5t,i-i;!==

¦n-

i:..,'

liM'.-i- .'=:.'

j!« il
';o^!-.i.<H?fh 111
YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

TRACTS. VOL. II.

. TRACTS
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
BY
THE UNITARIA N S O C I E T Y
FOR PROMOTING
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
AND
THEPRACTICE OF VIRTUE.

VOL. II.

CONTAINING

TRACTS IN CONTROVERSY WITH BISHOP HORSLEY.
By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S. &c.

HonDon :
SOLD BY R. HUNTEK, ST. PATJL's CHURCHYARD ;
D. EATON, 187 HIGH HOLBORN;
AND C. FOX AND CO., THREADNEEDLE-STREET.
1825.

TRACTS

IN CONTROVERSY WITH

BISHOP HORSLEY,

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.
lu
AC. IMP. PETROP. R. PARIS. HOLM. TAURIN. ITAL. HARLEM. AUHEL,
MED. PARIS. CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAD. SOCIUS.

WITH NOTES BY THE EDITOR.
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED^
AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING
A REVIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY,
IN FOUR LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS, BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED.

LONDON:
PRINTED BT RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOR, SHOE LANE,
FOR THE LONDON UNITARIAN SOCIETY;
AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON AND CO., ST. PAUL's CHURCHYARD,
AND D. £ATON, HOLBORN.
1815.

Lately pulUshid,
The^'CLALMS of Dr, PRIESTLEY ,in the CONTROVERSY with
Bishop HORSLEY RESTATED and VINDICATED, in Reply to
the Animadversions of the Rev. Heneage Horsley, Prebendary of
St. Asaph, annexed to the late Republication of his Father's Tracts, By
Thomas Belsham.
The PROGRESS of INTELLECTUAL, MORAL, and RELI
GIOUS IMPROVEMENT during the present Reign, represented in
a DISCOURSE delivered before the Unitarian Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, at Essex-Street Chapel, on Thursday, March 31,
1814, in Commemoration of the Repeal of the Penal Laws against
the Impugners of the Doctrine of the Trinity. To which is annexed
AN APPENDIX, containing a SUMMARY REVIEW of a|Publication
of the Lord BISHOP of ^T. DAVID'S, entitled " A Brief Memorial,
on fhe Repeal of the 9 and 10 William IIL &c." By Thomas Bel^l
sham, Minister of the Chapel.

PREFACE.
It was the expressed intention of Dr. Priestley
in his preface to the Defences of Unitarianism
for the years 1788 and 1789, in imitation of
his learned opponent Bishop Horsley, to " re
print his Tracts in controversy with that pre
late, and to notice any thing which he might
think deserving of it, concluding the whole
with a serious address to the bishops and to
the legislature."
This intention, however, not having been
fulfilled while Dr. Priestley was living, the
publication would probably never have taken
pUce, had it not been for the unfounded and
indecent exultation of Dr. Horsley's partisans,
who, evidently without knowing any thing of
the state of the controversy, kept continually
claiming the victory for their chief, and repre
senting Dr. Priestley as a baffled and van
quished adversary. This circumstance in-
a2

IV PREFACE.
duced the Editor of this publication to annex
in an Appendix to the first part of his Calm
Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concern
ing the Person of Christ, a brief review of ,
the controversy between Dr.. Priestley and Dr.
Horsley, in order to show how little founda
tion there was for the bishop's partisans to
boast of their chieftain's triumph, and how
manifestly and decidedly in all material points
victory had declared herself on the side of
Dr. Priestley.
The reverend Heneage Horsley, Prebendary
of St. Asaph, and son of the late bishop,
piously solicitous for his father's reputation,
with more zeal than discretion stepped for
ward to resist the attempt of the Calm In
quirer to rectify the judgement of the public,
and republished his Father's Tracts,; with an
adulatory Dedication to the Prince Regent, an
acrimonious Introduction bitterly inveighing
against the Unitarians, and a laboured .Ap
pendix, in which, to the best of his ability,
he endeavours to falsify the representation

PRfiiFACE. V
and to invalidate the arguments of the Calm
Inquirer. The reverend Prebendary, though
not deficient in parts and learning, was totally
unacquainted with the subject upon which he
professed to write : and the principal advan
tage resulting from this publication was, that
it gave occasion to the Calm Inquirer to re
state the claims of Dr. Priestley to victory in
his controversy with Bishop Horsley, and to
place them in a light which it is presumed
cannot fail to satisfy every impartial judge.
As this defence of Dr. Priestley in some de
gree revived the attention of the public to the
subject, it was thought desirable by many of
the friends of freedom of inquiry, and parti
cularly by the admirers of Dr. Priestley, that
this learned and able champion of the primi
tive faith should be allowed an opportunity of
pleading his own cause by the republication
of his Tracts in controversy with Dr. Horsley,
that so, those readers who interested themselves
in the question, might be supplied with the
means of judging for themselves, to which of

vi PREFACE.
the learned champions the palm of victory be
longs. Aad as it was not to be expected that
a work of this nature should command a very
extensive sale, it was thought advisable that it
should be taken upon the Catalogue of the
London Unitarian Society.
To this publication are annexed four out
of six of the Letters addressed to the Bishops
by Dr. Priestley, and which were left by the
learned author with the present editor, to be pub
lished or suppressed at his discretion. And had
it not been for this revival of the controversy
they would probably never have seen the light*,
All the letters which have any bearing upon the
present controversy are published in this vo
lume. The second Letter contains Dr. Priestley's,
own abstract of the state in which the contro
versy was left when Bishop Horsley ceased to
write ; and siupersedes the abstract which the
editor had proposed to prefix to Dr. Priestley's
Tracts. The third letter has no immediate re
lation to the controversy with Dr. Horsley, but
contains Dr. Priestley's ^last thoughts upon his

PREFACE. vil
controversies with Mr. Howes, Dr. Home, Dr.
Barnard, Dr. Geddes, Mr, Hawkins, and Dr.
Davies, which cannot fail to be acceptable to
many readers. The two unpublished letters
were written at an early period of the French
revolution, and refer to a state of things which
is long since past, and the revival of which
would by no means tend to promote that spirit
of conciliation which it is now the wish of
every good man to cherish and encourage. Dr.'
Priestley particularly expostulates with the bi
shops of that day upon the subject of a clause
which was understood to be proposed by them
to be introduced into the Catholic bill, to ex
clude the impugners of the doctrine of the
Trinity from the benefit of the Toleration.
Happily, we live in better times ; and have
been witnesses to the repeal of those barba
rous laws which were a disgrace to the statute
book; which inflicted pains and penalties hor
rible to think of upon the conscientious wor
shipers of the one God, the Father only ; which
repeal was sanctioned by the unanimous deci-

vm PREFACE.
sion of the legislature, with the approbation of
all good men, and without; a single dissentient
voice from the right reverend Bench, Though
it is equally wonderful and lamentable to thiiik
that one of the learned prelates has since dis
graced himself and his order, by calling upon
tjie legislature to re-enact these inhuman sta
tutes. But, fortunately, though in this en-
Eghtened age the bench of bishops exhibits
the singular phaenomenpn of a Bonner, the
throne of Britain is no longer occupied by a
Tudor or a Stuart. We can now smile at the
busy impotence of a l?igotry which, in a for
mer age, would have caused our pious an
cestors to tremble. T. BELSHAM.
Essex House,
December 4, 1814.

CONTENTS OF PART I.

'LETTERS TO DR. MORSLEY, ARCHDEACON OF
ST, ALBAN'S,
PsEFStCE > - - . Page iii
An Introductory Letter - - - IS
LETTER L
Of the argument from the writings of the Apd-
sties and the apostolical Fathers - - 20
LETTER IL
Ofthe distinction between, tke Ebionites and tke
Nazarenes - - - - - 26
LETTER m.
That the primitive Unitarians were not consi
dered as heretics - - - - - 35
LETTER IV,
Of the inference that may be drawn from the
passage af Athanasius, concerning the opinion
of the early Jewish Christians relating to
Christ - - - . - - 45
LETTER V.
An argument for the late origin of tke doctrine
of the divinity of Christ, from the difficulty
of tracing the time in ivhich it was first di
vulged - ' - ^ m 00

X CONTENTS.
LETTER VL
Of the personification of the Logos - - 68
LETTER VIL
Considerations relating to the doctrine of the
Trinity - - - - - 77
LETTER vm.
Miscellaneous articles - - - 99
The Concluding Letter - - ' - 105
POSTSCRIPT.
I. Passages from Origen, referred to,, p. SO,
31, - . - . Ill
II. Of Heresy in early times - - 1 1 2
III. Of the conduct of the Apostles - 114
IV. Of the excommunication of Theodotus by
Victor - - - - 115
V. Of Justin Martyr's account of tke know
ledge of some christians of low rank 118
VI. Of the passage in Justin Martyr concern
ing the Unitarians of his time - ] 20
VII. Of the first autkor of the doctrine of the
permanent personality qf the Logos - 126
VIII. Maxims of historical criticism - 127
IX. A summary view of the evidence for the
primitive christians having keld the doc
trine ofthe simple humanity of Christ 131
APPENDIX.
Extract of a Letter from a Friend - - 139

CONTENTS OF PART II.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, ARCHDEACON OF
ST. ALBAN'S.
PjtEFacE " - - - - 143
A catalogue of the, principal ecclesiastical wri
ters, &c. after the apostolic age, with the time
wken they flourished, chiefiy from Cave's Hi
storia Literaria - - - - 159
The different opinions qf Dr. Horsley and Dr.
Priestley briefly stated - - - 162
LETTER L
Introduction - - •; - 167
LETTER XL
Of the doctrine of the first ages concerning the
person of Christ - - - 171
LETTER m.
Of the Nazarenes and Ebionites - - 178
LETTER IV.
Of the supposed orthodox Jewish church at Jeru-
salem, and of the veracity of Origen - 1 96
LETTER V.
Of heresy in the earliest times - - 205

xu CONTENTS.
LETTER VI.
Of the sentiments of Justin Martyr, IreneeuSf
and Clemens Alexandrinus, concerning heresy 211
LETTER VIL
Of the state of heresy in the time of Tertullian 217
LETTER VIIL
Of Origen's idea of heresy ¦ . - 226
LETTER IX.
Of the light in which the Unitarians were con
sidered in later ages, and of the state of the
common people at all times - - 232
LETTER X.
Of the quotation from Athanasius - - 240
LETTER XL
Of the time when Christ began to he considered ,
as God, and the opinion of the ancient and
modern Jews with respect to the Messiah - 251
LETTER XIL
Of the personification of the Logos ~ - 268
LETTER XIIL
Considerations relating to the doctrine ofthe Tri
nity - - - ^ . .276

CONTENTS.; Xlll
LETTER XIV.
Of prayer to Christ - - - 292
LETTER XV,
Of the unitarian principles with respect to Ma- ¦
hometanism and infidelity - - 297
LETTER XVI. f
Of Bishop Bull's defence of damnatory d luses 305
LETTER XVIL
Ofthe light in which the Dissenters are considered
by the Archdeacon qf St. Alban's, and of the
penalties to which the Unitarians among them
are subject . - - _ . 310
LETTER XVIIL
Ofthe charge of wilful misrepresentation, &c. 318
LETTER XIX.
Miscellaneous articles, and the Conclusion - 324
Appendix to Letter VIII. relating to the argu
ment for the novelty of tke doctrine of the Tri
nity, from the alarm that it gave to the com
mon people - - . - - 337

CONTENT^ OF PART III.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, ARCHDEACON OF
ST. ALBAN'S.

PnEFZcE ' - - - - 347
An Introductory Letter - - - 349
LETTER L
Of the veracity of Origen - - . 350
LETTER IL
General observations relating to tke supposed or-
ikodox church of Jewish christians at Jerusa
lem after the time of Adrian - - 361
, LETTER IIL
Ofthe testimony of Epipkanius to the existence
of a ckurck qf orthodox Jewish christians at
Jerusalem after the time of Adrian - 365
LETTER IV.
Of tke evidence from J erom in favour of the ex
istence of a church of orthodox Jewish chris
tians at Jerusalem after the time of Adrian 369
LETTER V.
Ofthe miraculous conception - -BIT
LETTER VL
Miscellaneous articles - . . - 380

CONTENTS OF PART IV.

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY, LORD BISHOP OF
S.T. DAVID'S.

Preface . . - . 397
LETTER L
Of his Lordskip's avowed object to depretiate his
.antagonist - - - - 403
LETTER IL
Ofthe ckarge of want of candour in Dr. Priest
ley - ¦ - - - - 410
LETTER IIL
Ofthe charge of borrowing from Zuic&er - 416
LETTER IV.
Of the damnatory cla'use in the Athanasian creed 419
LETTER V.
Of the phrase. Coming in the Flesh - - 423
LETTER VL
Ofthe meaning ofthe word Jdiota in Tertullian 4?6
LETTER VIL
Of heretics, according to Irenceus - - 429
LETTER VIIL
Of the origin of tke Son from the Father's con-
¦ templation of his own perfections - - 432

XVI CONTENTS.
LETTER IX.
Of the church of orthodox Jewish christians at
¦ Jerusalem, and of the veracity of Origen 443
LETTER X.
The Conclusion . . - - 452

APPENDIX,
CONfAlUlSO'
LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS UPON THE SUBJECI
OF THE CONTROVERSY WITH DR. HORSLEY.
LETTER L
Of the nature and importance of the late con
troversy concerning th^ doctrine of the Trinity 467
LETTER Ilf
A review of tke controversy with the Bishop of
St. David's . . . _ 472
LETTER m.
A general view of what has been done by other ¦
writers in this controversy in defence of the
doctrine ofthe Trinity - _ . 48g-
LETTER IV.
Of subscription, and a proposal for a change in
the forms of public worship - -. 487

LETTERS TO
Dr. horsley,
-IN ANSWER TO HIS
A NIMA D VE RSIO NS
ON TH£
HISTORY OF THE CORRUPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
WITH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
THAT
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS UNITARIAN.

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R,S.

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it
off. I Kinds xx. II.

PREFACE.

NLy design in writing the liistory of the Corruptions
of Christianity, it will easily be perceived, was to com
pose a work proper for the use of all christians, learn
ed and unlearned, and indeed chiefly the latter. Also,
having an extensive object before me, I did not give
much more attention to one part of the scheme than
to another. Ori these accounts I avoided all unneces
sary quotations from original writers in the languages
in which they wrote, especially in Greek, whieli I had
great difficulty in getting printed ; but I gave sorae
passages that were of particular value, and in Latin,
and distinctly referred to as many others as I had ac
tually made use of myself; making a point of referring
to none, at first or second hand, of which I saw any
reason to doubt.
It has happened that hitherto the first article in my
work, viz. The History of Opinions concerning Christ,
has attracted the more particular notice of critics, which
has led me to study this isubject more than I should
otherwise have done ; and I think it will probably en
gage my attention some time longer. Indeed, as the
question is of particular importance, I think it right to
take every method in my power to invite and promote
the fullest discussion of it. With this view, I replied
to some remarks of a writer in The Monthly Review,
which, though not in the least affecting my principal
argument, gave me an opportunity to add some new
illustrations.
B 2

IV PREFACE.
Dr. Horsley's Charge to his Clergy has afforded me
another opportunity of re-examining the subject ; and
the result, which is now before the reader, has beenj
as I think, a further illustration and a stronger confir
mation of my original position, viz. that the belief that
Christ was a mere man, naturally possessed of no other
powers than other men have, but a distinguished mes
senger of God, and the chief instrument in his hands
for the good of men, was the original faith of the
christian church, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles.
This controversy, I hope, will continue, either with
Dr. Horsley or some other person. Nothing, however,
shall be wanting on my part to keep it up, so long as
any new light shall appear to be thrown upon the
question in debate ; and after this I intend to compose
an entire work on this subject only ; stating, in as
clear a light as I shall be able, the evidence of the
above important truth (for such I cannot help consider
ing it)' as it shall then appear to me, with all the proper
authorities in the original languages, and leave it to
make whatever impressionit may on the minds of othersj
having then done my duty with respect to it.
In the mean time, I am by no means sanguine in
my expectations from the effect of the most forcible
arguments, on the minds of those who are at present
indisposed to receive the opinion that I contend for, iri
consequence of strong early prejudices in favour of a
different one ; prejudices which have been confirmed
by much reading, thinking, and conversation, espe
cially if those who are influenced by them be advanced
in life. It is happy for the cause of truth, as v?ell as
other valuable purposes, that man is mortal ; and that
while the species continues, the individuals go off the

PREFACE, V
4
Stage. For otherwise the whole- species would soon
arrive at its maximum in all improvements, as indivi
duals now do.
If any person ought to have candour for others in
this respect, I ought ; having had abundant experi
ence of the difficulty with which deep-rooted prejudices
give way to the strongest evidence, even when the mind
is naturally active, and the attention is constantly kept
in a state of inquiry. On this account, a short histo
ry of the progress of my own thoughts with respect to
this subject may be useful. To myself the reflection
upon it is highly so, at the same time that it is not a
little humbling.
Having been educated in the strictest principles of
Calvinism, and having from my early years had a se
rious turn of mind, promoted no doubt by a weak and
sickly constitution, I was very sincere and zealous in
my belief of the doctrine of the trinity ; and this con
tinued till I was about nineteen ; and then I was as
much shocked on hearing of any who denied the divi
nity of Christ (thinking it to be nothing less than im
piety and blasphemy) as any of my opponents can be
now. I therefore truly feel for them, and most sin
cerely excuse them.
About the age of twenty, being then in a regular
course of theological studies, I saw reason to change
my opinion, and becaihe an Arian ; and notwithstand
ing what appeared to me a fair and impartial study of
the scriptures, and though I had no bias on my mind
arising from subscribed creeds, and confessions of faith,
&c. I continued in that persuasion fifteen or sixteen
years ; and yet in that time I was well acquainted with
Dr, Lardner, Dr. Fleming, and several other zealous

VI -FREFACfE.
Socinians, especially my friend Mr. Graham, The first
theological tract of mine (which was on the doctrine
of atonement) was published at the particular request
and under thedirection of Dr. Lardner ; and he ap
proving of the scheme which I had then formed, of giv
ing a short view (which was all that I had then though!
of) of the progress of the corruptions of Christianity^
gave me a few hints with respect to it. .But still I
continued till after his death indisposed to the Sociniari
hypothesis. After this, continuing my study of the
scriptures, with the help of his Letters on the Logos',
I at length changed my opinion, and became what is
called a Socinian ; and in this I see continually more
reason to acquiesce, though it was a long time before
the arguments in favour of it did more than barely pre
ponderate in my mind. For the arguments which ha4
the principal weight with me at that time, and partici*-
larly those texts of scripture which so long retarded my
change of opinion, I refer my readers to The Theologt
cal Repository, vol. iii. p. -345.
I was greatly confirmed in this doctrine after I was
fully satisfied that man is of an uniform composition,
and wholly mortal ; and that the doctrine of a sepa
rate immaterial soul, capable of sensation and action
when the body is in the grave, is a notion borrowed
from heathen philosophy, and unknown to the scrip
tures. Of this I had for a long time a mere suspicion;
but having casually mentioned it as such, and a violent
outcry being raised against me on that account, I wa»
induced to give the greatest attention to the questional
to examine it ia every light, and to invite the fullest
discussion of it. This terminated in as full a convic
tion with respect to this subject as I have with respect

PREFACE, - Vil
to any other whatever. The reasons on which that
conviction is founded may be seen in ray Disquisitions
on Matter and Spirit, of which I have lately published
a new and improved edition.
Being now fully persuaded that Christ was a man like
ourselves, and consequently that his pre- existence, as
well as that of other men, was a notion that had no
foundation in reason or in the scriptures ; and having
been gradually led (in consequence of wishing to trace
the principal corruptions of Christianity) to give parti
cular attention to ecclesiastical history, I could not help
thinking but that (since the doctrine of the pre-exist-
ence of Christ was not the doctrine of the scriptures,
and therefore could not have been taught by the apo
stles,) there must be some traces of the rise ^nd progress
of the doctrine of the trinity, and some historical evi
dence that unitarianism was the general faith of chris
tians in the apostolical age, independent of the evidence
which arose from its being the doctrine of the scriptures.
In this state of mind, the reader will easily perceive
that I naturally expected to find, what I was previously
well persuaded was to be found; and in time I collected
much more evidence than I at first expected, con
sidering the early rise, and the long and universal
spread, of what I deem to be a radical corruption of
the genuine christian doctrine. This evidence I have
fairly laid before the reader. He must judge of the
weight of it, and also make whatever allowance he
may think necessary for my particular situation and
prejudices. I am well aware that it is naturally impossible tbat
the evidence I have produced should impress the minds
of those who arg, Arians or Athariasians, as it will those

vm PREFACE.
of Socinians ; nor are men to be convinced of the pro«»
per humanity of Christ, by arguments of this kind.
They must begin, as I did, with the study of the
scriptures ; and whatever be the result of that study, it
will be impossible for them, let them discipline their
minds as they will, not to be influenced in the historii-
cal inquiry, as I was, by their previous persuasion con
cerning the subject of it. If, however, they should be
So far impressed with the historical arguments, as to
think it probable that the christian church was, in a
very early period, unitarian; it will, no doubt^ le^d
them to expect that they shall find the doctrine of the
scriptures, truly interpreted, to be so too.
With respect to myself, I do not know that I can
do any thing more. Being persuaded, as I am, from
the study of the scriptures, that .Christ is properly a
man, I cannot cease to think so ; nor can I possibly
help the influence of that persuasion in my historical
researches. Let other persons write as freely on they:
respective hypotheses as I have done on mine; and
then indifferent persons, and especially younger persons*
whose minds have not acquired the stiffness" of oiirs,
who are turned fifty, may derive benefit from it.
Firm as my persuasion now is concerning the proper
humanity of Christ, (a persuasion that has been the ,
slow growth of years, and the result of much anxious
and paiient thinking,) I do not know that, in the course
of my inquiry, I have been under the influence of pre
judice more than all other men naturally are. As to
reputation, a man may distinguish himself just as much
by the defence of old systems, as by the erection of
new ones; but I have neither formed any new systems,
nor have I particulaply distinguished inyself in the de-

, PREFACE. IX
fence of old ones. When I first became an Arian, and
afterwards a Socinian, I was only a convert, in com
pany with many others ; and was far from having any
thoughts of troubling the world with publications on
the subject. This I have been led to do by a series of
events, of which I had no foresight, and of which. I
do not see the issue.
The conclusion that I have formed, with respect to
the subject of this work, and my exertions in support
of it, are, however, constantly ascribed by my oppo
nents to a force of prejudice and prepossession, so
strong as to pervert my judgment in the plainest of all
cases. Of this I may not be a proper judge ; but
analogy may be some guide to myself as well as to
others in this case.
Noy, what appears to have been my disposition in
other similar cases ? Have I been particularly attached
to hypotheses in philosophy, even to my own, which
always create a stronger attachment than those of other
¦persons ? On the eontrary, I will venture to say that
no person is generally thought to be less so ; nor has it
been imagined that my pursuits have been at all defeat
ed, or injured, by any prepossession in favour of parti
cular theories ; and yet theories are as apt to mislead in
philosophical as in any other subjects. L have always
shown the greatest readiness to abandon any hypothe
sis that I have advanced, and even defended while I
thought it defensible, the moment I have suspected it
to be ill founded, whether the new facts that have re
futed it were discovered by myself or others. My
friends in general have blamed me for my extreme fa
cility in this respect. And if I may judge of myself
by my own feelings, after the closest examination that

X PREFACE.
I can give myself, I am just the same with respect to
theology. In the course of- my life I have held and defended
opinions very different from those which I hold at pre.
sent. Now, if my obstinacy in retaining and defends
ing opinions had been so great as my opponents repre.
sent it, why did it not long ago put a stop to all my
changes, and fix me a Trinitarian, or an Arian ? Let
those who have given stronger proofs of their minds
being open to conviction than mine has been, throw, the
first stone at me.
I am well aware of the nature, and force of that op-
-position arid obloquy to which I am exposing myself
in consequence of writing my History of the Corrup
tion's of Christianity, the most valuable, I trust, of all
iny publications ; and especially in consequence of the
pains that have been taken to magnify and expose a few
inaccuracies, to which all works of a similar nature have
been and ever must be subject. But I have the full-
-est persuasion that the real oversights in it are of the
smallest magnitude, and do not at all affect any one
position or argument in my work, as I hope to satisfy
all candid judges ; and as to mere cavil and reproach,. •
I thank God, I am well able to bear it.
The odium I brought upon myself by maintaining
the doctrines of materialism and necessity, without
attempting to cover or soften terms of so frightful a
sound, and without palliating any of their conse
quences, was unspeakably greater than what this busi
ness can bring upon me. At the beginning of that
controversy I had few, very few indeed, of my near
est friends, who were with me in the argument. They
however who knew me, knew my motives, and ex-

PREFACE. Xt
cused me ; bdt the christian world in general regarded
me with the greatest abhorrence. I was considered as
an unprincipled infidel, either an atheist or in league
with atheists. In this light I was repeatedly exhibited
in all the public papers ; and The Monthly Review, and
other Reviews, with all the similar publications of the
day, joined in the popular cry. But a few years have
seen the end of it. At least all that is left would not
disturb the merest novice in these things. The conse
quence (which I now enjoy ) is a great increase of ma
terialists ; not of atheistical ones, as some will still re
present it, but of the most serious, the most rational,
and consistent christians.
A similar issue I firmly expect from the present con
troversy, unpromising as it may appear in the eyes of
some, who are struck with what is speciously and con
fidently urged. For my own part, I truly rejoice in
the present appearance of things ; as I foresee that much
good will arise from the attention that will by this
means be drawn upon the subject ; and as I hope I re
spect the hand of God in every thing, I thank him for
leading me into this business ; as I hope to have occa
sion to thank him, some years hence, for leading me
through it, and with as much advantage as I have been
led through the other.
It is, indeed, my firm, and it is my joyful persuasion,
that there is a wise Providence overruling all inquiries,
as well as other events. The wisdom of God has ap
peared, as I have endeavoured to point out, even in
the corruptions of Christianity, and the spread of er
ror J and it is equally conspicuous in the discovery and
propagation of truth.
I am far from thinking that that great Being who
superintends all things, guides my pen any more than

-2xi; PREFACE.
he does that of my fiercest opponent ; but I believe
that by means of our joint labours, and those of all
who engage in theological controversy (which is emi
nently useful in rousing men to the utmost exertion of
their faculties), he is promoting hia own excellent
purposes, and providing for the prevalence of truths
in his .own due time; and in this general prospect we
ought all equally to rejoice. ,
It becomes us, however, to consider, that they only
will be- entitled to praise, who join in carrying on the
designs of providence with right views of their own',
who are actuated by a real love of truth, and also by
that candour and benevolence,- which a sense of our
common difficulties in the investigation of truth most
effectually inspires. A man who has never changed'.
an opinion cannot have much feeling of this difficulty,.
and therefore cannot be expected to have much can
dour, unless his disposition be uncommonly excellent.*
I ought to have more candour than many others, be
cause I have felt more than many can pretend to have
done, the force of those obstacles which retard our^
progress in the search of truth.
With much tranquillity, a tranquillity acquired by
habit, but more approaching to a pleasing alacrity,
than to any uneasy apprehension, I shall wait the issue
of the present controversy ; freely retracting whatever
I shall be found to have advanced vs^ith too little consi
deration ; moderating any thing on which I shall ap
pear to have laid too much stress, and urging with the
greatest freedom every new argument or illustration
that may occur to me, till I shall have nothing of con
sequence to allege. After this I shall no longer reply
to particular opponents, but content myself with mak
ing such corrections and improvements either in my

PREFACE, Xlll
History, or my intended View of the Doctrine of the
first Ages of the Chrisdan Church, concerning the Per
son of Christ, as I may see necessary ; submitting every
thing to the judgment of those who may think proper
to give any attention to the subject.
I cannot conclude this preface without cautioning our
readers not to imagine that this is a mere trial of skill
between me and my opponents. It is the opening of a
serious and important controversy,* tending to decide
whether the christian church in the age of the apostles
was unitarian or trinitarian ; which, independently of
any arguments from particular texts of scripture, will
assist us to determine whether the doctrine of the tri
nity, which*has had so long possession of the minds of
the christian world, be a real doctrine of Christianity, or
one of its oldest and worst corruptions.
I wish to draw out the ablest men, both on the tri
nitarian and the Arian side pf the question ; and I hope
that I shall not long be the principal on the proper
unitarian side. My Vindicator is much better qualified
to take this place, and leave me that of auxiliary.
I would further observe, that in a controversy so
various and ej^tensive as this will probably be, it should
not be imagined that the question is absolutely decided
when any particular advantage is gained on either side.
All men are liable to oversights ; i.but a judicious
reader will consider the extent and consequences of an
oversight, and particularly whether it affects the ques
tion itself, or the writer only.
Especially, let not persons who are not themselves
much conversant in ecclesiastical history, conclude that
when any writer has gained a seeming advantage, it is
therefore a real and final one ; but let them wait till

Xiv PREFACE.
his Opponent has been heard. On th,e first appearance
of Dr. Horsley's Charge, many persons considered it
as decisive against me. Others may now think as fa
vourably of my side of the argument. But let -all
persons suspend their judgment till they see that we
have nothing of consequence to allege further, and let
a reasonable tirae be given to each of us.
To the Letters to Dr. Horsley I have subjoined a
Postscript of supplemental and miscellaneous matters ;
and especially a summary view of all the evidenee that
I have hitherto been able to collect, and maxims of
historical criticism, with which the several articles may
be compared. I wish that my opponents would take
the same or any similar method, in order to bring the
controversy to a more easy, speedy, and satisfactory
termination. I have likewise added some notice of the writer in
The Monthly Revievsr for September last, which con
tains a large answer to my reply to his former animad
versions. It was certainly improper for a person who
assumes the character of z judge to become a party in >
the dispute. With the intentions that he avows, of
drawing me into a controversy, he ought to have left
his former province of reviewer to another ; and not to
have availed himself of the prodigious advantage of
the cheap and immense circulation which the Review«?i
gave him. As Dr. Horsley considers this writer (p. 77)
as learned in ecclesiastical history, and may wish,
to have him for an ally, let him not, like Commodus,,,
throw his darts from a stage ; but if he have any con
fidence in his own prowess, (of which he seems to have
no distrust,) let him, nlasked os unmasked, descend:
Into the arena along with us.

AN INTRODUCTORY LETTER.
Dear Sir,
As it is my earnest wish that every subject of impor
tance may be fully investigated, I am happy to find
that you have done me the honour to animadvert ori
my History of the Corruptions of Christianity, in
your late Charge to the Clergy,, at St. Alban's, as you
formerly did on my Treatise On Philosophical Neces
sity, -in a Sermon. I was in hopes that my reply to
the latter would have led you to pu;-sue the argument
with me to its proper termination. But though I failed
in my attempts to engage your assistance in that in
quiry, I flatter myself that I shall be more successful
in this ; especially as, by the temper and style of your
performance, you seem to interest yourself more deeply
in this subject, imagining, no doubt, and very justly,
that much raore depends upon it.
You have given, however, a degree of iraportance
to my work which, I own, I had not thought of my
self, vs^hen you say to your reverend brethren, p. 5,
" You will easily conjecture that what has led me to
these reflections, is the extraordinary attempt which
has lately been made to unsettle the faith, and to break
up the constitution, of every eccl&iastical establishment
in Christendom. Such is the avowed object of a re
cent publication, which bears the title of A History of
the Corruptions of Christianity, among which the Ca
tholic doctrine of the trinity holds a principal place."
Now I see nothing so very extraordinary in my at-

16 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
tempt. I have only done what has been done by every
other person who has endeavoured to refute the doc
trine of the trinity, or any other essential article of
established churches. However, as you seem to have
taken so particular an alarm iri this case, I am willing
to hope you will exert yourself with proportionable
vigour ; when, in your apprehension, it is no less than
to save a falling state. Before I enter upon the sub. •
ject itself, I must endeavour to set you right with re
spect to two preliminary circumstances.
" Whether it be to my credit or not, I must observe
that you make my reading to be more -extensive than it
is, when you suppose me to have borrowed my priuiis
cipal arguments from D. Zwicker or Episcopius. I db
assure you. Sir, I do not recollect that I ever met with
the name of Zwicker before I saw it in this publicatioii '
of yours. For Episfcopius I have the highest reverence;
and I thank you for informing me that, though an
Arian himself, he was convinced that the Christiaa
church was origirially what is now called Socinian.
On the other hand, by your recommending Bishop
Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith so very strongly,
and not mentioning any other modern writers, you
seem to have overlooked, or to have undervalued, se
veral works which may certainly be very useful to
those who .wish to form an impartial judgment on the
subject of this controversy ; especially Whitby's Dii-
quisitiones Modestce, iri answer to Bishop Bull, and his
Replies to Waterland, with several pieces in the Soci^*
nian Tracts, in three small volumes 4to. But Lara
more particularly surprised that you should not have
mentioned Dr. Clarke's celebrated Treatise on the Tri-^
nity, which is calculated to be of the greatest use to

" LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY- 17
those who would study this subject ; containing all the
texts that relate to it most advantageously arranged for
the purpose, together with some very useful references
to the christian fathers. There are several parts of
that work which I would take the liberty to recom
mend to your own particular attention.
You charge me with arguing in a circle, saying,
p. 12, " It is the professed object of his undertaking
to exhibit a view of the gradual changes of opinions,
in order to ascertain the faith of the first ages. And
he would ascertain the faith of the first ages in order
to settle the sense of the scriptures in disputed points.
He is therefore not at liberty to assume any sense of
the scriptures, which, because it is his own, he may be
pleased to call the clear sense, for a proof that the ori
ginal faith was such as would confirm the sense he
wishes to establish." ,
*' So long," you say, " as the sixtfe page of the first
volume of Dr. Priestley's History shall be extant, the
masters of the dialectic- art will be at no loss for an ex
ample of the circulating syllogism." But unless they
be provided with one already, you must look out for
them elsewhere, as this you have now pitched upon
will not answer their purpose, if they be really masters
of the dialectic art.
Had I produced no other proof of the unitariahism
of the scriptures he&idies that of the primitive church,
and also no other proof of the unitarianism of the pri
mitive church, besides that of the scriptures, I should
have argued in a circle. But you will find that I have
been far from doing this.
Is it riot usual with all writers who wish to prove
two things, which mutually prove each otlier, to ob-
c

18 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
serve that they do prove each other ; and therefore,
that whatever evidence can be alleged for either of.
them is fully in point with respect to the other ? Now
this is all that I have done v^ith respect to the unita
rianism of the scriptures, and of the primitive church,
which prove each other ; only that, in my History, I
do not profess to enter into the separate proof of the
unitarian doctrine from the scriptures.
This I there take for granted had been sufficiently
done already by myself and others ; and I therefore
proceed to prove the unitarianism of the primitive
church froiji independent evidence; only observing
that the unitarian doctrine having been taught by the
apostles is likewise a proof of th6 sarae thing. But
this I could not suppose would have any weight with
those who are trinitarians, though it was not improper
to raention it with respect to others with whom it
would have weight.
I might have urged another kind of argument against
both the divinity and the pre-existence of Christ, viz.
from the doctrine of the materiality of raan, which I
presura,e has been sufficiently proved in my Disquisi
tions on Matter and Spirit. - 1 maintain that there is
no more reason why a man should be supposed to have
an iraraaterial principle within hira, than that a dog, a
plant, or a magriet, should have one ; because, in all
these cases, there is just the sarae difficulty in iraagin-
ing any connexion between the visible matter of which
they consist, and the invisible powers of which they are
possessed. If i^niversal concomitance' be the founda-*
tion of all our reasoning concerning causes and effects^
the organized brain of a man must be deemed to be
the proper seat and immediate cause of bis sensation

lett:ers to dr. horsley. 19
and thinking, as much as the inward structure of a
magnet, whatever that be, is the cause of its power of
attracting iron.
This is a very short and plain argument, perfectly
consonant to all our reasoning in philosophy ; and it is
conclusive against the doctrine ofa soul, and conse
quently against the vdiole system of pre-existence-. If
then Peter, James, and John had no pre-existent state,
it must be contrary to all analogy to suppose Jesus to
have pre-existed. His being a prophet, and having a
power of working miracles, can make no just exception
in his favour ; for then every preceding prophet must
have pre-existed.
I think I have also proved in my Disquisitions, that
the doctrine of a soul, as a substance distinct from the
body, and capable of being happy or miserable when
the body is in the grave, was borrowed from pagan
philosophy, is totally repugnant to the system of reve
lation, and unknown in the scriptures ; which speak of
no reward for the righteous, or punishraent for the
wicked, before the general resurrection, and the coraing
of Christ to judge the world.
1 raight therefore have urged that, since the doctrine
of Christ's pre-existence is contrary to reason, and was
never taught by Christ or his apostles, it could not
have been the faith of their immediate disdples in the
first ages of Christianity. This argument will have its
weight with those who reject the doctrine of a soul,
and make them look with suspicion upon any pretended
proof of the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence, and of
its having been the faith of the apostolical age, as well
as their previous persuasion that such is not the doc
trine of the scriptures. And since all the three posi-
c 2

20 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
tions are capable of independent proof, the urging of
them would not have been arguing in a c/rc/e, but the
adducing of proper collateral, evidence.
I am, &c.

