by Photinus,
who, it is well known, lived long after them?
the early ages.
I am not ſo much furprized at this groſs anachro-
niſm, as at your aſcribing to me an opinion which
I have repeatedly mentioned not as mine, but as
held by thoſe whoſe opinions I am profeſſedly re-
futing, and which I alledge as a principal argument
in
92
LETTERS TO THE
in-my refutation of them.
« You yourſelf," you
fay, p. 167, and you repeat'it, p. 335, “ implicitly
acknowledge, that the doctrine of Chriſt's divinity
was clearly taught when John publiſhed his gof-
pel.” And you ſomewhere add, that though
John alone ſhould have taught this doctrine, it was
fufficient; becauſe John was an apoſtle.
EC
I cannot ſay that I ever remember a more extra-
ordinary miſapprehenſion of any writer's meaning
than this of yours concerning me. What I have
ſaid, and have abundantly proved, is, that it was
acknowledged by all the defenders of the doctrine
of the trinity, before and after the council of Nice,
that the pre-exiſtence and divinity of Chriſt had
not been taught with clearneſs and effect before the
publication of the goſpel of John; and this ac-
knowledgment I have ſaid they would never have
made if it had not been extorted from them, by
ſuch a well known ſtate of things in their own times,
and thoſe preceding them, as they could not account
for on any other hypotheſis, miſerably weak and
inſufficient as it is. For no Trinitarian is diſpoſed
to make the ſame acknowledgment at preſent, and
they are evidently mortified and confounded that
it ſhould have been made in times paſt. And no
wonder; for it furniſhes the cleareſt of all proofs,
that before the publication of this goſpel, which is
fuppoſed to have been after the death of all the
other apoſtles, the chriſtian church conſiſted almoſt.
wholly of Unitarians. And they could not have
been conſidered as heretics, becauſe they were in the
church,
I
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
93
church, and indeed had never been taught any other
doctrine than the Unitarian.
?
That this hypotheſis of the Trinitarian Fathers
is abſurd and inſufficient, is evident from there being
no evidence whatever of any change having been
produced in the ſentiments of the chriſtian world
concerning the perſon of Chriſt by the publication
of this goſpel. In a period much later than this
the majority of chriſtians were ſtill Unitarians; and
in their opinion the goſpel of John contained no
other doctrine.
Another curious miſtake of yours concerning
my meaning is that which occurs, p. 229, where
you ſuppoſe that I contradict myſelf when I ſay
that the ancient Unitarians were not conſidered as
heretics, and yet quote Auſtin and others, as ſaying
that in the age of the apoſtles there were two kinds
of heretics, the Gnoftics and the Unitarians. But,
Sir, you ſhould have conſidered in how late a period
Auſtin, and thoſe other writers, lived. In their
time, no doubt, the Unitarians were conſidered as
heretics, and therefore it is no wonder that they
ſhould repreſent them as having been heretics in all
ages; though, as I have ſhewn, it is manifeſtly
inconſiſtent with their own acknowledgments.
You aſk, p. 303, why, if the Unitarians were at
any time the great body of chriſtians, they did not
excommunicate the Trinitarians. To this I have
more
94
LETTERS TO THE
more than once made wihat Í deem to be a ſufficient
reply. The doctrine of the trinity, as it was firſt
advanced, did not appear to infringe fo much upon
the doctrine of the unity of God as it did afterwards ;
and this infringement was abſolutely diſclaimed
by thoſe who held it. As thoſe who introduced
this doctrine were men of learning and character,
and zealous chriſtians, it is no wonder that their
brethren bore with them. And when theſe learned
Trinitarians came to be the body of the clergy, and
had gradually drawn over to them moſt chriſtians
of education, of rank, and fortune; any attempt to
excommunicate them would have been ineffectual.
But I have ſhewn that notwithſtanding theſe great
advantages on the ſide of the Trinitarians, the
common people, who were Unitarians, were greatly
offended at the innovation, plauſibly as it was intro-
duced, and reſpectably as it was ſupported; and
that they expreſſed their diſlike of it in very ſtrong
terms.
I do not wonder that you, and other Trinitarians,
are puzzled with Tertullian's ſaying that the major
pars credentium, or the majority of the chriſtians in
his time, reprobated the doctrine of the trinity, and
that you ſhould uſe every endeavour to elude the
force of my argument from the paſſage. But your
mode of reply to it is fingular. In the firſt place
you ſay, p. 292, that Tertullian being an heretic,
his evidence is not to be regarded. But he was no
heretic in this reſpect; being as much a believer in
the
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
95
the doctrine of the trinity as any perſon of his age,
and therefore as little diſpoſed to make a conceſſion
in favour of the Unitarians. And why might not
à Montaniſt, have been an honeſt man, and one
who would not affert a known falfhood.
You
admit the evidence even of heathen writers with
reſpect to matters of fact of which they were com-
petent witneſſes; and why reject that of a Montaniſt,
eſpecially as thoſe of this ſect pretended to greater
Itrictneſs of morals than other chriſtians.
:
But, what is perhaps ſtill more extraordinary, you
ſay, p. 298, that “ by the ſimple and unlearned,
* Tertullian did not mean the members of the
“ catholic church,” though he expreſsly calls them
the major pars credentium, “but all
, whether learned
or unlearned, who held the ſimple or fooliſh
“ doctrine of Praxeas,” that is, that of the Uni-
tarians. To this I think I need to make no reply,
as he is evidently ſpeaking of the credentes, or chrif-
tians in general; and with them, though at that time
a Montaniſt, he was probably as well acquainted as
any other perſon of his age.
You think it is a ſufficient objection againſt my
ſuppoſition of the Antenicene Fathers having bor-
rowed their doctrine of the trinity from Platoniſm,
p. 166, that “they profeſs never to have looked
upon the doctrines of Plato as conſtituting any
part
of the faith of the chriſtian church.” But
my argument is not that they conſidered, or ac-
knowledged,
5
96
LETTERS TO THE
knowiedged, that their doctrine was borrowed from
Platoniſm, but that it was ſo in fact, though they
ſhould have denied it. This I prove from the
great reſemblance between their doctrine of the
trinity and the principles of Platoniſm; a reſemblance
pointed out, and even greatly magnified, by them-
felves; from their known attachment to the doc-
trines of Plato, and from their natural wiſh to avail
themſelves of the new idea they hereby got concern-
ing the perſon of Chriſt, to make their religion
appear to more advantage in the eyes of heathen
philoſophers, and perſons of diſtinction in their
time. It cannot be expected that any perſons
ſhould introduce into chriſtianity the doctrines of
Plato, or of any other philoſopher, which they
themſelves ſhould acknowledge to be foreign to
chriſtianity, and diſcordant with it.
You ſeem, Sir, to be aware, though you do
not explicitly acknowledge it, that the Antenicene
Fathers did not teach ſuch a doctrine of the trinity
as was profeſſed in a later period; but you apologize
for them by ſaying, p. 88, “the Antenicene Fathers
“ did not ſpeak plainly on the myſtery of the trinity,
“ the facraments, and other myſterious truths and
inſtitutions of the chriſtian religion in their Apolo-
gies, and ſeveral other of their writings; becauſe
they either addreſſed themſelves to pagans, or at
“ leaſt knew that their works might fall into their
« hands. And certainly it would be highly improper
“ to expound theſe articles to perſons who had not .
been
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
97
"
“ been previoufly prepared for receiving theſe fu-
« blime truths, in the ſame manner, and with the
“ ſame clearneſs, as they expounded them to the
faithful in their private and catechiſtical inſtruc-
« tions. · For holy and revealed truths are not to
“be expoſed to deriſion.”
Now, it is evident from the tenor of their writ-
ings, that the Antenicene Fathers had no deſign,
or wiſh, to diſguiſe their opinions from any claſs of
readers, and leaſt of all from the heathens. On the
contrary, with reſpect to their notions of the trinity,
they eagerly brought them forward, and enlarged
upon them, imagining that they would recom-
mend them to the heathens, by their reſemblance
to thoſe philoſophical doctrines which were held
in the higheſt eſteem by them. And yet, in the
moſt expreſs and unequivocal language in the world,
they aſſerted what was diſclaimed by the orthodox
of a later period, viz. that the Son was greatly
inferior to the Father, and even that there was a
time when he did not exiſt.
All that the chriſtians of the third and fourth
centuries affected to conceal as a inyſtery, were the
plaineſt things belonging to chriſtianity, viz. the
baptiſimal (or as it is commonly called the apoſtles?)
creed and the adminiſtration of the Lord's ſupper.
This affectation of myſtery, or fecrecy, in things
which could not be any fecret at all, was in imi-
tation of the heathen initiations. It was altogether
H
unknown
i
98
LETTERS TO THE
unknown in primitive times, and was always un-
worthy of chriſtians. Indeed, Sir, you certainly
and moſt egregiouſly impoſe upon yourſelf in
imagining the orthodoxy of the preſent day to be
the ſame with that of the Antenicene Fathers.
I am, &c.
1
L E T T E R V.
of the Council of Nice, and the Creed which was
eſtabliſhed by it.
REVEREND SIR,
YOU are particularly deſirous of vindicating
Dr. Geddes in his account of the council of
Nice, and ſupporting his preſcriptive argument
from the opinions of the Fathers who compoſed it,
that unitarianiſm was not the faith of the primitive
church; but you have ſtrangely miſapprehended
both the doctrine of Arius which was condemned
in that council, and the doctrine that was ſettled in
it. “ The Arians,” you ſay, p. 192,
" contended
“that Chriſt was not equal to the Father," and
p. 183," the things defined by the council of Nice
were,
(
REV. JAMES BARNARD,
99
“ were, that the Son was coeternal, coequal, and
conſubſtantial with his Father; and this doctrine
“never was, neither ſoon after, nor is it to this day,
" abandoned by any divines of our church.”
Now, if there be any truth in hiſtory, no perſon
before the council of Nice ſaid, or imagined, that
the Son was equal to the Father, nor did Arius deny
it. This was no part of the controverſy with Arius,
whom the Nicene Fathers met to condemn; and
the Nicene creed, which is in every common prayer
book, expreſſes nothing of the Son being coeternal,
or coequal with the Father, but only of his being
conſubſtantial, or of the ſame nature, with him. And
though the philoſophers of thoſe times thought that
a beam of light was of the ſame nature, or ſubſtance,
with the fun (from which the chriſtian philoſophers
- borrowed their idea of the logos being of the ſame
ſubſtance with the Father) they at the ſame time held
that it was not equal to the ſun, but greatly inferior
to it.
1
In confirmation of the equality of the perſons in
the trinity having been held before the council of
Nice, you quote, p. 110, from the Bibliotheca
Patrum, the epiſtle of Dionyſius of Alexandria to
the council of Antioch, in which he ſays, “there
“ is one Chriſt, who is in the Father, being his co-
“ eternal word,” &c.
I am ſurprized that you ſhould quote this epiſtle,
when there can be no doubt of its being ſpurious.
Fleury
H 2
100
LETTERS TO THE
Fleury himſelf fays, that of all the writings of
Dionyſius, the only one that remains entire, and
" unqueſtionable, is the canonical epiſtle to Baſilides,
“ the biſhop who had conſulted him upon ſeveral
points of diſcipline.” There is, however, in
Eufebius a ſmall epiſtle of his to Novatus, which
Fleury might think too inconſiderable for him to
mention.
)
Beſides, Dionyſius, in his controverſy with the
Sabellians, had been led to expreſs himſelf in ſuch
a manner, as, in a later period, made him ſuſpected
of holding the opinion which was afterwards advanced
by Arius; inſomuch that Athanaſius thought proper
to write a treacife in his defence. The Sabellians
being charged with confounding the perfons of the
Father and the Son, their adverſaries maintained
that they were fo far different, as to be of a different
nature; and the Fathers of the council of Antioch
expreſsly diſclaimed the term confubftantial as applied
to the Son with reſpect to the Father; though, in
oppoſition to the Arians, the Fathers of the council
of Nice adopted that very term themſelves. Now,
it is very improbable that Dionyſius ſhould expreſs
himſelf ſo differently, as this epiſtle repreſents him
to have done, from the cuſtom of the orthodox in
his time.
With reſpect to the council of Nice, it is in vain
for you to contend for the freedom of it, as you do,
p. 148. Nothing is more evident than that, by
ſome means or other, probably the influence of
Hoſius,
+
REV. JAMES BARNARD.
101
:
Hofius, and other Trinitarians, Conſtantine had
taken his part before the meeting of that aſſembly.
The harſhneſs of his addreſs to Arius in the con-
ference that he had with him ſufficiently proves it,
to ſay nothing of his circular letter mentioned by Epi-
phanius, and given at length by Baronius, full of the
moſt outrageous abuſe of him. And Sozomen, you
know, acknowledges that, from the time that the
emperors became chriſtians, the decrees of all the
councils were framed according to their wiſhes. Of
the Arian council of Milan you fay, p. 177, that
could not have been free, becauſe it was held in
" the very palace of the emperor,” And was not
the ſame, in effect, the caſe with the council of
Nice, the debates of which the emperor himſelf
attended.
Beſides, I have abundantly ſhewn, in my Letters
to Dr. Geddes, that the deciſion of three hundred
and eighteen learned biſhops, aſſembled ſo late as
the year 325, affords a very inſufficient rule for
judging concerning the faith of the majority of un-
learned chriſtians, even in that very age, and much
leſs two centuries before. By that time the learned
had made great advances in aggrandizing the perfon
of Chriſt, as they made another great advance
between that time and the council of Conſtantinople,
held A. D. 381, when the doctrine of the perfeet
equality of the three perſons in the trinity was
eſtabliſhed.
H 3
As
is
IO2
LETTERS TO THE
:
As to the conduct of the Unitarians in the council
of Nice, which you think ſo reproachful to them,
neither you nor I are able to give any account of it.
I do not ſuppoſe that there were many Unitarian
biſhops in that council, or in that age. But as the
very term conſubſtantial, which was agreed to be
uſed with reſpect to the Son at this council, was
the very term which the ancient Sabellians had con-
tended for at the council of Antioch, whatever were
their reaſons (which it is probable I ſhould not
approve) for adopting it before, the ſame would
lead them to approve of it now.
I am, &c.
6
LETTER
.
REV. JAMES BARNARD,
103
>
L E T T E R VI.
The Concluſion.
REVEREND SIR,
YOU ſee that I have complied with your
requeſt (Preface, p. 17) in not cloſing this
controverſy till I had conſidered, and replied to what
you, with the beſt intentions, I doubt not, have been
able to allege in defence of thoſe principles which
I have attacked. That I have not been convinced
by your arguments, I acknowledge. But I have not
decided without giving my reaſons, of the ſtrength
of which you and the Public may judge. But,
being as well ſatisfied with my opinion as you can
be with yours, I certainly ſtand juſtified to my own
mind, and I hope to yours alſo, in perſiſting to uſe
my utmoſt endeavours to promote the general re-
ception of what I conſider to be an important truth,
and to bring to a concluſion the long reign of a
fundamental error. I am happy to find that I have
not written in vain, and that you, Sir, and all my
other opponents, have been, in reality, labouring in
concurrence with me.
I wiſh I could leffen your fears with reſpect to
the conſequences of the ſpread of unitarianiſin,
You
H4
104
LETTERS TO THE
You ſay, Preface, p. 10, that “ infidelity, deiſm,
“neglect and contempt of all religion, both in
“ belief and practice, either keeps pace with, or
“ follows cloſe at the heels of, unitarianiſm; and
" that the general corruption of morals, ſo much
complained of in this nation, flows, and muſt
“ be expected to flow, from the introduction and
propagation of ſuch baneful novelties.”
Now, Sir, I ſhould think that a very little re-
flection might convince you that the perſons of
whoſe violences you complain, and in conſequence
of which you fay, p. 12, that “the peaceful inhabi-
« tants of this nation can ſcarcely Neep quietly in
« their houſes, or walk the ſtreets with ſafety; and
" that the moſt vigilant father of a family can ſcarce
preferve his children from ſeduction, or his pro-
perty from being plundered,” never heard of
unitarianiſm. However, let the judges in their
circuits examine into the matter, and report the
faith of all thoſe who are condemned for capital
crimes. The uſual loft dying Speeches and confefrons
of thoſe wretches do not, I believe, throw any light
upon the ſubject; but perhaps you will ſay that we
bribe them all to be ſilent. It is a fact, however,
that, I imagine, may be aſcertained; and let not
the vices of the age be imputed to Unitarians, or
any other claſs of men, till they have been proved
to be guilty. In my opinion, you may juſt as well
aſcribe the increaſe of vice and prophaneneſs to the
increaſe of books, the increaſe of turnpike roads,
or the increaſe of navigable canals.
On
REV. JAMES BARNARD. IOS
On the contrary, it is my firm opinion that the
conſequence of the increaſe of knowledge, and
eſpecially the prevalence of rational ſentiments, will
be the increaſe of virtue; that unitarianiſm will be
the only cure of infidelity; and that it will by this
means prevent the evils of which infidelity is the
cauſe.
In the mean time, we Unitarians think ourſelves
ſome of the moſt quiet and peaceable ſubjects in
the realm; that we are very orderly ourſelves, and
promoters of good order in the places where we
reſide. As to myſelf, I wiſh you would inquire of
our common friend, Mr. Berington. He will be
able to give an account of me, and I believe a
favourable one; and if you would do us the favour
to make us a viſit, and ſpend a few days with us,
I ſhould not doubt of ſoon leading you to think.
more favourably of myſelf, and of Unitarians in
general, than you now do.
1
I am, Reverend Sir,
Your very humble ſervant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
1
1
Ś
1
.
I
А.
L E T T E R
Ε Τ Τ Ε
TO
THE REV. DR. KNOWLES,
PREBENDARY OF ELI.
1
Magna petis Phaeton; et quæ non viribus iſtis
Munera conveniant.
Ovid.
!
1
}
..
A
L E T T E R
1
TO
THE REV. Dr. KNOW L E S.
!
REVEREND SIR,
YOU are pleaſed to ſay, in your tract intitled
Primitive Chriſtianity, Preface, p. 1, that you
« wrote “ without any view, or deſign, of entering
“ into controverſy; which you openly diſclaim, what-
“ ever may be ſaid or written againſt you." Yet,
as I cannot perſuade myſelf that you really wiſhed
to paſs unnoticed, and as any thing advanced by a
dignitary of the church of England will have weight
with ſome, I ſhall make a few obſervations on
what you have advanced, chiefly to apprize you
that, whether young or old in point of years, of
which I am wholly ignorant, you are very young
in this controverſy, and that it would have been
more adviſable for you to have read a little more
before you had attempted to write; your arguments
for the divinity and worſhip of Chriſt are ſo very
ſtale, and fuperficial.
You
:
IIO
A LETTER TO THE
You would prove, p. 3, that “ Chriſt was the
“ object of worſhip while he was on earth,” contrary
to the opinion of all the orthodox chriſtian Fathers,
and to what appears upon the very face of the
goſpel-hiſtory, becauſe in our Engliſh tranſlation he
is ſaid to have received worſhip. You were not
aware, I preſume, that in the ſcriptures the ſame
term is applied to men, and that therefore, by this
argument, you might prove them alſo to be objects
of divine worſhip. You do not even conſider what
was the meaning of that Engliſh word at the time
in which this tranſlation of ours was made, when
even a court of aldermen was ſtiled the worſhipful
and perſons in other inferior offices were all addreſſed
by the ſtyle of your worſhip.
You alſo ſay, p. 6, that “ Chriſt muſt be God
“ becauſe baptiſm is ſaid to have been adminiſtered
“ in his name,” without reflecting that Paul ſpeaks
of perſons being baptized unto Moſes; fo that accord-
ing to this argument, the Jewiſh lawgiver muſt have
been God, as well as the chriſtian.
You farther ſay, that Jeſus muſt be God becauſe
he is called the Son of God, and that “ the Jews all
“underſtood the phraſe as of the ſame nature with
« God.” But was not the apoſtle John a Jew, and
does not he call all chriſtians the fons of God?
Your arguments from the Fathers of the firſt
century, ſhew either an utter unacquaintedneſs with
the ſtate of the writings that are aſcribed to them,
or
REV. DR. KNOWLES.
III
or great unfairneſs in your repreſentations of them,
and therefore I ſuppoſe the former. You quote
Ignatius, p. 27, as upon all occaſions calling Chriſt
God, without ever informing your readers that this
perpetual addition of the term God to the word
Chriſt, in his epiſtles, is generally conſidered as an
interpolation. It is indeed, a manifeſt and abſurd
one, ſuch a phraſeology not reſembling any thing
in that age, or indeed in any ſubſequent one. Like
Mr. Barnard, you quote, p. 80, the epiſtle of
Dionyſius of Alexandria, as unqueſtionably genuine,
when it is manifeſtly ſpurious; and, like him, p. 98,
you ſpeak of the equality of the Son with the Father
as “ defined by the council of Nice” when the
Nicene creed ſays nothing of that equality, and the
writings of that age ſhew that the idea had not even
occurred to the moſt zealous Trinitarians in that
period.
You quote Juſtin Martyr, p. 36, as pleading for
the worſhip of Chriſt as God, when the term that
he uſes (Gebew) is far from neceſſarily implying prayer,
or any proper religious worſhip; and in the very
ſame ſentence it is applied to the holy angels; and
you only think that you can exclude them by a
punctuation, for which there is no authority, or
probability.
That Juſtin Martyr, and others of the Platoniz-
ing Fathers, maintained that Chriſt was God is
univerſally acknowledged; but it is evident that
they did not conſider him as equal to the Father.
Among
II.
LETTER TO THE
А
i
(6
Among others you quote Novatian, p. 63. But
this writer, in the moſt expreſs terms, diſclaims
all idea of the equality of the Son to the Father, as,
if
you had read him at all, you muſt have known.
He ſays, “the Father only is the only good God.
“ The rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the
Father, in the Son of God, Chriſt Jeſus, our Lord
“ God; but the Son of God, of that God who is
one,
and alone the maker of all things. Though
« he was in the form of God, he did not attempt
" the robbery of being equal with God. For though
“ he knew that he was God of God the Father, he
“never compared himſelf with God the Father,
“ remembering that he was of the Father, and that
“ he had his being becauſe the Father gave it him.
“ The Son is leſs than the Father, becauſe he is
“ fanctified by him. God the Father is the maker
“and creator of all, who alone has no origin, in-
viſible, immenſe, immortal, eternal, the one
God, to whoſe greatneſs, majeſty, and power,
“ nothing can be preferred or compared --. The
“ Son does nothing of his own pleaſure, nor does
"he come of himſelf, but in all things obeys his
“ Father's commands.” Cap. iv. 9. 27. 31.
V
You quote Origen, p. 67, as an advocate for
praying to Chriſt. But you ſhould have obſerved
that, in his treatiſe on the ſubject of prayer, he
argues much at large againſt praying to Chrift.
“ If,” ſays he, “ we know what prayer is, we muſt
“not pray to any created being; not to Chriſt
himſelf, but only to God the Father of all, to
« whom
REV. DR. KNOWLES.
113
whom our Saviour himſelf prayed – We are
“ not to pray to another who has the ſame common
“ father as ourſelves; Jeſus himſelf ſaying that we
“ muſt pray to the Father through him. In this
“ we are all agreed, and are not divided about the
" method of prayer; but ſhould we not be divided
“ if ſome prayed to the Father, and fome to the
Son?” De Oratione, p. 48.
You take it for granted that Cyprian quoted the
diſputed text in the epiſtle of John, without inform-
ing your readers of any thing that Sir Iſaac Newton,
and other learned men, have alleged to prove the
contrary; without attempting to account for this
text not being quoted by any of thoſe Fathers who
appear to have taken the moſt pains to collect
paſſages of ſcripture. in favour of the doctrine of the
trinity; and without obſerving that this text is not
to be found in any ancient Greek manuſcript what-
ever; or that it is now omitted by Grieſbach, the
· laſt and moſt accurate editor of the Greek Tefta-
ment. This, Sir, is giving evidence ex parte; it is
concealing the truth, and miſleading your reader.
S
Notwithſtanding your great zeal for orthodoxy,
you ſeem to endeavour not abſolutely to exclude
us poor Unitarians from all poſſibility of ſalvation;
but
your endeavours are ineffectual. After ſpeak-
ing of the Athanaſian creed, p. 122, as “ con-
taining the ſum and ſubſtance of all orthodox
divinity,” you ſay, “Theſe are the articles which
I
rs are
!
114
A
LETTER TO THE
+
“ are declared to be neceſſary to falvation, and the
ſcripture has declared the fame. For the whole
“ fabric of chriſtianity reſts upon them. But it
“ does not follow from hence, that the belief of
every
tittle in the creed, however true, and re-
« ceived by ourſelves as ſuch, is therefore the
“ neceſſary condition of the ſalvation of others.”
(5
This, Sir, is like opening the door, and inſtantly
ſhutting it again, without giving us an opportunity
of entering. For if your premiſes be true, the
belief of all the articles of this creed muſt be uni-
verſally neceſſary to ſalvation, to me as well as to
you. Indeed you ſeem to ſay as much in what
immediately follows, “ Surely then none need be
“ offended at the public repetition of it in our
“ churches; for it condemns none but thoſe who
“ will not believe, and be ſaved.” I ſuppoſe, then,
that if I do not believe, you will ſay that I would
not believe, though I ſhould allege that I could
not; and therefore, in your opinion, my ſalvation,
notwithſtanding the utmoſt extent of your charity,
is not at all the nearer. It is happy for me, Sir,
that
you are not my judge.
You have done very prudently to decline pro-
ceeding in this controverſy. Had you perſiſted, I
ſhould have given you a little advice how to con-
duct yourſelf better. I only fear that it may be
ſuſpected by ſome, that you are no real friend to the
doctrine of the trinity, and that you meant to betray
the
!
.
REV. DR. KNOWLES.
ITS
1
!
the cauſe by ſeeming to defend it. In this, how-
ever, I acquit you, firmly believing that you are a
weak friend, and not an inſiduous enemy, to the
cauſe of orthodoxy.
I am, Reverend Sir,
Your very humble ſervant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
my
:
S
1
I 2
i
1
?
1
"
}
!
1
1
1
L E T T E R S
ΤΟ
I
THE REV. JOHN HAWKINS,
Rector of Hinton, near Alresford, Hampſhire.
Ο Κιρκη, πως γαρ με κελη σοι ηπιον ειναι,
Η μοι συς μεν εθηκας ενα μεγαροισιν εξαιρες.
HOMERI ODYSS.
ν
1
1
L E T T E R S
>
то
THE REV. JOHN HAWKINS.
.
L E T T E R I.
Of the Obječt and Spirit of Mr. Hawkins's Addreſs.
REVEREND SIR,
YOU have, in the courſe of your Expoſtulatory
Addreſs to me, ſo frequently, and in ſuch
varied phraſe, expreſſed your ſurprize and aſtoniſh-
ment at my ſentiments and conduct, that, without
being guilty of plagiariſm, I cannot tell how to
expreſs what I think of yours. Perhaps you were
aware of this, and thought to eſcape by this means.
There is not, in fact, however, any proper cauſe of
wonder, either with reſpect to my conduct, or yours;
and both may be very well accounted for, without
any extraordinary knowledge of human nature. I
ſhall only mention one occaſion of ſurprize to me
at the time, though it is not at all ſo at preſent.
This was that, notwithſtanding our frequent inter-
I 4
views,
I 20
LETTERS TO THE
!
views, and occaſional correſpondence, in which each
of us advanced, without the leaſt apparent conſtraint,
whatever occurred to us, and in which this contro-
verſy, and the buſineſs of ſubſcription, were ſometimes
mentioned, you never expreſſed the leaſt diſappro-
bation of my conduct, nor had I any ſuſpicion of
it till this printed expoſtulation was announced to me.
(C
You ſay, p. 2, that your “ private ſentiments of
« me are thoſe of friendſhip and reſpect.” Mine
to you were the fame, with the addition of the moſt
undiſguiſed frankneſs. Why then not hint to me,
what you now publicly declare, that “ my opinions
“ were dangerous,” that my manner of propagat-
ing them “tended to introduce confuſion and diſcord
“ into the community,” and that “ many of my
writings,” p. 52, “ have been the ſource of unhap-
pineſs and univerſal ſcepteciſm. For it is,” you
ſay, " an undoubted fact, that ſeveral ſerious chrif-
“ tians have been ſo far diſquieted by them, as to
“ loſe their inward peace, that others have been
“thrown upon the verge of infidelity, and that
“ thouſands of thoſe who already held all religion in
contempt, or totally neglected its duties, have
“ been greatly confirmed in their unbelief, or their
“ tepidity; being perſuaded, by theſe obſtinate
" altercations, that there was neither certainty in
religion, nor any real charity in thoſe who profeſs
“ to be guided by its influence, ſince they are thus
“ diſturbing ſociety for a few metaphyſical ſubtilties,
“in points which lie intirely beyond the reach of
“ human conception,” Why did not you tell me
then
REV. MR. HAWKINS
I 21
then (for it was the part of a friend) as you do now,
that I was “not acting a friendly; or a juſtifiable,
part with regard to ſociety.”
1
Inconſiſtently, however, with all this, you ſay,
p. 55, that "you are far from any deſign to caſt any
“ reflection upon the uprightneſs of my motive, or
“ the fincerity of my belief in revealed religion."
How then, Sir, in Foro Conſcientia, is my conduct
leſs juſtifiable than yours? If it be public diſputation
that does the miſchief, your guilt is manifeftly
greater than mine; as by this publication of yours
you are promoting the very thing that you condemn. .
On the contrary, I engage in this controverſy, and
urge it by every method in my power, becauſe I
believe it to be fubfervient to a great and public
good, viz. the overturning of error, and the eſta-
bliſhment of important truth. I rejoice to ſee this
faggot of yours thrown into that fire, which I hope
will not be extinguiſhed till it has effectually anſwer-
ed the end for which I have excited it, and I am
happy to think that it has already done this in a
great meaſure. It is not, I hope, the laſt faggot
that
you
will contribute.
Why did not you tell me during our frequent
intercourſe, as you do now, that I ought to have
written in Latin. Speaking of my publications in
this controverſy, you ought,” you ſay, p. 47,
"in my opinion to have publiſhed them in a form
“ and language to which the learned only could
“ have acceſs, and not in cheap Aying pamphlets,
< &c.
122
LETTERS TO THE
« &c.
Neither can I ſee any fufficient motives
“ for your publiſhing at all your opinions on matter,
" Spirit, and philoſophical neceſity, which, could they
« poſſibly be proved, are mere metaphyſical ſpecu-
lations, that cân anſwer no uſeful purpoſe, and yet
may in the mean time lead thouſands into error
« and perplexities.”
V
A
That any man liberally educated, profeſſing a
regard to truth, and the great buſineſs of enlighten-
ing the minds of all men, ſhould write in this
manner would have appeared extraordinary, if it had
not been ſufficiently of a piece with the reſt of your
pamphlet; though it is ſufficiently diſcordant with
your other publications, in defence of the Refor-
mation, in which you know that every attempt was
made to awaken the attention, and enlighten the
minds, of the moſt illiterate. In anſwer to what
you here' allege, it is ſufficient for me to ſay, as
Luther would have done, and as the apoſtles would
have done before him, that I write in order to be
underſtood, and that I wiſh to inſtruct the common
people in matters which appear to me moſt nearly to
concern them, and therefore I write in a language
which they underſtand. I alſo write for the inſtruc-
tion of the poor, and therefore I make many of my
publications as cheap as poſſible.
نامه
Befides, the Biſhop of St. David's will tell you,
that I am ſo far from being able to write in Latin,
that I cannot even read that language, ſo that
you are urging a man to run, who cannot walk,
or
ad
an
1
1
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
123
or even ſtand. However, I ſhall certainly affume
the right of judging for myſelf
, both with reſpect to
the ſubjects on which I write, and the language I
make uſe of. Your cenſure of my conduct in this
reſpect equally affects Mr. Locke, and the greateſt
men who ever lived. How then could you imagine
that your advice ſhould not be conſidered as im-
pertinent, and abſurd?
You ſay, p. 2, that you are “ far from ſtudying
" to make my expreſſions appear frightful,” as
many of my antagoniſts have done ; at the ſame
time that you have taken pains, p. 46, &c. to
collect from all my publications every thing that
you could bring together of the kind; and by
taking the paſſages out of their proper connexión,
and without contraſting them with any others of a
different nature (which, had you been ſo diſpoſed,
you might have found in abundance) you have done
every thing in your power to raiſe the indignation
of your readers againſt me; in fact, more than all
my other antagoniſts put together.
You muſt know, Sir, that the writings of no
perſon whatever, eſpecially of fo voluminous a writer
as myſelf, will bear to be treated in this manner.
The ſcriptures themſelves will not bear it. For
truths artfully placed together, will appear untruths;
and the moſt candid and benevolent man living may,
by the fame management, be exhibited as the moſt
uncandid and malignant.
Notwithſtanding
124
LETTERS TO THE
1
1
,
Notwithſtanding the friendſhip you exprefs for
me, it is evident from what you have written, that
you would rejoice in my death, as much as you did
in that of my friend Mr. Palmer, whoſe early
deceaſe I lamented, as being cut off in the beginning
of bis uſefulneſs, “ that is,” you ſay, p. 53, “whilſt
“ he was doing his utmoſt to unhinge the faith of
mankind, laying plans to prove that Chriſt was a
“ mere mortal like himſelf, and ſtudying to demon-
“ ſtrate the impoffibility of the truth of the chief
particulars in the hiſtory of his miraculouis con-
"ception. The hidden
The hidden ways of
of providence," you
add, “ are beyond the reach of man; and it were
preſumption to pry too curiouſly into the ſecret
“ deſigns of the Almighty. Yet it is highly pro-
pure chriſtianity in a very different light to what
“ Mr. Palmer did; may alſo have formed very
“ different conjectures upon his ſudden removal, and
“ be inclined to pay their grateful thanks to heaven,
“ for what they poſlībly may conceive to be a
peculiar inſtance of its watchfulneſs over the
“ intereſts of true religion.”
Now had I died twenty years ago, theſe remarks
you will; no doubt, think would have been rather
more applicable to myſelf. I would farther obſerve
that, whatever is the proper object of gratitude to
God after it is beſtowed, is always deemed to be
à proper ſubject of prayer while the event is depend-
ing. Since, therefore, you would be thankful to
God for my death, I muſt preſume that your ſenti-
ments
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
Į 25
ments and conduct are conſiſtent; and conſequently
that you pray for it. And what ſignify prayers, Sir,
without endeavours ? But, being of opinion, per-
haps, that I have already done all the miſchief that
I well can, you may think it not worth your while
to run any riſque in order to cut off the little of my
life that is left.
You ftyle your addreſs to me an Expoftulation,
being intended, I ſuppoſe, to diſſuade me from
purſuing this controverſy. But you may eaſily
perceive that your advice comes too late, and that
the buſineſs is nearly over. Such an addreſs as
yours, to have done any good, ſhould have been
preſented at the very outſet of the buſineſs, before
my meaſures were ſo decidedly taken, as you muſt
perceive they now are. In theſe circumſtances, if
you had meant to ſerve the cauſe that you have
efpoyſed, and not yourſelf only, you ſhould have
fairly entered into the argument, and have attempted
to refute what I am endeavouring to prove. Inſtead
of this, you content yourſelf with what is abundantly
eaſier, viz. giving your opinion, which muſt be con-
ſidered as very aſſuming, till your opinions ſhall
have acquired more weight with the learned. Time,
and long experience of a man's ability, knowledge,
and integrity, are requiſite to give credit to what
any man ſhould only confidently affert, without
condeſcending to give any reaſons for his aſſertions.
And yeț this is all you have done with reſpect to the
proper ſubject of this controverſy.
What
1 26
LETTERS TO THE
What I have profeffèd to maintain is, that the
primitive chriſtian church was Unitarian; and for this
I have given my reaſons,' much at large. But inſtead
of examining any of thoſe reaſons, we find nothing
but your own ipſe dixit. “I fatter myſelf,” you
ſay, p. 1, “ that it poſſibly may be of ſome little
“ ſervice, as well to the general cauſe of religion,
" as to the quiet of thoſe individuals who, from the
"extraordinary clamour that has been raiſed againſt
“ the tenet, which has hitherto been held with aſtoniſhing
"unanimity by the great body of chriſtians in every age
“ and nation, have been led to apprehend that the
“ whole fyſtem of revealed religion is built upon
« fome unſtable foundation, upon ſome prejudicated
“notions, of which the fallacy is likely to be foon
« demonſtrated.”
>
mm
Now, Sir, they muſt be very ſtrange people, and
hardly worth giving ſatisfaction' to, who could
imagine that the whole of revealed religion is in
danger by eſtabliſhing the doctrine of one God, and
the divine miſſion of Chriſt from this one God, to
teach the doctrines of the reſurrection and of future
judgment. This is the syſtem of revealed religion ;
and how is this in danger of being overturned by
my endeavours to prove that this meſſenger from
God to man was a man? Will it be ſuſpected that
Moſes, another meſſenger from God to man, was
an impoſtor, becauſe he was nothing more than
· a man? If you have no doubt of my being a
ſincere believer in revealed religion, why ſhould
you entertain any ſuſpicion with reſpect to thoſe
who
REV. MR. HAWKINS,
127
who may be influenced by my writings. I hall
hardly make any of my readers worſe than myſelf.
But, in any event, why ſhould I, or the public, take
your mere word for the ſtate of opinions in early
times. You muſt think highly of yourſelf indeed
to imagine this.
SC
You fay again, p. 48, ſpeaking of the doctrine
of the trinity, “ I am ſatisfied that it has been the
general ſentiment of all chriſtians for ſeventeen
“ hundred years. For whereas you have aſſerted
" that, during the four firſt centuries, either the
majority, or the multitude, believed the ſimple
humanity of Chriſt, and were really Socinians, I
“ am convinced that, from the very time that the
apoftolic miſſion was completed, even to the
preſent day (if we except a few turbulent years in
“ the days of Arius) the grand majority of ſuch
“ chriſtians, who can properly be ſaid to have had
any opinion at all, believed, in ſome ſenſe or other,
" in the divinity of Chriſt,”
From reading this, a ſtranger would naturally
conclude that I had done nothing more than you
have done in this buſineſs, viz. that I had contented
myſelf with aſerting that the majority of chriſtians
in early times. were Unitarians; whereas I have
written a large work to prove it; and my proofs are
not to be anſwered by your confident aſſertions.
It will be taken for granted that, as you have
thought proper, for ſome reaſon or other, to take a
part
1
.
128
LETTERS TO THE
part in this buſineſs, and have taken fo much pains
to explain the nature of the trinity, if you could
have done any thing with reſpect to the proper
hinge of this controverſy, by ſhewing from clear
hiſtorical evidence, that the primitive church was
ſtrictly Trinitarian, you would have done it. For
admitting all that you have contended for, viz. that
the doctrine of the trinity is credible in itſelf, and
that the articles of the church of England are ſuch
as an honeſt man may ſubſcribe, it amounts to
nothing, unleſs you can prove them to be true.
You repeat, indeed, fome hackneyed arguments
from the ſcriptures; but you know that I conſider
all arguments of that kind as fufficiently exhauſted
on both ſides, and therefore have choſen'a new field
'of argument. It is curious enough that you ſhould
make fuch a paradë of meeting me, and yet carefully
avoid every place where I profeſs to coine. How-
ever, as you'will not come upon' my ground, I will
as far as is conſiſtent with my plán, meet you on
your own.
1
܀ |
::
I am, &c.
mos
LETTER
RE:V. MR. HAWKINS.
129
L E T T E R II.
Of Inconſiſtencies in Mr. Hawkins's Ideas of the
Nature of Subſcription.
+
REVEREND SIR,
AS
S a great part of your letter to me, as well as
of that to Mr. Berington, is employed on the
ſubject of ſubſcription, on which I have addreſſed
the candidates for orders in the two univerſities, I
ſhall, for their fakes, conſider what you have ad-
vanced with reſpect to it.
Having quitted the church of Rome becauſe
you
could not approve of her tenets, or her diſcipline,
I do not wonder that you heſitated, as you ſay you
did *, before you could ſubſcribe the articles of the
church of England. For if, as you very juſtly
obfervet, "they, and they alone can conſcientiouſly
fubfcribe, who can truly and honeſtly affent to
" the articles, in a fair and literal interpretation of
“the terms," it muſt be exceedingly difficult to a
perſon who coolly conſiders the great number of
diſtinct propoſitions, an affent to which the ſub-
fcription of the articles requires, to give an unfeignied
(C
* Defence, p. so.
+ Addreſs, p. 38.
K
affent
:
130
LETTERS TO THE
aſſent to them all, conſiſtently with the principles on
which you diſfented from the church of Rome;
eſpecially as you condemn the conduct of the Dif-
ſenters from the church of England, and conſider
Jchiſm* as “a ſin of the deepeſt dye;” ſo that you
tell
your
friend “ it concerns both you and us, as
“we value our ſalvation, to dread the imputation
“ of it.” It is, indeed, ſteering between Scylla and
Charybdis; ,and I fear you, Sir, have not eſcaped a
rude ſhock in the paſſage.
There are, I think, evident traces of a bias upon
your mind, which may have had more influence
than you are diſtinctly aware of, in the preference
you have given to the church of England; even
ſuppoſing a view to the emoluments of it to have been
wholly out of the queſtion. You ſayt, that you
had “ a wiſh to adhere to an epiſcopal church;"
and that after your fufpence about ſubſcription, you
were determined by “a perſon of literary and re-
ligious eminence;" a member, I preſume, of the
church of England, becauſe your deciſion was in
favour of it. But had your mind been really un-
biaffed, you would have conſulted with perſons out
of the church as well as thoſe within it; and you
might have found perſons of literary and religious
eminence among them. To conſult with none but
thoſe of whofe opinion we are well apprized, and to
decide according to their opinion, is generally con-
* Defence, p. 72.
+ Defence, p. 211.
fidered
1
REV.
131
MR. HAWKINS.
unwavering aflent of your mind, may, I think, be
fidered as a proof that the choice preceded the conſul-
tation; and you ſhould have avoided the fuſpicion
of this.
That the ſtep was not taken with the full and
inferred from your occaſionally throwing out ſuch
generous ſentiments as are inconſiſtent with your
fubfcription; as when you ſay *, “ the pale of the
“ church ſhould not be narrower than the apoſtles
“ left it;" and't that “the eunuch and jailor made
<< a ſufficient profeſſion of their faith.” For certainly
this was a very fcanty faith' compared with that in
all the articles of the church of England. Many
could ſubſcribe the former, who would be excluded
from communion by the latter. This narrowneſs,
therefore, you muſt diſapprove.
1
Your plan of a truly catholic Siſtem of religion, I
greatly approve, but it is a plan very different
indeed from that of the church of England. “How
" eaſily,” you ſay I, "might a truly catholic ſyſtem
" of religion be drawn up among chriſtians. Their
e canon of ſcripture ſhould contain thofe books
only which all agree to have been never doubted
of by any conſiderable part of the chriſtian
• church. Their form of worſhip ſhould be ſuch
was all allowed to be lawful, though all might
perhaps not think it adviſable to adopt; their
« creed to contain ſuch articles as all acknowledge
TC
!
* Defence, p. 55.
I Defence, p. 83.
t Defence, p. 58.
K 2
(6 to
132
LETTERS TO THE
“ to be revealed, expreſſed in fcriptural terms only,
“ and whatever regarded diſcipline only to be regu-
“lated by each national church, as circumſtances
"might direct. Beyond the plain declarations of
"? fcripture every thing ſhould be conſidered as
““ matter of opinion only, and no conſequences of
opinion ſhould be charged on any which they
“poſitively diſown. This,” you add, “ with a
“ ſincere love of truth, and a mutual performance
of fuch duties of charity as all chriſtians owe to
" each other, would unite them all in one com-
“munion, and one ſociety; and a variation of
“ diſcipline would then be no more a matter of
diſpute than a variation in language or in climate.
« With hand and heart I ſhall ever be happy to pro-
“ mote ſo deſirable a coalition.”
66
Then, Sir, with hand and heart
you
will
promote
a great change in the church of England. For
ſubſtituting particular congregations, for nations, and
your plan is the utmoſt extent of
my wiſhes.
wiſhes. But
are you promoting ſuch a plan as this by giving
your aſſent and conſent to the creed, and forms, of a
church which is the very reverſe of what you
have
ſo beautifully deſcribed ? Your creed certainly con-
tains many more articles than are clearly revealed,
and they are not expreſſed in fcriptural terms. And
if a mere variation of diſcipline appear to you to be
fo
very inconſiderable a thing, how can the ſin of
fchifm be ſo great as you have repreſented it, when
you make a man's falvation to depend upon it?
And how can you juſtify ſuch an interference of
civil
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
133
civil power in the ſupport of religion as the church
of England has recourſe to? To become a mem-
ber of the church of England, with ſuch ideas as
you here expreſs of a much better church, is,
in effect, ſaying with Medea in Ovid, Video meliora
proboque, deteriora ſequor.
Nay though, in this paſſage, you diſcover a pre-
dilection for national churches, you do not ſeem to
be fully determined on the ſubject. For you ſay*,
“How far it may be proper that Diflenters ſhould
« contribute to the maintenance of the eſtabliſhed
“clergy, I am not ſufficiently clear.” . And if ſo,
you cannot be ſufficiently clear that there ſhould be
any national, or eſtabliſhed, church at all. For if the
clergy were only paid by the members of the eſta-
bliſhment, or thoſe who attend upon their miniſtry,
and not by the nation at large, their mode of worſhip
would no more be eſtabliſhed than that of the Dif-
ſenters, whoſe miniſters are alſo paid by thoſe who
attend upon theme. However, as you profeſs to
have ſcruples on this ſubject, and the apoſtle Paul
ſays, he that doubteth is damned if he eat, I take it
for granted that you will decline taking the tithes of
your diffenting pariſhioners.
When I read the paragraphs above recited, and
find
you
tell
your friend t; that “the neceſſity of an
unerring guide is of our own creating" (thinking,
I ſuppoſe, that the ſcriptures are ſufficient, and all
C
* Defence, p. 98.
t Defence, p. 130.
K 3
human
134
3
LETTERS TO THE
human creeds unneceffary). I conclude that when
you wrote them you were not far from being a
Diffenter. And though you had conformed, you had
not at that time any emolument in the church. I
doubt not, therefore, but that you wrote from your
real feelings; and though, after much ſuſpenſe, your
predilection for an epiſcopal church (that is, for a
church in which there were biſhops, and in which
a. man might be a biſhop, which I ſincerely with you
may be) and the arguments of your epiſcopal friend
(who has fince, I underſtand, given you ſome pre-
ferment, and is ſaid to have promiſed you more)
determined you in favour of the church of England,
the traces of your former more liberal ſentiments
were never effaced; and on this principle I account
for the inconfiftencies which appear in your writings
on the ſubject.
Alſo, writing as you do from your real im-
preſſions at the time, and thoſe having been various,
you have left traces of other principles of ſub-
fcription beſides that on which you placed it above,
viz. “ the literal meaning of the words that you
“ fubſcribe.” You ſay, indeed *, "To the doctrines
we affent for the ſake of truth, and to the terms
“ in which mankind have long agreed for the ſake
“ of peace.” But in other places a regard to peace
ſeems to have carried you farther than this. You
fay t, that the articles of the church of England are
not fo much articles of faith, as articles of church
* Addreſs, p. s.
+ Addreſs, p. 36.
comniunion;
•
REV, MR. HAWKINS,
135
CA
communion; and * " to the laity. they are articles of
peace [and doctrine] and that the belief of theſe
"articles are not fo neceffary as to exclude from. a
“ federal right to church communion, fuch as do
« not think them all conformable to revelation.".
Here I cannot help thinking the words and doctrine,
which I have incloſed in brackets, to be an inter-
polation; for if the articles are not to be believed,
how are they articles of doetrire. I dare ſay they
were not in the original compofition, with which
they are fo diſcordant, but were added afterwards,
without conſidering how they would accord with
the reſt of the ſentence.
Now if the laity may be members of your church,
though they ſhould not believe all its articles, may
not the clergy be admitted on the fame terms?
The lay members are, no doubt, ſuppoſed to join
in every part of your public ſervice, and particularly
in the recital of your creeds; and as you pronounce
the everlaſting damnation of all who do not believe
every article of the moft rigid of them, you ſurely
cannot think them proper ſubjects of church com-
munion? What fellowſhip bas light with darkneſs ?
You will, at leaſt, make it an unpleaſant ſervice
to them, if not to yourſelves.
I ſhould alſo wiſh to be informed of the meaning
of the phraſe articles of peace, of which you have not
given any explanation. I can imagine no other
* Defence, p. 47.
KA
than
136
LETTERS TO THE
or ſuch
peace, nor becauſe they exhibit upon the whole a
than that they are fuch' articles as a man may chuſe
to ſubſcribe rather than quarrel with other perſons,
or with ſuch things as are not to be obtained without
ſubſcription, whether he believe them or not. For
if he really believed them, they would certainly be
intitled to the appeHation of articles of faith. On the
whole, therefore, I ſuſpect that there was a time when
you conſidered them merely as articles of peace, to
becauſe you could not have better terms, you choſe
to ſubſcribe rather than quarrel with the eſtabliſhed
church, and the appendagés of it.
Though you ſay, as above *, that is the articles
are not to be ſubſcribed merely as far as you
think them fcriptural, nor inerely as 'articles of
“ better ſyſtem of religion than is found in any other
fociety; but muſt be able fairly to declare your
« belief of the ſeveral points which they contain,
" in the very words in which they are offered to
our acceptance;" I think I can perceive in another
paſſage of your Defence of the Reformation, that you
once thought otherwiſe. For you ſayt, " I fall
“cortinue in the church till I diſcover a better,
“one that maintains a more equal medium between
“ fanaticiſm, fuperftition, and indifference, where
k the doctrines are more conformable to revelation,
" and the diſcipline to reaſon; where fewer defects
are found, and the free and liberal mind has a
(
* Addreſs, p 42.
+ Defence, p. 210.
« fairer
0
REV. MR. HAWKINS,
137
« fairer field to range in. In ſome points, you
add, “ relative to morality and religion, both you
" and I ſubmit, although we do not pretend to
“ aſſert that they are perfectly free from all ob-
“ fcurity. A man is ſometimes called upon to act,
“though partly in the ſhade. Complete evidence
on each occurrence, or abſolute perfection in the
“ object of his choice, are ſeldom within his reach.
“ If he ſees enough to guide him, to that which
“ ſeems beſt, he may, often muſt, proceed; and it
« will be a ridiculous excuſe for a man to remain
“ irreſolute and inactive, that poſſibly there might
“exiſt a more perfect plan of action than that which
- he had adopted.”
This, Sir, is cautiouſly expreſſed, and more ſeems
to have been meant than directly meets the ear. It
is eaſy to perceive the real ſtate of mind under which
you wrote this paragraph, and that
paragraph, and that you have not
fully expreſſed your real feelings. If you
If you had ſub-
ſcribed ex animo to the plain ſenſe of what was
propoſed to you, why make this intricate apology,
which, after all, does not apply to the caſe. You
were aware, I doubt not, of the great difficulty of
reconciling many of the articles to reaſon and the
ſcriptures; but you were willing to think that in
any other eſtabliſhed church (and among theſe alone
your choice lay) you would find more objections of
the ſame kind, and therefore you made the beſt
you could of theſe. You would have expreſſed
yourſelf more intelligibly, if you had ſaid in fewer
words,
138
LETTERS TO THE
lese
words, Of two levils I choſe the leaft. In any
os eſtabliſhed church (and in fome one of them I was
" determined to abide) I muſt have done more or
" that in the church of England which made her
« communion more eafy to me than that of the
6 church of Rome."
(6
r
4
is
60
That your mind has been much harraffed about
this buſineſs of ſubſcription, and that you have ſtrug-
gled hard to reconcile yourſelf to it, is evident from
another moſt glaring inconſiſtency in your language
on the ſubject. You fay*, that the articles are
not to be ſubſcribed as far as we think them
ſcriptural,” which you ſay, “would be trifling
“ with common fénſe and honeſty.” And yet you
fayt, « It ſhould fatisfy the ſcruples of the moſt
« timorous conſcience, that our church has declared
e that nothing is to be required of any man which
“ cannot be proved from the written law; and
a conſequently whatever ideas, or explanatory com-
ments, any particular perſon affixes to ſome of
" its declarations or expreſſions, yet if this ſenſe is
« either inconſiſtent with other parts of its articles
“ or creeds; or is plainly contradictory to fcripture,
" or obviouſly claſhes with the evidences of natural
" reaſon, he may be confident that this is not the
« fenfe in which either his affent or ſubſcription is
e deſired."
93
* Addreſs, p. 42u
# Defence, p. 58.
Now
meleon
REV. MK. HAWKINS.
139
Now you could not, Sir, in plainer terms than
thefe bave faid the very reverſe of what you ad-
vanced before. For it is ſaying that the articles
are to be fubfcribed as far as we think them ſcrip-
tural, and in no other ſénſe whatever. On: this
principle I myſelf am fully authorized by you to
fubſcribe the articles of the church of England.
For thinking them to be plainly contradictory to
fcripture, and alſo obviouſly clafhing with the evi-
dences of natural reaſon, I may be confident that
whatever I find in them contrary to the Unitarian
doctrine, is not the ſenſe in which my aſſent or
fubſcription was required. Any other perſon alſo,
let his real opinions, and conſequently his idea of
the meaning of ſcripture, be, what they will, may
think himſelf authorized to ſubſcribe the ſame
articles; becauſe he muſt judge for himſelf what
he thinks to be agreeable to the ſcriptures, and
whatever is, agreeable to them muſt be preſumed, as
you ſay, to be agreeable to the true ſenſe of the
articles.
>
Which now, Sir, of theſe two contradictory
principles of ſubſcription muſt we conclude to be
yours? I cannot help ſuſpecting that your ideas of
this ſubject have changed, that you ſubfcribed on one
principle, and now defend your ſubſcription on ano-
ther; and yet the change muft have been very quick,
ſince both theſe publications are the productions of
the ſame year. However, as your Defence of the
Reformation was printed before your Addreſs to me,
and
140
LETTERS TO THE
and it is in the former of theſe that you defend ſub-
ſcription on the idea of the articles containing
nothing contrary to the ſcriptures, I conclude that
at the time of ſubſcribing you thought that you
had
occaſion for that ſalvo; but that afterwards you
thought you could make a better defence on the
other principle, viz. that of the latitude of interpre-
tation, which I ſhall conſider more particularly in
the next letter; and in ſhort, that you were no real
believer of the articles either when you wrote the
Defence, or the Addreſs.
I am, &c
1
1
!
L E T T E R
III.
Of a Latitude in the Interpretation of the Articles of
the Church of England, and of the Scriptures being
à Commentary on the Articles.
I
REVEREND SIR,
THOUGH you plead for ſubſcribing according
to the literal ſenſe of the words, you plead for
latitude of interpretation, which, in the light in
which you conſider it, appears to me to be fully
equivalent to any other mode of ſubſcription, and to
leave you as much at liberty to think for yourſelves.
This
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
14.1
:
This latitude of interpretation you fay*, “ the
“ legiſlature deſignedly left us.” But where is the
evidence of this? It does not appear in any act of
the legiſlature, or in any writings of the age, nor
does it'appear to have been thought of, till it was
ſuggeſted by Biſhop Burnet; who being an Arminian
took great pains to ſhew that a perſon who was no
Calviniſt might ſubſcribe your ſeventeenth article,
but which all who are Calviniſts ſay moft clearly
expreſſes their own opinions, and no other.
If theſe articles were drawn-up, as the compilers
ſay, “to prevent diverſity of opinion,” they would
never have expreſſed themſelves in ſuch a looſe
manner as equally to admit perfons who thought
fo differently from each other; and who were ſo
violently hoftile to each other, as the Calviniſts and
Arminians of that age were? The compilers of
theſe articles, like all other writers, intended, no
doubt, to expreſs their own ideas as clearly as they
could; and no more thought of admitting into a
church, which they wiſhed to guard by this ſub-
fcription, thoſe who held opinions different from
their own, on the pretence of a latitude of interpre-
tation, than by ſubſcribing them as articles of peace,
or in any other way that does not imply a belief of
them at all. This latitude of interpretation I can-
not help conſidering as a very dangerous thing,
opening a door to the moſt ſophiſtical perverſion of
language, and the moſt ſhameful prevarication.
* Addreſs, p. 42.
IS
142
LETTERS TO THE
1
Is there not as much eviderice of the ſcriptures
admitting this latitude of interpretation, as the
thirty-nine articles; and if the uſe of it be to make
Toom for diverſity of opinion, I do not ſee why the
latitude of interpreting Scripture might not have
anſwered this purpoſe, as well as the latitude of
interpreting the articles; and therefore the com-
pilers of theſe articles, if they had the ideas that you
aſcribe to them, might have ſaved themſelves all
their trouble, and have required a ſubſcription to
the ſcriptures only. In reality, by this latitude of
interpretation you yourſelf moſt evidently contradict
the text, when you ſay*, that “they are not Calvi-
“ niſtical.” For if they do not expreſs the ideas
of Calvin with reſpect to the doctrines of grace,
original fin, and predeſtination, it it is not eaſy to ſay
where genuine Calviniſm is to be found.
I am ſtill more ſurprized that you ſhould ſay +,
that "the belief of the more moderate Socinians,
“ when reduced to its moſt ſimple, as well as moſt
“ décent expreſſion, and that of the church of
England, as ſet forth in a general meeting of her
“ divines at Oxford in the year 1695; differ much
« leſs from each other than is uſually preſumed.”
This, Sir, leads me to think that your own real
ſentiments are not very different from what you
would call moderate Socinianiſm. But by what ſtrange
latitude of interpretation muſt it be, by means of
which Calviniſts, Arminians, and Socinians, might
* Addreſs, p. 39.
+ Addreſs, p. 4.
all
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
143
all ſubſcribe the ſame articles, drawn up with ſuch
ſtudied preciſion, purpoſely to exclude diverfity of
opinion ? The compilers muſt have been very
unfortunate in expreſſing their own opinions, if they
had any at all.
You moſt ſtrangely fay*, that “the compilers
“s of the articles refer to the ſcriptures for a more
particular comment.” On the contrary, nothing
can be more evident than that the articles were
intended to be a comment on the, fcriptures, that is,
to declare in what ſenſe the ſcriptures are to be
underſtood. And as the commentary is always more
full and explicit than the text, and is written
after the text, in order to ſupply its deficiencies; if
the ſcriptures themſelves had been thought ſuf-
ficiently full and explicit, the compilers of the articles
would doubtleſs have ſaved themſelves the trouble
of making their text. The articles themſelves de-
clare that they give the fenfe of the ſcriptures; in
other words, that they are a comment upon them,
and the compilers never refer to the ſcriptures for a
fuller or clearer account of what they have ex-
preſſed in a more conciſe and leſs intelligible manner.
Indeed, Sir, nothing can be more abfurd than
your idea of the articles being the text, and the
fcriptures being the comment; and your willingneſs
to have the articles conſidered in this light is open-
ing another door to ſubſcription which the com-
Addreſs, p. 39.
pilers
144
LETTERS TO THE
pilers themſelves evidently meant to fhut, but with-
out which you, Sir, could not have ſo conveniently
entered. On the whole, I conclude that you' firſt
fubfcribed theſe articles as articles of peace; the
meaning of which it is not eaſy to underſtand, ex-
cept negatively, that they are not articles of faith, or
things to be believed; but reflecting afterwards that
this idea would not ſo well bear a public diſcuſſioni,
you choſe another ground of defence, that of the
literal ſenſe with a latitude of interpretation. Indeed,
it is too common a thing for men to act from one
principle, and then to vindicate their conduct on
another.
so
That you have been unwilling to conſider the
articles of the church of England as neceſſary to be
bona fide believed by all the ſubſcribing members, is
farther evident from your ſaying *, that "though
they were enjoined, as the title prefixed to them
imports, to prevent diverfity of opinions, and to
" eſtablish conſent touching true religion, this is
chiefly to be underſtood with reference to exterior
government and difcipline. The legiſlature riever
« deſigned that all men ſhould explain them exactly
« alike, and therefore purpoſely expreſſed them
“ with a degree of generality and latitude which
"might anſwer every end of peace and good order
" in ſociety, over which it was appointed to rule
" and govern; at the ſame time that it was un-
" willing to tie down every member of its miniſtry
gradina
* Addreſs, p. 38.
(6 to
1
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
145
"to the ſame preciſe comments upon its doctrines;
“ which, conſidering the variety of our habits,
apprehenſions, ſtudies, and education, perhaps no
« ten men in the kingdom could be ſuppoſed to
“ underſtand preciſely in the ſame identical accép-
• tation.". Now that no ten men think exactly
alike on all the ſubjects of theſe articles is very
probable; and therefore I think that there may not
be ten men in the kingdom who, after due con-
ſideration, can bona fide ſubſcribe them; but it will
be eaſy to find hundreds who ſhall have the ſame
idea of their meaning.
That the legiſlature for the time being had any
idea of their language being differently explained,
ſo as to admit that latittidė tof interpretation which
you want, and for which you contend; and eſpecially
that they had any idea of a greater låtitude of inter-
preting the articles of doctrine, than thoſe of diſcipline,
is a mere chimera of your own, 'unſupported by any
evidence, or probability: Of the two, more ſtreſs
is evidently laid; as it ought to bë, on matters of
doĉtrine, than on thoſe of diſcipline; and for anything
that appears, the latitude of interprétation was de
ſigned to be the ſame with reſpe&E to both; that is,
none at all. They were; no doubt, meant to be
believed and conformed to; as the plain ſenſe of their
words imports. This, indeed, you do not, in fact,
deny; if, as you ſay, “ all are excluded from your
“church who are excepted by the very letter of
“ the articles;” and theſe articles are ſo many, ſo
complex, and ſo definitely expreſied, that your
L
latitude
146
r
LETTERS TO THE
latitude of interpretation, if it be not ſophiſtical and
evaſive, will amount to nothing.
S
Farther, you fay*, “Mr. Paley has thrown ſome
light upon this much controverted ſubject; that
you have conſidered his arguments at leiſure, and
" that they have ſtrengthened you in your opinion,
that, in the preſent ſtate of ſociety, ſome eſtabliſh-
"ment or other is abſolutely requiſite." I may
therefore fairly preſume that at one time you ap-
proved of the principle on which he defends ſub-
fcription; and it is well known that he does not
think that a belief of all the articles, in their literal
ſenſe, even with a latitude of interpretation, is neceſ-
fary. And for this he is juſtly reprehended by Mr.
Giſbornet:
This variety, and inconſiſtency, in your ideas of
ſubſcription, ſhew that you have Auctuated very
* Defence, p. 46.
;
f" The opinion' which Mr. Paley maintains," he ſays, p. 128,
appears to me not only unſupported by argument, but likely to be
“ productive of confequences highly pernicious."Z" That ſubſcription
may be juſtified without an actual belief of each of the articles, as I
underſtand Mr. Paley to intimate, is a gratuitous aſſumption. On
" this point let the articles ſpeak for themſelves. Why is an article
“ continued in its place, if it be not ineant to be believed. If one may
“ be ſigned without being believed, why may not all? By what cri-
“ terion are we to diſtinguiſh thoſe which may be ſubſcribed by a
* perſon who thinks them falſe, from thoſe which may not? Is not
“ the preſent mode of ſubſcription virtually the ſame as if each article
were ſeparately offered to the ſubſcriber? And in that caſe could any
man be juſtified in ſubſcribing one which he diſbelieved ?"
“ No circumſtance," he adds, “ could have a more direct tendency
“ to enſnare the conſciences of the clergy; no circumſtance could afford
" the
•
REV. MR. HAWKIN S.
147
much in your views of it; and I can truly feel for
the anxiety you muſt have ſuffered on this account.
And as the ſame views will probably occur again at
different times, you will be ſubject to the fame un-
eaſineſs again and again, while your power of re-
flection continues. I therefore think that, with your
ſenſibility of mind, you would have choſen a much
if you had not ſubſcribed at all, and have
facrificed all the boaſted, but imaginary, advantages
of an eſtabliſhment, for that liberty, and peace of mind,
which is enjoyed by us Diſfenters; who are not bound
by any ſubſcriptions, but who are at liberty to follow
evidence wherever it leads us, and who can change
our opinions as often as we fee cauſe fo to do.
wiſer part,
o. It
I ſhall cloſe theſe remarks with ſome pertinent,
though you, Sir, will think them ſevere, obfervations,
of Mr. Clarke on your idea of ſubſcription to the
articles in their literal and grammatical acceptation,
but with a latitude in the interpretation of them.
“ is in fact,” he ſays, p. 114, “ as much as to ſay,
“ That he muſt believe the words as they ſtand in
« their literal and grammatical acceptation, but he
“may, by a mental reſervation, fave himſelf from
ſubſcribing to the common and general meaning
.
the enemies of the eſtabliſhed church a more advantageous occaſion of
“ charging her miniſters with inſincerity, than the admiffion of the
“ opinion, that the articles may ſafely be ſubſcribed without a con-
« viction of their truth, taken ſeverally, as well as collectively. That
“ opinion I have ſeen maintained in publications of inferior note, but
“ I could not, without particular ſurprize and concern, behold it
« avowed by a writer of ſuch authority as Mr. Paley."
L 2
r of
1
148
LETTERS TO THE
“ of thoſe words; or more briefly, that he muſt
« believe the words exactly as they ſtand, but he
“ need not believe what is the obvious meaning of
<< them.”
>)
1
.
On this, and on your laboured explanations of
the doctrine of the trinity, he goes on to ſay, “By
« this the reader will ſee how true it is that wiſe
“ men can reaſon themſelves out of their under-
ſtandings, and how, by a ſort of metaphyſical
legerdemain, that which in the nature of things
" is impoſible, becomes in a moment not only
poffible, but ſo plain and familiar to our appre-
“ henſions, that it is matter of wonder that all
the world does not ſee its abſolute beauty and
conſiſtency.”
sc
1
I am, &c.
)
LETTER
i
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
149
:
LET TER IV.
Of the State of Things among the Diſſenters, and the
Difference between the Churches of Rome and Eng-
land.
1
any of
REVEREND SIR,
HAD you conſulted with
of us Diſſenters, as
you did with a perſon of eminence in the eſta-
bliſhment, you would have been better informed
than you have been about the ſtate of things among
us, and could never have ſaid, as you do *, that
<< the Diſſenters themſelves in this country, who ſo
“ much object to ſeveral of the ceremonies which
“our church has either appointed, or retained from
“ ancient times, preſcribe the poſture of ſitting in
" the celebration of the euchariſt, and the joining
“ of hands in that of matrimony, with ſeveral
“ other obſervances and rites, which have no foun-
“dation in ſcripture, and which are as eſſential to
“their religion, as any thing that we obſerve is to
« ours.'
'
Now, Sir, no part of all this is true. In one of
our meetings, where I attended ſix years, a very
* Defence, f. 96.
L3
conſcientious
1
150
LETTERS TO THE
conſcientious woman always choſe to receive the
Lord's fupper kneeling, and it gave no offence to
any body; and were we at liberty to celebrate mar-
riage, I am confident we ſhould not in general, if
at all, adopt the ceremony of joining hands. As to
the ſeveral other obſervances and rites, which you
do not mention, I can fay nothing about them,
but I know of none to which your objection can
apply.
Your other objections to our ſituation are equally
void of foundation. “ Among the Diſſenters of
“our own country,” you ſay *, “ the want of ſome
legal proviſion for the clergy, as well as of ſome
“ kind of teſt, ſeems to be attended with a variety
“ of inconveniences. I have been credibly in-
“ formed that notwithſtanding they ſeem ſo free
“ from every ſpecies of controul, yet orthodoxy is
" as much talked of in the ſeveral ſubdiviſions of
“ their ſociety as it is among the divines of the
“ national church, and that even the moſt illiterate
“perfon, cf either ſex, who contributes his half-
crown to the maintenance of the miniſter, thinks
“himſelf intitled to make inquiry into the ſoundneſs
“ of the doctrines which he teaches. A few indi-
“ viduals, indeed, of that denomination refuſe to be
“ under any kind of reſtraint in this reſpect, and in
purſuit of what they deem the truth, are little
« ſolicitous even about thoſe opinions which have
** Defence, p. 46.
rs in
.
REV. MR.
HAWKINS.
151
“ in every age been eſteemed moſt ſacred by the
“ general voice of mankind. But theſe I have
“ alſo found to be greatly blamed by the diſſent-
ing ſociety at large, however juſtifiable they
may appear in the eyes of their own peculiar
« flock."
C6
Now, Sir, what is this but a picture of the ſtate
of chriſtianity for the three firſt centuries; and to
ridicule or cenſure this, is to cenſure the conduct of
Divine Providence, which ordained that chriſtianity
ſhould extend itſelf, and triumph over heatheniſm, in
thoſe
very
circumſtances, and without the aid of civil
power, which is neceſſary to form ſuch an eſta-
blifhment as you admire. This civil power, the
boaſted ally of your church, has indeed done ſome-
thing for the clergy, by rendering them independent
of their congregations; but it has done nothing for
the church, beſides corrupting and enſlaving it.
And what does your boaſted independence on your
congregations but leſſen the motives for that regu-
larity of conduct which is the greateſt ornament of
the clerical character, and on which alone you
ought to depend for your recommendation. No
man, I may fay, has ſuffered more from the cir-
cumſtance of being dependent on a congregation
(though at preſent no perſon feels it leſs) than I
myſelf have done; and no doubt there is a real
inconvenience attending it. But I am ſatisfied that,
upon the whole, it is a ſituation infinitely better
than a ſtate of independence; and a man whoſe
conduct
whácarase
I A
152
LETTERS TO THE
conduct is ſuch as will approve itſelf to the rea-
ſonable
part
of mankind would diſdain the advantage
which a ſtate of independence would give him.
Whatever is given to the clergy by the civil power
is firſt taken from the people, who by this means
are deprived of the miniſter of their own choice,
and have nothing to do in proportioning his falary
to his ſervices; privileges which you cannot deny
that the chriſtian laity were pofſeffed of even till long
after the acceſſion of Conítantine. In fact, the
civil eſtabliſhment of chriſtianity has been nothing
but the ſubjugation of the laity to the power of the
prieſts, from which it is hoped that in time they
will have the good ſenſe and the ſpirit to emanci-
pate themſelves,
We Diſfenters are not countenanced by civil
power: We have no ſupport from the ſtate. But
neither had the apoſtles, nor the chriſtian clergy for
| more than three hundred years; and with this apof-
tolical and primitive condition we are content. The
countenance of civil power has evidently this inau-
ſpicious circumſtance, that it lays an undue bias
upon the mind, a bias from which your own mind,
Sir, is evidently not exempt. Your ſituation may
be more reputable in the eyes of a vain world, and
it is certainly more lucrative than ours; but we
do not look for that honour which comes from men,
and our reward is independent of acts of parliament.