LETTER L ¦
Of the Argument from the Writings' of the Aposttei
and the apostolical Fathers.
Dear Sir,
Before I consider what you have said with respect to
the apostolical fathers, I must take some notice of what
you have advanced with respect to. the argument from
scripture ; though, in this Charge, you do not proj
fessedly go upon that ground.
, You take it for granted that the logos-, mentioned in
the introduction to the gospel of John, must be z per
son, and not a mere attribute, because it is referred to
by the pronoun ovros. " This person," you say, " (for
that is the natural force of the Greek pronoun ovtog)
this person was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by him, he." Whereas, this pronoun may
refer to any thing th^t is of the same gender in the
Oreek language, whether it be a person or not ; and
it requires but a moderate acquaintance with the Nevr
Testament to observe instances of it even there ; as in
Matt. vii. 1 2, ovros itrriv 6 vo/AOf , This is the law, and
Rev. XX. 14, ouVof itrrtv o hvtepog BixvetTos,This is the
second death.
The .same pronoun refers to the temple, mon

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 21
John ii. 20 ; to bread, ocpros, John vi. 50 ; to stones,
KtSoi, Matt, iv, 3 ; Acts iv. 1 1 ; a salutation, utrirua--
[jioe, Luke i. 29, and not less than eight times to Koytsg-,,
where it certainly raeans noticing more than speech, as
Matt, xxviii. 15, &c. To satisfy yourself, only look
into any Concordance of the Greek Testament.
The logos of John, therefore, may be a mere attri
bute of the Father, though it be the antecedent to the
pronoun oirog. For you will hardly say that the law,
or death, or the temple, &c, &c. is a real person ca
pable of intention and action. Besides, I do suppose
that John uses 2. figurative personification, which would
require the same forms of speech as if he had intended
to speak of a real person.
You also find a* reference to the pre-existent state of
our Saviour in 1 John iv, 2, where it is said every spi
rit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the fi'esh
is of God; by which you say, p. 15, " the opinion
that Christ was truly a man is very awkwardly and un
naturally expressed. The turn of the expression,''
you add, *' seems to lead to the notion of a being who
had his choice of different ways of coming,"
On the other hand, I think the phrase sufficiently
similar to other Jewish phrases, of which we find va
rious examples in the scriptures, and that it may be
explained by the ^hxdse partaker of fiesh and, blood,
Hebrews ii, I*. If the word coming must necessarily
mean coming from heaven, and imply a pre-existent
state, John the~Baptist must have pre-existed : for our
Saviour uses that expression concerning him, as well
as concerning himself. Matt. xi. l8; 19, JoKn came
neither eating nor drinking, and they say he hath a da-
mon. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, ^c.

22 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
It may also be asserted with, more certainty still' con-
cerning all the apostles that they pre-existed; for
our Saviour, in his prayer for them, respecting their
mission, makes use of the term-world, which is not
found in 1 John iv. 2, where he says, John xvii. 18,
As thou hast sent me into the world, so have I also
sent them into the world.
The phrase coming in the fiesh, in my opinion, re
fers very naturally to th^ doctrine of the Gnostics, who
supposed Christ to be a super-angelic spirit, which de-
scended from heaven, and entered into the body of
Jesus. The phrase he that should come, or who was to
come(his coming having been foretold bythe prophets),
appears to have been familiar to the Jews, to denote
the Messiah : but with them it certainly did not imply
any coming down from heaven, because they had no
such idea concerning their Messiah.
I see no trace, therefore, in the epistle of John of
any more than one heresy. He neither expressly says
nor hints that there "were two ; and part of his descrip
tion of this one heresy evidently points to that of the
Gnostics, as is acknowledged by yourself; and this
heresy was as different as possible from that of the
Ebionites. The early writers who speak of them men
tion them as two opposite heresies existing in the same
early period ; so that it is very improbable a priori,
that " the same expression," as you say, -p. 16,
*' should be equally levelled at them both." Gnosti;-
cisra being certainly condemned therefore by the apo
stle, and not the doctrine of the Ebionites, I conclude
that in the latter, which is allowed to have existed in
his time, he saw nothing worthy of censure ; but^that
it was the doctrine which he himself had taught. If

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, 23
this apostle had thought as you do with respect to it,
why did he not censure it unequivocally, as you do,
and with as much severity ?
Tertullian, indeed, maintained that, by those who
denied that Christ ivas come in tke fiesh, John meant
the Gnostics, and that by those who denied that Jesus
was the son of God, he meant the Ebionites *. ' He
had no idea that the former expressiori only could in
clude both. But as the Gnostics maintained that Jesus
and the Christ were different persons, the latter having
come from heaven, and being the son of God, where
as Jesus was the son of raan only, the expression of
Jesus being the son of God is as directly opposed to
the doctrine of the Gnostics as that of Christ coming
' in ihe fiesh.
You say, p. 17, " It appears, therefore, that to
confess that Jesus Christ is corae in the flesh, and to
affirm that Jesus Christ is truly a raan, are proposi
tions not perfectly equivalent. Dr. Priestley indeed
has shown himself very sensible of the difference. He
would not have otherwise' found it necessary for the
•iraproveraent of his argument, in reciting the third
verse of the 4th chapter of St, John's first epistle, to
change the expression which he found in the public
translation, for another which corresponds far less ex
actly with the Greek text. For the words that Jesus
Christ is corae in the flesh, Dr, Priestley substitutes
these, Jesus Christ is come of the flesh," You add
afterwards, " He mighi think it no unwarrantable li
berty to correct an expression, which, as not perfectly
corresponding with his own system, he could not en-
* De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, sect, xxxiii, p, 214.

24 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
tirely approve. It would have been but fair to adver
tise his readers of so capital an emendation ; an emen
dation for which no support is to be found in the Greek
text, nor even in the varieties of any MSS."
I am sorry. Sir, thiat my printer, or my own mistake,
should have given you all this trouble in consulting
MSS. &c, I do assure you I had no knowledge of
having made a change in a single word in copying
that text, nor should I have wished to have made any
change at all in it ; thinking that, as it now stands, it
is quite as much for my purpose as that which you
suppose I have purposely substituted in its place. Had
you thought me capable of an attempt of this kind,
you should not have ascribed to me, as you have done,
the greatest purity of intention in all that 1 have writ
ten on this subject.
1 now proceed td remark on what you have observed
from Clemens Romanus, concerning the pre-existence
of Christ,
You think that, through my excessive zeal for an
hypothesis, I make every thing to favour it : but I
hardly think that you can find any thing in my attempt
to support the Socinian doctrine, that discovers more
zeal than you manifest in support of the Athanasian
one ; and I think that excessive zeal has misled you in
as remarkable a manner as you suppose mine to have
misled me, I can no otherwise account for your assert
ing, p. 16, that " The notion of Christ having had his
choice of different ways of coming into the world, is ex
plicitly expressed in a book little inferior in authority to
the canonical writings, in the first epistle of Clemens Ro
manus, in 51 passage of that epistle which Dr. Priestley,
somewhat Unfortunately for his cause, has chosen for

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, 25
the basis of an argument of that holy father's hetero
doxy. The sceptre of the majesty of God, says Cle--
mens, Our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp
of pride and arrogance, although ke had it in his
power. Clemens, it seeras, conceived that the manner
of coming was in the power and choice of the person
who was to come."
Of this I have no doubt ; but the question is, from
whence he was then to come,' Clemens does not say
that it ¦viz.s from heaven to earth. That is entirely your
own interpretation, for which I see no ground at all ;
since the phrase is so easily explained by his entering
upon his comraission, as a public teacher; when, being
invested with the power of working miracles, he never
made any ostentatious display of it, or indeed exerted
it for his own benefit in any respect.
Besides Clemens Romanus, you refer to the epistles
of Ignatius, for a proof of the early knowledge of
the doctrine of Christ's divinity. " The holy father,"
you say, p. 1 9, " hardly ever mentions Christ without
introducing some explicit assertion of his divinity, or
without joining with the name of Christ some epithet
in which it is implied." All this is very true, according v
to our present copies of Ignatius's epistles. But you
must know that the genuineness of them is not only
very much doubted, but generally given up by the
learned ; and it was not perfectly ingenuous in you to
conceal that circumstance. First prove those epistles,
as we now have them, to be the genuine writings of
Ignatius, and then make all the use of them that you
can.
I am, &c.

28 -LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEV,

L E TT E R II,
Of the Distinction between the Ehioriites and the
Nazarenes,
Dear Sir,
XT has beeij iraagined by some, that there was a dif
ference between the doctrine of the Ebionites and that
of the Nazarenes concerning the person of Christ ; the
former disbelieving the miraculous conception, and the
latter maintaining it; whereas I have said that I can
find no sufficient authority for that difference; that
which has been thought to have been the peculiar opi-
nion of the Nazarenes, being expressly ascribed to one
branch of the Ebionites, by Origen, Eusebius, Epi
phanius, and perhaps other ancient writers.
, And as to any Nazarenes who believed that Christ
was any thing more than man, I find no trace of them
in history ; so that it is, highly probable that the Naza
renes of the, second century were the same people with
those of the first, or the primitive Jevvish Christians,
and that they were called Ebionites by way of reproach.
To the arguments froiri Origen and Eusebius you
say nothing, but with respect to tha.t from Epiphanius
your conduct is very particular indeed. On my saying
that " Epiphanius expressly says that Ebion held the,
same opinion with the Nazarenes," you say,, p. 77,
" The only inference to be made from this assertion is
this, that Dr. Priestley- has never troubled hiraself to
read more of Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites
than the first eleven words of the first sentence. Had
he read the first sentence to the end, he would have

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 27
found that Ebion, although he arose from the school
of the Nazarenes, and held similar opinions, preached
also other doctrines, of which he was the first inventor.
Among these novelties, by the consent of all antiquity,
though not with Dr. Priestley's leave, we place the
inere humanity of Christ, with or without the mira
culous conception."
I shall not return your offensive language ; but had
you yourself read the second paragraph in this section,
you would have found that your remark had no foun
dation whatever. For it there appears, that though,
according to this writer, the Ebionites and Nazarene^
did differ in some other particulars, it was not with re
spect even to the miraculous conception, much less with
respect to the doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ.
He says, in the middle of the first section, " that
Ebion," whom in the 24th section he makes to be
cotemporary with the apostle John, " borrowed his
abominable rites from the Samaritans, his opinion
{yvoju'^iv) from the Nazarenes, his name frora the
Jews *, &c." And he says, in the beginning of the
second section, " he was cotemporary with the former,
and had the' sarae origin with them ; and first he as
serted that Christ was born of the coraraerce and seed
of man, namely Joseph, as we signified above," re
ferring to the first words of his first section, " when-
we said that in other respects he agreed with them all,
and differed from them only in this, viz. in his adher
ence to the laws of the Jews with respect to the sab-
>.
* 2a//iafs(T'tui' .jw.sv yap e^si rt ^.SsXvpov, lovSantuy Se ro ovofi-a,
OtftroLiativ Ss Ka,i Naf^ai^aiuiv km Na(ra,paMy rrjv yi/uJiJ.'ii'V—KOi.i "X-pitr-
I'la.viAiv /SouXsraf f^siv rvjv ¦tf/soo'ijyopiay. Hst. HO, sect. i. p. 125.
Vol. i. edit, Paris, 1622.

28 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
bath, circumcision, and other things that were enjoined
by the Jews and Samaritans. He moreover adopted
many more things than the Jews, in imitation of the
Samaritans*," the particulars of which he then pro
ceeds to mention.
In the same section he speaks of the Ebionites in
habiting the same country as the Nazarenes, and adds
that, " agreeing together, they comraunicated of their
perverseness to each other f." Then, in the third sec
tion, he observes that afterwards some of the Ebionites
entertained a different opinion concerning Christ, than
that he was the son of Joseph ; supposing that, after
Elxasus joined them, they learned of him " some fancy
concerning Christ and the holy spirit J."
Concerning the Nazarenes, in the seventh section
of his account of them, he says that they were Jews
in all respects, except " that they believed in Christ ;
but I do not know whether they hold the miraculous
conception, or not § ," This amounts to no more than
* Ovt'oi 'yap 0 E^iuiv a-vy^povo; ^ev rovYuiv vitiiip^ey, air' avrmv
is trvv auTOl; opfj.ai'a.i. to. Ttpuira, Ss sx irapa,rpt'Srj; km arirepfj-aro^
ctvSpo;, rovrea-Ti rou Itucri;^, rov Xptirrov yeyevi^tr^M eXeyev, to;
KM rjS-ij n'jiiiv TtpoetprirM, on ra, icra toi; aWoi; sv dtratri ippovciv, sv
rovnu fiovoj Sisipepsro, sv rw rw vojjm rov louSoua-fx-aij irporavsyeiv,
Kara, aratQa,rt(r^ov,KM Kara, rijv 'ffspirou.vjv, Kai Kara ra aXKa iravre,
Ira Ttsp liapa lotiJaioij Kai ia\t,apsirai ettireXsirai, sn Se mXslta
ouros "Ttapa rovg lovoaiov; opt-oiuj; rois 'S.au.a.psirais Siairoarrsrai.:
Hxr. 30. sect.ii. p. 125, 126.
'f Evhv apxsrai rvj; KaKrjs aurou SiSarxaXlas, oSsv S-ij^sv Ka,i
et Na^apijcoj ol ayop-oi itpoSsSriXouvrat Xvvaip&ets ya§ ouro; SKsivois,
Kai SKStvot rovruj, sKarspos aito rijs saurov (Aopj^Sij^oiaj rui krspio u.i-
rsStuKs. Ibid. sect. ii. p. 125, 12(->.
% tpavrariav riva itspi Xf;<rrou Siyjyeirai, kxi itipi Ttvsuwaro;
dyiov. Ibid, sect, iii. p. 127.
§ Uepi Xpirrou Ss ouk oiSa swsiv si xai auroi, rri ruiv irpostprj-
y-SYUiv Kipt KijpivOov Kai 'Mrjpiv^ov i/.o^9rjpKx. ay^eyrss, ^iXov avSpat-
rtov vo\i.\X,o\}(!iv ij, Ka^tas rJ aXr^hia sysi, Sia. irvsufj-aros dyiou ysye,-
vijirSai EK Mapias Stats^atouvrtx,!. Hter, 29. sect. vii. p, 123.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 29
a doubt, which he afterwards abandoned, by asserting
that the Ebionites held the same opinion conperning
Christ with the Nazarenes, which opinion he ex
pressly states to be their belief, that Jesus was a mere
man, and the sori of Joseph.
I now appeal to yourself whether this does not
abundantly justify my quoting the authority of Epipha
nius, whatever that may be, in support of the Ebio
nites and Nazarenes having held the same opinion con
cerning Christ, though they might differ in other things.
Please also to obfeerve that these Nazarenes were prior
to Ebion, who was himself cotemporary with the apostle
John. You acknowledge, p. 29, that, " in Jerom's time
the Nazarenes were so far declined from the pure faith
of the first race of Christians, and were become here
tical to that degree^ that Jerora considered them as a
Jewish sect, rather than a Christian." How much
earlier this general defection took place you do not say.
It appears, however, as you do not deny, that the un
believing Jews called all those of their race, who were
christians, by the name of Ebionites, in the time of
Origen, Indeed Origen's own words are too express
to admit any doubt of this. " Those," says he, " of
the Jews who believe that Jesus is the Christ, are called
Ebionites *.- And these Ebionites Origen says were
of two sorts, one of them believing the miraculous
conception, and the other not ; but all of them consi
dering Christ as a, mere man.
You say, indeed, p. 35, that " the word Ebionite
had, in the time of Origen, outgrown its original
* E^iuivMOt •^^rj^a.ri^ovtriv o< aito lovSaiuiv rov \r^rov tas Xpirroy
^pa,Se^afji,eyot, In*Celsum, lib, ii. p. 56.

so LEfTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
meaning ; for at last the Nazarenes, whose error was
rather a superstitious severity in their practice, than any
deficiency in their faith, were included by Origen, in
the infamy of the appellation." But for this I must
require some other evidence than your bare conjecture;
for then he ought to have made three sorts of Ebionites,
and not two only, which he expressly does.
That the Ebionites comprised all the Jev(ish chris
tians in the time of Origen, is evident from the pas
sage which you yourself quqte from him, p. 76,
*' When you consider what belief they, of the Jewish
race, who believe in Jesus, entertain of their redeemer,
some thinking that he took his being from Mary and
Joseph, some indeed from Mary only and the divine
spirit, but still without any belief bf his divinity, you
will understand," &c. Now I do not at all see how,al-
lowing the object of Origen, inthe place in which this
passage is introduced, to be the spiritualizing of a
plain story, you can be authorized to explain this
otherwise than it is literally expressed. Whatever the
discourse be, this is an incidental mention of a real
fact in the course of it ; and such is often the clearest
of all evidences.
As to that reference to Origen which you say, p. 75,
you are not able to trace, it is exactly as I have made
it in my edition of his works in Latin ; and in my opi
nion abundantly answers the purpose for which it was
adduced, as he there speaks of all the Jews who be
lieved in Jesus, as thinking him to be either the son of
Joseph and Mary, or of Mary and the holy spirit,
which certainly comprises the opinion which had been
thought to be peculiar to the Nazarenes ; so that it is
impossible that Origen should have iiriagined that the

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 31
Nazarenes held an opinion concerning Christ that was
not also held by some of the Ebionites. Moreover, as
he is here speaking of the Jewish christians in general,
without making any exception, it is natural to infer,
that he had never heard of any Jewish christians besides
those whom he elsewhere calls Ebionites, of the two
sorts particularly specified by him ; so that this passage
is in effect the same with that which you have quoted^
arid proves more than I there quoted it for.
I have since procured Huetius's edition of Origen's
Commentaries on the scriptures, and find that the
passage which you have quoted exactly corresponds to
that which I had made use of. But the original Greek
is more expressly to my purpose than the Latin.
In a passage not far distant from this, Origen con
siders the Ebionites in general as not believing the mi
raculous conception, while the gentile christians in ge
neral, though with some exceptions,' believed that doc
trine, " By the men," he says, " who blamed the
blind man, who represents the Ebionites (unbelievers
in the miraculous conception), we may understand the
gentiles, who, with few exceptions, think that Christ
was born of the Virgin only *."
" That the Jewish converts were remarkably prone
to the Ebioneean heresy, from which the gentile
churches in general were pure,' is the most," you say,
p. 77, " that can be concluded from this passage,
strengthened as it might be with another somewhat to
the same purpose, in the Commentaries upon St, John's
Gospel. But what if it were proved that the whole
sect df the Nazarenes was absorbed in the Ebionasan
* Comment, in Matt. vol. i, p. 428,

S2. LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
heresy in the days of Origen ? What evidence would
that afford of the identity of the Nazarenes and the
Ebionites in earlier times ? And even that identity, if
it were proved, what evidence would it afford, that
the church of Jerusalem had been originally unitarian,
under her first bishops of the circumcision?"
I answer, that if the Jewish- christians were univer
sally Ebionites in the time of Origen, the probability,
is, that they were very generally so in the time of the'
apostles; and that their heresy, -as it is^called, did ex
ist in the time of the. apostles, is abundantly evident.;
Whole bodies of men do not very soon, change their
opinions. And if, as you allow, the Jewish chrisrians
were distinguished by the name of Nazarenes ( whom
I think I have proved to be the same with the Ebionites,
who all believed Christ to be a raere man,) from the
time that they were settled in the country beyond the
sea of Galilee, you carry the opinions of the Ebionites;^;
as universally-held by the Jewish christians, to the very
age of the apostles ; for they retired into that country
on the approach of the Jewish war, about which time
the apostles went off the stage.
Since all the Jewish christians were called Nazarenes
or Ebionites, and all the writers that mention them
speak of the doctrine of those sects in general, and
not those of their own time in particular, as being
that Christ was a raere man ; the natural inference is,
that those sects, or the Jewish christians, did in all
times, .Siiiex they became so distinguished, ( which is al
lowed to have been just before or presently after the
destruction of Jerusalem,) hold that doctrine. And
supposing this to have been the case, is it not almost
certain, that the apostles themselves must have taught

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 33
it ? Can it be supposed that the whole Jewish church
should have abandoned the doctrine of the divinity of
Christ within so few years after the death of the apo
stles, if they had ever received it from thera ? As far
as I yet see, Jewish christians who were not Nazarenes,
or Ebionites, or Nazarenes who held any other doctrine
concerning Christ than that he was a mere man, are
unknown in history, and have no existence but in ima
gination. That those who were called Nazarenes were as far
from thinking Christ to be God as the Ebionites, is
evident -from the most unexceptionable evidence.
Among others is the testimony of Theodoret, though,
not having the original, I am obliged to quote it at se
cond hand. This I shall do from Suicer's Thesaurus,
under the article Ebion. He says, " the Nazarenes
are Jews, who respect Christ as a righteous man *."
And Theodoret lived in Syria, where he had the best
opportunity of being acquainted with the state of the
Jewish churches.
It is rather extraordinary that such a point should
now be made of finding some difference of import
ance between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, when
no critic, I believe, of any name in the last age pre
tended to find any. The learned Jeremiah Jones, after
disposing in opposite columns all that he could collect
concerning them both, from the best authorities, con
cludes with saying, " It is plain there was a very great
agreement between these two ancient sects ; and though
they went under different names, yet they seem only to
differ in this, that the Ebionites had made some addi-
* ol ^£ Nei^wpaioi lovSaiti enri fty Xpitrron rii/.wyfes ws ayipuc
'gov SiKUioy.

34 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
tion to the old Nazarene system. For Origen tells us
they were called Ebionites, who from among the Jews
owned Jesus to be the Christ*," The running title
of this chapter Js, The Nazarenes and Ebionites the
same. As to the general testimony of Eusebius and other
writers, themselves believers in the divinity of Christ,
that the church of Jerusalem towards the close of the
apostolic age (for it is not pretended that the apostles
taught that doctrine clearly, and therefore not with ef
fect, at the opening of their commission,) was orthodox
in their sense of the word, it is not to be regardedj.
unless they bring some sufficient proof of their asser-
tion. They were, no doubt, willing to have it thought
so; and, without considering it very particularly, might
presume that it was so : but the facts which they thera-
selves record, and "the account which they give of the
conduct of the apostles in divulging this doctrine to
the Jews, make it highly improbable that the case
should have been as in general terms they assert.
They furnish as particular evidence against their own
general testimony, as we can expect to find at this di
stance of time, supposing the fact to have been the re
verse of what they assert ; and the state of things in
after times, and even in their own, was such as can
never be accounted for, agreeably to the known prin-.
ciples of human nature, on the supposition that it was.
originally such as they represent it to be. The general
prevalence of the unitarian doctrine among the com
mon people in the Gentile world, and the universal,
prevalence of it araong the Jews, frora the time thft|
* Jones on the Canon, vol, i, p. 386,

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 35
they were distinguished by the name of Ebionites, or
Nazarenes (which was immediately after the age ofthe
apostles), is totally inconsistent with the idea of the di
vinity of Christ having been the universal or the ge
neral opinion in the time of the apostles.
I am, &c.

LETTER III.
That tke primitive Unitarians were not considered as
Heretics.
Dear Sir,
Among the extravagant assertions, as you call them,
of D, Zwicker, and which you say were adopted by
Episcopius, you mention, p. 7, that of " the opinion of
the mere humanity of Christ having prevailed very ge
nerally in the first ages, and having never been deemed
heretical by the fathers of the orthodox persuasion, at
least not in such a degree as to exclude them from the
communion of the church." But you say that Epi
scopius, " from his charitable temper, gave easy credit
to the unitarian writers, when they represented the dif
ferences of opinion in the early churches as much
greater than ever really obtained, and the tenderness
for sectaries as more than was ever practised."
If I was disposed to copy your usual language to me
upon this occasion, I might have full scope; as what
you now advance is the very reverse of the fact ; and
how you came to misapprehend so plain a case, con
cerning which I believe no writers of ecclesiastical his
tory ever differed, I do not take upon me to say, but
c 2

36 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
leave others to judge. That there were as proper uni-
tarians in the very age of the apostles, as any' who are
so termed at this day (myself by no means excepted),
and differing as much from what is now called, the or
thodox faith, I will venture to say was never questioned;
and that these ancient unitarians were not then expelled
from christian societies as heretics, is, I believe, as ge-
nerally allowed. It was, as you say, acknowledged by
Episcopius the Arian, and it is likewise allowed by Mos
heim the trinitarian, who says, vol, i. p, 191, " How
ever ready many may have been to embrace this erro
neous doctrine, it does not appear that this sect formed
to themselves a separate place of worship, or removed
themselves from the ordinary assemblies of christians,"
But does it not also follow from the same fact, that
these unitarians were not expelled from christian so
cieties by others, as they certainly would have been if
they had been considered as heretics ?
At the same time the Gnostics were in a very dif-
ferent predicament, and had been so from the begin
ning, Mosheim says, vol. i. p. 108, " From several
passages of the sacred writings it evidently appears,
that even in the first century the general meetings of
christians were deserted, and separate assemblies form
ed, in several places, by persons infected with the
Gnostic heresy ; though," he adds, " this sect was
not conspicuous for its numbers or reputation befote
the time of Adrian," \ -
*' Every heretic," says Jerora, « is born in the
church, but is cast out of the church, and fights
against the church *." Austin says, « As soon as any
* Omnis enim haereticus nascitur in ecclesia, sed de ecclesia
projicitur, et contendit et pugnat contra parentem. In Jerem.
XXII. Vol. IV. p. 277,

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 37
heresy existed, it separated itself from the Catholic
church *." Tertullian says, " If they be heretics, they
cannot be chrisrians f."
That Tertullian did not consider unitarians as ex
cluded from the name and the assemblies of christians,
is evident from what he says concerning the apostles*
creed, the several articles of which, as it stood in his
time, he recites ; asserting that it was the only proper
standard of faith, and that the church admitted of a
variety of opinions in other respects.
Now it is evident that no article in that creed alludes
to the opinions of the unitarians, but only to those of
the Gnostics. This was the oldest formulary of chris
tian faith, and what was taught to all catechumens be
fore baptism ; and additions were raade to it from time
to rime, in order to exclude heretics. This creed any
unitarian, at least one who believed the miraculous con
ception, might subscribe in the time of Tertullian, and
therefore could not then have been deemed a heretic.
" The rule of faith," he says, " is only one, admit
ting of no change or emendation, requiring us to be
lieve in one God, almighty, the maker of the world j
and in his son Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary,
* Statim enim unaquaeque haeresis ut existebat, et a congre-
gatione Catholicae communionis exibat, &c, De Baptismo, con
tra Donatistas, lib. v, cap, 19. Vol, vii. p, 446.
¦|- Si enim haeretici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt. De
Praescriptione Haereticorum, sect, xxxvii, p. 215.
Tertullian, in his treatise De Praescriptione Haereticorum,
makes but slight mention of the heresy of the Ebionites, and
when he gives it that appellation, he makes it to consist in the
" observance and defence of circumcision and the law;" and yet
he represents Hebion as comprised under the description of An
tichrist by St. Jofya, p. 214, It is evident, hbwever, from his
making the unitarians to be xhs greater part of believers,' that, in
his time, they were not considered as so far heretical, or anti-
chriittan, as to be excluded from christian churches.

38 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead on
the third day, received up into heaven, now sitting at
the right hand of the Father, and who will come again
to judge the living and the dead, even by the resur
rection of the flesh. This law of faith remaining,
other things, being matters of discipline and conduct,
admit of new corrections, the grace of God coope
rating *,"
The Ebionites, being Jews, had little communication
with the Gentiles, and therefore, of course, held sepa
rate assemblies ; but the Alogi> who held the same doc- ,
trine among the Gentiles, had no separate assemblies,
but worshipped along with other christians. Indeed,
their having no general distinct name before the time
of Epiphanius, is of itself a proof that they had no
separate places of worship, as the Gnostics and other
heretics had. For, had they been distinguished from
other christiaiis in their assemblies, it is impossible but
they must have been distinguished by a specific name.
They had, indeed, in particular places, names given
thera occasionally, frora particular persons, who distin
guished themselves by the defence of their doctrines,
as Artemonites, Noetians, &c. but the general body of
unitarians among the Gentiles had no name given them
from the beginning to distinguish them from other
* Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, soja, immobilis, &. ir-
;eforniabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum deum, omnipotentem,
mundi conditorem, et filium ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex
virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resusci-
tatum a mortuis, receptum in caslis, sedentem nunc ad dextrara
patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos, per camis etiam re
surrectionem. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinse el
conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scilicet
et proficiente usque ad jSnem gratia dei. De Virginibus velandis,
sect, i, p. 173.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, 39
christians, till the attempt made by Epiphanius to call
them Alogi. In controversy they sometimes distin
guished themselves by the name of Monarchists, as
holding the monarchy or supremacy of the Father, in
opposition to those who maintained the divinity of the
Son ; but this was only an occasional, and not an ori
ginal or permanent appellation.
All therefore that Chrysostom could allege in proof
of himself and his friends being of the orthodox faith,
and no heretics, might have been alleged by the body
of unitarians before the time of Theodotus, Teaching
unbelievers how to distinguish between orthodox chris
tians and sectaries, he says, " They have some persons
by whom they are called. According to the name of
the heresiarch, so is the sect ; but no man has given
us a name, but the faith itself." Again he says, " Were
we ever separated from the church ? Have we here
siarchs ? Have we any narae frora men, as Marcion
gave his name to some, Manichaeus to others, and Arius
to a third part?" &c,*
All this agrees remarkably well with the supposition,
that these unitarians were originally nothing less than
the whole body of Christians, and that the trinitarians
were "the innovators ; appearing at first modest and
candid, as was natural while they were a small mino
rity, but bold and imperious wheri they becarae the
majority. * EKsivot e^ovirt rivccs a<p' tov KaXouvrou, avrov rov a'tpsriecp^ou
S^Xovori ro ovojxa, Kai hiatrrij aipstris op:.ottus. itap' rji/^iv avTtJi |xev
ovSsis eSiiOKsy ¦^jAiy o/o/aift, ij Ss itiirris a,vryj, Chrysost. in Acta
Apost. cap. XV. hom. &3. Vol. viii. p, 6.' 3..
Mij yap aii'go'^^io'^sfla'r'i)? sKKXYjcrias j |xij yap a'lpsriapyas s%ofe'';
!«.)) yap vie' avSpwiruiv xaAoujitafia ; ia,ij yap tf^o'Yjyovusvos ijjxtui' rig
erriv, cutrirsp rw ^sv MaoKnuv, rai Se 'Miavi'xaios, riu Ss Apsios, rtu
is aMof ns alpivevs «/'%i)y9S j Ibid, p. 661,

40 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
It has been sufficiently observed with what, respect
Justin Martyr treats the ancient unitarians, evidentiy
showing that in his time his own doctrine stood in need
of an apology. There are two passages in this writer,
in which he speaks of heretics with great indignation^
as " not christians, but as persons whose tenets were
absurd, impious, and blasphemous, with whom chris-
tians held no communion;" but in both the passages
he evidently had a view to the Gnostics only, denomi
nated from the name of their teachers. He particu^
larly mentions the " Marcionites, the Valentlnians, the
Basilideans, and the Saturnianians." He says "they
blasphemed the maker of the world, and the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," that " they denied the
resurrection, and maintained, that after death the soul
went immediately to heaven*," " Do not," says hej
* Eiirtv ouv xai eysvovro, w ipiXoi ixvSpss, ifoXXoi, ol aisa, Kat
^Xao-^rjf*.* Xeysiv Kat itparrsiv sStSa^av, sv ovo[/.ari rov lijrov 1fpoa¦^
sX^ovrss' Kai siirtv utp' t^ilcw airo rijf itpotriomy.ias rwv avS^tav eJ
ovttsp sKatrr-rf SiSax"! ««' yvfj^ij r^p^aro- (aXXoi yap Kar' aXXoy
rpoitov 0Xa<r(pr)p!,etv rov iroiijrijv rtuv oXuiv, Kai rov vit' avrov itpotpi^-
rsvoiusvov eXeva-saSai \§i(rrov,Kai rov Seov Atpaaj^, Kai ItraaK, xat
I«x(uS, SiSarKOUtriv tov ovSsvi koivuivov.j/'Sv, olyvtopi^ovrss aSsovsKai
atrs^iis "af aSixovg ¦Kai avo^t-ovs avrovs viS(^^%ovras, Kai avri rov rtv
liijrovv ffstsiv, ovojAari [t,oyov oihohoysiv Kai Xpicriavovs smvrovs Xs-
yovriVg ov rpoitov, ol sv rois sQvsin ro ovo\),d rov S'eou siriypaaoviri rois
^sipoitoirjrois, Kai avojiXrOij Kai aSsois rsXsrais KOivovourr) Kai eioriv
avriov ol fiey rivs; KaXov[t.svoi MtipKiavoi, ol Ss OvaXsvriviavoi, ol £e
Ba«A.(5eavo;, ol Se'SaropviXtavoi, kxi aXXoi aXXtu ovopt-an, airo rov
ctpyriyerov rtjs yvo^ris SKarros oyofta^oj«,EH)f, &c. Dialog, edit,
Thirlby, p, 208.
noXXovs 5" av, Kai rwv rr/S KaSapas xai svrslSovs ovrcov Xpitrria-
viov yvioihfis rovro [^ij yvtopi^eiv, siriijp.oi.vx coi. rovs yap Xsyo^ksvovs'
fAev Xpicriavovs, ovras Ss absovs, kxi atrstsis alpsriturxs, ort Kxrx
ntavrx ^Xxtrf'r^p.a, kxi a^sa, Kai avotfta SiSamiovtriv sSyjXtotrx iroi. —
E« yap KXI <rvvstaXsrsvp.sis riri Xeyoihsvois Xpitrriavois, kxi rovro
j«.l) ip.oXoyovciy, aXXa Kai ^Xxrip'yjjj.siv roXp.coo'i rov ^sov AtgoMp.,
KXI rov ^soy IcraxK, KXi^rov bsov laKw'S, ol Kai Xsyovci (ti) sivai
ycxgcov avcMratriv, xXXx xp,x rw aTfo^vvjCKSiv ras '^v'/as auruiv
aYoi,Xxp.^»vs<fiai SIS toy ovpxvov, u.rj vitoXxSinrs avrovs Xpitnxvovs.
Ibid, p, 311,

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 41
" suppose these to be christians." Had he considered
the unitarians, with whom he appears to have been
well acquainted, as heretics, would he not have men
tioned or alluded to their tenets also in those passages
in which he speaks, and pretty largely, of the Christian
heretics in general ? It is impossible, I should think, to
read those passages, as they stand in the original, in
troduced as a- fulfilment of our Saviour's prophecy,
that there should be false Christs, and false prophets,
who should deceive many, and not be satisfied that
(like the apostle John) Justin Martyr had no idea of
there being any heretics in the christian church, in his
time, besides the Gnostics*.
How little is it that Irenasus says of the Ebionites,
and with how little severity, in his large treatise con
cerning heresy ! It is little more than one page out of
four hundred, while all the rest is employed on the
different branches of Gnosticisms. The harshest epi
thet that he applies, to them is that of vani, which,
considering the manner of the ancients, is certainly
very moderate. Pani autem et Ebioncei^. He says,
indeed J, that " God will judge them," and " how can
they be saved, if it be not God that worked out their
salvation upon earth ?" But this is no sentence of dam
nation passed upon them in particular for holding their
doctrine, but an argument used by him to refute them ;
and is the same as if he had said. Mankind in general
could not be saved, if Christ had not been God as well
as man.There is no instance, I Relieve, of any person having
been excommunicated for being an unitarian before
* See Dialog, edit. Thirlby, p. 208, pars secunda, p, 311,
f Lib. 5. cap. i. p. 394. % Lib. 4. cap. lix. p, 358,

42 LETTERS TO PR. HORSLEY.
Theodotus, by Victor bishop of Rome, the same that
excommunicated all the eastern churches because they
would not celebrate Easter on the day that he pre
scribed. Whereas had the universal church been tri
nitarian from the beginning, would not the first unita
rians, the first broachers of a doctrine so exceedingly
offensive to them, as in all ages it has ever been, have
experienced their utmost indignation, and have been
expelled from all christian societies with horror ?
What makes it more particularly evident, that the
doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ was not
thought deserving of excommunication in early times,
is, that though the Ebionites were anathematized, as
Jerora says, or . excoraraunicated, it was not on ac
count of their denying the doctrine of the divinity of
Christ, but only on account of their rigid observance
of the Mosaic law *. Had you. Sir, been appointed to
draw upa forra of excomraunication for Socinus, would
you have confined your charge of heresy to his refus
ing to baptize infants, or his maintaining the unlawful- ,
ness of bearing arms ? The principal article would cer
tainly have been his believing, with the Ebionites, that
Christ was nothing more than a man.
Such a doctrine as that of the simple humanity of
Christ, in a church universally trinitarian, must neces
sarily have given greater alarm, and have roused the
orthodox to exert more vigorous measures than the
same doctrine could do in the time of Calvin, when
it was far from being novel ; and yet he, though ex-
* Si hoc verum est, in Cherenti et Hebionis hxresim dilabi-
mur, qui, credentes in Christo, propter hoc solum a patribus ana-
thematizali sunt, quod legis cjeremonias Christi evangelio mis-
cuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt ut Vetera non amitterent, Hie
ronymus Augustino, Ep. 89, vol. i. p. 634.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 45
|30sed to persecution hiraself, thought it to be a crime
for which burning alive was no more than an adequate
punishment ; and almost all the christian world justi
fied his using that rigour with respect to Servetus.
Now, since the minds of men are in all ages similarly
affected in similar circumstances, we may conclude,
that the unitarian doctrine, which was treated with so
much respect when it was first mentioned, was in a
very different predicament then, from what it was at the
tirae of the Reformation. The difference of majority
and minority, and nothing else, can account for this
difference of treatment.
You will say, if the great majority of christians in
early times were unitarians, why did not they excom
municate the innovating trinitarians ? I answer, that
the doctrine of the trinity was not, in its origin, such
as could give much alarm, as I have explained in my
Reply to the Monthly Reviewers, p. 11 ; and before it
becarae very formidable there was a great majority of
the learned a,nd philosophizing clergy on its side.
However, that it did give very great alarm, as it be
gan to unfold itself, I have brought undeniable evi
dence. What words, in any language, can express more
alarm or dislike than expavescere and scandalizare, by
which Tertullian describes their feelings on this sub
ject? And Origen has some equally strong in Greek, as
Tospao-o-fii/, &c. Had the unitarians in those times been
ivriters, we should probably have heard raore of their
complaints. At present we know nothing of them be
sides what we are able to collect concerning them from
their adversaries, who thought it necessary to make
frequent apologies to thera.

44 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
On the other hand, there is indisputable evidence
that the unitarian doctrine, and even in its most ob
noxious form, existed in the very time of the apostles.
The Jewish christians in general, not only thought that
Christ was a mere man, but even that he was the son
of Joseph ; and the gradation that you speak of, from
the doctrine of the Ebionites in the time of St, John,
to that of Theodotus in the time of Victor, has no ex-
istence but in your own single imagination. And yet
these unitarians were respected, and not expelled from
christian societies, by the orthodox of that age. Ex
plain this fact, in consistence with their, not being the
majority of christians, if you can.
At this day, as the unitarian doctrine happily gains
ground among christians, the horror with which it has
been considered is manifestly very much abated. Your
treatment xof me, and of all who hold the sarae opinion,
is rather extraordinary, considering the times in \(i?hich
we live ; but it is mild and moderate corapared with
the usual treatment of the same doctrine, even in this
tolerant country, a hundred, or even fifty years ago.
At the time ofthe Revolution it was made blasphemy
by act of parliament openly to avow what I now openly
defend, and was punishable with confiscation of goods
and imprisonment for life, if persisted in ; and the law
still remains unrepealed. But it is seen to be so arbi
trary and unjust, (as directed against those who con-
scientiousfy believe in one God only, without acknow-
ledgmg three persons to be that one God, ) that no one
dares to put it in execution ; and the state, I am confi
dent, only waits for that application which, I trust, will
be made to relieve them, and to wipe off such a dis-,
grace from our statutes.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 45

LETTER IV,
Of the Inference that may be drawn from tke Passage
of Athanasius, concerning tke Opinion ofthe early
Jewish Christians relating to Ckrist.
Dear Sir,
As one argument that the primitive church of Jeru
salem was properly unitarian, maintaining the simple
humanity of Christ, I observed, that " Athanasius
himself was so far from denying it, that he endeavoured
to account for jt by saying that all the Jews were so
firmly persuaded that their Messiah was to be nbthing
more than a man like themselves, that the apostles
were obliged to use great caution in divulging the doc
trine of the proper divinity of Christ."
This I maintain to be a short but true state of the
case. Athanasius both expressly allowed that the Jewish
christians were at first of the opinion that Christ was
no more than a man ; and he accounts for the apostles
conniving at it, without saying how long that prudent
connivance coTitinued. In my Appendix you will find
a somewhat fuller state of the argument. I shall how
distinctly consider all that you have advanced to inva
lidate the inference that I have made from this remark-
able passage. I shall afterwards show that it was not
Athanasius only, but Chrysostora also ; and, as he says,
the ancients, and tke most distinguisked fatkers of tke
church, who gave the same representation of the state
of things in the apostolical age.
You say, p, 22, that Athanasius is here speaking of
the unbelieving Jews. The..expression is ot tots IpuSa/o/,

46 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY-
the Jews of that age ; which includes both the be
lieving and unbelieving Jews. Had he been speaking
of the Jews of his own time, it would, I own, have
been probable that he meant the unbelieving Jews ;
but speaking, as he does, of the Jews at the very first
promulgation of Christianity among them, it is most
natural to suppose that he meant all the Jews. Paul,
long after his conversion to Christianity, called himself
a Jew. However, it will be sufficiently evident from
the whole tenor of the passage, that he must have
meant the believing Jews principally, and in some re
spects the believing Jews only, exclusive of the unbe
lieving ones. And in this construction of the passage
I am by no means singular, but have the sanction of
trinitarians themselves.
But admitting that the Jews here meant were unbe
lieving Jews, thfey were such as the apostles wished to
convert to Christianity, and many of them soon became
christians. How the apostles conducted themselves
with respect to these men, first unbelieving and then
believing Jews, Athanasius thus informs us. Our
readers may judge of the fidelity of the translation by
consulting the original in the margin ; and as I only
abridged the passage before, I shall now give a larger
portion of it at full length, for the whole is much too
large to transcribe *, " Will they affirm that the
* OuSsv yap aurois xroXp.tftoy , ori kxi xvroi ol xitorroXoi ra Apsioit
gip^ovovv. av&pumv yap avrov am Na^apsr, Kai iraGijrov roy Xpio-roc
KirxyysXXouriv, sxsivwv roivuv roixvrx <pavra^oit.svwv, ap' sitsiSfj rois
ftjp.ari rovrois s^pi/jtravro, p.ovov av&ptoitov riSsitrxv rov Xpitrrov oi
oLitotrroXoi, kxi itXsov ovSsv ; fti) yevoiro' ovk strriv ovSs sis voui' mre
rovro Xx^siv aXXx kxi rovro tos apyirsKrovss trotpoi, kxi oiKoyop.oi
[/.vrr-i/jpiioy Sisov itsieoiijKxtri • koCi tijv Mrixv s')(Ov(nv svXoyov sirsiS^i '
yxp ol rors lovSaioi ttXxvfjUvrss rs kxi leXxytitravrss 'E;>i Aijvay, 'svo-
^;?ov tov Xpitrroy ^iXov avipwirov, p.Qvoy sk tTTtsppiaros Aa^iS ep-
y^etr^ai, x«9' oy.oior-^ra, rwv in rov Aoi^iS xXXuiy yiyontywy rewiuv'

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 47
apostles held the doctrine of Arius, because they say
that Christ was a man of Nazareth, and suffered on
the cross ? Or, because they used these words, were the
apostles of opinion that Christ was only a man, and
nothing else ? By no means : this is not to be ima
gined, ¦ But this they' did as wise master builders and
stewards of tke mysteries of God ; and they had this
specious pretence for it. Fpr the Jews of that age,
being deceived themselves, and having deceived the
Gentiles, thought that Christ was a mere man, only
that he came of the seed of David, resembling other
descendants of David, and did not believe either that
he was God, or that the word was made flesh. On this
account the blessed apostles, with great prudence, in
the first place, taught what related to the humanity of
our Saviour to the Jews ; that having fully persuaded
them, from his miraculous works, that Christ was come,
they might afterwards bring them to the belief o'f his
divinity, showing that his works were not those of a
man, but of God. For example, Peter having said
that Christ was a man who had suffered, immediately
added, he is the prince of life. In the gospel he con
fesses. Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God ;
and in his epistle he calls him the bishop of souls."
Here, I think, are sufiicient marks of great caution,
and of the apostles leading their converts to the know-
ovre Ss Sisiv avrov, ovSs on Xoyos <fap^ sysvsro 'sitiirrsvov. rovrov
evsKX, p.erx itoXX-r^s rijS trvvsffsws ol p-XKapioi xKorroXoi ra avSpto-
<itivx rov rioryjpos s^ijyovvro itpwrov rois lovSaiois, iv' oXios itei-
travres avrovs, sk rwv (paivop.svwv Kai ysvop-svajv trvjf/.siwv, sXrjXu-
Sevai roy Xqirrov, Xoiisov Kai sis ri^v itspi r-^s ^sorvjros avrov itirriv
avrovs avayaywri, SsiKvvyrss on rx ysvop.svx spyx ovk strriv av-
ipwTtov, dXXa^sov. xihsXsi Herpog o Xsywv xvSpa ifxQijrov rov
'i.pitrrov, cvSvs ffwijitrsv Ovros afX^jyoj r'rjs X"'''IS strriy. Sec. &c, De
Sententia jDionysii, Athanasii Opera, Vol, i, p, 553, 354), edit.
Colon; 1686,

48 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
ledge of the divinity of Christ, by very distant and un-
certain inferences indeed, such as Jews, so previously
persuaded as he represents thero to have been, of the
simple humanity of their Messiah, would not very
readily understand.
Now if this caution was requisite in the first instance,
and with respect to the first converts that the apostles
made, it was equally requisite with respect to the rest,
at least for the sake of others who were not yet con
verted ; unless the first should have been enjoined se
crecy on that head. For whenever it had been known
that the apostles were preaching not such a Messiah as
they expected, viz. a man like themselves, but the
eternal God, the difference was so great, that a general
alarm must have been spread, and the conversion of
the rest of the Jews (to a doctrine which must have
appeared so highly improbable to them ) must have
been impeded. We may therefore presume that the
apostles must have connived at this state of ignorance,
concerning the divinity of Christ, in their Jewish con
verts, till there was little hope of making any further
converts among tbe Jews, and till the gospel began to
be preached to the Gentiles.
Indeed, this must have been the case, according to
Athanasius's own account. For he says that these Jews,
being in an error themselves, led the Gentiles into the
same error. For your notion, that by Gentiles our au
thor here meant proselytes of the gate, is altogether
arbitrary and improbable. Nay, the very existence of
these proselytes of the gate, you must know, has been
questioned, and I think fully disproved by Dr, Lardner
and others. Besides, it is not to be supposed that the
doctrine of a Messiah could have been very interesting

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY; 49
to any besides native Jews, or, at the most, those that
were complete proselytes; whereas to the Gentile chris
tians it was a matter of the greatest moment. By these
Gentiles, therefore, I conclude that Athanasius must
have raeant christian Gentiles, and consequently that
by the Jews who led thera into that raistake, he 'meant
the believing and not the unbelieving Jews, The
learned Beausobre, a trinitarian, and therefore an un
exceptionable judge in this case, quoting this very pas
sage, does not hesitate to pronounce that they were be
lieving Jews who were intended by the writer. " Ces
Juifs," he says, " ne sont pas les Juifs incredules, mais
ceux qui faisoient profession du christianisrae *,"
What I have respect to in this passage, is the ob^
vious general tenor and spirit of it, and not particular
words or phrases ; or I might observe, that the verbs
in that part of the passage which mentions Ckrist being
come of tke seed of David, and the word being made
Jlesh, are not in ihe future tense, and therefore do not
naturally refer to the Messiah in general, who was to
come, but to a person who was actually come, that is,
to Jesus Christ in particular. The Latin translator
of Athanasius, a cathohc, and certainly no unitarian,
had so litde suspicion of any. other meaning, that he
renders, TOV H^icttov in this place by Jesum; so that I
am far from being singular, or particularly biassed by
my own opinions, in my construction of this passage.
Supposing, however, not only the proselytes of the
gate, but the whole body of the Gentiles (little as they
were concerned in the question) to have been pre
viously taught by the Jews that their Messiah, when-
* Histoire de Manicheisme, vol. ii, p. 517.
E '

50 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
ever he should corae, would be nothing more than a
man ; if this was an opinion that they. were as fully
persuaded of as Athanasius represents the Jews, their
teachers, to have been, the same caution must have
been as necessary with respect to them as with respect
to the Jews themselyes, and for the same reason.
Athanasius must, therefore, be understood to say
that the Jewish converts, while (through the caution of
. the apostles) they were ignorant of the divinity of
Christ, preached the gospel in tkat state to the Gen-
tiles. And as he speaks of Gentiles in general, and
without any respect to time, and also of their being
actually brought over to that belief, it is impossible
not to understarid him of this cautiori being continued
till the gospel had been fully preached to the Gentiles
as well as the Jews. BesideSj one of the instances that
Athanasius here gives of the preaching of the simple
humanity of Christ, is taken from the discourse ofthe
apostle Paul at Athens, which was about the year 53t
after Christ ; and indeed at this time the gospel had
not been preached to any great extent among the Gen
tiles. For it was on this very journey that this apostle
first preached the gospel in Macedonia and Greece.
If, according to Athanasius, the apostolical reserve
with respect to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ
continued till this time (and he says nothirig concem
ing the termination of it), we may presume that this
great doctrine, supposing it to have been known to the
apostles, had not been publicly taught by them till very
near the time of their dispersion and death ; and then
I think it must have come too late even froni thefli.
For it appears frora the book of Acts, that their mere
authority was not sufficient to overbear the prejudices

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 51
of their countrymen. At least, such an extraordinary
communication of a doctrine of which they hid no
conception must have occasioned such an alarm and
consternation as we must have found some traces of in
the history of the Acts of the apostles,. It coiild not
have been received without hesitation and debate. ,
If we can suppose that the apostles, some time be:--
fore their death, did communicate this great and un
expected doctrine, the effects of such communication
must have been very transient. For, presently after the
death of the apostles, we find all the Jewish christians
distinguished by the narae of Nazarenes or Ebionites^
and no trace of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ
araong thera. If you can produce any evidence to the
contrary, I hope you will do it. It certainly behoves
you to do it if you can ; for without this you will
hardly raake it appear probable that the apostles ever
coramunicated such a doctrine at all.
You say, p. 25, " With what readiness the apostles
led their catechumens on from the simplest principles to
the highest mysteries ; of this consummate ability of
the apostles, in the capacity of teachers, Athanasius
speaks with due commendation. Their caution he
never mentions. On the contrary, the rapid progress
of their instruction, how they passed at once from the
detail of our Lord's life on earth, to the mystery of his
Godhead, is one principal branch of his encomium. I
wish that Dr. Priestley had produced the passage in
which he thinks the apostles aire taxed with caution."
I now have produced the passage, and have pointed
out a word, viz. a-vvstrig,, which, in the connexiori in
which It stands, can bear no other sense than caution,
and great caution {^eTa TroKkyig crwetreug) ; and I have
E 2

52 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY:
likewise shown, frora the whole tenor of the discourse,
that Athanasius could have intended nothing else than
to describe their prudence or extrerae caution, and to
account for it. He evidently does not represent them
as deferring the coraraunication of the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ, on account of its being more con
veniently taught afterwards, as part of a system of
faith, but only lest it should have given offence to the
Jews. If this skill or prudence, in these circumstances,
be not the same thing with caution, I do not know
what is meant by caution.
On the other hand, I find no trace of rapidity tn
this account of the apostles* conduct. All that ap
proaches to It is, that, immediately after any mention
:of the humanity of Christ, (which he speaks of as ne
cessary on accdunt of the Jewish prejudices,) he says,
the apostles subjoin some expression which might have
led their hearers to the knowledge of his divinity; but
the Instances he produces are such as plainly confute
any pretensions to their being a distinct and full de
claration of that doctrine.
The first instance he gives us is from the speech of
Peter to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, in which he
says. Acts ii. 22. Ye men of Israel, hear these words:
Jesus of Nazareik, a man approved of God among
you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God
did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also
know. In this Athanasius acknowledges that Peter
preached the proper humanity of Christ, but says
that immediately afterwards (referring to his discourse
on the cure of the lame man in the^ temple) he called
him the prince of life. Acts iii. 15. And killed the
prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 53
Had the apostle meant that his audience should have
understood hira as referring to the divinity of Christ
by that expression, his prudence must have lasted but
a very short tirae Indeed ; probably not many days.
If, therefore, his intention was, as Athanasius repre
sents It, to preach the doctrine of the humanity of
Christ in the first place, and not to divulge the doc
trine of his divinity till they viere firmly persuaded of
his Messiahskip, he could not mean to allude to his
divinity in this speech, which was addressed not to the
believing but to the unbelieving Jews, At least he
could only have thought of doing it in such a manner
as that his hearers might afterwards infer the doctrine
from it. And it must have required great ingenuity,
and even a strong prepossession in favour of the divi
nity of Christ, (the reverse of which ':his writer ac
knowledges,) to Imagine that this expression of prince
of life, which so easily admits of another interpreta
tion, had any such reference. Moreover, in all the In
stances which Athanasius produces concerning the con
duct of the apostles in this respect, from the book of
Acts, he does not pretend to find one in which the
divinity of Christ is distinctly preached, though he
quotes four passages in which his humanity Is plainly
spoken of.
When all these things are considered, viz. that Atha
nasius acknowledged that It required great caution In
the apostles to divulge the doctrine of" the divinity of
Christ, and that the gOspel was preached with success
among the Gentiles while the Jews were ignorant of It;
it can hardly be doubted but that he must himself have
considered the Christian church In general as unitarian

54 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
in the time of the aposties, at least till near the time of
their dispersion and death*.
With respect to Athanasius's declared opinion on
this subject, you say, p. 21, " Now In this piece upon
the orthodoxy of Dionysius, Athanasius no where, I
confess, denies that the primitive church of Jerusalem
was unitarian ; nor, on the other hand, do I recollect
that Dr, Priestley hath asserted it in any part of his
History of Electricity," Whether in my History of
Electricity, or In this piece of Athanasius, in which he
gives a large account of the conduct of the apostles
with respect to their preaching the divinity- of Christ,
an account of the actual effect of such preaching might
be more naturally expected, I leave to our readers, t
should have thought that, if Athanasius could have
added^ that, notwithstanding their caution in preaching
this extraordinary doctrine, against which he acknow
ledges the Jews had the strongest prejudices, they ne
vertheless did preach it with effect, and that It was the
general belief of the Jewish christians in their time, he
would riot have thought it at all foreign to his purpose.
It would certainly have favoured his great object in
writing this piece, viz, the vindication of Dionysius in
using a like caution with respect tothe Sabellians, to
have added, that this prudence or caution was not, in
* According to Athanasius, the Jews were to be well ground.
ed in the belief of Jesus being the Christ, before they could be
taught the doctrine of his divinity. Now if we look into the
book of Acts, we shall clearly see that they had not got beyond
the first lesson in the apostolic age ; the great burden of the
, preaching of the apostles being to persuade the Jews that Jeius
<was the Christ. That he was likewise God, they evidently left to
their successors ; who, indeed, did it most effectually, thpugh it
required a long course of time to do it.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY, S3
either of the two cases, finally detrimental to the cause
of truth, I therefore consider the silence of Athanasius
on this head as a negative argument of some weight ;
and upon the whole I think I have made it appear that
Athanasius must have supposed that both the Jewish
and Gentile churches were unitarian In the time of the
apostles, at least he enables us to infer that it must
have been so ; and this is quite sufficient for ray argu
ment. That Athanasius, however, should actually consider
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as for some time
unknown to the generality of christians,, in the age of
the apostles, will be thought the less extraordinary,
when it is observed that, like Tertullian, he acknow
ledged the unitarian doctrine to be very prevalent
amOng the lower class of people in his own time. He
calls them the ot ttoT^Koi, the many, and describes them
as persons of " low understanding. Things that are
sublime and difficult," he says, " are not to be appre
hended except by faith ; and ignorant people must fall.
If they cannot Jje persuaded to rest In faith, and avoid
curious questions*."
There can be no doiibt, therefore, but that the doc
trine of the trinity was a long time very unpopular with
the comraon people among christians ; and this Is a
fact that cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, but on
* AuTtst Ss KXI VVV rovs xvrs'/op.syoys fis xyixs itiirrsws, -^ tspi
rcvv xvriov fixa(r(prjp.iwy ^Xxntroutra rovs ifoXXovs' [/.xXirrx rovs
¦>}Xarrcup.svovs ttspt rtjv irvvstriv. T« yxp (/.syxXx kxi SucKxrx-
Xr^itra rwv •apxyp.arwv imrrsi rf\ tt^os rov ^sov XapXxvsrxi. 'Qhsy
*\ Itspi rrjv yvwriv xSvvarouvrss attotcwrovriv , si \i.t\ itsiSsisv sp.p,s-
vfiv r-nititrrsi, kxi rxs itspis^yovs inrrje'sis sKrpsitstr&ai. De Incar-
natione Verbi, contra Paulum Samosatensem, Athanasii Opera,.
vol. i. p. 591.

56 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
the snppoation that the doctrine of the siniple* huma
nity of Christ was that which had been handed down
to them by tradition from the apostles. It was not the
doctrine of Arius that Athanasius is here complaining
of, but that of' Paulus Samosatensis, who was a proper
unitarian, believing that Christ had no existence before
he was born of hls^mother Mary, The great popula-
rityof Photinus, at and after this time, shows with
what difficulty the comraon people were brought off
from this doctrine ; and also the confession of Austin,
that he was of that opii^ion till he became acquainted
with the writings of, Plato.
It is not from Athanasiiis alone that we are informed;
of this cautious proceeding of the apostles in divulging
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.^ Chrysostom
ascribes the same caution both to. Christ himself and
the apostles. " One reason," he says, " why Christ
said so'little of his own divinity, was on account of the
weakness of his auditors. Whenever he spake of him
self as any thing more than man, they were tumultuous
and offended ; but when he spake with humility, and
as a man, they ran to him and received his words*."
Of this he gives many examples. " Our Saviour,"
he says, " never taught his own divinity in express
words, but only by actions, leaving the fuller explica
tion of it to his disciples. If," says he, " they (mean
ing the Jews) were so much offended at the addition of
another law to their forraer, much more raust they
have been with the doctrine of his divinity f."
* E( TT-ors n rrjs av&pwiriyijs tpvtrsios sive itXsoy, e^opv'Swvro', kou
stTKXvSxXi^ovro- SI Ss n itors ratsivov, kxi avSpwirivov, ¦Kpotrerpevon,-
Kai rov Xoyov eSs;)(^ovro.- Chrysost, ^Homil, 32. vol. i. p. 409,
f Aix Ss rovro ouSs itspi rrjs ^sor-i^ros rijj kxvrov txvrx'x,^ ^w- <

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 57
Chrysostom ascribes the same caution to the apostles
on this subject. He says that they concealed the doc
trine of the miraculous conception on account of the
incredulity of the Jews with respect to it ; and that
when they began to preach the gospel, they Insisted
chiefly on the resurrection of Christ *. With respect "
to the former, (and the same may no doubt be applied
to the latter,) he says he did not give " his own opinion
only, but that which carae by tradition from the fa
thers and eminent men. He therefore would not have
his hearers to be alarmed, or think his account of it
extraordinary f."
Thus, he says, that " it was not to give offence to
the Jews that Peter, in his first speech to them, did not
say that Christ did the wonderful works of which he
spake, but that God did them by him ; that by speak
ing more modestiy he might conciliate them to him
self J." The same caution he attributes to him, in
*' not saying that Christ but that God spake by the
mouth of his holy propl^ets, that by these means he
might bring them gradually to the faith §,"
I cannot help observing how extremely improbable
is this account of the conduct of the apostles given by
ysrai irapws ifaiSsuwv. E( yap -^ rou vop.ov 'itpo(!-^t]Kfj rotrovrov
avtous e^oputsi, itoXXw y.aXXov ro bsov eavrov xKotpaivsiv. In
caput Matt. v. Hom. 16, vol, vii. p. IS^.
* Matt. cap. i. Hom. 3, vol. vii. p. 20. i
f AXXa 1W.15 bopu'SsirSs itpos ro itapaSo^ov rov Xsyoiksvov, ov Ss
yap sp-os 0 Xoyos, aXXa narspwy ^p-srspwy Siavp.a(rrwv Kai sitt-
ctj^uiv xvSpwy. In cap. Matt. i. Hom. 3. vol. vii. p. 20.
J O'jKsri Xsysi on xuros, xXX^ on Si' avrov 0 Srsos, Ivx iiaXXov
rw ij,er§ia^siv stpeXKvrtjrai. In Acta Apostolorum cap. ii,
Horn. 6. vol. viii. p, 491.
§ Ov Xeysi tuv siitsv 6 Xpmros, aXX' toy sXaXrjrsv 0 bsos, sn rtu
vvrv.ix^siv paXXov xvrovs sitxyop.svos eis ititrriv rj^sp.a. In Acta
Apostolorum, Hom. 9, vol, viii.p, 511.

58 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
Athanasius, Chrysostom, and other orthodox fathers of
the church, considering what we' know of the cha
racter and the instructions of the apostles. They were
plain men, and little qualified to act the cautious part
here ascribed to thera. And their instructions certainly
were to teach all that they knew, even what their mas-
ter communicated to thera in the greatest privacy.
Whereas, upon this scheme, they must have suffered
numbers to die in the ignorance of the most important
truth in the gospel, lest,' by divulging it too soon, the
conversion of others should have been prevented. The
case evidently was, that these fathers did not know
how to'account for the great prevalence of the unita
rian doctrine among the Gentiles as well as the Jews
In the early ages of Christianity, but upon such a hy
pothesis as this. Let their successors do better If they
can. This observation on the character and instructions'
of the apostles must make all such accounts of their
conduct absolutely incredible with respect to every
doctrine of consequence, on which they could not but
lay proportionable stress. But it may perhaps enable
us to account for the Ignorance of the Jews, and other
early chrisrians, with respect to matters of little or no
consequence, on which the apostles did not lay any
stress, and for which reason they might say little or
nothing about them, as for instance with respect to the
miraculous conception.
In our Saviour's lifetime he certainly passed for the
son of Joseph with the Jews in general. The first
disciples would naturally adopt the same opinion ; and
It does not appear that the apostles thought It a matter
of coRsequence enough to set them right with respect

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 59
to It, For there is no reference whatever to the mira
culous conceptiori either in the book of Acts, or in any
of the Epistles. Indeed that doctrine has never been
thought to be of any importance in itself; Christ being
,as properly a man on one supposition as on the other.
It is therefore only of importance with respect to the
credit of Matthew and Luke, as historians, and that
not with respect to what they write from their own
knowledge,^ but only as to what they collected /rom
others. Whereas, if Christ was not a mere man, but
either truly, God, or the maker of the world under God,
it could, not but have appeared to be a matter of the
greatest consequence in the scheme of Christianity Itself j
and the apostles would certainly have taken some op
portunity of inculcating it with an energy suited to its
importance. We may therefore easily account for the
general prevalence of the opinion of Christ being the
son of Joseph, though it was false; but it is absolutely
impossible to account. for the general prevalence of the
doctrine of the mere humanity of Christ, on the sup
position of his being either God, Or the maker of the
world under God, and consequently of his being known
to be so by the apostles. I may perhaps take some fu
ture opportunity of making some further observations
on the subject of the miraculous conception ; and in
the mean time the Monthly Reviewer may be indulging
his conjectures, and preparing his exclamations ; for
which our readers will likewise be pretty well pre
pared, I am, &c.