With
REV. MR153
MR. .
HAWKINS.
With reſpect to the two churches of Rome and
England you juſtly obſerve *,
“ The whole diſpute
“ relative to our ſeparation from the Roman church
« muſt then be reduced to this ſimple queſtion:
“ Which of the two churches had truth on its ſide,
“ and taught the genuine doctrines of chriſtianity.
“ All other objections againſt our ſeparation are
illuſions, and this is the only point to be deter-
« mined.”
On this principle, Sir, if we find errors in your
creed, we are juſtified in our diſſent from your
church, as much as you are in diſſenting from the
church of Rome; and by this we are willing to
abide. You write exactly like a Diffenter, when
you ſayt, “Men will aſſume the privilege of
“ thinking for themſelves, when any difficulties
occur, in ſpite of all profefſions of implicit faith; and
“ that no chriſtian will be perſuaded, in compliment
«to any human authority, to embrace any tenet
“.which he thinks evidently oppoſite to the written
“word of God. However far he may deviate from
«.the general opinion of others, he knows that he
“muſt ſtand or fall to that judge alone, who alone
“ can witneſs the ſincerity of his reſearches, and
“the purity of his obedience. Nor is this any
“ more an argument againſt the ſober uſe of reaſon
si than it was an argument againſt the doctrines of
“ the Meſſiah, that they were impugned by thou-
sc fands.
Subſcriptions, teſts, and creeds, might
* Defence, p. 41.
+ Defence, p. 51.
« indeed
164
LETTERS TO THE
« indeed have reſtrained his language in a land of
religious intolerance, but they can never ſtifle
“conviction, or ſecure an unfeigned affent.”
This, Sir, is the great principle of our diffent;
and we cannot expreſs it better than you have done.
You would certainly, therefore, have acted more
conſiſtently if when you had left the church of Rome,
you had declined joining a church of a ſimilar kind,
and attended with ſimilar difficulties, though with
fimilar emoluments; and either have joined us, or
have formed a fociety of your own. For no real
inconvenience ariſes from ſuch varieties as theſe.
!
You ſtrain hard* to make out " an eſſential
« difference between the churches of Rome and of
“ England;" but ſtill too many points of reſem-
blance remain. You deſcribe the church of Rome
as, “requiring the unfeigned affent of all her ſubjects
« without diſtinction; pronouncing a general ana-
"thema againſt all who reject or even controvert
«her: deciſions, comments, and explanations; ad-
{ mitting in many eſſential points no latitude at all
« either of opinion, or of conduct; and intereſting
« the civil power in her cauſe, ſo as to inforce all
« her fpiritual cenſures with the infliction of tem-
“poral puniſhments. Between that church,” you
ſay, “and ours nó kind of compariſon can be
equitably drawn.”
* Addreſs, p. 44.
Now,
|
1
1
REV.' MR: HAWKINS.
155
Now, Sir, we fee an evident agreement between
them in theſe.very things. What anathema in the
church of Rome is ſtronger than that in the Atha-
nafian creed, which you retain from the church of
Rome? Is not the whole of the hierarchy ſupported
by temporal power, and are not your excom-
munications attended with civil diſabilities? Let
thoſe who have been harraſſed by your ſpiritual
courts ſay how this caſe ſtands. I fear, Sir, that
as yet you are as little acquainted with that church
of which you are lately become a member, as you
are with the Diſſenters; and that in paſſing from
the church of Rome to the church of England,
though you might not, to adopt a coarſe proverb,
have leaped out of the frying-pan into the fire, you
have only leaped out of the fire into the frying-pan.
You fay; indeed *, that “ there ſtill exiſt in
our code of laws ſome ſimilar penal reſtraints;
“nor have I any where attempted to defend them;
« but the preſent controverſy,” you add, 5 has
« ſhewn how obſolete they are, and how totally
! diſregarded.” But, Sir, your ſubſcription declared
your approbation of the whole ſyſtem, on the idea of its
being carried into execution; and therefore you ſub-
fcribed what you now profeſs that you cannot defend.
What the temper of the times allows us, we do not
thank your church for; and the queſtion between
us is not what the church thinks proper to do in
* Addreſs, p. 44.
her
156
LETTERS TO THE
her preſent circumſtances, which may be very
different from what ſhe wiſhes to do, but what is the
power that ſhe claims; and this, as a member of
the church, you are bound to approve.
I am, &c.
!
L E T T E R V.
?..
Of the Difficulties attending the Subječt of Subſcription
ta Articles of Faith.
1
REVEREND SIR, 1917,
YOU ſay of this buſineſs of ſubſcription*, that
« it is generally talked of, and yet little under-
“ſtood' by many who are moſt ſevere in paſſing
“theit cenſures upon it;” meaning no doubt
myſelf. But, Sir, whether is it you, or I, who
may be ſuppoſed, by an impartial judge, to have
the ſtrongeſt bias upon our minds to miſlead our
judgments; you, who get a comfortable, and as
you think a reputable, eſtabliſhment by means of
* Defence, p. 231.
ſubſcription
REV.
157
MR. HAWKINS.
ſubſcription, or I who am excluded from thoſe
advantages by means of it? If there be any real
difficulty in this ſubject of ſubſcription, your writ-
ings have not contributed to clear it up; nor will
your conduct recommend it.
In fact, nothing can be plainer in its own nature.
If you really believe the articles that are propoſed to
you, you certainly may ſubſcribe them with a good
conſcience. If not, you ought to forbear, on the
ſame principle on which an honeſt man would
refuſe to take a, falſe oath in a court of judicature.
There would have been no difficulty at all in this
buſineſs, if it had not been perplexed by the ſophiſtry
of thoſe whoſe intereſt prompted them to ſubſcribe
while their conſciences ſhould have with-held them.
Hence it is that we have been amuſed with ſo many
different and ſtrange principles of ſubſcribing.
No man, I will venture to ſay, whº really
believes the articles, in the obvious, ſenſe of them,
would ever have thought of any other principle of
ſubſcription than that of his real belief of them.
Nor, in fact, was any other idea ſuggeſted, till after
it was well known that ſome of the clergy held
opinions inconſiſtent with theſe articles. But having
ſubſcribed, and being unwilling to renounce the
fruits of their ſubſcription, they were driven to
other modes of defending their conduct.
It would be much more conſiſtent, and even
reputable, to ſay at once, with a diſſenting miniſter
of
158
LETTERS TO THE
!
1
of whom I had fome little knowledge (who not
being ſo well received among the Diſſenters as his
vanity led him to expect, conformed to the church
of England) that you have done one bad and unjuf-
tifiable thing, in order to have it in your power to do
many good ones. This, at leaſt, would be like a
man who, by theft or robbery, ſhould make himſelf
maſter of a round ſum of money, of which he
ſhould afterwards make an honeſt and reputable uſe.
Whereas your conduct is that of the man who ſhould
get the money by the ſame unlawful means, and
then pretend that he came honeſtly by it.
mo na kahit
You deſcribe yourſelf as perfectly eaſy with reſpect
to what you have done; ſaying *, “I have not
“ hitherto ſeen any reaſon to apprehend that I ſhall
"ever regret the ſtep I have taken ;” but con-
ſidering the wretched and contradictory apologies
that you have made for it, I really cannot believe
you. I am willing to think better of you than to
fuppofe that you are wholly free from compunction;
and your declarations to the contrary only remind
me of what paſſed when I was a ſchoolboy; when,
going to bathe in a river, thoſe who had the cou-
rage to jump into the water firſt, and were aſked if
it was warm, would, in order to induce their com-
panions to follow them, ſay, “O yes, it is very,
“very warm;" when it was evident by their very
articulation that they could hardly ſpeak for cold.
Now, Sir, I pay leſs regard to your verbal decla-
.
Defence, p. 211.
ration
REV, MR. HAWKINS.
159
ration in judging of your real feelings, than to your
embarraſſed method of making it.
1
On this ſubject of ſubſcription and eſtabliſhments, I
would take the liberty to recommend to your par-
ticular attention our friend Mr. Berington's late
tract on the Rights of Diſſenters. It will inſtruct you,
and the age in which it is written. By ſuch writings
as theſe the Catholics, becoming truly what their
name imports, will no longer lie under the odium
that their intolerance in former times has intailed
upon the character (though in fact an intolerance of
which all Proteſtant churches that have had power
have ſufficiently ſhared with them) and will teach
us that liberality and moderation which many of us
have yet to learn.
You, Sir, in particular may learn from this trea-
tiſe the important doctrine of the independence of
the true church of Chriſt on any civil power in the
world, and to be more proud of being frowned
upon, than of being favoured by, any ſtate, flattered
as you are with the honours and emoluments it has
to beſtow. It will ſhew you that what you are
now ſo proud of are your chains, though made of
gold, whether at preſent you feel the weight of
them, or not.
Should his vigorous mind emancipate itſelf in-
tirely, as it has already in part, from its preſent
ſubjection to church authority (by which, however,
the greateſt men in all ages have been unfortunately
enſlaved)
160
LETTERS TO THE
-
enſlaved) and he ſhould find himſelf at liberty to
range at large, under the conduct of reaſon alone,
he will not, I am perſuaded, do things, as you have
done, by halves. He will not be diverted from the
glorious purſuit of truth by any golden apples that
may
be thrown in his way, or exchange one ſet of
chains fór another, fancying that he has no choice
but of thoſe which ſuit him beſt.
I am, &c.
L E T T ER VI.
Of the Do£trine of the Trinity, and particularly of
Diſtinctions in the Godhead.
REVEREND SIR,
AS you do not profefs to controvert what I have
undertaken to defend with reſpect to the doc-
trine of the trinity ; but content yourſelf with an
authoritative ipfe dixit on the ſubject, I have no
occaſion to conſider what you have advanced in
favour of it, either from metaphyſical conſiderations
or from the ſcriptures, eſpecially after that moſt clear
and maſterly reply which Mr. Clarke has made to
your Addreſs, as far as thoſe articles are concerned.
I ſhall
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
161
I ſhall therefore do little more than ſhew your
inconſiſtency with yourſelf in fubfcribing to ſuch a
doctrine, as an example to young and incautious
men; and to apprize them of the fatal ſnares into
which they may be drawn by ſuch fübſcriptions.
For it will appear that you muſt have put great
force upon your mind in attempting to reconcile
your ſubſcription with reaſon and fcripture.
As a maxim on which to ſet out in the diſcuſſion
of this ſubject, and in which I intirely agree with
you, you ſay *, that " a thing may be ſaid to be
“ contrary to reaſon, which contradicts ſome other
“propoſition, which is either ſelf-evident, or which
can be undeniably proved from one that really is
“ fo.” You alſo diſclaimt,“ a blind implicit faith
“ which has no proper object to which our ideas
“ can be attached.” You then aſſert I, that “every
ſingle part of the Athanaſian creed is ſtriatly and
logically true, though not perhaps expreſſed in
“ the moſt unexceptionable words.” Let us now
ſee how you explain the parts of this logical creed
on ſuch rational principles.
(0
You ſay $, that there is a real diſtinction in the
“Godhead, whatever the nature of this diſtinction
be;". and il, that “theſe diſtinctions have been
“ made known to us under the idea and appellation
“ of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft.” That there may
* Addreſs, p. 27.
$ Addreſs, p. 5.
+ Addreſs, p. 7.
11. Addreſs, p. 4.
| Addreſs, p. 41.
M.
be
162
LETTERS TO THE
.
be ſomething in the divine nature that may be
denominated by the term diſtinction (whether it be
one diſtinction, or three diſtinctions; for you uſe both
the expreſſions) cannot be denied, becauſe it is a
ſubject concerning which we know nothing at all.
But that revelation evidently points it out to us is
ſurely ſaying too much; when no mention is made
in revelation of any diſtinction in the divine nature at
all, and when this is a mere hypotheſis of your own,
to explain other propoſitions, which alſo are not to
be found in the ſcriptures.
However, let us proceed as well as we can with
your account of this threefold diſtinɛtion in the Divine
Being, ſo neceſſary to your ſyſtem, and compare
your idea of it with that which is laid down in the
Athanafian Creed, all the parts of which you ſay are
ftrictly and logically true. You diſclaim, indeed *, ,
being able to give any, complete illuſtration of
“ this abftrufe matter;" but let us fee what you
produce, as offering" fome faint reſemblance of
" the trinity;”. For a "faint light is better than
abſolute darkneſs.
You ſay I, that " the three perſons do not make
" three Gods, any more than the King of England,
« George the Third, and the Elector of Hanover,
are three men, though each of them ſeparately
"taken may be affirmed to be a man.” To make a
diſtinction in the Divine Being correſponding to this
• Addreſs, p. 11.
+ Addreſs, p. 10.
| Addreſs, p. 10.
idea
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
1
163
idea would be ſaying that God is a ſelf-exiſtent being,
the maker of the world, and the God of the Jews.
But this amounts to no ſuch diſtinction in his being,
or nature, as your hypotheſis requires. For they
are only different characters of the ſame undivided
perſon. As yet, therefore, we are as much in the
dark as ever with reſpect to a trinity in the divine
nature.
Your next illuſtration* is that of “ the will, the
memory, and the underſtanding, as three really dif-
“ tinct powers in the human ſoul.” But this is an
illuſtration of a very different kind from the former,
and can never apply to the ſame caſe; ſo that if
this be true, the other is falſe. For none of theſe
diſtinctions can be predicated of the whole undivided
ſoul, as the former are of the whole undivided
Godhead; ſince you would not ſay that either the
will, the memory, or the underſtanding, was a
complete foul; as you affirm the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghoſt, to be each of them completely God.
Still more unhappy is your compariſon of this
threefold diſtinction in the Divine Nature to the
three branches of a tree, “ each of which,” you ſayt,
“ has every requiſite to form a complete plant.”
On this idea the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, are
indeed each of them God, but then they are diſtinct
pařts of another God, which comprehends them all;
fo that in reality you make four Gods, the tree being
* Addreſs, p. 10.
+ Addreſs, p. II.
M 2
a plant,
.
164
LETTERS TO THE
เ
à plant, and each of the three branches another
diſtinct plant; for the ſtem of the larger plant, out
of which the three ſmaller ones iſſue, cannot be
comprehended in any of the three.
of the three. This method
of making diſtinctions in the Deity was perhaps
ſuggeſted to you by the litany, in which you ſolemnly
invoke firſt the Father, then the Son, then the Holy
Ghoſt, and laſtly the trinity. Here indeed is your
tree, with its three branches.
ܘ.
I wonder ſtill more at your compariſon of the
trinity to a polype *, which,” you ſay, “ may be
“ divided into various parts, each of which becomes
“a perfect animal;” becauſe theſe parts are not per-
fect animals till they are intirely ſeparated from each
other, and therefore cannot be ſaid to be, or to conſti-
tute, but only to have been, and to have conſtituted, one
polype. On this idea there was a time when the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt had no ſeparate ex-
iſtence, but were united in one divine nature, which
could only be ſaid to contain the elements out of
which they were afterwards formed. If there be
any thing, Sir, in this exhibition that expoſes your
plain and obvious doetrine of the trinity to ridicule,
do not ſay that I ſuggeſted it.
Certainly, then, there is nothing in any of theſe
compariſons that throws the leaſt light on the
curious propoſitions of the Athanaſian creed; viz.
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, are
* Addreſs, p. 11.
each
REV. MR. HAWKINS,
165
:
each of them God, “none of them before or after
“ the other; none greater or leſs than the other,
« and yet not three Gods, but one God.”
You abſolutely diſclaim* “ the uſe of the term
perſon when applied to God, as having the ſame
meaning, and drawing after it the ſame conſe-
quences, as when applied to men; becauſe then,
as three perſons make three men, the three per-
< fons in the Godhead would make three Gods."
To what idea, then, does the word perſon corre-
ſpond, when it is predicated of theſe diſtinctions in
the divine nature? 'For without ſome ideas you
muſt agree with me, that no propoſition, nothing
concerning which any thing can be affirmed or
denied, can be framed.
You do not tell us what this idea is in itſelf, but
only between what two other ideas it is to be found.
For you ſay t, it " is not a mere relation, mode, or
“ conception; bút fomething between this, and the
«s idea annexed to the word perſon as applied to
“men." But ſtill, if you do not fix the diſtance
of this idea from each of the two extremes, between
which it is ſituated, we have nothing determinate,
and therefore ſtill nothing concerning which any
thing can with certainty be affirmed or denied.
1
Beſides, there are ideas between which there can
be no proper medium, and ſuch are ideas which hava
Addreſs, p. 10.
+ Addreſs, p. II.
M 3
no
1
166,
LETTERS TO THE.
10 is a perſon, and to
no relation to each other, as theſe of mode and perſon,
between which you; nondeſcript idea lies. Would it
not be ridiculous, for example, to talk of an inter-
mediate idea between tall, or ſhort, which are modes,
and the man Mr. who a
form propoſitions concerning this intermediate idea.
Such ideas as theſe cannot be ſhaded off into one
another, like two different colours. They admit
of no compariſon, and have nothing at all of an
intermediate nature between them. So that the
thing you ſo earneſtly contend for, is an abſolute
nonentity. You may juſt as well make propoſitions
concerning ſomething between the ſmell of an apple,
and the found of a drum, or between the colour ſcarlet
in a cardinal's hat, and the figure of a lawn ſleeve on
the
arm
of an Engliſh prelate, that may happen to
come acroſs your imagination, as concerning any
thing between a mode, and a perſon. Archimedes
aſked for ſomething to ſtand upon when he propoſed
to move the earth; but you, Sir, propoſing to effect
ſtill greater things, require nothing at all to ſtand
upon.
Still, then, we are totally without ideas concern-
ing this threefold diſtin&tion in the divine nature,
and are therefore unauthorized to affirm any thing
about it. It is a mere buſineſs of Abracadabra, or
to uſe your own term*, Bliętri; as if you had ſaid,
the Father is Blietri, the Son Blietri, and the Holy
* Addreſs, p. 7,
Ghoſt
N
REV," MR. HAW KIN'S.
167
1
Ghoſt Blietri, and theſe three BliEtri's make one
God. Nay, ſince you deny the uſe of the word
perſon, or of any other term in the whole compaſs of
language, to which any ideas have ever been annexed,
we have neither ideas nor words for this curious
diſtinction. So that it is no better than faying the
Father is -- the Son is -- and the Holy Ghoſt is -
and that theſe three - are one God, with this ad-
ditional abfurdity, that the term God, which denotes
all the three, is, in its intire ſenſe, applicable to each
of the three.
-
>
Surely, Sir, there is nothing in the ſcriptures,
which were written for the uſe of plain perfons, that
requires this ſtrange logic to make it intelligible.
In what does this differ from a blind implicit
“ faith which holds out no proper object to which
« our ideas can be attached," which you* diſclaim?
It is preciſely that very thing.
You ſay t, that “we have a general idea annexed
« to the word diftin&tion;" but I have examined all
your illuſtrations of this general idea, and have
ſhewn that they do not in the leaſt degree apply to
the caſe, and therefore we are left wholly without
idees, general, or particular. Conſequently when
you ſpeak $ " of the ſoul and body of Jeſus being
« aſſumed from the firſt moment of his exiſtence,
« into an intimate union with one of theſe relations
* Addreſs, p. 7.
+ Addreſs, p.7.,
I Addreſs, P: 14
.
M 4
66 OL
}
LETTERS TO THE
viij
!
in a Charge which in
168
ç or diſtinctions in the divine nature,” it is in effect
to talk of an intimate union with nothing at all.
*;
1. The phraſe of a diſtinction in the divine nature ſeems
to be growing fafhionable with the orthodox divines
of the preſent day; though for no reaſon that I can
imagine, but becaufe; ſuggeſting no ideas at all, it
ſeems to be leſs open to confutation. It may
alſo
ſeem to preſerve the idea of the divine unity fome-
thing better than the term perfons; of which the
trinity has been generally ſaid to conſiſt.
According to fome, this diſtination in the divine
nature ſo little affects the unity of it, that it is held
to be only a temporary thing. For, as I am in-
formed, Dr. Hinchliffe the biſhop of Peterborough,
:
thinking proper to give his clergy his own ideas of
a doctrine which is now the fubject of public diſ-
cuſſion, ſaid that, in his opinion, “when the time
"Thall come in which the San Jhall give up the kingdom
«.to the Father, ſo that: God shall be all in all, the
threefold diſtinction which at preſent ſubſiſts in
« the divine nature ſhall be no more."
This, I ſhall obſerve, was very nearly the opinion
of the ancient Sabellians, or philofophical Uni-
tarians; who ſuppoſed that a kind of divine ray,
iſſuing from the Father, the ſole fountain of divinity,
was attached to the perſon of Jeſus, but only from
the time of his baptiſm; and that when he ceaſed
to
1
1
:
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
169
to appear upon earth, and to work miracles (to
which this communicated divinity was neceſſary) it
was withdrawn. If a diſtinction in the divine nature
be any thing more than this, it muſt imply ſuch
a change in the Divine Béing as muſt be incom-
patible with divinity. Whatever has an end, had,
no doubt, a beginning alſo; and ſince this wonderful
change in the divine nature, from being ſimply one,
without this myſterious diffinĉtion, to this threefold
diſtinction, called the trinity, was occaſioned by the
circumſtances of this earth of ours, viz. the fall of
parents, it may not be impoſſible but that
ſimilar diſtinctions in the divine nature may take
place in conſequence of particular events in other
habitable worlds; and though a threefold diſtinction
has been ſufficient for our purpoſes, the different
circumſtances of other worlds may require different
arrangements of the ſame kind, and thus the divine
nature will be a perfect Proteus.
our firſt
If I have been miſinformed, and in conſequence
of this have miſrepreſented his Lordſhip's opinion,
it will be in his power to ſet me and the public
right about it." But if this repreſentation be juſt,
and ſuch doctrines paſs without cenſure in the
church of England, I ſhall conclude that the doors
of this church are open to all opinions, however dif-
cordant; and that the heads of it are perfectly
.
indifferent to every thing but the hierarchy, and the
emoluments of it. It will be thought that any
member of the church may profeſs what he pleaſes,
and if he make no farther diſturbance, he will not
be
:
-
170
LETTERS TO THE
be diſturbed. It may even be thought that I myſelf
,
an Unitarian, a Neceffarian, and a Materialiſt, as I
profeſſedly am; if I could but ſatisfy myſelf in
getting through the door of ſubſcription, no queſtion
would be aſked, no recantation required, and I
ſhould be permitted to write as I now do, publicly
arraigning the doctrine of the trinity, or any other
doctrine of the church that I ſhould fee reaſon to
call in queſtion. For except in degree, there is no
difference between my conduct and that of his Lord-
ſhip’s; as we both agree in avowing opinions intirely
oppoſite to thoſe of the church.
You will find fome excellent obfervations on this
doctrine of diſtinctions in the Deity in Mr. Clarke,
who particularly obſerves, p. 116, that if, as you ſay,
theſe diſtinctions have each of them their different
attributes and properties, they muſt be different per-
fons, in the proper ſenſe of the word, which is the
fame thing as different beings, and then you make
three Gods. Theſe diſtinctions, therefore, in the
Deity are either abſolutely nothing at all, or elſe
fubſtantial divine perſons, or Gods. . For as he
obſerves, p. 119, “ if they are not ſtrictly and
“properly perſonal diſtinctions, then I contend that
they are no diſtinctions at all to the purpoſe of
“the trinity, and into this vortex muft Mr. Haw-
« kins's diſtinction of properties from the perſons
“ in which thoſe properties inhere, ultimately fall.”
After I had written the above, a judicious friend
recommended to my notice what had been advanced
on
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
171
on this ſubject of diſtin&tions in the divine nature by
the author of the Notes to the Life of Dr. Watts by
Dr. Johnſon; and it appears to me to be ſo much
to the purpoſe, that I ſhall copy the principal part
of it.
C
CC
« I can form no idea of a threefold diſtinction in
Deity, but that of three beings, or three component
parts, which is equally inconſiſtent with the unity,
« and would imply diviſibility. I can eaſily con-
« .ceive of a diſtinction between the attributes of
God; but are the Son and Spirit only diſtinct
« attributes? If ſo, with what propriety can they
"be repreſented, and addreſſed; as perſons ; and how
“can they ſuſtain different offices, and perform
“ different works, or indeed any at all. Beſides,
“ if the attributes of God -be allowed to be per-
ſonified; it will follow that there are as many
“perſons in God as there are attributes. If the
wiſdom of God be called one perſon, and his
power another, his holineſs may as juſtly be ftiled
a third, his goodneſs a fourth, &c. The attributes
“of Deity are only the properties of his nature.
“ Neither of theſe can be properly called God, or
“ be ſpoken of as equal to God, who is the being to
“ whom they all belong. Moreover, God himſelf
you muſt allow to be a being, and God the Father,
you will admit, is a perſon in the proper ſenſe of
" that term, i. e. an intelligent being: But if the Son
“ and Spirit are only attributes of God, then they
“ are not equal to him, and conſequently this notion
“is contrary to the orthodox faith. If you mean
(
66 that
172
LETTERS TO THE
in our
" that the one God ſuſtains three characters, or
"relations, this is intelligible enough; but then it
« is not orthodox. It is
pure
Sabellianiſm, Beſides,
“God ſuſtains more characters and relations than
" thrée. Conſequently, according to this ſcheme,
" there are more diſtinctions, or perſons.”
If the ingenious author had examined with the
fame freedom what ſeems to be his own idea (as he
has ſhewn it to be that of Dr. Watts, and of Dr.
Doddridge) of the union of God with the man Chriſt
Jeſus, it would have appeared as untenable a mode
of maintaining the doctrine of a trinity, as this of a
diſtinɛtion in the Godhead. What proper union can
there be between God and a creature? It cannot be
a neceſſary union, becauſe it had a beginning, and
therefore may ceaſe to be. How, then, is any
idea that we can form of ſuch an union at all different
from that which we annex to the term preſence with;
as when we ſay that God was preſent with Moſes, or
any other prophet?' And if there be no difference
words, if we do not mean to deceive,
On this principle of Chriſt having no other
divinity than that which is derived from the union
of the Father with him, it ought never to be ſaid
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt, are each
of them God, becauſe this phraſe conveys to the
hearer the idea of independent divinity, whether origi-
nally derived from one ſource, viz. the divinity of
the Father, or not. Becauſe in fact there is not,
upon
REV, MR. HAWKINS.
173
upon this ſcheme, any other divinity than that
of the Father; and the Son, and Holy Ghoſt, as
diſtinguiſhed from the Father (which is neceſſarily
implied when they are mentioned along with him,
as equally God) have no divinity at all.
1
Beſides, our Saviour himſelf uſes this, term union
with God, as what is equally applicable to his diſci-
ples, as to himſelf; and therefore we have no
authority whatever to ſuppoſe any other kind of
union. The idea, if it can be called an idea, is
unſcriptural, as well as unintelligible, and abſurd.
I am far from charging ſuch men as Dr. Watts
and Dr. Doddridge with wilful prevarication in this
buſineſs. But they certainly: were not aware how
much they were influenced by a dread of abandoning
the doctrine of the trinity altogether; and therefore
they acquieſced in a ſcheme which retained it merely
in words, when the thing itſelf was really diſcarded.
But this apology, which may be made for Dr.
Watts and Dr. Doddridge, will not apply in the
faine degree to thoſe who now defend the doctrine
of the trinity on the ſame principles, becauſe there
has been time to reflect upon the ſubject; and ſo
much has been written upon it, that it cannot but
be underſtood by thoſe who will give proper at-
tention to it. Nothing, indeed, can be more evident
than that God merely dwelling in a man (from
which this has obtained the name of the in-dwelling
ſcheme) cannot make that man to be God; any
more than a demon, according to the doctrine of
poffeßion,
1
174
LETTERS TO THE
pofféffion, dwelling in a man, can make him to be
a demon. If it was poſſible that two beings of
different natures ſhould be united, ſo as to become
one, it would not be either of the former beings, but a
Being of a different nature, partaking of the properties
of both. On this principle, therefore, of Chriſt being
united to God, he would be a being of a different
nature from God, viz. the exact medium between
God and man; and this would be far from reach-
ing our idea of Chriſt being God. It would be
far ſhort of the perfection which we aſcribe to
divinity. But in every view of it, the idea of Chriſt
being God in conſequence of his union with God,
or of God dwelling in him, is moſt abſurd. If
Jeſus Chrift, or the ſoul of Jeſus Chriſt, be ſup-
poſed to have pre-exiſted, theſe advocates for the
in-dwelling ſcheme ought to be denominated Arians;
if not, Socinians, or Unitarians. And it is I fear
the dread of theſe unpopular names, and the conſe-
quences of unpopularity, that is, more than they are
aware of, the true reafon of their diſclaiming them.
7
After this digreſſion I muſt return to the farther
conſideration of your ideas of the trinity. You
well ſay *, ." It is the height of abſurdity to
“affirm that we clearly perceive a contradiction
“ between termis which we confeſſedly do not appre-
“ hend.” But then it is equally abſurd to ſay, that
there is no contradiction between them, becauſe
there is a caſe in which we are unable to affirm or
deny at all,
* Defence, p. 67.
Again,
1
REV, MR. HAWKINS.
175
Again, you well fay*, “ had God required theſe
things to be more explicitly believed, he would
« have revealed them in a more explicit manner.
I therefore conclude that no faith is required in this
doctrine of the trinity, becauſe nothing is revealed
about it; and becauſe nothing could have been
underſtood, if it had been revealed in the language
that you give us. God would never have tantalized
men with the revelation of words, to which they
could have affixed no ideas, and then make their
eternal ſalvation depend (according to the doctrine
of your Athanaſian creed) upon their aſſenting to
ſuch unmeaning ſounds.
After giving us this darkneſs where we expected
light, it is curious enough to hear you ſayt," it
may well be queſtioned whether our ideas of
trinity, perſon, union, divinity of Chriſt, &c. when
" ſtated in general terms, are not in fact full as
« luminous and diſtinct as thoſe of perfon, ſubſtance
or-eſſence, when applied to the Father only—a
ſpiritual being, without form, parts, limitation,
or cauſe.” For where is the difficulty of under-
ſtanding what is meant by the term perſon, ſubſtance,
or eſſence (and you might have added Being) as
applied to the Father; when we only mean by any
of theſe terms, as applied to him, the very ſame
that we mean by them when they are applied to
any thing elſe, viz. that in which certain properties
* Defence, p. 71.
+ Addreſs, p. 9.
inhere,
176
LETTERS TO THE
inbere, or to which they belong? And you will not
pretend to ſay that we have as clear an idea of this
threefold nature of God, as we have of the ſimple
nature of man, of a tree, or of a ſtone, the pro-
perties of which we can diſtinctly perceive, ſo that
we can with the greateſt certainty ſay that they are
poffeffed of them.
Here we have only one eſſence, or ſubſtance, call
it which you pleaſe, with properties belonging to it,
whereas you fay*, that “ theſe three diſtinctions in
God, be they what they will, are intimately and
inſeparably united, fo as to conſtitute one undi-
“ vided effence, one and the ſame being." Each
of theſe diſtinctions, if it be any thing at all, muſt
have its own effence, or ſubſtance, and yet it is
neceſſary that theſe three eſſences or ſubſtances, ſhould
conſtitute no more than one eſſence, or ſubſtance.
Do not pretend, Sir, that there are any difficulties
in nature, of which you ſpeak + (and by the con-
fideration of which you hope ſo to humble our
underſtandings, as that we ſhall admit of any ab-
furdity you ſhall propoſe to us) comparable to
ſuch a contradiction as this.
If, to your argil-
ments you can even add miracles, the doctrine you
propoſe could not be received.
While a man
retains the uſe of his ſenſes, and requires ideas in
order to make propoſitions, it is not poſſible that he
ſhould believe it.
* Addreſs, p. 4.
+ Addreſs, p. 32.
I have
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
177.
I have ſhewn that when you ſpeak of three
diſtinctions in God conſtituting only one God, you
give us no ideas at all, and yet require a ſolemn and
important affirmation. I ſhall now ſhew you that,
when you do not ſufficiently attend to this threefold
diſtinɛtion in God, you have an idea of one God
inconſiſtent with every thing you fay of the three.
.
You ſay*, “We are ready to allow that, in an
« abſtract ſenſe, the title of God is more emphatically
applied to the Father, than to the other two,
<< when he is conſidered as the fountain of the God-
"head; and alſo that this appellation, when applied
“to any one ſingle perſon, has not the ſame exact
“ and adequate ſignification as when we aſcribe it
« to the three perſons conjointly." You alſo ſayt,
« the Father has a pre-eminence and priority of
“ order, office, and cauſality.” Now what more .
could you ſay to deſcribe the difference between
God and a creature than to ſay that the former is
the cauſe of the latter? Here, Sir, are clear ideas,
but they are utterly diſcordant with what you ſubjoin
to the former of theſe propoſitions I, that “the idea
“ of paternity, and unorigination, gives the Father a
ſuperiority, or rather a priority of order, which
yet is by no means incompatible either with the
« notion of coexiſtence or perfect equality;" and
alſo to what you ſubjoin to the latter of theſe
pro-
poſitions $, viz. that “he is in no ſenſe ſuperior, as
r
!
* Addreſs, p. 4.
| Addreſs, p. 5.
+ Addreſs, p. 15.
§ Addreſs, p. 15.
N
86 to
178
LETTERS TO THE
“ to excellence, or duration.” The ideas are abfo-
lutely contradiktory, and can never be predicated of
the fame things. For what can be more ſo, than
that a thing cauſed ſhould be equal to its cauſe?
.
You have nothing like this doctrine of the ſupe-
riority of the Father in the Athanaſian creed. There,
all the three perſons are repreſented as being poſ-
ſeſſed of all the properties of Godhead, which are
diſtinctly enumerated; and it is declared that “none
o of them is afore or after, none of them greater or
“ leſs than the other.” This creed, therefore, and
your idea of the Father being the cauſe of the Son's
exiſtence, can never be reconciled. On this idea of
yours there is one God, from whom Chriſt, as well as
all other things, derives his being; but according
to the Athanaſian creed, all the three perſons are
abſolutely independent of each other, and none of
them is either the cauſe of the other, or poſſeſſed of
any kind of ſuperiority. Whoever compoſed this
creed, he would have diſclaimed your idea of the
fupremacy of the Father, in any ſenſe whatever.
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
REV. MR. HAWKINS.
179
LET TER VII.
A Compariſon between the Doitrine of Tranſubſtanti-
ation and that of the Trinity; of the Damnatory
Clauſe in the Athanafian Creed, and of ſome Argu-
ments for the Doctrine of the Trinity from the
Scriptures.
REVEREND SIR,
YOU labour hard*, with your ſeven réafons,
but all to no purpoſe, to ſhew that the doctrine
of the trinity reſts on a better foundation than
that of tranſubſtantiation. But you ſay t, that
“had Chriſt aſſerted even this in expreſs terms I
“ ſhould certainly have thought myſelf bound to
" believe it, notwithſtanding all the arguments from
reaſon, which I now think ſo concluſive againſt
“ it.” In this you diſcover the remains of your
former Catholic principle, of the ſubmiſſion of
reaſon to faith. Now, of the two, the doctrine of
tranſubſtantiation is revealed in much plainer terms
than that of the trinity. For it is ſaid, in ſome
ſenſe or other, that the bread and wine are the body
and blood of Chriſt; but it is no where faid that there
is a threefold diſtinction in the divine nature, in any
* Addreſs, p. 29.
+ Dejence, f: 74.
N 2
fenfe
1
180
LETTERS TO THE
ſenſe whatever. All the real difference between the
doctrine of tranſubſtantiation and that of the trinity
is that the former implies a phyſical impoſſibility, ſince
no two different ſubſtances can have the ſame pro-
perties; and the latter a mathematical one, ſince three
cannot be one, or one three. It is not, as I have
ſaid, in the power of miracles to prove either;
though it is in the power of church authority, and
church preferment, to make men declare their un-
feigned affent to both; and if to theſe, to any other
propoſitions whatever.
CC
Your natural candour ſtartles at the damnatory
clauſe in the Athanaſian creed, and, like the biſhop
of St. David's, you take it to be a very innocent
thing. But your explanation is wrapped up in more
- words than his. “ With reſpect to the uncharitable
clauſes,” which you ſay *, “ are uſually ſet in fo
very unfair a light, it cannot be too ſtrongly in-
culcated, that whatever the church declares con-
cerning the terms of ſalvation relates only to the
goſpel covenant, and the ordinary courſe of God's
diſpenſations, in the line of revealed religion,
“without pretending to exclude from the general
« mercies of our common Father, or the benefits
“ of Chriſt's redemption, any ſuch of his creatures
“ as have not forfeited their claim to favour, by
“a wilful tranſgreſſion of ſuch laws as they had
“ ſufficient means to become acquainted with."
* Addreſs, p. 42.
You
1
1
REV. MR. HAWKINS,
181
Your meaning, Sir, in this language, as an apology
for the Athanaſian creed, is utterly impenetrable to
me. I only know that according to this creed, if
the language of it have any meaning, I, and all
mankind, at leaſt all who have heard of it (though
this is an exception which the creed itſelf has not
made) are to be damned everlaſtingly if we do not
believe it, and that you, Sir, from mere good nature,
feem deſirous that we may not.
Among the texts of ſcripture by which you prove
the divinity of Chriſt, there are ſome which I never
heard of before. For example, you repreſent Chriſt
as ſaying *, “I am the Lord of hoſts. I am the
« firſt and the laſt, beſides whom there is no other
“ God. I am the moſt high God, beſides whom
«s there is no Saviour. In piercing me they pierced
so the Lord their God. I am the mighty God, and
everlaſting Father. I, by my own power, remit
" the ſins of men. I am the character of God's
« ſubſtance, &c. Whatever you aſk in my name,
I, who am God, will do it. Baptiſm without my
" name is as little valid as without the name of the
" Father.” &c. &c. &c.
+
Now this, Sir, is altogether your own language,
and not that of Chriſt. It is not fcripture, but a
miſerable perverſion of fcripture, and implies nothing
leſs than contradiction and blaſphemy. For accord-
ing to this, the Father himſelf is not God. Nay,
+
* Addreſs, p. 21.
· N 3
if
182
LETTERS TO THE
V
if he had had no exiſtence, there would have been
no want of him. And when you talk of the blood
of God*, and of God incarnate dying t, the language
is ſo unſcriptural, and ſo ſhocking, that I am ſtruck
with horror, and can proceed no farther. Surely,
ſuch uncouth and unſcriptural language, which your
unſcriptural and irrational hypotheſis obliges you
to make uſe of, fufficiently expoſes itſelf.
I am, &c.
11
L E T T E R
VIII.
The Concluſion.
REVEREND SIR,
IF, as I have ſaid, you had not ingroſſed all the
words expreſſive of wonder and aſtoniſhment that
the Engliſh language furniſhes, I ſhould have ap-
plied ſome of them on cloſing, as well as on
entering upon, this review of your moſt extra-
ordinary performance. That young men, who have
not read or thought on the ſubject, and whom their
parents and tutors have ſufficient reaſon, of ſome
* Addreſs, p. 21.
+ Addreſs, p. 17.
kind
REV. MR.
183
HAWKINS.
1
kind or other, not to lead to read or think about
it, ſhould ſubſcribe the thirty-nine articles, or
any thing elſe, is not ſurprizing, Nor is it much
to be wondered at that a perſon ſhould think he has
fufficient reaſons, of ſome kind or other, to quit the
church of Rome, and to become a member of the
church of England; becauſe, in certain ſituations, and
with reſpect to certain perſons, the latter may have
many things to recommend it, which he cannot have
the former. But that a perſon, with a mind ſo en-
lightened as yours is, ſhould undertake a defence of
your conduct, and write upon the ſubject, and in ſo
palpably weak a manner as you have done; that you
ſhould perhaps have deliberately tranſcribed what you
had written, and then have carefully corrested the preſs;
ſo that the ſame thoughts and language muſt have
paſſed in review before you ſeveral times, and yet
that you ſhould not perceive the extreme futility of
your reaſoning, and how much you are expoſing the
cauſe which you would wiſh to recommend, may
well excite wonder.
But as the term wonder is only expreſſive of
ignorance, I will not ſay that I wonder; but only that
I now fee that there is ſomething in the church of
England, which has more power than I was aware
of, to blind the eyes of men, in other reſpects honeſt
and ingenuous; and to produce a degree of ſelf-
deluſion almoſt equal to any thing that we ſee in
Bedlam.
This conſideration makes me truly thankful to
God, that
my
ſituation and circumſtances have been
N
different
N 4
184
LETTERS, &c.
different from yours. For I am far from thinking
that either my underſtanding, or my heart is naturally
better than yours. But what muſt we think of a
Syſtem which has fueh a power of perverting the beſt
faculties and diſpoſitions that God has given to man!
Let all who are happily out of the influence of this
faſcination join in the moſt ardent prayers, and the
moſt earneſt, but peaceable endeavours, for the
demolition of it. Like Ulyſſes, let us feel for the
fate of our fellow men, who are ſo dreadfully meta-
morphoſed by it; and labour to undo the charm
which makes them think and feel ſo differently
from what they naturally would do.
I am, Reverend Sir,
2
Your very humble ſervant,
J. PRIESTLEY,
I
i
11
1
>
A N
A P P E N D I X.
Of the different Senſes in which a Subſcription to the
thirty-nine Articles has been vindicated by Divines
of the Church of England.
AN N ingenious friend of mine having taken the
pains to collect an account of all the ſenſes in
which the ſubſcription of the thirty-nine articles of
the church of England has been vindicated, and as it
may amuſe my readers to ſee them, I ſhall ſubjoin
them as an Appendix to theſe Letters. He has
annexed the authorities for each; but as I hope he
will himſelf make ſome publication on the ſubject,
I ſhall omit them, and content myfelf with the
bare liſt.
The Articles have been ſubſcribed
1. In the ſenſe of the impoſers.
II. In the ſenſe of the compilers.
III.
186
Α Ρ Ρ Ε Ν DI X. .
III. In their ſtrict, obvious, and literal meaning.
IV. In any ſenſe which the words will bear,
confitently with the ſubſcriber's interpretation of
ſcripture.
V. As articles of peace.
VI. As true in general, and ſufficiently ſo for
their intention, though not true in every particular
propoſition.
VII. As far as they are agreeable to the word
of God.
VIII. As far as they are fundamental articles of
faith, neceſſary to ſalvation.
IX. On the authority of others.
X. In
any fenfe which approved doctors of the
church have affixed to them.
XI. As mere forms of admiffion into an office.
To theſe I may add
XII. That of Mr. Paley, who maintains that any
perſon may ſubſcribe the articles who does not
belong to any of the three claſſes of men originally
intended to be excluded from the church by them,
viz. Papiſts, Puritans, and Anabaptiſts.
XIII.
1
APPENDIX.
187
XIII. I have heard another ſenſe of ſubſcription
maintained in converſation by two eminent Divines
of the church of England, viz. that any perſon may
ſubſcribe the articles of the church whoſe faith is
that of the members of the church, though it
ſhould be different from that which is expreſſed in
the articles. N. B. They were both Arians on the
principle of Dr. Clark, and ſuppoſed that to be
the faith of the generality of the clergy.
XIV. Laſtly, I was informed by an anonymous
letter from Oxford, that many perſons think them-
ſelves juſtified in ſubſcribing the thirty-nine articles
of the church of England, though they do not
believe them, becauſe it is well known to thoſe who
receive their ſubſcriptions, that they do not, and
therefore they ſay they deceive no body.
I do not in this place make any remarks on this,
or any other of the articles above-mentioned.
Many, and painful ones, muft occur to any perſon
of honour and reflection.
I ſhall conclude with obſerving that, if ſubſcrip-
tion to the thirty-nine articles be conſidered as a
thing of any conſequence, the heads of the church,
or the legiſlature, ſhould declare in what ſenſe it is
to be underſtood. For it is evident that, according
to ſome of the above-mentioned ſenſes, it amounts
to no ſubſcription at all. It has even been main-
tained in print, that what a clergyman ſays in the
deſk is not to be conſidered as his own words, but
only thoſe of the legiſlature, of which he is the
mouth,
188
APPEN DI X.
mouth, and which he is paid for pronouncing; and
that he is at liberty to preach the very reverſe of
the doctrine of the Common Prayer-book in the
pulpit. But if ſubſcription be of no uſe, it certainly
ought not to be required; as it only excludes
ſcrupulous and conſcientious men. If the church
have any regard for the purity of its faith, ſomething
will be done in this very ſerious buſineſs.
Had all our biſhops ſince the revolution been as
intelligent and conſcientious as the excellent Biſhop
Burnet, this grievance of ſuſcription to articles of
faith would not have remained unredreſſed. What
he ſays on the ſubject in the Concluſion of his Hiſtory
is ſo much to my purpoſe, that I ſhall ſubjoin the
whole paragraph.
“ The requiring ſubſcriptions to the thirty-nine
“ articles is a great impoſition. I believe them all
myſelf; but as thoſe about original ſin and pre-
“ deſtination might be expreſſed more unexcep-
tionably, ſo I think it is a better way to let fuch
" matters. continue to be ſtill the ſtandard of doc-
“ trine, with ſome few corrections, and to cenſure
“ thoſe who teach any contrary tenets; than to
oblige all that ſerve in the church to ſubſcribe
" them. The greater part ſubſcribe without ever
examining them; and others do it becauſe they
“ muſt do it, though they can hardly ſatisfy their
“conſciences about fome things in them. Churches
“ and ſocieties are much better ſecured by laws,
“than by ſubſcriptions. It is a more reaſonable, as
“ well as a more eaſy method of government.'
1
1
ADVERTISEMENT.
HAVING had occaſion, in the courſe of theſe
Letters, to recommend Mr. Clarke's Tracts in
Defence of the Divine Unity, including his Remarks
on Mr. Hawkins's Letter to me, I cannot conclude
without mentioning two other publications, with
which I wiſh to bring my readers acquainted, viz.
A Letter to the Rev. Dr. White, containing Remarks
on certain Paſages in the Notes Subjoined to his Bamp-
ton Lektures, by Philalethes, and Mr. Capel Lofft's
Obſervations on the firſt Part of Dr. Knowles's Teſti-
monies from the Writers of the four firſt Centuries.
I hope that Mr. Lofft will finiſh what he has
begun, and continue his attention to a very im-
portant, and too much neglected, branch of learn-
ing.
:
#
A
CATALOGUE OF BOOKS,
WRITTEN BY
Dr. PRIESTLEY,
AND PRINTED FOR
J. JOHNSON, BOOKSELLER,
No. 72, St. Paul's Church-Yard, London,
:
*. THE
1.
:
HE Hiſtory and preſent State of Elcétricity, with original Ex-
periments, illuſtrated with Copper-plates, 4th Edition, cor-
rected and enlarged, 4to. il. 15.
2. A Familiar Introduétion to the Study of EleEtricity, 5th Edition,
8vo. 2s.6d.
3. Obfervations relating to Education : more eſpecially as it reſpects
the Mind. To which is added, An Eſſay on a Courſe of Liberal
Education for Civil and Active Life, 2d Edition, 35. 64. in boards.
4.- A Courſe of Lectures on Oratory and Criticiſm, 4to. 1os. 6d. in
boards, 145, bound.
5. An Eſſay on the firſt Principles of Government, and on the Na-
ture of Political, Civil, and Religious Liberty, ad Edition, much
enlarged, 4s. in boards, 5s. bound. In this Edition are introduced the
Remarks on Church Authority, in Anſwer to Dr. Balguy, formerly
publiſhed ſeparately.
6 An Examination of Dr. Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind, on
the Principles of Common Senſe, Dr. Beattie's Eflay on the Nature
and Immutability of Truth, and Dr. Oſwald's Appeal to Common
Senſe, in Behalf of Religion, 2d Edition, ss. boards; "6s. bound.
7. Difquiſtions relating to Matter and Spirit. To which is added,
the Hiſtory of the Philofophical Doctrine concerning the Origin of the
Soul,
1
1
.
BOOKS WRITTEN BY DR. PRIESTLEY.
Soul, and the Nature of Matter; with its Influence on Chriſtianity,
eſpecially with reſpect to the Doctrine of the Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt.
Alſo the Doctrine of Philoſophical Neceſſity illuſtrated, the ad Edition
enlarged and improved, with Remarks on thoſe who have controverted
the Principles of them, 2 vols. 8s. 6d. in boards, nos. hound.
8. A Free Diſcuſion of the Doctrines of Materialiſm and Philoſophical
Neceflity, in a Correſpondence between Dr. Price and Dr. Prieſtley.
To which are added by Dr. Prieſtley, an Introduction, explaining the
Nature of the Controverſy, and Letters to ſeveral Writers who have
animadverted on his Diſquiſitions relating to Matter and Spirit, or his
Treatiſe on Neceſſity, 8vo. 6s. ſewed, 7s. bound.
g. Letters to a Philoſophical Unbeliever, Part I. Containing an
Examination of the principal objections to the Doctrines of Natural
Religion, and eſpecially thoſe contained in the Writings of Mr. Hume,
35. fewed,
10. Additional Letters to a Philoſophical Unbeliever in Anſwer to
Mr. William Hammon, Is. 6d.
11. Letters to a Philoſophical Unbeliever, Part II. Containing a
State of the Evidence of Revealed Religion, with Animadverſions on the
two laſt Chapters of the firſt Volume of Mr. Gibbon's Hiſtory of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 35.
N. B. The two preceding Parts, bound together, 7s. 6d.
12. Inſtitutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, in two Volumes,
8vo. 2d Edition, ios. 6d. in boards, 125. bound.
N. B. The third Part of this Work, containing the Doctrines of
Revelation, may be had alone, 25. 61. fewed.
13. An Hiſtory of the Corruptions of Chriſtianity, with a general
Concluſion, in two Parts. Part I. Containing Confiderations addreſſed
to Unbelievers, and eſpecially to Mr. Gibbon. Part II. Containing
Conſiderations addreſſed to the Advocates for the preſent Eſtabliſhment,
and eſpecially to Biſhop Hurd, 2 vols. 8vo. 125. in boards, 145.
bound. Or, bound uniformly with the three following Defences of it,
in 3 vols, il. 10s.
14. A Reply to the Animadverſions on the Hiſtory of the Cory
ruptions of Chriſtianity, in the Monthly Review for June, 1783; with
Obfervations relating to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, con-
cerning the Perſon of Chriſt, 8vo. is.
15. Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters to Dr. Horſley;
in which the Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock, the Writer of that Review,
is called upon to defend what he has advanced in it, 6d.
16. Letters
BOOKS WRITTEN BY DR. PRIESTLEY.
1
+
16. Letters to Dr. Horfiey, Archdeacon of St. Albans, in thret
Parts, containing farther Evidence that the Primitive Chriſtian Church
was Unitarian, 75. 6d.
N. B. Theſe laſt three Articles together in boards, gs. or 10s, hound.
17. An Hiſtory of Early Opinions concerning Jeſus Chrif, compiled
from Original Writers; proving that the Chriſtian Church was at
firſt Unitarian, 4 vols. 8vo. Il. 4s. in boards, al. 8s. bound.
18. Letters to the Jews; inviting them to an amicable Diſcuſſion
of the Evidence of Chriſtianity, in two Parts, 25.
19. Defences of Unitarianiſm for the Year 1786; containing Letters
to Dr. Horne, Dean of Canterbury; to the Young Men who are in a
Courſe of Education for the Chriſtian Miniſtry,, at the Univerſities of
Oxford and Cambridge; to Dr. Price; and to Mr. Parkhurſt; on
the Subject of the Perſon of Chriſt, ſecond Edition, 3s.
20. Defences of Unitarianiſm for the Year 1787 ; containing Let-
ters to the Rev. Dr. Geddes, to the Rev. Dr. Price, Part II. and to
the Candidates for Orders in the two Univerſities. Part II. Relating
to Mr. Howes's Appendix to his fourth Volume of Obſervations on
Books, a Letter by an Under-Graduate of Oxford, Dr. Croft's Bamp-
ton Lectures, and ſeveral other Publications, 28. 6d.
21. An Hiſtory of the Chriſtian Church from the earlieſt Period to
the fall of the Roman Empire, 2 vols. 8vo. 148.
22. A Letter to the Right Honourable William Pitt, Firſt Lord of
the Treaſury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer; on the Subject of
Toleration and Church Eſtabliſhments; occaſioned by his Speech againft
the Repeal of the Teſt and Corporation Acts, on Wedneſday the zitt
of March, 1787, the ſecond Edition, is.
23. A Sermon preached before the Congregations of the Old and
New Meetings, at Birmingham, November 5, 1789, recommending
the Conduct to be obſerved by Diſſenters in order to procuire the Repeal
of the Corporation and Teſt Acts, 6d.
Also publiſhed under the Direction of Dr. PRIESTLEY,
THE THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY,
Conſiſting of Original Eſſays, Hints, Queries, &c. calculated to pro-
inote - Religious Knowledge, in fix Volumes, 8vo. Price il. 16s.
in boards, or 21. 25. bound. Ainong other Articles too many to
be enumerated in an Advertiſement, theſe fix Volumes will be found
to contain ſuch original and truly valuable Obfervations on the Doc-
trine of Atonement, the Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt, and the Inſpiration
of the Scriptures, more eſpecially reſpecting the Harmony of the
Evangeliſts, and the Reaſoning of the Apoſtle Paul, as cannot fail to
recommend them to thoſe Perſons who wiſh to make a truly free
Inquiry into theſe important Subjects.
$
1
1
Ꮮ Ꭼ Ꭲ Ꭲ Ꭼ Ꭱ Ꮪ
TO
Dr.
H OR SL E Y,
PART 11.
1
1
1
7
1.
.
{
(
(
.
L E T T E R S
TO
1
Dr.
H OR SL E Y,
Ρ Α
RT
II.
1
CONTAINING
FAR I HER
E V IDENCE
THAT THE
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS UNITARIAN.
1
By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, L.L.D.F.R.S.
1
Ubi ſunt ingentia magni
Verba viri?
Ovid.
1
BIRMINGHAM
PRINTED BY PEARSON AND ROLLASON, FOR
JOHNSON, NO. 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, LONDON.
MDCCLXXXIV.
↑
!
!
1
'
1
1
|
1
:P
THE
PRE
F
A
E.
1
1
* I ,
AM truly concerned, that the diſcuſ-
fion which I have entered into, of the
hiſtorical evidence of the doctrine of the
primitive ages concerning the perſon of
Chriſt, has not taken the amicable turn that
I propoſed, and of which I gave a ſpecimen
in my former ſeries of Letters to Dr.
Horſley. Thoſe were ſtrictly argumenta-
tive, and likewiſe uniformly reſpectful. But
as bis Letters, in anſwer to me, are written
in a ſtyle that is far from correſponding to
mine, as the reader muſt perceive in every
page, to reply to him in the ſame reſpectful
manner in which I firſt wrote, would have
been unnatural and abſurd. In the preſent
publication, therefore, I have taken the lis
berty to treat him with more freedom.
As
ii
THE PREFA C. E.
As he has declared that he will make no
farther reply to me, I imagine that this
publication will cloſe the preſent contro-
verſy; and I hope it will not have been
without its uſe, in promoting the cauſe of
truth, though I am:perſuaded it would have
anſwered this end ſtill more effectually, if
mý propoſal of a perfectly amicable diſcuſ-
fion, and alſo that of bringing it to its proper
termination, had been accepted.
1; am now proceeding with my larger
Hiſtory of the ſtate of opinions concerning
'Chriſt in the primitive times. But to execute
this work as I wiſh to do it, and conſiſtently
with my other engagements and purſuits,
will require a conſiderable time, hardly leſs
than two or three years. Nor will my
readers wonder at this, when I inform them,
that I am determined to examine for myſelf.
every thing that has been written by any
chriſtian writer for the firſt five or fix cen-
turies after Chriſt, with the ſingle view of
collecting from them whatever. I can find
to throw light on this particular ſubject.'
After this examination, in which I have
already
i
Τ Η Ε
PREFACE.
iii
already made conſiderable progreſs, I ſhall
carefully attend to whatever the moſt re-
ſpectable modern writers have advanced on
this ſubject; and I ſhall then compoſe the
work with all the circumſpection that I am
capable of; introducing into it any thing
that I ſhall think proper from my different
publications in this controverſy (which I
conſider as only anſwering a temporary pur-
poſe) and then abandon it to the cenſures
of my critics ; and I hope there will not be
wanting abler men than Dr. Horley, to
diſcover, and correct, whatever imperfections
may, after all, be found in it.
I will not rafhly commit myſelf with
reſpect to the iſſue of an enquiry of this
extent, and that is not yet completed; but
I can aſſure my readers, that I ſee the moſt
abundant cauſe to be ſatisfied with every
thing of conſequence that I have advanced
in this controverſy; and that I am able to
*** produce much additional evidence for every
article of it, as well as a variety of other
matter relating to the ſubject, which will
throw
a 2
iv
THE P R E FACE.
F A C F.
throw light on the opinions, and turn of
thinking, in-early times.
Bir
1
Among other particulars, I ſhall examine
as thoroughly as I can, thoſe platonic no-
tions concerning God, and the general
fyftem of things, which prepared the way
for the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift,
and of the trinity ; fhewing how they were
underfood, and how far they were adopted,
by the chriſtian writers. In the mean
time, having long given a good deal of at-
tention to the ſubject, I will venture to ſay,
that from what Dr. Horſley has dropped
concerning Platoniſm, as well as from the
admiration he has expreſſed of it, he under
ſtands very little of the matter.
i
:
As I now conſider this controverſy as
cloſed, it is probable that till my larger
work be printed, the public will hear no
more from me on this ſubject. But if any
thing more plauſible than has yet been -
urged ſhould appear, I fhall have an oppor,
tunity of noticing it in the Theological Rea***
poſitory,
3
1
:-
:
THE
P R E-F A € E.
poßtory, which I hope ſoon to open again ;
and if any perſon will give his name; and
propofe any difficulty whatever relating to
the prefent diſcuſſion, fo that I ſhall ſee rea--
fon to think that it proceeds from a love of
truth, and a defire of information, I here
promiſe that I will ſpeak fully to it, and I
ſhall be as explicit as I poffibly can. But
to be more ſo than I have hitherto been, is
impoſſible. Such as I have been, the public
ſhall always find me.
I have no reſerve or
concealment with reſpect to myſelf, and I
ſhall always endeavour to preſerve as much
eandour as poſſible with regard to others.
But if I have been addicted to the artifices and
deceits that Dr. Horſley ſo vehemently ac-
cuſes me of, and if I have actually practiſed
them to the age of fifty, I ſhall hardly lay
them afide now. Let the public, there-
fore, be upon their guard againſt me, and
" watch me as narrowly" as he ſays, p.
39, is neceſſary. Great changes in character
and habit feldom take place at my age.
In this larger work, on which I am now
· employed, I find myſelf, in a great meaſure
a 3
upon
f
1
vi
THE PREFACE.
upon new ground. At leaſt, I fee reaſon to
think that it has never been ſufficiently ex-
amined by any perfon who has had the
ſame general views of things that I have.
Dr. Lardner, who was as much conver« .
ſant with the early chriſtian writers as pera
haps any man whatever, and whoſe fenti-
ments on the ſubject of this controverſy
were the ſame with mine, yet had another
object in reading them. When I applied
to him for ſome affiſtance, it was too near
the cloſe of his life; and the few hints
with which he did furnith me, related
wholly to the doctrine of atonement, on
which he had before publiſhed a ſmall tract.
of mine.
Przipcovius wrote upon this ſubject, but
what he has advanced is very ſhort, and very
imperfect. What Zuicker did, I can only
learn from Biſhop Bull, who had not ſeen
all his works; but I ſuſpect that he was
not maſter of all the evidence that may be
procured from a careful reading of ancient
writers, and a compariſon of the ſeveral cir-
cumſtances to be collected from them, and
it
I
THE "POR: E F AC E.
vii.
But a
it certainly requires no ſmall degree of.
patience, as well as judgment and fagacity,
to trace. the real itate of the unitarian
chriſtians in early times from the writings
of their enemies only. For all their own
writings are either groſily interpolated, or:
have periſhed, except the Clementines,which
is a work of great curioſity, and has not
yet been ſufficiently conſidered.
candid reader will make allowance for this
great diſadvantage, which, as the hiſtorian
of the unitarians," I muſt labour under.
Who is there that will pretend to collect
from the Roman hiſtorians only, a complete
account of the affairs of the Carthaginians,
the maxims of their conduct, and the mo-
tives of their public tranſactions, eſpecially
in relation to thoſe things with reſpect to
which we know that they mutually accuſed
each other
24
The Clementines (of which the Recogni-
tions is little more than another edition) was
probably written about the time of Juſtin
Martyr. It is properly a theological romance,
and a fine compoſition of its kind. The
2.4
author
1
viii
T HÈ PREFACE,
1
author was perhaps too proud of his abili-
ties as a writer"; but his work is certaivly
ſuperior to any thing that is now extant of
that age, the writings of "Juſtin Martyr by
no means excepted. It abounds with cu-
rious circumſtances relating to the cuſtoms
and opinions of the times; and on that
account it is ſtrongly recommended by.
Cotelerius, the editor.
He ſays, that
though it abounds with trifles and errors,
46 which had their ſource in a half chriſtian
philoſophy, and hereſy, eſpecially that
“ of the Ebionites, it may be read with
“ advantage, both on account of the ele-
gance of the ſtile, and the various learn
« ing that it contains, and likewiſe for the
“ better underſtanding the doctrine of the
66 firſt heretics*.
i
It is remarkable, not only that the author
of this work, writing in the names of Peter
* Et vero quæ damus Clementina, licet nugis, licet
erroribus fcatent, a lemichriſtiana philofophia, et hærefi
,
præcipue Ebionitica, profe&is, non fine frucu tanhen
legentur, tum propter elegantiam fermonis, tum mul-
tiplicis doctrinæ caufa, tum denique ad melius cognof-
cenda primaruña Hårėlion doğmátá. Preface.
and
1
T H E
ix
PREFACE,
and Clément, makes théin unitarians, but,
that in a great variety of theological dif-
cuſſions upon nice ſubjects (in which every
thing relating to the doctrine of the Gnof-
tics, as it then ſtood, is minutely treated)
there is no appearance of his having for
much as heard of the doctrine of the per-
ſonification of the logos, or of the divinity or
pre-exiſtence of Chriſt, in any other form thani
that of the Gnoſtics, except in ſome parti-
cular expreſſions, which Cotelerius ſuppoſes
to be the interpolations of ſome Arian, It is
probable, therefore, that though ſome of
the works of Juſtin Martyr might perhaps
have been extant when this writer was
employed about his, they were but little
known, or his opinions might have been
adopted by few perſons only.
1
Now this writer, whoſe knowledge of
the ſtate of opinions in his time cannot be
queſtioned, would hardly have repreſented
Peter and Clement as unitarians, if he had
not thought them to be ſuch. Nay, it
may be inferred from the view that he has
given of their principles, that, fuppoſing
thë
THE PRE FACE.
:
the doctrine of the trinity to have exiſted
in his time, yet that Peter, Clement, and
conſequently the great body of chriſtians
in the apoſtolic age, were generally thought
to have been unitarians, as he muſt have
imagined that this circumſtance would con-
tribute to the credibility of his narrative.
À writer who perſonates another, will be
as careful as he can to aſcribe to him no
opinions but ſuch as are commonly ſup-
poſed to be his ; for without this the im-
poſition, if any ſuch was intended, could
not anſwer his purpoſe. But I much queſ-
tion whether any ſerious impoſition was
really intended by this writer. The farther
conſideration of this ſubject, however, I
reſerve for my larger work,
1
i
To return from this digreffion, I ſhall
obſerve, that, as to the learned chriſtian's
of the laſt age (excepting the Athanaſians)
they were almoſt all. Arians, ſuch as Dr.
Whitby, Dr. Clarke, Mr. Whiſton, Mr.
Jackſon, Mr. Pierce, &c. In their time,
it was a great thing to prove that the doc-
trine of the perfect equality of the Son to
the
.
:
THE PRE FACE
xi
}
the Father, in all divine perfections, was not
the doctrine of the early ages. Thoſe wri-
ters could not, indeed, help perceiving
traces of the doctrine of the ſimple humanity!
of Chrift; but taking it for granted that
this was an opinion concerning him as
much too low, as that of the Athanaſians
was too high, and there being no diſtinguiſhed
advocates for the proper unitarian doctrine
in their time, they did not give ſufficient
attention to the circumſtances relating to,
it. Theſe circumſtances it will be my
buſineſs to collect, and to compare; and,
ſituated as I am, it may be depended upon,
that I ſhall do it with all the circum-
ſpection of which I am capable.
.
Notwithſtanding the fullneſs of my own
perſuaſion, I am far from being fanguine
in my expectations with reſpect to others,
even from the ſtrongeſt evidence that I can
produce, of the primitive chriſtians having
been univerſally, or very generally, unita-
rians. Though there do not appear to be
ſo many learned Arians at preſent as there
were thirty or forty years, ago, yet I am
well
::
xii
P R E F A CE.
THE
well' aware that the impreſſion made by
their writings. is ſuch, as that thofe perſons
who have now the moſt reputation for theo
logical literature having, in fact, been
their diſciples) are very generally of their
opinion, as I myſelf formerly was; and
therefore that there is at preſent, as might
well be expected, a general prepoffeffion
againſt me among the more learned chrif-
tians, with reſpect to this argument.
*
2
I am alſo not ſo ignorant of hiſtory, or of
human nature, as not to be fenfible, that
time is requiſite to make any conſiderable
change even in the opinions of the learned,
though it certainly requires more time to
produce an equal change in thoſe of the
unlearned; and with reſpect to moſt per-
for's who are advanced in life, it is hardly
to be expected from any force of argu-
But in the laſt ten years a very
great change has been made in the opinions
of thoſe who have given much attention to
theological matters, and the number of
unitarians is greatly increaſed. A learned
Trinitarian is almoſt a phenomenon in this
country,
ment.
1
។
ti,
THE PREPA CE:
country, and learned Arians are much fewer
than they have been *. And when the
biftorical arguments in favour of proper uni-
tarianiſm, which have hitherto been very
much overlooked, thall be duly attended to,
eſpecially that which ariſes from the con-
fideration of the great body of the common
poople among chriſtians having thought
that Chriſt was fimply a man inſpired of God,
and their having had no knowledge of his
pre-exiſtence, the concluſion that ſuch a
general perſuaſion muſt have been derived
from the apoſtles having taught no other
doctrine, will not eaſily be avoided. It will
- alſo weigh much with thoſe who are apt
to lay great ſtreſs on the uſual conſtruction
of Tome particular texts, to conſider, that,
in thoſe early times, the fcriptures were
conſtantly read by perfons better qualified
to underſtand the language of them than
* By a learned Trinitarian or Arian, I do not mean ,
man who has ,merely claſſical literature, any more than
mathematical or philoſophical knowledge ; but one who;
having a competent knowledge of the learned languages,
has made theology and :eccleſiaſtical hiſtory his principal
Audy. And I much queſtion wbether this has been the
contine with Doctor Horſley.
!
.
xiv
THE. POR E FACE.
j
we at this time can pretend to be, with
out ſuggefting any ſuch notions of the
divinity, or the pre-exiſtence of Chriſt,
as are now ſuppoſed to be clearly con-
tained in them. When theſe, I ſay, and
other ſimilar arguments, ſhall have had
time to operate, they will, Lam confident,
meet with leſs obſtruction continually, and
produce a ſtill greater change in ten years
to come.
As the doctrine of the pre-exiſtence of
Chriſt came in with philoſophical and ſpe.
culative people, and required many centu.
ries, and thoſe years of groſs darkneſs, be-
fore it laid firm hold on the minds of the
common people, it will certainly, remain
a long time with them; and a diſpoſi-
tion to accommodate to theſe will likewiſe
operate to quicken the zeal of many teachers
of chriſtianity in its defence. This will,
no doubt, protract the æra of reformation,
towards which the enlightened friends of
chriſtianity look forwards with confidence
and joy, to a more diſtant period.
In
4
THE
PRE FAC; E.
XT
In the mean time, it is a great ſatisfac
tion to reflect, that, whatever difficulties
may lie in the way of truth, no proper ef-
fort to remove them can be without its
effects: So regular are the laws of nature,
reſpecting even the human mind, and the
influences to which it is expoſed, that no
endeavours to inſtruct or reform the world
can be wholly loft. Like ſeed thrown into
the ground, they may ſeem to be loft, but
in due time, if the ſoil be good, and other
circumſtances favourable and for theſe
things, we, who ſcatter our ſeed promiſcu-
ouſly, muſt take our chance) the harveſt
will, in its proper ſeaſon, be abundant.
This conſideration ſhould encourage all the
labourers in the great field of mankind to
plow in hope, and to fow in hope's that, if
not we, at leaſt our poſterity, may become
partakers of our hope. 1. Cor. ix. 10,
I can already perceive that ſeveral per-
ſóns of more ingenuous diſpoſitions among
my Arian friends are much ſtruck with
ſome of the circumſtances which I have
brought to light, and others have had
eir objections completely removed; ſo
that
។
3
xvi THE PRE FACE.
that I am not without hope that a much
greater number will think as I now do,
when my larger work fhall be publiſhed';
efpecially if a ſufficient degree of atten-
tion be excited to the ſubject. In this
view. I ain truly thankful for what has
already been done by Dr. Horfley, and
the Monthly Reviewers, and on this ac-
count I ſincerely wiſh that their credit
and influence were more conſiderable and
extenſive than they are. This oppoſition,
and the effect of it abroad, will contribute
to make the controverſy better known
and though the truth may be borne down
for a time, it will be the more firmly eſta-
bliſhed in conſequence of it, in the end.
It is like ſinking a piece of cork, which,
with the greater force it is plunged un-
der water, with the greater force and ce-
lerity it will recover its natural place. It
is with great tranquility and ſatisfaction
that I look forward towards this period;
and I lhould not be qualified to appear be
före the public at all, if, in the mean time,
I could not look upon ſuch an oppoſition
as I have hitherto experienced with a mix-
fure af indifference and contempt.
When
.
THE
xvit
PREFACE.
1
.
Nice. It may even be ſaid, that there was
When this inveſtigation ſhall be com-
pletely finiſhed, it will, probably, be matter
of ſurprize' to many, that it was not ſooner
diſcovered, that the unitarians inuſt have
been, and certainly were, the great body of
common chriſtians till after the council of
little merit indeed, in proving a thing
fo extremely obvious, and that many other
perſons had proved it quite as well before. I
ſhall, if I live to ſee it, rejoice in this change of
opinion, let who will have contributed to it.
very little
>
In the mean time, what is all the oppofi-
tion that a man can meët with, from what-
ever perſons, and in whatever form it be
carried on, when weighed againſt the full
conviction of his own mind, ariſing from a
fair and careful examination ? And with
reſpect to the judgment of the Public, the
effect of any mode of oppoſition is only
temporary What did the unqualified
approbation of all the defenders of a
pretended cominon fenfe, by the Monthly,
* Reviewers of that day, 'do for the doctrine?
b
Has
1
xviii
PRE FACE.