60 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
LETTER V.
An Argument for the late Origin of the Doctrine of
the Divinity of Ckrist, from tke Difficulty of tracing
tke Time in which it was first divulged. .
Dear Sir,
1 CANNOT dismiss this subject of the strong prejudicejs
of the Jews in general in favour of their Messiah being
merely a man, (thus explicitly acknowledged by Atha
nasius, Chrysostom,' arid others, who say, that on this
account the apostles did not preach the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ at first, but only after the people
were satisfied with respect to his Messiahship,) without
requesting your opinion with respect to the time when
this great secret'of Christ not being merely a man, but
the eternal God hiraself, or the maker of heaven and
earth under God, was communicated, first to the
apostles themselyes, and then by them to the body of
christians. You cannot say that John the- Baptist preached any
such doctrine; and when the apostles first attached
themselves to Jesus, It is evident they only considered
him as being such a Messiah as the rest of the Jews.
expected, viz. a man, and a king. When Nathaniel
was Introduced to him it was evidently In that light,
John I. 45. Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto
him. We have found him of whom Moses in the law,
and the propkets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the
son of Joseph. He had then, we may suppose, no
knowledge even of the miraculous conception.
Now, as you say, p, 24, that " Christ was so much

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 61
more than man, that his being found In fashion as a
man was really the most extraordinary part of his his
tory and character ;" and at first the apostles, you
must allow, were wholly ignorant of this ; there must
have been a time within the compass of the evangelical
history when this most extraordinary part of his cha
racter was cornmunicated to them. Now what period
in the gospel history can you pitch upon, in which you
can suppose that this great discovery was made to them?
What traces do you find of it ?
That Jesus was even the Messiah was divulged with
the greatest caution, both to the apostles and to the
body of the Jews. For a long tirae our Lord said no
thing explicit on this subject, but left his disciples as
weH as the Jews at large to judge of him from what
they saw. In this manner only he replied to the mes
sengers that John the Baptist sent to him.
If the high-piiest expressed his horror by rending
his clothes on Jesus avowing himself to be the Mes
siah, what would he have done if he had heard, or
suspectejl, that he had made any higher pretensions ?
And if he had made them, they must have transpired.
When the people In general savv his miraculous works,
they only wondered that God should have given so
much power to a man. Matt. ix. 8. When the multi
tude saw it, they marveUed, and glorified God, who
had given such power unto men ; and yet this was on
the occasion of -his pronouncing the cure of a paralytic
person, by saying. Thy sins be forgiven thee, which
the Pharisees thought to be a blasphemous presump
tion. At the time that Herod heard of him, it was con
jectured by some that he was Elias, by others that he

62 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
was a prophet, and by some that he was John riseri
from the dead ; but none of them Imagined that he
was either the most high God himself, or the maker of
the world under God, It was not so much as sup
posed by any person that Jesus perfortned his mighty
works by any proper power of his own ; so far were
they from suspecting that he was the God who had
spoken to them by Moses, as you now suppose him to
have been.
If he was known to be a God at all before his death,
it could only have been revealed to-his disciples, per
haps the apostles, or only his qhief confidants among
them, Peter, James, and John, suppose on the mount -
of transfiguration, though nothing is said concerning
it in the history of that transaction. Certainly what
they saw in the garden of Gethsemane could not have
led tbem to suspect any such thing. But if It had ever
been known to Peter, can we suppose he could have
denied him as he did ? Besides, as our Lord told them
there were many things which he could not inform
them of before his death, and that they should know
afterwards; this was a thing so very wonderful and
unsuspected, that if any articles of information were
kept from thera at that time, this must certainly have
been one.
If you suppose that Thomas was acquainted with
this most extraordinary part cf his master's character,
which led him to cry. My Lord and my God, when
he was convinced of his resurrection, as he was not
one of the three who had been Intrusted with any se
crets, it must have been known to all the twelve, and
to Judas Iscariot among the rest. And suppose him
to have known and to have believed that Jesus was his

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 63
God and maker, was It possible for him, or for any
man, to have formed a deliberate purpose to betray
him ? (Peter, you may "say, was taken by surprise, and
was iri personal danger.) Or, if he had only heard of
the pretension, and had not believed it, would, he, not
have made some advantage of that imposition, and
have made the discovery of this, as well as of every
thing else that he knew to his prejudice?
If yoii suppose that the divinity, of Christ was un
known to the apostles till the day of Pentecost ; be.
sides losing the benefit of several of your argumenta
for this great doctrine, which you now carefully collect
from the four evangelists, we have no account of any
such discovery having been made at that time, or at
any subsequent one. And of other articles of Illumi
nation of much less consequence than this we have di
stinct information, and also of the manner in which
they impressed them. This is particularly the case
with respect .to the extension of the blessings of the
gOspel to uncircumcised Gentiles. But what was this
article,, to the know^ledge of their master being the
most high God ?
If the doctrine of the divinity of Christ had been
actually preached by the apostles, and the Jewish con
verts in general had adopted it, it could not but have
been well known to the unbelieving Jews ; and would
they, who were at that time, arid have been ever since,
so exceedingly zealous with respect to the doctrine of
the divine unity, not have taken the alarm, and have
urged this objection to Christianity, as teaching the be
lief of more Gods than one, in the apostolic age ? And
yet no trace of any thing of this nature can be per
ceived in the whole history of the book of Acts, or

64 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
-any where else In the New Testament. As soon as
ever the Jews had any pretence for It, we find them
sufficiently quick and vehement in urging this their
great objection to Christianity. To answer the charge
of holding two or ihree^ Gods, is a very considerable
article In the writings of several of the ancient chris
tian fathers. Why then do we find nothing of this
kind in the age of the apostles ? The only answer is,
that there was no occasion for it, the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ not having then been started*.
Consider, Sir, the charge that was advanced against
Peter and John at the first promulgation of the gospel.
You will find It amounts to nothing but their being
disturbers of the people, by preaching in the name of
Jesus. What was the accusation against Stephen
(Acts vi. IS.) but his speaking blasphemous things
against tke temple and the law f Accorapany the
apostle Paul in all his travels, and attend to his dis
courses with the Jews in their synagogues, and jheir
perpetual and inveterate persecution of him, you will
find no trace of their so much as suspecting that he
preached a new divinity, as the godhead of, Christ must
have appeared, and always^has appeared to thera.
In the year 58, Paul tells the elders of the churcli
of Ephesus (Acts XX. 27.) that he kad not failed to
declare unto them the whole counsel of God. We may
be confident, therefore, that, if he had any such doc-
* Athanasius strongly expresses this objection, as made by
both Jfiws and Gentiles, to the incarnation of the son of God,
though as a thing that' was gloried in by Christians, "The
Jews," says he, " reproach us for it ; the Gentiles laugh at it ; but
we adore it." 'Hy lovSxm p.sy SiataXXovtriy, 'EXXr^vES Ss x^'"^'
^ovtriv, ¦tjp.sis Ss ttpotrKvvovihsv, De Incarnatione Verbi, AthanaSii -
Opera, vol, i, p. 53,

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 65
trine to divulge, he raiist have taught it in the three
years that he spent In that city from 54 to 57 ; and as
the unbelieving Jews were well apprised of all his mo
tions, having laid wait for him on this very journey to
Jerusalem, they must have been informed of his hav
ing taught this doctrine, and would certainly have car
ried the news of it to Jerusalem, where many of thera
attended as well as he at the ensuing feast of Pentecost.
But if we attend Paul thither, where we have a very
particular account of all the proceedings against him
for the space of two years, we shall find no trace of
any thing of the kind. All their complaints against
him fell far short of this.
What was the occasion of the first claraour against
him? Was It not. Acts xxi. 28, tkat ke taught all men
every wkere against the people, and against the law,
and against the temple, and that he had brought
Greeks into it P Is It not plain that they had no more
serious charge against him ? Read his speech to the
people, his defence before Felix, and again before
Agrippa ; you will find no trace of his having taught
any doctrine so offensive to the Jews as that of the di
vinity of Christ must have been. Copsidering the
known prejudices and the inveteracy of the Jews, no
reasonable man need desire any clearer proof than this,
that neither Paul nor any of the apostles had ever
taught the doctrine of the divinity of Christ at that
time ; and this was so near the time of the wars of the
Jews, and the dispersion of that people, that there was
no opportunity of preaching it with effect afterwards.
Consider also the conduct of the Jewish christians,
who had strong prejudices against Paul, as we find in
tl,is part of his history; and according to the testiraony

66 £etterS to dr. horsley.
of all historians, they retained those prejudices as long
as they had any name; and after the destruction of Je
rusalem, which was- not long after the close ofthe his
tory of the Acts, no trace can be found of their be
lieving any such doctrine as the divinity of Christ
Now, though their enmity to Paul continued, and they
never considered his writings as canonical scripture,
yet, to the very last, their objections to him amounted^
to nothing raore than his being no friend to the law of
Moses, The resemblance between the character of the EbU
onites, as given by the early christian fathers, and that
of the Jewish christians at the time of 'Paul's last
journey to Jerusalem, , is very striking. After he had
given an account of his conduct to the more intelligent
of them, they were satisfied with It ; but they thought
there would be great difficulty in satisfying others,
" Thou seest, brother," say they to hira. Acts xxi. 20,
" how raany thousands of Jews there are who believe,
and they are all zealous of the law. And "they are in
forraed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who
are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses ; saying
that they ought not to circumcise their children,'
neither to walk after the custoras. What is it there-,
fore ? The multitudes must needs come together, for,
they will hear that thou art corae. Do therefore this,
that we say to thee. We have four raen who have a,
vo\y on them. Them take and purify thyself with.
them, and be at charges with thera, that they may
shave their heads, and all may know that those things
w,hereof they were informed concerning thee are no
thing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and
keepest the law." So great a resemblance in some

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 67
things, viz. their attachment to the law, and theii: pre
judices against Paul, cannot but lead us to imagine that
they were the same in other respects also, both being
equally zealous observers of the law, and equally stran
gers to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. And in
that age all the Jews were equally zealous for the great
doctrine of the unity of God, and their peculiar cus
toms. Can it be supposed, then, that they would so-
obstiriately retain the one, and so readily abaridon the
other ?
These considerations (and much raore might be-
added to enforce them) certainly affect the credibility
of Christ having any nature superior to that of man j.
and, when they are sufficiently attended to, (asT suspect
they never have been,) must shake the Arian hypo-.
thesis; but they must be particularly embarrassing ta
those who, like you, maintain the perfect equality of:
the Son to the Father.
Considerations of this kind, if they occur to h;m, no
person, who thinks at alU can absolutely neglect, so
as to satisfy himself with having no hypothesis on the
subject. You certainly find the apostles as well as the
rest of the Jews without any knowledge of the divinity
of Christ, with whom they Hved and converged as a
man; and if they ever became acquainted with it,
there must have been a time when it was either disco
vered by them, or made known to them; and the.
effects' of the acquisition, or the comraunicatlon of ex-
traordinary'^knowledge, are in general proportionably
conspicuous. Had we had no written history of our Saiviour's life,
or of the preaching of the apostles, or only sorae very
concise one; still so very extraordinary an article as this
' F 2

68 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
would hardly have been unknown, or have passed un
recorded ; rauch less when the history is so full and
circumstantial as it is.
Had there been any pretence for imagining that the
Jews in our Saviour's time had any knowledge of the
doctrine of the trinity, and that they expected the, se
cond person In It In the character of their Messiah, tbe
question I propose to you would have been needless.
But nothing can be more evident than that, whatever
you may fancy with respect to more ancient times,
every notion of the trinity was obliterated from the
minds of the Jews In our Saviour's time. It is, there-:
fore, not only a curious but a serious and important
question. When was it introduced, and by what steps?
I have answered It on my hypothesis of its being an
innovation and a corruption oVthe christian doctrine;
do you the same on your idea of Its being ari essential
part of It. I ara, &c.

LETTER VL
Of the Personification ofthe Logos.
Dear Sir,
XAAViNG considered all that you have advanced con
cerning the antiquity of the unitarian doctrine, I pro
ceed to attend to what you observe concerning , the
personification of the Logos by the platonizing chris-.
rians : for, that many of thera did platonize you are
far from denying. " If," you say, p. 50, " he hatfi
succeeded no better in the proof of his third assertion,;

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 69
concerning the platonic christians of the second age,
the Inventors, as he would have it, of our Lord's divi
nity ; that the divinity which they set up was only of
th^ secondary sort, which- was admitted by the Arians,
including neither eternity nor any proper necessity of
existence ; having the mere name of divinity, without
any thing of the real form : if the proof of this third
assertion should be found to be equally infirm with
that of the other two,, his notion of the gradual pro
gress of opinions from the mere Unitarian doctrine to
the Arian, and from the Arl^n doctrine to the Athana
sian faith, raust be deemed a niere dream or fiction in
every part."
In the first place I must set you right with respect
to my own Idea, which you have totally misconceived,
though you have undertaken to refute it, and this
strange mistake of yours runs through the whole of
your work. Those platonizing christians who perso
nified the Logos were not Arians ; for their Logos was
an attribute of the Father, and not any thing that was
created of nothing, as the Arians held Christ to have
been. It Is well known, as Beausobre observes, that
they were not Arians, but the orthodox, that plato-
rdzed. Constantine, as I have observed, vol. ii, p. 488,
in his oration to the fathers of the council of Nice,
speaks in commendation of Plato, as having taught the
doctrine of a second God, derived from the supreme
God, and subservient to his will.
Among the proofs of the origin of the Son, accord
ing to the early orthodox writers, I first quoted a pas
sage in Athenagoras, which you translate somewhat
differently from me ; but not so as to affect my con
clusion frora it. For he evidently asserts that the Lo-

^0 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
gos was eternal in God, only because God was always
XoyiKog, rational, which entirely excludes proper per
sonification. See Athenagoras, p. 82. Can reason,
as it exists in man, be called a person, merely because
man is a rational being ?
Besides, this Is the only one of all my authorities
that . you have thought proper to examine ; whereas
there are others which you have overlooked so plain
and determinate, that It Is Iraposslblje for you to Inter
pret thera otherwise than I have done ; as they evi-
dently imply that it depended "poi? the Father's will
that the Logos should have a proper personification,
and become a Son, with respect to hln:\. The passages
\(?hich Ihave quoted from Tertullian and Laetantius,,
vol. I. p. 28, whose orthodoxy you cannot question, I
call upon you particularly to consider.
There is a passage in Tertullian which shows how
ready the platonizing Christians were to revert to the
idea of an attribute oi God in their use of the word
Logos. " We have said that God made the universe
by his word, reason, and power; and it appears that
among your philosophers also, the Logos, that is,
speech and reason,, was the maker of the universe.
For this Zeno supposed to be the maker and disposes
of all things, that the same Is called jfafe, and God, and
the mind oj Jupiter, and the necessity of all tkings*."
The Platonic trinity, at least the second person In It,

* Jam ediximus Deum universitatem hanc mundi verbo, et
ratione, et vjrtjate molitum, Apud vestros quoque sapientes.
Xoyov, id est sermonem, atque rationem, constat artificem viden
universitatis. Hunc enim Zeno determinat factitatorem, qui
cuncta in dispositione formaverit ; eundem et fatum vocari,, et
deum, et animum Jovis, et necessitatem omnium rerum. Apo.
logeticus, sect. xxi. p. 19,

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. *71
probably had its origin in personification ; and in this
the Christians were too ready to follow them, by con
verting the Logos of St. John Into a proper person.
You acknowledge, p. 56, that these writers plato-
nized, and this you say was common to Athenagoras
and them all. " If any thing," you say, p, 56, " be
justly reprehensible in the notions of the platonic
christians, if Is this conceit, which seems to be com
mon to Athenagorasj with thera all, and is a key to
the meaning of many obscure passages In their writ
ings ; that the external display of the powers of the
Son in the business of creation, is the thing intended
in the scripture language under the figure of his gene
ration; a conceit which seems to have no certain
foundation' In holy iVrlt, and no authority In the opi
nions and the doctrines of the preeeding age ; and it
seeras to have betrayed some of those who were the
most wedded ,to It int o the use of a very Improper
language ; as If a new relation had taken place be
tween the first and the second person, when the crea
tive powers were first exerted."
You add, after apologizing for the conduct of the
platonizing fathers, " the conversion of an attribute
into a person, whatever Dr. Priestley may imagine, is
a notion to which they were entire strangers." I an
swer that it Is not possible, either by the use of plain
words, or figures, to express this notion, to which you
say they were entire strangers, more clearly than they
do. For, according to the most definite language a
man can use,' the Logos, as existing In the Father, prior
to the creation, was, according to them, the sarae thing
in him that reason Is In man, which is certainly no pro
per person distinguishable from the man himself. Will

72 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY,
you say that the man is one person or thing, and hi»
reason another, not comprehended in the man ? In
like manner It is Impossible not to infer from the uni
form language of these writers, that, according to their
ideas, there was nothing in or belonging to the Son,
originally, but what was necessarily contained In what
they express by the term Father. I will add j that if
this was not the orthodoxy of the age, there was no
, orthodoxy in It.
That the Logos of the Father, the same that consti
tuted the second person in the trinity, exactly corre
sponded to the Logos, or reason, or word of man, was
the idea of Athanasius himself. Having spoken of the
Father, as called the only God, because he only is un-
begotten, osyevvYiTcg, and the fountain of deity, Trviy^
S'£0T5jT0£,^ and of the Son as only God of God, 5sog sk
Bsov, he says, in answer to the question how this Lo
gos can becorae a person in God when It does not so
in raan, " The word conceived in the mind of man
does not become man of man, since it does not live or
subsist, but is only the motion of a living and subsist-,
ing heart. When it Is pronounced it has no conn-
nuance, and being often uttered, does not remain.
Whereas the psalmist says the Word of the Lord
remaineth for ever, and the evangelist agrees with
him, &c.*"
, " On this subject," you say, p. 58, " it is but jus-
* Ou yap 0 Xoyos ''o" xv&ptotov xySpwito; ern itpos ay^ptwrtov'
tiisi jx^rg ^wy sarri, /xijrg vtistrrw;, aXXx ^tuo-ijy xapSias xai vfsr-
tttitsr^s 'Kivtjp.x p.ovov. Kai Xsysrai itapa y^prjpi,a,, xai ovk strft, xal
itoXXxKis KxXovfLsvos , ovSs itors Siaiisver ro Se rov .S-sou Xoyov
avw&sv, 6 ^xXpi.wSos KSKpxyei Xsywv, Eis roy xiwvx o Xoyos rov Sia-
\f.eyei sv rtu ovpxvw. kxi (rvp.<{i(/iyos avrtu 6 beov eivai rov Xoyov Ofio-
Xoyioy EvayysXirrris', &c. De Mterra. Substantia Filii, &c.
contra Sabellii Gregales, Opera, vol, i, p. 651.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 73
tice to Dr. Priestley to acknowledge, what indeed he
ought to have acknowledged for himself, that in this
misinterpretation of the platonic fathfers he is not ori
ginal ; that he hath upon his side the respectable au
thority of two very eminent divines of the Roman
church, Petavius and Huetius." Of this, I assure you.
Sir, I was quite ignorant ; but I see no reason to be
ashamed of such companyj or of any company, in the
cause of truth.
That any mere external display of powers, as you
say, p. 57, should ever be termed generation, is so
improbable, from its manifest want of analogy to any
thing that ever was called generation before or since ;
that such an abuse of words is not to be supposed of
these writers, or of any person, without very positive
proof; and In this case you advance nothing but a
mere conjecture, destitute of any thing that can give it
a colour of probability.
If the Logos had had an actual personal existence,
with all its proper and separate powers, from all eter
nity, how could he be said to be generated, when he
only exerted those powers in a particular way ? For
since, according to your hypothesis, he was always an
intelligent person from the beginning, he must have
exerted his intellectual faculties In some way or other
from all eternity, as much as the Father himself ; and
was the exertion of the faculties of the Father in the
creation of the world ever called a generation of the
Fatker, by those who supposed creation to be a work
of his, performed In time, after the lapse of an eternity
in which nothing had been created ? And yet, accord
ing to you, this language must h^ve been equally pro
per with respect to the Father as with respect to the

74 LITTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
Son, both having been intelligent persons from all
eternity.
You say, p. 52, " After all that Dr, Priestley hath
written about the resemblance between the ecclesia.stical
and the platonic trinity, he has yet. It seems, to learn,
that a created Logos, a Logos which had ever not ex
isted, was no less an absurdity In the acaderay, than it
is an Iraplety in the church. The converts from pla-
tonism must have renounced their philosophy before
they could be the authors of this absurd, this mon
strous opinion. As the notion that this doctrine took
its rise with them betrays a total ignorance^of the ge-
nulne principles of their school, it is easy to foresee
that the arguments brotight in support of It can only
be founded In gross misconstruction of their lan
guage." To, this I can only say, that you discover a total ig.
norance of what I have asserted, and I do not know
how to express myself more intelligibly than I have
done. I have no where said or supposed that either
the Platonlsts, or the platonizing christians, held that
the Logos was created, or that it had ever not existed;
butonly that, whereas it was originally nothing more
than 2l property of the divine riilnd, it assumed a sepa^
rate personal character in time. The Logos of the
Platonlsts had. In their opinion, always had a personal
existence, because Plato supposed creation to have
been eteri^l ; but this was not the opinion of the pla
tonizing christians,^ who held that the world was not
eternal ; and therefore, retaining as much of platonisra
as was consistent with that doctrine, they held that
there was a time when the Father was a/owtf, and with
out a son ; his Logos or reason being in all that time

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 75
the same thing in hira that reason now is in man ; and
of this I have produced abundant evidence.
I cannot close this letter on the personification qf
the Logos without making some observations relating
to the first account we have of it.
That Christ had a proper permanent pje-existence,
as the Logos of the Father, first distinctly appears in
the writings of Justin Martyr ; and from his labouring
the point so much as he does, and especially from his
providing a retreat in case he should not be able to
prove it, It Is most probable that he was the first who
started It, However, he also mentions a different opi
nion on the subject, which probably preceded his own,
and paved the way for It; and this was not very remote
from the unitarian doctrine.
It was, that the emission of the Logos, as a person,
was an occasional thing, and Intended to answer parti
cular purposes only ; after which It was absorbed into
the divine essence again. On this scheme the Logos
might have been a real persori first at the creation of
the world, and again when it was employed in the di
vine intercourse with the patriarchs, and the children
of Israel, in the intervals of which it raight have been
deprived of its personality ; and lastly, have recovered
it at the birth of Christ, and have retained It ever after.
Whereas, the opinion of Justin was, that, after the first
emission of the Logos at the creation of the world, it
was never again absorbed into the divine essence.
" There are," says he* (to abridge what he says on
this subject) " I know, who are of opinion, that the
power, hmy-iv, which proceeded from the Father of
* Dialog! pars secunda, edit, Thirlby, p. 412.

76 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
all, and appeared to Moses, or to Abrahara, or to Ja-
cob, arid which, in different; circumstances, was called
an angel, a glory, or a man, remained a power inse
parable from the Father*, just as a beam of light is
inseparable from the sun f, which is in the heavens,
and which, when It sets, it carries along with it. Thus
the Father, whenever he pleases, they say, makes this
power to come out of him, TrpoTDj^a-v ; and whenever
' he wills, he calls it back into himself again. And in
the same manner they say he makes arigelfi. But that
angels are permanent beings, I have already, shown ;
and that this power, which the prophets call God, and
an angel, is not like a beam of light, but remains nu
merically distinct frora its source, I have shown at
large ; observing that this power, Iwuixiv, Is produced
by the povper and will of the Father, but not so as
that the Father loses any thing by Its emission, but as
one fire is lighted by another — It is called Lord in
the history of the destruction of Sodom, and rained
fire from that Lord who was in heaven, and who was
the Lord of that Lord who was on earth, as his Father
and God ; being the cause of his being, of his being
powerful^ and of his being Lord, and God |,"
We see in this passage in how plausible a manner,
and how little likely to alarm men of plain understand^
ings, was the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as it
was first proposed. At first It was nothing more than
* ArfMjrov Ss kxi a^tppirrov rov near pos rxvrijy njv Svyap.ivuit«,p-
ysiv, p, 412,
f A beam of light was then imagined to be something con-
ijected with the sun, and not matter emitted from him, and not
returning to him-
% 'Os KM rov SKI yrjs Kvpiov Kvpios eirriv, cos ttarr^p xai S«Of,
airios rt atvrtti rov eiypii kxi Svvarui kxi Kvpitf) kxi bstp. p. 413.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 77
the divine power, occasionally personified, (a small step
indeed, if any, from pure unitarianism,) and afterwards
acquiring permanent personality ; but still dependent
upon the will of God, from whence it proceeded, and
entirely subservient to him ; which was very different
from what Is now conceived concerning the second
person In the trinity. I am, &c.

LETTER VIL
Considerations relating to the Doctrine ofthe Trinity.
Dear Sir,
1 CANNOT help, in this place, making a few remarks
on some of your observations with respect to the doc
trine of the trinity, your ideas of which appear to be
those' which are commonly termed Athanasian ; im
plying a perfect equality in all the three persons. In
deed, as a strenuous advocate for the church of En
gland, they can be no other, I.
*' The advantage," you say, p. 69. " to be expected
from these deep researches. Is not any Insight into the
manner in which the three divine persons are united ;
a knowledge which Is Indeed too high for a man, per
haps for angels ; which in our present condition at
least is not to be attained, and ought not to be sought.
But that just apprehension of the christian doctrine
which will show that it is not one of those things that
' no miracles can prove' will be the certain fruit of the
studies recommended. They will lead us to see the

78 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
scripture doctrine in Its true light : that it is an imper
fect discovery, not a contradiction,"
A contradiction, you acknowledge, p, 67, is that
*' a part is equal to the whole, or that the same thing,.
in the same respect. Is at the same time one and
many." This you admit that nothing can prove.
*' No testimony," you say, " that a contradiction w,
should be allowed to overpower the Intuitive convic
tion that it cannot be. An inquiry, therefore. Into the
reasonableness of our faith, as well as just views of Its
history, is of gr'eat iraportance."
Now I askj Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine pf
the trinity differ from a contradiction, as you have de
fined it ? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to
either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constituti
each of thera truly and properly. God ; each being
equal in eternity and all divine perfections ; and yet
that: these three are not ihree Gods, but only one God.
They are, therefore, both one and many in the same
respect, viz. in each being perfect God., This is cer
tainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter,
James, and John, having each of them every thing that
is requisite to constitute a complete mari, are yet, all
together, not three men, but only one man. For the
ideas annexed to the words God or man cannot make!
any. difference In the nature of the two proposition^
After the council of Nice, there are instances of the;
doctrine of the trinity being explained In this very
manner. The fathers of that age being particularly
intent on preserving the full equality of the three per
sons, they entirely lost sight of their proper unity.
And explain this doctrine as you will, one of these*
things rimst ever be sacrificed to the other.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 79
II.
Notwithstanding what I have quoted from you above,
you seem to countenance some sort of explanation of
the doctrine of the trinity. " The sense" [viz. of
Athenagoras] you say, p. 55. " is, that the personal
existence 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 frora the divine Intellect ex
erted on Itself, frora the Father's contemplation of his
own perfections. But as the Father ever was, his per
fections have ever been, and his intellect has been ever
active. But perfections which have ever be'en, the
ever active Intellect must ever have conteraplated j
and the contemplation which has ever been, must
ever have been accompanied with its just effect, the
personal existence of the Son."
I \vish you had shown what it is in the scriptures, or
indeed in the fathers, that' giyes any countenance to
this curious piece of reasoning ; and in your reply to
me I hope you will not fail to point it out. In the
mean time, as we cannot pretend to draw any conclu
sions from the necessary operatioijs of one mind, but
from their supposed analogy to those of other minds,
that is our own, you will find yourself embarrassed
with a difficulty similar to that of Tertullian, Lactan-
,tius, and Athanasius; and must explain to us how it
comes to pass, that If the conteraplation of the divine
perfections of the Father necessarily produced a di
stinct person In him, fully equal to himself, a mans
contemplation ^^uch perfections, or powers, as he is

80 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
possessed of, should not produce another intelligent
person fully equal to himself?
You will, perhaps, say (though you can have no
thing to authorize it) that the impossibiUty of pro
ducing this In man, is the imperfection of his faculties,
or his Hmited power of contemplating them. But to
cut off that subterfuge, I will ask, why the contempla
tion of the Son's perfections, which you suppose to be
fully equal to those of the Father, and whose energy
of contemplation you must likewise suppose equal to
that of the Father, does not produce another intelligent
being equal to himself; and why are not persons in the
Godhead, In this raanner, multiplied' ad infinitum ? If,
for any Incomprehensible reason, this raysterious power
of generation be peculiar to the Father, why does it
not still operate ? Is he not an unchangeable being, the
sarae now that he was frora the beginning, his perfec.:
tions the sarae, and his power of contemplating them
the same? Why then are not more sons produced?
Is he become oiyovog, incapable of this generation, as
the orthodox fathers used to ask ? Or does it depend
upon his will and pleasure, whether he will exert this
power of generation ? If so, is not the Son as much a
creature f depending on the will of the creator, as any
thing else produced by him, though in another man
ner ; and this whether he be of the same substance,
e^oova-tog, with him, or not ?
I should also like to know in what manner the third
person in the trinity was produced. Was it by the joint
exertion of the two first. In the contemplation of their
respective perfections ? If so, why does not the same
operation In them produce & fourth? &g. &c. &c.
, Admitting, however, this strange ^^unt ofthe ge-

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 81
neration of the trinity, (equal in absurdity to any thing
m the Jewish cabala,) viz. that the personal existence
of the Son necessarily flows from the intellect of the
Father exerted on itself. It certainly Implies a virtual
priority or superiority in the Father with respect to
the Son ; and no being can be properly God who has
any superior. In short, your scheme effectually over
turns the doctrine of the proper equality as well as that
of the unity of the three persons In the trinity.
Indeed, Sir, had ypu lived in some former ticklish
times, when words were more narrowly watched than
they are now, I think you would have run some risk
of being accused of heresy, for thus boldly making
the second person in the trinity to be nothing more
than an effect, though the necessary effect of the Fa
ther's contemplation of his own perfections. Far from
this was Dr. Waterland, and all the strict Athanasians
of the last age. They maintained that the trinity con- .
sisted of three persons,- all truly independent of each
other. It is, indeed, very amusing tb observe how
many totally discordant opinions, schemes as distant
from each other as light and darkness, all pass for
orthodoxy In this heedless age; in which we have no
councils, synods, or convocations, to watch over the
faith. Error itself Is hardly more various than modern,
truth. III.
You cannot but acknowledge that the proper object
of prayer Is God the Father, whom you call the first
person in the trinity. Indeed, you cannot find in the
scriptures any precept that will authorize us to address
ourselves to any other person, nor any proper example
of it. Every thing that you can allege to this purpose.

82 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
as Stephen's short ejaculatory address to Christ, whom
he had just before seen in vision, &c. is very inconsider
able. Our Saviour himself always prayed to his Fa
ther, and with as rauch humility and resignation as the
most dependent being in the universe could possibly
do ; always addressing him as his father, or the author
of his being ; and he directs his disciples to pray to
the same great being, whom only, he says, we ought to
serve. Had he intended to guard against all mistake on this
subject, by speaking of God as the author of his being,
in the same sense In which he is the author of being
to all raen, he could not have done It more expressly
than he has, by calling him his father and our father>
his God and our God, ,At the same tirae fie calls his
disciples his brethren *, Go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend unto my father and your father^
to my God and your God. Can you. Sir, read thisj
and say that we unitarians^ wrest the scriptures, and are
not guided by the plain sense of them ?
Accordingly, the practice of praying to the Father
only, was long universal in the christian church ; the
short addresses to Christ, as those in the Litany, Lord,
have mercy on us, Christ, have mercy on us, being com
paratively of late date. In the Clementine liturgy, the
oldest that is extant, contained in the Apostolical Con
stitutions which were probably coraposed about thefourth.
century, there is no trace of any such thing. Origen, in
a large treatise on the subject of prayer, urges very for
cibly the propriety of praying to the Father only, and not
to Christ} and as he gives no hints that the public forms
* John XX. 17.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 83
of prayer had any thing reprehensible in them In that
respect, we are naturally led to conclude that, in his
time, such petitions to Christ were unknown in the
public assemblies of christians ; and such hold have
early established customs on the minds of men, that,
excepting the Moravians only, whose prayers are al
ways addressed to Christ, the general practice of tri
nitarians themselves is to pray to the Father only.
Now please. Sir, to consider on "what principle
could this early and universal practice have been
founded. What is there in your doctrine of a trinity,
consisting of three equal persons, to entitle the Father
to that distinction more than the Son or the Spirit ? I
doubt not but that, considering, the thing ab initio, you
yourself would have thought that, since of these three
persons it is the second that was the maker of the world
and that Is the immediate governor of it, he is that
person of the three with whom we have most to do ;
and therefore he is that person to whom our prayers
ought to be addressed. This, 1 should think, would
have been a natural conclusion, even if Christ had not
been thought to be equal to the Father, but only the
maker and the governor of the world under him j
supposing him to have had power originally given him
equal to the making and governing of It, as I have
shown at large In my Disquisitions on Matter and Spi
rit, vol. i. p. 376. For we should naturally look up
to that being on whom we imraediately depend, know
ing that it must be his proper province to attend to us.
If there should have been any reason in the nature
of things, though undiscoverable and incomprehen
sible by us, why the world should have been made and
supported by some being of coramunicated power and
c2

84 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY*
delegated authority, rather than by the self-existent arid
supreme being himself, (and if the fact be so, there
-must have been some good reason for It,) that unknown
reason, whatever it be, naturally presents this derived
being to us as the proper object of our prayers. And
I must observe once more, that a derived preexistent
being, supposed to animate the body of Jesus, and who
is not also the maker of the world. Is a creature gf
imagination only, whose existence is not to be inferred, .
with the least colourable pretext, from the scriptures.
If the sacred writers do represent Christ as having pre
existed at all, they certainly suppose him to be the
maker of all things. Let those, therefore, who pre
tend to maintain the Arian hypothesis either assert it
in Its original and proper extent, or else abandon it al
together. But supposing this second person in the trinity to
be our independent raaker, governor, and final judge,
the propriety of praying to him, and to hira exclusively,
is so obvious, that no consideration whatever could
have prevented the practice, if such had been the real
belief of the christian world frora the beginning. That
christians did not do so at first, but prayed habitually
to the Father only, is therefore with rae alraost a de
monstration that they did not consider Christ in that
light ; but that, whatever they might think of him,
they did not regard him as being a proper object of
worship, and corisequently not as possessed of the at
tributes that are proper to constitute him one, and
therefore not as truly God. The persuasion that he
was truly God, and that God on whom we immediately
depend, would unavoidably have drawn after it the ha
bitual practice of praying to him, as it has at length

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 85
effected with respect to the Moravians ; and in spite of
constant usage, and against all scripture precept and
example, the practice has more or less prevailed with
all trinitarians. Petrarch, we find by his Letters, gene
rally prayed to Christ ; that pious treatise of Thomas-
a-Kerapis, On the imitation of Christ, consists of
nothing besides addresses to" him, and they compose
the greater part of the litany In the Church of En
gland. When I was myself a trinitarian, I remember pray
ing conscientiously to all the three persons without di
stinction, only beginning with the Father ; and what I
myself did in the serious simplicity cf my heart, when
young, would, I doubt not, have been done by all
christians from the beginning, if their minds had then
been impressed, as mine was, with the firm persuasion
that all the three persons were fully equal in power,
wisdom, goodness, omnipresence, and all divine attri
butes. This argument I recoramend to your serious
consideration, as it is with rae a sufficient proof that,
originally, Christ was riot considered as a proper object
of worship by christians, and consequently neither as
God, nor as the maker or governor of the world under
God. IV.
I wish you would reflect a. little on the subject, and
then Inform us what there is in the doctrine of the
trinity, in itself considered, that can recommend It as
a part of a system of religious truth. All that can be
said for It is, that the doctrine, however improbable in
itself, is necessary to explain some particular texts of
scripture ; and that. If It had not been for those parti
cular texts, we should have found no want of it. For

86 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose
of morals, (which are the object and end of all reli.
gion,) that requires It,
Is not one self-existent, almighty. Infinitely, wise,
and perfectly good being fully equal to the production
of all things, and also to the support and government
of the worlds which he has made ? A second person
in the godhead cannot be really wanted for this pur
pose, as far as we can conceive.
Whatever may be meant by the redemption of the
world, is not the being who made it equal to that also ?
If his creatures offend him, and by repentance and re
formation become the proper objects of his forgive
ness, is it not more natural to suppose that he has
within himself a power of forgiving them, and of re-
storing them to his favoui;', without tJie strange expe
dient of another person, fully equal to himself, conde
scending to animate a human body, and dying for us?
We never think of any similar expedient in order to
forgive, with the greatest propriety and effect, offences
coramitted by our children against ourselves.
Whatever you suppose to be the use of a third per
son in the trinity, is not the infiuence of the first per
son sufficient for that also ? The descent of the holy
spirit upon the apostles was to enable them to work
miracles. But when our Saviour was on earth, the
Father within him, and acting by him, did the same
thing. I
You also cannot deny that, exclusive of some parti
cular texts, the general tenor of scripture does not
suppose such a trinity as you contend for. Is It not
the general tenor of the Old and New Testament, that
the supreme God himself, and not any other person

- LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 87
acting under hira, was the proper maker of the world ;
and that he himself, and not any other being, supports
and governs It ? Is not the same great being, the God
and Father of us all, and even the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, represented as forgiving the
sins of his penitent offspring /ree/y, and exhorting us
to forgive as we ourselves hope to be forgiven ? An4
are we to require any ransom, recompense, or atone
ment, of a penitent brother ?
You will say that there are obscure intimations of
the doctrine of the trinity in the Old Testament, as in
God's saying Let us make man, and Let us go down
and confound their language, &c. But even that Hte
ral interpretation of these expressions which you con
tend for does not really favour your hypothesis. For
then there must have been at least two persons con
cerned in making the world, and also two or more
persons must have had that intercourse with mankind,
which you say was the province of the second person
in the trinity only.
The plural number forming the regal style In the
East, furnishes a very easy explanation of all such texts
as these ; especially considering that the word denot
ing Gad in Hebrew is in the plural number.
Why then, dear Sir, should you- be so desirous of
retaining such a doctrine as this of the trinity, which
you must acknowledge has an uncouth appearance,
has always confounded the best reason of mankind,
and drives us to the undesirable doctrine of inexplicable
mysteries, — ^to the great offence of Jews, Mahometans,
and unbelievers in general, — without some urgent ne
cessity ? Of two difficulties we are always authorized to
choose the least ; and why should we risk the whole

88 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEv,
of Christianity for the sake of so unnecessary and un-
desirable a part ?
Try, then, whether you cannot hit upon sorae me
thod or other of reconciUng a few particular texts, not
only with common sense, but also with the general and
the obvious tenor of the scriptures themselves. In
this you will, no doubt, find some difiiculty at first,
from the effect of early irapresslons and association of
ideas ; but an attention to the true idiom of the scrip
ture language, with such helps as you may want, but
will easily find, for the purpose, will satisfy you, that
the doctrine of the trinity furnishes no proper clue to
the right understanding of those texts, but will only
serve to mislead you.
In the mean time, this doctrine of the trinity wears
so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable
man must say, with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson
with respect to the Athanasian creed, " I wish we were
well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against
the scriptures, but reconciling reason with the scrip.
tures, and the scriptures with themselves. On your
scheme they are irreconcilably at variance.
V.
In a mode of writing altogether Improper In a se
rious discourse, you ridicule the Socinlan Interpreta-.
tions of scripture as unnatural, and contrary to their
obvious meaping; and after a long enumeration of
things, which you say may be clear to my apprehen
sion, but which you insinuate can never be clear to the
apprehension of any man, you add, p. 14, " But to
others, who have not sagacity to discern that the true
meaning of an Inspired writer, must be the reverse of

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 89
the natural and obvious sense of the expressions which
he employs, the force of the conclusion, that the pri
mitive christians could not believe our Lord to be more
than a mere man, because the apostles had told them
that he was the creator of the universe, will be Httle
understood," In answer to this, which I suppose you Intended for
irony,,, and which I shall not endeavour, to retort, I
shall content myself with taking the very text which
you produce as the most difficult for an unitarian to
reconcile to his opinion, and show you expressions in
it which it is absolutely Irapossible for you to accom
modate to your own principles, without, to adopt your
own language, " making the true meaning of the wri
ter the very reverse of the natural and obvious sense
of the expressions which he employs."
The passage, which is of your own selection. Is
Col, I, 15, &c. in which Paul affirms that Christ is
the image of the invisible God, and tke first-born of
every creature ; and yet you make him not the image
of God, but God himself, and so far frora being a
creature, that he is the creator of all things. Produce
any Socinian interpretation of a text of scripture more
directly contrary to its obvious meaning, if you can.
Whatever difficulty an unitarian may find in accom-
modating the latter part of the passage to his senti
ments, you must find much more to accommodate the
former part to the Athanasian doctrine. And I will
venture to say, that for one text in which you can pre
tend to find any thing harsh or difficult to me, I will
engage to produce ten that must create more difficulty
to you.
How strangely must you torture the plainest lan-

90 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
guage, and in which there Is not a shadow. of ^g-wre,
to interpret to your purpose, 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is
one God, and one mediator between God and man, tke
man Christ Jesus ; 1 Cor. viii, 6, To us there is lut
one God, the Father, qf whom are all things, and we
in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him ; or that expression of our Sa
viour himself, John xvu, 3, That they might know
thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent.. ^ Never upbraid us unitarians with torturing
the scriptures, while you have these and a hundred
other plain texts to strain at, and bend to your Atha
nasian hypothesis ; besides many general arguments,
from reason and the scriptures, of more real force than
any particular texts, to answer. VI,
There Is something inexplicable, and not to be ac
counted for, in the conduct of several of the evange
lists, indeed all of them, upon the supposition of their
having entertained the same sentiments concerning
Christ that you do. Each of the gospels was certainly
intended to be a sufficient instruction in the fundamen
tal principles of the doctrine of Christianity. But there
is nothing that can be called an account of the divine
or even the super-angelic nature of Christ in the go
spels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke ; and allowing that
there may be sorae colour for it in the introduction of
the gospel of John, It is reraarkable that there are
many passages In his gospel which are decisively ia
favour of his simple huraanity.
Now these evangelists could not Iraagine that either
the Jews or the Gentiles, for whose use the gospels-

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 91
were written, would stand in no need of information
on a subject of so much Iraportance, and which was
so very remote from the apprehensions of them both ;
ai^d which would at the same time have so effectually
covered the reproach of the cross, which was con
tinually objected to the christians of that age. If the
doctrine of the trinity be true, it is, no doubt, in the
highest degree important and interesting. Since, there
fore, the evangelists give no certain and distinct ac
count of it, and say nothing of Its importance, it may
be safely Inferred that It was unknown to thera.
Why was not the doctrine of the trinity taught as
explicitly, and In as definite a manner, in the New Tes
tament at least, as the doctrine of the divine unity Is
taught in both the Old and New Testaments, If It be
a truth ? And why is the doctrine of the unity always
delivered In so unguarded a manner, and without any
exception raade in favour of the trinity, to prevent any
raistake with respect to It, as is always now done in
our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the
subject ? For you cannot deny but the doctrine of the
trinity looks so like an infringement of that of the
unity, on which the greatest possible stress is always
laid In the scriptures, that It required to be at least
hinted at, if not well defined and explained, when the
divine unity was spoken of. You are content, how
ever, to build so strange and inexplicable a doctrine as
that of the trinity upon mere Inferences from casual
expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express,
and unequivocal lesson on the subject.
There are many, very many passages of scripture,
which inculcate the doctrine of the divine unity In the
clearest and strongest manner. Produce one such pas-

92 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
sage in favour of the trinity, if you can. And why
should we believe things so raysteriouS, without the
clearest and most express evidence ?
VII.
I would further recoraraend- It to your consideration,
how the apostles could continue to call Christ a man,
as they always do, both in the book of Acts and in
their Epifetles, after they had discovered him to be God.
After this it must have been highly, degrading, unna
tural, and improper, notwithstanding his appearance
in human form. Custom will reconcile us to strange
conceptions of things, and very uncouth modes of
speech ; but let us take up the matter ab initio, and
put ourselves in the place of tlie apostles and first
disciples of Christ.
They certainly saw and conversed with him at first
on the supposition of his being a man as much as
themselves. Of this there can be no doubt. Their
surprise, therefore, upon being Inforraed that he was
not a raan, but really God, or even the raaker of the
world under God, would be just as gj-eat as ours
would now be on discovering that any of our acquaintrj
ance, or at Jeast a very good man and a prophet, was
In reality God, or the niaker of the world. Let us
consider then how we should feel, how we should be
have towards such a person, and how we should speak
of him afterwards. No one, I ara confident, would
ever call that being a man, after he was convinced that
he was God. He would always speak of him In a
manner suitable to his proper rank.
Suppose that any two men of our acquaintance
should appear, on examination, to be the angels Michael

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 95
and Gabriel, should we ever after this call them
men F Certainly not. But we should naturally say to
our friends, " Those two persons whom we took to be
men are not men, but angels in disguise." This lan
guage would be natural. Had Christ, therefore, been
any thing more than man ^before he came into the
world, and especially had he been God, or the maker
of the world, he never could have been, or have been
considered as being, a man, while he was In it ; for he
could not divest himself of his superior and proper
nature. However disguised, he would always, in fact,
have been whatever he had been before, and would
have been so styled by all who truly knew him.
" Least of all would Christ have been considered as a
man in reasoning and argumentation, though his ex
ternal appearance should have so far put men off their
guard as to lead them to give him that appellation.
Had the apostle Paul considered Christ as being any
thing more than a man with .respect to his nature, he
could never have urged, with the least propriety or ef
fect, that as by man came death, so by man came also
the resurrection ofthe dead. For it might have been
unanswerably replied, " This is not the case : for in
deed by man comes death ; but not by man, but by
God, or the creator of man under God, comes the
resurrection of the dead." VIII,
There is also another consideration which I would
recommend to you who maintain that Christ was either
God, or the maker of the world under God. It is
this. The manner in which our Lord speaks of him.-
self, and of the power by which he worked miracles,
is inconsistent, according to the common construction

94 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
of language, with the Idea of his being possessed of any
proper power of his own, more than other men had.
If Christ was the maker of the world, and if in the
creation he exerted no power but what properly be
longed to himself, and what was as hiuch his own as
the power of speaking or walklrig belongs to man,
(though depending ultimately upon that supreme power
in which we all live, and move, and have our being,)
he could not with any propriety, and without knowing
that he must be misiinderstood, have said that of him*
selfke could do nothing, that the words which he spake
were not his own, and that the Fatker within him did
the works. For if any ordinary man, doing what other
men usually der, should apply this language to himself,
and say that It was not he that spake or acted,. but God
who spake and acted by him, and that otherwise he
was not capable of so speaking or acting at all, we
should not scruple to say that his language was either
sophistical, or else downright false or blasphemous. '
If this conclusion would be just upon the supposiJ
tion that Christ had created all things, working miraclesf
by a power properly his own, though derived ultiraately
from God, much more force has it on the suppositioi^
of his working miracles by a power not deiived from
any being whatever, but as much originally in hirasell
as the power of the Father *.
* That Christ was not the real maker of the world, but God
the Father only, without the aid or instrumentality of any other
being whatever, is abundantly evident from the scriptures. For
a most satisfactory proof of this I refer my readers to Mr, Lind-
sey's Sequel to his Apology, ch, ix, p. 451 ,
If it be said that this great pre-existent being was divested of
his former powers when he became man, it may be asked. What
use was there of such a being ? Why might not a mere man have
answered the purpose, if this superior being must be reduced to
the state of man, in order to act his part on earth with proprietyf

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. OS
It would also be a shocking abuse of language, and
would warrant any kind of deception and imposition,
if Christ could be supposed to say that his Father was
greater than he, and at the same time secretly mean
only his human nature, whereas his divine nature vras
at the same time fully equal to that of the Father.
Upon the same principle a man might say that Christ
never suffered, that he never died, or rose again from
the dead, meaning his divine nature only, and not his
huraan. Indeed, Sir, there is no use in language, nor
any guard against deception, if such liberties as these
are to be allowed. IX.
You must. Sir, be much at a loss indeed for argu
ments In support of your doctrine of the trinity, whea
you look for any thing like it In heathen antiquityi,
" The notion of a trinity," you say, p. 44. " more or
less removed from the purity of the christian faith, is
found to be a leading principle in all the ancient schools
of philosophy, and in the religions of almost all nations;
and traces of an early popular beHef of it appear even
in the abominable rites of idolatrous worship. Their
information concerning It," you say, p. 45. " could "
only be drawn from tradition, founded upon eariier
revelations," (meaning than those of Moses,) " from
the scattered fragments of the ancient patriarchal creed,
that creed which was universal before the defection of
the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idolatry,
gross and enormous as they were, could never totally
obfiterate* Thus the doctrine of the trinity ig rather
confirmed than discredited by the suffrage of the hea
then sages; since the resemblance of the christiaa
faith and the pagan philosophy in this article, wheia

96 LSTTlRS TO DR. HORSLETf.
fairiy Interpreted, appears to be nothing less than the
consent of the latest and earliest revelations,"
Without troubling you with any remarks upon the
" joint worship of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, the
triad," as you call them, " of the Roman capitol," or
the THREE MIGHTY ONES, in Samothrace, to which
you say, p, 44. they may be traced ; and the worship
of which In that place you suppose, with Eusebius, to
be earlier than the days of Abraham ; I say, withoul:
troubling you with any remarks upon this most, ob
scure part of heathen mythology, concerning which
there are^many opinions, and yours I think the least
probable of them all, I will only ask you three ques
tions, to which I beg your explicit answer.
First, If there be so many traces of the doctrine of
the trinity in the heathen philosophy, and in the hea
then worship,, why are there no more of them to be
found In the Jewish scriptures and in the Jewish wor
ship ? Secondly, If there be such traces of the doctrine
of the trinity in the Jewish writings and worship, how
came the Jews in our Saviour's time, and also the body
of the Jewish nation to this day, not to discover these
traces ? Thirdly, If the Jews had been once in the pos
session of this knowledge, but had lost It in the time
of our Saviour, why did not he, who rectified other
abuses, rectify this, the most important of theiri all?
TertuUian was so far from imagining that the worship
of the trinity was known to the Jews, that, as I have
observed, vol, I, p. 60, he makes the knowledge of the
trinity peculiar to the christian dispensation. The same
was the opinion of Athanasius, and I believe the fa
thers In general.
As to the trinity of Plato, whatever you or I may

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 97
know, or may not know, concerning it, it was certainly
a thing very unlike your Athanasian doctrine ; for it
Was never iraagined that the three coraponent raembers
of that trinity were either equal to each other, or strictly
speaking one.
Every attempt that has yet- been made to explain
the doctrine of the trinity I scruple not to call an in
sult on the comraon sense of mankind. When I read
that of yours mentioned above, viz, that the Father Is
the fountain of deity, and that the second person in
the trinity was produced by the first person contem
plating his own perfections, I can hardly help fancy
ing that I am got back into the very darkest of the
dark ages, or at least that I am reading Peter Lom
bard, Thomas Aquinas, or Duns Scotus.
You speak of the catholic dogtrine of the trinity.
There is also. Sir, a catholic doctrine of transubstan
tiation ; and if you would try your skill, you would
find that, with the same kind of arguments, from rea
son and scripture, you would be just as able an advo
cate for the one as you are for the other. The learned
catholics at the time of the Reformation thought that
they trod on as firm and as sure ground in defending
the latt^, as you now do in defending the former.
The two doctrines are so nearly akin, that they cannot
bear a long separation. They differ only in this, that
the doctrine of transubstantiation iraplies a physical
impossibility, whereas that of the trinity, as unfolded
in the Athanasian creed. Implies a mathematical one ;
and to this only we usually give the name of contra
diction. I am truly concerned to find by your Charge, pub
lished at the request of the respectable body of Clergy
H

98 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
to whom it was delivered, that the doctrine of a tri-
nity, In its most objectionable form, must be maintain^
ed at all events by the proper merabers of the church
of England as Its most sacred palladium. Other dir
vines of your church, have attempted to explain and
palliate It, so that It might be hoped that, in time, it
would have been explained away and lost, and at
length have been struck out of your articles and forihB
of worship ; whereas now, it seems, it is to be main.
tained in all Its rigour ; and as you recommend the
writings of Bishop Bull, without exception, I presume
you approve of his Defence of the damnatory clause
in , the Athanasian creed, (indeed , you mention this
among his most valuable works,) and this in my opi*-
nion is going back into all the darkness and horror of
popery. But as you cannot bring back those times,
yoiir damnatory clauses and excommunications will
now have little effect. Yet, as there are liberal sent!*-
ments in your performance, I am willing to hope
that, on re-consideration, you will, at least, retract
your recomraendation of that piece of your favourite-
author. However, next to the church's reforming itself in
this iraportant article. It is to be wished by all the true
friends of reforraation, that your terms of communion,
p. 71, may be universally understood and adhered to;
for then I am confident that a majority of the thinking
clergy, whose sentiments on this subject are In general,
I believe, those of Dr. Clarke, or Arian, and many of
them Socinian, would quit your communbn at once,
And in that case 1 have little doubt but that the cha
racters and abilities of those ejected clergy would be
found to be such as you could not now bear the want

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. . 99
of; and then either a reformation, invitd ecclesid, or
a total dissolution of the Hierarchy, would immediately
follow. I am, &c.

LETTER VIII.
Miscellaneous Articles,
I.
Dear Sir,
J. o vindicate Eusebius, or his author, in asserting that
Theodotus was the first who advanced the doctrine of
Christ being a mere man, you say, p. 37, " that Theo
dotus in this article so far surpassed the earlier heresi
archs, that the merit of being the inventor of the mere
huraanity. In the precise and full raeaning of t'he words,
is with great propriety and truth ascribed to him.
When the Cerinthians and the Ebionites affirmed that
Jesus had no existence previous to Mary's conception,
and that he was literally and physically the carpenter's
son, it might justly be said of them, that they asserted
the mere huraanity of the Redeeraer ; especially as it
could not be foreseen that the iraplety would ever go a
greater length than this, of ascribing to hira an origin
merely huraan. .These heretics however went no
further, as I conceive, than to deny our Lord's original
divinity : they admitted I know not what unljjtelllgible
exahation of his nature, which took place, as they
conceived, upon his ascension, by which he became no
less the object of worship than If his nature had been
originally divine."
H 2

100 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
This, as far as I know, is advanced on your own
authority only, I desire to know? where you find that
the Ebionites paid any kind of adoration to Christ after
he was ascended to heaven, more than Theodotus did.
As the extraordinary power communicated to Christ
while he was on earth did not make his nature more
than human, so neither could any power conferred upon
hira after his ascension ; and if God alone is the pro
per object of worship, Christ, being still not God, Is as
iraproper an object of worship now as he was before.
If any ancient unitarians worshipped Christ after his as
cension (of which I believe there is no evidence), The
odotus might do it, and the Ebionites might not, for
any thing that appears to the contrary. Socinus prayed
to Christ, though he considered him as a mere man, in
his present exalted state.
As to your supposition that Theodotus might be the
first person who taught the unitarian doctrine in Rome,'
which is a second plea which you advance for the credit
of Eusebius, he himself says nothing about it. And
as Tertullian says that in his time the unitarians were
the greater part of the believers, It Is highly Impro
bable that there should be none of thera at Rome,.
where there was a conflux of all religions and of all
sects. You here speak of the impiety of the unitarians.
Before you repeat any expressions of this kind, I beg
you would pause' a little, and consider how such lan
guage raight be retorted upon yourself. If It be im
piety to reduce a God to the state of a man, is it not
equally impious to raise any man to a state of equality
with God, — that God who has declared that he will not
give his glory to another, who has no equal, and who

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 101
in this respect styles himself a jealous God ? This you
-may say respects the gods of the heathens. But what
were the heathen gods but either the sun, moon, and
stars, or dead men, all creatures of God, and deriving
their power from him ? And if Christ be not God, he
must be a creature of God too ; for there can be no
medium between creature and creator.
I do not call it impiety in you, but It sounds un-~
pleasantly in my ears, to apply, as you do; the term
holy Father to Athanasius. The cathohcs, I beheve,
apply it to Ignatius Loyola, Our Saviour applied It
to his God and Father, and I wish it had always re
mained so appropriated. It is high tirae to drop that
style, even with respect to a raore holy raan than Atha
nasius was. II,
In a work of great variety and extent I was well
aware that I could not expect to escape all oversights ;
but I was confident they could not be of much conse
quence. The expectation has been verified in both Its
parts. You have set me right with respect to the ex
actness of two of my quotations ; and I should have
thanked you for it if you had noted the oversights
with good nature, which would have done you no dis
credit, and might not have lessened the weight of your
animadversions. But in some of the cases In which you pretend to
set me right, you are much more mistaken than I have
been. This is particularly the case with respect to your
censure of Dr, Clarke and myself, concerning the piety
ascribed to the ancient unitarians by Origen. I haye
lately procured the original, and I appeal to our readers
whether you have not misrepresented the fact, and not
Dr. Clarke or myself.

102 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
Ybu say, p. 34, that " Origen says, not that they
were pious, but that they boasted that they were pious,
or affected piety. Piety," you add, " and the affecta-i
tion of piety, belong to opposite characters," Accord
ing to you, therefore, Origen considered these unita
rians as impious persons, the very reverse of pious.
But If the passage be carefully inspected, it will appear
that Origen, notwithstanding he uses the word sv%o^f-
yovg, was far from representing these ancient unitarians-
as only pretendi'hg to piety, and boasting of it ; but
considered them as persons who really dreaded lest,
by admitting Christ to be God, they should Infringe
upon the honour that was due to thei Father only.
. " By these means," he says, " may be explained
that which greatly disturbs many persons, who plead
a principle of piety, and who fear to make two
Gods*." He afterwards recurs to the same subject,
and Introduces It as an objection of persons wfth whom
he would not trifle, and whom he was far from charg.
ing with hypocrisy. *' But since," he says, " it is
probable that many may be offended, because we say
that one Is the true God, namely the Father, and be
sides this true God there are many who are made Gods
by participation ; fearing that the glory of him who
excels all creatures should be brought down to that of
others who attained the appellation of Gods, &c.t'*
On the whole, therefore, I think that Origen must have
thought as respectfully of these early unitarians as I
* Kai ro IfoXXovs cpiXodsovs stvai sv)(ajJ.svovs raparrov, svXaSov-
jK-svouf 'Svo ayayopsvffxi dsovs-. Comment, in Johannem, edit.
Huetii, 1668, vol. ii. p. 46. D,
f AXX' stsi siKOs ^porKo^siv riva; rois eipv)p,EVOis, evos ^ev «X)j-
fiivoTJ S'EOU rov Ttxrpos aTtdyysXXojj.svov, Ttapx Se rov aX-rfliv^v deott
Srswv itXeiovwv rri jj.sroy^'ri rov Sisov yivop-svuiv, svXxtovp.syovs rr,v rou
irarav Kritriv vtsps^ovros So^xv s^iirwtrai rois ^owofj rijj ^sos'Ttpof'
r^yopixs rvyyxvovri, &c. Ibid. p. 47, C,

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. IOS
had represented him to do, and that he really con
sidered them as objecting to the doctrine of the divi
nity of Christ from the very best principles.
In translating the passage in Theophilus, in which
mention is made of God's speaking to nothing but his
own tuord and wisdom., 1 inadvertently used the par
ticle or for and, as you observe, p. 48 ; but I do not
see how the right translation is at all less favourable to
my argument, as It raay still be interpreted of God's
speaking, as It were, to himself, or to his own attri
butes, and by no means necessarily implies that the
word and wisdom of God were distinct pei-sons. How
ever, I have other instances In proof of what I have ad
vanced that are not liable to any charge of ambiguity,
which It therefore behoved you to consider,
I also mistranslated a sentence in Theophilus,' con-
. cerning his trinity. It vvas in consequencfe of his using
a singular verb instead of a plural ; but I have no
doubt of your translation, p. 59, being right, and shall
adopt it, I am still, however, fully satisfied, that
neither Theophilus nor any person of his age , made
a proper trinity of persons in the Godhead ; for they
had no Idea of the perfect equality of the second and
third persons to the first.
You say, p. 61, " that they scrupled not to ascribe
an equal divinity to all the three persons." If by
equal divinity you mean something that raight be
equally called divine, though In a different sense, I
admit it ; but that will make nothing for your trinity.
And that the fathers before the Council of Nice as
serted, in the most explicit manner, the superiority of
the Father to the Son, see my third section, in which
you will find unanswerable proof of It.

104 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY,
Whenever the Antenicene fathers- used the term
God absolutely, they always meant the Father only, as
you do not deny. But if in their Idea the Father- had
been no more entitled to the appellation of God than
the Son, or the Spirit, they would certainly have con
fined the use of the word God to express divinity jn
general, and have used the word Father, and not Gpef,,
when they really meant the Father only, exclusively of
the two other persons. Had there been no proper cor-
relative to the word Son, as a person, your explanation
might have been attended to ; but since the term Fa
ther is perfectly correlative to the terra Son, and as
familiar, it would certainly have, been used by thera to
denote the Father, as well as the terra Son to denote
the Son. It is natural, therefore, to conclude that their,
custora of using the term God to denote the Father ,
only, was derived to them from earlier tiraes, in which
np other than the Father was deeraed to be God in
any proper sense ofthe word. This language was con-.
tinned long after, from a change of ideas. It ceased to
be proper.
Very happily the word God is still,' In common use^
appropriated to the Father, so that none but professed
theologians are habitually trinitarians, and probably
not even these at all times ; and while the scriptures
are read without the comraents of men, the Father-
alone will be considered as God, and the sole object of
worship, exclusively of the Son or the Spirit. But
while a different doctrine Is taught in christian schools,/
and continually held up to the world in the writings of
christian divines, those^who are not christians, and who
will not take the pains to study the scriptures them
selves, must receive a very unfavourable impression of

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 105
our religiori ; and the manifest absurdity and impiety
of our doctrine will effectually prevent its reception by
them. I therefore think It of the greatest consequence
to Christianity, that this doctrine of the trinity (which
I consider as one of Its most radical corruptions)
should be renounced in the most open and unequi
vocal manner by all those whose minds are so far en
lightened as to be convinced that It is a corruption and
an innovation In the christiari doctrine, the reverse of
v?hat It was In its primitive purity ; and that they should
exert theraselves to enlighten the rainds of others,
I ara, &c.

THE CONCLUDING LETTER.
Dear Sir,
1 HAVE now .finished ray reply tp your animadversions
' on my History, omitting' nothing that I think to be of
any consequence to your argument. If you should
think that I have overlooked any thing material, and
please to point it out to me, I will answer it as explicitly
as I can ; for I hope that this will only be the begin
ning of our correspondence on the subject, as I would
gladly discuss it with you In the fullest manner.
I only wish for your own sake, and for the more
advantageous investigation of the truth, that you would
drop that sarcastic manner of writing, which is so con
spicuous in the greater part of your performance, and
I should think pecuHarly improper for the occasion on
which it was coraposed. That mq^de of writing is also
inconsistent with the compUraents you sometimes pay
me, unless you meant them to be Ironical also.

106 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
Some of those compliments are, I think, rather im
prudent, and unfavourable to your purpose. " In phi-
lospphlcal subjects," you say, p. 29,." Dr, Priestley
would be the last to reason from principles assumed
without proof. But In divinity and ecclesiastical hi-
story he expects that his own assertion, or that of wri-
ters of his own persuasion, however uninformed or
prejudiced, should pass with the whole christian world
for proof of the boldest assumptions."
You should, indeed. Sir, be cautious how you lay
these things before your readers ; because It is very
possible that they may draw a very different conclusion
from thera, and think that, if I have been so cautious
and so successful in the Investigation of truth in one
province, I may, having the same talents, make the
same successful appKcation of them In other provinces.
For the same mental habits generally accorapany the
sarae men in every scene of life, and In every mode of
exertiop. Your readers, therefore, may think it very
improbable that a work written with so much care and
attention, by such a person as you describe rae to be;
should deserve the character which you give of mine.
" No work," you say, p. 66, " was ever sent abroad
under the title of history, containing less of truth than
his, in proportion to its volume," The passages which
I have quoted, p. 4, 11, 14, and 89, are gross and
coarse insults ; but they affect yourself onlyi and not
me. This Is more extraordinary,- as in other parts of
your work you write with great candour and liberality.
Your conclusion I particularly admire. My address-
to you on the subject of necessity was uniformly re
spectful. It was particularly Illiberal in you, and what I am

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 107
willing to hope you will never repeat, to use the term
conventicle, p. 28, in speaking of the places of public
worship In which land Mr, Lindsey officiate. Would
not that contemptuous appellation have applied equally
well to the societies ofthe primitive christians, or to those
of all the dissenters from the church of Rome before
the Reformation ? And what is it that has given your
places of public worship a more honourable title, but
the sanction of the civil powers, with which tny reli
gion never had any alliance ? I glory in such Indepen
dence and opprobrium.
By conventicle Is usually meant an unlawful as
sembly. But since the late act of parliament in favour
of Dissenters, our places of worship are as legal as
yours. The only difference between them Is, that ours
are not supported by the wealth of the state as yours
are ; so that I ara unjustly corapelled to contribute to
your maintenance, while you, unstead of paying any
thing towards mine. Insult me for it. Our meeting
houses are equally known to the laws, and protected
by thera. If by conventicles you meant nothing more
than a term of reproach, the good mariners of the pre
sent age ought to have protected them from such an
insult. If your pride, as a churchman, p. 7lj and the con
temptuous airs you give yourself with respect to dis
senters, be founded on the Idea of your being a mera
ber of a great establishment ; .pray, Sir, what is your
church establishment in this country ? It Is a thing of
yesterday compared to the far raore ancient and vene
rable church of Rorae, whose members consider you
as a schismatic and a sectary as much as myself. If,
on the contrary, you boast of your separation from the

108 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY»
church of Rome, that mother of harlots and abomi
nations, consider that the community of christians to
which I belong is several removes further from her than
yours, and is therefore less likely to be one of those
harlots of which she Is the mother. ,
On any consideration, therefore, I think that a style
of greater modesty would have becorae you better.
The tirae Is approaching that will try every man's
work, wkat it is ; and If we learn the piire faith ofthe
gospel, and our lives be conformable to it, It will not
then be inquired whether we learned It In a church or
a conventicle ; in a church such as you have access to
and from which I am excluded, or in such conventicles
as the apostles were contented with.
As you strongly and repeatedly recomraend the
writings of Bishop Bull, with which, I own, I was but
little acquainted, I have been induced to purchase
them; and having looked pretty carefully through
them-, I find they have been the chief storehouse of
weapons to yourself and others. Having found, there
fore, where your great strength lies, I cannot help
wishing that you would publish the whole of your
great champion's works In English, and thus put forth
all your strength at once. It would give me sincere
pleasure to see you do this, and at the same tirae to
avow yourself their defender.
As you rank yourself, p. 5, araong " those whom
the indulgence of providence has released frora the
more laborious offices of the priesthood *, to whom
your more occupied brethren have a right to look up
* I find no trace of any christian priesthood in the New/festa-
ment, except what belongs to all christians, who are figurativ%
Ityled kings and priests unto God.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 109
for support and succour In the common cause," this
may be oneof the " services" to which " you stand
peciiHarly engaged," as well as to answer my History
of the Corruptions of Christianity, " It Is (you say)
for them" (speaking of those among whom you rank
yourself) " to stand forth the champions of the com
mon faith, and the advocates of their order. It is for
thera to wipe off the aspersions Injuriously cast upon
the sons of the establishment, as uninformed in the
true grounds of the doctrine which they teach, or in
sincere in their belief of it. To this duty they are In
dispensably obliged by their providential exemption
frora work of a harder kind. It is the proper busi
ness of the station which is allotted thera in Christ's
household. And deep will be their shame, and insup
portable their punishment, if in' the great day of reck
oning It should appear that they have received the
wages of a service which hath never been performed."
I am glad. Sir, to find that you have so just a sense
of the important duties of your elevated situation ; and
thinking; the translation of Bishop Bull's works to be
naturally comprised in your description of the duties
incumbent upon you in It, I am ready to join with
your weaker brethren, as you call them, (whose attain
ments you represent as very low,) in inviting you to
undertake It ; Imagining, as I sincerely do, that the
cause of truth will be promoted by It. And to some
of those weaker brethren It may be raore agreeable,
as well as take up less time, to read Bishop Bull's
works In English than in Latin. In my opinion, no
writings are more easy to be refuted than those of this
bishop. And though, encumbered with what you call
the laborious offices of the priesthood, as well as en-

110 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
gaged In a variety of other pursuits, I shall not think
it any great addition to my labours if I undertake
to reply to you, thus ably as you may think yourself
siupported. You have, I perceive, some advantages which I havft
not, especially in having access to scarce books. I, for
instance, had not so much as heard of the work of
Daniel Zuicker, from which you suppose I have bor
rowed most of my arguments ; whereas you appear to
be well acquainted with It, and all the writings of that
author, or you could not have said- as you do, p, 9,
",Nor Is a single argument to be found in the writings
either of Zuicker or Episcopius, which is not unanswer*
ably confuted by our learned Dr. George Bull, after*
wards Lord Bishop of St. David's, In three celebrated
treatises, which deserve the particular attention of every
one who would take upon him to be either a teacher
or an historian of the christian faith."
You should not, however, have charged me with
borrowing frpm a work which, though in your posses*
sion, you might have known was not very coraraon*
A learned friend, whora I desired to Inquire fbr It, tells
me that It Is not to be found at any bookseller's Ini
London, In the British Museum, or in the Bodleian or
Sion libraries ; and that at last he Inquired of partial
cular persons most likely to have it, but none of them
could tell him where It was to be met with*. I shall
endeavour, however, to make the most of such books
* I find in the General Biographical Dictionary, under the
article Comenius, that Zuicker wrote three defences of his original
work, entitled Irenicon Irenicorum, in answer to Comenius ; and'
that Bishop Bull was accused by D. Crellius of not having read
those pieces, for watit of which he censured Zuicker for sorae
things which he otherwise would not have objected to him.