THE
Has it now any advocates ? Thoſe Re-
viewers quote, without the leaſt ſuſpicion
of
any thing amiſs, even Dr. Oſwald's re-
futation of the only ſatisfactory argument for
the being of a God, viz. from the confidera-
tion of cauſe and effect.
But what has it
availed in the iſſue? And what ſignified
the rancour with which they treated
my
defence of the true common ſenſe againſt
the fpurious one? Though much admired
in its day, it has not been in their power to
reſcue it from oblivion.
1
1
។
Though Dr. Horſley is determined to
make no reply to me (and, indeed, unleſs
he was better informed with reſpect to this
ſubject, it is more adviſable for him to
leave the field to abler writers) he is ac-
countable to the Public for milleading them,
as he has' done with reſpect to facts in an-
cient hiſtory, and for his defamation of the
illuſtrious dead; as well as for his want of
common candour, and his miſrepreſentations
aş to the living. If he be an honeſt man, and
of an ingenuous mind, he'muſt, in ſome mode
or
.
THE PRE FAC E.
xix .
1
or other, either refute this charge, or ac-
knowledge the juſtneſs of it. He ſays, with
reſpect to me, p. 6. “ A writer of whom
“ it is once proved that he is ill informed
upon his ſubject, has no right to demand
“a farther hearing.” To which of us two
the obſervation beſt applies, let others
judge. When he has read theſe. Letters (if
he ſhould think proper to read them at all)
he will, I preſume, be a little better in
formed than he is at preſent; and then I
ſhall have no objection to his having an-
other hearing, but I ſhall not think myſelf
bound to reply.
As to the
to the Monthly Reviewer, Mr.
Badcock, if he ſhould ever really ſtudy the
ſubject of this controverſy (which it is
evident enough he has not done yet) he
will find that he is miſtaken with reſpect
to every part of it; and if ever he comes to
reflect upon his conduct in this buſineſs in
a moral light, he will feel more than !
ſhould wiſh him, or any man to do, except
for his own good.
b 2
I ſhall
1
1
THE PREFACE.
i
I ſhall cloſe this preface with reminding
the reader, that he ſhould carefully diſ-
tinguiſh with reſpect to the importance of
the different articles that are now the ſub-
ject of diſcuſſion. To prevent any material
miſtake of this kind, I publiſhed a ſmall
pamphlet, intitled, A General View of the
Arguments for the Unity of God, and againft
the Divinity and Pre-exiſtence of Chriſt, from
Reaſon, from the Scriptures, and from Hif-
tory; that when any advantage ſhould be
gained, either by myſelf, or my antagoniſts,
it might be ſeen at once what the amount
of it really was, and be eſtimated accord-
ingly. To this ſmall piece, and especially
the Maxims of hiſtorical Criticiſm, contained
in it, and in my former Letters to Dr.
Horſley, I wiſh that particular attention
may be given in the courſe of this con-
troverſy, whether. carried on by myſelf or
others.
Large works, particularly of the hiſto-
rical kind, were never yet known to be free
from miſtakes. The ſubject of iny Hiſtory
of
+
1
THE PREFACE.
xxi
3
of the Corruptions of Chriſtianity was ſo com-
plex, and my attention was of courſe di-
vided among ſuch a variety of different
articles, and the materials were collected at
the distance of ſo many years, that I really
wonder that it has eſcaped ſo well as it has
done not one miſtake having been diſco-
vered in it, that at all affects my general
deſign. What are all the errors put to-
gether compared to that greſs one which
I have ſhewn Mofheim and Dr. Horſley
to have fallen into; and yet the credit of
Moſheim's hiſtory will not be materially
affected by it on the whole? It is a work
that I ſhall not ſcruple to quote myſelf, as
I may have occaſion, making due allowance
for the author's peculiar prejudices. The
candid reader will make the ſame allowance
for me. Time, however, will ſhew what
the overſights have been. Theſe will, of
courſe, be corrected, and what remains will
ſtand the former on that account.
Though I cannot ſay to Dr. Horſley,
as he does to me, p. 9.
" I ſhould have
“ more than a ſingle remark to make on
" almoſt
b 3
xxii
THE PRE FACE.
5
“almoſt every ſentence of
ſentence of every one of your
“ ten letters,” it would have been eaſy for
me, from the materials that I have already
collected, to have extended this publication
to a much greater length. But I do not
chuſe, in theſe temporary pieces, to foreſtal
my larger work; though I think it
may
be
of uſe. to produce ſo much of what I have
collected, as may tend to excite a more ge-
neral attention to the ſubject, and invite
others to engage in the ſame inquiry; that
when I do publiſh that work, I may find
more readers properly prepared to judge of
it than there appear to be at preſent. For
that there are at preſent thoſe who are not
thus prepared, there cannot be a clearer
indication, than that the writings of Mr.
Badcock and Dr. Horſley in this contro-
verſy have found admirers. Indeed, if I
had not had the object above-mentioned,
and alſo thought that their animadverſions
gave me a good opportunity of producing
additional evidence for what I had advanced
in my Hiſtory of the Corruptions of Chriſtianity,
I ſhould not have troubled myſelf with re-
plying to their objections, or abuſe. If I
had
THE
PREFACE.
xxiii
!
had left all their darts ſticking in my
buckler, they would not have retarded my
progreſs.
1
At all events, I wiſh the moſt rigorous
inveſtigation of this ſubject to proceed,
whatever may be the conſequence with
reſpect to my opinions, or myſelf; as I
can fincerely adopt the prayer of Ajax,
quoted by me in my firſt controverſy with
Dr. Brown.
Ποιησον δ' αιθρην, δος δ' οφθαλμοισιν ιδεθαι,
Εν δε φαοί και ολεσσον.
Hom. Il. Lib. xvii. v. 646.
Give me but day, let light the truth diſcloſe;
Though me its beams confound, and not my foes.
I 2.
Since the whole of this treatiſe was ſent.
to the preſs, I have ſeen a poſthumous piece
of Dr. Lardner's, juſt publiſhed, intitled,
Four Diſcourſes on Phil. ii. 4.
which I cannot omit this opportunity of
moſt earneſtly recommending to all my
readers. It is written with that ſimplicity
and modeſty which diſtinguiſh all his writ-
b 4
ings;
1
xxiv
PREF A C E.
:
Τ Η Ε
ings; and I ſhould think it cannot fail to
make a great impreſſion on thoſe whoſe
minds are at all open to conviction, in fa.
vour of the doctrine of the ſimple humanity
of Chriſt. This he generally calls the
Nazarean, and ſometimes the Unitarian
doctrine, as oppoſed both to the Trinita-
rian and the Arian ſchemes, which he par-
ticularly confiders.
“«. This," he fays, p.
70, “ ſeems to be the plaineſt, and moſt
fimple ſcheme of all; and it is generally
66 allowed to have been the belief of the
Nazarean chriſtians, or the Jewiſh be-
« lievers."
2:
For the convenience of the reader, I have
ſubjoined to this preface, a ſhort ſtate of
the different opinions held by Dr. Horſley
and myſelf on the ſubject of this contro-
verfy; and alſo an account of the time in
which the principal ecclefiaftical writers,
and other perſons whoſe names moſt fre-
quently occur in the courſe of it, fou-
riſhed. This will alſo be uſeful to the
readers of my Hiſtory of the Corruptions of
Chriſtianity;
Having,
1
1
THE PRE FACE..
ххү:
Having, in the courſe of this controverfy,
had occafion very carefully to reviſe that
part of the Hiſtory which relates to the
perſon of Chriſt, I can aſſure the reader,
that I ſee no reaſon to make any more than
the following corrections and alterations ;
which, conſidering the difficulty, and ex-
tent of the undertaking, will; I think, be
deemed to be very inconſiderable, and, upon
the whole, by no means unfavourable to my
principal object.
N. B. (b) fignifies from the bottom of the page.
P.7.1. 8. (b) after Nazarenes, read and it may be inferred
from Origen, Epiphanius, and Eufebius, that the, &c.
P. 9. 1. 7. read on account of the errors it contained, and
theſe errors could be no other than the unitarian do&rine.
P. 19. 1. 2. after corrupted, add and as theſe unitarians
are called idiste (common and ignorant people) by Ter-
tullian, it is more natural to look for ancient opinions among
them than among the learned, who are more apt to innovate.
With ſuch manifeſt unfairneſs does Euſebius, or a more an-
cient writer, whoſe ſentiments he adopts, treat the unitarians,
&c.
Ib. 1. 6. for ſucceſſor, read predeceſſor.
P. 29. 1. g. &c. (b) dele all within the parentheſis.
P. 32. 1. 3. (6) dele, is not quoted by Ireneus arid, &c.
P. 55
xx.vi
THE PREFACE.
P. 55.1.7. (6) read the greater part.
:P. 74, 1. 6. dele; According to Epiphanius, and to the
end of the ſentence.
P.: 99. 1. 6. (b) read that there may be God, the word,
wiſdom, man.
P. 216. 1. 12. For our Lord, read the Lord.
j
i
In VOL.
II.
P. 11. 1. 10. read, In this age the table on which it was
celebrated was called the myſtical table, and Theophilus, to
whom Jerom (if the epiſlle be genuine) writes, ſays, that the
very utenſils, c
1
For this laſt correction, I am obliged to the writer of
the Critical Review; and I fhall be thankful to any of
my
readers for the notice of any other overſight, from which
a work of this extent could not be expected to be exempt.
}
N. B. A copy of theſe corrections will be given to the pura
chaſers of the Hiſtory,
:
:
.
A CATALOGUE
CA
Y
[' xxvii. ]
1
A CATALOGUE of the principal Eccleſiaſtical ·
Writers, &c. after the Apoſtolic Age, 'with the
Tine when they flouriſhed, chiefly from Cave's
Hiſtoria Literaria.
JIO
125 Noetus
!
IGnatius, A. D. 101. Beryllus
230
Polycarp 108 Dionyſius (of Alex-
Papias
andria)
247
Bafilides
120 Cyprian
.248
Valentinus
250
Marcion
130 Novatian
251
Juſtin Martyr 140 Gregory of Neo-
Irenæus
167
ceſarea
252
Theophilus 168 Paul of Samoſata 1260
Hegefippus
170 Sabellius
260 :
Montanus
172 Manes
277
Tatian
172 Arnobius
303
Athenagoras
177 Lactantius
303
Artemon
187 Arius
315
Theodotus of
Euſebius Pamphilus
Byzantiuin 192 the hiſtorian
315
Clemens Alexan-
Athanaſius
326
drinus
192 Marcellus of Ancyra 330
Tertullian
192 Photinus
344
Symmachus 201 Cyril of Jeruſalem 350
Caius
210 Hilary
354
Hippolytus 220 Eunomius
360
Origen
230 Apollinarius (fen.) 362
Epiphanius
1
V
>
425
428
448
mertus
398 Facundus
xxviii A Catalogue of Eccleſiaſtical Writers.
Epiphanius 368 Pelagius
405
. Optatus
368 Theodorus of
Baſil
370 Mopſueftia
407
Gregorý (Nyſſen) 270 Cyril of Alexandria 412
Gregory(Nazianzen) 370 Theodoret
Apollinarius (jun.) 370 Neftorius
Ambroſe
374 Eutyches
Jerom
378 Claudianus. Ma-
Auſtin
396
462
Chryfoftom 398 Facundus
540
Sulpicius Severus 401 Gregory the Great 590
The same in alphabetical Order.
Ambroſe
374 Claudianus Ma-
Apollinarius, ſen. 362
mertus
462
jun. 370 Clemens Alexan-
Arius
315
drinus
192
Arnobius
303 Cyprian
248
Artemon
187 Cyril of Alexandria 412
Athanaſius
326
Jeruſalem 350
Athenagoras 177 Dionyſius of
Auſtin
396 Alexandria
247
Bafil
370 Epiphanius
Bafilides
Eunomius
360
Beryllus
230 Euſebius Pamphilus 315
Caius
210 Eutyches
448
Chryfoftom
540
Gregory
!
1
368
I 20
A Catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers.
xxix
368
230
IIO
260
zen
405
344
108
260
1
401
201
:
IOI
Gregory the Great
590 Optatus
of Neoce-
Origen
farea...
252 Papias
NaziaĄ-
Paul of Samofata
370 Pelagius
Nyffen
370 Photinus
Hegefippus 170 Polycarp
Hilary
354 Sabellius
Hippolytus 220 Sulpicius Severus
Ignatius
Symmachus
Jerom
Tatian
Irenæus
167 Tertullian
Juſtin-Martyr 1:40 Theodoret
Lactantius
303. Theodorus of
Manes
277 Mopſueftia
Marcellus of Ancyra 330 Theodotụs of
Marcion
130
Byzantium
Montanus
172 Theophilus of
Neftorius
Antioch
Noetus
250 Valentinus
Novatian
25.11
378
172
192
425
407
192
428
168
7
125
1
Tbe
1
1
xxx
I.
j
i
1
The different Opinions of Dr. Horsley and Dr:
PriestLEY, briefly ſtated.
1
THAT my readers. may more eaſily form a
clear and comprehenſive idea of the nature
and extent of this controverſy, I ſhall, in this
place, briefly ſtate the principal articles on which
Dr. Horſey and myſelf hold different opinions.
)
1. Dr. Horney infifts upon it, that the faith
of the primitive chriſtian church muſt have been
trinitarian, becauſe that doctrine appears in the
writings of Barnabas and Ignatius. I fay. that,
admitting theſe works to be genuine in the maini,
they bear evident marks of interpolation with
reſpect to this very ſubject, and therefore the
concluſion is not juſt.
2. Dr. Horſley ſays, that thoſe who are called
Ebionites, did not exiſt in the age of the apoſtles,
and alſo that, though they believed the ſimple
humanity of Chriſt, they probably held ſome
myſterious exaltation of his nature after his aſcen-
fion, which made him the object of prayer to
them. I ſay the Ebionites certainly exiſted in
the time of the apoftles, and that this notion of
their holding ſuch an exaltation of his nature, as
to make him the object of prayer, is highly im-
probable.
1
!
1
3. Dr
i
1
!
The different Opinions, &c.
: 3. Dr. Horſley ſays, that thoſe who are called
Nazarenes by the early chriſtian writers, believed
the divinity of Chriſt, that they did not exiſt till
-after the time of Adrian, and had their name
from the place where they ſettled in the North
of Galilee, after they were then driven from Je-
rufalem.- I maintain that theſe Nazarenes no
more believed the divinity of Chriſt than the
Ebionites, and that, together with them, they
were ſuppoſed, by the chriſtian Fathers, to have
exifted in the time of the apoſtles.
4. Dr. Horſley maintains that there was a church
of orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, after
the time of Adrian; for that the body of Jewiſh
chriſtians, who had before obſerved the law of
Mofes, abandoned their ceremonies after the de-
ſtruction of the place, in order to obtain the
privileges of the Ælian colony, ſettled there by
Adrian. Origen who aſſerts that the Jewiſh
chriſtians had not abandoned the laws and cuſ-
toms of their anceſtors; Dr. Horſley ſays muſt
have known the contrary, and therefore aſſerted
a wilful falſhood. I ſay that Adrian expelled all
the Jews, whether chriſtians or not, from Jeruſa-
lem, that the chriſtian church afterwards fettled
at Jeruſalem conſiſted wholly of Gentile con-
verts, and that the teſtimony of Origen, agree-
ing with this, is highly worthy of credit.
1,
)
5 5. Dr. 'Horſey maintains, that though he
finds no unitarians in the apoſtolic age, a cen-
3
ſure
Xxxii The different pigious of
3
fure was intended for them by the apoſtle Johnin
the phraſe Cbrift came in the fleſh. I affert that,
the unitarians did exiſt in great numbers in the
time of John; but that he did not cenſure thein
at all; and that the phraſe Chriſt came in the fleſh,
relates to the Gnoftics only.
6. Dr. Horſley aſſerts, that the unitariaris, from
the time that they made their appearance, were
conſidered as heretics by the orthodox chriſtians,
and not admitted to communion with them, and
particularly that they were included by Juſtin
Martyr among thoſe heretics whom he charges
with blafphemy. I aſſert that in Juſtin's time, and
much later, the unitarians were not deemed he.
retics at all, that Juſtin did not even allude to
unitarians in either of his two accounts of heretics
in general, and that the blafphemy he ſpeaks of re-
fpected the Gnoſtics only.
7. Though Tertullian ſays the idiote, who
,
were the greater part of chriſtians were unita-
rians, and ſhocked at the doctrine of the trinity,
Dr. Horſley aſſerts that he only meant to include
a fmall number of thein in that claſs, and thoſe
ſo ignorant and ſtupid as to deſerve to be called
ideats. I maintain that by idiota he only meant
unlearned perſons, or perſons in private life ; and I
alſo maintain that even in Origen's time, and long
after, a great part of theſe chriſtians were unitá-
rians, and in communion with the catholic
church; that the term hereſy was long uſed as
ſynonymous
1
.
.
7
Xxxut
Dr. Horfley and Dr. Prieſtley.
fynonymous to Gnofticiſm, and that the original
uſe of the term frequently occurs even after the
unitarians were deemed to be heretics.
1
8. Dr. Horſley maintains that by the Jews who
held the ſimple humanity of Chriſt, Athanaſius
meant the unbelieving Jews only, and that the
Gentiles who were by them converted to that
belief, were unbelieving.Gentiles. I ſay the
Jews were chriſtian Jews, and their converts
chriſtian Gentiles,
1
9. Dr. Horney maintains that the Jews in
our Saviour's time, believed in the doctrine
of the trinity, that they expected the ſecond
perſon in the trinity as their Meſſiah, and that
they changed their opinion concerning him
when the chriſtians applied it to Chriſt. I fay
that the Jews were always unitarians, that they
expected only a man for their Meſſiah, and that
they never changed their opinion on that ſubject.
10. Dr. Horney ſays that the apoſtles con-
fidered Chriſt as being God from the time that
they conſidered him as the Meſſiah. I ſay that
they conſidered 'him as a mere man, when they
received him as the Meſſiah, and that we find
no evidence in their hiſtory, or in their writings,
that they ever changed that opinion concerning
him,
!
II, Dr.
m
?
XXXIV The different Opinions of .
1
A
11. Dr. Horſley denies that the orthodox fathers
before the council of Nice, held that the logos had
been an attribute of the deity, and then aſſumed
a proper perſonality; and ſays that all that they
meant by the generation of the ſon, was the diſplay
of bis powers in the production of material beings.
I affert, that by this generation, they certainly meant
a change of ſtate in the logos, viz. from a mere
attribute, ſuch as reaſon is in man, to a proper
perfon, and that in their opinion this was made
with a view to the creation of the world.
1
12. Dr. Horſley can find no difference be-
tween this doctrine of the perſonification of the
logos, and the peculiar opinions of the Arians.
I affert that they were two ſchemes directly op-
poſed to each other, and ſo clearly defined, as
never to have been confounded or mistaken.
13. Dr. Horney afferts, that it ſeems to have
been the opinion of all the Fathers, and is like-
wiſe agreeable to the ſcriptures, that the ſecond
perſon in the trinity had his origin from the firſt
perſon contemplating his own perfections. I
challenge him to produce any authority what-
ever, ancient or modern, for that opinion.
14. Dr. Horſley maintains that, though the
three perſons in the trinity have each of them all
the perfections of deity, the Father is the fountain
of the divinity, and has ſome unknown pre-emi-
nence.
/
.
11
I.
1
Dr. Horſley and Dr. Prieſtley. XXXV
nence. I aſſert that this pre-eminence is incon-
Giftent with the proper equality, and that if they
be properly equal, they muſt neceffarily be three
gods as well as three perfons.
15. Dr. Horſley ſays, that prayer for ſuccour in
external proſecution, ſeems with particular pro-
priety to be addreſſed to the Son. I ſay that
this is altogether a diſtinction of his own, and
has no countenance in ſcripture preceptor
example, nor, indeed, in thoſe of the primitive
church.
16. Dr. Horſley, maintains that the unitarians do
not even pretend that the general tenor of ſcrip-
ture is in their favour, that they cannot produce
any text that plainly contains their doctrine,
but that they derive it wholly from particular
paſſages, to which they give a figurative inter-
pretation. Whereas I maintain that the unita-
rians have always appealed to the general tenor
of ſcripture, and the plain language of it; and on
the contrary, that the trinitarians cannot find
their doctrine either in the general tenor, or
in any clear texts of ſcripture, but that they deduce
it from particular expreſſions, and circumſtances,
hich, when rightly explained, do by no means
authorize their concluſions.
***
17. Dr. Horſley ſays, that the difference be-
tween the unitarians and the Mahometans is ſo
C2
ſmall,
xxxvi The different Opinions, &c.
age, that
ſmall, and ſuch advances were made towards the
Mahometans by the unitarians of the laſt
there is good ground to think, that the unita-
rians will ſoon acknowledge the divine miſſion
of Mahomet. He alſo repreſents chriſtianity on
the principles of unitarianiſm, as inferior to
deiſm, and when joined with materialiſm, as
highly favourable to atheiſm. Such charges as
theſe, I ſay, can proceed from nothing but igno-
rance and malevolence, and do not deſerve a
ſerious refutation.
Theſe are all the articles of importance on
which we hold different opinions, every thing
elſe being of leſs moment, and ſubordinate to
theſe,
j
i
is
1
THE
1
1
.
i
3
:
THE
...
Ο Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ S.
1
Page
THE Preface
A catalogue of the principal ecclefiaftical writers, &c.
after the apoſtolic age, with the time when they fou-
riſbed, chiefly from Cave's Hiſtoria Literaria XXÝ
The different opinions of Dr. Horſley and Dr. Prieſtley,
briefly ſtated
XXX
I.
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R
The Introduzion
!
L E T T E R II.
Of the dottrine of the firſt ages concerning the perſon of
Chrift
6
III.
1
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R
Of the Nazarenes and Ebionites
IS
|
L E T T ER IV:
of a ſuppoſed orthodox Jewiſh church at Jeruſalem, and
of the veracity of Origen
36
L E T T E R V.
Of hereſy in the earlieſt times
47
L E T T E R VI.
of the ſentiments of Juſtin Martyr, Ireneus, and Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, concerning herefy
55
3
LETTER
::
CONTENT s.
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R VII.
Of the ſtate of hereſy in the time.of.Tertullian
61
L E T T E R VIII.
of Origen's idea of herely
73
L E T T E R IX.
Of the light in which the unitarians were conſidered in :
later ages, and of the fate of the common people at all
times
80
1
X.
L E T T E R
Of the quotation from Aihanafius
89
L E T T E R XI.
Of the time when Chriſt began to be conſidered as God,
and the opinion of the ancient and modern Jews with
reſpect to the Meffiah
103
i
L E T T E R XII.
Of the perſonification of the logos
124
134
L E-T T E R XIII,
Conſiderations relating to the doctrine of the trinity
L E: T T E R XIV. .
Of prayer to Chrift
154
L E T T E R. XV.
Of the unitarian principles with reſpect to Mahometaniſm
and infidelity
160
L E T T E R
Å
XVI.
of Bishop Ball's defence of damnatory clauſes
170
LET TER
1
C O N T E N T S.
L E T T E R XVII.
Of the light in which the diſenters are conſidered by the
Archdeacon of St. Albans, and of the penalties to which
the unitarians among them are ſubje&
177
L E T T E R XVIII.
Of the charge of wilful miſrepreſentation, &c.
186
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R XIX,
Miſtellaneous articles, and the concluſion
194
APPENDIX to Letter VIII. relating to the argument
for the novelty of the doctrine of the trinity, from the
alarm that it gave to the common peopla
209
1
man
1
1
1
--
1
R RA
T
A..
N. B. (b) ſignifies from the bottom of the page.
P.95.1. 1. (b) for unbegotten, read only begotten,
P. 107. 1. 6. for Sheclinah, read Shechinah,
P. 42. 1. 8. for then, read there.
P. 40. 1. 8. (6) for third, read foconds
P.89 (5) for do, readino.
amipunan
1
1
.
1
7
1
L E T T E $
RR
TO THE
?
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
i
L ET T
E T E R
1.
The Introduction.
REV. SIB',
AT
T length you have condeſcended to gratify my
wiſhes, and have favoured me with a ſeries of
letters, in anſwer to mine. But as they are written
with a degree of infolence, which notling in your
lieuation or mine can juſtify, and indicate a temper
that appears to me to be very far from being the
moſt proper for the difcuffion of hiſtorical truth;
I ſhall conſider myſelf, in this anſwer, as writing
not ſo much to you, as to the candid part of the
public, to whom our correſpondence is openi ; and
I have no doubt but that I ſhall be able to fatisfy
all who are qualified to judge between us, that your
ignorance of the fubject which you have undertaken
to diſcuſs, is equal to your infolence; and therefore,
that there is no great reaſon. co regret that you have
formed a refolution to appear no more in this con-
troverfy. " Whatever, more," you ſay, p. 9.
B
you
2
Ι. Ε Υ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε .
>
CC
you may find to ſay, upon the ſubject, in me you
" will have no antagoniſt.
1
I made the propoſal to diſcuſs the queſtion of the
ſtate of opinions concerning Chriſt in the early ages,
in a perfect!ý amicable, and as I thought, the moſt
advantageous manner, and my addreſs to you, was
uniformly reſpectful. It has not been my fault that
this propoſal was not accepted. You ſay, p. 166.
“ I held it my duty to uſe pretty freely that high
ſeaſoning of controverſy which may intereſt the
" readers attention." What that high ſeaſoning is,
is ſufficiently apparent through the whole of your
performance, viz. a violation of all decency, and pera
petual imputations of the groffeft, but of the moſt
improbable kind. This, from reſpect to the pub-
licy and to myſelf, I ſhall not return; but I ſhall
certainly think myſelf authorized by it to treat you
with a little leſs ceremony in the preſent publica-
tion, in which I ſhall take occaſion from your groſs
miſtakes, and miſrepreſentations, to throw ſome far-
ther light on the ſubject of this diſcuſſion.
:
The reader muſt have been particularly ſtruck
with the frequent boaſting of your victory, as if
the controverſy, had come to a regular termination,
and the public had decided in your favour. “My
victory,”: you ſay, p. 7." is already ſo compleat,
that I might : well decline any farther conteſt.
In p. 160. you ſay, it would have heightened the
“pride of my victory if I could have found a fair
occafion to be the : herald of my adverfary's
«
praiſe."
܂ ܃ ܂
1
Á RẺ HDEA CƠN OF ST, ALBAN S.
3
is
. I
praiſe." P. 10. you call me a foiled polemic, and
p. 8. a proſtrate enemy. What mark's of proftration
you may have perceived in me, I cannot tell. Idó
not know that I have yet faid my felf at your feet,
and I preſume, this kind of language is rather pres
mature. It will be time enough for you to fay with
Entellus, Hic cæftus artemqüe repono, when the vic-
tory, of which you boaſt, ſhall be as clear as his;
and ſhall be declared to be fo by the proper judges.
You ought alſo to have remembered the advice of
Solomon, Prov. xxvii. 2. Let another man praiſe thee
and not thine own mouth, a ſtranger and not thing
own lips.
Ön the contrary, I cautioned my reader (preface,
p. 19) not to conclude too haftily in my favour, but
to wait till you had made your reply. You have
now done it, and I hope they will do me the juſtice
to hear me again in return, eſpecially as this will
probably be the laſt time that I ſhall trouble them
Though this controverſy. has not come to what
I think its proper and deſirable termination,'. !
rejoice that it has proceeded thus far ; and upon
the whole I derive great ſatisfaction from the op-
poſition that my Hiſtory of the Corruptions of
Ghriſtianity has met with ; buth becauſe a more
general attention has been excited to the ſubject;
and alſo becauſe, having; by this means, been
wife have done, I have diſcovered a variety of ad-
", B2
ditionat
in this way.
1
1
LETTERS
TO THE
ditional evidence in ſupport of what I had advanced,
and ſuch an abundant confirmation of the evidence
before produced, as gives even myſelf a greater de-
gree of confidence in it than I could otherwife have
had. And when my readers in general fall.fee,
as they cannot but fee, with what extreme eager-
neſs the moſt inſignificant overſights have been
catched at, and magnified, and the readineſs with
which I have acknowledged ſuch overſights, not-
withftanding the 'groſs inſults with which this can-
dour has been created, and alſo that every objection
has brought oat new evidence in my favour, it
cannot but beget a perſuaſion, that the moſt ſharp
fighted adverſary will not be able to detect any mif-
take of real conſequence ; and from this will be
derived a degree of credit to my work that nothing
elſe could have given it. Your object, you ſay,
p. 8. was to demoliſh the credit of my warrative;
but I am much miſtaken if; inſtead of that, your
weak, though violent oppoſition, has not greatly
contributed to ſtrengthen it.
You will perhaps be ſtruck with the change in
the ſtyle of my addreſs to you, when you obſerve
me 'beginning with Rev. Sir, inſtead of the Dear
Six of my former letters, an appellation to which
our perſonal: acquaintance gave a propriety, and
which you have returned; but when I conſider
how ill it correfponds to the ſpirit of your letters,
and the ftrefs you lay on your Arshidiaconal digrity,
which appears not only in the title-page of your
work, but at the head of many of your letters,
and
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN S.
3
and which you intimate, p. 158. that I had not
fufficiently attended to, I thought the ſtyle of Rev.
Sir, and occalionally that of Mr. Arebdeacon both
more proper, and alſo more pleaſing to yourſelf,
and therefore I have adopted it. And if, by any
accident, I ſhould wound your feelings, p. 159. you
will find the proper balm in my running title.
While perſons who have fome perſonal acquaint-
ance treat cach other with decent reſpect, and are
uniform in doing it, as I have been to you, the
uſual ſtyle of Dear Sir is natural, and proper ; but
when you charge me with numerous inſtances of
the groſſeft artifice, and impofition on the Public,
you in fact give me the lies and therefore ought
yourfelf to have dropped all terms expreſſive of
affection and regard. I renounce all particular
reſpect for the man who has treated me in this
manner; and in the outfet of this fécond part of
our correſpondence, 1. ſubſcribe myſelfs merely
becauſe custom authorizes the form,
Rev. Sir,
Your very humble fervant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
B. 3
LETTER
L E T TERS, TO THE
1
A
L E T T E R
II.
Of the doEtrine of the firſt ages concerning the perſon
of Chriſt.
Rey. Sir,
To hew you that I fee nothing very formidable
in your ſtrongeſt arguments, I ſhall begin
with what you call “ your poſitive proof, p. 64.
“ that the divinity of our Lord was the belief of
as the very firſt chriſtians.” This proof is
wholly derived from the epiſtle of Barnabas.
1
Of Barnabas you ſay, p. 66. ! You allow him
" a place among the fathers of the apoſtolic age,
and will you not allow that he was a believer
s in our Lord's divinity ? I will not take upon
me, Sir, to anſwer this queition for you ; but
“ I will take upon me to ſay, that whoever de-
“nies it, muſt deny it to his own ſhame. The
proof from this writer," you ſay, “ p. 68. is ſo
“ direct and full, though it lies in a narrow com-
“ paſs, that if this be laid in one ſcale, and your
of whole maſs of evidence from incidental and
ambiguous alluſions in the other, the latter
şr would fly up and kick the beam.”
$
I am ſurprized, Sir, at the extreme confidencę
with which you tread this very precarious and
uncertain
;
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
7
1
uncertain ground; when, to ſay nothing of the
doubts entertained by many learned men con-
cerning the genuineneſs of this epiſtle, the moſt
that is poſſible to be admitted is, that it is ge-
nuine in the main. For whether you may
have
obſerved it or not, it is moſt evidently interpoe
lated, and the interpolations reſpect the very fub-
ject of which we treat. Two paffage's in the
Greek, which aſſert the pre-exiſtence of Chriſt,
are omitted in the ancient Latin verſion of it.
And can it be ſuppoſed that that verſion was
made in an age in which ſuch an omiſſion was
likely to be made ? Both the interpolations are
in fect. vi. where we now read thus : acgel geep y
γραφη σερι ημων, ως λεγει τω. νιω, ποιησωμεν και εικονα
και καθ' ομοίωσιν ημων, τον ανθρωπον. For the fcrip-
ture ſays concerning us, as he ſays to the Son, Let us
make man according to our image, and our likeneſs.
But the ancient Latin verſion correſponding to
this paſſage is ſimply this, Sicut dicit ſcriptura,
Faciamus hominem, &c. i. e. As ſays the ſcripture,
Let us make man, &c.
Again, in the ſame fection, after quoting from
Mofes, Increaſe and multiply, and repleniſh the
earth, the Greek copy has, Taula opos. Tov viol, Theſe
things to the Son; but in the old Latin verſion the
clauſe is wholly omitted ; and certainly there is
no want of it, or of the ſimilar clauſe in the for-
mer paſſage, with reſpect to the general object
of the writer. Theſe, Sir, appear to me pretty
evident marks of interpolation.
1
B 4
The
1
8
LETTERS TO THE
The paſſage on which you lay the chief ſtreſs
is only in the Latin .verſion, that part of the
Greek copy to which it correſponds being now
loft; and all the other expreſſions that you note
are ſuch as an Unitarian will find no difficulty
in accommodating to his principles.
On theſe accounts, your evidence from this
epiſtle of Barnabas will by no means bear the
ſtreſs that you lay upon it. Can it be thought
at all improbable, that if one perſon interpolated
the Greek, another ſhould make as free with the
Latin verſion! I muſt therefore ſee other evi-
dence than this from Barnabas, before I can ad-
mit that the doctrine of the divinity or pre-
exiſtence of Chriſt was the belief of the apoſtolic
age.
“
You ſtill argue with the ſame confidence from
the epiſtle of Clemens Romanus.
" The con-
text;” you now ſay, p. 29..“ determines the
coming of Chriſt, of which he ſpeaks to be from
a pre-exiſtent ſtate," and this you call " fome-
" thing of great importance in its defence," as no
. - doubt it would be, if it was juſt, but let'us, ex-
amine it. The whole of the paſſage; with the
ſmall context on which you lay ſo much ſtrefs,
is, in your own words, as follows; “ He caine
« not, ſays Clemens, in the pomp of pride and
e arrogance, although he had it in his power,
" but in humility, as the Holy Spirit fpake
“ concerning him. To determine what this
humility is, Clemens immediately goes on to
cite
|
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
9
}
“ cite the prophecies which deſcribe the Mer-
« fiah's low condition. The humility, therefore,
“ of an ordinary condition, is that in which it,
" is ſaid the Meffiah came. The
The pomp, there-
“ fore, of a high condition, is the poinp in which
« it is ſaid he came not, although he had it in
“his power to come. The expreſfions, therefore,
clearly imply that our Lord, ere he' caine, had
" the power to chooſe in what condition he would
«« be born."
But, Sir, had you conſidered the prophecies
which Clemens quotes, you would have found
them to be not. ſuch as deſcribe the circum.
ſtances of his birth, but only thoſe of his public
life and death; the principal of them being, Ir.liii.
which he quotes almoſt at full length. How then
does this important circumſtance help your argu-
ment? It is, on the other hand, certainly fa-
vourable to mine, viz. that when Chriſt was in
public life, he made no oſtentatious diſplay of
the extraordinary powers, with which he was in-
veſted, and preferred a low condition to that
of a great prince.
The more ancient reading that you quote of
Jerom, I alſo conſider as evidently favourable
to my interpretation of this paffage. He read
az avla d'uvojleros, having all power, which naturally
alludes to the great power of which he became
poffeffed after the defcent of the ſpirit of God
upon him at his baptiſm.
As
LETTERS TO THE
1
.
As to the phraſe coming, you muſt be little
at bome,' as you ſay, in the language of the ſcrip-
tures, or have given little attention to it, not to
have perceived, that it is a phraſe uſed to expreſs
the miſion of any prophet, and that it is applied to
John the Baptiſt as well as to Chriſt, of which the
following are examples. Matt. xi. 18, 19. John
came neither eating nor drinking, &c. The son of
man came eating and drinking, &c. i. e. not locally
from heaven, but as the prophets came from God.
Chriſt ſays of John, Matt. xxi. 32. John came unto
gou in the way of righteouſneſs. John the evangelift
allo fays of him, John i. 7. The ſame came for a
witneſs, &c. ſo that all your deſcanting upon this
paſſage of Clemens is impertinent.
Admitting that ſome one circumſtance in the
prophecies he quotes, rigorouſly interpreted, ſhould
allude to the birth of Chriſt (though I ſee no reaſon
to think ſo) you are not authorized to conclude
that Clemens attended to that in particular, but to
the general ſcope of the whole, which is evidently
deſcriptive of his public life only.
If with your boaſted knowledge of Greek, you
had attended ever ſo little to the theory of language
in general, and the natural uſe of words, you would
have feen, that the term God would not, from the
beginning, ' have been uſed by way of contradif-
tinction to Chriſt, if the former could have been
predicated of the latter. We ſay the prince and the
king, becauſe the prince is not a king. If he had,
we
1
1
II
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
we ſhould have had recourſe to ſome other dif-
tinction, as that of greater and leſs, ſenior and
junior, father and ſon, &c. When therefore the
apoſtle Paul ſaid, that the church at Corinth was
Chriſt's, and that Chriſt was God's (and that manner
of diſtinguiſhing them is perpetual in the New
Teſtament) it is evident, that he could have no
idea of Chriſt being God, in any proper ſenſe of
the word.
In like manner, Clemens, in this paffage, calling
Cbrift the ſcepter of the majeſty of God, ſufficiently
proves that, in his idea, the ſcepter was one thing,
and the God whoſe ſcepter it was, another. This,
I ſay, muſt have been the caſe when this language
was firſt adopted, though when principles are once
formed, we fee, by a variety of experience, that any :
language may be accommodated to them. But
an attention to this circumſtance will, I doube
not, contribute, with perſons of real diſcernment,
to bring us back to the original uſe of the words,
and to the ideas originally annexed to them. I am
perſuaded that even now, the conſtant uſe of theſe
terms Chriſt and God, as oppoſed to each other,
has a great effect in preventing thoſe of the com-
mon people who read the New Teſtament more
than books of controverſy, from being habitually
and practically Trinitarians. There will, by, this
means, be a much greater difference between God
and Chriſt in their minds, than they find in their
freeds.
2
With
LETTERS TO
TO THE
i
With refpect to Ignatius, I would obſerve; that
23 you knew the genuineneſs of his epiſtles hat
been controverted, and by men of learni g and
ability, you certainly ought not from the firſt to
have concealed that circumſtance, You fay, how-
ever, p. 34 " I ſhall appeal to them with the leſs
fcruple, forafmuch as the fame fincerity which
“I afcribe to them, and which is quite fufficient
« for my purpoſe, is allowed by the learned and
" the candid Dr. Lardner.--After ſuggeſting in no
very confident language, that even the ſmaller
epiſtles may have been tampered with by the
« Arians, or the Orthodox, or both, he adds, I do
is not affirm that there are in them any confiderable
* alterations or corruptions. If no conſiderable tok-
" ruptions or alterations, certainly none reſpecting
a point of ſuch importance as the original nature
« of Chriſt.”
This is curious indeed. What then could Dr.
Lardner mean by theſe epiftles having been tant.
pered with by the Arians, the Orthodox, or botb?
If they interpolated them at all, it would certainly
be to introduce into them paſſages favourable to
their opinions concerning the divinity or pre-exiſt-
ence of Chrift. How would it be worth their
while, as Arians or Orthodox, to interpolate them
for any other purpoſe? If a farmer, hearing of
fome depredation on his property committed by
foxes, thould fay, My corn may have been plun-
dered, but as the miſchief has been done by foxes,
my geeſe and my poultry are fafe; what would be
faid:
i
Į
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 13
faid of his reaſoning? Yet of the fane nature is
yours in this caſe,
There foxes have not refrained from their prey
in more ſacred inclofures than thoſe of Ignatius.
Sir Iſaac Newton, among others, has clearly
proved that the orthodox, as they are commonly
called; have, in this way, tampered with the New
Teſtament iefelf; having made interpolations, fa-
vourable to the doctrine of the trinity, eſpecially
the famous paffage concerning the tbree that bear
record in beaven, in the firſt epiſtle of John. This
I ſhould imagine, you yourſelf will acknowledge;
and can you think they would {pare the epiſtles of
Ignatius, which were much more in their power
i
Jortin ſays, “ Though the ſhorter epiftles are on
many accounts preferable to the larger, yet I will
“ not affirm that they have undergone no alteration
“ at all. Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiſtory, vol.
I. p. 361.
.
For my own part, I fcruple not to ſay, that
there never were more evident marks of interpo-
lation in any writings than are to be found in theſe
genuine epiftles, as they are called, of Ignatius
though I am willing to allow, on reconſidering
chem, that, excluſive of manifeſt interpolation, there
may be a ground-work of antiquity in then. The
famous paffage in Joſephus concerning Christ is
not a more evident interpolation than many in
theſe epiſtles of Ignatius, which
you quote with fo
much confidence.
You
1
14
· É T T E R S TÖ T HE
1
1
You yourſelf may believe that every word now
found in theſe epiſtles was actually written by Igna-
tius; but if they have been tampered with, or have
undergone alterations, how can you quote them with
ſo much confidence, as if the argument muſt necef-
farily have the ſame weight with all perſons ? Not-
withſtanding this, you ſay, p. 34. “ I will there-
“fore, ſtill appeal to thefe epiſtles as ſufficiently
« fincere to be deciſive in the point in diſpute.
“ Nor ſhall I think myſelf obliged to go into the
proof of their authenticity, till you have given a
“ fatisfactory reply to every part of Biſhop Pear-
“ fon's elaborate defence, a work which I fufpect
you
have not yet looked through." And I Sir, ſhall
fave myſelf that trouble, till you ſhall have replied
to every part of Larroque's anſwer to this work of
Pearſon ; a work, which I ſuſpect you have not
looked into. I will, however, favour you with a ſight
of it, if you will gratify me with the perufal of the
works of Zuicker, which, by your account, you
have carefully read, though, I have not yet been
able to procure them.
I am, &c.
LETTER
!
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
1
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
III.
1
of the Nazarenes, and Ebionites.
Rev. Sir,
YOU
OU ſtill infift, p. 38. upon the high ortho-
doxy of thoſe whom the chriſtian Fathers call
Nazarenes. “Epiphanius,” you ſay, p. 38. “ con-
66. feſſes that the Nazarenes held the Catholic does
“ trine concerning the nature of our Lord,” where-
as, I have maintained, that, though, according to
him, and ſome other ancient writers, there was ſome
difference between them and the Ebionites, they
ſtill agreed in aſſerting the proper humanity of Chriſt.
The youn which diſtinguiſhed the Ebionites, you ſay,
p. 41. was ſomething that they had borrowed not
from the Nazwporton, the chriſtian Nazarenes, but the
Naſareans, a ſect of Jews' only. “I ftill abide by
my aſſertion," you ſay, p. 176. “ that the name
6 of Nazarenes was never heard of in the church;
" that is, among chriſtians themſelves, before the
“ final deſtruction of Jeruſalem by Adrian; when
« it became the ſpecific name of the Judaizars, who
“at that time ſeparated from the church at Jeruſa-
“ lem, and ſettled in the North of Galilee: the name
“ was taken from the country in which they fercled:"*
1
I am really aſtoniſhed that you Thould have the af-
ſurance to affert all this, ſo directly contrary to every
thing that appears on the face of ecclefiaftical hiſtory,
and
1
16
LETTERS TO
T.H E
1
1
and which muſt have been borrowed from your ima-
gination only, as I ſhall eaſily prove. I cannot raiſe
Epiphanius himſelf from the dead, to ſolve the queſ-
tion concerning his opinion, nor do I wiſh to diſ-
turb the good Father's repoſe; but, though dead,
he ſpeaks ſufficiently plain for my purpoſe in the
following paſſage.
1
" Wherefore the bleſſed John coming, and
“ finding men employed about the huinanity of
s Chriſt, and the Ebionites being in an error
“ about the earthly genealogy of Chriſt, deduced
“ from Abraham, carried by Luke as high as
Adam, and finding the Cerinthians and Me-
“ rinthians maintaining that he was a mere man,
" born by natural generation of both the ſexes,
" and alſo the Nazarenes, and many other here-
“ lies ; as coming laſt (for he was the fourth to
« write a goſpel) began as it were to call back
" the wanderers, and thoſe who were employed
« about the humanity of Chrift; and ſeeing fame
o of them going into rough paths, leaving the
“ ſtrait and true path, cries, Whither are you
“ going, whither are you walking, who tread a
« rough and dangerous path, leading to a pre-
« cipice? It is not ſo. The God, the logos,
" which was begotten by the Father from all
“eternity, is not from Mary only. He is not
«s from the time of Jofeph, he is not from the
“ time of Salathiel and Zerobabel, and David,
cc and Abraham; and Jacob, and Noah, and
“ Adam ; but in the beginning was the logos,
" and
A R CH DEA CON OF ST. ALBAN S. Ι7.
" and the logos was with God, and the logos
« was God. The wis, and the was, and the was,
“ do not admit of his having ever not been *.”
Perhaps you will ſay that this teſtimony of
Epiphanius is forged by me, as you charge me
with reſpect to the ſame writer, p. 13. I there-
fore beg that you would examine the paſſage
yourſelf. You will find my reference to it fuf-
ficiently exact.
After reading this paffage, can any perfon en-
tertain a doubt but that, in the opinion of Epi-
phanius at leaft (and, weals as he was in fome
things, he ſtands uncontradicted in this by any
authority whatever, and his account is confirmed
* Διο και Ια: νης ελθων ο μακαρι, και ευρων της ανθρωπες
ησχολημενες περι την καθω Χριςκαι σαρεσίαν, και των Εςιωναίων
πλανηθένων δια την ενσαρχον Χρισε γενεαλογίαν, από
Αβρααμ καθαγομενην, κ Λεκα αναγομένην αχριής Αδαμ ευρων
δε Κηρίνθia:ες, και Μερινθια/ες, εκ παραγριξης αυτον λεγονίας
ειναι ψιλος ανθρωπον, και τας Ναζωραίες, και αλλας πολλές
αιρεσείς, ες καλοπιν ελθων, τελαρ76 γαρ έτος ευαγγελιζέθαι,
αχέλαι ανακαλειθαι, ως ειπείν, τες πλανηθενας, και ηχολη-
μενες περι την καθω Χρισε σαράσιαν, και λεγειν αυτοις (ως
καλοπιν Καινων, και ορων τινας εις τραχειας οδες κεκλικόλας και
αφενίας την ευθειαν και αληθινην, ως ειπε.ν) που φερεώε, σοι
βαδίζεε, οι την τραχειαν οδον και σκανδαλώδη και εις χασμα,
φερεσαν βαδιζολες; ανακαμψανε. Ουκ εσιν εως, η εσιν απο
Μαρίας μόνον ο θεος λογώ, ο εκ σαθρG» ανωθεν γεγεννημένο,
εκ έςιν απο των χρωνων Ιωσηφ το ταυλης ορμας, εσιν απο
των χρονων Σαλαθιηλ, και Ζοροβας ηλ, και) Δαβίδ, Αβρααμ,
κ Ιακως, και Νωε, και Αδαμ, αλλ' εν αρχή ην ο λογος, και ο λογG-
ήν προς τον θεον, και θεος ην ο λογος. το δε ην, και η', κ ην,
*χ υποδέχεται τα μη ειναι πολε. Ηer. 69. fect. 23. Opera,
vol. I,
Ρ
C
by
Ι
18
L E T T E R S TO THE
--
by the moſt reſpectable ones in all antiquity) the
Nazarenes were not only a ſect of Jewiſh chriſ-
tians in the time of the apoſtles, but, together
with the Ebionites, a very forinidable fect, and
that this ſect held the doctrine of the ſimple
humanity of Chriſt ? Did he not, as appears
by this paſſage, conſider the Nazarenes as ſtand-
ing in need of being taught the pre-exiſtence and
divinity of Chriſt, as well as the Ebionites, and
the other ſects that he here mentions or alludes to?
In another place this writer compares the Na .
zarenes to perſons who, ſeeing a fire at a diſtance,
and not underſtanding the cauſe, or the uſe of it,
run towards it and burn themſelves ; ſo ss theſe
Jews, he ſays, on hearing the name of Jeſus
only, and the miracles performed by the apoſ-
« tles, believe on him; and knowing that he
“ was born at Nazareth, and brought up in the
“ houſe of Joſeph, and that on tliat account he
“ was called a Nazarene (the apoſtles ſtyling him
“a man of Nazareth, approved by miracles and
mighty deeds) impoſed that name upon them-
“ ſelves *.” How, Sir, does this agree with this
• Ακεσαίες γαρ μονον ονομα τg Ιησε, και θεασαμενοι τα
θεοσημεία τα δια χειρων των αποστολών γνομενα, και αυτοι εις
culty wiseviO.. yvoules de avlov si Nalape2 ev gaspi
εγκυμονηθενα, και εν οίκω Ιωηση αναίραφεία, και δια τέλο εν
τω ευαγγελιω Ιησεν Ναζωραιον καλείθαι, ως και οι αποστολοι
φασιν Ιησαν τον. Ναζωραιον ανδρα, αποδεδειγμενον εν το
σημείοις και τερασι και τα εξης; τείο το ονομα επίλιθεασιν αυτοις,
to naaslatai Nampareg, Hær, 29. ſect. 5. Opera, vol. I.
p. 120.
writer's
.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
19
writer's ſuppoſing that the Nazarenes, of whom
he was treating, were well inſtructed in the doc-
frine of the divinity of Chriſt? Alſo how does
this agree with the late origin that you give to
theſe Nazarenes?
You, Mr. Archdeacon, are pleaſed ţo deny.
the exiſtence even of the Ebionites in the time
of the apoſtles, contrary, I will venture to ſay,
to the unanimous teftimony of all antiquity.--
Jerom, giving an account of the reaſons that
moved John to write his goſpelo mentions, the
Ebionites not only as a ſect, but a flouriſhing
fect in the time of that apoſtle. See the follow-
ing paſſage from his catalogue of eccleſiaſtical
writers: “ John, the apoſtle, whom Jeſus loved,
** the ſon of Zebedee, aod brother of James,
“ who was beheaded by Herod after the death
ws of Chriſt, wrote his goſpel the laſt of all (ae
* the intreaty of the biſhops of Aſia) against
« Cerinthus, and other heretics, and eſpecially
* the dactrine of the Ebionites, then gaining
“ ground, who ſaid that Chriſt had no being
s before he was born of Mary, whence he was
ro
compelled to declare his divine origin *."
This is only one out of many authorities that I
1
* Joannes Apoftolus quem Jeſus amavit plurimum, filius Ze-
bedæi, frater Jacobi Apokoli, quem Herodes poft paffio'nena
domini decollavit, nguiflimus omnium, fcripfit evangelium,
Togatus ab Aliæ epiſcopis, adverſus Cerinthum, aliofque hæreti.
cos et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma confurgens, qui affe-
runt Chriftum ante Mariam non fuiſſe, unde et compulfus eft
divinam ejus naturam.edicere. Ogora, vol. I. p. 273.
could
1
C2
i
2.0
L ETTERS TO THE .
1
could produce for this purpoſe, and it is not
poſſible to produce any to the contrary.
« As a certain proof,” you ſay, p. 27, “ that
" the Ebionites and Nazarenes were two diſtinct
“ ſects, Moſheim obſerves that each had its own
“ goſpel.” But in anſwer to this opinion of
Moſheim's, I ſhall give you another, which I
think of equal authority, viz. that of Mr. Jere-
miah Jones, with whom I find I have had the
happineſs to bring you acquainted ; and I can
introduce him with the greater confidence of his
being well received, as he was as orthodox as
yourſelf. As he is a writer intirely new to you,
I ſhall give his whole paragraph on the ſubject.
ī
(
i
1
“ It is plain, there was a very great agreement
rs between theſe two ancient fects; and though
“ they went under different names, yet they ſeem
“ only to have differed in this, that the Ebionites
« had made fome addition to the old Nazarene
ſyſtem. For Origen expreſsly tells us, Kat
« « Εβίωναιοι χρηματιζεσι οι απο Ι«δαιων τον Ιησαν ως Χρισον
Dupade Eaucrob, They were called Ebionites who
from among the Fews own Jeſus to be the Chriſt.
" And though Epiphanius ſeems to make their
goſpels different, calling one aanpesulov moſt in-
“ tire, yet this need not move us. For if the
« learned Caſaubon's conjecture ſhould not be
right, that we ſhould read the ſame, viz.
«y maanpesulov in both places (which yet is very
“probable for any thing Father Simon has proved
1
to
1
!
!
i
:
1
1
:
ÀCRHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN S. 21
. .
to the contrary) yet will the difficulty be all
" removed at once by this ſingle conſideration,
" that Epiphanius never ſaw any goſpel of the
“ Nazarenes; for though he calls it wanpesalo",
yet ' ,
he himfelf' fays, και η οιδα δε ει και τας γενεαλογιας
“ tepelnov, that he did not know whether they
“had taken away the genealogy, as the Ebionites
“had done ; i. e. having never ſeen the Naza-
“ rene goſpel, for ought he knew it might be the
very
ſame with that of the Ebionites, as in-
« deed it moſt certainly was.” On the Canon,
vol. I. p. 386.
As I have perceived that the opinion of the
moderns has ſometimes great weight with you, I
ſhall tranſcribe part of a note of the learned
tranflator of Moſheim on this ſubject. " This
goſpel,” he ſays, vol. I. p. 173.
" which was
" called indiſcriminately the goſpel of the Na-
zarenes, or Hebrews, is certainly the ſame with
" the goſpel of the Ebionites, the gofpel of the
« twelve apoſtles,” &c. and, after referring to
other authors, he ſays, “ the reader will, how-
ever, find a ſtill more accurate and ſatisfactory
- account of this goſpel, in the firſt volume of
“ the learned and judicious Mr. Jones's incom-
parable method of fertling the canonical aus
thority of the New Teſtament.”
1.
I
But in my opinion Ferom has ſufficiently de-
cided this queſtion againſt you. Could he have
had any other idea than that theſe two ſects (if
C
3.
they
1
:
22
L E T TERS TO THE
)
they were properly two) uſed the ſame goſpel,
when he ſaid, “in the goſpel uſed by the Naza-
renes and Ebionites, which is commonly called
" the authentic goſpel of Matthew, which I lately
« tranſlated from Hebrew into Greek*, &c.
1
You farther ſay, p.71. "the Ebionites ac-
knowledged no part of the Old Teſtament but
... the Pentateuch, nor the whole of that; and
.“ therefore that Hegeſippus citing the Proverbs
« of Solomon, by a title which implies his ac+
“ knowledgment of that book, is a proof that he
“ was not an Ebionite." I know of ņo ſufficient
-evidence that the Ebionites did not acknowledge
the authority of all that we call the canonical
books of the Old Teſtament. Symmachus,
whoſe tranſlation of the ſcriptures into Greek is
ſo often quoted, and with the greateſt appro-
bation by the fathers, was an Ebionite, and Je-
tom ſays the ſame of Theodotion. They botlı
tranſlated the other books of the Old Teſtament,
as well as the Pentateuch, and as far as appears,
without making any diſtinction between that and
the other books; and can this be thought pro-
bable, if they had not conſidered them as intitled
to equal credit? Beſides, our Saviour's acknow-
ledgment of the authority of the whole of the
old Teſtament is fo expreſs, that I cannot readily
In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ehionitx, quod
nuper in Græcum de Hebræo fermone tranſtulimus, et quod
vocatur plerifque Matthæi authenticum, &c. in Matt. xii. ij.
Opera, vol. vi. p. 23.
believe
1
'ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 23
believe that any chriſtians, Jews eſpecially, ac-,
knowledging his authority, would reject what he
admitted.
What you ſay can be only on the authority of
Epiphanius, and that, you ought to have known
is in effect contradicted by Irenæus, who ſays,
that “the Ebionitęs expounded the prophecies
“ too curiouſly. Quæ autem ſunt prophetica cu-
“ riofius exponere nituntur, lib. I. cap. 26.
Grabe ſays, that Ebion wrote an expoſition of the
prophets, as he collected from fome fragments
of the work, of which he gives ſome account in
his note on the place. By Ebion we may under-
ſtand fome Ebionite ; for I much doubt the exift-
ence of ſuch a perſon as Ebion, the Ebionites
being mentioned long before the name Ebion
occurs in ecclefiaftical writers.
It is an argument in favour of the identity of
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that the former are
not mentioned by name by any writer who like-
wiſe ſpeaks of the Ebionites before Epiphanius,
though the people ſo called afterwards were cer-
tainly known before his time. The term Ebio .
nites occurs in Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, and
Euſebius ; but none of them make any mention
of Nazarenes ; and yet it cannot be denied, that
they inuſt have been even more confiderable in
the time of theſe writers than they were after-
wards ; for, together with the Ebionites (if there
was any difference between them) they dwindled
C4
away,
1
Y
24
L E TT E.RS
Τ Ο . Τ Η Ε
away, till, in the time of Auſtin, they were ad-
modum pauci, very few,
Origen muſt have meant to include thoſe who
were called Nazarenes under the appellation of
Ebionites, becauſe he ſpeaks of the Ebionices as be-
ing the whole body of Jewiſh chriſtians; and the
Nazarenes were chriſtian Jews as well as they.
Jeron ſeems to uſe the two terms, promiſcuouſly;
and in the paſſage of his letter to Auſtin, ſo often
quoted in this controverſy, I cannot help thinking
he makes them to be the ſame.
The conduct of theſe writers is eaſily accounted
for, on the ſuppoſition of the Jewiſh chriſtians hav-
ing been firſt known to the Gentiles by the name of
Ebionites only, before the appellation of Nazarenės
(by which they had been diſtinguiſhed by their unbe-
lieving brethren) came to be generally, known
abroad. It muſt be more particularly difficult, on
your principles, to account for the conduct of Eufe-
bius, whoſe buſineſs, as an hiſtorian, it certainly was
to have noticed the Nazarenes, if they had been dif-
ferent from the Ebionites, whom he has mentioned;
and even you allow them to have had their riſe in
the time of Adrian, whoſe expedition againſt the
Jews he particularly mentions.
On this ſubject of the Ebionites, I muſt take ſome
notice of what you fay in defence of Euſebius, who
ſays, that Theodotus was the firſt who taught the doc-
trine of the humanity of Chriſt. You ſtill main-
tains
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
25
tain, without the leaſt ſhadow of authority for it,
that he carried the doctrine farther than the Ebio-
nites had ever done'whereas, you cannot poflibly
produce any evidence whatever of Theodotus hav-
ing been conſidered by the ancients in a worſe light
than the Ebionites,
so
" It is very certain,” you ſay, p. 131. “that
« Theodorus maintained: the 'mere humanity. of
“ Chriſt in the groffeft ſenſe ; in that groſs and
ſhocking ſenſe in which it is at this day taught
" by yourſelf and Mr. Lindſey.' It is not certain
" that the Ebionites before Theodorus had gone
os farther than to deny our Lord's original divinity.
They probably, like Socinus, admitted ſome un-
intelligible exaltation of his nature after his reſur-
“rection, which rendered him the object of wor-
ſhip." You alſo ſay, p. 87. “I deny that the
" unitarian doctrine exiſted in that time" (the age
“ of the apoſtles) “ in the moſt obnoxious form.
“ Produce your indiſputable evidence. Obſerve,
" that by the moſt obnoxious form, I underſtand
“ that forin which excludes the worſhip of Chriſt."
)
By the moſt obnoxious form, I meant the belief
that Jefus was the ſon of Jofeph as well as of Mary.
That ſuch perſons exiſted in the age of the apoſtles,
no perſon, I believe, except yourſelf, ever denied.;
and there is no reaſon whatever to believe that
theſe Ebionites, or any Ebionites, ever conſidered
Chriſt as a proper object of worſhip. Your idea of
their entertaining the notion of an unintelligible exalta-
tion
1
26
THE
LETTERS TO TO
sion of bis mere human nature after his refurretion, is
the moſt improbable of all ſuppoſitions. Accord-
ing to all the accounts we have of the Ebionites,
they were not apt to admit things unintelligible.
The caſe of Socinus is very different from that
of the Ebionites. He had been educated in the ha-
bit of praying to Chriſt, and therefore might not be
able to reject the practice; but the Ebionites began
with conſidering Jefus as a mere man, and therefore,
would no more think of paying worſhip to him,
than they had done to Moſes, without very expreſs
inſtructions and directions, which it is not in your
power to produce, with reſpect either to them, or
co chriſtians in general.
. Your notion that the Nazarenes were the ortho-
dox Jews who ſeparated from the church of Jeruſa-
Jem in the time of Adrian, and ſettled in the north
of Galilee, and that they had their name from the
place where they then ſettled, viz. Nazareth, will, I
doubt not, be quite new to every reader of eccle-
fiaftical hiſtory, and (excepting the firſt of theſe par-
ticulars, which I ſuppoſe you learned of Moſheim,
who'neither quotes, nor, I will venture to ſay, could
quote any authority for it) an invention of your
own. The Nazarenes, in the time of the apoſtles,
are well known to have had their name from Naza-
reth where Jeſus had lived, and from which he had
been uſually called Jeſus of Nazaretb; but as to
the Nazarenes of the chriſtian Fathers, there is no
evidence whatever of their having ever ſettled at
Nazareth,
ions
2
i
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 29
Nazareth, or in any part of Galilee. Jerom, places
the Nazarenes with whom he was acquainted (and
he was well acquainted with the Nazarenes) in
Beræa, in Syria. Catalogus Viroruin lluitriuin,
in Matt. Opera, vol. I. p. 267.
You ſay that the Nazarenes were unknown as a
fect before the deſtruction of Jerufalem by Adrian,
but Epiphanius, in perfect agreement with all the
ancients, places their rife after the deſtruction of
Jeruſalem by Titus. After mentioning the places
where they reſided, viz. Beræa, Cele-Syria, Pella,
and Cocabe (obſerve he ſays nothing of any of
them being in Nazareth, from which you ſuppoſe
they had their name) he ſays, “ There was their
origin after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, when
* all the diſciples lived at Pella; Chriſt having
“ warned them to leave Jeruſalem, and retire at
" the approach of the ſiege ; and on this account
they lived, as I ſaid in Peræa. Thence the lect
" of the Nazarenes had its origin
'
min
As to the paſſage in Jerom from which I, after
Suicer, inferred that the Ebionites and the Naza-
renes were the ſame people, or only differed in
* Εκειθέν μεν η αρχη γέγονα μετά την άπο των Ιεροσολύμων
μέλαςασιν, οτανων των μαθητών των εν Πέλλη ωκη κοτων,
Χρίσε.φησαντος καταλειψαι τα Ιεροσόλυμα, και αναχωρησει
επειδη ημέλε σαχειν πολιορκίαν, και εκ της , τοιάυτης
υποθεσεως την Ιεράιαν ώκησαντες, εκέισε ως εφην διστρίβον.
εντευθην και κατά της Ναζωραίες αιρεσις έχε την αρχηγ. Her:
29. Opera, vol. I, p. 123.
ſome
1
2
28 LETTERS TO THE
ſome things of little moment (but which you and
Mr. Badcock think is a demonſtration that they
were fundamentally different) I ſee no reaſon to be
diſſatisfied with my interpretation of it. You think
it is a proof of my ignorance of Latin ; whereas,
if I thought myſelf at liberty to do it, I could
produce in my favour as high a claſſical authority
as any that this country can furniſh.
How could Jerom call theſe highly orthodox
Jews, as you ſuppoſe them to be, not chriſtians,
merely becauſe they uſed the ceremonies of the law
of Moſes ? He might liave pitied them for their
weakneſs, but he would hardly have condemned
them as no chriſtians.
Your own repreſentation of them is not very
unfavourable. You ſay, p. 49.
You ſay, p. 49. “ The chriſtian
“ Nazarenes had nothing in their conduct that
* might render them deſerving of this epithet
(arques, lawleſs.). Their error was that they
« feared to uſe their liberty, not that they abuſed
« it.” You therefore muſt think his cenſure very
harſh and ill-applied.
:
:
I, think it probable that the Nazarenes or
Ebionites were conſidered as in a ſtate of ex-
communication, not merely becauſe they them-
felves obferved the law of Moſes, but becauſe
many of them would impoſe the ſame on the
Gentile's, fo that, in fact, they excommunicated
themſelves ; and thus the paſſage in Jerom will
be
1
Y.
4
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 29
be explained by one in Juſtin (who ſays, that he
could communicate with thoſe Jews who kept
to the law of Moſes, but not with thoſe who
would impoſe it on all chriſtians) which I ſhall
have occaſion to quote hereafter.
1
As to Mr. Badcock's inference from the paſ-
ſage in Auſtin's letter in anſwer to Jerom, I fee
no force in it at all. He only enumerates all the
names that Jerom had mentioned, and whether
theſe differences were real or nominal, great or
little, it ſignified nothing to him. He himſelf,
in his catalogue of hereſies, makes a difference
between the Ebionites and Nazarenes, but by no
means that which you and Mr. Badcock make;
and as it was a common opinion, eſpecially in
the Weſt, that there was ſome difference between
them (though the writers who ſpeak of it could
never be certain in what it conſiſted) it was very
natural in Auſtin to mention them ſeparately,
whether Jerom had made them the ſame or not.
That Auſtin, in his anſwer to Jerom, did not
confider the Nazarenes in any very favourable
light, is evident from his ſpeaking of thein' as
beretics. « Quid putaverint hæretici, qui dumn
“ volunt et Judæi eſſe et chriſtiani, nec Judæi
“ effe nec Chriftiani effe potuerunt,” &c. Opera
vol. II. p. 75. i. e. « as to the opinion of thoſe
“ heretics, who while they would be both Jews
" and cliriſtians, can neither be Jews nor chriſ-
* tians,” &c. It is in theſe very words that
Jerom
.
.
THE
L'ET T E R $ : TO TO,
Jeroin had characterized thoſe whom he had
called Nazarenes. What more could Auſtin háve
faid of the Ebionites? And can it be ſuppoſed
that he would have ſpoke of the Nazarenes in
this manner, if he had thought them.bigbly ortho-
dox with reſpect to the doctrine of the trinity?
eſpecially conſidering that it was an age in which
the greateſt account was made of that doctrine;
ſo that foundneſs in that article might be ſup-
poſed to have atoned for defects in other things.
ز
You ſay you are not ſingular, as I had ſup-
poſed in aſſerting the ſtrict orthodoxy of the
Nazarenes in oppofition to the Ebionites; but
you are more nearly ſo than you imagine.---
Hugo Grotius,” you ſay, p. 38. “ Voffius
Spencer, and Huetius, agree that the Naza,
"renes and Ebionites, though ſometimes con-
founded, were diftinct fećts, and they maintain
“the opinion which I now maintain of the high
“ orthodoxy of the proper Nazarenes in the
« article of our Lord's divinity."
Having examined the moſt reſpectable of theſa
authorities, viz. Grotius, I find him intirely
failing you, and ſaying no ſuch thing as you
aſcribe to him. What he ſays is as follows:
« Certę Nazaræi illi Beræenſes genuina erang
propago eorum qui primi ex Paleſtina Chriſti
fidem erant amplexi. Nam id illis nomen
primitus fuiſie inditum ex domini noftri no-
mine, qui vulgo Nazarenus vocabatur, apparet
!
ex
.
1
1
31
ARCHDEACON OP ST. ALBANS.
( ex Act. xxiv. 5. Opera, vol. II. p. 4. 7. e.
• Thoſe Berxan Nazarenes were the genuine
o deſcendants of thoſe who firſt in Paleſtine em-
« braced the chriſtian faith ; for that this name
“ was originally given them from the name of
« our Saviour, who was commonly called the
“ Nazarene, appears from Acts xxiv. 5.".
1
This, Sir, is nothing more than I have repeat-
edly ſaid myſelf, viz. that the Nazarenes men-
tioned by the primitive fathers were the genuine
deſcendants of the Nazarenes in the tiine of Paul.
Grotius ſays nothing definite about their opi-
nions; but if his meaning muſt be interpreted by
his own opinion on the ſubject, it would, I pre-
ſume, be in my favour; for it is allowed, I be-
lieve, on all hands, that his Commentary on the
New Teſtament is very much Socinian, certainly
not Athanafian. But admitting that you may
have more modern authorities for the orthodoxy
of the Nazarenes than I had imagined (though I
believe that a great majority are with me on this
ſubject) the only authorities that are of any
weight are the ancients, and we are now upon
ground that appears to me not to have been ſuf-
ficiently examined by any of the moderns.
.
Rather than tax me with ignorance of the
ſentiments of modern critics on this ſubject
(which you are ſometimes ready enough to do)
you ſuppoſe that I was acquainted with them,
and had recourſe to artifice. “ Your attempt,
you
32
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R S TO Τ Η Ε
you were
renes,
you ſay, p: 38." to ſet it forth in that light I can-
« not but conſider as a ſtratagem, which
willing to employ for the preſervation of your
“ battered citadel, the argument from the Naza-
In this ſtratagein, if I miſtake 'not, you
are completely foiled. In your fallies againſt
" the batteries which I have raiſed, I truſt you
will be little more ſucceſsful. But as too
es much of ſtratagem is apt to mix itſelf with all
your operations, it will be neceſſary that I watch
very narrowly the manner of your approaches."
This argument, however, is not ſo much battered
but that it will well hold out againſt all your
efforts to overturn it. The Nazarenes, as well
as the Ebionites, the genuine deſcendants of the
old Jewiſh chriſtians, and who cannot be proved
to have departed froin the faith of their anceſtors,
were all believers in the ſimple humanity of
Chrift ; and certainly the preſumption is that
they learned this doctrine from the apoſtles. For
who elſe were their teachers ?
1
At the cloſe of this ſubject, having, as you
think, a manifeſt advan'age over me, in anſwer
to my faying that if the Jewiſh chriſtians were
univerſally Ebionites in the time of Origen, the
probability is that they were very generally fo in
the time of the apoſtles"; you ſay, p. 62. “ Whence
" ſhould this probability ariſe? From this general
"maxim, it feeis, that whole bodies of inen do
“ noc foon change theit opinions. ''You are,
o indeed,
i
T
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
CON .
33
« indeed, Sir, the very laſt perſon who might
“ have been expected to form conclufions upon
“ an hiſtorical queſtion from mere theory, in
“ defiance of the experience of mankind, in de-
“ fiance of the experience of our own country,
" and our own times.' How long is it ſince the
is whole body of Diffenters in this kingdom (the
ſingle fect of the Quakers excepted) took their
“ ſtandard of orthodoxy from the opinions of
“ Calvin ? Where ſhall we now find a Diffenter,
except perhaps among the dregs of Methodiſm,
as who would not think it an affront to be taken
“ for a Calviniſt ?"
Indeed, Sir, you are. peculiarly unfortunate with
reſpect to this example, and ought to have been
better informed before you had delivered your
opinion of a matter of fact, in the preſent ſtate
of things, and at home, with ſo much confi-
dence. The fact you appeal to is notoriouſly
the very reverſe of what you repreſent it to be, and
is one among many ſtrong proofs of the truth of
my general maxim.
It is ſo far from being true that there are few
Diflenters who would not think it an affront to be
taken for Calviniſts, that the great body of them
would be exceedingly offended if they were called by
any other name. This is notorious. Your learned
good and able ally Mr. Badcock, of whom you bóaſt
ſo much, p. 77, 78. has ſerved two congregations of
Diffenters, both profeſiedly calviniſtical, and in the
D
higheſt
34)
L E T TE RS - TO THE
!
higheſt degree. He himſelf ranks with that claſs ;
having now, as I am informed, no communion
or connexion with thoſe who are uſually called
rational Diſſenters. I appeal to himſelf, and his
prefent congregation at South-Molton, as well as
his former at Barnſtable, for the truth of the fact.
We Diffenters are much better ſituated than
you' are for judging of the truth of my general
maxiin, viz. that large bodies of men do not foon
change their opinions. Notwithſtanding the
Diflenters have no legal bonds, but are perfectly
free to adopt whatever opinions they pleaſe; yet,
as they were univerſally Calviniſts at the tune
of the reformation, they are very generally ſo ſtill.
The miniſters, as might be expected, are the moſt
enlightened, and have introduced fome refor-
mation among the common people; but à majo-
rity of the miniſters are, I believe, ſtill Calviniſts.
I ſhould have thought that no perſon at all ac-
quainted with hiſtory could have entertained a
doubt with reſpect to the general maxim that you
refer to, viz. that great bodies of men do not
foon change their opinions. Did it not appear
when our Saviour and the apoſtles preached the
goſpel with all the advantage of miracles; and
did it not appear in the chriſtianizing of the Gen-
tile world? I need not inform you how long the
ignorant country people in particular continued
pagans, a word borrowed from their being chiefly
the
!
:
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN S. 35
the inhabitants of villages. Does not the hiſtory
both of the corruption and of the reformation of
chriſtianity prove, the ſame thing? How many
yet believe the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation ?
and what I think as much a cafe in point, how
many yet believe the doctrine of the, trinity ?
Had it not been for the force of this maxim, we
ſhould not have found an archdeacon of St. Al-
bans employing the moderate ſhare of learning
that he is poffefſed of in the defence of a tenet ſo
palpably abſurd.
។
You ſeem, Sir, to ſpeak with contempt of the
doctrines of Calvin. I muſt, however, remind
you, that the doctrinal articles of
your
church are
Calviniſtic. If you, therefore, be a true member
of the church of England, believing ex animo,
and in their plain obvious ſenſe, all the thirty-
nine articles, you yourſelf believe the doctrines of
original fin, predeſtination, and every other te-
net that is generally known by the name of Cal-
viniſtic. I do not tax you, as you repeatedly do
me, with infincerity. I preſume you really do be-
lieve the doctrines that are termed Calviniſtic,
and therefore. I think you ought to have treated
them with more reſpect. You ought alſo to have
{poken with more reſpect of the Methodiſts.
They, as well as you, are profeſſed members of
the church of England, and not Diſſenters,
I am, &c;
..
D 2
LETTER
>
36
TO THE
LETTERS
L
L E T T E R
E
IV.
Of the ſuppoſed orthodox Jewiſh church at Jeruſa-
lem, and of ibe veracity of Origen.
1
1
1
Rev. Sir.
YOU ſpeak of a church of trinitarian Jews,
who had abandoned the law of Moſes, and
reſided at Jeruſalem, ſubſequent to the time of
Adrian. Origen, who afferts that all the Jewiſh
chriſtians of his time conformed to the law of
Moſes, you ſay, muſt have known of this church,
and therefore you do not heſitate, after Molheim,
to tax him with aſſerting a wilful falſehood.
Error was often aſcribed to this great man by the
later fathers, but never before, I believe, was his
veracity called in queſtion. And leaſt of all can
it be ſuppoſed that he would have dared to aſſert
a notorious untruth in a public controverſy. He
muſt have been a fool, as well as the knave you
make him, to have ventured upon it. Your treat-
ment of myſelf, however, gives me the leſs pain,
when I ſee you not fcrupling to fix a ſimilar
odium on the character of the reſpectable Origen.
But what, Sir, would you not have ſaid of me, if
I had been reduced to this dilemma, in order to
maintain my opinion? What an outcry did not
you and Mr. Badcock make when I diſputed the
evidence
I
1
1
1
5
;
ARCHD EACON OF ST. ALBANS.
37
1
1
evidence of Euſebius, though I could confute
him from himſelf*; and with reſpect to integrity,
the character of Eufebius never ſtood ſo high as
that of Origen. But you, or rather your author
Moſheim, ſhall be heard.
66 what you
“ I Thall take," you ſay, p. 59.
may think a bold ſtep. I ſhall cax the veracity
“ of your witneſs,--of this Origen. I ſhall tell
you that, whatever may be the general credit of
hịs character, yet in this buſineſs the particulars
“ of his depoſition are to be little regarded, when
“ he ſets, out with the allegation of a notorious
“ falfhood.
He alleges of the Hebrew chriſtians
" in general, that they had not renounced the
« Moſaic law. The affertion ſerved him for an an-
“ ſwer to the invective which Celſus had put in the
“ mouth of a Jew againſt the converted Jews, as
“ deferters of the laws and cuſtoms of their ancef-
The anſwer was not the worſe for wanting
“ truth, if his heathen antagoniſt was not ſufficiently
" informed in the true diſtinctions of chriſtian lects
to detect the fallhood. But in all the time which
6 he ſpent in Paleſtine, had Origen never converſed
66 tors.
GO
* Pearſon makes no difficulty of contradicting Euſebius in
this caſe, and without making any apology for him at all.
His opponent Mr. Daillé having ſaid if that account be true,
he replies, “ He knew very well, that, ſtrictly ſpeaking, it
was not true ; for he knew many others long before Theo-
“ dotus, and not a few even before Ignatius, who taught the
“ fame hereſy, a catalogue of whom may be ſeen in Epipha-
" nius," and whom he proceeds to mention. Vindicize,
lib. II. cap. ii. p. 24. .
D 3
66 with
1
38
L E T T E RS TO THE
1
CC
$6 with Hebrew chriſtians of another fort? Had he
" met with no chriſtians of Hebrew families of the
“ church of Jeruſalem, when that church was under
"the government of biſhops of the uncircumciſion?
" The fact is, that after the demolition of Jeruſalem
by Adrian, the majority of the Hebrew chriſtians,
“who niuft have paſſed for Jews with the Roman
“ magiſtrates, had they continued to adhere to the
“ Moſaic law, which to this time, they had obſerved
“ more from habit, than from any principle of con-
« ſcience, made no ſcruple to renounce it, that they
* might be qualified to partake in the valuable pri-
"vileges of the Ælian colony, from which Jews
" were excluded.
excluded. Having thus diveſted them-
“ ſelves of the form of Judaiſm, which to that
“ time they had born, they removed from Pella, and
« other towns to which they had retired, and ſettled
« in great numbers at Ælia. The few who re-
“ tained a ſuperſtitious veneration for their laws,
sc remained in the North of Galilee, where they
$$ were joined, perhaps, by new fugitives of the
« fame weak character from Paleſtine. And this
« was the beginning of the fect of the Nazarenes..
6 But from this time, whatever Origen may pretend,
" to ſerve a purpoſe, the majority of the Hebrew
66 chriſtians forſook their law, and lived in commų.
“nion with the gențile biſhops of the new mo-
“ delled church at Jeruſalem; for the name was
ss retained, though Jeruſalem was no more; and
s the ſeat of the biſhop was at Ælia. All this. I
affirm with the leſs heſitation, being ſupported by
is the authority of Moſheim, from whom, indeed,
" I firſt
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 39
- I firſt learned to rate the teſtimony of Origen, in
" this particular queſtion, at its true value."
Struck with this extraordinary narration, of a
tranſaction of ancient times, for which you refer to
no authority beſides that of Moſheim, I looked
into him; but even there I do not find all the
particulars that you mention. He ſays nothing of the
Jewiſh chriſtians having obſerved their law more
from habit than any principle of confcience ; nothing
of their making no ſcruple to renounce their law,
in order to partake in the privileges of the Ælian
colony; nothing of any Jewiſh chriſtians removing
from Pella and fectling in Ælia ; nothing of the re-
tiring of the reſt to the North of Galilee ; or of
this new origin of the Nazarenes there. For all
theſe particulars, therefore, learned Sir, you muſt
have ſome other authority in petto, beſides that
of Molheim ; and you ought to have produced
it.
1
Alſo, as you adopt the aſſertions of Molheim, I
could with to know his authority for ſuppoſing, that
there was any ſuch thing as a church, or part of a
church, of Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, after the
deſtruction of that city by Adrian. As to your
additions, they are a ſeries of ſuch improbable cir-
cumſtances, as hardly any hiſtorian of the time
could make credible. Bodies of men do not, whiar
ever you may imagine, ſuddenly change their opi-
nions, and much leſs their cuſtoms and habits: leaft
of all would an act of violence produce that effect ;
D4.
and,
1
40
i
LETTERS TO THE
and, of all mankind, the experiment was the leaſt
likely to anſwer with Jews. If it had produced
any 'effect for a time, the old cuſtoms and habits
would certainly have returned when the danger was
over. You might juſt as well ſuppoſe that all the
Jews in Jeruſalem began to ſpeak Greek, as well as
abandoned their ancient cuſtoms, in order to enjoy
the valuable privileges of the Ælian colony. And
you would have this to alledge in your favour, that
from that time the biſhops of Jeruſalem were all
Greeks, the public offices were, no doubt, per-
formed in the Greek language ; and the church of
Jeruſalem was, indeed, in all reſpects, as much a
Greek church, as that of Antioch.
!
1
As you ſay, p. 134. with reſpect to myſelf,
" that a man ought to be accompliſhed in an-
“ cient learning, who thinks he may eſcape with
impunity, and without detection, in the attempt
" to brow-beat the world with a peremptory and
“ reiterated allegation of teſtimonies that exiſt
« not;" how much more accompliſhed ought
that man to be; who now writes the hiſtory of
tranſactions in the third century without alledg-
ing any teſtimony at all ?
1
Moſheim himſelf, who began this accuſation
of Origen, produces no authority, in his Diſſer-
tations, for his affertion. He only ſays that he
cannot reconcile the fact that Origen mentions,
with his ſeeming unwillingneſs to allow the Ebio-
nites to be chriſtians. But this is eaſily accounted
for,
1
i
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 41
for, from the attachment which he himſelf had to
the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt, which they
denied; and from their holding no communion
with other chriſtians.
(
T
All the appearance of authority that I can find
in any ancient writer, of the Jewiſh chriſtian's
deſerting the law of their anceſtors, is in Sulpicius
Severus, to whom I am referred by Moſheim in
his hiſtory. But what he ſays on the ſubject, is
only what follows: “At this time Adrian, think-
ing that he ſhould deſtroy chriſtianity by de-
“ſtroying the place, erected the images of dæ-
"mons in the church, and in the place of our
“ Lord's ſufferings; and becauſe the chriſtians
“ were thought to conſiſt chiefly of Jews (for
" then the church at Jeruſalem had all its clergy
" of the circumcifion) ordered a cohort of ſoldiers
" to keep conſtant guard, and drive all Jews from
any acceſs to Jeruſalem, which was.of ſervice to
" the chriſtian faith; for at that time they almoſt
« all believed Chriſt to be God, but with the ob-
“ ſervance of the law; the Lord ſo diſpoſing it,
" that the ſervitude of the law ſhould be reinoved
“ from the liberty of the faith, and of the church.
« Then was Marc the firſt biſhop of the Gentiles
“ at Jeruſalem *.”
Where,
* Qua tempeſtate Adrianus, exiſtimans ſe chriſtianam fidem
loci injuria perempturum, et in templo ac loco dominicæ
paffionis dæmonum fimulachra conftituit. Et quia chriſtiani
ex Judæis potiſſimam putabantur (namque tum Hieroſolymä
non riiſi ex circumciſione habebat eccleſia Sacerdotem) militum
CO-
1
1
1
42
LETTERS TO
TO THE
.
ز
Where, Sir, do you find, in this paſſage, any
promiſe of immunities to the Jewiſh chriſtians,
if they would forſake the law of their fathers.
On the contrary, the hiſtorian fays, that the ob-
ject of Adrian was to overturn Chriſtianity, and
that the Jews were baniſhed becauſe the chriſtians
then were chiefly of thatnation. According to this
account, all the Jews, chriſtians as well as others,
were driven out of Jeruſalem ; and nothing is
faid of
any of thein forſaking the law of Moſes;
and your aſſertion of their having been gradually
prepared for it, by having before this time ob
ferved their law more from habit than from cons.
Science, is unſupported by any authority or pro-
bability. Euſebius mentions the expulſion of the
Jews from Jeruſalem, but ſays not a word of any
of the chriſtians there abandoning circumciſion,
and their other ceremonies on that occaſion.
Indeed, ſuch a thing was in the higheſt degree
improbable.
i
Independent of all natural probability, had
Sulpitius. Severus actually written all that Mof-
heim advances, and all the curious particulars
that
you
have added to complete the account;
cohortem cuſtodias in perpetuum agitare juſſit, quæ Judæo's
omnes Hieroſolymæ adicus arceret. Quod quidem chriſtianæ
fidei proficiebat; quia tum pene omnes Chriftum Deum fub
legis obſervatione credebant, Nimirum id domino ordinante
diſpoſitum, ut legis fervitus a libertate fidci atque ccclefice tol-
Jeretur. Ita tum primum Marcus ex Gentibus apud Hiero.
folymam epifcopus fuit. Hift. lib. II. c. xxxi. p. 245.
whether
1
ARCHDEACON ARCHDEACON OF
OF ST. ALBANS. 49
whether is it, Sir, from this writer, or from Ori
gen, that we are inore likely to gain true informa-
tion on this ſubject. Origen writing in contro
verſy, and of courſe ſubject to correction, ap-
peals to a fact ‘as notorious in the country in
which he himſelf reſided, and in his own times,
to which therefore he could not but have given
particular attention. Whereas Sulpitius Severus
lived in the remoteſt part of Gaul, ſeveral thou:
fand miles from Paleſtine, and two hundred years
after Origen, ſo that he could not have affèrted
the fact as from his own knowledge, and he quotes
no other perſon for it. But in fact Sulpitius Se-
yerus is no more favourable to your account of
the matter than Origen himſelf; ſo that to the
authority of both of them, of all ancient testi-
mony, and natural probability, you have nothing
to oppoſe but your own conjectures, and nothing
to plead for this conduct but that your poor and
wretched cauſe requires it.
1
Having conſulted Euſebius, and other ancient
writers to no purpoſe, for ſome account of theſe
Jews who had deſerted the religion of their an-
ceſtors, I looked into Tillamont, who is wonder-
fully careful and exact in bringing together every
thing that relates to his ſubject; but his account
of the matter differs widely indeed from Mof-
heim's and yours. He ſays (Hiſt. des Empe-
reurs, tom. II, part, ii. p. 506.) “ The Jews
of converted to the faith of Chriſt were not ex-
«. cepted
2
LETTERS TO THE
:
et cepted by Adrian froin the prohibition to con-
“ tinue at Jeruſalem. They were obliged to go
« out with the reſt. But the Jews being then
obliged to abandon Jeruſalem, that church
began to be compoſed of Gentiles; and before
o the death of Adrian, in the middle of the year
"138, Marc, who was of Gentile race, was eſta-
“bliſhed their biſhop.” He does not ſay with
Moſheim that this Marc was choſen by the
" Jews who abandoned the Moſaic rites.” Hiſt.
vol. I. p. 172.
1
Fleury, I find, had the ſame idea of that event.,
He ſays, Hift. vol. I. p. 316. “From this time
o the Jews were forbidden to enter Jeruſalem, or
« éven to ſee it at a diſtance. The city being
“ afterwards inhabited by Gentiles, had no other
“ name than Ælia. -Hitherto the church of
Jeruſalein had only been compoſed of Jewiſh
" converts, who obſerved the ritual of the law
« under the liberty of the goſpel; but then as
< the Jews were forbidden to reinain there, and
“ guards were placed to defend the entrance of
« it, there were no other chriſtians there beſides
" thoſe who were of Gentile origin; and thus
" the remains of the ſervitude of the law were
entirely aboliſhed.”
Thus ends this church of orthodox Jewiſh
chriſtians at Jeruſalem, planted by. Moſheim, and.
pretty well watered by the Archdeacon of St.
Albans,
1
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 45
Albans ;' from which you have derived ſuch
great advantage to your argument. But what
evidence can you bring that the ancient Jewiſh
church at Jeruſalem, even before the time of
Adrian, was trinitarian ? If they were Nazarenes,
Epiphanius repreſents them as unitarian when
John wrote; and who was it that converted them
from unitarians to trinitarians, and what evidence
have
you
of any ſuch converſion ?
What became of the chriſtian Jews who were
driven out of Jeruſalem by Adrian, does not appear.
It is moſt probable that they joined their brechren
at Pella, or Berea, in Syria, from which they had
come to reſide at Jeruſalem, and, indeed, what be-
came of the whole body of the ancient chriſtian
Jews (none of whom can be proved to have been
trinitarians) I cannot teil. Their numbers, we may
ſuppołe, were gradually reduced, till at length they
became extinct. . I hope, however, we shall "hear
no more of them as an evidence of the antiquity of
the trinitarian doctrine.
I cannot help, in this place, taking ſome farther
notice of what you ſay with reſpect to this charge of
a wilful falſehood on Origen.
" Time was," you
ſay, p. 160. “ when the practice” (viz. of uſing un-
juſtifiable ineans to ſerve a good end) “was openly
avowed, and Origen himſelf was among its de-
« fenders.” This, Sir, as is uſual with you, is
much too ftrongly ſtated, and as you mention no
authorities, you might think to eſcape detection.
I believe,
/
1
1
1
46
TO THE
LETTERS
I believe, indeed, you went no farther than Mof
heim for it. Jerom, in his epiſtle to Pammachius,
Opera, vol. I. p. 496. ſays,. that Origen adopted the
Platonic doctrine (and you, Sir, are an admirer of
Plato) of the ſubſerviency of truth to utility, as
with reſpect to deceiving enemies, &c. as Mr.
Hume, and other ſpeculative moraliſts have done
conſidering the foundation of all ſocial virtue to be
the public good. But, Sir, it by no means follows
from this, that ſuch perſons will ever indulge them-
felves in any greater violations of truth than thoſe
who hold other ſpeculative opinions concerning the
foundation of morals.
s
i
Jerom was far from ſaying as you do, that she re-
• duced his theory to practice.” He mentions no
inſtance whatever of his having recourſe to it, and
is far, indeed, from vindicating you in afferting,
p. 160. that “ the art which he recommended he
ſcrupled not to employ; and that, to ſilence an
adverſary, he had recourſe to the wilful and de-
" liberate allegation of a notorious falſehood."
Here, Sir, is much more in the concluſion than the
premiſes will warrant. Many perſons hold fpecula-
tive principles, which their adverfaries think muſt
neceffarly lead to immorality; but thoſe who
hold-them ſhould be heard on the ſubject; and the
concluſion will not be juſt, unleſs they themſelves
connect. immoral practices with their principles.
I find, Sir, that the characters of the dead are no ſafer
in your hands than thoſe of the living. I am unwilling
to ſay a harſh thing, and I wiſh to avoid it the more,
left
content
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 47
left I ſhould be thought to return railing for railing ;
but really, unleſs you can make a better apology
for yourſelf, than I am able to ſuggeſt, you will be
conſidered by impartial perlons, as a falſifier" of bif-
tory, and a defamer of the character of the dead, in
order to ſerve your purpoſe.
I am, &c.
L E T T E R
V.
Of Herefy in the earlieſt times.
Rev. Sir,
I Afferted that the unitarians were not ori-
ginally conſidered as heretics, and for this I
have adduced a variety of arguments, one of the
principal of which is, that the apoſtle John,
though, according to all the evidence of anti-
quity, he could not but have known that unita-
rians were numerous in his time, never cenſures
them; whereas he writes with the greateſt indig-
nation againſt the tenets which belonged to the
oppoſite ſyſtem of Gnofticiſm. I obſerved the
ſame with reſpect to Hegeſippus, Juſtin Martyrs
and Clemens Alexandrinus. I now find the
fame to be true of Polycarp and Ignatius, and
that
i
1
48
1
LETTERS
TER
TO THE
that; even Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, did
not treat the unitarians as heretics.
1
You inſiſt upon it, however, that John does
cenſure the unitarian doctrine, which is curious
enough, when, according to your account, there
were .no Ebionites or Nazarenes, that is, 'none
who denied the pre-exiſtence of Chriſt, till long
after the time of John. But, paſſing this, you
acknowledge that the phraſe coming in the fleſh
alludes to the proper humanity of Chriſt, and
therefore reſpects the Gnoſtics; but you main-
tain that it likewiſe alludes to a prior ſtate ; ſo
;
that we may neceſſarily infer from it, that he was
being of a higher rank before his coming ia
the fleſh.
1
You ſay, p. 27. “ The attempt to aſſign a rea-
« fon why the Redeemer ſhould be a man, im-
plies both that he might have been, without
partaking of the human nature, and by conſe-
quence that, in his own proper nature, he was
" originally founething different from man; and
“ that there might have been an expectation that
“ he would make his appearance in ſome form
" above the hunan.” But it is certainly quite
fufficient to account for the apoſtle's uſing that
phrafe coming in the fleſh, that in his time there
actually exiſted an opinion that Chriſt was not
truly a män, but was a being of a higher order,
which was preciſely the doctrine of the Gnoſtics.
That before the appearance of the Meſſiah, ány
perſons
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 49
perſons expected that he would, or might come
in a form above the human I abſolutely deny.
“A reaſon," you ſay, p. 27, “why a man ſhould
“be a man, one would not expect in a ſober man's
“ diſcourſe.” But certainly, it was very proper to
give a reaſon why one who was not thought to be
properly a man, was really ſo; which is what the
apoſtle has done.
As
you
call upon me fo loudly to give any proof
that the phraſe coming in the fleſh is deſcriptive of
the Gnoftic hereſy only, and not of the unitarian
doctrine alſo, I ſhall give an anſwer that may per-
haps fatisfy you, which is, that it is ſo uſed in the
epiſtle of Polycarp, the diſciple of John. In a
paſſage in this epiſtle, in which the writer evidently
alludes to the Gnoftics only, he introduces this
very phraſe, coming in the flesh. See fect. vi. vii. in
Abp. Wake's tranſlation, p. 55. “ Being zealous
“ of what is good, abſtaining from all offence,
$6 and from falſe brethren, and from thoſe who
“ bear the name of Chriſt in hypocriſy, and who
6 deceive vain men. For whoſoever does not con-
“ feſs that Jeſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh, he is
“ Antichriſt, and whoſoever does not confeſs his
ſuffering upon the croſs is from the devil; and
" whoſoever perverts the oracles of God to his
“ own intereſts, and ſays, that there ſhall be neither
any reſurrection, nor judgment, he is the firſt
" born of fatan. Wherefore, leaving the vanity
s of many, and their falſe doctrines, let us return
E
tQ
i
.650
LETTERS TO THE
to, the word that was delivered from the be-
“ ginning."
: Had this writer proceeded no farther than the
ſecond clauſe, in which he mentions thoſe who did
not believe that Chriſt ſuffered upon the croſs, it
might have been ſuppoſed, that he alluded to two
claffes of men, and that the latter were different
from thoſe who denied that he came in the fleſh.
But as he goes on to mention a third circumſtance,
viz. the denial of the reſurrection, and we are ſure
that thoſe were not a third claſs of perſons, it is
evident that he alluded to no more than one and
the ſame kind of perſons by all the three characters,
I conclude, therefore, that the apoſtle John, from
whom the writer of this epiſtle had this phraſe,
uſed it in the fame fenſe, and meant by it only
thoſe perſons who believed that Chriſt was not truly
man, i. e, the Gnoftics.
Beſides, is it not extraordinary, that if this apoſtle
conceived the indignation that you ſuppoſe him to
have entertained againſt the unitarians, he ſhould
give no intimation of it except in this one ambi
guous expreſſion? You own that he marks the
Gnoſtics clearly enough, and expreſſes the ſtrongeſt
áverſion to them. How came he then to ſpare the
unitarians, who have been ſo odious ſince? You
muſt own that, in the courſe of his goſpel, he
inſerts many expreſſions which, when literally in-
terpreted, militate ſtrongly againſt the doctrine of
the divinity of Chriſt; as when, according to him,
our
1
ÅRCH DEACON EACON 51
OPS
ST. ÁLBAN S.
.
OF our Saviour ſays the Father is greater than I; I can
do nothing of myſelf; I live by the Father.; the
Fatber within me be doth the works. · The Father
is the only true God, &c. "If the apoſtle knew that
there were in his time thoſe who believed that
Chriſt was a mere man, while he himſelf believed
him to be God, is ic not extraordinary that he
ſhould give them ſuch an advantage from the
language of our Saviour in his own goſpel; and
that he ſhould have taken no care to qualify or
explain it ? Perſons who are aware of a dangerous
opinion, and wiſh to guard others againſt it, do not
write" as he does.
1
You will probably ſay, that Johin taught the
divinity of Chriſt with ſufficient clearneſs in the
introduction to his goſpel, which might ſerve as a
guard againſt any miſtake with reſpect to ſuch ex-
preſſions as thoſe above quoted. But it appears
that the ancient unitarians underſtood that intro-
duction as we now do, taking the logos to mean
not Chriſt, but the wiſdom and power of God reſiding
in him, and acting by him. The Noetian, in
Hippolytus, ſays,
" You tell me ſomething new,
“ when you call the Son logos *.” And the oldeſt
opinion on the ſubject is, that in that introduction
John alluded to the Gnoſtics only, as he did in -
his epiſtles.
14
* Αλλ' έρει μοι τις, ξενον μοι φερεις λογον λεγων νιον.
Contra Noetum, fect. xv. p. 16.
Ignatius
E 2
1
!
52/ LETTERS TO THE
Ignatius alſo frequently mentions hereſy, and
beretics, and, like John and Polycarp, with great
indignation ; but it is evident to every perſon who
is at all acquainted with the hiſtory, learning, and
language of thoſe times, and of the ſubſequent ones,
that he had no perfons, in his eye but the Gnoſtics
only. I deſire no other evidence of this, beſides
a careful infpection of the paſſages. I ſhall recite
only one of then, from the epifle to the Smyr-
næans, fect. iv. v, in Wake's tranſlation, p. 116.
Speaking of his own ſufferings, he ſays, “he
“ who was made a perfect man ſtrengthening me.
“ Whom fome not knowing do deny, or rather
“ have been denied by him, being the advocates
s of death, rather than of the truth, whom neither
" the prophets, nor the law. of Moſes have per-
si ſuaded, nor the goſpel itſelf, even to this day,
“ nor the ſufferings of every one of us.
" think alſo the ſame things of us. For what does
“a man profit me if he ſhall praiſe me, and blaf-
pheme my Lord, not confeſſing that he was
“truly made a man. Now he that doth not ſay
" this, does in effect deny him, and is in death.
“ But for the names of fuch as do this, they being
“ unbelievers, I thought it not fitting to write them
“ unto you. Yea God forbid that I ſhould make
any mention of them till they ſhall repent, to a
“ true belief of Chriſt's paſſion, which is o’r re-
“ furrection. Let no man deceive himſelf," &c. .
He afterwards ſpeaks of theſe perſons abſtaining
from the euchariſt, and the public offices, " becauſe
they
For they
I
ARCH DEACON OF ST, ALBAN S.
53
" they confeffed not the euchariſt to be the fefh of
our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, which ſuffered for our
“ fins, and which the Father of his goodneſs raiſed
again from the dead. It will, therefore,” he
adds, “ become you to abſtain from ſuch perſons,
" and not to ſpeak with them, neither in private
nor in public."
How like is this to the writings of the apoftle
John, and how well they explain each other.
Here we ſee the blafphemy aſcribed to the Gnoftics,
which Juſtin mentions, their ſeparating them-
felves from the communion of chriftians, their
denying the reſurrection, and their pride. Now,
how came this writer, like John, never to cenſure
the unitarians, if he had thought them to be he-
retics ? That they exiſted in his time, there
never was a doubt, except what is juſt ſtarted in
this laſt publication of yours. It can only be
accounted for on the ſuppoſition that he himfelf,
as well as the apoſtle John, were unitarians, and
that they had no idea of any hereſies beſides thoſe
of the different kinds of Gnoſtics.
Pearſon ſays, that Ignatius refers to the doc-
trine of the Ebionites in his epiſtle to Polycarp,
and in thoſe to the Epheſians, the Magneſian's,
and the Philadelphians; but I find no ſuch re-
ferences in them, except perhaps two paſages
which may eaſily be ſuppoſed to have been al-
tered; becauſe, when corrected by an unitarian,
nothing is wanting to the evident purpoſe of the
writer
E 3
54
LETTERS TO THE
1
writer; whereas his cenſures of the Gnoſtics are
frequent and copious ; ſo that no perſon can pre-
tend to leave them out, without materially in-
juring the epiſtles.
Belides, there are in theſe epiſtles of Ignatius,
ſeveral things that are unfavourable to the doc-
trine of the divinity of Chriſt. Thus to the
Epheſians, he ſays, ſect. v. “How much more
"muſt I think you happy who are ſo joined to
“ him (the biſhop] as the church is to Jeſus
Chriſt, and Jeſus Chriſt to the Father, that ſo
all things may agree in the ſame unity.” To
the Magneſians, ſect. vii, he ſays, " As therefore
“ the Lord did nothing without the Father,
“ being united to him, neither by himſelf nor
yet by his apoſtles; fo neither do ye any thing
so without your biſhop and preſbyters." "
૮૮
<C
1
در
What this excellent man faid when he appeared
before the Emperor Trajan, was the language of
an unitarian. “ You err," he ſaid " in that you
“ call the evil ſpirits of the heațhens, gods. For
" there is hut one God, who made heaven and
so earth, and the ſea, and all that are in them;
" and one Jeſus Chriſt, his only begotten Son,
whoſe kingdom may I enjoy." Wake, P. 131,
I am, &c.
1
LETTER
6
1
1
ARCHD EA CONOFS T. ALBANS.
55.
LE T'T E R
.
VI.
Of the ſentiments of Juſtin Martyr, Irenæus, and
Clemens Alexandrinus, concerning Hereſy.
Rev. SIR;
I after what I have ſeen in your Charge, and in
theſe Letters, I could be ſurprized at any thing
you fay on theſe ſubjects, it would be at your ſo
confidently maintaining, p. 79. that Juſtin Mar-
tyr had a view to the unitarians in thoſe accounts
of bereſy in general, which I quoted from him;
when any perſon, with a ſmall portion of that
reading of which you pretend to ſo much, muſt
know that every word and phraſe in thoſe ac-
counts, eſpecially the charge of pride; atheiſm,
and blaſphemy, is appropriated to the Gnoftics,
and the Gnoftics only. I muſt take the liberty.
to ſay, that you know nothing at all of the an-
cient ecclefiaftical writers, if you can imagine
that the unitarians are ever deſcribed by them in
this manner. I am even aſhamed to argue with
any man who, if he has read the early fathers at
all, has read them to fo little purpoſe.
,
To me it is indiſputably clear, that Juſtin
Martyr conſidered no other claſs of perſons as
heretics, unfit to have communion with chrif-
tians, but the Gnoſtics only. Let any reaſon-
able man but compare theſe paſſages in which he
cenſures
E 4
1
36
1
LETTERS TO
Τ Η Ε
cenſures the Gnoſtics with ſo much ſeverity,
with thoſe in which he ſpeaks of the unitarians
(in which I ſtill am of opinion he makes an apo-
logy to them for his own principles, but which
certainly imply no cenfure) and I think he can-
not but conclude with me, that unitarianiſin was
conſidered in thoſe times in a very different light
from what it was afterwards, and is now.
Júftin alfo particularly mentions his having no ob-
jection to hold communion with thofe Jewiſh chrif-
tians who obſerved the law of Mofes, provided they
did not impoſe it upon others. Dial. p. 23*. Now
who could thoſe be, bue Jewiſh unitarians ? for,
agreeable to the evidence of all antiquity, all the
Jewifh chriſtians were fucha
It is truly remarkable, and may not have been
obferved by you, as indeed it was not by my,
ſelf vill very lately, that Irenæus, who has written
* This circumſtance may throw fome light on the paſſage
in Jerom, in which he ſpeaks of the Ebionites as anathematized
ſolely on account of their adherence to the Jewiſh law. The
Ebionites, at leaſt many of them, would have impoſed the yoke
of the Jewith law upon the Gentile chriſtians, they would not
communicate with thoſe who were not circumciſed, and of courſe
theſe could not communicate with them ; ſo they were neceſſarily
in a kate of excommunication with reſpect to each other. This
would alſo be the caſe with the Cerinthians as well as the Ebio-
nites, and therefore Jerom mentions them together, the feparation
of communjon, with reſpect to both ariſing from the obſervance
of the law of Mofes ; though Jerom might write unguardedly,
as he often did, in confounding the caſe of the Cerinthians
fo.much as he here does with that of the Ebionites,
fo
ARCHDE ACON OF ST. AIB ANS. 37
fo large a work on the ſubject of hereſy, after the
time of Juſtin, and in a country where it is probable
there were fewer unitarians, again and again cha-
racterizes them in ſuch a manner, as makes it evi-
dent, that even be did not conſider any other per-
fons as being properly heretics beſides the Gnoftics.
He expreffes a great diſlike of the Ebionites ; but
though he appears to have known none of them
beſides thoſe who denied the miraculous conception,
he never calls them heretics. I had thought that
in one paffage he had included them in that appella-
tion; but obſerving that in his introduction, and
other places, in which he ſpeaks of beretics in general,
he evidently meant the Gnoſtics only, and could not
carry his views any farther, I was led to reconſider
that particular paſſage, and I found that I had been
miſtaken in my conſtruction of it.
I
:
“ All heretics," he ſays, “being untaught and ig-
norant of the diſpenſations of God, and eſpeially
's of that which relates to man, as being blind with re-
ſpect to the truth, oppoſe their own ſalvation; ſome
« introducing another father beſides the maker of
“ the world, others ſaying that the world and the
" matter of it was made by angels," &c. and after
mentioning other fimilar opinions, he adds, “others
* not knowing the diſpenſation of the virgin, lay
is that he (Jeſus) was begotten by Joſeph. Some
ſay that neither the ſoul nor the body can receive
" eternal life, but the internal man only*,” i, e.
that they denied the reſurrection.
* Indocti omnes heretici, et ignorantes diſpoſitiones Dei,
et infcii ejus quæ eft fecundum hominem diſpenſationis, quippe
cæcutientes
..
i
$8
LETTERS
TO THE
:
Now as Cerinthus, and Carpocrates, and other
Gnoftics, denied the miraculous conception, as well
as the Ebionites, and all the reſt of this deſcription,
both before and after this circumſtance, evidently
belongs to the Gnoftics only, and as in no other
place whatever does he comprehend them in his
definition of berefy, it is natural to conclude that he
had no view to them even here, but only to thoſe
Gnoftics, who, in common with them, denied the
miraculous conception. If there be
If ¢here be any other par-
fage in Irenæus in which he calls, or ſeems to call,
the Ebionites heretics, I have overlooked it. The
Ebionites were Jews, and had no communion with
the Gentiles, at leaſt that appears; and Irenæus
ſays nothing at all of the unitarians among the
Gentiles, who generally believed the miraculous con-
ception, though, as appears from other evidence,
they conſtituted the great mals of the unlearned
chriſtians.
Clemens Alexandrinus makes frequent mention
of heretics, and expreſſes as much abhorrence of
them as Juſtin Martyr does; but it is evident, that
in all the places in which he ſpeaks of them, his
idea of herefy was confined to Gnoſticiſm. He con-
1
cæcutientes circa veritatem, ipfi fuæ contradicunt faluti. Alif
quidem alterum introducentes præter demiurgum patrem. Alü
autem ab angelis quibufdam dicentes factum effe mundum,
et fubftantiam ejus, &c. Alii autem rurſus ignorantes Virginis
diſpenſationem, ex Joſeph dicunt eum generatum. Et quidam
quidem neque animam fuam neque corpus recipere peffe dicunt
æternam vitam, fed tantum hominem interiorem. Lib. V.
cap. xix. p. 429
fiders
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS,
59
1
76
ſiders it as an anſwer to all heretics to prove that
of there is one God, the almighty Lord, who was
* preached by the law and the prophets, and alſo
s in the bleſſed goſpel *.” He alſo ſpeaks of hereſy
as “ borrowed from a barbarous philoſophy. ;” and
ſays of heretics, that though they ſay there is one
God, and ſing hymns to Chrift, it was not accord-
" ing to truth; for that they introduced another God,
" and ſuch a Chriſt as the prophets had not foretold.”
Strom. Lib. VI. p. 675. See alſo p. 542. 662.
He likewiſe ſpeaks of heretics in general, as having
a high opinion of their own knowledge, ornary
guwoews grançoiw. Strom. Lib.VII. p. 754. He calls
them doğrcopoi, men who think that they have found the
truth, p. 755. and up digoroplas en upusvoi, elated with
a conceit of their knowledge, p: 759. He ſays that
“ hereſy began in the time of Adrian,” when it is
well known that Bafilides, and the moſt diſtin-
guiſhed of the Gnoſtics made their appearance,
Strom Lib. VII. p. 764. He ſays the herétics
went by different names, as thoſe of Valentinus,
Marcion, and Bafilides, mentioning none but
Gnoſtics, p. 765. It may only be conjectured
that he meant the Ebionites by the Peratici, enume-
rated by him among thoſe who had their denomina-
tion from the place of their reſidence. But this is
the only paſſage in which the word occurs. He never
includes the Gentile unitarians among heretics, and
even your great authority, Moſheim, allows (whaç
* Και απάσαις εντενθεν ταις αιρεσεσιν ενα δεικνύναι θεον και
κυρίoν απανοκράτορα, τον δια νομε και τροφήλων, προς δε και
p.onapte évay EX18 7P101WS Hermpuryusrov. Strom. Lib. VI.
indeed
P. 475.
60
LETTERS TO THE
indeed he could not deny) that the unitarians lived
in communion with the catholic church in the early
ages.
As the Itrict Ebionites held no communion
with the Gentile chriſtians, it is very poſſible that
Clemens Alexandrinus might infert them in a cata-
logue of heretics, and allude to them under the name
of Peratici, without intending any cenſure of their
doctrine with reſpect to Chriſt. Beſides, this was a
name given them, as he fays, from their place of re-
fidence, and therefore did not include the unitarians
among the Gentiles.
It is clear to me from the attention that I have
Fately given to this ſubject, that even long after the
doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt was eſtabliſhed
by councils, and the decrees of emperors, the com-
mon people were well known to be ieve nothing of
the matter ; and yet, if they made no diſturbance,
and did not think proper to feparate from the com-
munion of the orthodox themſelves, they were not
excommunicated. This may be inferred from the
paffage which I quoted from Athanafius; but of
which you have taken no notice, from which it ap-
pears that the unitarians were the.os monnor, the
many. In the cime of Tertullian they were the
major pars credentium, the greater part of believers;
and in the time of Origen they were the to MIG,
ibe multitude, and the Ta odnon tbe muliitudes,
I am, &c.
LETTER
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. .
61
L E T T E R
VII.
Of the ſtate of Hereſy in the time of Tertullian.
Rev. SIR,
NOTHING can well be more evident than
that Tertullian repreſents the great body of
unlearned chriſtians in his time as unitarians, and
even holding the doctrine of the trinity in great
abhorrence. It is hardly poſſible, in any form of
words, to deſcribe this ſtate of things more clearly
than he does. Indeed, with reſpect to this you
are pleaſed to make ſome conceſſion, though by
no means ſuch as the caſe requires,
.
" I muſt confeſs, Sir," you ſay, p. 74. “ here
“ ſeems to be a coinplaint againſt the unlearned
“ chriſtians, as in general unfavourable to the tri-
“ nitarian doctrine;" but you add," the com-
“ plaint is of your own raiſing. Tertullian will
« vouch but for a ſmall part of it. Simple per
fons, ſays Tertullian (not to call them ignorant
" and ideots) who always make the majority of be-
“ lievers, becauſe the rule of faith itſelf carries us
away from the many gods of the beatbens, to the
one true God; not underſtanding tbat one God is
s indeed to be believed, but with an OE-CONOMY (or
arrangement) fart'e at the economy. They take
“ it for granted that the number and diſpoſition of
“tbe trinity is a diviſion of the unity. They pretend
is that
meer
63 L ÉTTERS TO THE
" that two, and even three are preached by us, and
imagine that they themſelves are the worſhippers of
“ one God. We, they ſay, hold the monarchy.' La-
“ tins have caught up the word MONARCHIA; Greeks
" will not underſtand OECONOMIA. Let our au-
o thor's words be thus exactly rendered, and you
" will find in them neither complaint, nor ac-
"knowledgment, of a general prevalence of
" the unitarian doctrine among chriſtians of any
“ rank. Tertullian alleges, that what credit it
"s obtained was only with the illiterate, nor with
oc, all the illiterate, but only thoſe who were igno-
“ rant, and ſtupid in the extreme. To preclude
" the plea of numbers, he remarks, that the illite-
“ rate will always make the majority of believers.
“Some ſimple people, he ſays, take alarm at the
«s notion of a plurality of perſons in the unity of
“ the godhead.”
Here, Sir, I complain of two groſs miſrepre-
fentations of your author, the firſt reſpects the
number of theſe ſimple people, and the ſecond the
degree of their ſimplicity, or as you call it ſtupi-
dity. Whoever Tertullian meant by the fimplices
and the idiote, for any thing that appears, he
meant the whole body of them. His language
is general, and unlimited, and therefore you are
altogether unwarranted in your limitation of it
to some of them. I really wonder at your aſſurance
in this. I am far from conſtruing Tertullian
rigorouſly, and am ready to allow that ſome of
theſe fimplices and idiotæ might profeſs to believe
the
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 63
1
the doctrine of the trinity, though he fays no-
thing of it; but making all reaſonable deductions
on this account, he afferts a palpable falſehood,
and againſt himſelf, if a very great majority of
theſe fimplices and idiote were not unitarians.
On the whole, it is impoſſible not to infer from
this paſſage, that, in the time of Tertullian, the
great body of unlearned chriſtians were unita-
rians, and that they were ſo in part from their
conſtruction of the regula fidei, or the creed, to
which they gave their aſſent at baptiſm. They
even regarded the doctrine of the trinity with
horror, as nothing leſs than idolatry, enjoining
the worſhip of more gods than one. Common
ſenſe can put no other conſtruction on this paſ-
fage, and Tertullian is far from being fingular
in this acknowledgment. It is made in differ-
ent modes by ſeveral of the fathers, even later
than the age of Tertullian.
A
In the next place, I complain of the degree of
fimplicity, or, as you call it, ſtupidity with which
you charge theſe unitarians. Tertullian calls
them idiota, which you render ideots, and this you
have the aſſurance to call an exact tranſlation. You
ſay, p. 91. that I conſult only the ordinary lexicons.
Pray, Sir, in what lexicon or dictionary, ordinary
or extraordinary, did you find this ſenſe of the
term idiota, in Latin, or idealus in Greek? Can
you, produce any paſſage in an ancient writer
in which the word has that meaning? I will ver
ture to ſay that it properly ſignifies an unlearned
man,
1
ven-
64
LETTERS TO THE
man, or a perſon who has not had a learned or
liberal education. But ſuch perfons may have
as good ſenſe as thoſe who have had that advan-
tage, and may judge as truly concerning the
great principles of, religion as the moſt learned.
The doctrine of one God, or two Gods, requires
no knowledge of the learned languages, and you,
Sir, perhaps would have underſtood chriſtianity
no worſe, if you had never heard of the Parmenides.
It is moſt natural to interpret the language of
any writer by the uſe of it in other writers of the
ſame age, character, and profeſſion. Now the
tranſlator of Irenæus certainly uſes the word
idiota (escolns, no doubt, in the original Greek)
for an unlearned man, without the leaſt reference
to any weakneſs of underſtanding. Speaking of
che heretics, who boaſted of their knowledge, he
ſays, lib. V. cap. xx. “Non contemplantes quanto
pluris ſit idiota religiofus a blaſphemo et im-
" pudente fophifta: Not conſidering how much
" better is a religious and unlearned man, than a
blaſphemous and impious ſophiſt." Certainly
you would not render it a religious ideot, for ideots
are incapable of religion. From the blaſphemy
here aſcribed to heretics, who were Gnoſtics, you
may alſo take a hint for the right underſtanding
of the quotation from Juſtin.
1
1
Theodoret, in his explanation of 1 Cor. xiv. 16.
ſays, that " by idrotais was meant a layman, be-
so cauſe it is the cuſtom to call thoſe falas who
Fr were
ARCHDÈACON OF ST. À LBAN S. 65
ts
were not engaged in war;” meaning, perhaps,
i thoſe who had no public employments:” Ope-
ra; vol. III. p. 191.
Our tranſlators of the New Teſtament had a
very different idea from yours of the meaning of
the word idewins. For in Aets iv. 1 3. we read that
when Peter and John were examined before the
High Prieſt, and his kindred, "they wondered at
“ their boldneſs, becauſe they perceived them to
"ibe odimlar;" but it is not rendered ideots, which
would have been abſurd enough, but unlearned
and ignorant men. In 1 Cor. xiv. the word occurs
three times, and is always" tranſlated unlearned.;
and in 2 Cor. xi. 6. Paul calls himſelf id sw705, and
he could not be ſuppoſed to have called himſelf
an ideot. It is there rendered rude.
زر
One of your proofs; p. 83. that unitariapiſm
was profcribed in the primitive church in the
time of Tertullian, is his ſaying that the regula
fidei in his treatiſe de Preſcriptione was the belief
of all chriſtians. But every writer, if we with
not to cavil, but to underſtand his real meaning,
muſt be interpreted in a manner conſiſtent with
himſelf.' It is a degree of càndour that is due to
all writers ; and what you ſtrongly plead for in
the caſe of Euſebius. Now, concerning what we
now call the apoſtles creed, Tertullian expreſſes him-
ſelf in ſuch a manner (in his treatiſe de Virginibu's
Velandis) as gives us clearly to underſtand that this
was all that was treceffary to the faith-of a chrif-
F
tian.
ceffary
66
TO THE
LETTERS
tian. This creed might be ſubſcribed by any
unitarian who believed the miraculous concep-
tion. The other creed, therefore, which is not
the apoſtles, muſt be his own comment or expo-
ſition of the proper regula fidei, or creed (and in-
dead it has all the appearance of a comment, as
may be ſeen by the compariſon) and all that we
can conclude from it, is that it contains his own.
opinion, which is well known from his writings
in general.
To prove that the regula fidei in the treatiſe de
Præſcriptione was the belief of all chriſtians in that
age, you muſt prove that it was the creed that all
chriſtians gave their afſent to; and this affent was
only given at the time of baptiſm. But that re-
gula fidei (which ſuppoſes the pre-exiſtence of
Chriſt) is no where to be found but in this particu,
lar paſſage in the writings of Tertullian; whereas
that which is called the apoſtles creed is, with
ſome variations, frequently mentioned, and is
known to have been the only creed that was uſed
at baptiſin in the time of Tertullian, and long
afterwards.
That Tertullian alluded to none but the Gnoſ-
tics in the regula fidei of his treatiſe de Præfcrip-
tione is evident from every clauſe in it, and from
the object of the work, which reſpects the Gnof-
tics only, the unitarians being only occaſionally
and Nightly mentioned in it. Though, there-
fore, a ſingle feature in this account is found in
the
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 67
the unitarians, as well as in the Gnoſtics, it is the
whole character that we are to attend to, and not
that feature in particular.
In all other places in which I have found Ter-
tullian to ſpeak of hereſy in general, it is moft evi-
dent that his ideas went no farther than to the
opinions of the Gnoftics, except that he once
calls Hebion a heretic, and then he expreſsly
makes his herely to confift in his obſervance of
the Jewiſh ritual *.
“ Hereſies," he ſays, “ do not differ from
idolatry, having the ſame author, and the fame
" work with idolaters; for that they make an-
“ other God againſt the creator ; or, if they ac-
knowledge one creator, they diſcourſe of him
" in a manner different from the trutht. Here-
" tics,” he ſays, “ deny that God is to be
“ feared I”, which agrees with his ſaying that
“ the heathen philoſophers were the patriarchs
" of hereſyg,” for they held that doctrine; but it
was very remote from any thing that is ever laid
to the charge of the unitarians.
* Ad Galatas fcribens invehitur in obfervatores et defenſores
circumcifionis et legis. Hebionis hærefis eft. De Præl. f. xxxiii.
P. 214.
† Neque ab idolatria diftare hæreſes, cum et auctoris et operis
ejuſdem fint cujus et idolatria. Deum aut fingunt alium ad.
verſus creatorem, aut fi unicum creatorem confitentur, aliter
eum differunt quam in vero. De Præſcriptione, f. xl. Opera
p. 217.
Negant deum timendum. De Præf. f. xliii. p. 218.
$ Hæreticorum patriarchæ philoſophi. Ad. Herm. f. viii.
P. 236.
« Hereties,"
F 2
68
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο . Τ Η Ε
!
“Heretics,” he ſays, “aſſociated with the magi,
"! with fortune-tellers, with aſtrologers, with phi-
“ lofophers; being actuated by a principle of.
curioſity.; ſo that the quality of their faith may
“ be judged of from their manner of life ; for
diſcipline is the index of doctrine *."
". The whole of this account is inconſiſtent with
Tertullian's conſidering unitarians as heretics, bue
much more is his ſaying, that “the Valentinians
૮
“ were the moſt numerous of all the hereticst,"
and that “the heretics had nothing to do with their
“ diſcipline. Their want of communion," he ſays,
(
" ſhews that they are foreign to us I.” For it is
moſt evident that thoſe whom he calls fimplices and
idiotæ, were ranked by him among the credentes, or
believers. They were even the major pars credentium,
though unitarians, and holding the doctrine of the
trinity in abhorrence.
Let any perſon judge from the whole of this, if
it muſt not have been inconſiderate, at leaſt, in Ter-
* Notata etiam funt commercia hæreticoruñ cum magis,
quam pluribus, cum circulatoribus, cum aſtrologis, cum philo-
fophis, curioſitati fcilicet deditis.---Adeo et de genere con-
verſationis qualitas fidei æftimari poteſt : do&trinæ index dir-
ciplina eft. De Præſcriptione, f. xliii. p. 218.
+ Valentiniani frequentißimum plani collegium inter hære-
ticos. Ad. Valent. ſ. i. p. 250.
I Hæretici autem nullum habent conſortium noftræ diſci.
plinæ, quos extraneous utique teftatur ipfa ademptio coñmu-
nicationis. De Baptiſmo, f. xv. p. 230.
tullian,
1
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 69
tullian, and inconſiſtent with himſelf, to call thoſe per'-
ſons heretics, who could not ſubſcribe to that form of
the creed which includes the article of pre-exiſtence,
and which was not aſſented to at baptiſm.
Tertullian alſo recites the articles of the creed in
a third form, in his book againſt Praxeas. But as
in the former he evidently had a view to the Gnoſtics
only, ſo in this, he had a view to the opinions of
Praxeas, whom he was refuting. This, therefore,
as well as the other, though delivered in the form
of a creed, and faid to be held by all chriſtians, can
only be conſidered as his own comment upon
it, and as containing his own opinion. It is as
follows:
“ We believe in one God, but under that diſpen-
“ fation which we call the economy; ſo that there is
« alſo a ſon of this one God, his word, who proceeded
$$ from him, by whom all things were made, and
« without whom nothing was made that was made;
is that he was ſent by the Father into a virgin, and
" of her born man and God, the ſon of man, and
" the ſon of God, and called Jeſus Chriſt ; that he
ſuffered, died, and was buried, according to the
ſcriptures; that he was raiſed by the Father, and
" taken up into heaven; that he ſits at the right-
“ hand of the Father, and will come to judge the
“ living and the dead ; who thence, according to
- his promiſe, ſent from the Father the holy ſpirit,
" the comforter, and the fanctifier of the faith of
" thoſe
F 3. .
!
70
LETTERS TO THE
ec
« thoſe who believe in the father, the ſon, and the
holy ſpirit *."
J
1
Let the impartial reader then judge, whether we
are not more likely to find the genuine proper
creed, which was conſidered as containing the faith
of all chriſtians, unmixed with any peculiar opinions
of Tertullian's own, in the treatiſe de Virginibus
Velandis, in which he is not oppoſing orthodoxy to
heterodoxy, but fimply faith to practice.
I am really ſurprized that you ſhould lay ſo much
freſs on the teſtimony of Tertullian, admitting it
to be clear and uniform, which it is far from being,
and alſo on that of Euſebius, with reſpect to the
general faith of chriſtians even in their own times,
and much more in times preceding them; when it
is fo common for men to repreſent the opinions of
thoſe whom they eſteem as the ſame with their own.
Every man ſhould be heard with caution when he
5
Unicum quidem deum credimus, fub hac tamen diſpen-
fatione quam æconomiam dicimus, ut unici dei fit et filius
fermo ipfius, qui ex ipſo proceſſerit, per quem omnia facta funt,
et fine quo factum eft nihil ; hunc miſſum a patre in virginem,
et ex ea natum hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei,
et cognominatum Jeſum Chriſtum. Hunc paffum, hunc mor-
tuum, et fepultum, fecundum fcripturas, et reſuſcitatum a
patre, et in cælos reſumptum, ſedere ad dextram patris, ven-
turum judicare vivos et mortuos, qui exinde miſerit, fecundum
promifſionem ſuam, a patre fpiritum ſanctum, paracletum,
fanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et
fpiritum fanctum. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucur-
riffe, &c. Ad. Praxeam, fo.ii. p. 501.
praiſes
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 71
praiſes himſelf; and what he ſays in one place
ſhould be compared with what he ſays in another,
and eſpecially what he drops, as it were, accident-
ally, and when he was off his guard. As I ſaid be-
fore, « their evidence in theſe caſes is not to be ré-
“ garded, unleſs they bring ſome fufficient proof of
" their aſſertions.!!
Had Tertullian, Origen, and others, thought
more highly of the common people than they did, we
ſhould probably never have known from them what
their opinions were. But happily for us, they
thought meanly of them, and, without being aware
of the uſe and value of the information, have given
us ſufficient lights into this yery important circum-
ſtance in the hiſtory of their times. But in this, as
well as in ſeveral other reſpects, you, Sir, have been
led into ſeveral miſtakes through your ignorance of
human rature ; the knowledge of which, and a due
attention to it, would have been of much more fer-
vice to you in theſe enquiries, than your knowledge
of Greek, in which, however, I do not perceive that
you greatly abound. This ignorance of human nature
appears in your inſiſting, p. 174. that if I admit the
evidence of Euſebius for the exiſtence of the Ebio-
nites in the time of the apoſtles, I muſt admit his
teſtimony to their condemnation of them.
1
As Theodotus who appeared in the time of
Tertullian is called a heretic in the appendix to
Tertullian's book De Præfcriptions ; I think it
probable that, after his excoinmunication, he forined
a church
F 4
!!
1
.
72
LETTERS TO THE
a church of pure unitarians, and might be the firſt
who ſet up a ſeparate place of worſhip on that
account, and ţherefore was denominated an heretiç
in the original ſenſe of that word; and this cir-
cumſtance might give riſe to the opinion that he
was the firſt who taught the doctrine.
0
When Eufebius wrote ſo as evidently to ſuppoſe
that the Ebionites exiſted in the time of the apoſtles,
you ſay, p. 173, “ I conſider it as an haſty affertion
“ of a writer over-zealous to overwhelm his adver-
“ fary by authorities.” I ſuſpect that he may have
been guilty of ſomething like this, when he ſaid
that Theodotus was excommunicated by Victor on
account of his unitarian principles. That he was
excommụnicated I admit, but that his unitarian
principles was the ſole ground of his excommuni-
cation, I have ſome doubt, conſidering your own
idea of the credit of the witneſs, which indeed is
pretty much the ſame as iny own.
I am, &c.
LETTER
'
ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBANS. 73
L E T T E R
L T
VIII.
Of Origen's idea of Hereſy,
Rev. SIRO
WH
HAT I have ſaid concerning Clemens
Alexandrinus and Tertullian, is true alſo of
Origen, and theſe writers may help to explain each
other. No man took more pains to inculcate the
doctrine of the logos than Origen, and he thought
meanly of thoſe chriſtians who did not adopt it, con-
ſidering them as of an inferior rank; but I believe he
never claſſes them with beretics; and whenever he
ſpeaks of beretics in general, he, as well as all pre-
ceding writers, evidently had a view to the Gnoſtics
only. See his Commentary on Matt, vol. I. p. 156,
159, 212, 287, 475, and many other paſſages in
his writings.
In his treatiſe entitled Philofophumena, which is
the firſt of his books againſt the heretics, it is
evident that he conſidered none in that light beſides
the Gnoftics, ſee p. 6. 8. and 16. of that work, as
publiſhed by Wolfius, at Hamburg, in 1706.
In one place he evidently conſiders the unitarians
and heretics ſeparately, as two diſtinct claſſes of
men ; but ſuppoſes that the unitarians confounded
the perſons of the father and the ſon, on which
account they were called Patripaſians. But not-
withſtanding
1
1
LET'TERS TO THE
withſtanding the evil that he ſays of them, he acknow-
ledges that they adhered to their opinion as thinking
that it did honour to Chriſt, as on other occaſions
he aſcribes it to their regard to the one true God
the Father. " We are not,” ſays he, “ to conſider
" thoſe as taking the part of Chriſt who think
falſely concerning him, out of an idea of doing
os him honour, Such are thoſe who confound the
intellect of the Father and the Son, diſtinguiſhing
“ their ſubſtance in idea and name only; and alſo
es the beretics, who, out of a deſire of ſpeaking
magnificently concerning him, carry their blaf-
phemy very high, even to the maker of the
“ world, are not on his fide*."
'C
It is evident to me that in the time of Origen,
viz. the beginning of the third century, the doctrine
of the divinity of Chriſt was ſo far from being
generally received, except by the biſhops and the
more learned of the clergy, that it was conlid red
as a ſublime doćirine, proper indeed for perſons
who had made advances in divine knowledge, but
rot adapted to the vulgar, who were content with
the plain doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt and him crucified,
OU VOD1500V yup
ειναι υπερ αυλα της τα ψευδη φροντας
αρι αυθε φαασία, το δοξαζειν αυτον, οποιοι εισιν συγκεο 1ες
Φταίρος και μια εννοιαν, και τη υποτασει ενα διδοτες ειναι τον.
αερα και τον υιο», τη επι οία μονη, και τοις ονομασι, διαιρείες
το εν υποκιμάμενον. και οι απο των αιρέσεων, ανασια τα
μεγαλα περι αυλα φρονειν, αδικιαν εις το υψG- λα' εντες, και
κακως λεγονίες του δημιεργον, καικ εισιν υπερ αυτ8. Comment.
in Mati. vol. I. p. 471.
looking
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 75
looking no farther than to his humanity, as it is
delivered in the goſpels of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke. John's doctrine of the logos was thought
to be too ſublime for the generality of Chriſtians.
“ No one,” ſays Origen,“ taught the divinity
" of Chriſt ſo clearly as John, who preſents him
" to us, ſaying, I am the light of the world,
“I am the way, the truth, and the life; I am the
“ reſurrection; I am the gate ; I am the good
fhepherd; and in the Revelation, I am the alpha
“and omega, the beginning and the end, the firſt
" and the laſt. We may therefore boldly ſay,
“ that as the goſpels are the firſt fruits (or moſt
" excellent part) of the ſcriptures, ſo the goſpel
" of John is the firſt fruits of the gospels; the.
« fenfe of which no perſon can conceive except
« he who reclines on the breaſt of Jeſus, and who
“ can receive from Jeſus his mother Mary, and
« make her his own. He muſt be another John
" who was ſhewn by Jeſus as another Jeſus. For,
« he who is perfect does not himſelf live, but
" Chriſt lives in him; and ſince Chriſt lives in
him, he ſays to Mary concerning him, behold
" thy ſon, Chriſt himſelf*."
« This,"
* Ουδεις γαρ εκεινων ακραίως εφανερωσε" αυλα την θεόληλα
ως Ιωαννης, σαράσησας αυλον λεγονία, εγω ειμι το φως τα
, egw stan od os, xj u aanderde, xj * {wn. EyW GLUE 1
αναςασις. εγω ειμι και θυρα, εγω ειμι ο ποιμήν ο καλος . και
εν τη αποκάλυψει, εγω ειμι το αν το ω, και αρχη και το τελος,
ο πρωφ» και ο εχα79. τολμήθεον τοινυν ειπουν απαρχαν
Post
1
76
LETTERS TO THE
“ This,” ſays he, “we ought to underſtand,
" that as the law.was a ſhadow of good things
so to come, fo is the goſpel as it is underſtood
by the generality. But that which John calls
s the everlaſting gospel, and which may be more
“properly called the Spiritual, inſtructs the in-
s telligent very clearly concerning the Son of
« God. Wherefore the gofpel muft be taught,
so both corporeally and ſpiritually; and when it
« is neceffary we muft preach the corporeal gof-
pel, ſaying to the carnal that we know nothing
“ but Jeſus Chriſt and him crucified. But when
* perfons are found confirmed in the fpirit, bring-
ing forth fruits in it, and in love with heavenly
« wifdom, we muft impart to them the logos re-
“ turning from his bodily ſtate, in that he was in
st the beginning with God *,”
os There,
μεν πασων γραφων ειναι τα ευαγγέλια, των δε ευαγγελιων
απαρχην το καλα Ιωαννην, και τον νυν και δεις δυνιαι λαβειν μη
αναπεσων επι το Σηθώ Ιησε, μηδε λας αν απο Ιησε την
Μαριαν γενομένης και αυκαι μερα; κτήλικείον δε γενέθαι διοι
τον εσομενον αλλον Ιωάννην, ως τε οιονεί τον Ιωάννην διειχθηναι
ούλα Ιησεν απο Ιησε--- κ γαρ σας o 760ελειωμεν ζη εκετι,
αλλ εν αυθω ζη Χριςος, και επει ζη εν αυθω ΧρισO, λεγείας
περι αυτε τη Μαρια, ιδε ο υις σε ο ΧριςG». Comment in
Johan. vol. II. p. 5.
* Και τέλο σε ειδηναι εχρην, οτι ως περ έσι νομG- σκιαν
σαρεχων των μελλονων αγαθων, υπο τε και αληθειαν
καθαγγελλομενε νομε δηλεμενων και καιω και ευαγγελιoν σκιαν
μυςηριων Χρις και διδασκει, το νομιζομενον υπο παντων των
Εντογχαν οντων νοε1θαι. Ο δε φησιν Ιωαννης ευαγγελιoν αιωνιον,
οικειως αν λεχθησομενον πνευματικον, σαφως παριςησι τοις
γο8σι
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 77
« There are,” fays he, “ who partake of the
logos which was from the beginning, the logos
" that was with God, and the logos that was
« God, as Hofea, Ifaiah, and Jeremiah, and any
“ others that ſpeak of him as the logos of God,
" and the logos that was with him ; but there
« are others who know nothing but Jeſus Chriſt
« and him crucified, the logos that was made
“ feſh; thinking they have every thing of the
“ logos when they acknowledge Chriſt accord-
ing to the fleſh. Such is the multitude of thoſe
56 who are called chriſtians* "
« Again, he fays, « the multitudes (i. e. the
great maſs or body) of believers are inſtructed
r in the ſhadow of the logos, and not in the
νουσι τα πάντα ενωπιον περι υιέ τε θεε.---Διοπερ αναγκαιον
πνευματικως και σωματικως Χριςιανίζειν και οπε μεν χρη το
σωματικον κηρυσσειν ευαγγέλιον, φάσκοντα μηδεν ειδεναι τοις
σαρκικοις η Ιησεν Χρις ον και τον εσαυρωμενον, τετο ποιήττον,
επαν δε ευρεθωσι καταρτισμενοι τω σιευματι, και καρποφορεντες
εν αυτω, ερωντες τα κρανια σοφίας, μεταδοτέον αυτοις 78 λογα,
επανελθονο απο το σεσαρκωθαι, εφ ο ήν εν αρχή προς τον
θεον, Comment. in Johan. vol. II. p. 9.
Ουτω τοινυν οι μεν τινες μετέχεσιν αυτα τα εν αρχη λογο
και προς τον θεον λογέ, και θες λογα, ωςπερ ωσης και ησαιας και
ιερεμιας, και ει τις ετερος τοιςτον εαυτον παρέςησεν ως τον λογον
κρυι8, και τον λογον γενεθαι προς αυτον. ετερος δε οι μηδεν
είδοτές ειμη Ιησεν Χριςον και τετον εσαυρωμενον, τον γενομενον
σαρκα λογον, το σαν νομιζοντες ειναι το λογα Χριςον κατά
σαρκα μονον γνωσκεσι, τ8το δε εςι το πλήθος των σεπιςευκ-
καιγαι νομίζομενων. Comment. in Johan. vol. II. p. 49.
το.
true
1
78
1 ΈTTE R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
“ trưe logos of God, which is in the open
"heaven *"
11
Theſe humble chriſtians of Origen who got no
farther than the ſhadow of the logos, and the
fimplices and idiota of Tertullians were probably
the fimplices credentium of Jerom, who, as well as
the heretics, he ſays, “ did not underſtand the
“ fcriptures as became their inajefty." For had
theſe ſimple chriſtians, within the pale of the
church, inferred from what John ſays of the logos,
and from what Chriſt ſays of himſelf, that he was,
perſonally conſidered, equal to the father, Jerom
would hardly have ſaid that they did not under-
ſtand the ſcriptures according to their majeſtys
for he hiinſelf would not pretend to a perfect
knowledge of the myſtery of the trinity.
" For
“ theſe ſimple chriſtians, he fays, “ the earth of
" the people of God brought forth bay, as for
" the heretics it brought forth thornst." For the
intelligent, I fuppofe, it produced richer fruits.
From all theſe paſſages, and others quoted be-
fore, eſpecially the major pars credentium of Ter-
Τα δε πλήθη των πεπιςευκεναι νομιζομεναν τη σκια το
λογέ, και οχι τα αληθινω λογω θεε εν τω ανεωγστι κράνω
TOXAPORTI, COINTEUETA.. Comment. in Johan. vol. I. p. 52.
+ Quod dicitur fuper terram populi mei fpinæ et fenum afcendent,
referri poteſt et ad hæreticos, et ad fimplices quoſque creden-
tium, qui non ita fcripturam intelligunt ut illius convenit ma-
jeftati. Unde fingula ſingulis coaptavimus, ut terra populi dei
hæreticis fpinas, imperitis quibuſque ecclefiæ fænum afferat. In
1. xxxii. 2o. Opera, vol. IV. p. 118.
tullian,
2
1
ARCHDEAGON OF ST. ALBANS. 79
1
tullian, I cannot help inferring, that the doctrine
of Chriſt being any thing more than a man, who
was crucified and roſe from the dead (the whole
doctrine of the incarnation of the eternal logos,
that was in God, and that was God) was confi-
dered as a more abftrufe and refined doctrine,
with which there was no occaſion to trouble the
common people, and it is evident that this claſs
of chriſtians was much ſtaggered by it, and of-
fended when they did hear of it. This could never
have been the caſe if it had been ſuppoſed to be the
doctrine of the apoſtles, and to have been delivered
by them as the moſt eſſential article of chriſtian
faith, in which light it is now repreſented. Such
terms as ſcandalizare, expaveſcere, &c. ufed by
Tertullian, and Tapecoery by Origen, can only apply
to the caſe of fome novel and alarming doctrine,
Comething that men had not been accuſtomed to.
In the language of Origen, it had been the cor-
poreal goſpel only, and not this ſpiritual and myſte-
rious one that they had been taught.
I am, &c.
1
LETTER
1
80
İ ET TË R S TO THE
--
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
IX.
Of the light in which the Unitarians were conſidered
in later ages, and of the ſtate of the common people
at all times.
i
Rev. SIR,
IT appears from what has been advanced in the
preceding letters, that, whatever might be the
opinion of the more learned chriſtians, and of courſe
that of the writers, the bulk of the common peo-
ple were not brought to a belief, or rather a pro-
feſſion, of the doctrine of the trinity till a pretty
late period; and that if they did not of them
ſelves leave the communion of the orthodox;
and raiſed no diſturbance in the church, they
were connived at. In fact, they were conſidered
by the more learned as ſimple ignorant people,
who knew no better, and who acquieſced in the
doctrine of the ſimple humanity of Chriſt, becauſe
they were incapable of comprehending that of
his divinity, and the ſublime doctrine of three
perfons in one God.
This muſt have been the caſe
with the on womes, the many, or multitude, of Atha-
nafius,
This writer, conſidering the violence of his chaa
racter, ſpeaks of the unitarians with a good deal of
tenderneſs on account of the difficulty of under-
ſtanding
I
1
I
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 81
1
ſtanding the doctrine of the trinity. In my former
letters; I quoted a paſſage from him, in which he
repreſents them as the of work, the many, and per-
fons of a low underſtanding, but by no means as
perſons out of the church. Contraſting them with
the Gnoſtics and the Arians, he ſays, “ ſome perſons
“ conſidering what is human in Chrift, ſeeing him
"thirſting, labouring and ſuffering, and degrading
“ him to a mere man, ſin indeed greatly ; but they
may readily obtain forgiveneſs, if they repent,
alledging the weakneſs of the fleſh; and they
- have the apoſtle himſelf adminiſtering pardon to
" them, and as it were holding out his hand to
them, while he ſays, Truly, great is the myſtery of
godlineſs, God was manifeſt in the fleſh*.