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. HI
as I have, and in time I may be able to procure
more. But what JS of more importance than any thing else
in these studies, is a sincere love of truth, and a cool
and patient investigation of it, which I shall endeavour
to cultivate, I hope also to keep my mind always open
to conviction, and that I shall not neglect to avail my
self of any light that may be furnished me, from friend
pr from foe.
Hoping to hear from you as soon as your leisure will
permit, and assuring you of the pleasure it will give rae
to continue this correspondence, till each of us shall
have advanced what raay occur to us on the subject,
I ara, dear Sir,
Your very humble servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
' Birmingham, Novemler, 1783.*

POSTSCRIPT.
In this Postscript, besides adding a few notes and ob
servations relating to the subject of the preceding Let
ters, I shall Insert a few larger articles, that respect the-
controversy In general. I.
The original extracts from Origen's works referred to
p. 30,, 31, are the following :
The old Latin Fersion.
Et cum videris eos qui ex Judseis crediderunt in Jesum, ali
quando quidem ex Maria et Joseph eum esse putantes j aliquand©

112 LETTERS TO DR. HQRSLEY.
autem de sola Maria et spiritu sancto, videbis, &c. In Matt.
Tract, 13. Opera Latine, vol. ii, p. 88.
The Greek of Huetius's Edition.
Kai sttav iS-ns rwv aito lovSaiwv ittrrevovrwv sis rov Iijo-oui/ tijy #£ji
rov ffwrtjpos ititrnv, o'tsp.ev sk 'M.aptas xai rou Iwtnjip 'iiop.svwv avrov
sivai, ore Ss sk Mx^ixs p.ey p.ov^s "»( rov '^siov itvsvfixros, ov (;,^»
KXI p.sra rtis ttepi avrov S'soXoyiaj, ovj/ji, &c. Comment., in Matt.
ed, Huetii, vol, i, p, 427, E.
The passage referred to, p. 31.
Zt(fw SI Svvarai koXXovs p.sv eiiteiv sifiri[i.wvrxs Iva triwifijirri rif
'S.tiwiaito KXI Tirw/svovn itspi rt/jv sis iTjrouv itirriv, rovs atfo ¦''ws
f^vwv, ol rivss itx^ oXiyovs xitavrss tteitirrsvKXtfiv avrov SKtia,^
ifyov ysytrtf^ai. Ibid. p. 428. C.
II.
Of Heresy in early Times.
P. 41. That Irenffius did not mean to pass a sen
tence of what we should now call damnation upon the
Ebionites is, I think, evident from what he says con
cerning them in the twenty-first chapter of his third
book, and which has the appearance of great harshness.
*' If they persist," he says, " in their error, not re
ceiving the word of incorruptlon, they continue in
mortal fiesh, and are subject to death, not receiving
the antidote of life*." The Idea of this writer, and
that of the fathers in general, was, that Christ reco
vered for man that immortality which Adara had lost;
so that without his interference the whole race of man
kind must have perished in the grave. This he repre
sents as the punishraent of the Ebionites, But he cer
tainly could riot , mean that the Ebionites, as such,
* Non recipientes verbum incorruptionis perseverant in came
mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitse non accipientes.
Lib, 3. cap. xxi. p. 248.

LETTERS TO. DR. HORSLEY. 113
should continue in the grave, while all the rest of man
kind should rise from the dead. He must, therefore,
have meant, not that they in particular, but that man
kind In general, could have had no resurrection, if
their doctrine had been true.
P. 42. Clemens Alexandrinus raakes frequent raen
tion of heresies'. Alraost the whole* of his seventh
book of Stromata relates to that subject. He raen
tions fourteen different heresiarchs by name, and ten
heresies by character ; but none of them bear any re
lation to the Ebionites, or any species of unitarians, all
of them respecting Gnostics only. He particularly
speaks of the pride of heretics In general in pretend
ing to deep science ; whereas the Ebionites were al
ways described in a very different manner, and were
generally treated with contempt as well as abhorrence.
On the other hand, Whitby says, that this writer speaks
of the doctrine of the Logos being emitted from the
Father at pleasure, and recalled Into hira again, (which
Justin Martyr mentions, and which was hardly different
from proper unitarianism, being the doctrine of Noetus,
Praxeas, Sabellius, and Marcellus of Ancyra,) with
approbation. He also says It Is particularly remark
able that Justin Martyr, though he did not approve of
this doctrine, passes it without any censure or mark of
heresyt. P. 42, I have not been able to find any particular
* J)r. Priestley, in his Corrigenda, for the words almost the
whole, directs the suJistitution of a great part. Dr, Horsley, in
his Reply, Letter x. shows thai it is but a very small proportion of
the seventh book bf Stramata which relates lo heresies, — Ed,
, f Senteptiam hancce, quam post Noetum et Praxeam, Sabel
lius propugnavit, Clementi Alexandrino ex pxdagogia sua pla-'
cuisse non sine ratione existimo. — Disquisitiones ModestK, p, 173.,

114 LETTERS TO DR. H6RSLE!Yi-
account of this excommunication of the Ebionites by
the fatkers, mentioned by Jerora ; but I think it very
possible that it might have been nothing more than
what was done by Victor, bishop of Rome, when he
excoraraunicated all the Eastern churches (of whom
the Ebionites were the chief) because they observed
the Jewish rules in fixing the tirae of Easter; so that
in this excoramunication no mention might be made of
any other tenet or custom of theirs, besides this instance
of their obstinate adherence to Judaism. The rule laid
down by Victor was afterwards confirraed by the Coun
cil of Nice, but I beheve without any sentence of ex
communication on those ^vho did not conform to it.
If any person will give me any more light with respect
to this subjeet, I shall be truly thankful for it.
III.
Oh'the Conduct ofthe Apostles, p. 58.
To these observations I would add, -that, as among;
the twelve apostles there must have been men of very.
different tempers and abilities. It is not probable that
they should ^ll have agreed in conducting themseilves
upon the plan of not divulging the doctrine of the di
vinity of their master till their hearers were sufficiently
persuaded of his messiahship. Sorae of thera would
hardly have been capable of so rauch refinement, and
they would certainly have differed, about the ime when
it was proper to divulge so great a secret. Besides, the
mother of Jesus, and many other persons of both sexes,
must have been acquainted with It. For that this se-
cret.was strictly confined to the twelve apostles will
hardly be maintctiaed. And yet we have no account

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. -115
tithef of their instructions to act in this manner, or of
any difference of opinion or of conduct with respect
to it.
' It might have been expected also, that the informa
tion that a person whora they first conversed with as a
man, was either God himself, or the maker of the
world under 'God, should have been received with
some degree of doubt and hesitation by sorae or other
of them ; especially as they had been so very hard to
be persuaded of the truth of his resurrection, though,
they had been so fully apprized of it before hand.
And yet, in all the history of the apostles, there is the
same profound silence concerning this circumstance,
and every other dependirig on the whole scheme, as If
no such thing had ever had any existence but In the
imaginations of Athanasius, Chrysostom, and those
-Other fathers who maintained it; which I therefore
believe to have been the case, and that they Invented
this hypothesis In order to account for the early rise
and general spread of the unitarian doctrine, which
they could not deny, and of which it may therefore be
considered as veVy good evidence. IV.
Of the Excommunication of Theodotus by Pictot.
It may be objected to the evidence of Tertullian con*.
cerning the major part of christians being unitarians,
that about the same time Victor, bishop of Rome, ex
coraraunicated Theodotus of Byzantiura for denying
the divinity of Christ ; which it raay be thought he
would not have ventured to do if the popular preju
dices had not beeri with hira in this business, I do
i2

116 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
not think, however, that there Is any contrariety be»
tween these two facts, when the circurastances attend
ing thera are duly considered.
Tertullian lived In -Africa, where there seeras to have
been "a greater inclination for the unitarian doctrine
than there was at Rorae, as we may collect from the
reraarkable popularity of SabelHus in that country, and
other circumstances. Athanasius also, who complains
of many persons of low understanding favouring the
same principles, was of the -same country, ' residing
chiefly in Egypt, though he had seen a great part of
the christian world, and was no doubt well acquainted
with It*.
We should Hkewise consider the peculiarly violent
character of Victor, who was capable of doing what
few other persons would have attempted ; being the
same person who excommunicated all the Eastern
churches because they did not observe Easter at the
same time that the Western churches did ; for which
he was much censured even by many bishops in the
West. Such an excomraunication as this of Theodotus was
*,I think it yery probable that in the Western parts of the
Roman empire in general, there Were always fewer unitarians
than in the Eastern parts ; because the gospel was not preached
so early in the Western parts, perhaps not to any great extent
till the greater part of the clergy were infected with platonigm.
This miight have teen the case, especially in so remote a coun
try as Gaul, where Irengsus resided, and may account for his
treating the doctrine of the Ebionites with more severity than
Justin, who lived in the East, where they were more numerous.
On the same principles we may account for the prevalence of
Arianism in all the barbarous nations bordering on the Roman
empire. They had been, converted to Christianity chiefly by per
secuted Arians. But Arianism was at length suppressed by the
mfluence of the church of Rome, which ^so began to excom
municate the proper unitarians in the person of Theodotus^

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 117
by no means the same thing with cutting a person off
from communion with any particular church with
which he had been used to comraunlcate. Theodotus
was a stranger at Rome, and it is very possible that
the body of the christian church at Rohie did not in
terest themselves in the affair, the bishop and his clergy
only approving of it. For I readily grant that, though
there were some learned unitarians in all the early ages
of Christianity, the majority of the clergy were not so.
Theodotus, besides being a stranger at Rorae, was a
man of science, and is said by the unitarians to have
been well received by Victor at first ; so that It is very
possible that the latter might have been instigated to
what he did by sorae quarrel between thera, of which
we have no account.
Upon the whole, therefore, though Victor excora
raunicated this Theodotus, who was a stranger, arid.
had perhaps raade hiraself conspicuous, so as to have
given some cause of umbrage or jealousy to him, It Is
very possible that a great proportion of the lower kind
of people, who made no noise or disturbance, might
continue in communion with that church, though they
were known to be unitarians.
I am not disposed to take any advantage of Dr.
Horsley's supposition, that Theodotus might hold the
unitarian doctrine In some more offensive form than
that of the ancient Ebionites, and therefore raight be
more Hable to excoramunication ; because both Ter
tullian and Theodoret say that be believed the miracu
lous conception, and It is orily Epiphanius (who lived
long after the time of Tertullian) who asserts the, con
trary*. It Is Indeed pretty certain that the opinion of
* Tillemoht's Memoirs, vol. vii, p. 116, ^

lis LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
Jesus being the son of Joseph began soon to give way
to the authority of the gospels of Matthew and Luke,
and that it became extinct long before the doctrine of
the simple humanity of Christ,. V.
Of Justiii Martyres Account ofthe Knowledge ofsomi-
Christians of low Rank.
It is likewise said that the testimony of Tertullian
is expressly contradicted by Justin Martyr*, who; in
giving an ac^^ount of the circumstances in which the
platonic philosophy agreed, as he thought,, with the;
doctrine of Moses, but with respect to which he sup*
posed that Plato had borrowed from Moses, mentions.
the following particulars ; viz., " the power which was
after the first God, or the Logos," assuming the figure.
of a cross In the universe, borrowed from the fixing
up of a serpent (which represented Christ) in the form
of a cross In the wilderness ;, and a third principle, bor
rowed frora the spirit which Moses said moved on the,
face of the water at the creation ; and also the notion
of sorae fire or conflagration, borrowed frora some figu-
rative expressions in Moses relating to the anger of
God waxing hot. '* These things," he says, " we do
not borrow from others, but all others from us. With.
us you may hear and learn these things from those who
do not know the forra of the letters, who are rude and
barbarous of speech, but wise and understanding in
mind; and frora some who are even; lame and blind j^
so that you may be convinced that these things are not
said by human wisdom, but by the power of God,**
* Edit. Thirlby, p. 88,

LETTE&S TO DR. HORSLEY. 119
But all that we can infer from this passage Is, that
these common people had learned from Moses that the
world was made by the power and wisdom (or the Lo
gos) of God ; that the serpent in the wilderness repre
sented Christ; and that there was a spirit of God that
naoved on the face of the waters ; in short, that these
plain people had been at the source from which Plato
had borrowed his philosophy. It Is by no means an
explicit declaration that these coramon people thought
that the Logos and the Spirit were persons distinct
from God. Justin was not writing with a view to that
question, as Tertullian was ; but only meant to say
how much more knowledge was to be found among
the lowest of the christians than araong the wisest of
the heathen philosophers.
Besides, Justin is here boasting of the knowledge of
these lower people, and It favoured his purpose to
rnake it as considerable as he could ; whereas Tertul
lian is complaining of the circumstance which he men
tions '. so that nothing but the conviction of a disagree
able truth could have extorted it from him. The same
was the case with respect to Athanasius.
That the common people in Justin's time should un
derstand his doctrine concerning the personification of
the Logos, is in itself highly improbable. That this
Logos, which was originally in God the same thing
that reason is In man, should at th^ creation of the
. world assume a proper personality, and afterwards
animate the body of Jesus Christ, either In addition to
a human soul, or instead of It, is not only very absurd,
but also so very abstruse, that It is In the highest de
gree improbable, d priori, that tha common people
should have adopted It. The scriptures. In which they

120 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEYi
Were chiefly conversant, could never teach them any
such thing, and they could, not bave been capable of
entering into the philosophical refinements of Justin
on the subject. Whereas,- that the common people
should have believed as Tertullian and Athanasius re
present them to have done/ viz. that there Is but one
God ; and that Christ was a .man, the messenger or
prophet of God, and no second God at all, the rival
as it were of the first God, is a thing highly credible
jn itself, and therefore requires less external evidence.
VI.
Of the Passage in Justin Martyr concerning the Uni
tarians of his Time*.
I think myself possessed of so much evidence, in fa
vour of the unitarian doctrine having been maintained
in the first ages of Christianity, that I have no occasion
to be solicitous about trifles with respect to it ; and
even with regard to the much-contested passage iri
* Ka( yap sin riyes aito rov'vip.sTipov ysvovs op.oXoyovyres avrov
'Kpirrov eivai, av^wKov Se s^ av&pwirwv ysvop^syov aito(lixivop.svoi'
ols ou rvvri^epiai, ovS' xv vXsirroi ravra [/.oi So^arxvrss siitoisy,
sitsiSij OVK xvBpwifsiois SiSxyp,a(n KSKeXsvraeSa vir avrov rov Xf nrrto
itsiSsa-Sxi, aXXx rois Sia rcuy p.xKapiwv itpotprirwv Krjpv^Ssitri, Kai Si'
avrov SiSax^sitri. Edit. Thirlby, p. 234.
Thus rendered by my opponent the Monthly Reviewer : ¦
" There are some of our profession Who acknowledge him to be
the Christ, and yet maintain*that he was a man born in the na
arai way ; to whom I could not yield my assent, no not even if
the majority of christians should think the same; because we are
commanded by Christ himself not to rely on human doctrines,
but to receive those which were published by the blessed pro
phets, and which he himself taught us."
By my Vindicator, more literally:
" There are sdme of our race [viz. Gentiles] who acknowledge
him ta be the Christ, and yet maintain that he was a man born

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 121
Justin Martyr, above referred to, and of which I made
some use in my late History, vol. I. p, 1 7, it is quite suf-
ficient for my purpose that the writer here speaks of uni
tarians with. tenderness, and is far from treating them
as heretics ; and in this I think every reasonable man,
who considers the manner in which this writer speaks
of heretics in general, (on which occasion he specifies
none but Gnostics,) will agree with me. If any per
son think otherwise, I have nothing further to say, and
our readers must judge between us.
I cannot help thinking, however, with my learned
Vindicator, that this passage, more critically examined,
furnishes a still stronger evidence in favour of the pre
valence of the unitarian doctrine in the time of Justin.
1 . Let It be considered that, in this place, as well as
in his writings in general, he labours the proof of the
pre-exIstence of Christ, showing that it is consonant to
the principles of platonism, and also deducible from
the writings of Moses, and other parts of the Jewish
scriptures, without referring to any other writer in sup
port of what he advances.
2. He^does not use a single acrimonious expression
against those who differed from him with respect to it ;
which is just as any man would do who should write
in defence of a novel or not very prevalent opinion,
and one of which himself was the principal abettor.
He even provides a retreat In case he should not be
in the natural way; to whom I do not assent, though the majo
rity raay have told me that they had been of the same opimon,"
&c. Some conjecture that the original reading was v^srepov, in
stead of ¦^pi.srspov 3 and then it should be rendered some of your
race, meaning the Jewish christians. But there is no authority
for "this from any manuscript.

122 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
able to prove his point ; saying that, though he should
fail in this, it would not follow tbat he was mistaken
in the other ; for that still Jesus might be the Messiah,
(which was evidently a raatter of the first consequence
with hira,) though he should be nothing more than a
man. ~" ,
3. He talksof not being overborne by.the authority,
of any number of men, even his fellow christians, but
would adhere to the words of Christ and the sense of
scripture ; which is a style almost peculiar to those
whose opinions are either quite novel, or at least not
very prevalent.
4. The. phrase " neither do I agree with the majo
rity of christians, who may have objected to my opi«
nion," which is nearly the most literal rendering of tha
passage, (though I would not be understood tO lay
much stress on that circumstance,) will naturally be
construed to meari that the majority actually did make
the objection, or that Justin suspected they might
make it, •
When I consider these circumstances, and also htm
apt all persons are to make their own party more nu
merous than It really Is, I am inclined to think that,-
even if the passage might bear such a construction as
that Justin meant to insinuate that the majority were
with him, yet that it would not be the most natural;
construction, or a sufficient authority to conclude that
such was the fact, I therefore think that, upon the
whole, the passage has all the appearance of an apo
logy ( which Is all that I have asserted ) for an opinion
different from that which in his time was commonly
received on the subject,
I am, no doubt, influenced in ray construction of

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 12S
this particular passage, by the persuasion that I have,
frora other independent evidence, that the unitarians
were in fact the majority of cliristians In the time of
Justin ; that he therefore knew this to be the case, and
could not mean to Insinuate the contrary. Another
person, having a different persuasion. concerning the
state of opinions in that age, will naturally be inclined
to put a different construction upon this passag-e. In
this case, I only wish that he would suspend his judge
ment till he has attended to ray other arguraents, and
afterwards he may perhaps see this passage in the same
light In which I do.
The word ysvog, I think with my learned friend, re
fers to natural descent ; and I therefore conclude that
Justin here meant not christians in general, but gentile
christians in particular ; because, as he is opposing the
opinion concerning "Christ, which made him to be a
man born of men, not to the doctrine of the miracu
lous conception, but only to his pre-existence, the only
idea that he had in his mind, and to which he attended,
was that of his simple humanity; and we have positive
evidence that this was the doctrine of all the Jewish
christians, so- that he could not speak of some of them
holding it, and others not. Whereas the gentile chris-\
tians were divided on that subject ; and some of them
even later than this, viz. in the time of Origen, held
that, in the strictest sense of the expression, Jesus was
a man born of man, being the son of Joseph as well
as of Mary, I therefore think that Justin meant the
gentile christians; omitting' the Jewish christians, -whose
eentlments he might suppose to have been well known
to the learned Jew with whom he was conversing,
TiUemont somewhere says that the majority of the

124 LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY.
Ebionites seera to have believed that -Christ was the
son of Joseph ; and as I find no mention of two sorts
of Ebionites (one of them believing the miraculous
conception, and the other not, ) before the time of Ori
gen, it is probable that -In the time of Justin the Jewish
christians were almost wholly Ebionites of the oldest
denomination, beHeving Christ to be man born. of
man,, in the strictest sense of the phrase; and there
fore that, in this respect also, there could have been
no pretence for any insinuation, that the Jewish, chris-
tians were divided on this point; and still less, that
those among them who beheved Jesus to. be a man
born of man, v^ere not a j very great majority, of
them. It is plain frora the existence of such christians, both
araong Jews and Gentilesj in -the time of Origen, and
probably much later, which was long after the puljli-
cation of the gospels of Matthew and Lukcj. even in
their present form, (admitting that there might, be
sorae doubt relating to the introductions to them when
they were first published, ) that they considered these
evangelists simply as histoiians, and by no means as
inspired writers ; so that they thought theraselvealjat
liberty to admit or disregard their testimony to parti
cular facts, according to their opinion of their evidence
being conipetent or not competent in those particular
cases. I have frequently avowed myself not to be a
believer in the inspiration of the evangelists and apo»
sties as writers, and have given m.y reasons pretty
much at lar^e for my opinion, I therefore, with these
ancient unitarians, hold this subject of the miraculous
conception to be one with respect to which any per
son is fully at liberty to think as the evidence shall ap-

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 125
pear to himj without any impeachment of his faith or
character as a christian.
I shall conclude this article with observing that, '
without attending to minute criticisms, it is quite suf
ficient for my purpose that these a;ncient unitarian
christians, whether they held the miraculous concep
tion or not, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, or
whether Justin meant to represent thera as (strictly
speaking) the majority of christians, or otherwise, -were
not treated by him as heretics. From this circum
stance alone it may be concluded that they were veiy
numerous ; because, whenever unitarians have not
been very numerous, aad made a respectable figure
among christians, they have always been considered
with great abhorrence, and have been cut oft" from
comraimlon with those of the Orthodox persuasion.
With what rancour does Eusebius treat this class of
christians, both in his History, and in his Treatise against
Marcellus of Ancyra ! when we know, from Athanasius
and other authorities, that they were at that time very
numerous, (though among the lower classes of people,)
and probably In all parts of the christian world.
When these things are duly considered, it can hardly
be imagined but that, let this passage in Justin be con
strued In any raanner that the words can possibly bear,
it will be sufficiently to rhy purpose, and authorize all
the use that 1 have made of It. But I can very well
spare the passage altogether ; thinking that I have evi
dence enough of my general position without It. After
all the attention which 1 have given to this subject, I
see no material objection to the manner in which I
have expressed myself concerning it in my History.
Ifi however, there should be a demand for a new edi-

126 .LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
tion of that work, I shall endeavour to raake it as littk
exceptionable as possible, consistent with my own real
opinion. VII.
Of the first Author ofthe Doctrine of the permaneiU
Personality of the Logos.
I have given a good deal of attention to this subject;
and from a careful' perusal of a considerable part of
Justin Martyr's writings, I think it very probable that
he was either the first, or one of the first, wha ad
vanced the doctrine of the permanent personality of
the Logos, I think he writes as if this, was the case;
but I wish that some other person would give his worhs
a more careful perusal with that particular view. He
was probably the oldest of the authorities quoted by
the anonyriious writer referred to by Eusebius;: as the
Cleraens mentioned along with him was probably not
Cleraens Roraanus, but Clemens Alexandrinus,- who
was later than Justin Martyr. Had there been any
pretence for quoting Hegesippus as a maintainer of the
divinity of Christ, he would certainly have been men
tioned in preference to Justin Martyr, or any others in
the list ; not only because he was an earlier writer, but
chiefly because he was one ofthe Jewish christians, who
are well known not to have favoured that opinion.,'. ;
A& to the hymns used by christians, and said to have
heen from the beginning (aTrapx'!?) hy those who were
friends to the supposed doctrine of thera, rio inference
can safely be drawn from them ; because divinity may
be ascribed to persons In very different senses, and
some of them very innocent ones; and as to their
mntiquity, it is very possible, for any thing that appear*

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 127
to the contrary, that they might have been those very,
hymns which were rejected by Paulus Samosatensis on
account of their novelty. VIII.
Maxims of historical Criticism.
Though the maxims of historical criticism' are things
that are well understood by all persons who attend to
them, (and indeed, as they are the ultimate principles
of all reasoning on these subjects. It would otherwise
be In vain to appeal to them at all,) It may not be un-
useful to enumerate them, and' to illustrate such of
them as may seem to require it. Things of a similar
nature have been done by all mathematicians and cri
tics. By the former these ultimate propositions are
called axioms, and ty the latter canons of criticism ;
and as I wish to reduce the species of criticism with
which I and my opponents are now conversant to the
greatest certainty, I have followed their example, I
have, however, made no general system, but have only
noted such particulars as I myself have had occasion
for ; and even this I ara far frora pretending to have
executed with perfect accuracy : but I give It as a
sketch to be examined at leisure, and to be rectified
where it shall appear to be requisite.
These maxims are adapted to the folloiving Summary
View of those arguments which, I apprehend, establish
my principal position, viz. that the christian church was
originally unitarian ; and therefore I have annexed to
each of them the number of that article In the Sum
mary Fiew to which they correspond, that they may be
compared together, I wish that Dr. Horsley and, other

128 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
trinitarians would, in like raanner, reduce into axioms
the principles on which they proceed, that they may be
compared with mine ; and perhaps we may by this
means be assisted in coming to a proper Issue in this
controversy. If my oppprierits will devise any other
method that shall appear to be better adapted to gain
the same desirable, end, . I shall heartily concur in it,
and conform to it, '¦ . 1.
When two persons give different accounts of things,
that evidence is to be preferred which is either In itself
more probable, or raore agreeable to other credible
testiraony. 2.
Neither is entire credit to be given to any set of
men with respect to what Is reputable to thera, nor to
their enemies with respect to what is disreputable;
but the account given by the one may be balanced by
that of the other, Sutrimary View, No, 10,
3.
Accounts of any set of men given by their .enemies
only, are always suspicious. But the confessions or
enemies^ and circurastances favourable to any body of,
men, collected from the writings of their adversaries,
are deserving of particular regard.
4.
It is more natural for raen who wish to speak dis-
paragingly of any sect, to undervalue their numbers, as
well as every thing else relating to thera ; and it Is
equally natural for those who wish to speak respect
fully of any party, to represent the members of It as

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. 129
more numerous than they are. Summary View,
No. 13, . 5.
When persons forra themselves Into societies, so as
to be distinguishable frora others, they never fail to get
some particular name, either assuraed by themselves
or iraposed by others. This is necessary in order to
make thera the subject of conversation, long peri
phrases In discourse being very inconvenient. Sum
mary View, No. 8. 6.
When particular opinions are ascribed to a particular
class of men, without any distinction of the time whei^
those opinions were adopted by thera. It may be pre
sumed that they were supposed to hold those opinions
from the time that they received their denomination.
Suraraary View, No. 4. Y. .
When a particular description is given of a class of
persons within any period of time, any person who
can be proved to have the proper character of one of
that class, may be deemed to have belonged to it, and
to have enjoyed all the privileges of it, whatever they
werp. Summary View, No, 9,
8.
When an historian, or writer of any kind, profess-
edly enumerates the several species belonging to any
genus, or general body of men, and omits any parti
cular species or denomination, which, if It had be
longed tothe genus, he, from his situation and cir
cumstances/ was not likely to have overlooked, it may
K

ISO LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
be presumed that he did not consider that particular
species as belonging to the genus. Summary View,
No. 7. 9.
Great chjtnges In opinion are not usually made of a
sudden, and never by great bodies of men. That hi
story, therefore, which represents such changes as
having been made gradually, and by easy steps, is
ialways the more probable on that account. Summary
View, No. 1 6. 10.
The common or unlearned people In any country,
who do not speculate much, retain longest any opi
nions with which their minds have been much im-
pressed ; and therefore we always look for the oldest
opinions in any country, or any class of raen, among
the comraon people, and not araong the learned.
Suraraary View, No. 13, 14. 11-
If any new opinions be Introduced Into a society,
they are raost likely to have Introduced thera who held
opinions sirailar to thera before they joined that so
ciety. Summary View, No, 15.
12,
If any particular opinion has never failed to excite
great Indignation in all ages and nations, where a con
trary opinion has been generally recelved,^ and that
particular opinion can be proved to have existed in
any age or country when it did not excite indignation,
it may be concluded that It had raany partisans In that
age or country. For, the opinion being the same, it

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY, 131
could not of Itself be raore respectable ; and, huraan
nature being the sarae, it could not but have been re
garded in the sarae light, so long as the sarae stress
was laid on the opposite opinion. Summary View,
No. 1, 11, 12, is.
When a time is given, in which any very remark
able and interesting opinion was not believed by a cer
tain class of people, and another tirae in which the be
lief of it was general, the Introduction of such an
opinion may always be known by the effects which it
will produce upon the minds and in the conduct of
men ; by the alarm which It will give to sorae, and
the defence of It by others. If, therefore, no alarm
was given, and no defence of it was made within any
particular period, it may be concluded that the Intro
duction of it did not take place within that period.
Summary View, No, 2, 3, 6.
14.
When any particular opinion or practice Is neces
sarily or customarily accompanied by any other opinion
or practice, if the latter be not found within any par
ticular period, it may be presuraed that the former did
not exist within that period. Summary View, No. 5.
IX.
A Summary View of the Evidence for the Primitive
Christians having held tke Doctrine of the simple
Humanity of Christ,
1 . It is acknowledged by early writers of the ortho
dox persuasion, that two kinds of heresy existed in the
K 2

132 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,"
times of the apostles, viz. that of those who held that
Christ was simply a man, and that of the Gnostics ;
of whora some believed that Christ was man only. in
appearance, and others that it was only Jesus, and not
the Christ, (a pre-existent spirit who descended from
heaven, and dwelt in him,) that suffered on the cross.
Now the apostle J6hn animadverts with the greatest
severity upon the latter, but makes no mention of the
former ; and can It be thought probable that he would
pass it without censure if he had thought it to be an
error, considering how great and how dangerous an
error it has always been thought by those who have
considered it as being an error at all ? Maxim 12.
2. The great objection that Jews have always raade
to Christianity in Its present state Is, that it enjoins the
worship of raore gods than one ; and it is a great ar
ticle with the christian writers of the second and fol
lowing centuries to answer this objection. But It does
nut appear in all the book of Acts, in which we hear
much of the cavils of the Jews, both in Jerusalera and
in many parts of the Roman empire, that they made
any such objection to Christianity then ; nor do the
apostles, either there or in their Epistles, advance any
thing with a view to such an objection. It may be
presumed, therefore, that no such offence to the Jews
had then been given by the preaching of a doctrine so
offensive to them as that of the divinity of Christ must
have been. Maxim 12, 13.
3. As no Jew had originally any idea of their Mes-
slab being more than a main, and as the apostles and
the first christians had certainly the same Idea at first
concerning Jesus, It raay be supposed that, If ever they
had been Informed that Jesus was not a man, but either

LETTERS TO DR, HORSLEY. 133
God himself, or the maker of the world under God,
•.we should have been able to trace the time and the
circumstances in which so great a discovery was made
to them ; and that we should have perceived the effect
which- it had upon their minds; at least by some
change in their raanner of speaking concerning hira.
But nothing of this kind is to be found in the Gospels,
in the book of Acts, or in any of the Epistles. We
perceive marks enow of other new views of things,
especially of the call of the Gentiles to partake of the
privileges of the gospel ; and we hear rauch of the
disputes and the eager contention which it occasioned.
But how much more must all their prejudices have
been shocked by the inforraation that a person whom
they first took to be a mere man, was not a man, but
either God hiraself, or the maker of the world under
God? Maxim 13.
4. All the Jewish christians, after the destruction of
Jerusalem, which was immediately after the age of the
apostles, are said to have been Ebionites ; and these
were only of two sorts, some of thera holding the mi
raculous conception of our Saviour, and others believ
ing that he was the son of Joseph as well as of Mary.
None of them are said to have believed either that he
was God, or the maker of the world under God. And
is It at all credible that the body ofthe Jewish christians,
if they had ever been instructed by the apostles in the
doctrine of the divinity or pre-exIstence of Christ,
would so soon, and so generally, if not universally,
have abandoned that faith ? Maxim 6.
5. Had Christ been considered as God, or the
maker of the world under God, in the early ages' of
the church, he would naturally have been the proper

134 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
object of prayer to christians ; nay, more so than God
the Father, with whora, on the scheme of the doctrine
of the trinity, they must have known that they had less
iraraediate Intercourse. But prayers to Jesus Christ
were not used in early times, but gained ground gra
dually with the opinion of Christ being God, and the
object of worship, Maxim 14.
6. Athanasius represents the apostles as obliged to
use great caution not to offend their first converts with
the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and as forbearing to
urge that topic till they were first well established in
the belief of his being the Messiah. He adds, that
the Jews, being in an error on this subject, drew the
Gentiles Into it. Chrysostom agrees with Athanasius
in this representation of the silence of the apostles in
their first preaching, both with respect to the divinity
of Christ and his miraculous conception. They both
represent them as leaving their disciples to learn the
doctrine of Christ's divinity by way of inference from
certain expressions ; and they do not pretend to pro
duce any instance In which they taught that doctrine
clearly and explicitly. Maxim 13.
7. Hegesippus, the first christian historian, himself
a Jew, and therefore probably- an Ebionite, enumerat
ing the heresies of his time, mentions several of the
Gnostic, kind, but not that of Christ being a raere
man. He moreover says, that In travelling to Rome,
where he arrived In the time of Anjcetus, he found all
the churches that he visited held the faith which had
been taught by Christ and the apostles, which, in his
opinion, was probably that of Christ being not God,
but man only, Justin Martyr also, and Cleraens Alex-
andrinus, who wrote after Hegesippus, treat largely of

LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY. , 135
heresies in general, without raentioning or alluding to
the unitarians, Maxim 8,
8, All those who were deemed heretics in early
times were cut off from the coraraunion of those who
called theraselves the orthodox christians, and went by
sorae particular name, generally that of their leader.
But the unitarians among the gentiles were not ex
pelled frora the assembHes of christians, but worshipped
along with those who were called orthodox, and had
no particular narae till the time of Victor, who excom
municated Theodotus ; and a long time after that Epi
phanius endeavoured to give them the narae of Alogi.
And though the Ebionites, probably about or before
this tirae, had been excommunicated by the Gentile
christians. It was, as Jerora says, only on account of
their rigid adherence to the law of Moses. Maxim 5.
9, The Apostles' creed Is that which was taught to
all catechumens before baptism, and additions were
made to It from tirae to tirae, in order to exclude those
who were denorainated keretics. Now, though there
are several articles In that creed which allude to the
Gnostics, and tacitly conderan thera, there was not. In
the tirae of Tertullian, any article In It that alluded to
the unitarians ; so that even then any unitarian, at least
one believing the rairaculous conception, might have
subscribed it. It may, therefore, be concluded, that
siraple unitarianism was not deemed heretical at the
end of the second century, Maxim 7,
10. It Is acknowledged by Eusebius and others, that
the ancient unitarians themselves constantiy asserted
that their doctrine was the prevailing opinion of the
christian church till the tirae of Victor. Maxim 2.
11. Justin Martyr, who maintains the pre-existence

136 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY,
of Christ, Is so far from calHng the contrary opinion a
heresy f that what he says on the subject is evidentlyan
apology for his own : and when he speaks of ^heretics
in general, which he does with great Indignatlonj' as no
christians, and having no coraraunication with chris
tians, he mentions the Gnostics only. Maxim 12.
1 2, Irenseus, who was after Justinj and who wrote
a large treatise on the subject of heresy, says very
little concerning the Ebionites. Those Ebionites he
speaks of as believing that Christ was the son of Jo
seph, and he raakes no mention of those who beHeved
the miraculous conception. Maxim 12.
1 3. Tertullian represents the majority of the com
mon or unlearned christians, the Idiotce, as unitarians;
and it is among the common people that we always
find the oldest opinions in any country, and in any
sect, while the learned are most apt to innovate. It
may therefore be presuraed that, as the unitarian doc
trine was held by the coramon people in the time of
Tertullian, It had been raore general still before that
tirae, and probably universal In the apostolical age.
Athanasius also raentions It as a subject of complaint
to the orthodox of his age, that the many, and espe-
cially persons of low understandings, were Inclined to
the unitarian doctrine. Maxim 4, 10,
14. The first who held and discussed the doctrme
of the divinity of Christ, acknowledged that their" opi
nions were exceedingly unpopular among the unlearned
christians ; that these dreaded the doctrine of the tri
nity, thinking that It Infringed upon the doctrine of
the supremacy of God the Father ; arid the learned
christians riiake , frequent apologies to them and to
others for their own opinion. Maxim 10. .