According to him many perſons within the pale
of the cliurch niuſt either have been unitarians, or .
have believed the doctrine of the trinity without un-
derſtanding it, which in fact is no belief at all. Being
conſulted what was to be done with reſpect to the
ſpread of the doctrine of Paulus Samofatenfis; after
acknowledging that perfons of low underſtandings
were chiefly infected with it, and quoting what
* Οταν τινες, εις τα ανθρωπινα βλέπονίες, ιδωσι τον κυριον
διψωνία, η κοπιωγία, η σαγονία, και μονον φλυάρησωσιν ως
και ανθρωπο το σωτηρώ, αμαρανεσι μεν μεγαλως . Δυναν-
ται δε ομως ταχεως μεταγινωσκοντες λαμζανέιν συγγνωμην,
εχόντες προφασιν την το σωματG- αθενειαν : εχκσι γαρ και
απoσoλον συγγνωμην αυτοις νέμοντα, και οιονει χειρα αυτοις έν
τω λεγειν εκτείνοντα, οτι και ομολογομενως μεγα εςι το της
ευσέβειας μυςηριον, θεG- εφανερώθη εν σαρκι. In illud Evan-
gelii Quicunque dixerit, &c. Opera, vol. I. p. 975.
.
G
Paul
82
LETTERS TO THE
Paul ſays of the great myſtery of godlineſs, God mani-
feſt in the fleſh, he ſays, " thoſe who
" thoſe who underſtand
" the ſubject accurately are few, but all pious per-
“ fons. may hold the faith delivered to them *
But what kind of holding muft it be, when they
had no perfect underſtanding of what they held.
porn
Gregory Nazianzen alſo repreſents the common
people as excuſeable for their errors, and ſafe from
not being diſpoſed to ſcrutinize into thingst.
I have alſo obferved many inſtances in writers ſo
late as Chryfoftom, who notwithſtanding the pre-
valence of a different mode of treating unitarians,
uſe the term heretics in its ancient and proper ſenſe,
for the Gnoſtics only. Here I ſhall content myſelf
with one from Athanaſius. He ſays,
He ſays, “The here-
s tics make to themſelves another maker of the
univerſe, beſides the Father of our Lord Jeſus
“ Chriſt1." Indeed Athanaſius conſidered the
pro-
per unitarians in a more favourable light than he did
either the Gnoſtics, or the Arians. See Opera,
vol. I. p.975. 977, 978.
* Οτι την μεν ακριβειαν αυτης επιζητειν ολιγων εςι, την δε
στιςιν κατεχιν απαντων των προς τον θεον εμπειθων. De
Incarnatione contra-P. Sameſat. Opera, vol. I. p. 592.
* Τοις μεν γαρ τα λακ ταχα αν και συγγινωσκοιμεν τατο
σα χασίν, ες σαζει πολλακις το αβασανισον. Oratio xxi.
Opera, vol. , p. 388.
1 Οι δε απο τον αιρέσεων αλλον εαυτοις αγαπλαήoντι
δημίεργον των πάντων σαρα τον πατερα τε κυριε ημών Ιησο
Xp158. De Incarnatione. Opera, vol. I. p. 55.
Cyril
.
2
CC
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.,
83
Cyril of Jeruſalem complains of heretics, both
unitarians and Arians, in the boſom of the
church “ Now," ſays he, “ there is an apor-
tacy; for men have departed from the faith,
“ ſome confounding the Son with the Father,
“ others daring to ſay that Chriſt was created out
" of nothing.
Formerly heretics were open,
but now the church is full of concealed here-
s tics*." The more zealous of the orthodox
biſhops might do ſomething more than complain,
but in general it may be preſumed that they did
not trouble themſelves about the matter.
Complaints of the ſpread of hereſy, both that
of the unitarians, and that of the Arians, in Aſia
Minor, in the time of Baſil, by himſelf, and his
cotemporaries, are without end. Thoſe opinions
prevailed more eſpecially among the common peo-
ple, though many of the clergy were alſo infected;
and what is remarkable, the malcontents. com-
plained loudly of his innovations, both with re-
ſpect to ancient doctrines, and ancient practices.
For ſome time Baſil, called the great, was obliged
to give way to the ſtorm, and retire from his
dioceſe, though this; it ſeems, was a dangerous
ſtep; for, according to him, unremitted vigilance
0
Νυν δε εσίν αποφασια: απέςησαν γαρ οι ανθρωποι της ορθής
WISEWS, ry οι μεν υιόπατορίας καταγγέλλεσιν, οι δε τον
Χριςον εξ εκ οντων εις το ειναι παρενεχθέντα λέγειν τολμωσιν,
και προτερον μεν ησαν φανεροι αιρετικοι, νυν δε πεπληρωται η
€ xxanola nenpupillivar alvpetitwy. Cyrilli. Catech. xv. p. 209.
5:
G2
was
See alſo p. 5.
j
84
LETTERS TO THE
!
was neceſſary to guard their flocks from ſeduc-
tion. “ If any perſon,” he ſays, “ leave his dio-
« ceſe for the ſhorteſt time, he leaves the com-
“ mon people expoſed *,''
I think we may learn from Facundus, who
wrote ſo late as the reign of Juſtinian, that in his
time many of the common people were well
known to conſider Chriſt as a mere man, and yet
were not diſturbed on that account. As the paſ-
fage in his writings from which I infer this is a
pretty remarkable one, I ſhall cite it at full
length. Speaking of the condemnation of Theo-
dorus, in whoſe favour he is writing, he ſays, that
“ in condemning him they condemned all thoſe
“ who thought as he did, even though they af-
“ terwards changed their opinion.
What will
they do with Martha, and then with Mary, the
“ ſiſters of Lazarus, who were particularly at-
“ tached to our Lord while he was upon earth ?
“And yet both of them, firſt Martha, and then
Mary, are ſaid to ſpeak to him thus, Lord, if
'oc
thou hadt been here, my brother had not died;
who, though they thought that he was the Son
" of God who was to come into the world, yet
« would they not have ſaid if thou hadft been here,
“ if they had believed him to be God omnipre-
“ ſent. They therefore only thought as Theo.
Ει γαρ τις και προς το βραχυτατον της εκκλησιας αυτα
απoς αιη εκδοτες αφησει τες λαέ5 τοις εφεδρενεσι. Βafilii
Epift. lxx. Opera, vol. III. p. 114.
+ dorus
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. .85
1
.66 dorus is ſaid to have done, and were excommu-
" nicated along with him; and how many of this
« kind do we know, by the writings of the apof-
« tles and evangeliſts, there were at that time,
" and how many even now are there ſtill in the
« common herd of the faithful, who by only par-
taking in the holy myſteries, and by a ſimple
“ obſervance of the commandments, we ſee pleaf-
ing God; when even the apoſtles themſelves,
" the firſt teachers, only thought as thoſe whom
" we fee to be included in this condemnation of
* Theodorus *."
CC
The caſe is indeed the ſame, in a greater or leſs
degree, at all times, and in all churches. Quiet
people will generally be indulged in their own
way of thinking, and they are only thoſe that
diſturb others that are themſelves diſturbed.
* Condemnaverunt omnes ab ipfo in quem illum incidiffe
putant errore converfos. Ubi quid agent de Martha et
Maria, fororibus Lazari, qua familiari devotione ipfi domino
dum hic in carne degerit adhæſerunt. Et tamen utraque, id eſt,
prius Martha, ac deinde Maria, legitur illi dixiffe, Domine
fi fuiffes hic frater meus non fuiffet mortuus.
Quæ ficet
crederent quod ipfe effet filius Dei qui in mundum veniffet,
tamen non dicerent ſi fuiſſes hic, fi eum cognofcerent ficut
Deum, ubique eſſe prefentem. Eadem ergo fapuerunt quæ
dicitur fapuiſſe Theodorus, et cum Theodoro fimul anathema-
tifatæ funt. Et quantos vel eo tempore in evangeliis et apof..
tolicis ſcriptis tales fuiſſe cognovimus ? Quantos etiam nunc
tales in grege fidelium, fola fanctorum myfteriorum partici-
patione, et fimplici præceptorum obedientia, placentes Deo
vidimus ; cum et ipli primi paſtores ejus Apoſtoli fic aliquando
ſapuerunt, quos omnes cum Theodoro vidimus in hoc anathe
mate condemnatos. Pro defenſione trium Capitulorum, Lib.
X. c. vii. p. 162.
G 3
IS
/
86
L E T T E R S
TO THE
--
Is it not well known that there are both Arians
and Socinians members of the church of Eng-
land, and even among the clergy themſelves;
and yet if they can reconcile it to their own
ininds to keep in communion with a trinitarian
church, there are no attempts made to moleſt
thein. Zealous as the beads of the church are
(from the archdeacons to the archbiſhops) for the
purity of its tenets, they think proper to con-
nive at theſe things, and ſo they did in an age
more zealous than this. The excellent Mr. Fir-
min was not only an avowed Socinian, and in
communion with the church of England, but in
habits of intimacy with Tillotſon, and ſome of
the moſt diſtinguiſhed churchmen of his time.
At preſent there are Arian and Socinian writers
within the pale of your church, and yet I dare
ſay it never occurred to any archdeacon, biſhop,
or archbiſhop, that it would be proper to excom-
municate any of them for the part they have
acted. Such a thing as this might not have
paſſed ſo eaſily in the time of Theodofius; but
even then I make do doubt but that perſons who
could content themſelves without diſturbing
others, would not have been moleſted.
You and I are both agreed that perſons who
do not bona fide hold the acknowledged tenets of
any church (I mean ſuch great and diſtinguiſhed
ones as thoſe relating to the objeet of worſhip)
ought to withdraw themſelves from it, and
not, by continuing in communion with it,
to
i
1
}
87
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
to countenance its errors. But how many are
there who do not ſee the thing in the ſame
light, or whoſe habits and prejudices are fuch,
that they cannot bring themſelves to act as we
think every principle of honour, as well as of reli-
gion dictates; and yet I cannot agree with you,
if you ſhould ſay that all ſuch perſons are hypo-
crites, and inſincere, doing what they themſelves
know and feel to be wrong. They have excuſes
which I doubt not ſatisfy their own minds, though
they do not ſatisfy me. Great allowance, noi
doubt, is alſo to be made for the force of habit,
and even for a natural timidity. There are many
Eraſmus's for one Luther, many Dr. Clarkes for
one Whiſton, a name which, notwithſtanding the
weakneſs of his judgment in ſome things, ought
never to be mentioned without reſpect, on ac-
count of his almoſt ſingular and unparalleled
uprightneſs.
As to the common people, the idiote of Tertul-
lian, we generally ſee that, as they are not inno-
vators in doctrine, they go to public worſhip
where they have been uſed to do, without any
nice diſcrimination of what is tranſacted there;
and the obſervation will generally apply to
the bulk of the inferior clergy. When Henry
VIII. reformed the church of England, how
many joined him in it, who would never have
declared themſelves diffenters from the eſtabliſh-
ed church? The church is now trinitarian; but
fuppoſing that an Arian or Socinian parliament
(which
G4
88
LETTERS TO THE
(which is a poſſible caſe in this inquiſitive and
fickle age) ſhould change the eſtabliſhed religion
in that reſpect, how many do you think of the
clergy (excepting thoſe who poffefs the rank, the
knowledge, and the zeal of Archdeacons, &c.
and alſo thoſe whom you would place in the dregs
of methodiſm, p. 62.) would become diffenters;
eſpecially if, as was often the caſe informer
times, they had no alternative but a priſon with
a' good conſcience, or their preſent emoluments
· without one. I rather think they would contrive
to keep both, and ſoon make themſelves perfectly
eaſy in their new ſituation.
With reſpect to the common people in general,
ſettled as you may think them to be in the doc-
trines of the church of England, perpetually
hearing of three perſons and one God, and daily
making their reſponſes to the boly bleſſed and glo-
rious trinity; yet could they, without any pre-
paration, or diſcuſſion, hear Mr. Lindſey's re-
formed liturgy read to them by their uſual mi-
niſters, and no Archdeacon ſhould found the
alárm, but they were to take it for granted that
all was done by order of their ſuperiors, and there-
fore-right, I dare ſay the peace of few pariſhes
would be much diſturbed by it.
Theſe conſiderations, which are founded on
ſuch a knowledge of human nature as we may
learn from all hiſtory, and our own daily obſer-
yation, may render it credible, that the majority
of
ARCHDE ACON OF ST. ALBANS. 89
of the common people, the idiot æ of Tertullian,
though not the ideots of Dr. Horſley, might be
unitarians, and yet continue in communion with
the church after its forms became trinitarian,
eſpecially as they would not become ſo all at
În the moſt ancient liturgies, you know,
there were no prayers addreſſed to Chriſt; and as
the members of chriftian focieties were not re-
quired to ſubſcribe to any thing*, there was no-
thing that they were expected to bear a part in,
concerning which they might not be able to fa-
tisfy themſelves.
I am, &c.
once.
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
X.
i
Of the Quotation from Athanafius.
L
Rev. Sir.
IT is with very little effect
, indeed, that you cavil at
my quotation from Athanafius, and the defence I
made of it. To every impartial reader it diſcovers
how extremely averfe the Jews were to the doctrine
of the divinity of Chrift; and, to borrow a word from
In the times in which the doctrine of the trinity was moſt
agitated, ſome of the more zealous biſhops propoſed the Nicene
creed, and other teſts, to thoſe who were in communion with
them; but even then this practice does not appear to have
been general.
you
:
,
go
LETTERS TO THE
you and Mr. Badcock, to what management the
apoſtles were reduced in divulging this offenſive
doctrine to them. I have nothing to offer in addi-
tion to what I ſaid on that ſubject, except that I
have no objection to your rendering ευλογών αιτια, α
a'
good reaſon, inſtead of a plauſible pretence; for I
doubt not that it appeared a very good reaſon to
Athanaſius, who had nuching better to ſuggeſt.
Athanaſius, however, by no means ſtands ſingle
in his view of the prejudices of the Jews, and of the
conduct of the apoſtles with reſpect to them. Epi-
phanius, as quoted above, ſhews how jrevalent the
doctrine of the ſimple tiumanity of Chriſt was at
the time that John wrote.
There are alſo paſſages
in ſeveral of the Fathers, and eſpecially a great
number in Chryſoilon, by which we clearly per-
ceive that their ideas of the conduct of the apoſtles
was precílely the ſame with that which I have
aſcribed to Athanaſius; and as it is poſſible that by
a different kind of inſtinct, my rapid giances- may
have diſcovered more paffages of this kind than have
occurred to you, in the actual reading and ſtudy of
all the authors, I ſhall here produce one of them
from the preface to his Commentaries on the Book
of Acts.
After treating pretty largely of the conduct of
the apoſtles with reſpect to their inſiſting on the
doctrine of the reſurrection of Chriſt, rather than
that of his divinity, immediately after the deſcent of
the Holy Spirit, he ſays, “ As to the Jews, who had
daily
.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. .gr
« daily heard, and been taught out of the law, Hear'
“O Iſrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord, and beſides
“ him there is no other ; having ſeen him (Jeſus)
s nailed to a croſs, yea having killed and buried
“him themfelves, and not having ſeen him riſen
“ again, if they had heard that this perſon was God,
equal to the Father, would not they have re-
" jected and ſpurned at it.” I want words in Eng-
liſh to expreſs the force of the Greek, in this place.
The Latin tranſlator renders it nonne maxime omnes
ab his verbis abhorruiſſent, ac refiliſſent, et oblatraf-
funt. “On this account,” he adds 66
they (the
“ apoſtles) brought them forwards gently, and by
“ſlow degrees, and ufed great art in condeſcending
" to their weakneſs *"
In how different a light do Cryſoſtom and you
repreſent the ſame thing. According to you, the
Jews were always fully perſuaded that their Mef-
fiah was to be God, equal to the Father; and there-
fore, after the apoſtles had perſuaded them that
Jeſus was the Meſſiah, they had nothing to appre-
hend from their attachment to the doctrine of the
Πως δε αν Ικο cuoί οι καθ εκασην ημερα!, μανθαγονες
υπο 7 και νομο, Ακες Ισραηλ, ευριού ο θεG- σε κύρι ή εις εσι, και
σλην αυγά και εσιν αλλος, επι ξυλε σαυρκ ιδοες προσηλωμεναν
αυθον, μαλλον δε κι αυρωσανθος και θαψανες, κι εδε αναςανία
θεασαμενοι, ακκούλες οτι θες εσιν αυ7ου , και το περι
ισυ, εκ αν μαλισα σανίων απεπηδησαν και απερράγησαν.
Aralı telo apelid, xj xele per por, avies TF056:622851, xy
πολλή μεν κεχρηαι τη της συγκαταβασεως οικο;ο: 1α. In
Acta Hom. i. Opera, vol. Vill. p. 447.
unity
92
LETTERS TO THE
unity of God, and had no occaſion for any art
or management with reſpect to it. However, their
view of things, I doubt nor, affifted Athanaſius,
Chryfoftom, and others, who lived nearer to thoſe
times, than the preſent Archdeacon of St. Albans, to
account for the great number of unitarians among the
early Jewiſh chriſtians. Nor could they wonder at the
ſame among the Gentiles, conſidering, as Athanaſius
does, that they could only learn chriſtianity from the
Jews ; and it would have anſwered 110 end for the
apoſtles to have ſpoken with caution to the Jews,
and with openneſs to the Gentiles. Beſides, accord-
ing to Chryfoftom, the Gentiles were not much
better prepared to receive the doctrine of the divi-
nity of Chriſt, than the Jews themſelves.
1
In the ſame paſſage, part of which I have quoted
above, after obſerving that, if the apoſtles had not
conducted themſelves in this cautious manner with
reſpect to the Jews, their whole doctrine would have
appeared incredible to them, he adds, "and at Athens
“ Paul calls him (Jeſus) ſimply a man, and nothing
“ farther, and for a good reaſon. For if, when
they had heard Chriſt himſelf ſpeaking of his equa-
► lity to the Father, they would on that account have
“ often ſtoned him, and called him a blaſphemer;
they would hardly, therefore, have received this
« doctrine from fiſhermen, eſpecially after ſpeaking
$6 of him as crucified. And why do I ſpeak of the
Jews, when at that time, even the diſciples
cs of Chriſt himſelf were often diſturbed, and ſcan-
“ dalized at him, when they heard fublime doc-
។
os trines ;
.
}
2
!
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 93
«ς
“ trines ; on which account he faid, I have many
" things to ſay, to you, but ye are not yet able to
o bear them. And if they could not bear theſe
things who had lived ſo long with him, and had
“ received ſo many myſteries, and ſeen ſo many
“ miracles, how could men from their altars, and
“ idols, and facrifices, and cats, and crocodiles;
“ for ſuch was the worſhip of the heathens! But
“ being firſt brought off from theſe abominations,
they would readily receive their diſcourfe con-
“ cerning more ſublime doctrines *.”
«ς
But we find no trace of either Jews or Gentiles
having received theſe ſublime doctrines that Chry-
foftom alludes to in the age of the apoſtles. Nay
he himſelf repreſents the apoſtle Paul as obliged to
uſe the ſame caution with reſpect to the Jews, when
he wrote the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, which was fo
late as A. D. 62, about two years before his death.
!
Εν δε Αθηναις και ανθρωπον αυτον απλως κλι ο Παυλό,
8δε πλεον ειπων. εικοτως . ει γαρ αυτον τον χρις ον διαλέγο-
μένον σερί της εις τον πατερα ισοτητG», λιθασαι σολλακις επι-
χειρησαν, κβλασφημον δια τετο εκαλε!, χολη γαρ πα ρα των
αλιεων τατον τον λογον εδέξαντο, κ τετο τον εαυρο προχωρ:7 -
σαντες . Και τι δει λεγειν τας Ιδιαιες και οπεγε και αυτοι τοτε
πολλακις οι μαθηται των υψιλοτερων ακ 8οντες. εθορυβεντα και
εσκανδαλιζοντο . δια τετο και ελεγε πολλα εχω λεγείν υμιν
αλλ' και δυναθε Cαςαζειν αρτι. ει δε εκεινοι εκ εσυναντο οι
συγγένομενοι χρονο τοσκτον, και τοσοτων κοινονισαντες απορ-
ρητων, και τοσαυτα θεασαμενοι θαυματα, σως ανθρωποι απο
Κωμων, και ειδωλων, και θυσιων, και αιλερων, και κροκοδειλων,
τοιαυτα γαρ ην των ελληνων σεβασματα: και των άλλων των
κακων τοτε πρωτον αποσπαθοντες, αθροον, τες υψηλος των
δογματων ευεξαντο λογος. 1bid.
2 ,
And
94
LETTERS TO THE
And if the body of the Jewiſh chriſtians were at that
time únicariansz can it be thought probable that
they became trinitarians foon afterwards ?
If the
apoſtles themſelves had not ſucceeded in this buſi-
neſs, which required equal addreſs and authority,
who elſe can be ſuppoſed to have done it?
7
1
Chryſoſtom repreſents the apoſtle as beginning
his epiſtle to the Hebrews with ſaying, that " it
was God who ſpake by the prophets, and by his
fon, and not that Chriſt himſelf had ſpoken by
" them, becauſe their minds were weak, and they
es were not able to bear the doctrine concerning
Cårift*.” He even ſays that " when he there .
ſpeaks of Chriſt as above the angels, he ſtill
ſpoke of his humanity.” See,” ſays he, “ his
great caution, op& TUV OUDEOW TNV mowiny, ib. p. 1755,
the very expreſſion uſed by Athanaſius on a ſimilar
occaſion, and which you think I have not rendered
rightly, and have miſtaken the ſenſe of the paſſage,
* Και θεα τι συνετως αυτο ειρηκες . ε γαρ ειπεν ο θεG- έλα -
λησεν καιτοιγε αυτG- ήν ο λαλήσας . αλλ' επειδη αθενεις
αυτων ησαν αι ψυχαι, και εδεπυ ακοείν ηδυναντο τα περι τα
Xp158, osoivo de Que Se Autriend11101v. In Heb. cap. i. Opera,
vol. X. p. 1756. i. e. “ See how prudently he ſpoke : for
“ he faid God ſpake though it was himſelf that fpake; but
" becauſe their minds were weak and they were not able to
“ bear the things concerning Chriſt, he ſays God ſpake by
66 him." N. B. The (s) in the ſecond clauſe of this par.
{age muſt be inſerted by miſtake for (vj) or ſome other
particle, as it contradicts what is ſaid in the cloſe of the
ſentence, and the obvious ſenſe of the whole.
though
ARCHDEAGON OF ST. ALBANS.
though Beaufobre, the popiſh tranſlator, and I ſhall
now add Dr. Lardner, all underſtood it as I do.
it was the general opinion of the Fathers, as
may be learned from Epiphanius and Jerom, quoted
above, that it was Juhn who firſt preached the
doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt explicitly, and
that when Matthew, Mark, and Luke, wrote their
goſpels, the chriſtians in general, but more eſpecially
the Jews among them, were not prepared to receive
a doctrine of ſuch ſublimity.
Chryfoftom repreſents all the preceding writers
of the New Teſtament as ļ children, who heard,
“ but did not underſtand things, and who were
buſy about cheeſe-cakes and childiſh ſports * ;
“ but John, he ſays, taught what the angels them-
" felves did not know before he declared it t ;"
and he repreſents them as his moſt attentive au-
ditors. Opera, vol. viii. p. 2. « Leaving the
“Father," he ſays, p. 1), “ he (John) diſcourſed
“ concerning the ſon ; becauſe the Father was
- known to all, if not as a Father, yet as God,
“ but the unbegotten was unknown I."
6%
Obſerving
1
• Οι γι αλλοι απανίες, καθαπερ τα παιδια τα μικρα,
axerol lev, X 100.01 de 0.77&p Oil EXO IP,
και αλλα
wepo
πλακείας
Erlonlab, rj a duplasta taidond. In Johan. i. Opera, vol.
VIII. p. 2.
+ Α μη δε αγγελοι πριν και τον γενεθαι ηδεισαν. με 9».
ημων γαρ διη και οι δια της Ιωαννα φωτης και οι ημων εμαθαν
STEP Egimusy. In Johan i. Opera, vol. VIII. p. 2.
Τι σηπόλ' αν τον πατερg αφεις, σερι το υιε διαλεγεται:
οι εκεινο μεν δηλG απασιν ήν, ει και μη ως σαλης, αλλ' ως
cou,
96
LETTE R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
Obſerving that in the beginning was the logos;
he ſays, “ This was not preached immediately,
« for the world could not bear it. The evange-
“ lifts Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John” (this
laft is inferted by fome miftalke) « when they
began the preaching, ſpake at a diſtance, and
* not immediately what became his dignity, but
66 what was convenient for their hearers *."
Of the three firſt evangelifts, he ſays, that
" they all treated of the fiefhly diſpenſation, and
filently, by his miracles, indicated his dignity.
- The dignity of the logos of God was hid, the
" arrows againſt the heretics were concealed, and
“ che fortification to defend the right faith was
“ not raiſed by the pious preaching. John, there-
ri fore, the ſon of thunder, being the laſt, ad-
of vanced to the doctrine of the logos," or the
divinity of Chriſt t.
Auſtin
θεG-, ο δε μονογενης ηγνοείο. In Johan. Opera, vol. VΙΙΙ.
Ρ. 11.
• Εν αρχη ο λογα. Ουκ ευθυς τελο εκηρυχθη. και γαρ
εχωρε ο κόσμο. Μακραν ημιν οι ευαγγελισαι Μαθαιος
ΜαρκG, Λακας, και Ιωάννης, ο7ε ηρξαλο τα κηρυγμας εκ
ευθυς ελαλήσαν τα τραπουλα τη αξία, αλλα τα αρμοζονία τοις
ακροωμεν οις. De Sigillis. Opera, vol. VΙ. p. 171.
+ ΓΙαν7ες εν εχωρησαν εις την της σαρκο οικονομιαν, και
ηρεμα ως, δια των θαυμαζων, εγνωριζον την αξίαν. Εκ
ρυπτετο δε ετι τα θες λογα αξιωμα. Εκρυπτετο δε τα
κατα των αιρετικών βελη, και το της ορθής δοξης επιτειχισμα
εδεποτε τω κερυγματι της ευσεβειας εγήγερτο. Ιωαννις
τοινυν, ο υι 1ης βροντης, τελόυταιος, περιήλθεν επί την
θεολογαν. Ιb. p. 173. N. B. The ſenſe of the paſſage
abſolutely
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBÁNS. 97
1
Auſtin writes to the ſame purpoſe;
66 And if
ti there be any other things which, to thoſe who
rightly underſtand them, intimate the divinity
of Chriſt, in which he is equal to the Father,
John almoſt alone has given them in his
goſpel**
1
Theodoret obſerves, that in the genealogy of Chriſt
given by Matthew, this writer did not add according
to the fleſh, “ becauſe the men of that time would
« not bear it,” evidently meaning, that they would
thereby have been led into a ſuſpicion that, in the
idea of the writer, he had ſome higher origin, and
would have been offended at it; but the apoſtle
Paul, he ſays, could not avoid that expreſſion in his
Epiſtle to the Romans.
to the Romans. He adds, that “ before
“ his death, not only to the other Jews, but to the
apoſtles themſelves, he did not appear as a God,
nor did his 'miracles lead them to form that opi-
"nion of him t." This writer alſo ſays that the
abſolutely requires ExpUTTETO and not exuputtetö in both
the clauſes, and in the latter it is ſo rendered by the Latin
tranſlator, though not in the former. The obſervation, that
the firſt verſes in the goſpel of John are a refutation of all
hereſies is common with the Fathers. No perſon, except
one who is pretty well converſant with them, can imagine
how often thoſe verſes occur in their writings.
* Et fi qua alia funt, quæ Chriſti divinitatem, in qua æqualis
eft patri, recte intelligentibus intiment, pene ſolus Joannes in
evangelio fuo pofuit. Auſtin de Confenfu Evangeliftarum,
Opera, vol. iv. p. 374.
+ Προ μεν τα σαυρε και τα παθες, ο δεσποτης ΧρισG- ε μονον
τοις άλλοις Ιεδαιοις, αλλα και αυτοις αποστολους καικ εδοκει ειναι
H
98
LETTERS TO THE
apoſtle Paul, in mentioning the ſubjection of Chriſt
to the Father, in his Epiſtle to the Corinthians,
ſpake of him more lowly than was neceſſary, on
“ account of their weakneſs." I Cor. xv. Opera,
vol. Ill. p. 201.
And yet you, Sir, who have, no doubt read,
conſidered, and re-conſidered, all theſe paſſages,
and many more than I can produce to the ſame
purpoſe, can ſay, p. 93. “ The deſire of inſtruct-
...ing the Jews, not the fear of offending them,
was the motive with the apoſtles for propound-
ing firſt what was the eaſieſt to be underſtood,
" and the moſt likely to be admitted ;' and even
add, you cannot read without aſtoniſhment, that
I ſhould ſuppoſe that Athanaſius meant to intimate
that they were afraid of giving offence to the Jews.
60
When we conſider how late the three firſt goſpels
were written, the laſt of them not long before that of
John, which was near, if not after the deſtruction of
Jeruſalem, and that, in the opinion of theſe writers
above mentioned, all this caution and reſerve had been
neceffary on the part of the chriſtian teachers, how
is it poſſible, that, in their idea, the chriſtian church
in general ſhould have been well eſtabliſhed in the
belief of our Lord's divinity? It could only have
been great and open zeal on the part of the apoſtles,
and not the caution and management which theſe
writers aſcribe to them, that could have effectually
θεG----και διε τα θαυματα αυτές προς ταύτην επoδηγεί την
dogar. In Rom. Lib. iv. Opera, vol. III. p. II.
taught
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 99
taught a doctrine; which, according to them, they
were ill prepared to receive. And the hiſtory of
both Peter and Paul ſufficiently prove, that the in--
Auence of mere apoſtolical authority was not ſo
great at that time as many perſons now take it to
have been. Whatever powers they had, they were
not conſidered as lords over the faith of chriſtians.
The chriſtians of that age required fomething
more'than the private opinion of an apoſtle. They
required ſome ſupernatural evidence that his doc-
trine was from God; and we have no account of
the apoſtles propoſing to them this article of faith,
and alledging any ſuch evidence for it. Chryſoſ-
tom ſays, that “if the Jews were ſo much offended
“at having a new law fuperadded to their former,
“ how much more would they have been offended
“ if Chriſt had taught his own divinity.” May it
not be ſuppoſed, therefore, that they would have
required as particular evidence of a divine revela-
tion in the one caſe as in the other? And what re-
markably ſtrong evidence was neceſſary to convince
them that the obligation of their law did not extend
to the Gentiles? Would they, therefore, have re-
ceived what Chryfoftem conſidered as the more
offenſive doctrine of the two, without any pretence
to a particular revelation on the ſubject ?
It may be ſaid that all the caution of which we
have been ſpeaking was neceſſary with reſpect to
the unbelieving Jews only, into whoſe hands thefe
goſpels, and the other writings of the New Teſta-
ment,
H 2
!
1 σO
L ÉTTERS TO
THE
1
ment might fall. But how impoſſible muſt it have
been to conceal from the unbelieving Jews the doc-
trine of the divinity of Chriſt, if it had been a fa-
vourite article with the believing Jews? If this had
been the caſe, it could not but have been known to all
the world, and therefore all the offence that it could
have given would have been unavoidable. So that
this ſuppoſed caution of the evangeliſts, &c. would
have come too late, and would have anſwered no
purpoſe whatever.
1
!
!
This caution, therefore, muft neceſſarily have re-
fpected thoſe perſons into whoſe hands the goſpels,
&c. were moſt likely to come, and who would
give the moſt attention to them; and theſe were
certainly the believing Jews, and the chriſtian world
at large, and not unbelievers of any nation. And
we are authorized to conclude that, in the opinion
of the writers who have ſpoke of it, of whatever
weight that opinion may be, this caution in divulg-
ing the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt was ne-
ceffary with reſpect to the great body of chriſtians
themſelves, and eſpecially the Jewiſh chriſtians.
Conſequently, they muſt have ſuppoſed that at the
time of theſe publications, which was about A. D.
64, the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt was not
generally held by chriſtians, and that there would
have been danger of giving them great offence if it
had been plainly propoſed to them by the apoſtles
themſelves. - At this time, therefore, it may be in-
ferred, that in the opinion of theſe writers, the chriſ-
tian Church was principally unitarian, believing only
the
1
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
II
1
the ſimple humanity of Chriſt, and knowing no-
thing of his divinity or pre-exiſtence..
1
From the acknowledgment which theſe ortho-
dox fathers could not help virtually making
(for certainly they would not do it unneceſſarily
any more than yourſelf) that there were great
numbers of proper unitarians in the age of the
apoſtles; it ſeems not unreaſonable to conclude,
that there were great numbers of them in the age
immediately following, and in their own; and
their knowledge of this might be an additional
reaſon for the opinion that they appear to have
formed of that prevalence in the apoftolic age:
Would thoſe fathers have granted to their
enemies ſpontaneouſly, and contrary to truth;
that the Jews were ſtrongly prepoffeffed againſt
the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt, and that
the unitarians were a formidable body of chriſ-
tians while the apofles were living, if it had
been in their power to have denied the facts ?
The conſequence of making theſe acknowledg-
ments is but too obvious, and muſt have appeared
ſo to them, as well as it now does to you, which
makes
you
ſo unwilling to make it after them.
1
}
You ſay that the unitarian Jews mentioned by
Athanaſius were not chriſtians, and that the Gen-
tiles to whom they taught the doctrine of the
humanity of the Meſſiah were mere heathen
Greeks. “ Have you forgotten, Sir," you fay,
H3
p.97:
102
L E T T E R S TO THE
>
p. 97. “ have you never known, or would you
deny, what is not denied by candid infidels,
" that the expectation of a great deliverer, or be-
“ nefactor of mankind, was univerſal even in the
« Gentile world, about the time of our Lord's ap-
pearance." This, however, I do very much
queſtion, and I ſhould be glad to know the names
of the candid infidels who have acknowledged it.
An expectation of a Meſſiah certainly exiſted
among the Jews, and of courſe among their pro-
ſelites; but if any ſuch idea had been univerſal
among the Gentiles, ſo as to intereſt them in
diſcuſſions about the nature of this great deli-
verer, às whether he was to be God or man, &c.
we ſhould certainly have perceived ſome traces
of it in their writings. It might have been ex-
pected that, on account both of the intereſting na-
ture, and of the obfcurity, of the ſubject, there
would have been different opinions about it,
that it would have been a common topic in their
philoſophical ſchools, and that their hiſtorians
would have given ſome account of the origin and
foundation of this univerſal opinion.
2
I
You will produce, I ſuppoſe, Virgil's fixth
eclogue. But, Sir, can you believe that even
Virgil himſelf really expected any ſuch perſon as
he deſcribes ? The uſe that the poets might
make of a vague report of a prophecy, brought
probably from the eaſt, and ultimately from
the
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS103
.
.
!
the Jewiſh ſcriptures (but ſeriouſly believed by
no perſon that we know of), merely to embelliſh
a poem, is one thing; but the actual and univer-
ſal expectation of ſuch a perſon, is another.
I am, &c.
!
L E T T E R
XI.
#
Of the Time when Chriſt began to be conſidered as God,
and the Opinion of the ancient and modern Jews
with reſpect to the Meffab.
Rev., SIR,
N
I Took the liberty to requeſt that you would
endeavour to fix the time when the apoſtles
and primitive chriſtians began to conſider Chriſt
as God, or even the maker of the world under
God; taking it for granted, that at the firſt they
ſuppoſed him to be a mere man. This I thought
no perſon living would have denied. That the
Jews expected only a man for their Mefliah is
clearly ſuppoſed by Juſtin Martyr, and all the
chriſtian fathers, The Jews of their time were
perpetually objecting to the chriſtian doctrine on
account of their making Chriſt to be a God, and
I have no doubt, but that the expectation of the
Jews
'1
H.4
104
1
LETTERS TO THE
Jews at this day is the ſame with that of their an.
ceſtors two thouſand years ago.
You, Sir, have, however, ventured to deny all
this. Speaking of the apoſtles, you ſay, p. 107,
that's from their firft acknowledgment of our
“Lord as the Meſſiah, they equally acknow-
« ledged his divinity. The Jews,” you ſay, p.
109. “ in Chriſt's days had notions of a trinity
“in the divine nature. They expected the ſe-
"cond perſon, whom they called the Logos, to
” come as the Meſſiah * For the proof of theſe
" aſſertions I refer you to the work of the learned
“ Dr. Peter Allix, entitled The Judgment of the an-
” cient Jewiſh Church againſt the Unitarians; a
6c work which it is to be hoped, Sir, you will
« carefully look through before you ſend abroad
your
intended View of the doĉtrine of the firſt ages
" concerning Christ.”
។
When my ſtock of amuſement from the writ-
ings of biſhop Bull is exhauſted, which is by no
* On this ſubject the opinion of the Fathers is unanimous,
and againſt Dr. Horſley. They ſay indeed that the doctrine
of the trinity may be proved from the Old Teſtament, but
that it was delivered ſo obſcurely, on account of the prone-
neſs of the Jews to idolatry, that they did not underſtand it.
Theodoret fays, Επειδη γαρ Εβραιοις εγραφαν, οι μονον τιμα
ερωθασε τον
Πατέρα, αναγκαμως το δι αυτα προσεθε, κ.
i. e. “The Jews had been accuſtomed to worſhip the Father
"only, and for that reaſon the writer of the epiſtle to the
“ Hebrews was obliged to ſay, By him let us offer ſacrifices to
" God continually," in. Heb. Opera, vol. Ill. p. 461.
means
3
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
105
i
means the caſe at preſent, I may perhaps throw
away a few ſhillings on this Dr. Allix*. In the
inean time, without entering into a large difcuf-
ſion on the ſubject, I ſhall only aſk you a queſtion
or two relating to it, and you may anſwer me out
of Dr. Allix if you pleaſe. Inform me then,
if you can, how our Saviour could poſſibly, on
your idea, have puzzled the Jewiſh doctors, as he
did, reducing them to abſolute ſilence, by aſking
them how David could call the Meſſiah his Lord,
when he was his ſon, or deſcendant. For if they
had themſelves been fully perſwaded, as you ſup-
poſe, that the Meſſiah, though carnally de-
ſcended from David, was in fact the maker and
the God of David, and of them all, a very ſatiſ-
factory anſwer was pretty obvious. Or without
aſking any other queſtion of my own, what fay
you to Facundus, quoted above, who ſays that
« Martha and Mary would never have ſaid to
“ Chriſt if thou badſt been here, had they thought
« him to be God omnipreſent.” He adds, "nei-
“ther would Philip have ſaid to him Shew us the
Father, if he had entertained any ſuch idea of
és him."
Facundus alſo ſays that the Jews always had
expected, and in his time did expect, a mere man
for their Meffiah. “ They did not know," he
ſays, “ that Chriſt, the Son of God, was God,
* Some account of Dr. Allix's opinion, and alſo of the
confutation of it by Prideaux and Capellus, may be ſeen in
Mr. Lindſey's Apology, p. 88. Note.
" but
106 LETTERS TO THE
“ but they thought that Chriſt would be a mere
man, which any one may perceive that the
Jews at this time alſo think*.''
ence.
I am willing, however, to conſider a few of
the things which you have advanced, in order to
give ſome degree of plauſibility, to this ſtrange
hypotheſis. “So far," you ſay, p. 107." as they
(the apoſtles) believed in Jeſus as the Meſſiah,
“ in the ſame degree they underſtood and ac-
knowledged his divinity. The proof which I
“ have to produce of this from holy writ conſiſts
“ of too many particulars to be diſtinctly enume-
“ rated in the courſe of our preſent correſpond-
I ſhall mention two, which to any but
" a decided unitarian will be very ſtriking. Na-
« thaniel's firſt profeſſion, and Peter's conſter-
“ nation at the miraculous draught of fiſhes. It
" was in Nathaniel's very firſt interview with our
" Lord that he exclaimed Rabbi, thou art the Son
of God! thou art i be king of Iſrael; and this de-
" claration was drawn from Nathaniel by ſome
particulars in our Lord's diſcourſe, which he
“ ſeems to have interpreted as indications of om-
" niſcience. When ,Simon Peter ſaw the num-
« ber of fiſhes taken at a ſingle draught, when
" the net was caſt at our Lord's command, after
" a'night of fruitleſs toil, he fell down at the
!
:
* Sed non propterea Chriftum dei filium, deum fciebant;
hominem autem purum arbitrati ſunt Chriſtum. Quod etiam
nunc putantes Judæos quilibet videbit. Lib. IX. cap. iij.
Pa 139,
* knees
}
1
ARCHDEAGON OF ST. ALBANS. 107
« knees of Jeſus, ſaying, Depart from me, for I
$ am a ſinful man, O Lord. Peter's conſterna-
tion was evidently of the ſame ſort of which we
“ read in the worthies of earlier ages, upon any
"extraordinary appearance of the light of the
" Sheclinah, which was founded on a notion that
" a ſinful mortal might not ſee God and live."
1.
With reſpect to Nathaniel's calling Jeſus the
Son of God, this phraſe was, in the mouth of a
Jew, ſynonimous to the Meſſiah, or Son of David,
and it is fully explained by the ſubſequent expreſ-
ſion of Nathaniel himſelf, viz. King of Iſrael, and
therefore, the Jewiſh doctors, expecting nothing
more in their Meſſiah than a glorious King of
Ifrael, ſuch as David had been, could not give any
ſatisfactory reaſon why David ſhould call him Lord,
having no notion of his ſpiritual kingdom, extend-
ing to all mankind. If the mere appellation Son
of God, implies equality with God, Adam muſt have
been a God, for he is called the Son of God, Luke
Solomon alſo muſt have been God; and
ſo muſt all chriſtians, for they are called Sons of God.
1 John iii. 2. John i. 12. Rom. viii. 14. Phil.
iii. 38.
ii. 15.
As
you are ſo intimately acquainted with the Fa-
thers, you muſt have known the conſtruction that
Chryſoſtom puts upon the language of Nathaniel ;
and as he was unqueſtionably orthodox, I ſhould
have thought that it might have had ſome weight
with you. He ſays, that " in this ſpeech Nathaniel
" confeffed
+
108
108 LETTERS TO THE
* confeffed Chriſt as a man, as appears by his add-
“ing, Thou art the King of Iſrael.” In Johns
Opera, vol. VIII. p. 106.
}
.
As to what you call. omniſcience, you will hardly
ſay it was a greater degree of knowledge than it is
in the power of God to impart to a man. After our
Saviour had performed what you, I ſuppoſe, will
call an act of omnipotente, all the concluſion that the
ſpectators drew from it was, that God bad given
Jucb power unto men. Matt. ix. 8. They did not
infer from it that he himſelf was God, or pre-
tended to be God; and yet they probably thought
that he was the Mefliah.
:
As to the conſternation of Peter, I ſhould imagine
that by the ſame mode of interpretation you might
conclude that the widow of Zarephath took Elijah
to be a God; for on the death of her ſon, ſhe ſaid,
1 Kings xvii. 18. What have I to do with thee, O
thou man of God, art thou come to me to call my fins
to remembrance, and to pay my fon? Pray, Sir, why
might not the exclamation of Peter be conſidered
as being of the fame nature with that of this woman?
The language is very ſimilar, and I will not anſwer
for it, but that you, not being a decided unitarian,
may really be of opinion, that ſhe took the pro-
phet to be God incarnate.
Your proof of the doctrine of the trinity, from a
verſe in the firſt ſermon of Peter on the day of Pen-
tecoſt, is particularly curious. It is as follows:
Acts
ARCÁDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 1091
Acts ii. 33. Jeſus being by the right-hand of God,
exalted, and having received of the Father the pro-
miſe of the holy ghoſt, has shed forth this, &c. “I
“ſhall maintain," you ſay, p. 101. “that the three
" perſons are diſtinctly mentioned, in a manner
" which implies the divinity of each.” Well may
you ſay, p. 102. that you ſhall “ argue thus for
“ the edification of your own flock, but with little
" hope of my conviction, from Peter's firſt ſermon.”
,
Indeed, Sir, I fee nothing in this paffage but as
perfect a dependence of Chriſt upon God as any
inan can have. Why ſhould Chriſt' receive the
Holy Spirit from the Father, according to a pre-
ceding promiſe, if he had been as much in the
power
of the Son as of the Father? And why muſt the Holy
Spirit be ſo much at the abſolute diſpoſal of either of
them, if he was God in his own right, and of courſe
independent, as much as the Father himſelf?
The Father, you ſay, “ is diſtinguiſhed from the
« Son by not being called God in this place. Pa-
“ternity is the property that diſtinguiſhes the pers.
“ ſon. But from whom is this firſt principle dif-
tinguiſhed ? From his creatures ? From them he
“ were more ſignificantly diſtinguiſhed by the naine
6 of God.” But, Sir, to adopt your own language,
have you forgot, or did you never learn, that we,
who are mere mortal men, are taught to addreſs God
by the appellation of Father, as well as that Chriſt
himſelf prayed to God by the ſame title? What
weight then is there in the argument
that
from
1
you draw
110
LETTERS TÓ THÉ
4
܂
from this circumſtance? Indeed, Sir, you muſt be
happy in a very tractable flock, if ſuch proviſion as
this will ſatisfy them. You would make a fad ex-
change of your figck for mine. If ſuch arguments
do not of themſelves expoſe a cauſe, I do not know
what can do it. It is well for your cauſe that it has'
other ſupports beſides arguments:
1
Conſidering the caſe of Stephen, which is your
capital argument for the worſhip of Jeſus Chriſt,
you ſay, p. 102. “What could be the blaſphemy
againſt God" (with which he was charged) “what
“ was there in the doctrine of the apoſtles which
“ could be interpreted as blaſphemy againſt God,
except it was this, that they aſcribed divinity to
“ one who had ſuffered publicly as a malefactor ?"
You therefore ſay, “ I ſhall always inſiſt that the
“ bleſſed Stephen died a marcyr to the deity of
“ Chriſt.” As you have formed this reſolution, it
would be preſumption in me to imagine that I
could change it, and perhaps all your opinions are
as fixed as the laws of the Medes and Perſians.
Otherwiſe I might ſuggeſt that to a Jew, blaf-
phemy againſt Mofes, by whom God ſpake, would
naturally be conſidered as blaſphemy againſt the God
by whom he ſpake; on the ſame principle as our
Saviour fays, Matt. X. 40. He that receiveth you, re-
ceiveth me; and be that receiveth me, receiveth him
that ſent me.
Beſides, we are expreſsly told what was the blaf-
phemy with which Stephen was charged, Acts vi.
2
II.
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
III
11. viz. againſt Mofes and againſt God, againſt this
boly place and the law ; and this is fully explained
as follows, V, 14. For we have heard him ſay, that
tbis Jefus of Nazareth ſhall deſtroy this place, and
change the cuſtoms which Mofes delivered us. This
was the whole of the accuſation, very clearly ſtated,
and where do you find any thing ſaid concerning
the deity of Chriſt.
your curious
curious argu-
1
I ſhall conſider another of
ments. You ſay, p. 101. “I ſhall particularly de-
“fire them” (i. e. your gentle flock above men-
tioned) “ to remark, that it is ſaid of our Lord
Jeſus, that it was not poſſible that he ſhould be
“ holden of death. The expreſſions clearly im-
ply a phyſical impoſibility." But as we read that
it is impoſſible for God to lie, it may be ſaid that as
God had foretold the reſurrection of Chriſt, it
was impoſſible but that it muſt take place. As
to a proper natural impoſſibility, the fact is clearly
againſt you; for if it had been naturally impoſ-
ſible for him to be bolden of death, it muſt cer-
tainly have been naturally impoſſible for him
to have died at all, and if death could hold him
three days, it might for any thing which appears
in nature, have held him for ever, if the divine
power, a power foreign to himſelf, had not in-
terpoſed. Accordingly we read, not that he
raiſed himſelf, but that God raiſed him from the
dead. Uſe, no doubt, will reconcile the minds
of men to ſtrange conceptions of things, and
ſtrange language ; or I ſhould wonder that you
ſhould
iiż
É É T T E R S TO THE
ſhould not be ſhocked at the idea of God's dying
For when you ſpeak of the natural impoffibility
of Chriſt's being holden of death, you muſt cer-
tainly have an idea of ſomething more than the
death of his body.
co .
You, Sir, ſuppoſe that our Lord's diſciples
might have converſed with him as familiarly as
they did, and have taken the liberties with him
which they fometimes did (as when Peter re-
buked him for complaining of being touched in
a croud, &c. &c.) and yet have conſidered him as
their God and maker. You ſay, p. 143. " the
“ moſt that could be inferred, were the affump-
“tion true, would be ſomething ſtrange in their
" conduct, and even this might be a hafty infer-
ence. The fingularity of their conduct might
diſappear if the accounts they had left of our
Lord's life on earth, and of their attendance
upon him, were more circumftantial. But the
- truth is, that the foundations of this argument
« are unſound.”. After mentioning inſtances in
which you think they invoked him as a deity,
you ſay, “ If the angels Michael or Gabriel
« ſhould come and live among us in the manner
" which you ſuppoſe, I think we ſhould foon lofe
« our habitual recollection of their angelic na-
It would be only occaſionally awakened
“ by extraordinary incidents. This, at leaſt,
« would be the caſe if they mixed with us upon
“ an even footing, without aſſuming any badges of
diſtinction, wearing a common garb, partaking
" of
12
6
1
I'
1
ÅRCH DEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
113
« of our lodging, and of our board; fuffering in
" the ſame degree with ourſelves from hunger
«.and fatigue, and feeking the ſame refreſhments.
« The wonder would be if angels, in this diſguiſe,
“ met with any other reſpect than that which dig-
“nity of character commands, and ſomething of
" occaſional homage when their miraculous help
“ Was needed. This was the reſpect which our
« Lord met with from his followers."
Þ
&
To this, I can only ſay, that I am really
aſtoniſhed how you can entertain the idea of any
number of perſons living on this even footing,
as you call it, with a being whom they actually
believed to be the maker of themſelves, and of
all things, even the eternal God himſelf. Cera
tainly, Sir, you never attempted to realize the
the idea, or even thought of putting yourſelf in
their place, ſo as to have imagined yourſelf in-
troduced into the actual preſence of your maker,
in the form of man, or any other form whatever.
You muſt have been overwhelmed with the very
thought of it; or if you ſhould have had the
courage, and unparalleled ſelf poſſeſſion, to bear
ſuch a thing; muff there not have been numbers
who would have been filled with conſternation at
the very idea, or the mere fufpicion, of the per-
ſon they were ſpeaking to being really God.
And yet we perceive no trâce of any ſuch con-
fternation and alarm in the goſpel hiſtory, no
mark of aſtoniſhment in the diſciples of our
Lord in conſequence of the belief of it, and .no
I
marks
!
114 L E T TERS TO THE
marks of indignation or exclamation of blaſphe-
my, &c, againſt thoſe who diſbelieved it.
I am ſurprized to find how very differently
you think from your holy father Athanaſius
on this ſubject. He ſays, “I will venture
“ to ſay, that the bleſſed diſciples themſelves,
“had no perfect perſuaſion concerning his divi-
nity, till the deſcent of the ſpirit at Pente-
" coſt *."
CC
1
છે.
Chryſoſtom frequently obſerves that Chriſt only
intimated his divinity obſcurely, and left the full dif-
covery of it to his apoſtles. Thus he ſays, that
" he himſelf never ſaid plainly that he made the
“ heavens and the earth, and the ſea, and all things
“ viſible and inviſiblet. And why,” ſays he, “do
you wonder that others ſhould have ſaid greater
" things.of him than he has ſaid of himſelf, when
“ he explained many things by actions, but never
“ clearly in words. That he made man, he ſhewed
clearly enough, as by the blind man; but when
"he was diſcourſing about the formation of the
“ the firſt man, he did not ſay I made them, but
“ be that made them, made them, male and female.
“ And that he made the world he ſignified by the
* Τολμω γαρ λεγειν οτι σε αυτοι οι' μακαριοι αυλο
μαθηαι το τελειον σερι της αυτε θεο111G ειχαν φρονημα, εως
το πνευμα το αγιον αυτοις τη σελακος η επεφοίησεν, De
Communi Ellentia. Opera, vol. I. p. 237.
+ Οτι κρανoν, και γην, και θαλαήαν, αυής» εποιησε, και τα
υρωμενα, και τα αοραία σανία, αυ7% μεν εδαμε σαφως ειρηκεν.
In Matt. v. Opera, vol. VII. p. 154.
“ fiſhes,
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 115
,
« fiſhes, by the wine, by the loaves, &c.—buc
never clearly in words *." He even ſays, “it was
“ more neceſſary to be concealed from his diſciples,
“ becauſe they would immediately have told every
thing through an exceſs of joy t."
« Chrift,” he fays, « did not reveal his divinity
« immediately ; but was firſt thought to be a pró-
phet, and the Chrift, finiply a man, and it after-
«« wards appeared by his works, and his fayings,
« what he really was f.”
There is one important circumſtance relating to
this ſubject, of which you have taken no notice at
all, which is this; If the apoſtles had really preached
the doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt from the firſt,
• Και τι θαυμαζεις ει ετεροι μειζονα σερι αυε ειρηκασιν
ων αυ1Gειρηκεν . οπε γε πολλα δια των πραγμάλων επι-
δέκνυμευG. δια των ρωμαίων σαφως. 8κ ελεγεν και οτι γαρ τον
ανθρωπον αυτG- εποιησεν εδειξε σαφως και δια τα τυφλε. ηνικα
δε σέρι της Εν αρχή ολασεως ο λογG- ήν αυτω εκ ειπαν οτι εγω
εποιησα αλλ' ο ποιησας αρσεν και θηλυεσοιησεν αυτες. Παλιν
οτι τον κοσμον εδημιαργησεν και τα εν αυτω δια των ιχθοων
δια τα οινε δια των αρτων
ρήμασι εδαμε τετο σαφως
ειπεν. Ιη Μatt. ν. Opera, Vol. VΙΙ. p. 154.
* Εδει γαρ τεως λαυθανείν, και μάλιςα επι των μαθητων.,
και γαρ εκ πολλής ηδονης παντα εκηρυξαν. In Μatt. cap. viii.
Opera, vol. VΙΙ. p. 274.
1 Ου γαρ ευθεως ημιν εαυτη την θεοτητα εξεκαλυπτεν,
αλλά πρωτον μεν ενομιζετο ειναι τροφητης, και χρισα, απλώς
ανθρωπG, υπερον δε εφανη, δια των εργων και των ρημάτων,
τυτο οπερ ην. In Johan. Ηom. ii. Opera, vol. VΙΙΙ. p. 20.
I2
and
1
0.16
T T E
LETTERS
.
and conſequently it had always been the belief of
the chriſtian church, the unbelieving Jews mult
have heard of it. Would they not, therefore, have
objected to it as loudly as they did in the times.
of the chriſtian Fathers, and as they do at this day?
How is it then, that neither in the Acts of the Apof-
tles, nor in any of the epiſtles, we find the leaſt
trace of any ſuch objeclion, the leaſt notice of it, op
the moſt diſtano reference so ity, by thoſe who wesa
concerned to anſwer it.
The moſt probable GOR
cluſion from this fact is, that no ſuch offence had
been given to the Jews, the apoſtles not having
preached any ſuch doctrine.
1
With reſpect to the time when our Saviour's
diſciples began to conſider him as God, you ſay,
p. 99. that I am the perſon moſt concerned to
find the ſolution. I told you in my former letters,
that I had folved the difficulty to my own perfect
ſatisfaction in my. Hiſtory of the Gorruptions of
Chriſtianity; where I fhewed by what ſteps the
idea of the divinity of Chriſt was introduced. I
did it upon my own hypotheſis, of its not being
an original doctrine, but a corruption of chriſti-
anity; and I challenged you to give as probable
an account of its introduction, on the idea of its
being no corruption, but' a genuine doctrine, re-
vealed at ſome time or other bay Chriſt to the
apoſtles, and by the apoſtles to the body of chriſ-
tians. But according to you, it required no re-
velation at all. The whole. Lewila nation were
prepared
ARCH DEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 1.1.7.
prepared to receive their Meffiah as their God,
and immediately to worſhip hiin accordingly.
I have no doubt, however, but that the Jews
in our Saviour's time, expected a man in the
character of the Meſſiah. Mary, his inother, evi-
dently expected that he would even be born in
the uſual way, of two human parents ; for when
the angel informed her, that the laould conceive
and bring forth a formy who ſhould be called the
Son of the bigbeſt, to whom God would give the
tbroke of his father David, ſhe replied, Luke i.
34. How fall this be, ſeeing 1 know not a man? The
apoſtles evidently appear to me to have confi-
dered him as no other than a man, and they
taught no other doctrine after our Saviour's
death.
We perceive no trace of it in the book
of Acts; and Athanaſius, Chryſoſtom, and others
of the Fathers, only pretend that they taught it
with caution, ſo as not to give much alarm, till
John publiſhed it in his goſpel.
Upon the whole, it appears, that the Jews who
led the Gentiles into the belief of the doctrine of
the ſimple humanity of Chriſt were, according to
Athanaſius, chriſtian Jews, and that their pro-
fclytés, were chriſtian Gentiles.
It is perfectly
ridiculous to ſuppoſe that the queſtion could be
intereſting to any others. It alſo muſt have been
the certain knowledge of great bodies of unita-
rians, Jews and Gentiles, in the earlieſt times, that
led theſe Fathers to this hypotheſis, to account
I 3
for
118
Τ
L E T T E R S TO THE
for the fact. But that the great body of Jewiſh
chriſtians ſhould be unitarians in the time of the
apoſtles without their having learned that doc-
trine from the apoſtles, is a thing that I cannot
conceive. Moreover, it does not appear that the
apoſtles took any umbrage at the prevailing doc-
trine, but connived at it; and all the indignation
they expreſſed againſt any opinions, was againſt
thoſe of the Judaizing teachers and the Gnoſtics.
If the apoſtles did themſelves really believe
the doctrine of the trinity, they muſt, at leaſt,
have had no high idea of its importance, or they
could never have been ſuch tame ſpectators of
the ſpread of the unitarian doctrine among their
countrymen, and from them, according to Atha-
naſius, among the Gentiles. How would Biſhop
Bull and the Archdeacon of St. Albans have
written, if they had been in the ſituation in which
Epiphanius and all the Fathers place the apoſtle
John when he wrote his epiſtle ? Would they
have contented themſelves with condemning the
dangerous tenet of the unitarians. in no more
than one clauſe of a ſingle ſentence, which like-
wiſe contains the condemnation of the Gnoftics?
Would they not have thought the unitarian the
more dangerous hereſy of the two ? and there-
fore have bent their chief force againſt it?
It is remarkable, however, and really curious,
that before the unitarians were conſidered as he-
retics,
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN S.
119
retics, we find a very different account of the
· reaſons that induced John to write both his epif-
tles and his goſpel; Ignatius ſays it was ſolely
with a view to the Gnoftics, and ſo does Irenæus,
again and again. This, therefore, was the more
ancient opinion on the ſubject; and I doubt not,
the true one.
And it was not till long after this
(Tertullian, I believe, is the firſt in whom it oc-
curs) that it was imagined that the apoſtle had
any view to the unitarians in any of his writings.
This is a circumſtance that well deſerves to be
attended to.
You imagine, Sir, what appears very extraor-
dinary, indeed, to me, that the Jews will be eaſily
reconciled to the doctrine of the trinity, and will
even more readily embrace chriſtianity on the
trinitarian, than on the unitarian principle. “For
“ the Jews,” you ſay, p. 151. “ whenever they
begin to open their eyes to the evidences of
« our Saviour's miſſion, they will ſtill be apt to
o conſider the New Teſtament in connexion
or with the Old. They will look for an agree-
“ ment in principle, at leaſt, between the goſpel
“ and the law. When they accept the chriſtian
“ doctrine, it will be as a later and a fuller dif-
covery. They will reject it if they conſider
“ it to be contradictory to the patriarchal and
" Moſaic revelations. Succeffive diſcoveries of
" divine truth may differ, they will ſay, in full-
"neſs and perſpicuity, but in principle they muſt
harmonize, as parts of one ſyſtem. They will
retain
CC
14
120 LETTERS TO THE
55
65
retain ſome yeneration for their tradicional
« doctrines, and in their moſt ancient Targuins,
as well as in alluſions in their ſacred books,
they will find the notion of one godhead in a
“ trinity of perſons, and they will perceive that
« it was in contradiction to the chriſtians that the
" later Rabins abandoned the notions of their
« forefathers. The unitarian ſcheme of chriſtia.
nity is the laſt, therefore, to which the Jews
are likely to be converted, as it is the moſt at
es
enmity with their ancient faith.”'
So different, Sir, are your ideas and mine on
this ſubject, chat one would think we had never
read the ſame authors, or lived in the ſame world.
Our different views of things muſt have ariſen
from the different influences to which, our minds
have been expoſed; but where you have been, or
with whom you have lived, I cannot trace.
Who
thofe later Rabins were, who abandoned the notion
of their fathers, and from expecting the Meſſiah
to be God, adopted the idea of his being a mere
man (a proceſs which I ſhould think not very
natural) i cannot find." Late as they are, they muſt
have been earlier than Juſtin Martyr ; and indeed of
this memorable change of opinion, on ſo fundamental
a ſubject I find no trace whatever. Really, Sir,
one cannot read ſuch a ſhameful perverſion and
abſolute making of ancient hiſtory, with reſpect to
this doctrine concerning the Meſſiah, as well as to
the church of Jeruſalem, without a mixture of
contempt and indignațion,
I ſhall
ARCHDEACON OF ST.ALBANS. 121
1
I ſhall content myſelf, on this ſubject, with
appealing to two teſtimonies. One of them is that
of Bafmage, and the other of later date.
Baſnage, I fuppofe you will allow, had fuffi-
ciently ſtudied the hiſtory and opinions of the Jews.
He has written largely on the ſubject; and yet,
though a trinitarian himſelf, he has exploded all the
pretences of Cudworth and others to find the doc-
trine of the trinity either among the ancient or the
modern Jews.
« The chriſtians, and the Jews,” he ſays, “ ſe-
parate at the ſecond ſtep in religion. For after
“having adored together one God, abſolutely per-
"fect, they find the moment after the abyſs of the
s trinity, which intirely ſeparates them. The Jew
coộſiders three perſons as three Gods, and this
trifbeiſm ſhocks him. The chriſtian, who ber
“ lieves the unity of one God, thinks that the
“ father, the ſon, and the holy ſpirit, ſhould all be
" called God, and have the ſame worſhip. It is
impoſſible to reconcile opinions ſo contrary.
" There are, however, divines bold enough to at-
tempt it*.” You, Sir, are one of thoſe bold
divines,
3
* “ Les chretiens s’ecartent des Juifs des le ſecond pas
qu'ils font dans la religion. Car apres avoir adoré enſemble
un dieu, ſouverainement parfait, ils trouvent un moment
apres l'abime de la trinité, qui les fepare, et les eloigne
" ſouverainement. Le Juif regarde trois perſonnes comme
« trois dieux, et ce tritheiſme lui fait horreur. Le chretien,
qui croit l'unite d'un Dieu, veut a meme tems q'on donne
de
1
1
A
1 22
LÉÍ TER'S TO THE
divines, or, if not bold yourſelf, at leaſt a follower
of the bold.
1
This writer alſo ſays that the “ Jews conſider
" themſelves as bearing their teſtimony to the unity
« of God among all the nations of the world t.
Deny theſe facts if you can. What ought, or what
ought not, to offend the Jews, is not the queſtion.
The doctrine of the trinity does, in fact, and from
the time that it was ſtarted always did, offend the
whole body of the Jews, and is, no doubt, one of
the greateſt obſtacles to their converſion.
My ſecond teſtimony I ſhall give in the poſt-
ſcript of a letter from a correſpondent in the Weſt of
England, in the year 1774, containing the opinion of
a learned Jew, whom we may preſume to be now
living, and in this country. At that time, he muſt have
been in the neighbourhood of Barnſtable, in Devon-
ſhire. An event, which then gave me much con-
cern, occaſioned the diſcontinuance of my corre-
ſpondence with the writer of that letter ; and though
deſirous of knowing the iſſue of the buſineſs, I
have not learned it. If this publication ſhould be
the means of bringing me acquainted with it, I
ſhall think myſelf happy. If the learned Jew
1
ce titre au pere, au fils, au Saint Eſprit, et q'on les adore.
" Il eſt impoſſible de concilier des opinions fi contraires ;
cependant il y a des theologicns hardis, qui ont tenté de le
«« faire." Hiſt. des Juifs, Lib. IV. cap. iii. ſ. 1.
" Les temoins de l'unité de dieu dans toutes les nations
s du monde." Ib. Lib. VII. cap. xxxiii. f. 15.
him-
.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 123
himſelf ſhould meet with theſe letters, I ſhall be
very glad to hear from him, whatever may be his
preſent thoughts on the ſubject.
In the mean
time, I would recommend it to you, Mr. Arch-
deacon, to enquire of any Jews now living, and
not to argue from ſuppoſitions, when fáets are
within your reach.
1
My correſpondent's poftfcript is as follows. “I
« have lent your Inſtitutes to a ſenſible and religious
.“ Rabbi, bred at the univerſity of Halle. He has
“ read them with great care, and taken curious
“ extracts from them. The clergyman of this
“ pariſh warned him of the danger of your works,
" and abuſed me for lending them to a Jew. The
“ latter had ſenſe enough to deſpiſe him, and told
“ him that as long as chriſtianity was thought
- contradictory to the firſt law of Judaiſm, the
converſion of his brethren would be impoſſible.
“ The parfon wanted to baptize him. The Rabbi
“ ſaid, religion was a ſerious matter, and he would
« be a convert in reality before he would be one
« in profeffion. He has been much with me. I
hope to be able to ſend you a pleaſing account
of him."
I am, &c.
LETTER
1
124
..LETTERS TO THE
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
XIT.
Of the Personification of the Logoś.
i
Rev. SIR,
YOU ķill deny that the chrifliar Fathers were
acquainted with any ſuch thing as the perfo-
sification, that is, the making a real intelligent perſon
of the logos, or wiſdom of God; whereas, abſurd
as I acknowledge the notion to be, it was, moſt
indiſputably the real doctrine both of Philo, the
platonizing Jew, and of thoſe who were called or-
ibodox chriſtians, who platonized likewiſe. I fpeak
within compaſs, when I ſay that I can produce hun-
dreds of pallages whịch prove in the cleareſt manner,
that the divinity which they aſcribed to Chriſt was
the very fame principle which had conftituted the
wiſdom, and other powers, of God the Farber; and
that the generation of the Son was the commence-
ment of the ſtate of aetual perſonality of the logos,
whether in time, as ſome thought, or from all
eternity, as others, which latter was afterwards
received as the eſtabliſhed doctrine.
This was evidently agreeable to the principles
of thoſe platoniſts, from whom Philo and thoſe
chriſtian Fathers derived their opinion, and if you
deny this, a child as you call me in platoniſm,
P. 15. (which however does not, I hope, prevent
2
me
1
FORST. ALBANS. 125
ARCHD-EACON OF ST. ALBANS. 195
me from being a man in chriſtianity) I ſhall be
able, as you will ſee in my larger work, to teach
you what you are at preſent ignorant of with
reſpect to it. If this kind of literature be your
bome, p. 163, I muí ſay that you have been a
confiderable time from home, and that you are at
preſent unacquainted with ſeveral apartments in
your own houſe. I fall then wait upon you at
this houſe of yours, and endeavour to point them
out to you.
With reſpect to my quotation from Athena
goras, and my account of his meaning, you are
pleaſed to ſay, p. 124, “it onby finifhes the
• proof, if it was before defective, of your in-
competency in the ſubject. It ſhews that you
are ſo lietle acquainted with platoniſm, that
your mind cannot readily apprehend a platonic
“ notion, when it is clearly ſet before you. What
you take for my mere conjecture; viz. thae
ci the external diſplay of power, is the thing that is
“ called generation, is the expreſs affertion of
“ Athenagoras, in the very paſſage which you
is have quoted."
On the contrary, I maintain that, if your ex-
ternal diſplay of power be any thing different from
what I have called the perſonification of tke logos,
er his becoming a proper perſon, ſo as to be God,
in himſelf conſidered, it is contradicted by Athe-
pagoras in this very paffage, as well as by all the
chriſtian writers who treat of the ſubject. . In this
paſſage
126 LETTERS TO THE
1
paſſage he calls the Son " the firſt production or
vi the Father, not that he was ever properly made,"
(that is, out of nothing)
«s for God being an
“ eternal inind, had logos always in himſelf,
being always 207 1xQ;" that is, being always a
reaſonable intelligent being. Now, Sir, what
could any man mean by this expreſſion, but that
before this circumſtance, or event (which I call
the perſonification of the logos, and you the
external diſplay of his powers) took place, there was
no more a proper trinity of perſons in God, than
there is in man; for God, like man, was then
fimply Roger@, an intelligent being; wiſdom, or
intelligence, being one of his attributes. Many of
the Fathers uſe this compariſon, ſuppoſing the logos
in God to have been originally exactly ſimilar to
logos, or reaſon in man. Now are there, think
you, or was it ever imagined that there were, proper
diſtinct perſons in the mind of man, merely becauſe
that mind was nogix@ rational?
The very ex-
preſſion excludes this idea, and muſt have been
intended to exclude it.
But according to all the orthodox Fathers, after
this generation of the Son (who before was nothing
more with reſpect to the Father than reaſon is with
reſpect to man) he aſſumed a proper diſtinët per.
ſonality; and this generation was with a view to the
production of material beings, and not the pro-
duction itſelf, or the diſplay of powers in that
production. For this generation was repreſented
as the proper act of the eternal Father, whereas
the
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
127
the diſplay of powers in the production of material
beings (if I muſt adopt your quaint language) was
according to them, the proper act of the Son. Ac-,
cording to then it certainly was the Son, and not
the Father, who was the immediate maker of all
things. In my opinion Athenagoras's notion was,
that this generation of the Son took place in time,
and not from all eternity; becauſe he ſays that from
the beginning, or from eternity, God was fimply
yos, a mind, having logos in himſelf, as being
always noying; reaſonable, or intelligent.
Athenagoras, however, as appears from this very
paſſage, the beginning of which I quoted, was
very far from having a notion of tbree diſtinct
perſons in the trinity. For though he thought,
with Juſtin Martyr, that the logos, from the time
of his generation, aſſumed a permanent perſonality,
the holy ſpirit did not, but was like a beam of the
ſun, ſometimes emitted from the Father, and ſoine-
times drawn into him again, agreeably to the philo-
fophy of thoſe times concerning the ſun and his
light. This was alſo the kind of perſonal exiſtence
that Juſtin Martyr ſaid that ſome perſons in his
time aſcribed to the Son, and which was allo ſaid
to have been the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra.
You ſay, p. 123, that “ Tertullian, to prevent
" the very concluſion which you draw from this
analogy, that the logos was at ſome time or
“ another a mere attribute, remarks that nothing
empty or unſubſtantial can proceed from God.
66
66 For
· 128 L E T T E R S TO THE
S
o For the divine nature admitting neither quality
"nor accident, every thing belonging to it muſt
“ be ſubſtance." This argument,” you add, “ is
ably ſtated in the Dialogues of the learned Dr.
« Leſlie."
This indeed, Sir, is an argument that requires
both an able ſtating, and an able defence ; for, in
itſelf, nothing can be more weak. What, think
you, could the Fathers mean by faying that, after
the emiſion of the logos, the original divine mind
was not deftitute of logos? Did they not mean that
he was not deſtitute of reaſon, or underſtanding?
Is there not then neceffarily implied an identity of
nature between the logos emitted, and logos retained?
Does it not follow from hence, and from its being
faid that the father was ſtill awer3, rational, that
they were both originally what we call reaſon ?
Nay, do not ſome of the Fathers compare the emiſſion
of the logos from God to the emiſſion of reaſon
from man, in diſcourſing with one another ?
You ſay, for it is you that ſay this (I have met
with nothing ſo very abſurd in Tertullian) that
" the divine nature admitting neither quality nor
"accident, every thing belonging to it muſt be
oc ſubſtance." The divine being then has no
properties, no attributes, no perfections at all, which
is, in fact, denying his very being ; for what is
being without properties Pray, Sir, has the Son
or the Holy Spirit, any attributes ? Inall my
reading I do not remember to have met with
any
1
ARCH DEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 129
any abſurdity equal to this, except your own pe-
củliar conceit, that "one mind can beget an-
"other by the contemplation of its perfections”
(now called ſubſtances) a notion which you afcribe
to all the Fathers, though I will venture to ſay it
is not to be found in any of them. Strange
enough, to be ſure, are ſome of their conceits,
but not quite ſo ſtrange and abſurd as this.
There is, as you ſomewhere juftly obſerve, a
progreſs in abſurdity, as well as in truth.
>
Lactantius, you acknowledge, expreſſes himna
ſelf clearly enough according to my idea of this
ſubject, but you diſpoſe of his orthodoxy, as you
did of Origen's veracity. You boldly deny it.
This, indeed, is a very compendious method of
anſwering me. But, Sir, the queſtion is not
whom you are now pleaſed to call orthodox, but
who was deemed to be ſo in the age in which
he lived. Now I challenge you to prove that
any writer of the age of Lactantius conſidered
him as heterodox. Indeed it was very unlikely
that the man who was choſen tutor to a ſon of
Conſtantine, ſhould have been a perſon of that
claſs..
In order to undervalue this excellent writer,
you ſay, p. 129. that “ he aſcribed a beginning to
" the exiſtence of the eternal Father. No wonder
“then,” you add, “ that he ſhould aſcribe a be-
ginning to the Son's exiſtence. You are wel..
"come, Sir," you ſay, “tokany advantage you
K
may
}
130
TO THE
LETTERS
you aſcribe
may be able to derive from the authority of
“ ſuch a writer.” Lactantius, however, can-
didly conſtrued, may perhaps be ſaid only to
have uſed an improper expreſſion, namely, that
God made himſelf, meaning no more than we do
when we ſay that God is ſelf-exiſtent, which, in
fact, implies the very contrary of what
to him. He advances this in proof of his gene-
ral maxim, Nec eniin poteſt, ut ab ullo eſſe ge-
neratus, qui ipſe univerſa generavit, he cannot be
created of any who himſelf created all things, which
clearly implies that he could not be created
at all. For though the thing made had a be-
ginning, the maker could have none; and who
was the maker in this caſe, but God himſelf?
The term ſelf-exiſtent is, in fact (as will appear if
it be analized) equally improper; for it im-
plies that God is the cauſe of his own exiſtence.
For this reaſon, ſome who wiſh to ſpeak with
exactneſs, avoid that term, and rather ſay that
God is eternal; but they do not tax thoſe who
uſe the the word ſelf-exiſtent with really believing
that God had a beginning.
Whatever miſtakes Lactantius may be ſup-
poſed to have made as a metaphyſician, it does
not appear that in his own time he was charged
with any; and they might have been as little
noticed ſtill, if he had been a found divine ; and
though you ſuppoſe that he aſcribed a beginning
to the eternal Father, yet, if you had found that
from the moment of the Father's exiſtence, that
3
of
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 131
of the Son, had, in his idea, commenced alſo, you
would perhaps have contented yourſelf with
ſmiling at his notion, or at leaſt have abated of
the ſeverity of your
cenſure.
Conſtantine, whom you quote; p. i 27. as in
your favour, is directly againſt you. Taking
your own words, he ſays, “ the Son was begot-
“ ten, or rather he himſelf came forth (being
“ even ever in the Father) for the ſetting in or-
“ der of the things which were made by him.
“ Here,” you ſay, “ the emperor expounds ge-
"neration by coming forth.” But then, Sir, he
does not ſay that this generation, or coming forth,
was the ſame thing with the ſetting in order the
things that were made by him ; but it was evidently
ſomething that took place previous to this ſetting
in order, and with a view to it; ſo that this inyl-
terious generation preceded what you quaintly
call the projection of energies, and was not the
ſame thing with it.
You ſtill, likewiſe confound the doctrine of
Arius, p. 116. with that of the perſonification of
the Lagos, than which no two things were more
different, having always been oppoſed to each
other, as you muſt have known, had you been ſo
well read, as you pretend to be, in the ancient
ecclefiaftical writers, ſince a great proportion of
their works is occupied in the diſcuſſion of this
ſubject. The Arians maintained that Chriſt was
K 2
a being
1
1
132
LETTERS TO THE
a being created out of nothing, as other creatures
were, notwithſtanding the vaftneſs of his powers,
which were equal to the creation of all other
things, viſible and inviſible; and not believing an
eternal creation, they likewiſe ſaid that there was a
time when the Son did not exift. Both theſe
pro-
poſitions were denied by the orthodox of that age,
who maintained that Chriſt was not made out of
nothing, for that he was the Logos, the wiſdom,
the power, &c. of the Father, and that he had
always exiſted in the Father as reaſon does in
man, though his perſonality was by ſome ſup-
poſed to have commenced in time. You muſt
give me leave to ſay you are but little ac-
quainted with the principles even of platoniſm,
and eſpecially thoſe of the later platoniſts, from
whom the chriſtian Fathers more immediately de-
rived their notions, if you are not able to enter
into this idea.
This perſonification, or the commencement
of an actual perſonality of what was an attribute
of God, is a ſtrange idea, but, ftrange as it is,
it nevertheleſs actually took place in the minds
of thouſands, and was in truth all the ortho-
doxy of the earlier ages. This incipient ortho-
doxy grew immediately out of platoniſm, and is
certainly abſurd enough. The orthodoxy of the
later ages, and of the preſent, grew out of that,
and is infinitely more abſurd. Their doctrine
mere nonſenſe, yours the plaineſt of all
contra-
1
was
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 133
contradi&tions, as I ſhall clearly ſhew in my next
letter.
1
1
1
- What difference there may be," you ſay, p.
118, “ between a making out of nothing, and
“ the converſion of a mere attribute into a ſub-
“ ſtance, or how a perſon made out of an attri-
“ bute may differ from a perſon made out of no-
thing, I would rather, Sir, that you, than I,
“ ſhould take the trouble to explain.” I have
explained it as well as ſuch an abſurdity can be
explained, but it behoves you to explain it much
more than it does me; for, abſurd as the notion
is, it certainly prepared the way for the ftill
more abſurd notion of three equal divine perſons in
one godhead.
1
I am, &c.
!
1
K3
LETTER
i
i
131
LET Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
L E T T E R
XIII.
Confiderations relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity,
"
con-
Rev. SIR,”
,
I
Own I was pafticularly deſirous of hearing
what you could poſſibly ſay on the ſubject of
my ſeventh letter, in which I advanced ſome
general conſiderations ſelating to the doctrine
of the trinity; but, unfortunately, you
« tent yourſelf,” p. 136. “.with giving only a
general reply to ſome parts of that letter, A
s particular anſwer,” you ſay, “ to the ſeveral
objections which it contains, would lead me
ço into metaphyſical diſquiſitions, which I wiſh to
" decline, becauſe in that ſubject I foreſee that
! we ſhould want common principles and a coin
F mon language."
Now I make no doubt, Sir, but that, if it had
been poſible for you to have given any plauſible
anſwer to the difficulties ſtarted in that letter,
you would have found ſome principle, common
or uncommon, on which to found it, and ſome
language alſo, which might have beeå intelligible
to me and your readers. But as you profeſs that
you do not expect to convince me, it would have
been quite ſufficient for your purpoſe, if you
could
.
1
ARGHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 135
could have found common principles, and com-
mon language for others.
ممنو
I am the more concerned at your filence, as
I was in hopes of having ſome farther account
of your own peculiar notion of the neceſſary ori-
gin of the Son from the Father's contemplation of his
own perfečtions; but, to my great mortification, I
find not one gleam of more light on this curious
ſubject. You ſaid that this doctrine.was agree-
able to the notions of all the Fathers, as well as
to the ſacred writers, and I challenged you to pro-
duce any authority for it, except what exiſts in
your own imagination. In my opinion, nothing
can be conceived more abfurd than the idea of the
neceſſary production of an intelligent being,
poffeffed of actual ſubſtantial perſonality, equal
in all reſpects to the original intelligent being,
from the mere felf-contemplation of that origi-
nal being's perfections. I ſaid that nothing in the
Jewiſh Cabbala could be more abfurd, You in-
timate, p. 149. that I may know but little of the
Jewiſh Cabbala ; but for my purpofe it is quite
enough, that it is a known proverbial expreſſion
to denote the extreme of abſurdity; and if fo,
whatever the Jewiſh Cabbala may really be (of
which I may perhaps know as much as yourſelf,
and of which we may each of us foon learn
enough from Baſnage) the phraſe could not be
miſapplied.
{
KA
I find,
1:36
TO THE
LETTERS
:
,
I find, however, a few other things on the
ſubject of that letter, which are curious enough;
ſo that, for the amuſement, if not the inſtruction
of
my readers, I ſhall make ſome obſervations on
them,
1.
In the firſt place, I ſtill think that you yourſelf
are not perfectly orthodox; for beſides your vir-
tual diſapprobation of the damnatory clauſe in the
Athanaſian creed, p. 165, you allow a real ſupe-
riority in the Father. If," you ſay, p. 145.
“ from ſuch expreſſions as my Father is greater
" than 1, you would be content to infer that the
“ Almighty Father is indeed the fountain and
" the center of divinity, and that the equality
“ of godhead is to be underſtood with ſome myf-
“ terious ſubordination of the Son to the Father,
you
would have the concurrence of the ancient
Fathers, and of the advocates of the true faith in
« all ages.". But give me leave to ſay, that any
proper fubordination, myſterious or not myſte-
rļous, implies inferiority, and is an infringement
of the doctrine of the perfeet equality of the three
perfons; ſo that it cannot be, as your creed ſays,
none is afore or after another.
You ſay, p. 149.
“I maintain the equality of the three perſons in
« all the attributes of the divine nature. I main-
täin their equality in rank and authority, with
reſpect to all created things, whatever relations
w or differences may
fubfift between themſelves."
But their equal fuperiority to all created beings
1s
:.1 1.6
ARCHDE AÇON OF ST, ALBANS. 137
is no proof at all of any proper equality among
theinfelves. If ſo, all men would be equal among
themſelves, becauſe all men are ſuperior to brutes.
Your notion of a real ſubordination, which
muft imply inferiority, and indeed imperfe&tion, in
any of the perſons in the trinity, is certainly not
the orthodoxy that took place after the council
of Nice, and that of the Athanaſian creed.
II.
I now come to ſomething ſtill more extraordi--
nary. " I maintain,” you ſay, p. 148. “that
" the three perſons are one being I maintain that
" each perſon by himſelf is God; becauſe each
poffefes fully every attribute of the divine na-
“ ture.” Then, Sir, I affert, that
you maintain
as palpable a contradiétion as it is in the power of
man to forin an idea of. The term being may be
predicated of every thing, and therefore, of each
of the three perſons in the trinity. For to ſay
that Chriſt, for inſtance, is God, but that there is
no being, no ſubſtance, to which his attributes
may be referred, were manifeſtly abfurd; and
therefore when you ſay, that “each of theſe
perſons is by himſelf God,” you muſt mean,
and in effect ſay, that the Father ſeparately
conſidered, has a being, that the Son "likewiſem
ſeparately conſidered, has his being, and likewiſe,
that the Holy Spirit ſeparately confidered, has
his
138 LETTERS TO THE
his being. Now, Sir, if you will be pleaſed to
count them up, you will find that you have got
bree beings, as well as three perſons, and what can
theſe three beings he but three Gods, without fup-
poſing that there are three co-ordinate perſons,
or three Fathers, three Sons, or three Holy
" Ghoſts." If you like an algebraic expreſſion
better than this, it will ſtand thus, ititi=3.
Have the courage then, Sir, to ſpeak out, and
you muſt mean,
if
you have any mean-
ing at all, that you worſhip three Gods.
fay what
But you ſay, p. 148. that “ theſe three per-
« ſons are all included in the very idea of a God,
" and that for that reaſon, as well as for the iden-
tity of the attributes in each, it were impious
kc and abſurd to ſay that there are three Gods.
If there be any foundation for this remark, it
muſt be impoſſible for any man to have an idea
of a God, without having at the ſame time an
idea of theſe three perſons; and then either there
cannot be any ſuch thing as an unitarian, denying
thefe three perſons in the godhead, or elſe all
unitarians are in fact atheiſts, having no idea of
any God at all.
r
As you ſeem to have bewildered yourſelf very
much upon the ſubject of three perſons and one
God, I ſhall enter a little farther into the meta-
phyſical analyſis of it. By the words being, ſub-
ftance, ſubſtratum, &c. we can mean nothing more
than
$
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
139
than the foundation, as it were, of properties, or
ſome thing to which, in our idea, we refer all the
particular attributes of whatever exiſts. In fact,
they are terms that may be predicated of every
thing that is the ſubject of thought or diſcourſe,
all the diſcrimination of things depending upon.
their peculiar properties. So that whenever the
properties differ, we ſay that there is a corre-
fponding difference in the things, -beings, or ſub-
fances themſelves. Conſequently, if the Father,
Son, and Spirit differ in any reſpect, ſo as to have
different properties, either in relation to themſelves,
or to other beings, we muſt, according to the
analogy of all language, ſay that they are three
different beings, or ſubſtances.
Suppoſing again, that there is what you call
an identity of attributes in each of them, ſo that,
being conſidered one after the other, no difference
could be perceived even in idea, as may be ſup-
poſed to be the caſe of three men, who ſhould per-
fectly reſemble one another in all external and
internal properties; and ſuppoſing, moreover,
that there ſhould be a perfect coincidence in all
their thoughts and actions; though there might
be a perfect harmony among them, and this might
be called unity, they would ſtill be numerically
three. Conſequently, though the Father, Son,
and Spirit had no real differences, but as you ſay,
p. 145. they had “ the moſt perfect identity of
so nature, the moſt entire unity of will, and
s conſent of intellect, and an inceſſant co-opera-
tion
140
Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
L E T T E R S
«tion in the exertion of common powers, to a
common purpoſe,” yet would they, according
to the analogy of language, not be one God, but
three Gods; or, which is the ſame thing, they
would be three beings, with equal divine natures,
juſt as the three men would be three beings with
equal human natures.
Had you never heard of the Parmenides, I
ſhould have had ſome hopes of your underſtand-
ing theſe modern metaphyſics. But though I ſup-
poſe I have left you far behind (perhaps gone to
look into Plato, to ſee what he ſays on the ſub-
ject) I ſhall proceed without you, and give the
modern reader my opinion with reſpect to the
proper and only intelligible uſe of the word
perfon.
?
3
The terin being, as I have obſerved, may be
predicated of every thing, without diſtinction
but the term perſon is limited to intelligent beings.
Three men, therefore, are not only three beings,
but likewiſe three perſons; the former is the
ents, and the latter the species. But a perſon is
ker leſs a being on this account; for each man
may be ſaid to be a being, as well as a perſon.
Conſequently, though the word perſon be pro-
perly applied to each of the three component
parts of your trinity, yet as perſon is afpecies,
comprehended under the genus being, they muſt
be three beings, as well as three perſons.
While
ARCHDEACON OF ST. .
ALBANS. 141
While you, Sir, are either abſent, or wonder-
ing at theſe novelties, I proceed to obſerve, that
the term God is a ſubdiviſion under the term per-
fon, becauſe we define God, to be an intelligent be-
ing pofleſſed of all poſible perfektions. Conſequently,
if the Father, Son, and Spirit, be each of them
poffefſed of all poſſible perfections, which
not deny, they are each of them a perſon, each of
them a being, and each of them a God; and what
is this but making three Gods. Avoid this con-
cluſion froin theſe principles, or aſſume other
principles more juſt and natural, if you can.
you do
1
Theſe, Sir, if you be within hearing at all, are
ſuch metaphyſics as you might have learned from
Mr. Lock, if you had not been, unfortunately
for yourſelf and your flock, poring ſo long over
the Parmenides. You will probably, object to
my definition of the word perſon, as applied to
the doctrine of the trinity; but if you give any
other definition, I will venture to affert, that you
might as well ſay, that the Father, Son, and
Spirit, are three Abracadabra's as three perfons.
They will be equally words without meaning..
Athanaſius, and many of the ancient Fathers,
after the council of Nice, became abfolute tri-
theiſts on this principle, believing that the Fa-
ther, Son, and Spirit are no otherwiſe one, than
as three particular men may be conſidered as one.
Athanaſius, conſidering this very difficulty, ſays,
* ſince the Father is called God, the Son God,
" and
L ETTERS TO THE
1
" and the Holy Spirit God, how is it that there are
« not three Gods ?” he anſwers, “becauſe where
" there is a common nature, the name of the dig
“ nity is likewiſe common*.” And he illuſtrates
this, by God's calling the whole human race by
the name of man, in the fingular number, and by
Moſes's ſpeaking of the horſe and the horſeman
being drowned in the Red Sea, when in fact,
great numbers of each fort were intended.
" this,” ſays he, “be the caſe with reſpect to
“men, who differ ſo much as they do froin each
“ other, fo that all men may be called one man,
“ much more may we call the trinity one God,
".when their dignity is undivided, they have one
kingdom, one power, will, and energy,
energy, which
“ diſtinguiſhes the trinity from created things t."
- If
(C
>
I am far from ſaying that Athanaſius is con-
ſiſtent with himſelf in this account of the unity of
the three perſons in the trinity; for he elſewhere
ſays that there is one God, becauſe there is one un-
begotten Father, the tale fountain of deity, &c. but
this repreſentation occurs in many of the Fathers,
and in my larger hiſtory I ſhall ſhew to what a
variety of other miſerable ſubterfuges the ortho-
* Και σως φησι δυναμ λέγεθα ο ταληρ θεου, και ο γιος
gc@, jo ayeup.de 70 aglov IsQ, rj & tpois Eloi teon; of
κοινα τα της φύσεως, κοινον και ονομα της αξιας. De Com-
muni Eflentia, Opera, vol. I. p. 213.
ή Δια το κοινον της φυσεως πασα η οικεμενη εις ανθρωπG.
εκλήθη. οπε δε αμεριςος και αξια, μια βασιλεια, μια δυναμις,
και βελη και ενεργεια, ιδιαζεσα την τριαδα απο της κλισεως,
fie agge Jeoy. Ibid. p. 214.
dox
8
ARCHDEACONIOF SŤ. ALBANS.
143
dox were driven to maintain the unity of their
trinity.
In the dialogue againſt the Macedonians,
written after the age of Athanafius, the orthodox
ſpeaker is repreſented as ſaying, “as Paul, Peter,
" and Timothy, are of one nature, and three hy-
“ paſtaſes; fo I ſay, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, are three hypoſtaſes, and one nature*
66 one.
You ſay, p. 5.
“ The opinion of three perſons
" in the godhead, unrelated to each other, and
« diſtinct in all reſpects, is rank tritheiſm; be-
« cauſe what are unrelated, and diſtinct in all re-
ſpects, are many in all reſpects; and being
“ many in all reſpects, cannot in any reſpect be
But no relation, let it be ever ſo inti-
mate, can remove their numerical difference. Let
three men be connected in any manner that you can
imagine, they can only be one, as partaking of
the ſame nature, and therefore, though they re-
ſemble one another ever ſo much, they can only
be ſaid to be ſimilar in all reſpects ; but ſtill they
will be numerically three. In like manner, ſup-
poſe any relations you pleaſe, known or un-
known, between the three perſons to whom the
title of God equally belongs, they will no more
make one God, than three related men can make
Ωσπερ παυλ©», και σέτρος, και τιμο.94G, φνσεως μίας εισέ
και τρεις υποσασεις, εως σαθερα, και υιον, και αγιον ανευμα,
tpers Utos Aceis asyw, xj qiely pupiv. Opera, vol. II. p. 269.
one
144
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
one man, but muſt be numerically three Gids.
Councils and fynods, kings and houſes of parlia-
ment, may decree that three are one, and archdea-
cons may defend the doctrine; but miracles can-
not prove it. As you and your friends ſay with
reſpect to fome late proceedings in the Royal
Society, “ Two and two ever will be four, and the
• three angles of a triangle will be equal to two
right angles."
But I find it is in vain to appeal to reaſon, or
even to the ſcriptures. Your doctrine of the tri-
nity was not derived from reaſon, or the ſcrip-
tures, but from Plato.
“ I then ſet myſelf,"
you ſay, p. 163. “ to conſider whether I knew
enough of the divine unity, to pronounce the
koc trinity an infringement of it. Upon this point,
the Platoniſts, whoſe acquaintance I now be-
gan to cultivate, ſoon brought me to a right
« mind."
“ If,” you
رو
They did mae famke good office for Auſtin be-
fore
you, and i fear they are ſtill doing the ſame
for others, notwithſtanding the cautions given us
in the ſcriptures againſt the mixture of vain and
abſurd philofophy with chriſtianity. You kindly
adviſe me to take the ſame courſe.
fay, p. 1427 “ you imagine that the abſolute
unity of the divine ſubſtance is more eaſily to
“ be explained than the trinity, let me entreat
you Sir, to read the Parmenides. It is, indeed,
“ in Plato's ſchool, if any where, that a man's
eyes
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST.ALBANS. 145
eyes are likely to be opened to his own igno-
" rance." But; Sir, what muſt they do who cana:
not read the Parmenides? I ſuppoſe they muſt
go without the doctrine of the trinity, and like
the lower order of chriſtians in the time of Ori.
gen, be content with the corporeal goſpel, the
plain doctrine of Jeſus Chriſt, and him crucified.
But with this the apoftle Paul was contented, and
ſo ain I.
-
I have, however, read the Parmenides, and
though I expect you will exult over me as uſual,
calling me, p. 15. a child in platoniſm, and ſay,
that." I cannot apprebend a platonic notion when
“it is clearly ſet beforė me," p. 124, I have no
ſcruple to declare, that I was not able to get.one
ray of good ſenſe from the whole of it; I ſhould
even think the extracting of ſun-beams' from
cucumbers the more hopeful project of the
And ſo far am I from adviſing the read-
ing of it for any uſeful purpoſe, that I ſhould
rather ſay, if a man perceives any incipient
cloudineſs in his head, and wiſhes to have the
little underſtanding that he has left utterly con-
founded, let him read the Parmenides *. I ſhall
two.
Among other myſteries, as Mr. Sydenham call them, of
the Parmenides, Plato, after thewing that littleneſs cannot be-
long either to the whole or the part of any thing, concludes,
that " nothing is little but littleneſs itſe!f,” xf € TIES! Olsoxpor
to any au1118 TNS Ourrpolnilo. It would be no bad parody on this
to ſay, Nothing is nonſenſical but nonfenfe itſelf; and this
nonfenfe (if it can exiſt in the abſtract) is in the Parmenides.
L
ſay
.
146
L ETTERS Τ Η Ε
ΤοTO
ſay the ſame with reſpect to almoſt all the meta-
phyſics of the ancients; and it is very poſſible that
I may have given as much attention to theſe things
as you have done, though I have not been ſo often-
tatious of it. Any perſon ſince the time of Mr.
Locke, may ſay this of all the ancients without
much arrogance. So far, however, I agree
with
you, that the ſtudy of the Parmenides may do very
well by way of preparation for that of the doctrine
of the trinity *.
1
III.
Perhaps the moſt extraordinary part of your
whole performance, is what you ſay of the myſte-
riouſneſs of the do&trine of the divine unity, and of
the unitarians having nothing to plead for them-
felves but ſingle texts of ſcripture, interpreted in a
figurative manner. “ If the word” (ſpoken of by
John) you ſay, p. 138, “ be the divine attribute
“wiſdom, then that attribute, in the degree which
was equal to the formation of the univerſe, in this
“ view of the ſcripture doctrine, was conveyed en-
“tire into the mind of a mere man, the ſon of a
Jewiſh carpenter. A much greater difficulty, in
my apprehenſion, than any that is to be found in
“ the catholic faith."
* If Plato's ſchool has this taliſmanic power of opening a mar's
eyes to his own ignorance, I would adviſe Dr. Horſley to conti-
'nue in it a while longer; for this is a branch of ſcience in which
he has yet fomething to learn. Nor will it be amiſs if he take
his good and able ally along with him; though, as it will leſſen
his preſumption, it may hurt him as a Revicauer, which, no
doubt, ought to be conſidered.
3
In
1.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN-S. 147
1
* In reading this, and other paſſages in your. Letters,
I cannot help admiring your talent of leſtening the
difficulties of your own fchemę, and magnifying
thoſe of others. If you uſe the ſame teleſcope, you
certainly turn different ends to different objects.
Pray, Sir, what Socinian ever maintained that
“ the divine attribute wiſdom, in the degree which
" was equal to the formation of the univerſe, was
conveyed entire into the mind of Jeſus Chriſt ?"
What we believe, and all that is required by our in-
terpretation of the logos (as meaning the divine attri-
butė, wiſdom) is, that a portion only of the ſame wif-
dom that formed the univerſe, was communicared to
Chriſt, a portion ſufficient to enable him to do what
he actually did, and to ſay what he actually ſaid.
The Socinians do not believe that Chriſt made the
univerſe, or that he was any way inſtrumental in
making it.
::. For my own part, I never before heard of, or
fufpected, any difficulty in God's making man the
inftrument, by which to do what man alone could
not do. Did not God ſuggeſt to Moſes what he
could not have delivered of himſelf? In many of
the miracles which attended the releaſe of the
Ifraelites from Egyptian bondage, and their paffage
through the wilderneſs, Moſes was the immediate,
or oſtenſible agent, but the power was of God; and
yet this was no proper infuſing of the divine power
into Mofes. The power was ſtill the incommuni-
cable
L2
1.18
THE
L ETTERS TO
1
cable attribute of the Divine Being. Accord-
ingly, Jeſus ſays, that it was not himſelf, but the
father within him, or acting by him, that did the
works; and that the words which be spake were not
his own. Moreover, he ſays of the apoſtles, that
they should do greater things than he himſelf had
done. From this, then, you ought to conclude,
that the divine attributes of wiſdom and power were
conveyed entire into the minds of the apoſtles, or
even that they were Gods ſuperior to Chriſt. Such
reaſoning as this, I have hardly patience to refute.
But, ſurely, you cannot be ſerious in ſaying that this
difficulty in the Socinian ſcheme is equal to that of
three perſons in one God in the Athanaſian trinity, or
to that in your own account of the Piatonic trinity.
But perhaps the moſt extraordinary part of your
whole work will be thought to be the following.
In anſwer to my ſaying that “
many paſſages in
ſcripture inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity
“ in the cleareſt and ſtrongeſt nanner,” you ſay,
p. 141. “ Be pleaſed, Sir, to produce one of the
many;” meaning evidențly, that there is no ſuch
paſſage; and p. 17. you add, “ the unitarians them-
"ſelves pretend not that their doctrine is to be
" found in the plain literal ſenſe of holy writ. On
" the contrary, they take the greateſt pains to ex:
“plain away the literal meaning."
co
3)
1
Now; Sir, if you had really read any unitarian
treatiſe at all, you muſt have known that this repre:
ſentation
2
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
149
fentation is the reverſe of the fact. We unitarians
certainly pretend at leaſt, whether we be able to
prove it or not, that the general tenor, and plaire
literal ſenſe of ſcripture is in our favour, that they
are only particular texts, and thoſe ill-underſtood,
that you avail yourſelves of; and we ſay, that
there is no difficulty in interpreting even thoſe
texts in perfect conſiſtency with the unitarian
doétrine, if the true idiom of the language be
conſidered.
You complain of my not reading, but only look-
ing through authors. But ſurely, you cannot have
even looked through the very Letters of mine that
you are profeſſedly replying to. Let me there-
fore, bring again before your view, a paragraph
or two in thoſe letters, which, as far as pretenſions
go, directly contradict your confident affertion,
See p. 90. where you will find as follows: " I
“ will venture to ſay, that for one text in which
you can pretend to find any thing harſh or
« difficult to me, I will engage to produce ten
" that ſhall create more difficulty to you. How
ſtrangely muſt you torture the plaineſt lan-
guage, and in which there is not a ſhadow of
figure, to interpret to your purpoſe, 1 Tim. ii.
5.
There is one God, and one mediator between
“ God and man, the man Chriſt Jefus. i Cor, viii.
“6. To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom:
« are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jeſus
Cbrift, by whom are all things, and we by him ; or
" that expreſſion of our Saviour himſelf, John
L3
xvig
1
150
..LETTERS TO THE
:
« xvii. 2. That they might know thee, the only true
God, and Jeſus Chriſt whom thou beſt ſent.
“ Never upbraid us unitarians with torturing
“the ſcriptures, while you have theſe, and a hun-
« dred other plain texts, to ſtrain at, and to bend
“ to your Athanafian hypotheſis; beſides many
“ general arguments, from reaſon and the ſcrip-
« tures, of more real force than any particular
“ texts, to anſwer."
!
This, Sir, was certainly anſwering your chal-
lenge to produce one plain text in favour of the
unitarian doctrine before it was thrown out. I
appeal to yourſelf for the obvious ſenſe of the
paſſages I have now recited; and you ſay, p. 23.
“ It is a principle with me, that the true ſenſe of
"any phraſe in the New Teſtament is what may
« be called its ſtanding ſenſe, that which will be
" the firſt to occur to common people, of every
country, and in every age*.”
I would alſo refer you to a ſinall piece 1 lately
published, entitled A general View of the Arguments
for the Unity of God, and againſt the Divinity and Pre-
exiſtence of Chriſt, from Reaſon, from the Scriptures,
and from Hiſtory, which you ſeem to have ſeen, as
you refer to my two penny pamphlets, for this is
* It is remarkable, that the orthodox, even afier the council
of Nice, complained of the advantage which the unitarians had
in appealing to the literal ſenſe of the ſcriptures. “If," ſays
Gregory Nyffen, “a man rekls in the bare letter, ſo far he
" judaizes in opinion, and has not learned that a chriſtian is
* not
2
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 151
ſold for two-pence. There you will find, not
only that Socinians pretend to have the clear
ſenſe of ſcripture in their favour, but many of
thoſe paſſages, expreſſive of that clear ſenſe,
produced, I there obſerve, p. 10. that “the
“ ſcriptures contain the cleareſt and the moſt ex-
“preſs declarations, that there is but one God,
“ without ever mentioning any exception in fa-
« vour of a trinity, or guarding us againſt being
“ led into any miſtake by ſuch general and un-
er limited expreſſions.” And if this language,
as you ſuppoſe, always reſpected the multiplicity
of gods among the heathens, why is this one.
God, in the New Teſtament, always called the
Father, and even the God and Father of our Lord
Jeſus Chriſt ; and why are we no where told that
this one God is the trinity, conſiſting of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt? This, Sir, is the
language of your litany only. The Bible uſed in
“ not the diſciple of the letter, but of the ſpirit; for the letter
“ killeth, but the ſpirit giveth life.” Ouxov, ei tew tapa-
μενει το γραμμαι, και καλα τείο το μερος Ιεδιαζει τη γνωμη,
και επω πεπαιδευα οτι εχιγραμματος εσι χρισιανς» μαθήθης,
αλλα αν έυμαG.. το γαρ γραμμα, φησιν, απεκλεινει, το δε
Tovauja (Wowolel. Contra Eunomium Oratio xvi. Opera,
Vol. II, p. 341.
It is to be obſerved, that by judaizing was meant adopt-
ing the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrifl. For the an-
ciert unitarians were commonly compared by the orthodox to
Jews, and the Arians to Gentiles, as worſhipper of two Gods, the
Arian logos not being of the fame ſubſtance with the Father ;
and therefore a maker of the world, or a-God, quito diſtinct
from him.
Qur
I Ą
152
L E T T E R S TO THE
1
our conventicles, contains no ſuch barbarous
jargon.
I would alſo recommend to your peruſal an-
other pamphlet of mine, called An Appeal to the
ſerious and candid Profeſſors of Chriſtianity, of which
inore than ten thouſand have been fold for a
penny each; and of this I have lately publiſhed
a new edition, and have annexed to it the re-
inarkable Trial of Mr. Elwall, of Wolverhamp-
ton, in this neighbourhood, for his publications
in defence of the Socinian doctrine. Theſe ſmall
publications of mine have, I truſt, done much
good, though you will call it much iniſchief, in
this country; and I rejoice in perceiving the in-
creaſe of this good, or this miſchief, every day ;
and I have no doubt of the ſucceſsful ſpread of
religious truth by means of theſe publications,
notwithſtanding all you can do to counteract
them, as you boaſt, by means of the Monthly
Review.
IV.
In one thing I am glad to find that you and I
entertain the ſame opinion, which is that there
is no medium between admitting the ſimple hu-
manity of Chriſt, and that he is properly God.
! Having once admitted," you ſay p. 162. “his
pre-exiſtence in an exalted ſtate, I ſaw the ne-
“ceſſity of placing him at the head of the crea"
" tion. Being thus convinced that our Lord
Jeſus
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
153
si Jeſus Chriſt is indeed the maker of all things,
" I found that I could not reſt ſatisfied with
so the notion of a maker of the univerſe, not
$God. I ſaw that all the extravagancies of the
“ Gnoſtics hung upon that one principle, and I
« could have little opinion of the truch of a principle,
" which ſeemed ſo big with miſchief."
You alſo obſerve, very juftly, p. 137.
iCan
any power or wiſdom leſs than the fupreme be a
"s ſufficient ground for the cruſt we are required to
place in providence ? Make the wiſdom and
“ the power of our ruler what you pleaſe, ſtill, upon
“the Arian principle, it is the wiſdom and the
power of a creature, Where then will be the
“ certainty that the evil which we find in the world
" has not crept in through ſoine imperfection in
so the original contrivance, or in the preſent manage-
“ ment; ſince every intellect below the firſt may
« be liable to error, and any power ſhort of the fu-
« prene may be inadequate to purpoſes of a cer-
“tain magnitude ? But if evil
"thus, what aſſurance can we have that it will ever
“ be extirpated ?”
But if there be no proper medium between the
Athanaſian and the Socinian ſcheme, which I readily
admit, I alſo maintain that there is no medium at
all between the Socinian doctrine and an abſolute
contradiction, for ſuch Athanafianiſm is; ſo that
there is no reſource but in the Socinian doctrine,
oppoſe it as much as you will.
I am, &c.
may have
have crept in
154
LETTERS TO THE
L E T T E R XIV.
Of Prayer to Cbrift.
Rev. Sir,
HAVING got three perſons, all of then
poffefſed of all divine perfections, all of
them having intercourſe with mankind, and con-
fequently all of them naturally objects of prayer, I
do not wonder that you appear to be a little em-
barraffed in your ideas of what is proper to be
done with reſpect to each of them, individually
conſidered. * That the Father," you ſay, p.
103. " is a proper object of prayer, God forbid
" that I ſhould ever not acknowledge. That he
" is the proper object, in the ſenſe in which you
o ſeem to make the aſſertion, in prejudice and
“ excluſion of the other perſons, God forbid that
" I ſhould ever concede. I deny not that there is
“ an honour perſonally due to him as the Father.
" There is alſo an honour perſonally due to the
« Son, as the Son, and to the Spirit as the Spirit,
“ but our knowledge of the perſonal diſtinctions
“ is ſo obſcure, in compariſon of our apprehen-
“ fion of the general attributes of the godhead,
“ that it ſhould ſeem that the divinity (the 70
JE10v) is rather to be generally worſhipped in
at the three perſons jointly, and indifferently,
ca
" than
ARCHDEACON O E ST. ALBANS. 155
« than that any diſtinct honours are to be offered
“ to each ſeparately. Prayer, however, for
:“ ſuccour againſt external perfecution, ſeems
“ addreſſed with particular propriety to the Son."
That you
Now, Sir, as this is a thing that relates to
practice, I ſhould have imagined that, if each of
the three perſons had been to be addreſſed ſepa-
sately, we ſhould have been dictinely informed
concerning the circumſtances in which we were to
pray to one of them, and not to the others; con-
ſidering how difficult it muſt be, from the nature
of the thing, for mere men to diſtinguiſh the ſe-
parate rights of three divine perſons.
-
yourſelf have made ſome miſtake in this buſineſs,
will not, I think, be difficult to ſhew. In order to
this, let us conſider how your ſuppoſition or theory,
correſponds to the fa£t.
For if it be not fup-
ported by correſponding facts, how ingenious, or
probable, ſoever it may ſeem to be, a priori, it
muſt fall to the ground. You will agree with
me, I imagine, that the apoſtles and primitive
chriſtians knew whether the Father or the Son
was the more proper object of prayer in the time
of perſecution. Let us ſee then both what di-
rections they gave, and alſo what they themſelves
actually did in this caſe.
N
The apoſtle James, writing to chriſtians in a
ſtate of perſecution, ſays, ch. i. 2. &c. My brethren
count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, or
trials,
1
156 LET T E S TO THE
trials, &c. If any of you lack wiſdom, let him ajk
of God. You will hardly ſay that in this he ad-
viſes them to apply to Chriſt, or to the trinity, for
direction in theſe circumſtances. If
will venture to affert, that your hypotheſis has no
countenance either in the ſcriptures, or in any
chriſtian writer before the council of Nice. For
they all underſtood the Father alone to be intended
whenever mention is made of God abſolutely.
you do, I
creator.
Peter, writing to chriſtians in the ſame ſitua-
tion, ſays, 1 Pet. iv. 19. wherefore let them that ſuf-
fer according to the will of God commit the keeping
of their ſouls to bim in well doing, as unto a faithful
This is certainly meant of God the
Father; but more evidently muſt we ſo interpret,
1 Pet. v. 10. The God of all grace, who bas called
us into his eternal glory by Chriſt Jeſus, after that ye
bave ſuffered a while, make you perfect, eſtabliſh,
strengthen, ſettle you. I do not find here, or any
where elſe in the ſcriptures, any direction to pray
to Chriſt in time of perſecution, or indeed, in
any other circumſtances.
.
Let us now attend to ſome particulars in the
kiftory of the apoſtles. When Herod had put to
death James, the brother of John, and impriſoned
Peter, we read, Acts xii. 5. that prayer was
nade without ceaſing of the church to God, not to
Chrift, for him.
When Paul and Silas were
in priſon at Philippi, we read, Acts xvi. 25. that
they
1
.
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS, 157
they ſung praiſes to God, not to Chriſt. And when
Paul was warned of what would befal him if he
went to Jeruſalem, Acts xxi. -14. he ſaid, the will
of the Lord be done. This, you muſt ſuppoſe, was
meant of God the Father, becauſe Chriſt himſelf
uſed the ſame language in this fenſe, when, in
praying to the Father, he ſaid, Not my will but
thine be done.
1
Theſe, you may perhaps ſay, are only inciden-
sal circumſtances, on which no great ſtreſs is to be
laid. But in Acts vi. 24. &c. we have a prayer
of fome length addreſſed to God the Father, at
the very beginning of the perſecution of chrif-
tians, when Peter and John had been examined
before the high prieſt, and his court, and had
been threatened by them. As I ſuſpect that you
may not have given much attention to the tenor
of it, I ſhall recite the whole, which is as follows:
" And when they heard that, they lifted up their
" voice to God, with one accord, and ſaid, Lord,
“ thou art God, who haſt made heaven and earth,
" and the ſea," and all that in them is; who by
" the mouth of thy ſervant David, haft ſaid, Why
“ did the beatben rage and the people imagine vain
things, The kings of the earth ſtood up, and the
“ rulers were gathered together, againſt the Lord,
" and againſt his Chrift. For of a truth againſt thy
holy child" (or ſervant) " Jeſus whom thou haft
ke anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with
" the Gentiles, and the people of Iſrael, were
“ gathered together, for..co do whatſoever thy
« hand
158
TO THE
LETTERS
« hand and thy counſel determined before to be
« done. And now Lord behold their threat-
nings, and grant unto thy ſervants, that with
call boldneſs they may ſpeak thy word, by
«. ſtretching forth thy hand to heal; and that
« ſigns and wonders may be done by the name
“ of thy holy child" (or fervant) “ Jeſus.”
We have now examined ſome particulars both
of the inſtructions, and the examples of ſcripture,
with regard to the proper object of prayer in
time of perſecution ; from which it appears, that,
even in this caſe, we have no authority to pray to
any other than that one God, to whom Chriſt
himfelf prayed in his affliction; and if we be not
authorized to pray to Chriſt in time of perſecu-
tion, there is, by your own acknowledgment,
leſs propriety in praying to him on any other
occaſion.
As you profeſs a great regard for thoſe who are
called apoſtolical Fathers, let us attend to the
prayer of Polycarp, when he was tied to the
ftake, ready to be burned alive. Now this
prayer
which is a pretty remarkable one, is addreſſed to
God the Father, and not to Chriſt; ſo that this
diſciple of the apoſtle John, did not think the
example of Stephen any precedent for him. The
prayer begins as follows: "O Lord, God Al-
“ mighty, the Father of thy well-beloved and
« bleſſed Son Jeſus Christ, by whom we have re-
“ceived the knowledge of thee, the God of
angels
ARGHDÉAGON OF ST, ALBANS. 159
>
angels and powers, and of every creature, and
“ eſpecially of the whole race of juſt men,” &c.
1
You ſee then, Sir, how greatly you have been
mįſled by your ſpeculative theology, by your atten-
tion to particular texts, ſingle incidents, and
imaginary proprieties, without attending to the
general tenor of ſcripture, the plain directions
that are there given for our conduct, and the
conſtant practice of the apoſtles, which ſupply the
beſt interpretation of their doctrine. To con-
clude, as you have done, from the ſingle caſe of
Stephen, that all chriſtians are authoriſed to pray
to Chriſt, is like concluding that all matter has a
tendency to go upwards, becauſe a needle will
do ſo, when a magnet is held over it.' When
you ſhall be in the ſame circumſtances with Ste-
phen, having your mind ſtrongly impreſſed with
a viſion of Chriſt ſitting ai the right-hand of
God, you may then, perhaps, be authoriſed to
addreſs yourſelf to him as he did; but the whole
tenor of the ſcriptures proves that, otherwiſe,
you have no authority at all for any ſuch practice.
I am, &c.
LETTER
360
"LETTERS TO THE
5
L Ε Τ Τ ER
XV.
i
Of the Unitarian Principles with reſpezt to Maho-
metaniſm and Infidelity.
REV. SIR,
WE E are not, I hope, to judge of your acquaint-
ance with the opinions of the ancients,
(which we have dignified with the name of learn-
ing) by the correctneſs with which you ſtate the
opinions of the moderns, even thoſe which
you 'undertake to controvert, and therefore
ought to have ſtudied. Here, Sirs you certainly
have no choice but of the grofſeſt ignorance, and
conſequently preſumption, or the moſt perverſe
and wilful of all miſrepreſentations. Your ig-
norance of the ſtate of the diffenters, of which a
fufficient fpecimen has been given, ſhews that you
are far from being ar bome even in your own
country; but the account you give in your ſix-
teenth letter, of the principles of the unitarians,
and the relation they bear to thoſe of unbelievers,
is ſuch as can hardly be accounted for from
mere ignorance. I fear it has a worſe origin. I
hope I ſhall not be thought uncandid; but I can-
not put any favourable conſtruction upon your
inlinuations on this ſubject!
You
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS." 161
You ſay, p. 151. “ the whole 'difference be-
“.tween you and them” (that is, between the
unitarians and Mahometans)“ ſeems very in-
" conſiderable. The true. muſſulmán believes
as 'much, or rather more, of Chriſt than the
« unitarian requires to be believed ; and though
" the unitarians have not yet recognized the
“ divine miſſion of Mahomet, there is good
“ ground to think they will not long ſtand out.
“ In unitarian writings of the laſt century, it is
" allowed of Mahomet, that he had no other de-
“ſign than to reſtore the belief of the unity
“ of God. Of his religion, that it was not
" meant for a new religion, but for a reſtitution
< of the true intent of the chriſtian.Of the
great prevalence of the Mahometan religion,
" that it has been owing not to force and the
“ (word, but to that one truth contained in the
“ Alcoran, the unity of God. With theſe friendly
diſpoſitions towards each other, it ſhould ſeem
« that the Mahometan and unitarian might eaſily
“.be brought to agree.'
3
ܪ ܀
· Now all theſe propoſitions which you have
laid down as certain facts, are ſo highly impro-
bable in themſelves, that few perfons, perhaps,
will believe that you can be ſerious in advancing
them; and I ſhall think myſelf at liberty to treat
them as groundleſs calumnies, till you
ſhall pro-
duce ſoine. authority or evidence for them. For
the ſtate of things, as they now are, and which
ought to be known to you, gives not the leaſt
M
colour
i
162
L'E TT ERS TO
TO THE
colour of plauſibility to them. If the difference
between the unitarians and the Mahometans-be
fo inconſiderable, that there is good ground to
think that the unitarians will ſoon acknowledge
the divine miſſion of Mahomet, how has it
happened that none of them have yet done itz
and actually turned muſſulmen? I think it is
poſſible that, 'notwithſtanding the extenſive read-
ing of which you give us ſo many intimations,
I
may be as well acquainted with the unitarian
writers of the laſt age as you can pretend to be;
and I have never met with any ſuch paſſage as
you mention; and I think if you could trave pro-
duced any ſuch in ſupport of your aſſertions, you
would not have failed to do it.
1
1
You may at any time fee what I have ſaid of
the Mahometan religion on ſeveral occaſions,
and alſo what other unitarians of the preſent age
have advanced concerning it.
Do you find in
my publications, or theirs, any thing favourable
to the pretenſions of Mahomet? And if the
tendency of the unitarian principles be to ap-
proximate towards thoſe: of the Mahometans, ir
might be expected that they would have been
nearer to each other now than they were in the
laſt century, I ſhall therefore, unleſs authorities
are produced, conſider what you have ſaid on
this ſubject as another ſpecimen of your invention
of faits, and of your unparalleled effrontery in
publiſhing them, in order to throw an odium
upon the unitarians.
You might indeed alınost
2
as
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 163
!
as well affert that all the unitarians in England
are already ſo far Mahoinetans, that, to your
certain knowledge, they are actually circumciſed.
What reſpect, Sir, can be due to the man who
has not ſcrupled to have recourſe to theſe calum-
nies, for they cannot be called by any fofter
name, in order to blacken his adverſaries? And
what can we think of the cauſe that requires to be
- thus ſupported ?
1
!
Your curious account of the negociation re-
« gularly openeď," p. 152, “ on the part of the
Engliſh unitarians in the reign of Charles the
" Second, with the ambaſſador of the emperor of
“ Morocco," for which you quote Dr. Leſlie, was
probably an invention of his, fimilar to thoſe of
yours in theſe Letters, and calculated to anſwer a
ſimilar purpoſe. As it is a ſtale buſineſs, it may
be ſufficient to give a ftale anſwer to it, and there-
fore, without examining into the hiſtory of what
paſſed in the reign of Charles the Second, I ſhall
content myſelf with copying what Mr. Emlyn
ſaid in anſwer to it, which is as follows:
1
1
". As to your rarity of the addreſs to the Mo-
rocco ambaſſador, I ſee not what it amounts to,
more than a complaint of the corruption of
« the chriftian faith in the article of one God,
« which the Mahometans have kept by confent
" of all ſides. Yer for as much as I can learn
**** nothing from any unitarians of any ſuch ad-
« dreſs
M 2
.
1
1
I fup-
164 L E T TE RS TO THE
« dreſs from thein, nor do you produce any ſub-
“ fcribers names, I conclude no ſuch addreſs
“ was ever made by any deputed from them,
· whatever any ſingle perſon might do.
poſe you conclude from the matter of it, that
- it muſt be from ſome unitarian, and perhaps
“ fo; yet you may remember that ſo you con-
' « cluded from the matter of Dr. Tillotſon's
“ fermons, that they were a Sacinian's.” Em-
lyn's Work, vol. II. p. 93.
After being repreſented as having made near
ápproaches to Mahometaniſm, I cannot be ſur-
prized that you ſhould ſeem to inſinuate that I
am an unbeliever in chriſtianity. For certainly I
can be no leſs, if what you ſay, p. 106. be true.
« With your notion of inſpiration, you are at
“ liberty to diſpute what the inſpired apoſtles
taught." Here is no exception made with re-
ſpect to any thing that they taught, and even
what they taught from inſpiration. I do not
perſonally require any acknowledgment for theſe
groſs miſrepreſentations, but the Public, whom
you have impoſed upon, have a right to demand
(5
it of you.
1
Your endeavour to fhew the little value of
chriſtianity on the unitarian principles, beſides
Thewing your diſpoſition to calumniate, diſcovers
equal ignorance both of the ſtate of the world, and
of the ſyſtem of revelation. You talk, p. 154. of
o ſober
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 165
« ſober deiſts, who rejecting revelation, acknow-
ledge, however, the obligations of morality,
" believe a providence, and a future retribution.
* The whole difference between them and us,
you make them ſay, " is that we believe the
“ ſame things upon different evidence, you upon
" the teſtimony of a man, who you ſay, was
“ raiſed up to preach theſe truths; we, upon the
“evidence of reaſon, which we think a higher
"evidence than any human teſtimony,” &c.
از
I wiſh, Sir, you would produce a few of theſe
fober deifts. I think I am acquainted with as
many unbelievers as you are ; but whatever may
have been the caſe formerly, I know no ſuch
perſons at preſent as you deſcribe ; i. e. unbe-
lievers who have a ſerious expectation of a fu-
ture life. We may ſee from fact, that the argu-
ments from reaſon alone, are unable to make any
lafting impreſſion on the minds of thoſe who can
reſiſt the much plainer evidences of chriſtianity;
which, being of the hiſtorical kind, are much
better adapted to carry conviction to the mind.
The preſent ſtate of things furniſhes an abun-
dant proof that it is by the goſpel alone, that life
and immortality are fully brought to light. This
gives the moſt fatisfactory of all evidence of a
future life, ſuch as we ſee can really infuence the
heart and the life; ſuch as can controul the
ſtrongeſt paſſions of the human breaſt, and give
M
3
men
1
166
LETT E R S T Ô Í HÉ
meri a manifeft fuperiorlty of mind to the world
and all the pleaſures and paints of it.
To imagine, as you do, that the arguments
for a future life from reafon alone, that is, from
appearances in the common courſe of nature, are
at all comparable to the evidence that reſults
from the gofpel hiſtory, and eſpecially from the
death and reſurrection of Chriſt (a man like our-
felves, and therefore, the moſt proper pattern of
a future univerſal reſurrection) diſcovers ſuch a
want of real difcernment and judgment, and
ſuch ignorance of human nature, as I will yen-
fure to ſay, are no where more conſpicuous than
in theſe letters of yours,
Your repreſentation of the doctrine of mate-
fialiſm as favourable to atheiſm, only ſhews your
ignorance of the fyftem that you wiſh to expoſe,
as indeed what you dropped on the ſubject of
ideas, p. 113. fufficiently ſhewed before, But upori
this I haye faid ſo inuch (more I ſuppoſe than you
will ever take the trouble to read) in my Letters
10, a Philofopbical Unbeliever, that I ſhall not reply
to ſuch trite and idle reaſoning as yours here,
What you ſay on the ſubject of the refurre&tion,
if it has any weight at all, affects the chriſtian
doctrine, as taught by St. Paul.
* which you hold out," you ſay, p. 156
“reſurrection, he" (the unbeliever) “ will tell
you
« The hope
ro
of a
1
5
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 169,
you is no hope at all, even admitting that the
s evidence of the thing could, upon your prini-
ciples, be indiſputable. The atoms which"
- compoſe me, your atheiſt will ſay, may indeed
« have compoſed a man before, and may again;
" but me they will never more compoſe, when
once the preſent me is diſſipated. I have no
no recollection of a former, and no concern
so about a future ſelf.'
1
This might have been copied from the writ-
ings of the heathen philoſophers againſt chriſtia-
nity. For if, as I have already intimated, there
be any force in the objection, it will öperate
againſt the do&trine of a refurrection univerſally
conſidered. Becauſe, if the thing that dies (and
it is the body only that is ever ſaid to die) do
not riſe, and come to life again, there is no pro-
per reſurrection at all.
*!:
1
Whatever hope of a future life you may build
on the Platonic doctrine of a soul, it is, I will
venture to fay, univerfally abandoned by the phi.
lofophical unbelievers of the preſent age; and,
therefore, with reſpect to them, you can never
eſtabliſh any hope of a future life at all on any
other principles than thoſe purely chriſtian ones
which you endeavour to expoſe; and whatever
difficulties may attend the confideration of it,
they will all vaniſh, even to the philoſophical
mind, before the certain promiſe of that great
being
M4
168 LETTER'S TO THE
being who made us and all things. If we once
believe that he has given us this aſſurance, we
can never ſuppoſe that he will be at a loſs for
proper means to accompliſh his end; and if the
goſpel hiſtory be true, we have this aſſurance.
But from natural appearances we have no evidence
whatever of any thing belonging to man that can
ſubfift, feel, and act, when the body is in the
grave. And what I maintain is, that we muſt
depart from all the known rules of philoſophiz-
ing, before we can conclude that any ſuch thing
belongs to man.
From the ſame mode of reaſoning by which
we can prove that there is an immaterial princi-
ple in man, we may alſo prove that there is ſuch
a principle not only in a brute, or a plant, but
even in a magnet, and the moſt inanimate parts
of nature. For even the moſt inanimate parts
of nature are pofſeffed of powers, or properties,
between which and what we ſee and feel of them,
we are not able to perceive any connexion what-
ever. There is juſt as much connexion between
thė principles of Senſation and thought and the
brain of a man, as between the powers of a magnet
and the iron of which it is made, or between the
principle of gravitation and the matter of which
the earth and the ſun are made; and whenever you
İhall be able to deduce the powers of a magnet
from the other properties of iron, you may per-
haps be able to deduce the powers of ſenſation
and
I
.
-
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANSBAN S.
. 169
and thought from the other properties of the
brain. But to you, Sir, the whole of this ſubject
is abſolutely terra incognita. I perceive no traces of
your being much at home, as you pretend, in the
Greek language, but here you are a perfect
ſtranger.
You are pleaſed to ſupply unbelievers with
objections to revelation on the views that I have
given of it; but I can produce numbers who
will tell you, that ſuch chriſtianity as yours, in-
cluding the belief of three perſons in one God,
is a thing abſolutely incapable of proof, and who
have actually rejected it on account of this.doc-
trine, which they conſider as fo palpable an abſur-
dity, and contradi&tion, as not even miracles can
make credible.
I am, &c.
LETTER
170
L ÉTTERS TO THE
L E T T E R
XVI.
Of Biſhop Bull's Defence of damnatory Clauſes.
1
Rev. Sir,
IN this Letter I ſhall exhibit a curious ſpecia
men of your peculiar mode of controverſial
writing, and the advantage you take of the moſt
erilling overſights in your opponents.
You gave the higheſt encomiums to the works
of Biſhop Bull, without any qualification or
diſtinction, and recommended them to your
clergy, as an infallible'guide in every thing relat-
ing to the ſubject of our controverſy. On this I
ſaid, “ As you recommend the writings of
Biſhop Bull without exception, I preſume that
you approve of his defence of the damnatory
" clauſe in the Athanaſian creed. Indeed you
« mentioned it among his moſt valuable works.”
When I wrote this, I did not, to be ſure, look into
the title-page of the book, in order to copy the
very words of it; but no perſon could have any
doubt which of Biſhop Bull's treatiſes I really
meant, as what I ſaid ſufficiently characterized
it. And though he does not mention the Atha-
naſian creed in particular, he defends every thing
that is harſh and ſevere in the treatment of
unitarians
ARCHDE ACON OF ST. ALBANS. 171
unitárians by the orthodox in the primitive times,
and particularly the anathema annexed to 'the
Nicene creed.
On this ſubject, however, you write as fol-
lows, p. 165.
“Sir, did you write this in your
“ neep, or is it in a dream only that I ſeem to
“ read it. Biſhop Bull's defence of the damna-
tory clauſe! From you, Sir, I have now my
s firſt information that Biſhop Bull ever wrote
upon the ſubject.” Then, enumerating the
titles of his works, you add, p. 167. “ In theſe
• treatiſes there is no defence of the damnatory
« clauſe, nor, that I recollect, any mention of the
Athanaſian creed. There is no defence of the
* damnatory clauſe in the Sermons and Engliſh
“ Tracts, publifhed by Mr. Nelſon, nor can I find
any ſuch tract mentioned by Mr. Nelſon among
“ the Biſhop's loft works; for many ſmall pieces,
s6 which it was known he had written, were never
« found after his death. Where have I men-
« tioned, Sir, with ſuch high approbation a work
" which I declare I have never ſeen, and of
“which, you will forgive me, if I ſtill doubt the
s exiſtence?"
ic
Notwithſtanding this ridiculous parade, which
hath helped to ſwell out your book, you might
juſt as well have ſaid, that I never wrote an An-
ſwer to your Charge, merely becauſe I called my
work Letters to Dr. Horſley; and I will engages
that whatever doubt you might have had, if you
had given an order to any bookſeller in London
in
172
L ETTERS TO THE
in the very words that I uſed, he would have
ſent you the Judicium, &c. i. e. The Judgment of
the Catholic Church in the three firſt Centuries, con-
cerning the Neceſſity of believing that our Lord Jeſus
Chriſt is the true God. Now, Sir, what is implied
in the neceſity of believing, but the condemnation
of thoſe who do not believe? The whole truth,
and the occaſion of all this lamentable outcry is,
that, not having the book before me at the time,
I ſaid the damnatory clauſe in the Athaneſian creed,
inſtead of the anathema annexed to the Nicene creed,
a thing of exactly the ſame nature,
Beſides, from your account, one would ima-
gine that, as you declare yourſelf no lover of
damnatory clauſes, this good biſhop, whoſe writ-
ings you ſo much recommend, was no more a
friend to them than yourſelf, but that he might
be the meekeſt and moſt candid of all chriſtians.
To give a ſpecimen, therefore, of this moſt excel-
lent prelate's writings, I ſhall produce a few paf-
ſages from the preface of this particular work,
from which a judgment may be forined of the
objeet and ſpirit of the whole.
Giving a reaſon for this publication, he ſays,
« There have appeared a few years ago in Eng,
“ land, many writings of wicked men, who have
« laboured with all their might to overturn the
capital article of our creed, on which the hinge
<s of chriſtianity certainly turns, namely, con-
cerning the Son of God, born of God the Fa-
«ther himſelf before all ages, very God of very
God,
o
ARCHDEACON OF ST. .
ALBANS. 173
“ God, by whom all things were made; who for
Qur
ſalvation was incarnate, and made man ;
“ ſome of them impudently defending the Arian,
" and ſome the Samoſatenian blaſphemy
He then quotes with approbation, a paſſage from
Zanchius, in which he calls the writings of the unita-
rians idte ravings, inepta deliria ; and afterwards
ſpeaking of Epiſcopius, and others, who though
orthodox themſelves, pleaded for ſome moderation
towards theſe erring brethren, he calls it an at;
"tempt to reconcile Chriſt and Belial," and adds,
" Theſe men, profeſiing to hold and believe with
“ che catholics (in which I wiſh they were ſincere)
6 in the truth of the article concerning the co-effen-
" tial Son of God, yet do not acknowledge the ne-
“ cefſity of itt.” Then, with reſpect to their
maintaining that the chriſtian Fathers had the fame
moderation, he ſays, “It is throwing the greateſt
“reproach upon the doctors, bithops, confeffors, and
smartyrs of the beſt ages; as if in defending the
** Prodiere in Anglia noſtra, intra paucos abhinc annos,
ſcripta, non pauca hominum nefariorum, qui dogma fidei
noftræ xupalalov, in quo certe chriſtianiſmi cardo vertitur (de
filio nempe dei ante omnia fecula, ex ipſo deo patre, nalu,
vero deo de vero deo, per quem omnia condita fuere, noftræ
falutis caufa incarnato, homineque facto) labefactare aique
evertere omni.ope adnifi funt; eorum aliis Arianam, aliis
vero Samofatenianam blafphemiam impudenter propugnac-
libus.
+ Hi homines, cum veritatem articoli de co-effentiali dei filio
cum catholicis fe tenere atque credere profitcantur (urinam
fincere) ejufdem tamen neceffitatem minime agnofcunt.
greateſt
274 LE TT E.RS TO THE
* "
,
greateſt of all the articles of the chriſtian religion,
they were lukewarm, yea, abſolutely cold;to
« whereas all thoſe churches with one voice and
judgment condemned the Arjan and Socinian
“ doctrine, as a moſt pernicious and deadly hereſy*
He farther fays that, as in his former works he had
tains and defends the analbema annexed to it, viz.
" thoſe who fay that there was a time when the Son
“ of God was not, that he did not exiſt before he
“ was born, and that he was made out of nothing,
" or out of any other hypoſtaſis or ſubſtance, that
“ he was either created, or ſubject to change or al-
« teration, the catholic and apoftolic church ana-
6 thematizes t."
He concludes the preface with faying, “This
judgment of the univerſal church of Chriſt, in all
times, all pious and ſober minded perſons will re-
verence; and therefore will be upon their guard
Adeoque conſequenter optimorum fæculorum doctoribus,
epiſcopis, confefforibus, martyribus, graviflimam impofuerit
contumeliam ; quafi fcilicet, in tutando capite religionis chrif-
tianæ omnium maximo, tepidi, imo prorfus frigidi fuiffent
Quam ecclefiæ illæ omnes ut hærefin perniciofiffimam ac
Javalnoopov confentienti calculo ac judicio damnaverunt. ;
* In hoc opufculo evantequalla mov fymbolo ifto annexum
taemur ac defendimus-T86 de nozorlas niv ole oti ex MV,
zij aply Jevnafnvel 8x nv, xj eg 8X ovlwr cyevelo, n ec clepas
υπος ασεως η εσιας φάσκονίας είναι, η κλισον, και τρείον, η
αλλοιώθον τον υιον τε θεε, τέλες αναθεμαλιζει η καθολική και
άσος ολική έκπλησια.
"
againſt,
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 175
" againſt, and with all their fouls abhor, the God
denying hereſy of both the Somofatenians and the
( Arians*.”
I need not, ſurely, go any farther into a work of
which this is the preface. I am tempted, however,
to quote, the form in which the biſhop cloſes this
work, viz. “ To the moſt holy and undivided
“ Trinity, to God the Faiher, and to his co-effen-
$tial and co-eternal word, and Son, for our ſalva-
“tion made incarnate, together with the Holy
Spirit the comforter, be all praiſe, honour and
€ and glory, from angels and men, for ever and
* ever amenit."
.
Can you read all this, Sir, and not acknowledge
that Biſhop Bull was a friend to damnatory clauſes;
and if you be not fo yourſelf, as you ſay you are
not, how came you to recommend the writings
of this fiery biſhop fo unreſervedly as you have
done? and indeed, how can you be a true member
of that church which gives its fanction to theſe
damnatory clauſes. Thoſe damnatory clauſes are as
much an article of faith in the church of England,
• Hoc judicium ecclefiæ Chrifti univerfalis omnium tem-
porum reverebuntur cercé piï ac ſobrii omnes, adeoque ab
apuntinea Samofatenianorum fimul et Arianorum hærefi
cavebunt sibi, totoque animo abhorrebunt.
# Sanctiſfimæ atque individuæ trinitati, Deo patri, co-eſſen-
tiali et coæterno verbo ac filio, noftræ falutes cauſa incarnato,
una cum Spiritu ſancto paracleto, ab angelis et hominibus tri-
buatur laus, honos, et gloria omnis in fecula feculorum,
Amen.
1
.
176
LETTERS TO THE
as any of the thirty-nine, and he that does not bona
fide maintain them, ought, in my opinion, to quit
her communion. You, Sir, therefore, either do, or
ought to believe, that myſelf and all who think as I
do, ſhall without doubt periſh everlaſtingly. If you
cannot ſay amen to this curſe, you have no buſineſs
where you are, and certainly ought not to pro-
nounce it. For this, your Athanaſian creed aſferts,
and I ſuppoſe no figure was intended by the devout
compoſer of it.
The firſt time that Biſhop Bull's writings were
recommended to me, was by a popiſh prieſt, in
whoſe company I paſſed ſeveral days at Bruſſels,
who took ſerious pains to make me a Roman
catholic, and afterwards wrote to me very ear-
neſtly on the ſubject. But paying too little attention
to the recommendation, I was unacquainted with
the real character and value of this writer, till it.
was enforced by the archdeacon of St. Albans.
I am, &c.
LETTER
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 177
!
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R
XVII.
Of the Light in which the Diſenters are conſidered
by the Archdeacon of St. Albans, and of the Penal-
ties to which the Unitarians among them are ſub-
jeet.
1
1
Rev. Sir,
THOUGH you profeſs yourſelf to be no lover
of damnatory clauſes, p. 165. and now and
then are pleaſed to drop ſome obliging expreſſions
of reſpect for diſſenters, it is, however, with a
conſiderable mixture of contempt, and with an
intimation that we unitarian difſenters (and all
unitarians, we both agree, either are, or ought
to be difſenters in this country) are ſubject to
many pains and penalties, as the laws now ſtand.
With what view you threw out thoſe hints, and
ſo particularly recite thoſe acts of parliament to
the penalties of which we are obnoxious, is
beſt known to yourſelf, and time will perhaps
diſcover.
I had complained of the contempt with which
you mentioned the places of worſhip among diſ-
ſenters, when you called them conventicles. In
your preſent publication, after ſomething of an
N
apology
!!
#78
L E T T E R S TO THE
1
A
apology for uſing that word, which I think auk-
ward enough, you do not perhaps much mend
the matter, by ſaying, p. 167, “I could have
" wiſhed that the uſe of it had been conſidered
vs as one of the mere archaiſins of my ſtyle, in
* which nothing of inſult was intended. I muſt,
" however, declare, that it would give me parti-
“cular pleaſure to receive conviction that Mr.
“ Lindſey's Meeting-houſe, and your own, are
“ not more emphatically conventicles in your
“ own ſenſe, that is, in the worſt ſenſe of the
“ word. From perſonal reſpect for you and him,
" I ſhould be happy to be aſſured that you ſtand
« not within the danger of the 35th of Eliz. ch.
" i. or the 17th Ch. II. c. ii. to the penalties.
“ of which, and of other ſtatutes, I muſt take
“ the liberty to tell you, you are obnoxious, not-
“ withſtanding the late act of the 19th of his pre-
« fent Majeſty in favour of diffenters, unleſs at
" the general or quarter ſeſſions of the peace for
.“ the county where you live, you have made a
« certain declaration, which is required by that
«act, inſtead of the ſubſcription to articles re-
quired by the former acts of toleration. I am
“ ſorry, Sir, to inform you, that I find no entry
" of Mr. Lindſey's declaration in the office of
“ the clerk of the peace, either for the county, of
“ Middleſex, or the city of Weſtminſter. Could
« I make the fame enquiry concerning you
of (which the diſtance of your reſidence prevents)
"I feat I thould have the mortification to find
« that
ARCHDÉ A CON OÉ ST: ALBANS. 199
" that you have no more than your friend complied
" with the laws from which you claim protection.
“ A report prevails that you both object to the de-
“ claration from confcientious ſcruples, a very ſuffi.
“ cient excuſe for not making it: but no excuſe at
“all for doing what the law allows not to be dones
except upon the expreſs condition that the decla-
“ration be previouſly made.”
1
You afterwards ſay; p. 169.
your meeting-
“ houſe and his, contrary to your imagination, are
“ illegal, unknown to the laws, and unprotected by
o them.”
Here, Sir, it is you, and not we, who are miſtaken.
Both our conventicles, you will find, are protected,
though we ourſelves are not. The conſequence,
therefore, of any proſecution of me (if any perſon,
taking the hint from you, ſhould proceed to it)
would be the depriving of the difſenters belonging
to the New-Meeting at Birmingham of one of their
preſent paſtors; but the Meeting-houſe would re-
main under the protection of the law, as much as
any of your pariſh churches, which owe all their
conſideration to the fame law; and would not pre-
vent their chuſing another miniſter, who, if he had
more caution than myſelf; might defy your malice;
but the congregation that I ſerve, would think
themſelves diſgraced by a miniſter of that timid
character.
N2
As
180 LETTERS TO THE
.
As you were ſo very deſirous of getting informa-
tion concerning my conduct in this buſineſs, I won-
der that you ſhould not have been able to find ſome
perſon in this neighbourhood like-minded with
yourſelf, to make the enquiry for
you.
However,
I will ſave you and your friends that trouble, and
perhaps ſone ſmall expence, by informing you, that,
as I never made the ſubſcription required of all diſ-
fènters before the late act, fo neither have I made
the declaration which that act makes neceſſary to
my legal toleration, nor have I at preſent any inten-
tion to do it.
I ſhall farther inform you, and our readers, that
when it was firſt propoſed in the general body of
diſſenting miniſters in or near London (of which, as I
then reſided pretty much in London, I was a mem-
ber) whether we ſhould deſire our friends in parlia-
ment to promote the paſſing of the bill or not, I
was one of thoſe who voted for our continuing in
our former ſituation ; but we were over-ruled by a
very great majority. The reaſon for my voting in
this manner was, I believe, peculiar to myſelf. I
obſerved, that I had not, on my own account, any
objection to make the declaration propoſed in that
bill, with the exception of a ſingle circumſtance
which I then mentioned, and which we all agreed had
better be omitted, and which accordingly was ſtruck
out before the bill paffed into a law. But I ſaid that
I perceived that many perſons, for whom I had the
greateſt reſpect, had their ſerious ſcruples, and ſuch
I
as
u
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 18:1
as it was probable they would not be able to over-
come; and I thought that the paſſing of the law,
and eſpecially a general compliance with it, would
make them inore noticed, and perhaps bring them
into trouble; whereas, the requiſitions of the former
law were ſo unreaſonable, that though few, if any of
us, had complied with them, it did not appear that
any body would ever moleft us on that account.
For the ſame reaſon that I did not then wiſh for the
law to paſs, I do not now chuſe unneceſſarily to
avail myſelf of it.