LETTERS TG DR. HORSLEY. 187
15, The divinity of Christ was first advanced and
urged by those who had been heathen philosophers,
and especially those who were admirers of the doc
trine of Plato, who held the opinion of a second God.
Austin says, that he considered Christ as no other than
a most excellent man, and had no suspicion of the
word of God being incarnate in him, or how " the
catholic faith differed frora the error of Photinus,"
(the last of the proper unitarians whose name is come
down to us,) till he read the books of Plato ; and that
he was afterwards confirraed In the Catholic doctrine
by reading the scriptures. Constantine, in his oration
to the fathers of the council of Nice, speaks with cora-
mendation of Plato, as having taught the doctrine of
" a second God, derived from the supreme God, and
subservient to his will." Maxim 1 1.
1 6. There Is a pretty easy gradation in the progress
of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ ; as he was
first thought to be a God in some qualified sense of
the word, a distinguished emanation frora the suprerae
mind ; and then the Logos, or the wisdora of God
personified ; and this logos was first thought to be only
occasionally detached frora the Deity, and then drawn
into his essence again, before It was iraagined that it
had a permanent personality distinct frora that of the
source from which It sprung. And it was not till 400
years after that time that this logos, or Christ, was
thought to be properly equal to the Father, Whereas,
on the other hand, it is now pretended that the apostles
taught the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, yet it
cannot be denied that in the very tiraes of the apostles
the Jewish church, and raany of the Gentiles also, held
the opinion of Ms being a mere man. Here the trans-

138 LETTERS TO DR. HORSLEY.
ition is quite sudden, without any gradation at all.
This must naturally have given the greatest alarm,
such as is now given to those who are calle,d orthodox
by the present Socinians ; and yet nothing of this kind
can be perceived. Besides, it Is certainly raost pro
bable that the christians of those tiraes, urged as they
were with the raeanness of their master, should incHne
to add to, rather than take from, his natural rank and
dignity. Maxim 9.

APPENDIX.

Extract ofa Letter from a Friend.
Pear Sir, November 5, 11 S3.
1 HAVE just been reading Dr. Horsley's charge against
you, to which I doubt not you will make a proper
reply. As he seems to triumph In your having, as he
supposes, mistaken the sense of some Greek quota
tions ; and as parallel passages are not always at hand,
though common enough if we could wait for thera till
they occur, I take the liberty of sending you one that
I have since raet with in Demosthenes, and another
from Thucydides,
In opposition to your interpretation of the beginning
of John's gospel, he says, the natural force of omog is
this person. Very true, if the noun to which it be
longs represent a person ; but if the noun be only the
narae of a thing, then the natural force of ovrog will be
this tking, as appears from the following passage frora
Deraosthenes, 1st Olynthiae, Nui/; h xat^og riKsi' r/f
omog ; 0 rc^v OXvv^imv uvro^ctrog rri ttoXsi. " Now
comes another conjuncture ; what conjuncture ? That
which voluntarily offers itself to the republic frora the
Olynthlans," Francis,
The Doctor Is much displeased with your translating
evK cihT^ui Tivi 71 nothing but. ^o be sure. If It were
clear from other arguments that the Koyog and a-optix
in question were persons, his translation would be the
true one. But that those words cannot always be un-

140 APPEl^DIX,
derstood to mean no other person, will be manifest from
the following passage of Thucydides, Hb.Iv, cap. cxxvi.
p. SU,
Ovk aXXtu rivi Kriijffap.eyol rijv Svyxrreixv, rj rw i^a^oneyoi v.px'
reiy. Qui nulla alia ratione principatum sunt adepti, quam quod
(hostes) praeliando superarent.
As to the other passage from Theophilus, of which
the Doctor takes notice in his 63d page, when you
come to look at it again, you will perceive that you did
not exactly hit on the meaning of the last line ; and I
think the Doctor was a little warped by his system,
when he translated God the word, the wisdom, Man.
I think it pretty plain frora the preceding words, tov
Bsov VMI rov Xoyov, Kai ri^g tro(piocg ocvrov, that the worda
in question should be translated " that there might be
God, his word, his wisdom, (and) raan." But this I
subrait to your better judgement.

LETTERS

TO

Dr. horsley,
PART IL

CONTAINING
FURTHER EVIDENCE
THAT
THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAJST CHURCH WAS UNITARIAN.

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL,D,F,R.S;

— — Ubi sunt iiigentia magni
Verba viri ?  OviD.

PREFACE,

1 AM truly concerned that the discussion 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 forraer series of
Letters to Dr, Horsley, Those were strictly argumen
tative, and likewise uniformly respectful. But as his
Letters, in answer to me, are written In a style that is
far frora corresponding to mine, as the reader must
perceive in every page, to reply to him in the sarae
respectful manner in which I first wrote, would have
been unnatural and absurd. In the present publica
tion, therefore, I have taken the Hberty to treat hira
with more freedom.
As he has declared that he will make no further re
ply to me, I imagine that this pubhcation will close the
present controversy ; and I hope It will not have been
without its use in promoting the cause of truth, though
I ara persuaded it would have answered this end still
more effectually, if my proposal of a perfectly amicable
discussion, and also that of bringing it to Its proper
termination, had been accepted.
I am now proceeding with my larger History of the
State of Opinions concerning Christ in the primitive
Tiraes, But to execute this work as I wish to do it,
and consistently with my other engagements and pur
suits, will require a consideraible time, hardly less than
two or three years. Nor will my readers wonder at

144 PREFACE,
this, when I inforni them that I am determined to ex
amine for myself every thing that has been written by
any christian writer for the first five or six centuries
after Christ, with the single view of collecting from
thera whatever I can find to throw light on this parti-
cular subject. After this exaraination. In which I have
already made considerable progress, I shall carefully
attend to whatever the most respectable modern writers
have advanced on this subject ; and I shall then com-
pose 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 Iri this
controversy, (which I consider as only answering a
teraporary purpose,) and then abandon it to the ceUy
sures of my critics ; and I hope there will not be want
ing abler raen than Dr. Horsley to discover and correct
whatever iraperfections may, after all, be found in it.
I will not rashly commit myself with respect to the
issue of an inquiry of this extent, and that is not yet
completed ; but I can assure ray readers that I see the
most abundant cause to be satisfied with every thing
of consequence that I have advanced in this contro
versy; and that I am able to produce much additional
evidence for every article of it, as well as a variety of
other raatter relating to the subject, which will throw
light on the opinions arid turn of thinking in eaHy
times. Among other particulars, I shall examine, as tho
roughly as I can, those platonic notions concerning
God, and the general system of things, which pre
pared the way for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ,
and of the trinity; showing how they were under
stood, and how far they were adopted, by the christian

PREFACE. 145
writers. In the mean time, having long given a good
deal of attention to the subject, I will venture to say,
that from what Dr. Horsley has dropped concerning
Platonism, as well as frora the admiration he has ex
pressed of It, he understands very little of the raatter.
As I now consider this controversy as closed, it is
probable that tUl ray larger work be printed, the pub
Hc will hear no raore from me on this subject. But if
any thing raore plausible than has yet been urged
should appear, I shall have an opportunity of noticing
it In the Theological Repository, which I hope soon to
open again ; and if any person will give his narae, and
propose any difficulty whatever relating to the present
discussion, so that I shall see reason to think that it
proceeds from a love of truth, and a desire of Infor
mation, I here promise that I will speak fully to It, and
I shall be as explicit as I possibly can. But to be more
so than Ihave 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 rauch candour
as pos&ible with regard to others. But if I have been
addicted to the artifices and deceits that Dr, Horsley
so veheraently accuses rae of, and if I have actually
practised them to. the age of fifty, I -shall hardly lay
them aside now. Let the public, therefore, be upon
their guard against. me, and " watch me as narrowly"
as he says, p, 39, Is necessary. Great changes In cha
racter ^nd habit seldom take place at my age.
In this larger work, on which I am now employed,
I find myself in a great measure upon new ground.
At least, I see reason to think that it has never been
sufficiently examined by any person who has had the

146 PREFACE.
same general views of things that I have. Dr. Lard
ner, who was as much conversant with the early chris
tian writers as perhaps any man whatever, and whose
sentiments on the subject of 'this controversy were the
same with mine, yet had another object in reading
them. When I applied to hira for sorae assistance
it was too near the close of his life ; and the few
hints with which he did furnish rae related wholly to
the doctrine of atoriement, 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 iraperfect. What
Zuicker did I can only learn. frora 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 writer^, and a com
parison of the several circurastances to be collected
frora thera ; and it certainly requires no sraall degree
of patience, as well as judgehient and sagacity, to trace
the real state of the unitarian christians In early tiraes
frora the writings of their enemies only. For all their
own writings are either grossly, interpolated, or have
perished, except the Clementines, which is a work of
great curiosity, and has not yet been sufiicientiy con
sidered. But a candid reader will make allowance for
this great disadvantage, which, as the historian of the
unitarians, I must labour urider. Who Is there that;
Vi'ill pretend to collect frora the Roman historians only
a complete account of the affairs of the Carthaginians,
the maxims of their conduct, and the motives of their
public transactions, especially in relation to those things
with respect to whieh we know that they mutually ac
cused each other ?

PREFACE. 147
The Clementines (of which the Recognitions is little
more than another edition) was probably written about
the time of Justin Martyr. It is properly a theologi
cal romance, and a fine composition of its kind. The
author was perhaps too proud of his abilities as a wri
ter ; but his work is certainly superior to any thiqg
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 opi
nions of the times ; and on that account it is strongly
recomraended by Cotelerius, the editor. He says, that
" though it abounds with trifles and errors, which had
their source in a half christian philosophy and heresy,
especially that of the Ebionites, It raay be read with
advantage, both on account of the elegance . of the
style, and the various learning that it contains, and
likewise for the better understanding the doctrine of
the first heretics*."
It is reraarkable, not only that the author of this
work, writing in the names of Peter and Clement,
makes thera unitarians, but that, in a great variety of
theological discussions upon nice subjects, (in which
every thing relating to the doctrine of the Gnostics, as
It then stood. Is minutely treaied,) there is no appear
ance of his having so rauch as heard of the doctrine
of the personification of the logos, or of tke divinity
or preexistence of Christ, in any other form than that
of the Gnostics, except in some particular expressions
* Et vero quK damus Clementina, licet nugis, licet erroribus
scatent, a semichristiana philosophia, et h^resi, prsecipue Ebio-
nitica, profectis, non sine fructu tamen legentur, tum propter
elegantiam sermonis, tum multiplicis doctrinae causa, tum de
nique ad melius cognoscenda primarum Hseresion dogmata.—
Preface,
L 2

148 PREFACE.
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 Httle known, or his opinions might
have been adopted by few persons only.
Now this writer, whose knowledge, of the state of
opinions in his time cannot be questioned, would
hardly have represented Peter and Clement as unita
rians 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, supposing the doctrine ofthe
trinity to have existed in his time, yet that Peter, Cle
ment, and consequently the great body of christians In
the apostolic age, were generally thought to have been
unitarians, as he must have iraagined that this circum
stance would contribute to the credibiUty of his narra
tive. A writer who personates another will be as care-,
ful as he can to ascribe to him no opinions but such as
are comraonly supposed to be his ; for without this the
iraposltion, if any such was intended, could not answer
his purpose. But I much question whether any se
rious imposition was really intended by this writer.
The further consideration of this subject, however, I
reserve for my larger vvork.
To return frora this digression, I shall observe,, that,
as to the learned christians of the last age, (excepting
the Athanasians,) they were altriost 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 doctrine cf the perfect equality of the
Son to the Father in ajl divine perfections, was not the
doctrine of the early ages. Those writers could npt

PREFACE. 14&
indeed help perceiving traces of the doctrine of the
simple humanity oj Christ ; 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 unita
rian doctrine in their time, they did not give sufficient
attention to the circumstances relating to it. These
circurastances it will be my business to collect and to
compare ; and situated as I ara, it raay be depended
upon that I shall do it with all the circumspection of
which I ara capable.
Notwithstanding the fullness of ray own persuasion,
I ara far from being sanguine in ray expectations with
respect to others, even frora the strongest evidence that
I can produce of the priraitive christians having been
universally or very generally unitarians. Though there
do not appear to be so many learned Arians at present
as there were thirty or forty years ago, yet I ara well
aware that the Impression made by their writings is
such, as that those persons who have .now the most re
putation for theological Hterature (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 prepos
session against me araong the raore learned christians
with respect to this argument.
I am also not so ignorant of history or of human
nature as not to be sensible 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 charige in those of the unlearned ;
and with respect to most persons who are advanced In
life, it Is hardly to be expected from any force of ar-

150 PREFACE.
gument. Bufin 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 Trinita
rian is almost a phaenomenon in this country, and
learned Arians are much fewer than they have been*.
And when the historical arguments in favour of pro
per unitarianism, which have hitherto been very much
overlooked, shall be duly attended to, especially that
which arise? from the consideration of the great body
of the common people among christians having thought
that Christ was simply 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 ako
weigh much with those who are apt to lay great stress
on the usual construction of some particular texts, to
Consider, that, in those early tiraes, the scriptures were
constantly read by persons better quaUfied to under
stand the language of thera than we at this- tirae can
pretend to be, without suggesting any such notions of
the divinity or the pre-existence of Christ, as are now
supposed to be clearly contained in them. When these,
I say, and other similar arguments, shall have had time
to operate, they will, I am confident, meet with less
obstruction continually, and produce a still greater
change in ten years to come,
* By a harried "Trinitarian pr j4rifll' I do npt mean a man who
has merely classical literature any more than mathematical or
philosophical knowledge ; but one who, having a competent
knowjefige of the learned languages, has made theology and ecr
ciesiastical history his principal study. And I much question
whether this has be^n the case with Dr. Horsley,

PREFACE, 151
As the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ came
in with philosophical and speculative people, and re
quired many centuries, and those years of gross dark
ness, before it laid firm hold on the minds of the com
mon people. It will certainly remain a long time with
them ; and a disposition 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 asra of reformation, towards which the
enUghtened friends of Christianity look forwards with
confidence and joy, to a more distant period.
In the mean time, it is a great satisfaction to reflect
that, whatever difficulties may lie in the way of truth,
no' proper effort to remove thera can be without its
effect. So regular are the laws of natilre, respecting
even the human raind, and the influences to which it
Is exposed, that no endeavours to instruct or reform
the world can be wholly lost. Like seed thrown into
the ground, they may seem to be lost; but in due time,
if the soil be good, and other circumstances favour
able, (and for these things we, who scatter our seed
promiscuously, 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 sow in hope; that, if
not we, at least our posterity, may become partakers of
our hope. 1 Cor. ix, IQ,
I can already perceive that several persons of more
ingenuous dispositions among my Arian friends are
much struck with some of the circumstances whieh I
have brought to light, and others have had their ob
jections completely removed ; so that I am not without
bope that a much greater nuraber will think as I now

152 PREFACE.
do when my larger ivork shall be published, especially
if a sufficient degree of attention be excited to the sub
ject. In this view I am truly thankful for what has
already been done by Dr. Horsley and the Monthly
Reviewers, and on this account 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 contro
versy 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 under water, with the greater force and
celerity it will recover its natural place. It is with
great tranquillity and satisfaction that I look forward
towards this period ; and I should not be qualified to
appear before the public at all, if, in the mean time, I
could not look upon such an opposition as I have
hitherto experienced with a mixture of indifference
and contempt.
When this investigatiori shall be completely finished,
it will, probably, be matter of surprise to many, that it
was not sooner discovered that the unitarians must have
been, and certainly were, the great body of common
christians till after the council of Nice, It may. even
be said that there was very little merit indeed in
proving a thing go extremely obvious, and that raany
other persons had proved it quite as well before. I.
shall, if I live to see it, rejoice in this change of opi
nion, let who will have contributed to If,
In the raean time, what Is all the opposition that a
man can meet with, from whatever persons, and in
whatever form It be carried ori, when weighed against

PREFACE. 153
the full conviction of his own mind, arising from a
fair and careful examination ? And with respect to the
judgement of the public, the effect of any mode of
opposition is only temporary. What did the unquali
fied approbation of all the .defenders of a pretended
common sense, by the Monthly R eviewers of that day,
do for the doctrine ? Has it now any advocates ? Those
Reviewers quote, without the least suspicion of any
thing amiss, even Dr. Oswald's refutation of the only
satisfactory argument for the being of a God, viz,
from the consideration of cause and effect. But what
has It availed in the Issue ? And what signified tha
raricour with which they treated my defence of the
true common sense against the spurious one? Though
much admired in its day, it has not beei)i in their power
to rescue it from oblivion.
Though Dr, Horsley is determined to make no reply
to me, (and indeed, unless he vpas better informed
with respect to this subject, it is more adviseable for
him to leave the field to. abler writers,) he Is account
able to the pubUc for misleading thera, as he has done
with respect to facts In ancient history, and for his de
famation of the illustrious dead ; as well as for his
want of comraon candour, and his raisrepresentatbns
as to the Hving. If he be an honest man, and of an
ingenuous mind, he must, in some mode or other,
either refute this charge, or acknowledge 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 upoi^
his subject, has no right to demand a further 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

154 PREFACE.
presume,' be a little better informed than he is at pre
sent ; and then I shall have no objection to his having
another hearing, biit I shall not think myself bound
to reply.
As 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 raistaken with respect to every part of
it'; and if ever he comes to reflect upon his conduct in
this business in a raoral light, he will feel raore than I
should wish hira or any raan to do, except for his
own good.
I shall close this preface with reminding the reader,*
that he should carefully distinguish with respect to the
importance of the different articles that are now the
subject of discussion. To prevent any material mis
take of this kind, I published a small pamphlet, en
titled A General View of the Arguments for the
Unity of God, and against the Divinity and Pre-ex
istence of Christ, frora Reason, frora the Scriptures,
and from History ; 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 accordingly. To this small piece, and
especially the Maxims of historical Criticism con
tained in it and in my former. Letters to Dr. Horsley,
I wish that particular attention may be given In the
course of this controversy, whether carried on by my
self or others.
Large works, particularly of the historical kind,
were never yet known to be free frora mistakes. The
subject of my History of the . Corruptions of Chrisr
tianity was so complex, and my attention was of coursQ

PREFACE, 155
divided among such a variety of different articles, "and
the raaterials 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 together compared to that gross
one which I have shown Mosheim 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 t^e authoT-'s peculiar prejudices. The candid reader
will make the same allovijance for me. Time, how
ever, will show what the -oversights have been. These
will -of course be corrected, and what reraains will
stand the firraeron 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 alraost every 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 extend
ed this publication to a much greater length. But I
do not choose. In these temporary pieces, to forestal
my larger work ; though I think it may be of use to
produce so rauch of what I have collected as may tend
to excite a raore general 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 pro
perly 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 indi
cation,^ than that ' the writings of Mr, Badcock and
Dr. Horsley in this controversy have found admirers.

156 PREFACE.
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 Corrup
tions of Christianity, I should not have troubled my.
self with replying, to their objections or abuse. " If I
had left ,all their darta sticking in my buckler they
would not have retarded my progress.
At all events, I wish the most rigorous Investigation
of this subject to proceed, whatever may be the conse
quence with respect to my opinions or myself, as I can
sincerely adopt the prayer of Ajax, quoted by me in
my first controversy with Dr. Brown :
Xloiryo-ov S' ai^pyjv, Sos S' o'lp^aXp^oiriy iSer'da.t,
Ey Se faei kxi oXerrov. Hom. 11. lib. xvii. v. 6'16,
Give me but day, let light the truth disclose ;
Though me its beams confound, and not my foes.

Since ,the whole of this treatise was sent to the
press, . I have seen a posthumous piece of Dr. Lard
ner's, just published, entitled Four Discourses on
Phil, Ii, 4 — '12. which I cannot omit this opportunity
of most earnestly recommending to all'my readers. It
is written with that sirapUcity and modesty which di
stinguish, all his writings ; and I should think It cannot
fail to make a great impression on those whose minds
are at all open to conviction In favour of the doctrine
pf the simple huraanity of Christ. This he generally
calls the N<^s;arean, and sometimes the Unitarian doc
trine, as opposed both to the Trinitarian and the Arian

PREFACE. 157
schemes, which he particularly considers. " Thisj"
he says, p, 70, " seems to be the plainest and raost
siraple scherae of all ; and it Is generally allowed to
have been the belief of tlie Nazarean christians, or the
Jewish behevers."
For the convenience of the' reader I have subjoined
to this preface a short state of the different opinions
held by Dr. Horsley and rayself on the subject of ^this
controversy ; and also an account of the time in which
the principal ecclesiastical writers, and other persons
whose naraes most frequently occur in the course of
It, flourished. This will also be useful to the readers
of my History of the Corruptions of Christianity.
Having, in the course of this controversy, had oc
casion very carefully to revise that part of the History
wliich 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, consider
ing the difficulty and extent 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, (3) signifies _/>-ora the bottom of the page.
P, 7. !• 8. (3) aftfir Nazarenes, read and ii may ie inferred from
Origen, Epiphanius, cind Eusebius, that the, &c.
P. 9. 1. 1. read on account of the errors it contained, and these er
rors could he no other than the unitarian doctrine.
P. 19. 1. 2. after corrupted, add aiid as these unitarians are called
idiota (common and ignorant people) by Tertullian, 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 Eu
sebius, or a inore ancient writer, whose sentiments he adopts, treat the
unitarians, See.
lb, 1, 6. for successor, read predecessor.

158 PREFACE.
P. 29, 1. §. &c, (b) dele all within the parenthesis.
P. 32. 1. 3. (b) dele is not quoted iy Irenaus and, &c.
P. 55, 1. 7- {i) read ihe greater part.
P. 74-. !• 6. dele ./According to Epiphanius, and to the end of il;e
sentence. '
P. 99, 1, 6, (i) read that there may ie God, the •word, wisdom^
man. P. 216. 1, 12. fbr our Lord, read the Lord.
IN VOL. II.
P. 11.1. 10, read, In this age the table on which it ivas celebrateg
ivas called the mystical table, and Theophilus, to ivhom Jerom (if the
epistle be genuine) ivrites, says, that the very utensils, &c.
For this last correction I am obliged to the writer of the Cri
tical Review ; and I shall be thankful to any of vaj readers for
the notice of any other oversight, from which a work of this ex
tent could not be expected to be exempt,
N. B. A copy of these corrections will be given to the pur
chasers of the History.

A CATALOGUE

OF

The principal Ecclesiastical Writers, &c. after the
Apostolic Age, with the Time wken theyfiourisked,
chiefly from Cave's Historia Literaria, '

Ignatius, A.D. 101
Polycarp - 108
Papias - ,110
Basilides - 120
Valentinus - 125
Marcion - 1 30
Justin Martyr - 140
Irenaus - 167
Theophilus - 168
Hegesippus - 170
Montanus - 172
Tatian - 172
Athenagoras - 177
Artemon - 1 87
Theodotus of Byzan
tium - - 192
Cleraens Alexandri
nus - - 192
TertuUian - 192
Syramachus - 201
Caius - - 210
Hippolytus . - 220
Origen - - 230
BeryUus - 230
Dionysius (of Alex-
¦ andria) - - 247

Cyprian - - 248
Noetus - - 250
Novatian - 25 1
Gregory of Neoce-
sarea - - 252
Paul of Samosata 260
SabelHus - 260
Manes - - 277
Amobius - 303
Laetantius - 303
Arius - - 315
Eusebius ParaphUus
the historian 315
Athanasius - 326
Marcellus of Ancyra 330
Photinus - 344
Cyril of Jerusalera 350
Hilary - - 354
Eunomius - 360
Apollinarius (sen.) 362
Epiphanius - 368
Optatus - - 368
Basil - - 370
Gregory (Nyssen) 370
Gregory (Nazianzen) 370
ApolUnarius (jun.) 370

160

A CATALOGUE OP

Ambrose - 374
Jerom - - 378
Austin • - 396
Chrysostora - 398
Sulpicius Severus 401
Pelagius - - 405
Theodorus of Mop
suestia - 407

Cyril of Alexandria 4 1 2
Theodoret - 425
Nestorius - 428
Eutyches - 448
Claudianus Maraertus 462
Facundus - 540
Gregory the Great 590

Arabrose Apollinarius sen.
 jun

The same in Alphabetical Order.
Eusebius ParaphUus
Eutyches Facundus , -
Gregory the Great
 of Neoce-

Arius
Arnobius Artemon
Athanasius
AthenagorasAustin
Basil BasilidesBeryllus CaiusChrysostom
Claudianus Maraertus 462
Clemens Alexandri-
' nus - - 192
Cyprian - 248
Cyril of Alexandria 4 1 2
"  Jerusalem 350
Dionysius of Alex-
. andria - - 247
Epiphanius - 368
Eunomius - 360

374362370315303 187
326177
396370 120
230
210398

sarea

• Nazianzen
• Nyssen -

HegesippusHilaryHippolytusIgnatius
Jerom - ,
Irenasus Justin Martyr -
Laetantius ,
Manes
Marcellus of Ancyra 330
Marcion - ISO
Montanus , 172
Nestorius - 428
Noetus - . 250
Novatian - - 251
Optatus - 368

315
448 540
590
252 370 370 170
354
220 101
378 167140
303 277

ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, 161

Origen

230

Tertullian

192

Papias

110

Theodoret - '

425

Paul of Samosata

260

Theodorus of Mop

Pekgius

;405

suestia -

407

Photinus

S44

Theodotus of Byzan

Polycarp

108

tium

192

Sabellius

260

Theophilus of An

Sulpicius Severus

401

tioch

168

Symmachus

,201

Valentinus

125

Tatian

172

M
162 THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF
The different Opinions of Dr. Horsley and
Dr. Priestley briefly- slated.
J. HAT my readers may raore 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, Horsley and myself
hold different opinions.
1 . Dr, Horsley insists upon it that the faith x>f the
primitive christian church must have been trinitarian,
because that doctrine appears in the. writings of Bar
nabas aiid Ignatius. I say that, admitting these works
to be genuine in the main, 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 siraple humanity of
Christ, they probably held sorae raysterious exaltation
of his nature after his ascension, which raade hira the
object of prayer to them. I say the Ebionites cer
tainly existed in the time of the apostles, and that this
notion of their holding such an exaltation of his na
ture, as to make him the object of prayer, is highly ¦
improbable, 3, Dr. Horsley says, that those who are called Na
zarenes by the early christian writers believed the di
vinity of Christ, tbat 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 Jerusalera. I raalntain that
these Nazarenes no more . believed the divinity of
Christ than the Ebionites, and that, together with

DR. HORSLEY AND DR, PRIESTLEY, l63
? ,
them, they were supposed by the christian fathers to
have existed in the time -of the apostles.
4. Dr, Horsley raaintains that there was a church of
orthodox Jewish christians , at Jerusalem after the tirae
of Adrian ; for that the body of Jewish christians, who
had before observed the law of Moses, abandoned
their cereraonies after the destruction of the place. In
order to obtain the privileges of the ^lian 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, raust have
known the contrary, and therefore asserted a wilful
falsehood. I say that Adrian expelled all the Jews,
vvhether christians or not, frora Jerusalera, that the
christian church afterwards settled at Jerusalem con
sisted wholly of Gentile converts, and that the testi
mony of Origen, agreeing with this, is highly worthy
of credit.
5. Dr. Horsley maintains, that though he finds no
unitarians in the apostolic age, a censure was Intended
for them by the apostle John in the phrase Christ came
in the fiesh. I assert that the unitarians did exist in
great numbers in the time of John, but that he did not
censure them at all ; -and that the phrase Christ came
in the fiesh, relates to the Gnostics only.
6. Dr. Horsley asserts that the unitarians, from the
tirae that they made their appearance, were considered
as heretics by the orthodox christians, and not ad
mitted to comraunion with thera, and particularly that
they were Included by Justin Martyr araong those
heretics whora he charges with blasphemy. I assert
that in Justin's tirae, and rauch later, the unitarians
were not deemed heretics at all, that Justin did not
M 2

164 THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF
even allude to unitarians in either of his two accounts
of heretics in general, and that the blasphemy he
speaks of respected the Gnostics only.
7. Though Tertullian says the idiotce, who were
the greater part of christians, were 'unitarians, and
shocked at the doctrine of the trinity, 'Dr. Horsley
asserts that he only meant to include a small number
of them in that class, and those so Ignorant and stupid
as to deserve to be called idiots. 1 maintain that by
idiotce 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 unitarians, and In communion with the cathoUc
church ; that the term heresy was long used as syno
nymous to Gnosticism, and that the original use of the
term frequently occurs even after the unitarians were
deemed to be heretics.
8, Dr. Horsley raaintains that by the Jews who held
the simple huraanity of Christ, Athanasius raeant the
unbeUeving Jews only, and that the Gentiles vvho were-
by them converted to that beUef were unbeUeving Gen
tiles, I say the Jews were christian Jews, and their
converts christian Gentiles,
9, Dr, Horsley raaintains that the Jews In our Sa
viour's tirae 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 concem
ing hira when the christians appUed It to Christ. 1 say
that the Jews were always unitarians, that they expected
only a raan for their Messiah, and that they never
changed their opinion on that subject.
10. Dr, Horsley says that the apostles considered
Christ as being God, from the time that they considered

DR. HORSLEY AND DR. PRIESTLEY, 165
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 writ
ings that they ever changed that opinion concerning him,
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 assuraed a
proper personality ; and says, that all that they meant
by the generation of the son was the display of his
powers in the production of material beings, I assert
that, by this generation, they certainly raeant a change
of state in the Logos, viz, from a mere attribute, such
as reason is in man, to a proper person, and that In
their opinion this was made with a view to the creation
of the world,
1 2. Dr. Horsley can find no difference between this
doctrine of the personification of the Logos and the
peculiar opinions of the Arians, I assert that they
were two schemes directly opposed to each other, and
so clearly defined as never to have been confounded
or raistaken.
13. Dr. Horsley asserts, that It seeras to have been
the opinion of all the fathers, and Is likewise 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 au
thority whatever, ancient or modern, for that opinion.
14, Dr. Horsley raaintains that, though the three
persons In the trinity have each of thera all the perfec
tions of deity, the Father Is the fountain of the divi
nity, and has some unknown pre-eminence, I assert
that this pre-eminence Is inconsistent with the proper
equality, and that if they be properly equal they must
necessarily be three gods as well as three persons.

166 THE DIFTERENT OPINIONS, ETC.
15. Dr. Horsley says, that prayer for succour in ex
ternal prosecution seems with particular propriety to be
addressed to the Son. I say that this is altogether a
distinction of his own, and has no countenance Ifi scrip.
ture precept or example, nor, indeed. In those of the
priraitive church.
1 6. Dr. Horsley maintains that the unitarians do not
even pretend that the general tenor of scripture 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 interpretation. Whereas I maintain that the
unitarians hav.e 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 frora particular ex
pressions and circurastances, which, when rightly ex
plained, do by no raeans authorize their conclusions, -
17. Dr. Horsley sajs, that the difference between
the unitarians and the Mahometans is so sraall, and such
advances were made tovrards the Mahometans by the
unitarians of the last age, that there Is good ground to
thinkjhat the unitarians will soon acknowledge the di
vine mission of Mahoraet. He also represents Chris
tianity, 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 frora nothing but Ignorance and raalevo-
lence, and do not deserve a serious refutation.
These are all the articles of iraportance on which
we hold different opinions, every thing else being of
less moment, and subordinate to these.

LETTERS

TO THE

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN'S.