But with reſpect to myſelf, and many others, the
thing is of little conſequence. There are laws enow
in this country from the penalties of which the late
act would not exempt us. In this happy land of
religious liberty and toleration, I am liable, at any
time, and without any offence of a civil nature, to
have all my goods confiſcated, and to be impriſoned
for life. But though I think theſe laws moſt ab-
furd and unreaſonable, and that, as a man who has
not diſturbed the peace of his neighbours, I am en-
titled to all the rights of other citizens; ſo that I nei-
ther ought to be moleſted on account of my own reli-
gion, nor compelled to contribute to the ſupport of
that of another perſon, any more than to pay his
phụſician; I think myſelf happy, conſidering how
much more unfriendly to truth civil governments
and civil governors have been, that I am not ex-'
poſed to all the difficulties and hazards that the
apoſtles were expoſed to; and when I cannot ob-
3
tain
N 3
1
and again all that you have to ſay in defence of
182 I ÉT
"Ε Ε Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
tain a legal toleration, I am very thankful for
A
connivance.
You ſay, p. 168, that “ confcientious fcruples
« are no excuſe at all for doing what the law
ç allows not to be done." . In this you totally
miſtake the ground of my conduct. I do not
pretend that it is authorized by the laws of this,
or of any country. It is enough for me if I
think myſelf juſtified by the laws of God; and
whether I ought to obey God, or man, in this caſe,
do
you yourſelf judge.
What would you yourſelf adviſe us unitarians
in this country to do? We have heard again
your trinitarian notions, and trinitarian worſhip,
without any approach towards conviction, and
yet we think it our duty to make a public pro-
feſſion of our unitarian principles, and to adopt
an unitarian form of worſhip. Would you ſeri-
ouſly ſay we ought, with the views of things that
we really have, to keep our opinions to ourſelves,
and have no public' worſhip at all? And yet
between this conduct and our acting more or leſs
openly in oppoſition to you, and incurring the
penalties of the laws now in force again us,
there is no medium.
If you really be a friend to any thing that de-
ſerves the name of toleration, you muſt feel for
isi
the
1
1
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 183
the diſgrace of your country, on account of
the unjuſt and impolitic reſtraints the laws of it
lay upon us, and you will uſe your endeavours
to promote the repeal of all penal laws in matters
of religion, and likewiſe to lay open all civil offices
to all perſons who are qualified to fill thems
which indeed, is no more than is already done in
ſeveral countries in Europe. That thoſe who
prefer the mode of religion now. eſtabliſhed,
ſhould: bear the whole expence of its without
compelling us to aſſiſt them in it, while they do
nothing for ours in return, though a thing per-
fectly reaſonable, is more than I expect the arch-
deacon of St. Albans to countenance. I, how-
ever, live in the firm, belief that even this will,
take place ſome time or other; and my belief is
grounded on this general and glorious truth,
that there is a wiſe and good being at the head
of all affairs, bringing good out of all evil. I
therefore believe that good will finally take
place of all, evil, and conſequently, equity of
injuſtice.
1
You Sir, as. Archdeacon of St. Albans, may
believe that the church of England will continue
to the end of the world, and that all nations (at
leaſt all that ſpeak the Engļiſh language, and can
read the book of Common Prayer in the original)
will flow into it. On the other hand, it is my firm
perſuaſion, that when Babylon. the great, the mother
of harlots, ſhall fall, all her daughters, all the little
Babylons, all the leſſer eſtabliſhments, of what I deem
N4
to
!
j
184 L E T T E R S T O T H E
to be corrupt chriſtianity, will fall with her, or
foon after her; and therefore I apply to them,
as well as to the church of Rome, that awful warn-
ing, Rev. xviii. 4. Come out of her my people, that
ye partake not of her fins, and that ye receive not of
ber plagues.
.
While we unitarians behave as good ſubjects (and I
do not know that we are worſe thought of than other
diffenters in this reſpect) I have ſuch confidence in the
good ſenſe of my countrymen, though without any
particular obligation to yourſelf on this account,
and in the ſpirit of the times (which throughout all
Europe is daily more favourable to freedom of en- .
quiry and toleration, and leſs favourable to old and
corrupt, though venerable establiſhments) that I
have little doubt but that I ſhall be ſuffered to pro-
ceed as I have hitherto done, unmoleſted, promoting
by every means in my power, what I deem to be
important truth, though our legiſlators in the laſt
century. voted it to be herefy and blafphemy.
What our preſent legiſlative body, if the queſtion
was brought before them, would decree, is un-
known; but I am pretty confident that when the
ſubject ſhall come properly before them (and this
may be pretty ſoon) they will be diſpoſed to hear
reaſon, and to do juſtice.
1
From what you ſay of your own freedom of en-
quiry, one would think that you might have treated
us diffenters with a little more reſpect. For after
obſerving that you are much at home in the Greek
language,
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 185
1
language, and that you have read the eccleſiaſtical
hiſtorians, you add, p. 163. “ I had been many
years in the habits of thinking for myſelf upon a
variety of ſubjects, before I opened Dr. Clarke's
s book. There is in moſt men à culpable timidity ;
you and I perhaps have overcome that general
“ infirmity, but there is in moſt men a culpable
« timidity, which inclines them to be eaſily over-
" awed by the authority of great names.” It will
make ſome perſons ſmile to ſee you, Sir, .group
yourſelf with me upon this occaſion, and they may
aſk for ſimilar evidence of your having overcome
this culpable timidity, and of your having really
thought for yourſelf, when they ſee you profeſſing
to believe, and complying with every thing that
thoſe who do not think for themſelves at all, profeſs
to believe and comply with. Your profound ad-
miration of Biſhop Bull's writings is no proof of
your thinking for yourſelf. All that can be inferred
from it is, that you have made a wiſe choice of
maſters. The writer for whom I always profeſs the
greateſt admiration is Dr. Hartley, but I differ
from him in many things, and things alſo of great
conſequence,
1
If however, you ſtill retain the habit of thinking
for yourſelf, allow me to return your civility to me,
when you joined my name, p. 161. to thoſe of
Bolingbroke, Voltaire, and Gibbon, by adding yours
alſo to this liſt of free enquirers, and your fentence
will then cloſe thus, a Gibbon, a Prieſtley, or a
Horſley.
For
986
LETTERS TO THE
!
For my own part, I cannot ſay that I much
diſlike my ſituation, in the light in which I view
the different characters; ſince I find myſelf placed
between an unbeliever on the one hand, and a
bighe churchman on the other. Medio tutiffimus
ibis.
I am, &c.
>
L E T T E R XVIII.
Of the Charge of wilful Miſrepreſentation, &c.
REV. Sir,
As both yourſelf
; and your great and good ally,
Mr. Badcock, have employed ſo much of
your reſpective publications on the ſubject of per-
verſions, wilful miſrepreſentations, artifice, manage-
ment, &c. &c. &c. (for you are at no loſs for
words or phraſes of this import) it may not be
improper to give you one ſhort letter on that
Lubject.
I was willing to hope, that, in this ſecond pub-
lication, you would have obſerved the rules of
decency, and of probability., in your charges
againſt me, and that you might have expreſſed
fome little concern for your former violations of
them,
1
;
You had before
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 187,
them. But I am ſorry to find, that inſtead of re-
trading any thing, you have conſiderably added
to your offences of this kind.
charged me with knowingly miſquoting the
Engliſh tranſlation of the Bible, when, in fact, I
fhould not have gained any thing by it. You
now talk, p. 5. of my deſignedly omitting a ſigni,
ficant adjective, as you ſay, in a quotation from
Athanaſius, when I neither intended to quote,
nor to tranſlate the paſſage, but only referred to,
and gave the general ſenſe of it; and this, I
doubt not was the true one. Yet upon this you
raiſe loud exclamations, concerning truth, can-
dour, conſiſtency, and dealing in ſarcaſms.
'66
You alſo think, with Mr. Badcock, that I
really meant to conceal from the unlearned
part of a quotation from Juſtin Martyr, which
I printed in Greek at full length, and this in a
public controverſy with yourſelf, of whoſe vigi-
lance in this reſpect I could not entertain a doubt.
“ The entire paſſage," you ſay, p. 83. “ as long
as it appears not in your tranſlation, lay inno-
cently enough in the Greek, at the bottom of
your page.” But I muſt have been an ideot in-
deed in plain Engliſh, and ſomething worſe than
the idiota of Tertullian, as well as the bomo nefa-
rius of Biſhop Bull, to have attempted a decep-
tion in theſe circumſtances.
As, in another place, you ſpeak more fully
on the ſubject of my artifice and inſincerity,
enlarge
!
188
Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
LETTERS
enlarge upon the nature of it, and the degree of
its guilt in controverſial writings, I ſhall pro-
duce the paſſage at length, and then give a gene-
ral anſwer to it,
This ap-
• Indeed, Sir," you ſay, p. 159.
« in quoting
" ancient authors when you have underſtood the
* origital, which in many inſtances is not the
" the caſe, you have too often been guilty of
ço much reſerve and management.
pears in ſome inſtances, in which you cannot
« pretend, that your own inadvertency, or your
"printer's, hath given occaſion to unmerited im-
« putations. I wiſh that my complaints upon this
« Kead had been groundleſs : but in juſtice to my
“ own cauſe, I could not ſuffer unfair quotations
il to paſs undetected. God forbid that I ſhould
“ draw any concluſion from this unfeemly prac-
tice, againſt the general probity of your cha-
"racter. But you will allow me to lament that
" men of integrity, in the ſervice of what they
" think a good end, ſhould indulge themſelves
“ To freely as they often do in the uſe of unjuſti-
« fiable means.
Time was, when the practice
" was openly ayowed, and Origen himſelf was
among its defenders. The art which he re-
« commended, he ſcrupled not to employ. I
“ have produced an inſtance, in which, to filence
« an adverſary, he hath recourſe to the wilful
« and deliberate allegation of a notorious falf-
'« hood. You have gone no ſuch length as this.
“ I think you may believe me ſincere, when I
ſpeak
«
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 189
+
“ ſpeak reſpectfully of your worth and integrity,
" notwithſtanding that I find occaſion to charge
you with ſome degree of blame, in a fort in
" which the great character of Origen was more
" deeply infected. Would to God it had been
" otherwiſe. Would to God I could with truth
“ have boaſted To theſe low arts ſtooped Origen,
" but my contemporary, my great antagoniſt, dif-
“ dains them. How would it have heightened
" the pride of victory, could I have found a fair
« occaſion to be thus the herald of my adverſaries
praiſe."
All theſe, Sir, and ſuch like charges of artful,
and therefore highly criminal miſrepreſentation (for
they cannot amount to any thing leſs, notwith-
ſtanding all your qualifying clauſes) which you
and Mr. Badcock are perpetually urging, are in
their own nature, too abſurd to gain any credit,
and therefore can only ſhew that what you want in
argument, you are willing to make up ſome other
way. I have completely vindicated the character
of Origen, which you have endeavoured to blot ;
and as, to myſelf, you are quite at liberty to think
of me juſt as you pleaſe. I am not conſcious of
any unfairneſs whatever in any part of my proceed-
ings, but have a perfect willingneſs to bring before
the public every thing that may enable them to
form a true judgment on the ſubject of this con-
troverſy. : If I knew of any circumſtance favour-
able to your argument, I would produce it as
readily as I ſhould do any thing in favour of my
own;
190
I ÉTTERS TO TO
A
THE
own; and I am as willing to detect my own
miſtakes, as you, or any perſon, can be to do it
for me. For this I appeal to the ténor of all my
writings, and to my general character, which I
will venture to ſay is as fair as yours.
You are pleaſed, indeed, to balance the account
of my wilful miſrepreſentations, &c. with an allow-
ance for the general probity of my charaEter, p. 160.
and a cordial eſteem and affection for the virtues
of it, which, you ſay, are great and amiable. What
you know of my private character I cannot tell ;
but I ſuppoſe not much; and I ſhall not attempt
to balance your account in the ſame manner; for
really of your private character, I know but little,
either good or evil; and therefore I preſume the
former, though the liberties you have taken as a
writer are not very favourable to that preſumption.
But this kind of apology is abfurd; and had I
thought you, or Mr. Badcock, capable of the
things with which you charge me, I ſhould not
your virtues were either great, or
és amiable."
*
fay that «
By way of ſoftening thoſe charges, which ma-
terially affect my moral character, you ſometimes
(though it makes a poor compenſation for defects
of a moral nature) introduce compliments (whether
ſincerely or ironically is equally indifferent to me)
reſpecting merit' of a philoſophical kind. Theſe
afo, for want of information, I am unable to
return. For if I were aſked what improvements
in
2
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
19
1
in fcience the world owes to you, I really could
not tell ; and I think it is very poſſible, that, in
fact, you are as much a ſtranger to my purſuits,
as I am to yours. By this I do not mean to inſinuate
that you have no merit as a mathematician, to
which you make high pretenſions'; but though for
fome years I applied pretty cloſely to the ſtudy of
pure mathematies, and was thought to have made
fome proficiency in them, it was when I had not
the means of employing my time as I now do,
fo that I give but little attention to thoſe matters.
Whatever may be the caſe with you, I find that if
I particularly cultivate one branch of knowledge,
it muſt be at the expence of others. I have there-
fore made my choice of the different objects of
purſuit; and ſhall hardly change it now, except, as
I get older, to circumfcribe my ſtudies ſtill more.
If any thing would juſtify a retort of ſuch charges
of unfairneſs, it would be your readineſs, upon
every ſlight occaſion, to bring them againſt me.
For we do not eaſily ſuſpect others of what we
feel we are incapable of ourſelves. But as I am
conſcious of the utmoſt fairneſs in my own con-
duct, I cannotlightly believe the contrary of
others.
As I obſerved to Mr. Venn, in the firſt theolo:
gical controverſy in which I engaged, p. 9: 5 Ic
s behoves us carefully to diſtinguiſh between a
* latent inſincerity' (the nature and cauſes of which
I there explain) 6. under the influence of which
.
men
192
TO THE
L E T T E R S
1
men deceive themſelves, and that direct preva-
“ rication, with which thoſe who are engaged in
" debate are too ready to charge one another, as
“ 'if their adverſaries knowingly concealed, or op-
“ poſed the truth. This is a crime of ſo heinous
a nature, that I ſhould be very unwilling to
“ impute it to any perſon whatever."
therefore unwilling to charge it on you, or Mr.
Badcock, notwithſtanding ſome appearances might
feem to juſtify me in it.
I am
I am the moſt puzzled to account for the ſtrange
and improbable hiſtory that you, Sir, have given
of a church of orthodox Jews ar Jeruſalem, after
the time of Adrian, and the ſeries of hiſtorical
fakts, as you have the aſſurance to call them, for
which it is not poſſible that you ſhould have any
authority, in ancient or even in modern writers;
and yet had you yourſelf been preſent at the fur-
render of the place, and had drawn up the terms
of capitulation, you could not have given a more
diſtinct and poſitive account. But the fact, I be-
lieve, was, that, without any examination of
your
own, you took it for granted, from the authority
of Mofheim (who had no authority for it himſelf)
that one leading circumſtance was true, and then
concluded that the other circumſtances, which you
have added, and therefore knew that you added,
muſt have been fo too. On this you have not heſi-
tated to relate the whole in one continued narra-
tive, juſt as if you had been copying from ſome
hiſtorian of the time ; and Origen, who lived in thoſe
times,
1
ARGHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 19%
times, and in the very country, and whoſe veracity
was 'never queſtioned before, is treated, without cere-
mony, as a wilful liar, becauſe he has given a
different account of things.
As it has been very much "my object to trace
effeEts to their cauſes, and I conſider the human
mind, and conſequently all human actions, to be
ſubject to laws, as regular as thoſe which operate
in niny laboratory (for want of knowing or attending
to which, Mr. Gibbon has egregiouſly failed in his
account of the cauſes of the ſpread of chriſtianity,
and you in this controverſy) I had framed an hypo-
thefis to account for Mr. Badcock's cenfure of
what I ſaid concerning Eufebius, but not being
quite ſatisfied with it, I rejected it. However,
notwithſtanding ſtrong appearances, I am ſtill wil-
ling to hope, that the miſrepreſentation, though
exceedingly groſs, was not directly wilful.
I am, &c.
1
1
3
LETTER
194
:: LETTERS TO THE
I
L E T T E R
XIX.
1
Miſcellaneous articles, and the Concluſion.
Rev. Sir,
DIs
ISPOSED as you are to make the moſt of
every trifling overſight that you can diſcover
in my Hiſtory, and of every conceſſion that I make
to you, I ſtill have no objection to acknowledge
any real miſtake that I have fallen into, important
or unimportant"; and I ſhall certainly correct all
ſuch in any future edition of my work, and like-
wiſe, as far as I am able, in the tranſlations that
are making of it into foreign languages. I ſhall
now make two acknowledgments, and let our
readers judge of their importance; and how little
my Hiſtory loſes for want of being perfectly correct
in thoſe particulars.
I had ſaid that “ Valeſius was of opinion that
" the hiſtory of Hegeſippus was neglected and
« loft, becauſe it was obſerved to favour the uni-
“ tarian doctrine," whereas I ſhould have ſaid,
“ on account of the errors which it contained, and
" that thoſe errors could not be ſuppoſed to be any
other than thoſe of the uniscans ;” and if I had
conſulted the paffage at the time, I certainly ſhould
have expreſſed myſelf in that more cautious manner.
But
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 195
1
But of what conſequence is this circumſtance to
my great argument ? Mr. Badcock, having looked
for the paſſage to which I refer, and not being
able to find it, ſeems to have imagined that I
had no ſuch paſſage to produce. He therefore
after his infolent manner, challenges me to pro-
duce it, and to put him to ſhame. That I be-
lieve to be impoſſible, otherwiſe it would have
been effectually done in my Remarks on the Montbly
Review ; at leaſt, by my notice of his moſt ſhame-
ful conduct with reſpect to my cenfure of Euſebius,
p. 21, of which he ſays nothing at all in his Letter
I ſuppoſe he thought it not to be regarded.
However the paſſage which I refer to, and whichi
fufficiently anſwers my purpoſe, is as follows:
“ Moreover, thoſe books of Clement contained
“ a ſhort and compendious expoſition of both
" the teſtaments, as Photius in his Bibliotheca
6 witneſſes ; but on account of the errors with
“ which they abounded, being negligently kept,
they were ať length loft; nor was there any
« other reaſon, in my opinion, why the books
“ of Papias, Hegeſippus, and others of the anci-
“
ents are now loſt *."
to me.
!
You, Sir, however have obſerved this paſſage,
and you ſay, p. 4. “ Valeſius has indeed ex-
* Porro ii Clementis libri continebant brevem & compen-
diariam utriuſque teſtamenti expofitionem, ut teſtatur Photius
in Bibliotheca. Ob errores autem quibus ſcatebant, negligentius
habiti, tandem perierunt. Nec alia, meo quidem judició,
caufa eft, cur Papiæ & Hegeſippi, aliorumque veterum libri,
interciderint. In Euſeb. Hift. Iib. y, cap. II.
«
preſſed
O 2
196 LETTERS TO THE
preſſed an opinion that the work of Hegefippus
" was neglected by the ancients, on account of
" errors which it contained. But what the errors
“ might be which might occaſion this neglect is
© à point upon which Valefius is filent. And
« what right have you to ſuppoſe that the unita-
trian doctrine was the error which Valefius.
“afcribed to Hegeſippus more than to Clemens
© Alexandrinus, upon whoſe laſt work of the
“ Hypotypoſes he pafſes the ſame judgment.
1 anſwer, that there were no errors of any commi
fequence aſcribed to that early age beſides thoſe of
the Gnoftics, and of the unitarians. The former
certainly were not thoſe that Valeſius could allude
to with refpect to Hegeſippus, becauſe this writer
mentions the Gnoſtics very particularly as heretics,
but makes no mention of unitarians at all; though
they certainly exiſted, and I doubt not conſtituted
the great body of unlearned chriſtians in his time;
which is one circumſtance that, together with his
being a fewiſh chriſtian (all of whom are expreſsly
ſaid to have been Ebionites, and none of them
to have believed the divinity of Chriſt) leads.
me to conclude that he was an unitarian himſelf.
Though Clemens Alexandrinus was not an unita-
rian, yet he never calls unitarians beretics; and
ſince in his accounts of heretics in general, which
are precty frequent in his works, he evidently means
the Gnoſtics only, and therefore virtually excludes
unitarians from that deſcription of men; it is by no
means improbable but that, in thofe writings of
his
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
197
1
his which are loft, he might have ſaid things
directly in favour of unitarians.
In this paſſage Valeſius alſo mentions the writ-
ings of Papias, as having, in his opinion, been loft
for the ſame reaſon. Now Papias has certainly
been ſuppoſed to be an Ebionite. Mr. Whiſton has
made this very probable from a variety of circumn-
ſtances. See his Account of the ceaſing of miracles,
p. 18. In the ſame tract' he gives his reaſons for
ſuppoſing Hegeſippus to have been an Ebionite,
and he expreſſes his wonder,' “ that he ſhould have
“ had the good fortune to be ſo long eſteemed by
“ the learned for a catholic," p. 21, &c. In this
Mr. Whifton may be ſuppoſed to have been ſuffi-
ciently impartial, as he was an Arian, and expreſſes
great diſlike of the Ebionites; as, indeed, Arians
always have done.
I alſo acknowledge that I ought not to have
exempted Epiphanius (as you have obſerved, p. 46
though with more ſeverity than the caſe required)
from the impropriety of charging Noetus with
being a Patripaffian. But this alſo is a circum-
ſtance of as little conſequence to the main argu-
ment as the former, though my negligence with
reſpect to it, I frankly own, was greater. I had
myſelf diſcovered the miſtake, and ſhould have
corrected it, if your Letters to me had never ap-
peared. That the Patripallian notion was inju:
riouſly charged upon the unitarians of antiquity
is ſufficiently ſhewn by Beaufobre, who was him.
O 3
felf
?
1
1
198
L ETTERS TO THE
felf a trinitarian, and a man of learning if ever
there was one.
This charge was ſo common that,
without any proper evidence whatever, all the uni-
tarians are called Patripaflians by one writer or
other. Optatus even fays that Ebion, the fup-
poſed father of the Ebionites, was a Patripaſſian*,
though no early writer who mentions the Ebionites
ſays any ſuch thing of them.
I'muſt, however, acknowledge that you have
one juſt cauſe of triumph over me, and all the
friends of free enquiry ; but this alſo, as with re-
ſpect to every other advantage which you have
gained, you exult in too much, and make too
great account of. The Monthly Review, which
was formerly in our favour, is now completely
yours. Your Charge, which contains the higheſt
orthodoxy, and diſcovers the greateſt ſpirit of church
authority of any production in this age, has been
examined before that tribunal, and been honoured
with an unqualified approbation. And as to your
preſent publication, which has no leſs merit of the
fame kind, its praiſes, I doubt not, are already ſung,
or at leaſt ſet to muſic, and the whole choir of Re-
viewers, who have been unanimous in their con-
dein nation of me, are ready to join the chorus on
this occaſion.
You plead your right, p. 78. to make the moſt
of this your new acquiſition; and in this you think
* Ut Hebion qui argumentabatur patrem paſſum effe, non
filium. Lib. iv. p. 91,
ܪ
yourſelf
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. A I.BANS. 199
.
yourſelf juſtified by my conduct in the publication
of finall and cheap pamphlets, for the purpoſe of
diſſeminating my principles among the lower and
poorer claſs of people, though, in my opinion, the
two caſes are very different indeed. This poſt,
however, which we were once in poffeffion of, you
and your friends have now got, and it is not to be
fuppoſed that you will aſk our leave what uſe to
make of it; ſo that we muſt yield with as good a
grace as we can, and endeavour to make our ground
good elſewhere.
II:
One of your curious proofs of my ignorance,
and of my being entirely unqualified to write the
hiſtory of early times, is iny not being acquainted
with the opinions of ſome modern writers, and thoſe
either difficult to procure, or ſuch as could have
been of little uſe to me, if I had known them. I
acknowledged that I had not heard of D. Zuicker,
I did not know what Epiſcopius, Petavius, or Hue-
tius, thought on a particular ſubject, and I had not
read your great authority, biſhop Bull.
" What is
“this," you ſay, p. 7. “ but to confeſs that you are
- indeed little redde in the principal writers, either
“ on your own ſide of the queſtion or the oppoſite.
“ But as no man, I preſume, is born with an intui-
“tive knowledge of the opinions, or the facts, of
“ paſt ages, the hiſtorian of religious corruptions,
“confeſſing himſelf unredde in the polemical di-
s vines, confeſſes ignorance of his ſubject. You
04
“ repel
200
LETTERS TO THE
1
!
“ repel the imputation of plagiariſm by the moſt
diſgraceful confeſſion of ignorance, to which foiled
“polemic:ever was reduced.??
Now the probability is, that iny reading in
polemical divinity is much more extenſive than
yours. : But if it had been ten times greater
than it is, I do not know whether, inſtead of
being advantageous, it might not have been of
diſſervice to me, in aſcertaining the ſtate of
things in the early ages, to the knowledge of
which theſe authors had no better acceſs than
myſelf. You yourſelf, I am pretty confident,
have formed your opinions on theſe ſubjects
chiefly from modern writers; and it has been by
this means, and by the help of your fertile ima-
gination, as I have ſhewn, that you have been ſo
miſerably miſled as you have been.
111.
You and Mr. Badcock both pride yourſelves
in
your knowledge of the Greek language, and
you inſult me, and my Vindicator, for our ignor-
ance of it. But to criticize others is the eaſieſt
road to fame. In the ſame way you might ſet
yourſelf up even againſt Caſaubon, Scaliger, or
Bently, to, whom you acknowledge, P: 58. that
you " ſtand bowing at a diſtance:" for the greateſt
ſcholars ſometimes make great miſtakes.
Out of the nuínber of citations that I have
made, is it extraordinary that two or three, anđ
thoſe
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
201
far ex-
!
thoſe of no great conſequence, ſhould have been
found in ſome degree faulty? You and your
ally have had no occaſion to produce many, and
writing in controverſy, would naturally be more
guarded ; and yet your errors in this way
ceed mine. Concerning one of theſe, you ſay,
p. 15. " the words are ſo very clear, that the
“ the ſenſe was hardly to be miſſed at firſt ſight,
by a ſchool boy in the ſecond year of Greek.
What, then, will be ſaid of the man who can
tranſlate idiota, ideot, who can argue from $10 as
neceſſarily referring to a perſon (for if this was
not your meaning, it was impertinent to alledge
it at all) and cenſure me for rendering ei am TAVE *.
by to nothing but ? And what can you ſay in excuſe
for your learned ally tranflating αλλοι γαρ καθ' αλλον
sporov, others upon anorber plan, inſtead of ſome in
one way and others in another, on which he founds
the moſt improbable and malignant of all his ac-
cuſations againſt me, for concealment, wilful perver-
fron, &c.? And what can you ſay for the apology
he has made for his blunder, when he only
allows that the words may be more accurately ren-
dered as I have done; whereas, every perſon
who is at all acquainted with Greek, muſt know
that, in that connexion, and eſpecially if the
force of the particle gap be attended to, the
phraſe will not bear any other rendering ? A
writer who aſſumes ſo much as he has done, and
who has treated my Vindicator, on the ſubject of
Greek, with a degree of infolence that exceeds
any
*
1
202
THE
L E T T E R S TO
any thing that I have met with, and yet has him.
ſelf blundered in this manner, ought to kiſs the
rod, if not, without a figure, to feel it, and take
foame to himſelf. His friends, however, if he have
any, muſt bluſh for hiin.
1
Though from the age of ſeventeen to twenty-
ſeven, I believe, I read as much Greek as almoſt
any man can be ſuppoſed to have read in the
fame time, and after that taught it nine years, the
laſt fix of them at Warrington, and chiefly the
higher Greek claffics (for the elements of the
language' were not taught in that academy) I
do not pretend ever to have been properly at
bome in the language. I mean ſo as to read
it with the ſame eaſe, with which it is com-
mon to read Latin or French (indeed I have not
yet met with any man who pretended that he could
do this) and having given leſs attention to that
language ſince I have had the means of employ-
ing my time better, your Scotch correſpondent
may be right in obſerving, p. 182, that I am but
very moderately ſkilled in it, and at my time of life,
my acquaintance with it is not likely to improve.
However, ſuch as it is, I ſhall make the beſt uſe
that I can of it in the larger work on which I am now
employed. It is poſſible, however, that I might
make but a bad exchange of the remains of my
Greek literature for ' yours, or that of your
Scorch correſpondent.
?
IV.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 203
1
1
o tained not, under all our differences,, a very
IV.
You are pleaſed to make ſome apology for
your baughty ſtyle, and the contemptuous airs you
gave yourſelf, both with reſpect to Diffenters, and
to your own inferior Clergy. To what I obſerved
on this ſubject, you now ſay, p. 158, “ it might
“ be a ſufficient, and not an unbecoming reply, to
“ remind you that I ſpoke ex cathedra, and hold
" myſelf accountable for the advice which I
gave
“to no human judicature, except the King, the
“ metropolitan, and my dioceſan. This would
“ indeed, be the only anſwer, which I ſhould
« condeſcend to give to any one for whom I re-
?
s conſiderable degree of perſonal eſteem. But
as Dr. Prieſtley is my adverſary, in ſome points
"I could wiſh to ſet him right, and in ſome I
sc deſire to explain.'
A great part of this apology was, indeed, Sir;
quite unneceſſary, as no perſon can read your
Charge and doubt your having delivered it ex
cathedra. The inferior, the far inferior clergy,
to whom it was addreſſed, were, I preſume, fully
ſenſible of it. The only queſtion is, whether
you ever think that you are not ſpeaking ex
cathedra. Pleaſe, however, to remember that I
am not one of thoſe to whom you have any right
to ſpeak in that manner, and that I do not hold
myſelf accountable to any metropolitan, or dio-
ceſan, or even to the king, or any perfon or poten-
tate on earth, in matters of religion. . Alſo while
I have
904
TO THE
LETTERS
1
I have " credit enough (p. 171.) to collect," or
to find,
a congregation,” I ſhall preach, without
applying to your church, or the church of Rome,
for boly orders; and I ſhall think my conventicle
as reputable a place for preaching as any of your
churches; though you, p. 169. think it arrogant
in me to make the compariſon between them.
V.
I can hardly believe that I am living in the cloſe
of the eighteenth century, when I read what you
fay in this publication concerning the dignity and
the power of the prieſthood, derived by regular
fucceffion, p. 171. from the apoſtles, and of courſe
through the Popes, and find that you ſeriouſly
diſallow of my authority to exerciſe the ſacred
function, &c. As a curioſity, in the year 1784,
I am tempted to give my reader a pretty long
extract from your work on this ſubject. After
enumerating the miſchiefs that you ſay, p. 170.
you have ſeen in your own country, in the courſe
of your own life, you add, “ When I conſider
" that the root of all thoſe evils has been the
“ prevalency of a principle, of which you ſeem
“diſpoſed to be an advocate, that every man
who has credit enough to collect a congregation
“ has a right, over which the magiſtrate cannot
“ without tyranny exerciſe controul, to celebrate
“.divine worſhip, according to his own form,
" and to propagate his own opinions; I am in-
? clined to be jealous of a principle which has
proved,
ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBANS. 205
1
" proved, I had alınoft faid, fo ruinous; and I
“ lean the more to the opinion, that the com-
« miſſion of a miniſtry, perpetuated by regular
“ ſucceſſion, is ſomething more than a dream of
“ cloyſtered gownſmen, or a tale impoſed upon
« the vulgar, to ſerve the ends of avarice and
" ambition. For whatever confuſion human folly
may admit, a divine inſtitution muſt have within
“ itſelf a proviſion for harmony and order. And,
upon thoſe principles, though I wiſh that all
.“ indulgence ſhould be ſhewn to tender conſciences,
“ and will ever be an advocate for the largeſt to-
o leration that may be conſiſtent with political
- wiſdom (being indeed perfuaded that the re-
< ftraints of human laws muſt be uſed with the
“ greateſt gentleneſs and moderation to be rendered
means of ſtrengthening the bonds of chriſtian
peace and amity) yet I could wiſh to plant a
principle of ſevere reftaint in the conſciences of
6 men. I could wiſh that the importance of the
“ miniſterial office were conſidered, that the prac-
“ tice of antiquity were regarded, and that it might
“ not ſeem a matter of perfect indifference to the
“ laity, to what houſe of worſhip they reſort. I
“ cannot admit that every aſſembly of grave and
“ virtuous men, in which grave and virtuous men
“ take upon them to officiate, is to be dignified
.“ with the appellation of a church, &c.
That theſe doctrines, which will juſtify all the
violence of the church of Rome, and which condemn
the reformation, ſhould be maintained by a proteſtane
divine
!
2
906
1 Ε' Τ Τ Ε R S Τ Ο Τ Η Ε
divine at this day is rather extraordinary. I can
almoſt fancy that the dial of Ahaz has once more
gone back, and brought us to the time of Dr. Sache-
verel, if not that of Archbiſhop Laud. But were I,
in my turn, to make an enumeration of the com-
plicated miſchiefs that have ariſen both to the cauſe
of chriſtianity, and the peace of ſociety, from church
eſtabliſhments (but it would be digreſſing too far
from the object of this controverſy to do it) it
would ſoon appear that it was high time that this
boaſted alliance between the CHURCH and the STATE
was entirely broken ; as it has proved infinitely in-
jurious to both the contracting parties, though occa-
fionally uſeful to thoſe churchmen and ſtateſmen who;
to ſerve the purpoſes of their own ambition, had
drawn the contract.
When I contemplate the dignity you aſſume as
Archdeacon, and the high tone of your whole per
formance, fuperior to any thing on niy ſhelves, I
wonder that you ſhould profeſs any reſpect for ten-
der conſciences at all. I find, however, that the
reſpect you profeſs for difſenters, is only for thofe
who are favoured by the laws; ſo that our obliga-
tions to you are not great'; nor do you think there
is any impropriety in the reſtraints of human laws
in matters of religion, only you would have themi
uſed, p. 171. with gentleneſs and moderation. How
far this gentleneſs and moderation would go, if you
really thought the church in danger, I cannot tell.
I am, therefore, happy that you are ſo eaſy on that
account, as you repreſent yourſelf, p. 8.
You
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 207
1
You are pleaſed, however, though in no perfect
conſiſtence with what you ſay of the powers of the
prieſtbood, as derived by ſucceſſion from the apoſtles,
to ſay, p. 161. “ You will remember that I make
" the learning and the piety of her clergy, of which
“ample monuments are extant, the baſis of her
“ pre-eminence.” I have no diſpoſition to detract
from the learning or the piety there may be among
you; but as you celebrate your own praiſes, I
will take the liberty to obſerve, that, allowance
being made for your fuperior numbers, and ſu-
perior advantages, with reſpect to conveniences
for ſtudy, from which, by a policy as weak as it
is illiberal, you exclude difſenters (thinking, per-
haps, to make us deſpicable, by keeping us in
ignorance) I do not think that the body of dif-
fenting miniſters, with all their diſadvantages,
need be afraid of a compariſon with you ; and
candid perſons among the clergy have acknow-
ledged the benefit you have derived from us;
not to ſay that you are indebted to us for ſome
of
your greateſt ornaments, as Tillotſon, Butler,
and Secker:
In what you ſay of Dr. Chandler(whoſe infir-
mity, and I inay add, whoſe misfortune, it was to
pay too much court to leading men, both in the
church and in the ſtate) viz. that he preferred the
church of England to any other eſtabliſhment of
chriſtianity, p. 161, it would be no great com-
pliment from me, if I ſhould ſay it after him.
But I really cannot do it; and if I could adopt
your
3"
208
LETTERS, Scico
1
your idea of the tranſmiſſion of the powers of
the prieſthood from the apoſtles, and was to con-
form to any eſtabliſhment; I ſhould chuſe to be
member of a much older and more venerable
eſtabliſhment than yours, and in which the claimi
to that valuable fucceffion ſhould be lefs liable
to litigations :
As to yourſelf in particular, who are fo proud
of being a churchman, it would have been happy
for the public, and likewiſe a particular ſatiſ-
faction to myſelf, if you had had a greater
Mhäre of that learning of which you think your
church poffeffed. More information would then
have been given to our readers by both of ús; and
at leaſt I might have been able to ſay, with the
perſon who examined Dr. Clarke, Probe me exer-
cuiffi.; All I can now ſay is, that I have made:
ſome uſe of your ignorance, though I ſhould
have made more of your knowledge, to throw
light on the ſubject of our diſcuſſion. My taſke.
has been much too eaſy, but I would willingly.
have done more, if there had been any occaſion
for it, or indeed a propriety in it.
1
I am, Sir,
Your very humble ſervant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BIRMINGHAM,
September, 1784.
.
APPENDIX
!
1
!
1
!
Α Ρ Ρ Ε Ν DI X.
1
The firſt of the following paragraphis, which
was to have been the laſt of Letter Viif.
P. 79, having been overlooked at the time
of printing; I have thought proper to give it
in this place, and to add to it all that fol
lows:
1
ADMITTING that the apoſtles had taughě
any doctrines of a peculiarly ſublime na
ture, and above the comprehenſion of ordinary
chriſtians; yet; as all their teaching was in pub-
lic, and there were no ſecrets among them, nothing
correſponding to the myſteries of the heathens, the
common people muſt have heard of theſe ſub-
lime things, and háve been accuſtomed to the
found of the language in which they were ex-
preſſed; and they would have learned to reſpect
what they could not underſtand. They could
řever have been offended, and ſtaggered at things
which they, and their fathers before thém, had
always been in the hearing of:
Beſides, this argument for the novelty of the
doctrine of the trinity from the offence that was
P
given
1
210
A' P P E N D I X,
!
!
given by it, in the time of Tertullian, when, as
far as I can find, the common people firſt heard
of it; that this claſs of perſons were generally
unitarians before, and even after, the council of
Nice, appears pretty clearly from ſeveral circum-
ſtances in the hiſtory of thoſe times. Beſides,
that we do not read of any of the laity being
excommunicated along with Noetus, Paul of
Samoſara, or Photinus (though unitarians are
acknowledged to have been in great numbers
in their days, and to have been in cominu-
nion with the catholic church) when the two
laſt were depoſed from their fees, the common
people were their friends. After the biſhops
had depoſed Paul of Samofata, he could not be
expelled from the epiſcopal houſe till the aid of
the emperor Aurelian was called in, and he may
be ſuppoſed to have been offended at him, for his
having been in the intereſt of his rival Zenobia.
This could not have been neceſſary, if the ma-
jority of his people had not been with him, and
therefore, if his depoſition had not, in fact, been
unjuft:
'
$
As to Photinus, he was fo popular in his
dioceſe, that his ſolemn depoſition by threę
councils could not remove him from his ſee,
« He defended hiinſelf,” ſays Tillemont (Hira
tory of the Arians, Vol. I. p. 116). againſt the
"authority of the church, by the affection which
« his
s
APPENDIX
CII
$C
« his people had for him, even to the year 351 ;
ri though his hereſy began to appear as early
342, or 343, according to Socrates, and the
« Eufebians condemned it in one of their con-
“ feſſions of faith, in 345." At length the em-
peror Conſtantius, a zealous Arian, thought it ne-
ceſſary to interfere, and get him baniſhed in a
council held at Sirmium itſelf. I may add, that
Marcellus of Ancyra left Galatia full of uni-
tarians, as Bafil afterwards found to his coſt.
Had the body of chriſtians in thoſe times been
generally trinitarians, we diſſenters, who are .
pretty much in the ſame ſituation with unita-
rians in thoſe times, not having the countenance.
of
government, know well how ready the com-
mon people would have been to take an active
part in thoſe affairs.
“Sabellianiſm,” which was preciſely the ſame
thing with unitarianiſin in former times, Dr. Lard-
ner ſays (Credibility, Vol. IV. p. 606) “ muſt
“ have been very agreeable to the apprehenſions
" of many people. Euſebius' ſpeaks of its in-
creaſing very much in Egypt, when Dionyſius
“ of Alexandria oppoſed it. According to Atha-
“ naſius, the occaſion of Dionyfius writing
upon that head, was, that ſome of the biſhops
of Africa followed the dočtrine of Sabellius, and
they prevailed to ſuch a degree, that the Son of
"God was ſcarce any longer preached in the churches.”
P2
IC
.
R!?
A P. P E N D I X.
1
It is alfo remarkable that the firſt treatiſe that
was ever written againſt the unitarian doctrine was
that of Tertullian againſt Praxeas, with whom
he was particularly provoked, on account of the
active part he had taken againſt Montanus, in
getting him excommunicated and expelled froin
the church of Rome. This, ſays Le Sueur, was
the cauſe of the bitterneſs with which Tertullian
wrote againſt him.--Now there were treatiſeş
againſt the Gnoſtics in a much earlier period.
Why then were none written againit the unita-
rians, fince pure unitarianiſin was certainly as
old as Gnofticiſin; and if it had been deemned a
kereſy at all, it would certainly have been thought
to be of the moſt alarming nature, as it is con-
fidered at preſent? In the opinions of thoſe
who are now called orthodox, the Gnoſtics thought
much more honourably of Chriſt than the uni-
tarians did. The unitarians were likewiſe much
more numerous, and in the borom of the church
itfelf; a circumſtance which might be expected
to render them peculiarly obnoxious.
2
A P P E N D I. X:
213
1
No. 11.
I Shall extend this Appendix, in order to ob
ſerve that, to the many falſe charges and in
ſinuations of Dr. Horſley, which are noticed in
the preceding Letters, he has added another
to exculpate himſelf for the contempt which he
had expreſſed of diffenters. co If you are ſtill,'
he fays, p. 172." “ diſpoſed to be indignant about
" this harmleſs, word” (conventicle) “recol-
" lect, I beſeech you, with what reſpect you
“ have yourſelf treated the venerable body to
" which I belong, the clergy of the eſtabliſh-
“ ment. You divide it into two claſſes only;
" the ignorant and the infincere. Have I no ſharé
“ in this opprobrium of my order? Have I no
right to be indignant in my turn?”
I do not pretend to recollect all that I have
written, but I have ſuch a conſciouſneſs of never
having meant, or intended to ſay, what Dr. Horney
here charges me with, that I will venture to
affert, that he cannot have any more authority
for this, than for the privileges granted to the
Jewiſh chriſtians of Jeruſalein on their abandon-
ing the ceremonies of their old religion. That
many of the clergy aré ignorant, none can deny;
becauſe it is true of every body of clergy in the
world;
ܙܝܝܝܚܢ
!
1
214.
Α Ρ Ρ Ε Ν DI X.
world; and that ſome are inſincere, may alſo with-
out great uncharitableneſs, be ſuppoſed of any
large body of men. Of one kind of inſincerity
the fact is too evident to be denied of ſeveral
of the members of the church of England. For
no man can be ſincere in profeſſing to believe
what he openly writes againſt. And are there
not perſons in communion with the church of
England, who publicly controvert the articles of
it; which articles, while they continue in the
church, and eſpecially if they officiate in it, they
virtually profeſs to believe. That many are
both learned and ſincere, I have acknowledged
with reſpect to the clergy of the church of Rome,
and I think I could hardly ſay leſs of thoſe of
the church of England. I ſhall, therefore, con-
ſider this charge of Dr. Horſley, as a mere ca-
lumny, till he ſhall produce ſome evidence for it;
and if, in any of my writings, he can find ſuffi-
cient authority for his accuſation, I here retract
what I advanced, and aſk pardon for it.
!
The learning of many divines in the church of
Rome, and that of England, I have never de-
nied. Biſhop Hurd I have ſtiled learned and able,
though, in my opinion, nothing can be weaker
than his reaſoning on the ſubject of church eſta-
bliſhments. As to fincerity, I have always been
ready to acknowledge it, with reſpect to both
the churches. As one proof of this, I ſhall
quote a paſſage from the Sermon I preached on
Accepting the paftoral office in this place, p. 30.
- Think
2
+
A P P E N D I X.
215
ộc Think not that the moſt fervent zeal for what
6 are apprehended to be the genuine doctrines of
so the goſpel is at all inconſiſtent with true chrif-
“ tian charity, which always judges of particular
perſons according to the advantages they have
enjoyed, and of the final ſtate of men by their
fincerity only. And for my own part, I have
“ no doubt, but that, though the church of
“ Rome be the proper Antichriſt of the apoſtles,
not only innumerable zealous papiſts, but
“ even ſome popes themſelves, and ſince the re-
“ formation, will fit down with Luther, with Cal-
« vin, and with Socinus, in the kingdom of our
" Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt. Known unto
" God alone are the hearts of men ; and the
" man who honeſtly purſues truth, and who
“ acts according to the beſt lights that God
gives him an opportunity of acquiring, will be
the whoin the God of truth and uprightneſs will
so approve;
and none will ſuffer a greater or
şi more juſt condemnation than thoſe who hold
“ the truth in unrighteouſneſs. Much rather would
.“ I be in the caſe of many worthy perſons in the
“ church of England, or the church of Rome,
“ who at the ſame time that they are fully fen-
“ fible of the corruptions and errors of the ſyſtem
« in which they are entangled, are not able to
$f break their chains, than, from a ſpirit the re-
« verſe of that of the goſpel, make an improper
“ uſe of my own liberty by inſulting them.”
66
Will
16
À P E N D I X.
cament
Will Dr. Horſley himfelf ſay this after me?
With reſpect to real candour, few, I think, will
go greater lengths than I have done. He charges
me with many inſtances of wilful miſrepreſentation,
which is certainly a charge of inſincerity; whereas I
have not charged him with any, though I might
have done it with inuch greater appearance of
reaſon With reſpect to ignorance, viz. of whát
relates to the ſubject of this controverſy, with
which he likewiſe repeatedly charges me, I own
that I return the accufation, and let our readers
judge between us.
1
Ia
1
:
Α Ρ Ρ Ε Ν΄ D Ι. Χ.
217
.
No. 111.
HAVING ſhewn theſe Letters to ſome of my
friends, and been favoured with their re-
marks, I wiſh to add the following explanations.
1
I. P. 30. A paſſage has been pointed out to me
in Grotius (Opera, vol. II. p.5.) in which he ſpeaks
of the Nazarenes as “holding the common faith .
“ of other chriſtians with reſpect to Chrift,
s which the Ebionites did not." But as the
opinion of the Ebionites, of which he is there
ſpeaking, was that Chriſt was the ſon of Joſeph,
all that can be inferred from the paffage, is that,
in his opinion, the Nazarenes differed from the
Ebionites by believing the doctrine of the mira-
culous conception. By the common faith of cbrif-
tians, in that early age (ſuppoſing him to have
had a view to the doctrine concerning Chriſt,
more extenſively conſidered) Grotius, no doubt,
meant his own opinion, which was far from
that high orthodoxy, which Dr. Horſley afcribes
to the Nazarenes.
Grotius alſo ſays that “it is well obſerved
by Sulpitius Severus, that all the Jewiſh chriſ-
“ tians till the time of Adrian, held that Chriſt
“was God, though they obſerved the law of .
Moſes,” in the paſſage which I have quoted
R
from
1
218
Α Ρ Ρ Ε Ν Ο Ι Χ.
from him, p. 41.
But the ſenſe in which Gto
tius underſtood the term God in this place, muſt
be explained by his own ſentiments concerning
Chriſt. As to Sulpitius himſelf, he muſt be
conſidered as having ſaid nothing more than
that “ almoſt all the Jews at Jeruſalem were chrif-
nians, though they obſerved the law of Moſes."
This writer's mere affertion that the Jewiſh
chriſtians held Chriſt to be God, in the proper
ſenſe of the word, unſupported by any reaſons for
it, is even leſs to be regarded than that of Euſe-
bius.
II. The latter part of the quotation from
Chryſoſtom, 'p. 93. will admit of a tranſlation
more favourable to my purpoſe, by introducing
a parentheſis, and a note of interrogation, as
follows: “How could men who were then firſt
“ taken froin their altars, idols, &c. (for ſuch
was the worſhip of the heathens) and being
" then firſt brought off from theſe abominations,
“ readily receive ſublime doctrines ?”
.
.
A CATALOGUE
L E T T E R S
TO
.
DR.
H o R S LE : Y.
PART
III.
1
CONTAINING
AN ANSWER TO HIS REMARKS ON
LETTERS,
PART II.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED
Strictures on Mr. Howe's Ninth Number of Obſervations
on Books ancient and modern
.
By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.
&
INFÉLIX! QUÆ TANTA ANIMUM DEMENTIA CEPIT?
NON VIRES ALIAS, CONVERSAQUE NUMINA SENTIS?
VIRGIL.
{
BIRMINGHAM
PRINTED BY PEARSON AND ROLL A SON, FOR
J. JOHNSON, NO. 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, LONDON.
MDCCLXXXVI.
(Price One Shilling and Six-pence.)
1
{
1
1
..
Τ Η Ε
C Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ S.
Page
.
An introduétory Letter
I
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R.
I.
!
Of the veracity of Origen
3
L E T T E R
II.
General Obſervations relating to the fup-
poſed orthodox church of Jewiſh chrif-
tians at Yeruſalem, after the time of
Adrian
15
L E T T E R III.
Of the teſtimony of Epiphanius to the exiſt.
ence of a church of Orthodox Jewiſh
Cbriſtians at Yeruſalem, after the time
of Adrian
21
A 2
LETTER
1
CONI E N I S.
1
L E T 'T E R IV.
Of the Evidence from Jerom in favour of
the exiſtence of a church of Orthodox
Jewiſh Chriſtians at Jeruſalem after the
time of Adrian
25
1
V.
35
L E T T E R
Of the Miraculous Conception
i
LE
E T T E R
Miſcellaneous articles
i
VI.
39
Remarks on Mr. Howes's ninth Number of
Obſervations on Books ancient and modern 56
1
!
T HE
1
Τ Η Σ
PRE FACE.
WI
HEN, in the advertiſment of my
Hiſtory of early Opinions concerning
Chrift, I pledged myſelf to fhew, that Dr..
Horſley's Remarks on my Letters to him
were " as defective in argument, as they
" are in temper," I did not mean that I
would animadvert upon them immediately,
or very ſoon; but intended to wait till I
Thould hear what would be objected to that
larger work, and then reply to him and
others at the ſame time. I found, how-
ever, that the advertiſement had raiſed a
general expectation of a ſpeedy reply to Dr.
Horſley in particular; and being unwil-
ling to diſappoint any expectations I had
even unintentionally excited, and more un.
willing to appear deſirous of ſhrinking
from this diſcuſſion, I have done at preſent
what
vi
PRE FACE.
what many of my friends will probably
think might as well have been deferred a
while longer.
,
..
Beſides, as Dr. Horſley's Remarks were
written before he had ſeen my large Hiſtory,
I thought it might not be amiſs, in this
manner, to cloſe the firſt aɛt in our drama;
the ſecond being reſerved for what may be
occaſioned by that work, which will pro-
bably be much more conſiderable than any
thing that has been produced by the Hiſtory
of the Corruptions of Chriſtianity. And my
deſign (after the termination of the
pre-
ſent diſcuſſion with Dr. Horſley, which
muſt ſoon come to an iſſue) is to wait a
year or two, till I ſee what the publication
of my large work on this ſubject ſhall pro-
duce, and then to reply to all my opponents
at once; frankly acknowledging any miſ-
takes I ſhall appear to have fallen into, and
vindicating whatever I ſhall think capable
of it, and deſerving it.
1
1
Agreeably
PRE FACE.
vii
Agreeably to this ſcheme, I have annexed
to theſe Letters fome Remarks on the ninth
number of Mr. Howes's Obſervations on books
ancient and modern, in which he has begun
his attack upon 'me.
, But in this I have
been very conciſe, expecting to have an op-
portunity of treating the ſubjects more
largely when I conſider what he has farther
to produce. Mr. White alſo cannot de-
cline the diſcuſſion, and I have heard of
the threats of others. We may, conſe-
quently, hope that this controverſy (to
which I find that much attention is given in
foreign countries) will ſoon come to a pro-
per termination, ſo that learned inen in all
nations will not long remain in uncertainty
with reſpect to any thing of importance re-
lating to it.
As this is a controverſy that will pro-
bably have laſting conſequences, let all who
engage in it, on either ſide, be careful to
acquit themſelves in proportion to the cha-
racter which they apprehend they have at
ſtake; but above all, let truth be our great
object.
P R · E F 'A CE.
object. Our readers will eaſily perceive
whether it be ſo or not. We ſhall ſooner
deceive ourſelves than them. And leaſt of
all can we impoſe upon that great being
who is the God of truth, who ſecretly guides
all our purſuits, and whoſe excellent pur-
poſes will be anſwered by them, with
whatever views we may engage in them.
N. B. Though an account of the State of Cal-
viniſm among the Diflenters, on which Dr. Horſley
enlarges ſo much, has but little to do with the ob-
ject of our controverſy, I ſhould have ſaid ſome-
thing more on this ſubject, but that I hear it
will be conſidered by a perſon who is exceedingly
well qualified to inform the public concerning it,
and to explain the cauſe of Dr. Horſley's very groſs
and palpable miſtake.
E RR A T A.
N. B. (b) fignifies from the bottom of the page.
Page 26, line 2, (b) for 14, read I.
hinei, (b) for 6, read 16.
28, line 11, note, for regii, read regio.
5
LETTERS
1
TO THE
!
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
!
!
AN....
2
1
INTRODUCTORY LETTER:
REV. SIR,
INI
N the courſe of our controverſy, you maintained
that there was a church of trinitarian Jewiſh
chriſtians at Jeruſalem after the time of Adrian;
and as the account that Origen gives of the ſtate of
things in his time does not admit of the exiſtence
of ſuch a church, you ſcrupled not to ſay, that “he
“had recourſe to the wilful and deliberate allega-
« tion of a notorious falſehood." This you did
on fo little foundation, that I charged you with
being a falſifier of hiſtory, and a defamer of the cha-
racter of the dead.
On this article you have thought proper (not-
withſtanding your previouſly-declared reſolution to
the contrary) to make your defence, in which you
B
pro-
1
2
LETTERS TO THE
할
​produce five paſſages from ancient writers, two from
Origen himſelf, two from Jerom, and one from Epi-
phanius. In theſe Letters I undertake to ſhow
that, though you have taken eighteen months
to write, and to reviſe your Remarks you have
groſsly miſunderſtood, or miſapplied, all the pal-
fages, ſo that not one of them is to your pur-
poſe, and my charge ſtill remains in its full force.
For the juſtneſs of my interpretation of the paſſages
in queſtion, I appeal to all who have any preten-
ſions to ſcholarſhip, in this or any other country,
and in this public manner I call upon you to vindi-
cate your own.
On this article, at leaſt, an article deliberately fe-
lected by yourſelf, let the controverſy between us
come to a fair iſſue. Nothing has been, or ſhall be
wanting to it on my part; and therefore the Public
will certainly expect your explicit and ſpeedy an-
ſwer.
I am,
Reverend Sir,
Your very humble Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
Birmingham, Junt 1, 1786.
LETTER
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
3
:
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
I.
Of tbe Veracity of Origen.
A
Rev. Sir,
FTER having indulged your indolence, as you
fay, p. 1, eighteen months, I am happy to
find, that, notwithſtanding your opinion, ib. of my
manifeſt inſuficiency as your antagoniſt (which you
obſerve, p. 2," left you at liberty to indulge your-
“ſelf without ſeeming to defert your cauſe") there
was ſomething in my Letters to you that has at
length rouſed you to make a reply. To me this is
a very high gratification. For my predominant
diſpoſition not being indolence, I rejoice in any cir-
cumſtance that contributes to keep the ſubject of our
controverſy in view ; being confident that nothing
but a continued attention to it is requiſite to a
ſpeedy deciſion in favour of the cauſe that I have
eſpouſed, which I cannot help conſidering as of the
greateſt importance to the cauſe of chriſtianity itſelf.
I ſhould have been more pleaſed if you had pur-
fued the diſcuſſion of every article in debate be-
tween us; but as you have thought proper to con:
fine yourſelf chiefly to what relates to the orthodoxy
of the primitive Jewiſh church, I muſt do the
ſame, firſt conſidering what you have advanced in
order to impeach the veracity of Origen, and then
the teſtimonies of Epiphanius and Jerom, as evi-
B 2
dences
LETTERS TO THE
dences of the exiſtence of a whole church of ortho-
dox Jews at Jeruſalem after the time of Adrian.
« In the ſecond book againſt Celſus" (to uſe your
own words, p.22.)“ near the beginning of the book,
“ Origen afferts, of the Hebrew chriſtians of his
“own times, without exception, that they had not
abandoned the laws and cuſtoms of their ancer-
tors, and that for that reaſon they were called
is
“ Ebionites.” This is alſo the appellation that he
gives to all the Jewiſh chriſtians, of whom he
makes two clafies, one of them believing the mi-
raculous conception of Jeſus, and the other deny-
ing it; but neither of them admitting his divi-
nity.
r
This teſtimony of ſuch a perſon as Origen to the
unitarianiſm of all the Jewiſh chriſtians in his time,
goes fo near to prove the unitarianiſm of the great
body of Jewiſh chriſtians, and conſequently of the
chriſtian church in general, in the time of the apos-
tles, that I do not wonder at your wiſhing to ſet it
aſide ; and it is ſo full and expreſs, that you have no
other way of doing it, than by maintaining that this
.moſt reſpectable man knowingly aſſerted an un-
truth. You even add, p. 28. 30. that you would
not take his evidence upon oath. Indeed, this
writer was ſo circumſtanced, in conſequence of
living ſo near Judea, and ſometimes in it, that he
could not but have known whether there was any
conſiderable body of Jewilh chriſtians who believed
the doctrine of the trinity, and who had abandoned
the
1
:
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
5
the cuítoms of their anceſtors, or not; fo that if
what he aſſerted be an untruth, it muſt have been a
wilful one, and (as ſerving the purpoſe of his argu-
ment) a deliberate one,
There are, however, ſome circumſtances attend-
ing this charge of a wilful falſehood againſt Origen,
that I ſhould have thought might have made you
pauſe before you had advanced it ſo confidently as
you have done..
+
The general character of Origen makes the fup-
poſition highly improbable. For he was a man not
more diſtinguiſhed by his genius and learning (in
which he had confeffedly no ſuperior in the age in
which he lived) than he was by his integrity, and
his firmneſs in the cauſe of chriſtian truth; and
when, in a ſubſequent age, his opinions were deem-
ed to be heretical, his greateſt enemies left his moral
character unimpeached.
In ſuch eſteem was he
univerſally held, that, as Euſebius informs us, it was
generally ſaid of him, “ As was his ſpeech, ſuch
was his conduct; and as was his conduct, ſuch
ss. was his ſpeech * :" his eloquence and the virtues
of his life correſponding to each other. And yet this
is the man whole evidence, becauſe it makes
againſt yourſelf, you declare that you would not ad-
mit upon oath,
* Οιον γαν τον λογον τοιονδε φασι τον τροπον και οιον τον τροπον .
τοιονδε και τον λογον επιδεικνύλο.
Euſeb. Hift. L, yi. cap: 31
P. 261.
B3
Had
1
6
LETTERS TO THE
Had the teſeimony of Origen to the unitarianiſm
of the great body of Jewiſh chriſtians not been well
founded, it was greatly the purpoſe of many of the
early writers (and particularly of Euſebius, who
maintained the novelty of the unitarian doctrine) to
have refuted it. But neither Euſebius, nor any
other ancient'writer, the moſt zealous for orthodoxy,
and the moſt hoſtile to Origen on other accounts,
has attempted it. Might it not have been expected
of Euſebiuis in particular, that afier he had copied
Origen's account of the Ebionites, by dividing them
into two claffes, juit as he had done (viz fome of
them believing the miraculous conception, and
others not) he would have added that, notwith-
ſtanding what Origen had ſaid to the contrary,
many of them had abandoned the law of Moſes,
and' were believers in the divinity of Chriſt ?. But
he has not done any ſuch thing. He therefore muſt
have known that he could not do it, and he was not
diſpoſed to tell a wilful lie in the caſe. Indeed, I
am willing to think, that few perſons are ſo aban-
doned as to be capable of doing this.
With reſpect to this particular aſſertion concern-
ing the ſtate of the Jewiſh chriſtians in the time of
Origen, it is ſo circumſtanced, that if he had
even been capable of afferting a falſehood, this was
the laſt that he would have had recourſe to; becauſe
he was writing in a public controverſy, in which he
has infifted largely on this particular article, and in-
ſulted his adverſary for his ignorance of a notorious
fact. In this ſituation, he muſt have been nothing
leſs
ARCHDEACON. OF ST. ALBANS,
7
leſs than infatuated, to have advanced what all his
readers muſt have known to be falfe. A falſehood
ſo circumſtanced, and which muſt have been a wil-
ful one, would have been ſo evidently ruinous to
his credit, and ſo fatal to his cauſe, that he muſt
have been a fool not to have ſeen it.
Beſides, this particular circumſtance, of the chrif-
tian Jews not abandoning the cuſtorns of their an-
ceſtors, was not of ſo much conſequence to his ge-
neral argument in defence of chriſtianity, but that he
might very well have neglected it. Nothing
therefore, but a perfect confidence that what he did
advance was true, could have led him to make any
declaration on the ſubject.
1
What is more extraordinary ſtill, you ſay, p. 253
s' he himſelf contradicted his own affertion, at no
greater diſtance than the third ſection of the
« fame book; where the good Father," as you ironi-
cally call him, “takes quite another ground to con-
“ fute his adverſary.” Certainly this muſt be thought
to be à priori, in the higheſt degree improbable.
I ſhall now conſider this flagrant contradiction, by
which this great man (for ſo all the world has ever
called him) is ſuppoſed to confute himſelf, and ſo far
to have loſt all character, that the Archdeacon of
St. Alban's would not take his evidence upon oath's
and I ſhall recite it in your own words,
At no greater diſtance than in the third ſection
of the fame book, the good Father takes quite an-
(other
В 4
8
LETTERS TO THE
other ground to confute his adverſary; he inſults
over his ignorance for not making the diſtinctions
which he himſelf, in the allegation in queſtion,
had confounded.'
“ It is my preſent point, ſays
- Origen, to evince Celſus's ignorance, who has
" made a Jew ſay to his countrymen, to Ifraelites
" believing in Chriſt, Upon what motive have you
“ deſerted the law of your anceſtors : But how have
" they deſerted the law of their anceſtors, who re-
prove thoſe who are inattentive to it, and ſay Tell
" me ye, &c?"
" Then after a citation of certain
texts from St. Paul's epiſtles, in which the apoſtle
' avails himſelf of the authority of the law to enforce
particular duties, which texts inake nothing either
for or againſt the Jew's affertion, that the chriſtians
of the circumciſion had abandoned their ancient
? laws, but prove only that the diſuſe of the law, it
it was actually gone into diſuſe, could not be
deemed a defertion, becauſe it proceeded not
<
from any diſregard to the authority of the law-
giver. After a citation of texts to this purpoſe,
Origen proceeds in this remarkable ſtrain.' “ And
“ how confuſedly does Celſus's Jew ſpeak upon this
ſubject, when he might have ſaid more plauſibly,
“ Some of you have relinquiſhed the old cuſtoms
upon pretence of expoſitions and allegories.
“ Some again expounding, as you call it, ſpiritually,
nevertheleſs, obſerve the inſtitutions of our anceſ-
But ſome; not admitting theſe expo-
“ſitions, are willing to receive Jeſus as the perſon
· foretold by the prophets, and to obſerve the law
¢ of Moſes, according to the ancient cuſtoms, as
1
16 tors.
" having
ARGHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
“having in the letter the whole meaning of the
ſpirit * " ' In theſe words Origen confeffes all
' that I have alleged of him. He confeffes, in
s contradiction to his former affertion, that he
• knew of three forts of Jews profeffing chriſtianity ;
one fort adhered to the letter of the Mofaic law,
- rejecting all figurative interpretations: another
* fore admitted a figurative interpretation, conform-
' ing, however, to the letter of the precept, but a
third fort (the firſt in Origen's enumeration) had
relinquiſhed the obſervance of the literal precept, ,
conceiving it to be of no importance in compariſon
of the latent figurative meaning.'
This contains the whole of your curious reaſon-
ing, in which you ſuppoſe that Origen, in treating
of the ſame ſubject, and in continuation of the ſame
argument, has given you this pretence for impeach-
ing his veracity as you have done. But ſurely this
writer, who muſt have known his own meaning,
could not have imagined that he had really contra-
dicted himſelf in two paſſages, not in different
works, written at different times, or in diſtant
parts
of the fame work in which he might have forgotten
Και ως συγκεχυμενως γε ταυ9' ο παρα τω Κελσω Ιεδαια λεγει, ,
δυναμενος πιθανώτερον ειπειν, οτι τινες μεν ημων καλαλελοιπασι τα εθη
προφασει διηγησεων και αλληγοριων τινες δε και διηγεμενοι, ως
επαγγελλεσθε, πνευματικως, εδεν ητίον τα σαθρια τηρείθε· τινες δε, εδε
διηγεμενοι, βελεσθε τον Ιησεν παραδεξασθαι ως προφήλευθενία, και τον
Μωυσεως νομον τηρησαι, καλα τα αίρια" ως εν τη λεξει εχονίες τον
mayla Tx WVEULG?os v8v. Lib. ii. p. 59.
what
:
IÓ
LETTERS TO THE
what he had ſaid in one of the paſſages, when he
was writing the other) but in the ſame work, the
fame part of the work, and in paragraphs ſo very
near to each other. And I believe nobody before
yourſelf, ever imagined that there was any contra-
diction in them at all.
In the former he aſſerts, in general terms, without
making any particular exception, that the Jewiſh
chriſtians adhered to the cuſtoms of their anceſtors,
and in the latter, which almoſt immediately follows
it, he ſays that his adverſary, who had afferted the
contrary, would have ſaid what was more plauſible
(not what was true) if he had ſaid that ſome of them
had relinquiſhed their ancient cuſtoms, while the
reſt adhered to them; alluding, perhaps, to a few
who had abandoned thoſe cuſtoms, while the great
body of them had not, which is ſufficiently con-
ſiſtent with what he had ſaid before. For incon-
ſiderable exceptions are not regarded in general af-
ſertions. It would have been very extraordinary
indeed, if no Jewiſh chriitians whatever had aban-
doned the rites of their foriner religion, when, in
all ages, fome Jews, whether they became chriſtians
or not, have done ſo. In like manner, it concerns
me not to affert that no individuals of the Jewiſh
chriſtians embraced the doctrine of the trinity, be-
cauſe my purpoſe is ſufficiently anſwered if the great
body of them, to whom the reſt bore no ſenſible
pro-
portion, were unitarians. And though there might be
a few Jewiſh chriſtians who had deſerted their former
cuſtoms, which would have given Celſus a plauſible
pretence
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
II
pretence for making ſuch a diviſion of them as to
make theſe one of the claſſes, yet the great body
of them had not; and this was ſufficient to remove
the reproach which Celſus had thrown out againſt
the Jewiſh chriſtians in general.
That this was really the caſe, and that the great
body of Jewiſh chriſtians were likewiſe unitarians,
we liave the expreſs teſtimony of Origen, uncon-
tradicted, as I have ſhewn, by him felf, or any other
authority whatever. He could not but be well in-
formed with reſpect to the fact, his veracity was
never impeached ; and if he had been diſpoled to
deny the truth (which he had no cemptation to do)
he wrote in circumſtances in which his attempts to
falſify could nok have availed him.
You ſay, p. 27,
s
But to prove Origen to be guilty of contradicting
himſelf is not the only uſe you make of the paſſage.
" But this is not all. In the next
“ ſentence he gives us to underſtand, though I
“confeſs more indirectly, but he gives us to un-
derſtand, that of theſe three ſorts of Hebrews
profeſling chriſtianity, they only who had laid
• aſide the uſe of the Moſaic law, were in his
s time conſidered as true chriſtians." This is ex-
traordinary indeed; but let us ſee bore it is given
to be underſtood. Having found fo little in your
clear concluſions, I do not expect much from your
ſuppoſed infinuations.
. For
1
12
LETTERS TO THE
+
1
· For he mentions it as a further proof of the
ignorance of Celſus, pretending, as it appears he
did, to deep erudition upon all ſubjects, that, in
his account of the hereſies of the chriſtian church,
he had omitted the Iſraelites believing in Jeſus,
and not laying aſide the law of their anceſtors.
" But how ſhould Celſus," he ſays, “ make clear
“ diſtinctions upon this point, who, in the ſequel
“of his work, mentions impious hereſies, alto-
gether alienated from Chriſt, and others which
“ have renounced the creator, and has not noticed
[or knew not of ] Iſraelites believing in Jeſus,
" and not relinquiſhing the law of their fathers *."
'What opinion,' you ſay, “is to be entertained of a
writer's veracity, who in one page afferts that the
· Hebrews profeffing chriſtianity had not renounced
the Jewiſh law, and in the next affirms that a part
e of them had renounced it, not without an inſinua-
6tion that they who had not were heretics, not true
· chriſtians. ECO HUIC TESTI, ETIAM JURATO,
QUI TAM MANIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON
CREDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO.'
<
$
(
* Αλλα γαρ ποθεν Κελσω τα καλα τον τοπον τρανωσαι, ος και
αιρεσεων μεν αθεων, και το Ιησε σαντη αλλόθριων εν τοις εξης εμνημο-
μευσε, και αλλων καλαλειπεσων τον δημιερχον· κκ οιδε δε και Ισραηλιτας εκ
Ιησου σισευονίας, και και καλαλειπονίας τον πατριον νομον και 8 γαρ προσκείο
αυτω φιλαλήθως ολα τα καλά τον τοπον εξετασαι, ινει τι χρησιμον
ευρισκοι παραδεξηται, αλλά και ως εχθρος, και ολος τα ανατρεπειν αμα
τα ακεσαι γενομεν, τα τοιανία ανεγραψεν. Lib. ii. p. 59.
Such
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
.
..13
Such is the curious inference of the learned Arch-
deacon of St. Albans. From this conſtruction of
the paſſage, a perſon might be led to think that
Origen repreſented Celſus as having undertaken to
give an account of the hereſies in the chriſtian
church, and as having, in that account, omitted the
Ifraelites believing in fefus, and not laying aſide the
rites of their anceſtors; and on no other ground can
your inſinuation ſtand. Whereas the moſt natural
conſtruction of the paſſage is, that Origen ſays, “ It
« is no wonder that Celſus ſhould be ſo ignorant of
" what he was treating, when he claſſed the Gnoſtics
along with chriſtians, and did not even know
" that there were Iſraelites who profeſſed chrif-
istianity, and adhered to the laws of Moſes."
Where then is the moſt diftant inſinuation that the
Ifraelites believing in Chriſt, and not laying aſide
the rites of their anceſtors, were heretics ? Thac
the Gnoftics were claffed with chriſtians, was
a common complaint of the orthodox in that
age.
M:
so
You ſtrangely allege another inſtance of what
you call prevarication in Origen, in the ſame book
againſt Celſus. In the controverſy with the Jews,
about the meaning of the word naby, which he
contends ſignifies a virgin, he ſays (Remarks,
« The word by, which the LXX -have
“ tranſlated into the word wapdevo (a virgin) .but
“ other interpreters into the word vsaves [a young
" )
woman
p. 29)
LETTERS TO THE
>
منا.شدند
"woman) is put too, AS THEY SAY, in Deutero-
nomy, for a virgin*.
>
On this you remark as follows, “What is this
“ as they ſay? Was it unknown to the compiler of
“the Hexapla, what the reading of the Hebrew
text, in his own time, was? If he knew that it
was what he would have it thought to be, why
“ does he ſeem to affert upon hearſay only ? If hie
“ knew not, why did he not inform himſelf, that he
might either affèrt with confidence what he had
“ found upon enquiry to be true, or not affert
« what could not be maintained ? EGO HUIC TESTI,
ETIAMSI JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFESTO FUMOS
“ VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM
FIRMO."
ESSE
CON-
I am aſtoniſhed that any man could think this
ſtate of the caſe probable. The queſtion becween
Origen and the Jews was not what was the word
in the Hebrew, but what was the meaning of it in a
particular place. But even, admitting that the dif-
pute was about the true reading in the original,
what great matter was there in Origen's ſaying the
Jews ſaid se, when he knew that what they ſaid was
* Εαν δε Ιεδαιος ευρεσιλογων, το ιδε η παρθενος μη γεγραφθαι λεγει
αλλ' απ' αυλα ιδε η νεανις" φησομεν προς αυλον, οτι μεν η μεν λεξις η
αλμα ην οι μεν εβδομηκονία μέιειληφασι προς την παρθενον, αλλοι δε εις
την νεανιν, κελαι ως φασι κ εν τω δευτερονομιω επι σπαρθενα αιως εχεσα.
1
Lib. i. p. 27
true
:
.
.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
15
true? Is this a foundation on which to affirm that
you would not take a man's evidence upon his
oath. What an appetite muſt a man have for ca-
lumny, who can ſeize upon ſuch a circumſtance as
this to gratify it?
Fænum habet in cornu, hunc.cu, Romane, caveto.
I am, &c.
L E T T E R II.
General Obſervations relating to the suppoſed orthodox
church of Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, after the
time of Adrian.
Halleged
REV. SIR,
AVING fully conſidered what you have
alleged in ſupport of your extraordinary
charge of wilful falſehood in Origen, becauſe the
ſuppoſition of his being an honeſt man was incon-
fiftent with the exiſtence of your church of ortho-
dox Jewiſh chriſtians ac Jeruſalem after the time of
Adrian, I ſhall proceed to conſider the poſitive evi-
dence that you have produced for the actual exiſtence
of
16
LETTERS TO THE
of ſuch a church. But I ſhall, in the firit place,
mention ſome obſervations of a general nature re-
lating to the ſubject.
That there was a chriſtian church at Jeruſalem
after the time of Adrian, we all acknowledge ; but
you ſay, p. 41, "the point in diſpute between us is,
s of what members the church of Ælia was com-
poſed. He ſays of converts of Gentile ex-
" traction, I ſay, of Hebrews, of the very fame
perſons, in the greater part, who were members
or of the ancient Hebrew church at the time when
"the Jews were ſubdued by Adrian.”
1. Now that the members of this church were
not Jews, but Greeks, I think indiſputable from
this plain conſideration, that after the time of Adrian
the biſhops of that church were Greeks, and that
the language in which the public offices were per-
formed was Greek; whereas immediately before the
biſhops had been Hebrews, and the public offices
had been in the Hebrew tongue.
2. If there was any conſiderable body of ortho-
dox Jewiſh chriſtians, it is extraordinary that no
particular mention ſhould be made of them by any
àncient writer. Jerom ſpeaks of his acquaintance
with learned Ebionites by whom he was taught the
Hebrew tongue. Living as he did in the country,
- he might as eaſily, on your idea, have found learned
orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians, with whom it would
have been more agreeable to him to aſſociate, unleſs
you
;
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
17
you ſuppoſe that the learned Ebionites were here-
tics, and the unlearned orthodox.
3. As ſo many writers ſpeak of Ebionites, or
heterodox Nazarenes, it would ſurely have been
natural for ſome of them to have added, that they
were not the great body, or at leaſt not the whole,
of the Jewiſh chriſtians. The mention of the one
would naturally have drawn after it, on ſome occa-
ſion, the mention of the other. And yet no ancient
writer ſpeaks of them.
4. As to a whole.church of orthodox Jewiſh
chriſtians at Jeruſalem, or elſewhere, we hear of no
intercourſe between any ſuch church and other or-
thodox churches. None of their biſhops, or de-
puties from them, appear at any council; no appeals
are ever made to them; which would have been
natural, as to the mother of all the churches. This
is eaſily accounted for on the ſuppoſition that all the
remains of the Jewiſh chriſtians were the poor and
deſpiſed unitarian Ebionites, reſiding chiefly beyond
the ſea of Galilee, whoſe numbers likewiſe were in-
conſiderable ; but hard to be ſuppoſed, if there were
any churches of orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians, reſiding
at Jeruſalem, or elſewhere.
w on
5. If there was any conſiderable body of ortho-
dox Jewiſh chriftians, why do we never hear of any
Hebrew goſpels beſides that of Matthew? If they
held the doctrine of the orthodox gentile churches
concerning the perſon of Chriſt, it is probable that
с
they
18.
LETTERS TO THE
they would have had the ſame reſpect for the other
goſpels, and the other books of the New Teſtament,
and yet it is almoſt certain, that they made little
uſe of them.
By way of apology for your additions to the
ſcanty accounts of the ancients, concerning the con-
queſt of Jeruſalem by Adrian, you ſay, p. 38, " The
“ ecclefiaftical hiſtory of thoſe times is ſo very ge-
neral and imperfect, that whoever attempts to
“ make out a conſiſtent ſtory from any ancient
“ writers which are come down to us, will find
"s himſelf under the neceſſity of helping out their
s broken accounts by his own conjectures."
But certainly, Sir, the contradieling of an ancient
writer, is not the way to help out his account of
things. Now Euſebius, the oldeſt writer who men-
tions the fact, ſays, that after the taking of the city
by Adrian, the whole nation of the Jews (0.920,
which excludes all diſtinction with reſpect to religion)
were forbidden even to ſee the deſolation of their
metropolis at a diſtance * To help out this broken:
account, becauſe it does not contain all that you wiſh
it to do (though I ſee nothing broken in it) you ſay
that the Jews were allowed to remain in the place,
and enjoy the privileges of the Ælian colony, on
* Και τα της απονοιας αυλους, αλιε την. αξιον εκλισανίG- δικην, τον
σαν εθνο εξ εκεινε και της περι τα Ιεροσόλυμα γης σαμπανεπιβαινειν
ειργείαι, νομε δογμαι και διαλαξεσιν Αδριανε ως, αν μηδ' εξ, απαπίει
DEWPOLEV TO wolwor Edap EYMSRENO QUEVE. Hift. Lib. iv..cap. 6.
condition
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
19
condition of their becoming chriſtians. To help out
this addition, I would farther add, that another of
the terms of the capitulation was, that they ſhould
from that time ſpeak Greek, as without this, they
could have derived no benefit from the offices of a
Greek church.
S
Sulpicius ſays, that by this ſeverity to the inha-
bitants of Jerufalem, Adrian thought co deſtroy the
chriſtian faith. But to this you oppoſe the authority
of Orofius (calling it, however, p. 43, but a feather
in the ſcale) that when the Jews were excluded, the
chriſtians were allowed to remain. If your liberty
of helping out a broken story may be exerciſed here,
I ſhould ſay, that in the idea even of this writer,
the Greek chriſtians might remain, but the Jewiſh
not. If any regard is to be paid to Euſebius, the
oldeſt hiſtorian, or to Sulpicius, who is much more
circumſtantial than Orofius, and on that account
better entitled to credit, no Jews, chriſtians or
others, were allowed to remain in the place.
To make your account the more probable, you
fay, p. 44, “ It is a notorious fact that Adrian was
not unfavourable to the chriſtians, and that the
“ church in his reign obtained a reſpite from per-
« fecution." But how far did this favour to chrif-
tians extend? You ſay, “che fury of their perſe-
“ cutors was reſtrained by the imperial reſcripts to
" the provincial governors, who were directed not
to proceed againſt the chriſtians, except by way
of
“ regular trial, upon the allegation of ſome certain
C2
“ crime,
20
LETTERS TO THE
1
“ crime, and when nothing more was alleged than
“the bare name of chriſtianity, to puniſh the in-
“ former as a ſycophant.” That is, as the hiſtory
of thoſe times enables us to interpret it, they were
not to be puniſhed as chriſtians till they were.proved
to be ſo, which was the caſe in the reign of Trajan;
but does not amount to a toleration of the Jews at
Jeruſalem, on condition of their embracing chriſ-
tianity.
Your favourite Moſheim ſays (Hiſt. vol. i.
p. 128) that what was done by Adrian (in whoſe
reign the perſecution of chriſtians had raged with
peculiar violence) was a folemn renewal of the law
of Trajan. In the reign of Antoninus Pius, but not
before, it was ordered that a man being proved
to be a chriſtian, ſhould not be deemed fufficient
for his condemnation, unleſs he was alſo proved to
have been guilty of ſome crime againſt the ſtate:
There is, therefore, little reaſon to think that Adriani
was ſo well diſpoſed towards chriſtianity, as to permit
the rebellious Jews to remain in Jeruſalem on con-
dition of their embracing it.
:
•
:
I am, &c.
1
LET TER
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
21
L Ε Τ Τ Ε R
III.
Of the Teſtimony of Epiphanius to the Exiſtence of a
Church of Orthodox Jewiſh Chriſtians at Jeruſa-
lem after the time of Adrian.
.
REV. SIR,
1
A
FTER the preliminary obſervations contain-
ed in the preceding letter, I ſhall now con-
ſider the teſtimony that you have produced from
Epiphanius.
You ſay. p. 46, that “the faet (viz. of the return
of the Jews from Pella to Jeruſalem, after the wars
of Adrian) of which Dr. Prieſtley has done me
" the honour to make me the inventor, is aſſerted
" by Epiphanius.—The confidence,” you add,
« with which he mentions this, as a fact forged
« by me, is only one inſtance, out of a great
“ number, of his own ſhameleſs intrepidity in
« affertion."
1
If, Sir, you wiſh to reclaim a perſon, you ſhould
never deprive him of all character, but ſhould
leave him a little, a ſmall root, from which more
may afterwards ſpring. Having now no charac-
ter to loſe, being capable of afferting any thing,
C3
true
}
22
LETTERS TO THE
!
true or falſe, that is likely to anſwer my purpoſe,
I will, " with the moſt ſhameleſs intrepidity,” af-
ſert, that Epiphanius mencions no ſuch faƐt as you
ſo very confidently ſuppoſe him to have done. After
carefully examining the paffage which you have
produced, I do maintain, that in it he makes no
mention whatever of any return of chriſtian Jews
from Pella, beſides that which took place after the
deſtruction of Jeruſalem by Titus, and not at all of
any return after the deſtruction by Adrian. This
is moſt evident, from attending to the very next
fentence which follows the words that you have
quoted. The whole paſſage is as follows :
After mentioning Aquila, as appointed by
Adrian, the inſpector of his works at Ælia, Epi-
phanius gives the following hiſtory of him.-
Aquila, living at Jeruſalem, and ſeeing the dif-
“ciples of the diſciples of the apoſtles Aouriſhing
« in the faith, and working great miracles, eſpe-
'cially of healing (For they had returned from
" the city of Pella to Jeruſalem, and taught there.
5 For when the city was about to be taken by the
"Romans, all the diſciples had been forwarned
« by an angel to leave the city, which was devot-
red to deſtruction. Theſe, leaving it, went and
“ dwelt in the above-mentioned Pella, beyond
"Jordan, one of thoſe that were called Decapolis;
" but returning after the deſolation of Jeruſalem,
" as I have ſaid, worked miracles). Aquila, there-
s fore, being convinced, became a chriſtian, and
« after
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS,
:
« after ſome time requeſting the feal of chriſtiani-
ty (viz. baptiſm) obtained it *.”
What can be more evident, than that the re-
turn of the Jewiſh chriſtians from Pella, mention-
ed in this paſſage by Epiphanius, is that return
which followed the deſtruction of Jeruſalem by
Titus? For he ſpeaks of their having left that
city, antecedent totbis return to it, in confequence on
of being warned by an angel fo to do, which was
faid to be the caſe before the deſtruction by
Titus, but never before that by Adrian; and it
was by the diſciples of thoſe who then returned,
that Aquila was converted to chriſtianicy, which
was probably a conſiderable time before the de-
ftruction of the Jews by Adrian,
andais
After the imperfect quotation of the paſſage of
which I have given the entire tranſlation, you have
* Ο τοινυν Ακυλας, διαγων εν τη Εερεσαλήμ, και ορων τες μαθήλας
των μαθηλων αποστολών ανθενίας τη σισει, και σημεια μεγαλα εργαζο-
μενες, ιασεων και αλλων θαυμάτων . ήσαν γαρ υποτρεψανlες απο Πελλης
της πολεως εις Ιερεσαλήμ, και διδασκονίες, ηνικα γαρ ημελλεν η πολις
αλισκεσθαι υπο των Ρωμαίων, προεχρηματισθησαν υπο αγγελ8, παν-
Πες οι μαθήλαι μέλαςηναι απο της πολεως μελλεσης αρδην απόλλυσθαι :
σε τινες, και μετανασαι γενόμενοι, ωκησαν εν Πελλη τη προγεγραμμενη
Βολει, απεραν τα Ιορδανε, ήλις εκ δεκαπόλεως λέγεται είναι και μία δε την
ερηεωσιν ξερsσαλημ υποτρεψανίες, ως έφην, σημεια μεγαλα επεθελαν.
Ο 8v Ακυλας καλανυγεις την διανοιαν, των χριστιανισμω επιςευσεν. αίλη-
σας δε μελα χρονον την εν χρισω σφραγιδα, Έκομισαίο.
De men ,
furis et ponderibus, Opera, vol. 2. p. 175.
C 4
the
ι
Ι
24
LETTERS TO THE
the aſſurance to add, p.47, " Whether this return
« of the chriſtians of Jeruſalem from Pella, took
“ place in the interval between the end of Titus's
“ war and the commencement of Adrian's, or af-
« ter the end of Adrian's, is a matter of no im-
cs
portance. It is ſufficient for my purpoſe that
« theſe returned chriſtians were reſiding at Jeruſa-
".lem, or more properly at Ælia, at the ſame
“ time that Aquila was reſiding there, as overſeer
«of the emperor's works. Let not the public be
"abuſed by any cavils which ignorance or fraud
“ may. raiſe about the chronology of the return."
Bụt certainly it muſt be of conſequence to
know, whether Aquila was reſiding at Jeruſalem
after the deſtruction of that city by Adrian; and
this is more than Epiphanius ſays, or is at all pro-
bable in itſelf. For the rebuilding of Jeruſaiem
by Adrian, in which Aquila was employed by
him, was undertaken in the 13th year of his reign,
a year before the revolt of the Jews; and it was
not till the 18th of Adrian, that they were en-
tirely ſubdued
According to Epiphanius, Aquila, after his
converſion to chriſtianity by the deſcendants of
the Jewiſh chriſtians, who were returned from
Pella (retaining his former practices) was excom-
municated by them. After this he became a Jew,
and applying himſelf to the ſtudy of the ſcrip-
tures, made a tranſlation of thein into Greek.
This
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
25
1
This tranſlation Cave ſuppoſes to have been
made A. D. 128, or 129, the 11th or 12th of
Adrian. His converſion to chriſtianity, there-
fore, was probably prior to the reign of Adrian;
and yet that is the only circumſtance that proves
any intercourſe he ever had with Jewiſh chriftians
returned from Pella. On which ſide then is the
ignorance, I ſay nothing of the fraud, of which you
ſuſpect me in this buſineſs? You muſt, Sir, dig
deeper than you have yet done, for the foundation
of this favourite church.
I am, &c.
L E T T E R
IV.
Of ibe Evidence from Ferom in Favour of the
Exiſtence of a Church of Orthodox Jewijl Cbrife
tians at Jeruſalem after the Time of Adrian.
I
"
Rey. SIR,
COME now to the two paffages which you
have quoted from Jerom. That on which
you lay the greateſt ſtreſs you introduce in the
following manner. “ But I give him Origen,”
p. 48. “I will reſt the credit of my ſeventh poſia
« tion upon the mention which occurs in Jerom's
“ Commentary upon Iſaiah, of Hebrews believing
« in Chrift, as diſtinct from the Nazarenes. Je-
(from
20
.
LETTERS TO THE
< Torn relates two different expoſitions of the pro-
phecy concerning Zabulon and Naphtali, deliver-
Wed in the beginning of the oth chapter of Ifaiah,
« of which expoſicions 'he aſcribes the one to the
“ Hebrews believing in Chriſt, the other to the
“ Nazorenes. The character given of theſe He-
brews, that they believed in Chriſt, without any
thing to diſtinguiſh their belief from the com-
umon belief of the church, without any note of
“ jts error or imperfection, is a plain character of
“ complete orthodoxy."
It is ſomewhat remarkable, that having be-
fore maintained, that thoſe whom Jerom call-
ed Nazarenes, in his epiftle to Auſtin, were
orthodox chriſtians, you ſhould now allow that, by
the ſame term, he here means beretics ; and that
the phraſe, believing in Chriſt, ſhould now be a
character of complete orthodoxy, when in that epiftle
it is predicated of the heretical Ebionites. What
clue can we have to any man's meaning, if he be
ſuppoſed to uſe terms in ſuch different, and even,
oppoſite ſenſes? When neither himſelf, nor any
other writer, ever ſays that there were two ſuch
very
different kinds of Nazarenes, what right can
you have to affert that there were ?
The paſſage in Jerom on which, though you
lay Yo much ſtreſs, you do not quote, is as
follows. In his interpretation of Iſaiah ix. '14.
(tited in Matt. iv. 6.) he ſays, “ Galilee of
" che
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
27
ding,
“the Gentiles Aquila tranſlates Dives of the Gen-
tiles, and Symmachus the boundaries of the Gen-
“ tiles. By Sivas we underſtand heaps of ſand on
« ſea coafts, or ſhores. The Hebrews believing in
“ Chriit, interpret the paſſage in this manner. At
“ firſt theſe two tribes, Zabulon and Naphtali,
were taken by the Aſſyrians, and carried into
“ their enemies country, and Galilee was deſtroyed ;
« which the prophet now ſays was relieved, becauſe
"he bore the ſins of the people. But afterwards
" not only the two tribes, but the reſt that dwelled
beyond Jordan, in Samaria, were carried cap-
“tive. And this they ſay the ſcripture now de-
clares, that the country whoſe people were firſt
" carried captive, and began to ſerve the Babylo-
" nians, and which was firſt involved in the dark-
“neſs of error, was the firſt to ſee the light of
“ Chriſt preaching to them, and from it the goſpel
* was preached to all other nations. The Naza-
renes, whoſe opinion I have given above, thus en-
“ deavour to explain the paſſage. Chriſt coming,
" and his preaching ſhining forth, in the firſt place
" the country of Zabulon and Naphtalim, being
* delivered from the error of the ſcribes and phari-
“ ſees, ſhook from their necks the heavy yoke of
Jewiſh traditions; but afterwards, by the preach-
"ing of the apoſtle Paul, who was the laſt of the X
apoſtles, the preaching was increaſed, or multi-
" plied, and the goſpel of Chriſt ſhone to the ut-
“ moft boundaries of the Gentiles, and of the ocean.
“ Then all the world, which before walked, or ſat,
" in darkneſs, and was held in the chains of
idolatry
28
LETTERS TO THE
1
“.idolatry and death, ſaw the clear light of the
goſpel *
Before you can ſhow that this paſſage, on which
you lay ſo much ſtreſs, is at all to your purpoſe,
you muſt prove the three following things. Firſt,
that the Hebrews believing in Chriſt were different
from the Nazarenes. Secondly, that the former
• Pro Galilea Gentium Aquila Suves gentium, Symmachus,
terminos gentium interpretati funt: ftras, autem tumulos
intelligimus arenarum, qui vel in littoribus vel in ripis funt
Hebræi credentes in Chriftum hunc locum ita edifferúnt.
Primo tempore hæ duæ tribus Zabulon et Nephtalim ab Al-
fyriis captæ ſunt et ductæ in hoftilem terram, & Galilæa
deſerta eft, quam nunc propheta dicit alleviatam effe, eo quod
peccata populi ſuſtineret. Poftea autem non folum duæ tribus,
fed et reliquæ quæ habitabant trans Jordanem in Samaria,
ductæ funt in captivitatem. Et hoc, inquiunt ſcriptura nunc
dicit, quod regii cujus populus primus ductus eft in captivitatem
& Babiloniis fervire cæpit, et quæ prius in tenebris verſabatur,
erroris, ipfe primum lucem prædicantis viderit Chrifti, et
ex ea in univerſas gentes fit evangelium feminatum. Nazarzi,
quorum opinionem fupra pofui, hunc locum ita explanare
conantur. Adveniente Chrillo, et prædicatione illius córuf-
cante, prima terra Zabulon & terra Nephtalim ſcribarum et
pharifæorum eſt erroribus liberata, et graviſſimum tradi-
tionum Judaicaram jugum excuffit de cervicibus fuis.
Poftea autem per evangelium apottcli Pauli, qui noviffimus
apoftorum omnium fuit, ingravata eft, i. e, multiplicata præ-
dicatio, & in terminos gentium & viam univerfi maris Chrifti
evangelium fplenduit. Denique omnis orbis, qui ante ambu-
labat vel fedebat in tenebris, & idolatriæ ac mortis vinculis
tenebatur, clarum evangelicum lumen afpexit. 'Opera, vol. 4.
P. 33
were
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
29.
1
were completely orthodox; and thirdly, that thoſe
orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians reſided at Jeruſalem.
And it appears to me that not one of theſe ſuppo-
fitions is at all probable.
1
That by Nazarenes Jerom did not intend any
other than the Hebrews believing in Chrift, but only
meant to vary his mode of expreſſion, is probable
from this conſideration; that, after giving a tranſ:
lation of the paſſage by Aquila and Symmachus,
both Ebionires, he ſpeaks of the interpretation of the
prophecy by the Hebrew chriſtians in general, and
then ſays, the Nazarenes, whoſe opinion he had given
above, explained, or illuſtrated it, in the manner that
has been repreſented. The opinion to which he
referred, as given above, was, therefore, probably,
that of the Hebrews believing in Chriſt. And the
explanations of the paffage are not at all different
from one another, but the latter a farther illuſtration
of the former; the one being an interpretation of
the prophecy, and the latter a more particular appli-
cation of it to the time of Chriſt, and the goſpel.
!
This pafiage, therefore, which you have quoted
as deciſively in your favour, inſtead of proving that
the Hebrews believing in Chriſt were different from
the Nazarenes, furniſhes an additional argument
that, in the idea of Jerom, they were the very fame
people; if it does not alſo prove that their opinions
were the ſame with thoſe of Aquila and Symma-
chus, or of the Ebionites.
You
LETTERS TO THE
!
You may, indeed, ſay that the opinion of the
Nazarenes to which ferom refers, as given above,
was that account of the Nazarenes which is found in
his commentary on the preceding chapter, viz.
“ their ſo receiving Chriſt as not to abandon the old
« law.” But the remoteneſs of the paſſage, and its
having no relation to the ſubject of which he is treat-
ing in his commentary on the ninth chapter, make
it improbable.
2. Admitting that Jerom alluded to fome dif-
ference between the Hebrews believing in Chriſt and
the Nazarenes, it is far from following, that the
former were completely orthodox, and the latter not.
For the phraſe believing in Chriſt is applied both
by Origen and Jerom to the heretical Jewiſh chrif.
tians. His not expreſsly ſaying that they were be-
retics in this place, on which you lay ſo much ſtreſs,
can never prove that they were completely orthodox;
fince their hereſy had nothing to do with the ſubject
of which Jerom is here treating.
All the difference between theſe two deſcriptions
of Jewiſh chriftians that Jerom can be ſuppoſed to
allude to, is ſuch a one as Origen made of two forts
of Ebionites, viz. one who believed the miraculous
eonception, and the other who disbelieved it; or
that of Juſtin, viz. of thoſe who would hold com-
munion with the gentile chriſtians, and thoſe who
would not.
" It
j
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
31
C
CS
40.
$* It muſt ſtrike the learned reader,” you ſay,
P. 53'
" that the Nazarenes mentioned by St.
« Jerom, in the paſſage to which I now refer, of
as his annotations on Iſaiah, muſt have been a dif-
536. ferent people from thoſe mentioned by him with
“ ſuch contempt in his epiſtle to St. Auftinis and
“ deſcribed by Epiphanius. The Nazarenes here
“ mentioned by St. Jerom, held the Scribes and
« Phariſees in deteſtation, their traditions in corr-
tempt, and the apoſtle St. Paul in high venera-
cion.” Now I ſee no ineimation in this paffage,
of there being any other kinds of Nazarenes, or
Jewiſh chriſtians, beſides ſuch as Paul found at Je-
ruſalem in his laſt journey thither, the more intelli-
gent of them being his friends, and rejoicing in the
fucceſs of his preaching. But even his greateſt ene-
nies muſt have admitted; that the knowledge of
chriſtianity was extended by his means, which is all
that Jerom ſays of the Nazarenes in this place. As
to the traditions of the Scribes and Phariſees, we read
of no Jewiſh chriſtians who did not hold them in
contempt.
3. Allowing both that the Hebrews believing in
Chriſt and the Nazarenes were different people, and
that the former were completely orthodox, it will
not follow that there was a church of them at Je-
ruſalem, which is the thing that you contend for.
« On theſe foundations," however, you ſay, p. 51,
* which a ſtronger arm than Dr. Prieſtle;;'s fhall nor
"be able to tear up, ftands the church of orthodox
3
“ Jewiſh
32
LETTERS TO THE
)
}
« Jewiſh chriſtians at Jeruſalem, to which the af-
« fertors of the catholic faith will not ſcruple to
“ appeal, in proof of the antiquity of their doctrine,
“ whatever offence the very mention of the ortho-
“ dox church at Jeruſalem may give to the enraged
« Hereſiarch."
1
Alas! theſe new foundations, being, like the
former, built upon the ſand, are alſo completely
{wept away. I will add, that he muſt be a bolder
man than he that rebuilt Jericho, who ſhall attempt
to reſtore them.
But this is not the only paſſage in Jerom to which
you appeal. You alſo ſay, p. 58, that “ he men-
« tions Nazarenes who held the doctrine of our
“ Lord's divinity. For, by an expoſition of Iſaiah,
“ viii. 13, 14. which St. Jerom aſcribes to them, it
appears that they acknowledged in Chriſt the
“Way 7717[the Lord of Hoſts] of the Old Tef-
“tament.”. For any thing like a ſhadow of a
proof of this moſt extraordinary affertion, I a long
time looked in vain, and thought the reference
muſt have been miſprinted; but at length, confi-
dering what kind of a reaſoner I had to do with, I
believe I diſcovered your real ideas on the ſub-
ject.
The prophet ſays (ch. viii. 13, 14.) San£tify the
Lord of Hofts himſelf, and let him be your fear, and
let bim be your dread; and be ſhall be for a fan&tuary;
but for a ſtone of ſtumbling, and for a rock of offence,
10
!
ARGHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS. 33
to both the bouiſes of Ifrael, for a gin and for a fiare
10 the inhabitants of Jerufalem.
In his commentary on this paffage, Jerom ſays,
" the Nazarenes (who fo received Chriſt; as not to
« abandon the obſervance of the old law) interpret
" theſe two houfes of Sammai and Hillel, from which
* aroſe the fcribes and phariſëės, &€and that theſe
“ were the two boufes which did not receive the
" Saviour, who was to them for a deſtruction and
offence
*
an
Jerom, however, does not make the inference
that you do, viz. that becauſe the Nazarenes
thought that this prophecy referred to the times of
Chriſt, and to his rejection by the ſcribes and phari-
fees, they believed Chriſt to be the Lord of Hafts.
They only call him the Saviour, meaning, probably
å perfon ſpeaking and acting by authority from
* Duas domus Nazarei (qui ita Chriftum recipiant ut ob-
fervationes legis veteris non amittant) duas familias interpre-
tantur Samai et Hillel, ex quibus orti ſunt feribæ ec phari-
fæi, quorum fuſcepit ſcholam Axibas, quem magiftrum Aqui-
læ proſeliti autumant, et poſt eum Meir; cui ſucceflit Johan-
rien, filias Zacharãi, ot poft eum Eliezer, et per ordinem Del-
phon, et rurfum Joſeph Galilæus, et uſque ad captivitatem
Hieruſalem Jofue. Samai igitur et Hillel, nori multo prius
quam dominus nafcerétur orti ſunt in Judæa, quorum prior
diſipato interpretatur, fequens prophanus; eo quod per tradi-
tiones et sculeporeng foas, legis præcepta dilli paverint atque
macalaverint. "Et kas efte duas domus, quæ falvatorem non
receperint, qui factus fit eis in ruinam et in fcandalum,
Opera, vol. 4. p. 32.
D
God,
34
LETTERS TO THE
As our
God, who was in reality rejected by thoſe who re-
jected his meſſenger, though a mere man.
Lord himſelf ſays, Luke x. 6. He that deſpiſeth you,
deſpiſeth me; and be that deſpiſeth me, deſpiſeth him
that ſent me. On this ground you might rank both
the Nazarenes, and all the modern profeſſed unita-
Krians, with believers in the divinity of Chriſt. You
might even make them believers in the divinity of
the apoſtles, and that of all the preachers of the
goſpel. But having no better evidence of the or-
thodoxy of the Nazarenes, you were obliged to
make the beſt of this, which will prove a great deal
too much.
1
I wonder, however, that this mode of interpret-
ing ſcripture does not ſtagger even yourſelf. I
thought that the moſt orthodox of the preſent day
had believed that the perſon characteriſed by the
title of the Lord of Hoſts had been not the Son, but
the Father. If the Lord, i. e. Jehovah, of Hofts,
which is no doubt ſynonymous to Jehovah, abfo-
lutely ſo called, be the Son, it will be difficult to
find the Father any where in the Old Teſtament.
Thus I have conſidered all the evidence, poſitive
or preſumptive, that you have produced for the
exiſtence of a church of orthodox Jewiſh chriſtians
at Jeruſalem after the time of Adrian. I have par-
ticularly conſidered your five quotations from an-
cient writers, and do not find that ſo much as one
of them is at all to your purpoſe.
Thus
:
.
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
35
Thus.again ends this church of orthodox Jewiſh
chriſtians at Jeruſalem, planted by Moſheim, and
deſtroyed by the too copious watering of the Arch-
deacon of St. Albans.
I am, &c.
I
i
1 Ε Τ Τ Ε R
V.
Of the Miraculous Conception.
Y mas
>
REV. SIR,
OUR Sermon on the Incarnation ought to be
conſidered as making part of our contro-
verly; and indeed it might with more propriety
have been entitled a Diſcourſe againſt myſelf, as you
have: contrived to introduce into it reflections on
every opinion that I have at any time: advanced,
that you could think would make me appear in an
obnoxious light. But for this I am not forry; be-
cauſe the more thoſe opinions are kept in view, the
ſooner will the horror they at firſt inſpire go off.
In time mankind will be leſs offended at them, and
may come to approve what they now diſlike. As
to mere abuſe, in which light only thoſe reflections
can be conſidered as they appear in this Sermon, I
D2
think
)
36
LETTERS TO THE
think my tiine, and even my ink, of too much
value to be thrown away in anſwering it.
As to the miraculous conception, to which your
Sermon chiefly relates, I do not pretend to make
myſelf a party for or againſt it, having only endea-
voured to ſupply materials for forming a right
judgment in the caſe. But I cannot help obferv-
ing that, inſtead of new light, you have thrown upon
it a great maſs of additional darkneſs, and of a
deeper ſhade than any thing that has been produced
by the chriſtian Fathers, at leaſt till long after the
council of Nice.
With reſpect to the importance of the doctrine
you fay, p. 7, that, “ as an article of the chriſtian
“ faith, it is evidently the foundation of the whole
“ diſtinction between the character of Chriſt, in the
" condition of a man, and that of any other pro-
“phet. Had the conception of Jeſus been in the
“ natural way, had he been the fruit of Mary's
"!-marriage with her huſband, his intercourſe with
"the Deity could have been of no other kind than
“the nature of any other man might have equally
" admitted, mpwand how it ſhould differ (p. 9.)
“ otherwiſe than in the degree of frequency
and intimacy, it will not be eaſy to explain, unleſs
"we adhere to the faith tranſınitted to us from the
primitive ages, and believe that the eternal word, ,
"who was in the beginning with God, and was
"God, ſo joined to himſelf the holy thing which
was formed in Mary's womb, that the two na-
3
tures,
as
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
57
Maintenance
tures, from the commencement of the virgin's
et conception, made one perſon-Jeſus, accord-
ing to the primitive doctrine, was ſo united to
“ the ever-living word, that the very exiſtence of
" the man confifted in this union."
“It was," you ſay, p. 11, “ clearly the do&rine of
holy writ, and nothing elſe, which the Fathers af-
“ ſerted, in terms borrowed from the ſchools of phi-
loſophy, when they affirmed, thạc the very prin-
“ciple of perſonality and individual exiſtence in
Mary's fon, was union with the uncreated word.
" A doctrine in which the miraculous conception
“ would have been implied, had the thing not been
" recorded; ſince a man conceived in the ordinary
way would have derived the principles of his ex-
“iſtence from the mere phyſical powers of genera-
os tion. Union with the divine nature could not
• have been the principle of an exiſtence phyſically
- derived from Adam; and that intimate union of
" God and man in the Redeemer's perſon, which
" the ſcriptures ſo clearly affert, had been a phyſical
impoſſibility."
>
You add, p. 13,
« On the other hand, it were
“ not difficult to ſhew, that the miraculous concep:
« tion, once admitted, naturally brings up after it
" the great doctrines of the atonement, and the in-
carnation."
.
To theſe uncouth affertions, expreſſed in lan-
guage utterly uņintelligible, and equally unwarranted
by
D3
38
I
LETTERS TO THE
by ſcripture, or reaſon, I ſhall make no particular
reply. He that can receive them, let him receive
them. I ſhall only obſerve, in general, that if I
ſhould profeſs myſelf an opponent of the doctrine
of the miraculous conception, I could not wiſh for
a fuller. refutation of it, than your being able to
prove that theſe very abſurd doctrines do, as you
ſay, neceſſarily depend upon it. I! ſhall add
that if Chriſt had ſo extraordinary a communi-
cation with God, in conſequence of his having no
father, what muſt have been the caſe with Adam,
who had neither father nor mother?
esidente si
When you ſhall ſee what I have advanced on
this ſubject, in the fourth volume of my Hiſtory of
early Opinions concerning Chriſt, you will be better
qualified to write about it than you were at the time
of compoſing this Sermon. This Hiſtory you iro-
nically, p. 12, call my GREAT WORK, printing it
twice in capitals. This work, which is now before
the public, and may be in your hands, you are wel-
come to treat ironically, or ſeriouſly, as you pleaſe,
But you will lead many of your readers to conclude,
that I had myſelf called it a great work, whereas I do
not recollect that I have any where called it more
than a large work, which does not imply ſo much
vanity as, in p. 86, you aſcribe to me. If that
work ſhould ſtand its ground againſt the fierce at-
tacks of the Archdeacon of St. Albans, the learned
Profeſſor of Arabic at Oxford, the more learned
Mr. Howes of Norwich, and the other learned cr-
thodox
I
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
39
thodox divines, at home and abroad, whoſe animad-
verſions it openly challenges, it may deſerve a more
honourable epithet than I have yet given it. At
preſent it is only a candidate for the approbation
of thoſe who are proper judges of its merit.
I am, &c.
1
......
L E T T E R
VI.
Miſcellaneous Articles.
Rev. SIR,
---
WE
ERE I diſpoſed to indulge myſelf in no-
ticing all the ſtrange poſitions, and incon-
cluſive reaſonings, with which your Remarks abound,
I ſhould make a much larger work than I fear my
readers would care to look through. Having, there-
fore, abundantly refuted every thing on which you
yourſelf pretend to lay the moſt ſtreſs, I ſhall be
very ſhort in my remarks on other things, to which,
however, you ſtrongly ſolicit my attention.
D4
I. As
40
LETTERS TO THE
.
I.
As to my conſtruction of the paſage in Albana-
fius, we are fufficiently come to an iſue. I am
fully ſatisfied with what I have advanced in ſupport
of it, and have nothing to add ; and, contempty-
ouſly as you treat it, p. 32, 1 ſhould not feel myſelf
diſpoſed to diſtruſt it on that account, even if I had
nor the concurrence of ſuch names as Beauſobre and
Dr. Lardner in my favour, I do not know that you
can produce the name of any writer whatever in fa-
vour of your interpretation.
II.
With reſpect to the paſſages from Chryſoſtom, you
will find in my larger work (if you ſhould con-
deſcend to look into ſuch a quantity of unfiniſhed li-
terature) that your conſtruction of his meaning is
contradięted by himſelf. You yourſelf, however,
acknowledge all that I want, when you ſay, p. 32,
" the apoſtles firſt taught what was eaſieſt to be
learned, and went on to higher points, as the
s minds of their catechumens became able to bear
them." For, in reality, it makes no difference
from whatever motive it was that the apoſtles did
not chuſe to teach the doctrine of Chrilt's divinity,
or of the trinity. If chriſtians were not taught
thofę. doctrines, they could not knošer them, and
conſequently they muſt have been unitarians, till
they were inſtructed in them; and this, as all the
Fathers ſay, was not till the publication of the goſpel
of John.
!
..
The
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
41
The learned and judicious Mr. Baſnage, though
a trinitarian, very frankly acknowledges, that Chriſt
found the Jews in utter ignorance of the divinity of
their Meſſiah, that his object was, “ to accuſtom
" them infenfibly to a myſtery ſo much above their
“ reaſon, and foreſeeing that the church would revolt
“ againſt it." Chryfoftom, he ſays, has ſucceeded
in maintaining this. Hiſt. des Juifs. L. V. cap. ix.
f. 3:
III.
You are pleaſed to ridicule my Logic, p. 13, as
confounding being, ſubſtance, and ſubſtratum, and
you find me “unapprized of that great principle,
* without which a logician will handle his tools but
“ aukwardly, that the genus cannot be predicated
" of the ſpecific differences.” I cannot tell where
you learned this curious logic, with which I ac-
knowledge I am utterly unacquainted ; and I ima-
gine it is equally unknown to common ſenſe. For,
according to it, ſince men are divided into Whites
and Blacks, &c. &c. and the Whites may be ſubdi-
vided into thoſe of Europe and Afia, &c. and the
Blacks into the Negroes of Africa, and other diſtinct
species in other parts of the world, it would follow,
that it cannot with propriety be ſaid of any particu-
Jar Whites or Blacks, that they are men, and it
would be ftill leſs proper to ſay that they are ani-
mals or creatures, and leaſt of all that they are
beings, that is, that they have any exiſtence at all.
However, it is unuſually modeſt in you, to allow
that even great men have fallen into the fame error
with
1
42
LETTERS TO THE
with myſelf, " in ſuppoſing that being is an univerſal
genus, under which all other genera rank as fpe-
« cies.” I am content to claſs with theſe great
men, greater, as you ſay, than myſelf.
IV
I am particularly amuſed with your account of
the'difſenters in this country, with whom it may be
preſumed that I am better acquainted than you are.
And yet, in contradiction to what I aſſerted, and
to what I am confident every diffenting miniſ-
ter, of any denomination whatever, will acknow-
ledge to be true, you largely maintain, p. 63, that
“ Calviniſm is almoſt extinguiſhed among us."
However, I the leſs wonder at your ignorance of
ancient ſeets when you ſo peremptorily decide with
reſpect to modern ones, arguing on the moſt falla-
cious principles, and neglecting, or deſpiſing, the
ſureſt, and the moſt eaſily acceſſible ſources of in-
formation. I ſincerely wiſh, that the rational Dif-
Senters were more numerous than they are ; but the
ſmallneſs of their number, compared to that of
the Calviniſtic difſenters, is a clear proof of the truth
of my general maxim, that great bodies do not foon
change their opinions; and that maximi affords the
ſtrongeſt preſumption that the body of chriſtians,
having, according to the acknowledgement of all the
Fathers, been at firſt unitarians, could not foon be-
come trinitarians. Accordingly, there are the cleareſt
indications that, in fact, they continued to be uni-
tarians for ſeveral centuries.
..
y. You
{
1
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
43
>
v.
You have taken great, but unneceſſary pains, to
prove that the places in which Mr. Lindſey and
myſelf officiate, are properly conventicles, p. 72, be-
cauſe we who preach in them are not authoriſed by
law. It is a matter of little conſequence by what
name they are called, ſince, even in the worſt and
moſt obnoxious ſenſe of the term, as places unau-
thoriſed by law, the apoſtles generally preached in
conventicles.
I ſhould think, however, that if, by any accident,
an unauthoriſed diffenting miniſter, like myſelf,
•ſhould preach in a pariſh church, it would nor, on
that account, become a conventicle, and require re-
conſecration. And if not, neither does the build-
ing in which I officiate, being licenſed according to
law, and therefore in itſelf no conventicle, become
one in conſequence of my preaching in it.
..
VI.
You have a whole chapter on the general Spirit of
my controverſial writings, in which you take much
pains to exhibit me as a man whoſe deſigns are
hoſtile to my country, and who has no pretenſion
to the character of a good chriſtian, or a good ſubje£t.
I rejoice that I am reproached on this account, as
I am conſcious that it is unmerited, and ſhall only
obſerve, that the ſame things, and on the very fame
grounds, were ſaid of Luther, and may be ſaid of
any man who ſhall endeavour to reform any thing
that
44
LETTERS TO THE
that he finds eſtabliſhed in the country in which he
is born. For it is impoſſible that any man ſhould
wiſh for a new and better ſtate of things, without
wiſhing for an alteration of the old and worſe ſtate;
apd if he may on this account be denominated an
enemy to the country in which that old and worſt
ftate prevails, a phyſician muſt, on the ſame prin-
ciple, be deemed the enemy of his patient, whoſe
diſorders he wiſhes to cure, and eſpecially if, in or-
der to it, he has recourſe to unpleaſing remedies.
GC
At the ſame time that you profeſs the greateſt
moderation, you cannot conceal your ſecret wiſhes
for the interference of ſome aid from a foreign quar-
ter. You ſay, indeed, p. 82,“Whatever Dr. Prieſtley
may affect to think of the intolerance of church-
men in general, or of the Archdeacon of St.
“ Alban's in particular, a churchmạn lives not in
« the prefent age ſo weak, who would not, in po-
“ licy, if not in love, diſcourage, rather than pro-
mote any thing that might be called a perſecution
“ of the unitarian blaſphemy, in the perſon of
" Dr. Prieſtley, or of any of his admirers. A
“ churchman lives not ſo weak, as not to know,
" that perfecution is the hot-bed in which-nonſenſe
“and impiety have ever thrived." I wiſh, Sir, I
could perſuade myſelf that this was true. For
there certainly are fome. very weak churchmen,
who, having leſs confidence in the force of argu-
ment than you have, may be alarmed too ſoon, and
cry, the church is in denger ; in which caſe you
would
{
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
45
would yourfelf think the interference of civil power
very proper.
Confiding, however, in the good fenfe and mo-
deration of my countryınen in general, though not
in that of the clergy in particular, I fhall perfift in
uſing that liberty which the laws ought to give me.
Unitarianiſm has flouriſhed very well, as you al-
low, in perfecution. Let the experiment be fairly
made, and we ſhall fee whether it will not flouriſh
as well in that ſtate of perfect freedom, which the
generous temper of the times gives us.
In a ſpirit very different from the general profef-
fions quoted above, you cannot forbear to inſinuate,
that my deſigns are truly alarming to che ſtate,
and ſay, p. 82, “ If Dr. Prieſtley ever ſhould at-
tempc to execute the ſmalleſt part of what he
“ would now be underſtood to threaten, it may thea
“ be expedient that the magiſtrate ſhould ſhew that
i he beareth not the ſword in vain."
You ſay, p. 83, “Let us truſt for the preſent, as
"we ſecurely may, to the trade of the good town
" of Birmingham, and to the wiſe connivance of
" the magiſtrate (who watches, no doubt, while he
« deems it politic to wink) to nip Dr. Prieſtley's
goodly projects in the bud, which nothing
“ would be ſo likely to ripen to a dangerous effect,
* as conſtraint exceflively or unſeaſonably uſed,
Thanks,
46
LETTERS TO THE
.
• Thanks; however, are due to him from all lovers.
« of their country, for the miſchief which he wants
“ not the inclination to do, if he could find the
" the means of doing it. In gratitude's eſtiination,
" the will is ever to be taken for the deed.” What
is this but ſaying, that it would be wiſe and right
to nip my projects even in the bud, if there was
any proſpect of my ſucceeding in them? And what
could a' Bonner or a Gardener ſay more? They
would never have burned men alive, if it had noc
been to prevent what they thought to be miſchief.
Indeed, Sir, you do not know what ſpirit you
1
are of.
But my projects are more than in the bud. I
am at this very time actually executing all that I
would be underſtood to threaten, or ever have
threatened. I am endeavouring, by all the means
in my power, to rouſe the attention of thinking
men in this country to the corrupt ſtate of the re-
ligion that is eſtabliſhed in it, and eſpecially to
.convince them of the miſchievous tendency of wor-
thipping Chriſt as a God, when chriſtianity dif-
claims all knowledge of any other God than one,
and that the God and Father of Chrift; being confi-
dent that when this is effected (and towards this con-
ſiderable progreſs is viſibly making every day, and
it has met with no obſtruction ſince the commence.
ment of this controverſy) not only will the preſent
forms of trinitarian worſhip be aboliſhed; but my
countrymen will then thank me, and my friends,
for
i
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
47
for what we may have contributed towards ſo glo.
rious a revolution. Till this be actually effected,
you will naturally call our attempts rebellious. In
the mean time, convince our governors, if you can,
that the country will ſuffer in its wealth, population,
power, &c. &c. by the people becoming unitarians.
Whatever you may inſinuate to the contrary, the
real nature, and full extent of my views (which I carry
on in obedience to a greater power than any in this
world) might eaſily be ſeen by yourſelf, eſpecially
in my late Obſervations on freedom of inquiry in
matters of religion. There you might alſo have ſeen
that the dreadful engine, by means of which I hope
to accompliſh my dangerous deſigns, is free dif-
cuſſion, or controverſy,man obftinate controverſy,
in which much reſt, but I hope no lives, will be
loft-much ink, but no blood, will be ſpilled; and
in this I conſider the Archdeacon of St. Albans,
Mr. White, Mr. Howes, and all my opponents, as
my coadjutors; for without ſuch concurrence, no
controverſy could be carried on. But“ the weapons
“ of our warfare are not carnal."
To yourſelf, Sir, in particular, the world is in-
debted for whatever there may be of value in my
large Hiſtory of early opinions concerning Chriſt.
For without the link that you put into the chain
of cauſes and effects, mechanically operating in my
mind, the very idea of that work would not, I be-
lieve, have occurred to me. And I truſt that a fire
Itill
1
48
LETTERS TO THE
ſtill more deſtructive to error and ſuperſtition, and
confequently to all the eccleſiaſtical eſtabliſhments
in the world, which are built upon and promote them,
will be raiſed by the concurrence of your feaſonable
pains in blowing up the name of this controverſy ;
which will not, I truſt, be extinguiſhed, till its end be
effectually anſwered.
3
Leſt you ſhould again relapſe into your criminal
indolence of eighteen months, conſider that the great
danger on which you, Sir, firſt founded the alarm
(and Mr. White has founded the horn of battle
ſtill louder) is now more threatening than ever.
I hope that you and your brethren will never
drop the ſpirit which breathed in your famous
Charge to the Archdeaconry of St. Albans. Left you
ſhould remit of your ardour, I ſhall here récite one
paragraph from it.
“ The reſtleſs fpirit of ſcepticiſm will ſuggeſt dif-
« ficulties in the ſyſtem, and create doubts about
" the particulars of the chriſtian doctrine: diffi-
“ culties muſt be removed and doubts muſt be
"s fatisfied. But above all, the ſcruples muſt be
s compoſed which the refinements of a falfe phi-
lofophy, patronized as they are in the preſent
oc
age by men no lets amiable for the general purity
“ of their manners, than diſtinguiſhed by their
" ſcientific attainnients, will be too apt to raiſe in
“ the minds of their weaker brethren. And this
" is
ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBANS,
49
te is the ſervice to which they, whom the indulgence
“ of providence hath releaſed from the more labo-
" rious office of the prieſthood, ſtand peculiarly en-
gaged. To them their more occupied brethren
“ have a right to look up in theſe emergencies, for
ſupport and ſuccour in the common cauſe. It is
“ for them to ſtand forth the champions of the com-
mon faith, and the advocates of their order, le
" is for them to wipe off the aſperſion injuriouſly
« caft upon the ſons of the eſtabliſhment, as unin-
“ formed in the true grounds of the doctrine which
" they teach, or inſincere in the belief of it. To
“ this duty they are indiſpenſably obliged by their
“ providential exemption from work of a harder
“ kind. It is the proper buſineſs of the ſtation
“ which is allotted them in Chriſt's houſhold. And
deep will be their ſhame, and inſupportable their
puniſhment, if, in the great day of reckoning,
" it ſhould appear that they have received the
" wages of a ſervice which hath never been per-
es formed.”
If, Sir, you read the above as often as you ought
to do, you will never, in this very critical ſituation,
when the enemy is at every gate, and ſcaling every
rampart of your old and ruinous fortreſs, indulge
yourſelf in your ſoft couch of preferment, but, together
with your brethren, exert yourſelf pro aris et focis.
VII.
You ſay, p. 78, that, “ as you conſider this con-
troverſy as reſembling a ſtate of war, in which no
E
quarter
50
LETTERS TO THE
1
(5
quarter is to be given, or accepted, you think
“ yourſelf at liberty to ſtrike at your enemy without
“ remorſe, in whatever quarter you may perceive an
opening.” This fell language may well make me
ſhudder at my ſituation, eſpecially as, in my large
work, at this very time probably in your cruel and
remorſeleſs hands, there muſt be many openings,
and your vigilance in diſcovering them cannot be
doubted. I truſt, however, that though you may
draw blood in many places, you will not be able to
reach
any
vital part. Out of eighteen hundred re-
ferences, I will gladly compound for eighteen being
found defective, when, of no more than five in this
performance of yours, not one proves to be to your
purpoſe.
As
you have apprized me of your reſolution to
ſtrike at me without remorſe, wherever you can
find an opening, I may preſume that the parts at
which you have aimed your remorſeleſs blows, are
all that you thought vulnerable. But, Sir, you are
not ſilful in the art of tormenting, and, like the
Indian warrior, I will teach you how you might
wound me much more deeply.
Your chief wilh is evidently to repreſent me as an
enemy to the civil and eccleſiaſtical conſtitution of
this country. Now had you been better redde in my
writings (but they are happily too voluminous for
you to look through) you might have found paſſages
more to your purpoſe than any that you have fe-
lected. You have gone back as far as the year
3
1769,
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
51
1769, but you have overlooked the Sermon which
I preached on reſigning my paſtoral office at Leeds,
in 1773, one paragraph from which I ſhall infert
for your uſe on another occaſion.
!
“ All who are intereſted in the ſupport of theſe
" antichriftian eſtabliſhments, which uſurp an undue
authority over the conſciences of men, and whoſe
" wealth and power are advanced by them, are at
“this very time in a ſtate of general conſternation,
both at home and abroad ; ſeeing their principles
" and maxins univerſally decried, and their unjuſt
“ claims affailed from a great variety of quarters,
" ſo that their kingdom is now full of darkneſs, and
" they are gnawing their tongues for pain, but with-
"out repenting of their deeds."
Rev, xvi. 10,
&c. &c. &c.
VIII.
As you talk, p. 153 of “ culling the flowers of
my compoſition," I ſhall, in return, preſent you
with ſome of your own. If they pleale ſo much
when ſeparate, what muſt be their beauty and fra-
grance when united ?
“ Inſufficient antagoniſt, p. I;
P. I; confident igno-
“rance, fiery reſentment, violent invective, and
o fierceneſs of wrath, p. 2; incompetency in the
ſubject, fraudulent trick, meant to be put upon
" the public, but not on Dr. Horſley, p. 9; unfi-
" nilhed erudition, ſhallow criticiſm, weak argu-
“ment, unjuſtifiable art to cover the weakneſs, and
ſupply the want of argument, p. 13; the vain in-
E 2
dignant
A
+
52
LETTERS TO THE
dignant ſtruggle of a ſtrong animal which feels
“ itſelf overcome, the mere growling of the tyger in
" the toils, p. 14; a never to be forgotten attempo
upon a paffage in St. John's firſt epiſtle, p. 18*;
a profeffor of Greek, unqualified to teach the
- elements of that language, p. 34 ; a falſe and
" fraudulent repreſentation of an argument, p. 42;
“ precipitance in aſſertion, and talent in accommo-
“ dating his ſtory to his opinion, p. 43; one in-
" ftance out of a great number, of his ſhameleſs in-
trepidity in aſſertion, p. 47; enraged hereſiarch,
P. 51; prudence in not yet declaring his anti-
pathy to the civil as well as eccleſiaſtical confti-
" tution of this country, p. 79; declaiming in his
" conventicle to enlighten the minds, and excite the
«s zeal of the mechanics of the populous town of
“ Birmingham, p. 81; the exceſſive admiration in
“ which I hold myſelf, p. 86; unjuſt claim to the
“ titles of a good chriſtian, or good ſubject,
p. 87, &c. &c. &Ć"
In connexion with this, let the reader now fee
what you ſay, p. 8. “ If on any branch of chrif-
“ tian duty my conſcience be at perfect eale, the
precept judge not is that which I truſt I have not
* Referring to a ſuppoſed attempt to impoſe upon my read-
ers, by a falſe quotation of the common Engliſh verſion of the
bible. A man really capable of this, could only be fit for Bed-
lamor Tyburn; and yet Dr. Horſley, in the very publication in
which he advanced that charge, ſaid my " virtues were great
“sand amiable ;" as evident a contradiction as the doctrine of
tranfubftantiation, or the trivity. But as theſe have been bea
lieved, ſo may the other.
s tranſ-
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS
5.3
“ tranſgreffed ;” and p. 87, “ From my youth up,
“I have been averſe to cenſorious judgment.
Who then, Sir, can deny that an exceſs of meekneſs
and inoderation forms the leading feature in your
character ?
.
!
Having taken from me every moral quality, all
knowledge of human nature, hiſtory, logic, and
every thing requiſite to qualify me for the contro-
verfy in which I have had the preſumption to en-
gage, together with the very elements of the Greek
language, and even of Latin, I think myſelf happy
that, having aſſerted your own right to all virtue,
and all knowledge, you have not yet expreſsly de-
nied my ability to write a little tolerably intelligible
Engliſh, and I ſhall endeavour to make the beſt uſe
that I can of it, before the fatal day ſhall come when
I may be ſtripped of this alſo.
1
But, dropping this ſtyle, I muſt on one ſubject be
a little ſerious with you. You ſay, p.71, that I
have charged you with grofs and wilful miſrepre-
fentation. This I deny; and if I have inadvertently
faid any thing that implies as much, I ſhall publicly
aſk your pardon. I muſt, therefore, inſiſt upon
your making good this accuſation. You repeatedly
charge me with wilful miſrepreſentation, but I
doubt not you really believe me to be that fraudu-
lent and baſe character, which alone is capable of
ſuch conduct, and therefore you ſay no worſe of me
than you really believe, I do not think ſo ill of
you, and therefore I do not uſe that language in
ſpeaking
E 3
54
LETTERS TO THE
ſpeaking of you. I have, indeed, called you a
falſifier of hiſtory, becauſe you have added, and (ås
you now acknowledge) knew that you added to the
accounts of ancient hiſtorians. But then you really
believed that the tranſactions paſſed as you related
them, and that the particulars which you added had
been omitted by the early writers. This is far ſhort
of a wilful lie. After what I had written on this
ſubject, in my eighteenth letter to you, I am ſur-
priſed that you ſhould write as you do now. How
different muſt be your feelings from mine..
The concluſion of your remarks, which is ſo little
of a piece with the body of the work, that it puts
me in mind of the introduction to Horace's art of
Poetry *, is ſomething extraordinary, and indeed,
Thocking. After aſcribing to me the worſt deſigns,
and the worſt paſſions, that can occupy the head or
heart of man, and for once intimating the poſſibility
of ſomething wrong lurking unperceived in your
own boſom, ſpeaking of the awful ſolemnities of
the laft day, you expreſs a deſire that " whatever of
s intempérate wrath, and carnal anger, has mixed
“ itſelf on either ſide with the zeal with which we
“have purſued our fierce contention, may then be
forgiven to us both; a prayer," you ſay, “which
you breathe from the bottom of your ſoul," and
*
* Humano capiti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere fi velit, et varias inducere plumas,
Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum
Delinas in piſcem mulier formofa ſuperne ;
Spectatum admiffi riſum teneatis, amici ?
to
:
ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBANS.
55
to which you add, that if I have any part in the
Ipirit of a chriſtian, I ſhall, on my bended knees,
fay, Amen.
!
Which of us has been actuated by the bad ſpirit
which you deſcribe, our readers will infer, not from
the declarations of either of us, but from our ge-
neral temper, conduct, and manner of writing. If
I be the man you deſcribe, I can have no hope of
forgiveneſs at the awful period to which you refer,
unleſs I repent and reform now. If, contrary to the
folemn declaration of your perfect innocence, quoted
above, you had, when you wrote this concluſion, ą.
Jatent fufpicion that all had not been right on your
ſide, you certainly, Sir, ought to have pauſed, have
carefully reviſed what you had written, and have
expunged what you could not approve. Boaſting
of more chriſtianity than you will allow to me, you
ought to teach me, by your example, what it is that
; our religion requires in theſe caſes, and not give any
occaſion to an unauthoriſed teacher in a conventicle,
to inſtruct an Archdeacon of the church of England
in one of the firſt leffons in the chriſtian ſchool.
:
I am, Rev. Sir,
Your very humble Servant,
1
J. PRIESTLEY.
E4
1
46
REMARKS ON
Remarks on Mr. Howes's Ninth Number of Obſer-
vations on Books ancient and modern.
INN
N Mr. Howes I have a much more reſpectable,
and a ſomewhat more temperate antagoniſt
than the Archdeacon of St, Albans; but I am
Sorry to find that he has employed his ingenuity
and learning (or, to uſe a favourite phraſe of his
his own, his talent of diſputation) where neither of
them can poffibly avail him; the former in ex.
culpating himſelf from the charge of repreſenting
me as an unbeliever, and the latter, in attempt-
ing to prove that the body of the Jews expected
a God in their Meffiah.
75mm
I do not reft my accuſation on the conſtruction
of particular words and phraſes, though that
would abundantly juſtify it. Let any man of
cominon ſenſe read his Diſcourſe, and then ſay,
whether one great object of it was not to repreſent
me as one of that claſs of perſons, who having
formerly been profeſſed unbelievers in chriſtiani-
ty, on finding that ground untenable, now only
pretend to believe it, calling themſelves rational
Cbriftiansy when in reality they are no chriſtians at
all. He has no occaſion to have recourſe to his
Dictionary for the meaning of the word pretend,
Does
MR. HOW E S.
57
Does any man ever content himſelf with faying
of another, that he pretends to a particular charac-
ter, if he really thinks that he has a juſt claim to
it? I ſay of Mr. Gibbon, that he pretends to be a
believer in chriſtianity ; but then I mean what, if I
uſe that language at all, I ought to mean, viz.
that he only pretends to believe it, while he is art-
fully endeavouring to fap the very foundations of
it. The fame is the natural inference from all
that Mr. Howes had ſaid with reſpect to me.
i
At pre-
If Mr. Howes really thinks me to be a believer
in chriſtianity, as he now ſays, it would much bet-
ter have become him, ingenuouſly to acknow-
ledge his fault, and to aſk pardon for it. At
ſent his apology only aggravates his offence.
However, it affects himſelf only, and not me.
We have one common maſter and judge, w.ho
knows both what he really intended by his ac-
count of me, and what I am ; and by his, fent-
ence, and not by that of Mr. Howes, I ſhall
ſtand or fall.
1
As to Mr. Howes's attempt, in this publication,
to prove that the body of the Jewiſh nation really
believed in the pre-exiſtence and divinity of their
Meſſiah, it muſt appear perfectly futile to any
perſon who ſhall read what they will find, on that
ſubject in my: Hiſtory of early opinions concerning
Chriſt. He will there find that even the chriſtian
Fathers, eager as they were to preſs the Jewiſh
ſcriptures
58
Ř E MARKS ON
"
fcriptures into the ſervice of the doctrine of the
trinity, did not pretend to have the body of the
Jewiſh nation on their ſide. And would not they
have been as glad as Mr. Howes now appears to
be, to have found that belief among them? What
ſome particular Jewilh cabbaliſts (whoſe writings
are remarkable for their ænigmatical obſcurity)
may have ſaid, in a later period, is nothing to
the purpoſe. To prove the eaſy reception of the
doctrine of the divinity of Chriſt in the primitive
times, Mr. Howes muſt find the doctrine of the
divinity of the Meffiah to have been the general
belief of the Jewiſh nation in the age of the apoſ-
tles. The opinion of ſuch a Platoniſt as Philo, if
we could be ſure of it, can never paſs for that of
the Jewiſh nation in general, who certainly were
not Platoniſts. Joſephus is at leaſt as good an au-
thorify as Philo; but is it probable that the Jewiſh
nation, or the Phariſees in general, were believers
in the doctrine of the tranſmigration of ſouls,
though this writer ſays they were ? Joſephus
himſelf; and a few others, might believe that
doctrine ; and, from a natural bias to add to the
reſpectability of our own party, he might give that
repreſentation of the faith of his ſect in general.
But Philo does not ſay that the Jews in general în-
terpreted the ſcriptures as he did.
In my Hiſtory Mr. Howes will find the moſt
expreſs teſtimony, that the Jews, in every age,
from our Saviour's time to the preſent, were be-
lievers in the ſimple humanity of their Meſſiah.
The
'!
Må. HOW E S.
59
The learned of that nation have always laughed at
the pretence of orthodox chriſtians to prove that
their anceſtors ever believed any thing elſe. Let
Mr. Howes get acquainted with any learned Jews
in this country, and they will give him the facif-
faction they have given me on this ſubject. And
is it not more likely that they ſhould know the
real ſentiments of their countrymen, and of their
own writers, with which they are continually conver-
ſant, than we can pretend to be? They give me
the ſtrongeſt aſſurances that the belief of their
Meffiah being a God, or that he pre-exiſted, nei-
ther is now, nor ever was, the faith of any of their
countrymen. On the contrary, they hold theſe
doctrines in the greateſt abhorrence. Since this
was indiſputably the caſe, both in the time of the
chriſtian Fathers and at preſent, let Mr. Howes
ſhew in which of the middle ages that doctrine
was firſt introduced, how far it ſpread, and when
it was deſerted by them. Let him firſt anſwer
what the learned Baſnage, who was a trinitarian,
has written on the ſubject, and then I will conſi-
der his
arguments.
I am indeed aſtoniſhed that neither Dr. Horf-
ley, nor Mr. Howes, ſhould ſo much as mention
the name of Baſnage in treating of this ſubject,
which he has ſo learnedly and ſo ably diſcuſſed,
and who has fo particularly conſidered what
Cudworth, Allix, and Bull had advanced upon it.
The character of Mr. Baſnage, in Moreri's Dic-
tionary
60
REMARKS ON
tionary, by Le Clerc, is as follows: "Monſieur
Baloage etoit vrai juſques dans les plus petites
“ choſes. Sa candeur, fa franchiſe, fa bonne foi,
“ ne paroiffent pas moins dans ſes ouvrages, que
" la profondeur de ſon erudition.” What will fo-
teigners ſay of Engliſhmen ſtill retailing the ſtale
arguments of the three writers above mentioned,
without any notice of what has been replied to
them by ſuch a man as this ? Notwithſtanding
the acknowledged excellence of his character,
there will be nothing extraordinary in Dr. Horf-
ley's repreſenting him as a wilful liar. If any
character could have been a fecurity againſt ſuch
groſs inſult, it would have been that of Origen.
I am not much acquainted with the Jewiſh cab-
balifts, except through the medium of Baſnage
and others, and therefore will not anſwer for the
meaning of the writer Mr. Howes quotes, though
it is of no ſignification what his meaning was; but
of Philo I have ſome knowledge ; and his mean-
ing, I am confident, Mr. Howes has moſt groſsly
miſtaken. Referring to that paſſage in Philo,
which will be found in my Hiſtory, vol. 2. p. 8,
he ſays, p. 46, that “the chief, or moſt ancient
logos (as Philo expreſſes himſelf) is likewiſe
“ fometimes mentioned by him as being actually
« reſident in the high prieſt of the Jews, and even as
being the very fame perſon with the high prieſt,
" as if they were blended into a compound indi-
* vidual; in conſequence of which the high
prieſt
go
2
s
MR. HOWES.
61"
prieſt is there fpoken of, and declared to be no
“ longer a man, and of this divine logos he
" ſays alſo, that he dwells in God. He goes on
" to deſcribe this divine logos, thus united to the
high prieſt, as having had God for his father,
“and as being anointed with oil at his genera-
" tion, or firſt government. Since then, p. 499,
" Philo here ranked the high prieſt as being the
" che ſame with the divine logos, and in another
place calls the divine logos a high prieſt, and
« conceives them capable of forming a compound
“ individual, it is plain that the popular theology
“ had no objection to a ſimilar compound, form-
" ed out of the divine logos and a human Mef-
ſiah, deſcended from David; which union they
“ would naturally fignify under the idea of the
« latter being anointed Chriſt, who would conſe-
quently be then no longer conſidered as mere
(man."
Now, nothing can be more evident, even to a no
very ſagacious reader, than that Philo, in chis paf-
fage, is merely indulging himſelf in one of his ex-
travagant allegorical interpretations of ſcripture;
ſuppoſing that what Mofes ſays concerning the bigh
prieſt was not to be underſtood of any man, but of
the Platonic divine logos. This writer abounds in
fuch ridiculous interpretations of ſcripture, and in
them he was too readily followed by the chriftiam
Fathers. But Mr. Howes's interpretation of Philo
is more extraordinary than Philo's interpretation
of
62-
REMARKS ON
of Moſes. Beſides, can this fame divine logos have
a proper bypoftatical union with the Jewiſh high
prieſt (probably every Jewiſh ligh prieſt) and with
Jeſus the ſon of Mary? What a ſtrange ſyſtem
will this make!
Mr. Howes's conſtruction of the paſſage, which
he has quoted from Tertullian, p.13, is no leſs wide
of his purpoſe. But I ſhall not enlarge upon
this
topic till I ſee how Mr. Howes will acquit himſelf
with reſpect to what he has engaged to do.
If any man can read the evidence that I have pro-
duced in my Hiſtory, in favour of unitarianiſm
having been the original faith of the chriſtian
church, the acknowledgments of the orthodox fa-
thers, that this doctrine was ſo prevalent among
both the Jews and gentiles, that it required the
greateſt caution in the apoſtles to teach them any.
more ſublime doctrine, that the doctrines of the
divinity and pre-exiſtence of Chriſt - were not
taught wiib clearneſs and effect, except by John
at the time of the publication of his Goſpel, after
that of the three others; that the common people,
who were unitarians, were extremely ſhocked at
the firſt propoſal of the doctrine of the trinity in
a later period, though, after this, the trinitarians
expreſſed great contempt and diſlike of the unitarian
docrine *, &c. &c. &c, and yet maintain that there
* That, the unitarians were at ficft confidered as no heretics,
and afterwards as heretics, Mr. Howes repreſents, p. viii. as
an
MR.
63
HO TV ES.
were no proper unitarians in the apoſtolic age, and
that which immediately followed it, I ſhall think
him capable of undertaking to prove that this
country was not inhabited by Britons before the
arrival of the Romans; but that the Romans them-
ſelves were the Aborigines of the country.
1
We are promiſed, however, abundant evidence of
this fingular poſition; and as Mr. Howes main-
tains, that thoſe whom I have called unitarians in
that age differed from the orthodox in nothing
more than in ſuppoſing that the union of the di-
vine and human nature in Chriſt commenced ſo
late as his baptiſm, and not ſo early as at his con-
ception, I take it for granted that we ſhall find this
mighty difference of opinion diſtinctly marked by
many of the ancient writers, and reaſons given why
this difference with reſpect to a date only, was con-
fidered as of ſo much conſequence. For that the dif-
ference was thought to be confiderable, and efpe-
cially that the orthodox doctrine was thought to be
much more difficult and ſublime than the other, is
too evident to be denied. Now I ſhould think
that it was quite as difficult to conceive of this
hypoſtatical union taking place in a man full
grown, as in an embrio in the womb. But Mr.
Howes will certainly find ſomething to ſay in fup-
“ an inconſiſtency above his comprehenſion.". How he can
imagine this is above my comprehenſion. But we ſhall, pro-
bably, have ſufficient opportunity of explaining ourſelves.
64
REMARKS, &cc.
port of fo fingular and favourite an hypotheſis, as
that which he has adopted'; and I am willing to
wait his time.
In the mean time it is a particular ſatisfaction to
me that this diſcuſſion is at length undertaken by
Mr. Howes, who is unqueſtionably a ſcholar, and
who is at the ſame time fo expeditious in his mo-
tions; as we ſhall now ſee all that can be produced
againſt my argument, and the learned will not long
be in ſuſpenſe with reſpect to it. And then I hope
it will appear that Mr. Howes is greatly miſtaken
in his affertion, that no good ever aroſe from con-
troverſy. But if that was his ferious opinion, how
can he juſtify himſelf in engaging in this contro-
verſy, in which he is entirely a volunteer, and how
comes it that every thing that he has written is con-
troverſial? Both his Obſervations on Books, and his
Sermon, are altogether ſuch. Much as I have
written in controverſy, from the fulleſt conviction
of the utility of it (which at leaſt juſtifies me to
myſelf) the far greater part of my publications are
of a different nature.
I
:
..
I
THE END
1
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
:)
3 9015 02735 0571
*
1
1
2
i
1

1