LETTER L
The Introduction,

Rev, Sir,
At 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 insolence which nothing in your situation
or mine can justify, and indicate a temper that appears
to me to be very far frora being the most proper for
the discussion of historical truth, I shall consider my
self in this answer as writing not so much to you, as
to the candid part of the public, to whom our corre
spondence Is open ; and I have no doubt but that I
shall be able to satisfy all who are qualified to judge
between us, that your ignorance of the subject which
you have undertaken to discuss is equal to your inso
lence ; and therefore that there is no great reason to
regret that you have formed ii resolution to appear no
more in this controversy. " Whatever more," you
say, p. 9, " you may find to say upon the subject, in
me you will have no antagonist."
I made the proposal to discuss the question of the
state of opinions concerning Christ in the early ages In
a perfectly amicable, and, as I thought, the raost ad-

l68 LETTERS TO THE
tantageous manner, and my address to you was uni
formly respectful. It has not been my fault that this
proposal was not accepted. You say, p, 1 66, " I held
It my duty to use pretty freely that high seasoning of
controversy which may interest the reader's attention,"
What that high seasoning is. Is sufficiently apparent
through the whole of your performance, viz. a viola
tion of all decency, and perpetual Imputations of the
grossest but of the most Iraprobable kind. This,
frora respect to the public 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 pre
sent publication, in which I shall take occasion, frora
your gross raistakes and misrepresentations, to throw
some further light on the subject of this discussion.
The reader must have been particularly struck with
the frequent boasting of your victory, as if the contro
versy had come to a regular termination, and the pub
lic had decided In your favour. ¦*' My victory," you
say, p. 7, " is already so complete, that I might well
decline any further contest." In p. 1 60 you say, " It
would have heightened the pride of ray victory if I
could have found a fair occasion to be the herald of
my adversary's praise." P. 10, you call me z failed
polemic, and p. 8, a prostrate enemy. What marks of
prostration you may have perceived In me I cannot
tell. I do not know that I have yet laid myself at your
feet, and I presume this kind of language Is rather
premature. It will be time enough for you to say with
Entellus, Hie ccestus artemque repono, when the vic
tory, of which you boast, shall be as clear as his, and
shall be declared to be so by the proper Judges. You
ought also to have remembered the. advice of Solomon,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 169
Prov. xxvu. 2. Let another man praise thee, and not
thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.
On the contrary, I cautioned my reader (Preface,
p. xiv.) not to conclude too hastily 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 In this way.
Though this controversy has not corae to what I
think its proper and desirable terrainatlon, I rejoice
that it has proceeded thus far ; and upon the whole I
derive great satisfaction from the opposition that my
History of the Corruptions of Christianity has met
with, both because a more general attention has been
excited to the subject, and also because, having by this
means been led to attend to it more than I should other
wise have done, I have discovered a variety of addi
tional evidence in support of what I had advanced, and
such an abundant confirmation of the evidence before
produced, as gives even myself a greater degree of
confidence in it than I could otherwise have had. And
when my readers In general shall see, as they cannot
but see, with what extreme eagerness the most insig
nificant oversights have been catched at and magnified,
and the readiness with which I have acknowledged
such oversights, notwithstanding the gross insults with
which this candour has been treated, and also that
every objection has brought Out new evidence In my
favour, it cannot hut beget a persuasion that the most
sharp-sighted adversary will not be able to detect any
mistake of real consequence; and from this will be
derived a degree of credit to ray work that nothing else
' could have given it. Your object, you say, p. 8, was

170 LETTERS TO THE
to demolish the credit of my narrative; 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 be
ginning with Rev. Sir, instead of the Dear Sir of my
forraer letters, an appellation to which our personal
acquaintance gave a propriety, and which you have
returned ; but when I consider how ill It corresponds
to the spirit of your letters, and the stress you lay on
your Archidiaconal dignity, which appears not only
in the title-page of your work, but at the head of many
of your letters, and which you Intimate, p. 1 58, that I
had not sufficiently attended to, I thought the style of
Rev. ,Sir, and occasionally that of Mr. Archdeacon,
both raore proper, and also raore pleasing to yourself;
and therefore I have adopted it. And if by any acci
dent I should wound your feelings, p. 1 59, you will
find the proper bajm in ray running title.
While persons who have sorae personal acquaint
ance treat each, other with decent respect, and are uni
form 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 grossest ar
tifice, and imposition on the Public, you in fact give
me the lie; and therefore ought yourself 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 outset of this
second part of our correspondence I subscribe myself,
merely because custom authorizes the form.
Rev. Sir, your very humble servant,
J. PRIESTLEY,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's, 171
LETTER II.
Of the Doctrine of tke first Ages concerning tks:
Person of Ckrist.
Rev, Sir,
X o show you that I see nothing very formidable in
your strongest arguraents, I shall begin with what you
call" your positive proof," p. 64, " that the divinity
of our Lord was the belief of the very first christians."
This proof is wholly derived from the Epistie of Bar
nabas. '
Of Barnabas you say, p. 66, " You allow hira a
place among the fathers of the apostolic age, and will
you not allow that he was a believer In our Lord's di
vinity ? I will not take upon m.e. Sir, to answer this
question for you ; but I will take upon rae to say, that
whoever denies it raust deny It to his own sharae. The
proof from this writer," you say, p. 68, " is so direct
and full, though it lies in a narrow compass, that if this
be laid in one scale, and your whole mass of evidence
from incidental and ambiguous allusions in the other,
the latter would fly up and kick the beam,"
I am surprised. Sir, at the extreme confidence with
which you tread this very precarious and uncertain
ground ; when, to say nothing of the doubts enter
tained by-many learned men concerning th-e genuine
ness of this epistle, the most that is possible to be ad
mitted is, that it is genuine in ihe main. For, whether
you may have observed it or not, it is most evidently
interpolated, and the interpoladons respect the very
subject of which we treat. Two passages, in the Greek,
which assert the pre-existence of Christ, are omitted

172 - LETTERS TO THE
in the ancient Latin version of it. And can it be sup
posed that that version was raade In an age In which
such an omission was likely to be raade ? Both the in
terpolations are in sect. vi. where we now read thus :
Afyf/ yocp fj ypaip'yi Trspt ¦yiu.oov, cx.g 7<sysi ru viu, Xlo^Jjcrw-
usv Kur siTcova ivxi koiS' ouoiuicriv '^u.uv tov otvvpuTTOv. For
tke scripture says concerning us, as ke says to tke Son,
Let us make man according to our image and our
likeness. But the ancient Latin version corresponding
to this passage is siraply this, Sicut dicit scriptura,
Faciamus hom'inem, &c. I, e. As says the scripture.
Let us make man, &c.
Again, In the sarae section, after quoting from Moses,
Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth, the
Greek copy has ravroi Trpog rov viov,, 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 former passage, with re
spect to the general object of the writer. These, Sir,
appear to rae pretty evident marks of Interpolation.
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 lost ; and all the other
expressions that you note are such as an unitarian will
find no difficulty in accoraraodating to his principles.
On these accounts your evidence frora this epistle of
Barnabas will by no means bear the stress that you lay
upon it. Can it be thought at all Iraprobable, that if
one person Interpolated the Greek, another should
make as free with the Latin version ? I must therefore
see other evidence than this from Barnabas, before I
can admit that the doctrine of the divinity or pre-ex
istence of Christ was the belief of the apostolic age.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 173'
You still argue with the same confidence from the
Epistle of Clemens Romanus, " The context," you
now say, p. 29, " determines the coming of Christ, of
which he speaks, to be frora a pre-existent state," and
this you call " something of great importance in Its
defence," as no doubt it would be if it was just : but
let us examine it. The whole of the passage, with the
small context on which you lay so much stress. Is, In
your own words, as follows : " He carae not, says
Cleraens, In the pomp of pride and arrogance, although
he had It In his power, but in humility, as the Holy
Spirit spake concerning him. To determine what this
humility is, Cleraens Iraraediately goes on to cite the
prophecies which describe the Messiah's low condition.
The humility, therefore, of an ordinary condition is
that In which it is said the Messiah came. The pomp,
therefore, of a high condition is the porap in which It
is said he carae not, although he had It in his power
to corae. The expressions, therefore, clearly iraply
that our Lord, ere he came, 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 thera to be not
such as describe the circumstances of his birth, but
only those of his public life and death ; the principal
of thera being Isaiah liii. which he quotes almost at
full length. How then does this important circum
stance help your argument ? It Is, on the other hand,
certainly favourable to mine, viz. that when Christ was
' In public life he made no ostentatious display of the
extraordinary powers with which he was invested, and
preferred a low condition to that df a great prince.
The more ancient reading that you quote of Jerom

174 LETTERS TO THE
I also consider as evidently favourable to my interpre
tation of this passage. He read TroivTot Ivva^isyog,
having all power, which naturally alludes to the great
power of which he became possessed after the descent
of the spirit of God upon him at his baptism.
As to the phrase coming, "^ow must be little at home,
as you say, in the language of the scriptures, or have
given Httle attention to it, not to have perceived th^t it
is a phrase used to express the mission 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
frora God. Christ says of John, Matt. xxi. 32, John .
came unto you in the ivay of righteousness. John the
evangeUst also says of him, John I 7, The same came
for a witness, &c. so that all your descanting upon this
passage cf Clemens is impertinent.
Admitting that some one circumstance in the pro
phecies 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 whote, 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 ii'se of words, you would have
se^n that the term Goci would not, from the beginnings
have been used by way of contradistinction to Ckrist,
if the former could have been, predicated of the latter,
V/esay the piinee and the king, because the prince ic '

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 175
not a king. If he had, we should have had recourse
to some other distinction, as that of greater and less,
senior and junior ^ father ¦and son, &c. When there
fore 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 inthe 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 passage, calling
Christ the sceptre of the majesty of God, sufficiently
proves that, in his idea, the sceptre was one thing, and
the God whose sceptre it was, another. This, I say,
must have beer^ the case when this language was first
adopted, though, when principles are once formed, we
see by a variety of experience that any language may
be accommodated to them. But an attention to this
circumstance will, I doubt not, contribute, with per
sons of real discernment, to bring us back to the ori
ginal Use of the words, and to the ideas originally an
nexed to them. I am persuaded that even now the
coiistanl use of these terras Christ and God, as op
posed to each other, has a great effect In preventing
those of the common people who read the New Testa
ment more than books of controversy,- frora being ha
bitually and practically trinitarians. There wUl by
this means be a much greater difference between God -
and Christ in their minds than they find in their
creeds. With respect ^to Ignatius I would observe, that as
you knew the genuineness of his epistles had been
controverted, and by men of learning and ability, you
certainly ought not from the first to have concealed
that circumstance. You say, however, p. 34, " I shall

176 LETTERS TO THE
appeal to them with the less scruple, forasmuch as the
same sincerity which I ascribe to them, , and which is
quite sufficient for my purpose, is allowed by the
learned and the candid Dr. Lardner. — -After suggest
ing 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 not
affirm that there are in them any considerable altera.
tions or corruptions. If no considerable corruptions
or alterations, certainly none respecting a point of such
importance as the original nature of Christ."
This is curious indeed. What then could Dr. Lard
ner mean by these epistles having been tampered with
by tke Arians, tke Ortkodox, or botk ? \{^.tkey Inter
polated thera at all, it would certainly be to Introduce
into them passages favourable to their opinions con
cerning the divinity or pre-existence of- Christ. How
^ would it be worth their while, as Arians or Ortkodox,
to Interpolate them for any other purpose ? If a farmer,
hearing of some depredation on his property committed
by foxes, should say, My corn may have been plun
dered, but as the mischief has been done hy foxes, my
geese and my poultry are safe ; what would be said of
his reasoning ? Yet of the same nature is yours in this
case. These foxes have not refrained from their prey in
more sacred inclosures 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 itself; '
having made interpolations favourable to the doctrine
of the trinity, especially the famous passage concern
ing the three that bear record in heaven. In the first

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 17T
tpistie Of John, This I should Iraagine you yourself
will acknowledge ; and can you think they would
spare the epistles bf Ignatius, which were much more
in their power ?
Jortin says, " Though the shorter epistles are on
many accounts preferable to the larger, yet I will not
"affirm that they have undergone no alteration at all."
Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. p. 361.
For my own part, I scruple not to say, that, there
never were more evident marks of interpolation in any
writings than are to be found in these genuine epistles.^
as they are called, of Ignatius ; though 1 ara willing
^o allow, on reconsidering them, that, exclusive of
manifest Interpolatiop, there may be a ground-work of
antiquity in thera. The famous passage In Josephus
concerning Christ is not a more evident interpolation
than many in these epistles of Ignatius, which you
quote with so much confidence.
You yourself may believe that every word now found
in these epistles was actually written by Ignatius ; but
if they have been tampered with, or have undergone
alterations, how ean you quote them with so much
confidence, as if the argument must necessarily have
•the same weight with all persons? Notwithstanding
this you say, p, 34, " I will therefore still appeal to
these epistles as sufficientiy sincere to be decisive in the
point in dispute. Nor shall I think myself obhged to
go Into the proof of their authenticity till you have
given a satisfactory reply to every part of Bishop Pear
son's elaborate defence, a work which I suspect you
have not yet looked through." And I, Sir, shall save
myself that trouble till you shall have replied to every
part of Larrpque's answer to this work of Pearson ;

178 LETTERS TO THE
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 perusal of the works of Zwicker,
which, by your account, you have carefully read,
' though I have not yet been able- to procure them.
I am, &c.

LETTER m.
Of the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Rev. Sir,
You still insist, p. 38, upon the high orthodoxy oi
those whom the christian fathers call Nazarenes.
"Epiphanius," you say, p. 38, " confesses that the
Nazarenes held the catholic doctrine concerning the
nature of our Lord ;" whereas 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
huraanity of Christ. The yvcc^'vi which distinguished
the Ebionites, you say, p. 41, was soraething that they
had borrowed, not frora the Na^wpa/o;, the christian
Nazarenes, but the Nasareans, a sect of Jews only.
*' I still abide by ray assertion," you say, p. 1 76,
*' that the name of Na-iareries was never heard of in
the church, that Is, among christians themselves, be
fore the final destruction of Jerusalem by Adrian;
when It becarae the specific narae of the Judaizers,
who at that tirae separated from the church at Je
rusalem, and settle^ in the North of Galilee : the

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 179
name was taken frora the country In which they
settled." - ,
I am really astonished that you should have the as
surance to assert all this, so directly contrary to every
thing that appears on the face of ecclesiastical history,
and which must have been borrowed from your ima-
gir;ation only, as I shall easily prove. I cannot raise
Epiphanius hiraself frora the dead to solve the ques
tion concerning his opinion, nor do I wish to disturb
the good father's repose ; but, though dead, he speaks
sufficientiy plain for my purpose In the following pas
sage :
" Wherefore the blessed John coming, and finding
men employed about the humanity of 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 Merln-
thians maintaining that he was a mere man, born by
natural generation of both the sexes, and also the Na
zarenes, and many other heresies ; 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 em
ployed about the humanity of Christ; and seeing some
of thera 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 precipice ? It is not so. The God, the
logos, which was begotten by the Father from all eter
nity, is not from Mary only. He is not frora the tirae
of Joseph, he is not frora the tirae of Salathiel and
^erobabel, and David, and Abrahara, and Jacob, and
Noah, and Adam; but in the beginning was the logos,
and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.
N 2

180 LETTERS TO THE
The was, and the was, and the was, do not admit of
his having ever not been*."
Perhaps you will say that, this testimony of Epi
phanius IS forged by me, as you charge me with re
spect to the same writer, p. 1 3. I therefore beg that
you would examine the passage yourself. You will
find my reference to it sufficiently exact.
After reading this passage, can any person entertain
a doubt but that, in the opinion of Epiphanius at least,
(and weak as he was in some things, he stands uncon
tradicted in this by any authority whatever, and his
account is confirmed by the raost respectable ones In
all antiquity, ) the Nazarenes were not only a sect of
Jewish christians in the time of the apostles, but, to
gether with the Ebionites, a very forraidable sect, arid
that this sect held the doctrine of the siraple humanity
of Christ.? Did he not, as appears by this passage,'
consider the Nazarenes as standing in need of being
taught the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, as well
* Ato Kai 6 ItuavvYis sX^iav o ^aKapios, wai evpwv rovs avQpuntov;
Tjr^oXvjfs.svovs Itspi rf^v Kxriu 'K.pirrov itxpovrixv, kxi ruiv ESjoivaiwV
itXavi\Bsvru>v Six ryjv svrap'xpv Xpirrov ysvsaXoyiav, x'to A^paxft
KarayoiJ.EVTfjv, kxi AovKa avxyo[j.BvriV^ *%P' '"'"' ASx^.' s'jpuiv Ss rovf
Ki)f ivfliavouy KXI M.Yj^ivhavovs sk Ttxpxrpi^ijs ,avTov Xsyovrxs sivxi
^iXov avSpiu-ifov, KXI rovs TXa§ujpxiovs, kxi aXXas itoXXtas xlpsrsi;,
tus KxrcTttv sX&uiy, rsrxpros yaq ovros svxyyeXi^erxi, ap^srai xva-
KaXsitrbai, ws eiitsty; rovs irXavrjSevras, kxi riS-'/pXriiJ.svovs ttepi rr/r
Kxruj Xpirrov itapovriav, Kai Xsyeiv xvrois (jas Karoitiv ^aiviuv, x«t
bpujy rivxs eis rpx'/sixs oSovs jiSKXixoras xai a<fsvras rviv sv^siay,
Kat xXijSiyriV, ws siTfsiv) Iloi ip'e^srh, ifoi ^xSi^srs, os rr^v rpaysiay
.iSov KXI iTKavSaXwSrj Kai sis "XJf-r^a (pspcvrav ^aSi^ovrss ; avaKafh-
^ars. Ovk erriv ovrws, .'U" erriv xito Mxpixs /^ovoy o S'soj Xoyos,
S eK ifarpog ayui&ev ysye:'vr][j.evos, ovk erriv aito rwv ^povujy Iwo'ij^
fov rxvrT/js opjj.xcrrov, ovk srriv aito rwv yjpovwy 'S.aXa^iYjX, kxi Zo-
fo^x^y}X, KXI AaSiS, Kai A'Spaay., kxi Ixkw^, kxi Nws,. kxi ASxy,,.
aXXx sv xp)(ri -rjy b Xoyos, kxi o Xoyos V tff oj rov bsov, kxi Sisos ij«'
t Xoyos • ro Ss TjV, Kai iji', xai i)v, ovk uVo Je%ET'ai rov [mj sivxi itors.
Hser, 69. sect, xxiii, Epiphanii Opera, voJ. i, edit. Paris. 1622,
,p, 746, 747-

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's. 181
tfs the Ebionites, and the other sects that he here men
tions or alludes to ?
In another place this writer corapares the Nazarenes
to persons who, seeing a fire at a distance, and not un
derstanding the cause or the use of it, run towards It
and burn theraselves ; so " these Jews, he says, on
hearing the name of Jesus only, and the miracles per
formed by the apostles, beUeve on him ; and knowing
that he was born at Nazareth, and brought up in the
house of Joseph, and that on that account he was
called a Nazarene, (the apostles styling him a man of
Nazareth, approved by miracles and mighty deeds,)
iraposed that name upon themselves*," How, Sir,
does this agree with this writer's supposing that the
Nazarenes, of whom he was treating, were well In-
fitructed in the doctrine 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 to deny the ex
istence even of the Ebionites In the time bf the apo
stles, contrary, I will venture to say, to the unaniraous
testiraony of all antiquity. — Jerora, giving an account
of the reasons that raoved John to write his gospel,
mentions the Ebionites not only as a sect, but a flou
rishing sect in the tirae of that apostle. See the fol
lowing passage from his catalogue of ecclesiastical
writers : " John, the apostle whora Jesus loved, the
* AKOvrxvres yxp {aovov ovo^x Ifjrov, kxi ^sxrx^svoi rx bso-
cij/AEia rx Six ysipwv rwy aisorroXwv yiyo\hsya, Kai xvroi sis Iij-
irovv Ttirrsvovri. yvovrss Ss xurov sk Na^xpsr ev yxrrpi eyKvpi,ov7jr
6evra, Kai sv oikw Iwrijp avxrpxfsvra, kxi Six rovro sv rw svay-
ysXiw Iijtrouv rov Nx^wpxiov KxXsltrdxi, ws kxi ol aKorroXoi (pany
irjcovv rov Na^wpaiov xvSpx, xvoSsSsiy^svov sv rs o~/jpi.siois xai re-
$»<ri KXI ra e|i)S" rovro ro ovo^ha eiririSearty avrois, ro KxXsia'^gu
. JUx^wpouov;. Haer. 29. sect, v. Opera, voJ. i, p. 121,

182 LETTERS TO THE
son of Zebedee, and brother of James, who was" beu
headed by Herod after, the death of Christ, wrote his
gospel the last of all (at the entreaty of the bishops of
Asia) against Cerinthus and other heretics, and espe
cially the doctrine of the Ebionites, then gaining
ground, who said that Christ had no being before he
was born df Mary, whence he was compelled to de
clare his divine origin*." — This Is only one out of
many authorities that I 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, Mos-
helm 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. Jeremiah Jones, with whora I find I have had the
happiness to bring you acquainted ; and I can intro
duce hira with the greater confidence of his being well
received, as he was as orthodox as yourself. As he is
a writer entirely new to you, I shall give his whole
paragraph on the subject.
"It is plain there was a very great agreement be
tween these two ancient sects; and though;, they went
under different names, yet they seem only to have dif
fered In this, that the Ebionites had made some addi-
tion to the old Nazarene systera. For Origen ex
pressly tells us, Kai 'EStctjvaioi xpyi^ui^iZova-i ol uito
\ovhD(,it»)/ TOV Iricrovv uig "K^ia-rov Trociioi'Ss^otusvai. Tkey
* Joannes, Apostolus quem Jesus amavit plurimum, filins Ze-
bedasi, frater Jacobi Apostoli, quem Herodes post passioneto do
mini decollavit, novissimus omnium scripsit evangeliuna, rogatus
ab Asise episcopis, adversus Cerinthum, aliosque haereticos, et
maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma consurgens, qui asserunt
Christum ante Mariam non fuisse, unde et compulsus est divi-
jaam ejus naturam edicere. Opera, vol. i. p, 27S.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's." 183
iwere called Ebionites who from among the Jeivs own
Jesus to be the Christ. And though Epiphanius seems
to make their gospels different, calling one TrXyj^sa-TotTov
most entire, yet this need not move us. For if the
learned Casaubon's conjecture should not be right,
that we should read the sarae, viz. cv TrXvipea-rocToy In
both places, (which yet is very probable for any thing
Father Siraon has proved to the contrary,) yet will the
difficulty be all removed at once by this single consi
deration, that Epiphanius never saw any gospel of the
Nazarenes ; for though he calls It ¦jrKrtpsa-rurov, yet he
himself says, ovk oi^a, §f si xai rag ysnu'Koyia.g TrspisiXoVf
that he did not know whether they had taken away the
genealogy, as the Ebionites had done ; i. e. having
never see;i the Nazarene gospel, for aught he knew it
might be the very sarae with that of the Ebionites, as
indeed 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 translator of Mosheim on
this subject. " This gospel," he says, vol, I, p. 173,
" which was called Indiscriralnately the gospel of the
Nazarenes or Hebrews, is certainly the same with the
gospel of the Ebionites, the gospel of the twelve apo
sties," &c. and, after referring to other authors, he
says, "the reader will, however, find a still more ac
curate and satisfactory account of this gospel In the
first volume of the learned and judicious Mr. Jones's
incomparable method of settling the canonical autho
rity of the New Testaraejit."
But In ray opinion Jerom has sufficiently decided
this question against you. Could he have had any

184 LETTERS TO THE
other idea than that these two sects (if they were pro-
perly two) used the,same gospel, when he said, " in the
gospel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which is
coraraonly called the authentic gospel of Matthew, which
I lately translated frora Hebrew into Greek*," &c.
You further say, p. 71, "the Ebionites acknow
ledged no part of the Old Testament but the Penta
teuch, nor the whole of that ; and therefore that He
gesippus' citing the Proverbs of Solomon by a title
which iraplies his acknowledgement of that book, is
a proof that he was not an Ebionite," I know of no
sufficient evidence that the Ebionites did not acknow
ledge the authority of all that we call the canonical
books of the Old 'Testament. Syraraachus, whose
translation of the scriptures into Greek' is so often
quoted, and with the greatest approbation, by the fa-
.thers, was an Ebionite, and Jerom says the sarae of
Theodotion. They both "translated the other books of
the Old Testaraent 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
probable, if they had not considered them as entitled
to equal credit ? Besides, our Saviour's acknowledge
ment of the authority of the whole of the Old Testa-
ment is so express, that I cannot readily beUeve that
any christians, Jews especially, acknowledging his au
thority, would reject what he admitted.
What you say can be only on the authority bf Epi
phanius, and that you ought to have known is In effect
* In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae, quod
nuper in Graecum de Hebrso sermone transtulimus, et quod
vocatur plerisque Matthaei authenticum, 5cc. In Matt. xii. 13*
Opera, vol, vi. p, 21.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 185
contradicted by Irenaeus, who says that " the Ebionites
expounded the prophecies too curiously." Qua3 autem
sunt prophetica curiosius exponere nituntur, lib. i.
cap. '26, — Grabe says that Ebion wrote an exposition
of the prophets, as he collected frora some fragments
of the, work, of which he gives some account In his
note on the place'. By Ebion we may understand
some Ebionite ; for I much doubt the existence of
such a person as Ebion, the Ebionites being raentioned
long before the name Ebion occurs in ecclesiastical
writers. It is an argument in favour of the identity of the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, that the former are not men
tioned by name by any writer who likewise speaks of
the Ebionites before Epiphanius, though the people so
called afterwards were certainly known before his
time. The terra Ebionites occurs In Irenseus, Tertul
Uan, Origen, and Eusebius ; but none of thera make
any mention of Nazarenes ; and yet it cannot be de-
, nied that they must have been even more considerable
in the time of these writers than they were afterwards;
for, together with the Ebionites, (if there was any dif
ference between them,) they dwindled away till. In the
tirae of Austin, they were admodum pauci, very few.
Origen must have meant to Include those who were
called Nazarenes under the appellation of Ebionites^
because he speaks of the Ebionites as being the whole
body of Jewish christians ; and the Nazarenes were
christian Jews as well as they. Jerom seems to use the
two terms proraiscuously; and in the passage 'of his
lettef to Austin, so often quoted In this controversy, I
cannot help thinking he makes thera to be the sarae^
The conduct of these writers is easily accounted for.

186 LETTERS TO THE
on the supposition of the Jewish christians having been
first known to the Gentiles by the name of Ebionites
only, before the appellation of Nazarenes (by which
they had been distinguished by their unbelieving bre
thren) came to be generally known abroad. It must
be more particularly difficult, on your principles, to
account for the conduct of Eusebius, whose business,
as a historian, it certainly was, to have noticed the
Nazarenes If they had been different frora the Ebio
nites whora he has mentioned ; and even you allow
thera to have had their rise In the tirae of Adrian,
¦whose expedition against the Jews he particularly
mentions. On this subject of the Ebionites I must take sorae
notice of what you say in defence of Eusebius, who
says that Theodotus was the first who taught the doc
trine of the humanity of Christ. You still maintain,
without the least shadow of authority for it, that he
carried the doctrine further than the Ebionites had
ever done ; whereas, you cannot possibly produce any
evidence whatever of Theodotus having been consi
dered by the ancients in a worse light than the
Ebionites. " It Is very certain," you say, p, 131, " that Theo
dotus maintained the mere huraanity of Christ In the
grossest sense; in that gross and shocking sense in
which it is at this day (aught by yourself and Mr. Lind
sey. It is not certain that the Ebionites before Theo
dotus had gone further than to deny our Lord's ori
ginal divinity. They probably, like Socinus, admitted
some unintelUgible exaltation of his nature -after his
resurrection, which rendered him the object of wor
ship." You also say, p. 87, " I deny that the unita-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 187
rian doctrine existed In that time" (th^ ag& of the apo
stles) " In the most obnoxious form. Produce your
indisputable evidence. Observe, that by the raost ob
noxious form I understand that form which excludes
the worship of Christ."
By the most obnoxious form I meant the belief
that Jesus was the son of Joseph 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 Ebio
nites, or any Ebionites, ever considered Christ as a
proper object of worship. Your Idea of their enter
taining the notion of an unintelligible exaltation of his
mere human nature after his resurrection, is the most
improbable of all suppositions. According 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 habit of
praying to Christ, and therefore might not be able to
reject the practice ; but the Ebionites began with con
sidering Jesus 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 to christians in general.
Your notion that the Nazarenes were the orthodox
' Jews who separated from the church of Jerusalem in
the time of Ad{;ian, and settled In the North of Ga
lilee, and that they had their jiarae from the place
where they then settled, viz. Nazareth, will, I doubt
not, be quite new to every reader of ecclesiastical his
tory, and (excepting the first of these particulars, which

188 LETTERS TO THE
¦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 Nazareth, where Jesus had lived, and
from which he had been usually called Jesus of Na
zareth ; but as to the Nazarenes of the christian fa
thers, there is no evidence whatever of their having
ever settled at Nazareth, or In any part of GaUlee.
Jerom places the Nazarenes with whom he was ac
quainted, (and he was well acquainted with the Naza
renes,) in Bersea, in Syria, Catalogus Virorum Illus-
trlum, in Jvlatt. Opera, vol. i. p. 267.
You say that the Nazarenes were unknown as a sect
¦before the destruction of Jerusalem by Adrian ; btit
Epiphanius, In perfect agreement with all the ancients,
places their rise after the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus. After raentioning the places where they re
sided, viz. Bersea, Coele-Syria, Pella, and Cocabe, (ob
serve, he says, nothing of any of them being in Naza
reth, frora which you suppose they had their name,)
he says, " There was their origin after the destruction
of Jerusalem, when all the disciples Hved at Pella;
Christ having warned them to leave Jerusalera, and re
tire at the approach of the siege ; and on this account
they lived, as I said. In Peraea. Thence the sect of the
Nazarenes had Its origin*."
As to the passage in Jerora, from which I, after
* "E.Ksi^ev yxp -ij ap')(ri ysyovs ^srx rv}v xito rwv 'IsporoXvix-wv jas-
rxrrxriv, itxvrwv rwv ^x^rjrwv rwv sv llsXXr, wKr^Korwy, Xpiirrou
^ijcavros KarxXsi'pxi rx'lspo<roXvix.x,KXixva^wpy}o'ai sfsiSrj 'tj'jj.sXXs
ttatryeiv itoXiopKixv. xai eKrrjs roixvrrjs vitodsrstus rT^v tlspxtav oik'H'-
' cxvrsf, exEKTe, ws sipijv, SisrpiSov. ss>rev&sy ij Kxrx rovs Na^aifjuouf
alpsrii irye rr^v apx^v, Hser, 29. sect._vii. Opera, vol, i, p, 123.

ARCHDE'ACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 189
Suicer, Inferred that the Ebionites and the Nazarenes
were the same people, or only differed In sorae thinga
of Httle moment, (but which you and Mr. Badcock
think is a demonstration tliat they were fundamentaUy
different,) I see no reason to be dissatisfied with ray
interpretation of it. You think it is a proof of my
ignorance of Latin ; whereas, if I thought myself at
Hberty to do It, I could produce In my favour as high.
a classical authority as any that this country' can
¦ furnish. How could Jerora call these highly orthodox Jews,
•ss, you suppose them to be, not christians, merely
because they used the ceremonies of the law of Moses ?
He might have pitied them for their weakness, but he
would hardly haye condemned them as no christians.
¦ Your own representation of them is not very un-
fevourable. You say, p. 49, " The christian Naza
renes had nothing -in their conduct that might render
thera deserving of this epithet (avo/^o/, latvless). Their
error was, that they feared to use their Uberty, not that
they abused it." You therefore must think his cen
sure very harsh and ill- appHed.
I think it probable that the Nazarenes or Ebionites
were considered as In a state of excommunication, not
raerely because they themselves observed the law of
Moses, but becauae many of them would Impose the
"same on the Gentiles, so that In fact they excommu
nicated themselves; and thus the passage in Jerom will
be explained by one in Justin, (who says that he could
; communicate with those Jews vvho kept to the law of
, Moises, but not with those who would impose it on all
christians,) which I shall have occasion to quote here-
,after.

190 LETTERS TO THE
As to Mr. Badcock's inference frora the passage in ,
Austin's letter In answer to Jerom, I see 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 Httle, It signified nothing to him.
He himself, in his catalogue of heresies, makes a dif
ference between the Ebionites and Nazarenes, but by
no means that which you and Mr. Badcock make;;
and as It was a comraon opinioi;i, especially In the
West, that there was sorae 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 Jerora had
made them the same or not.
That Austin, In his answer to Jerom, did not con
sider the Nazarenes In any very favourable light, is
evident from his speaking of them as heretics. " Quid
putaverint hsreticl, qui dum volunt et Judasi esse et
christiani, nee Judaei esse nee christiani esse potue
runt," &c. Opera, vol. ii. p, 75. i. e. " As to the opi
nion of those heretics, who, while they would be both
Jews and Christians, can neither be Jews nor Chris
tians," &c. It Is in. these very words that Jerora had
characterized those whora he had called Nazarenes,
What raore could Austin have said of the Ebionites.''
And can It be supposed that he would have spoken of
the Nazarenes In this manner, if he had thought them
highly orthodox 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 soundness in that article might be supposed to
have atoned for defects In other things.
You say you are not singular, as I had supposed, in

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's, 191
asserting the strict orthodoxy of the Nazarenes in op
position to the Ebionites ; but you are more nearly so
than you iraagine.  " HugO Grotius," you say,
p. 38, " Vossius, Spencer, and Huetius agree that the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, though sometiraes confound
ed, were -distinct sects, and they maintain the opinion
which I now maintain of the high orthodoxy of the
proper Nazarenes In the article of our Lord's di
vinity," Having examined the most respectable of these au
thorities, viz, Grotius, I find him entirely faiUng you,
and saying no such thing as you ascribe to him. What
he says is as follows : " Certe NazarasI illi Bergeenses
genuina erant propago eorura qui primi ex Palestlna
Christi fidem erant amplexi, Nara id illis. nomen prl-
mitus fuisse inditum ex domini nostri nomine, qui
vulgo Nazarenus vocabatur, apparet ex Act, xxiv. 5.
t)pera, vol, u. p, 4. i. e. Those Berasan Nazarenes were
the genuine descendants of those who first in Palestine
embraced the christian faith ; for that this name was
originally given thera from the name of our Saviour,
who was commonly called tke Nazarene, appears from.
Acts xxiv. 5.*"
This, Sir, is nothing raore than I have repeatedly
said rayself, viz. that the Nazarenes mentioned by the,
primitive fathers were the genuine descendants of the
* Dr. Horsley, in Reply, part i. p. 8, is extremely offended at
this remark of Dr. Priestley, ivliich indeed was incorrect, a'nd is
retracted iy Dr. Priestley hiinself in his last .Appendix to these Let
ters, It. appears in fact that Grotius made a wide distinction be'
tween the Nazarenes and the Ebionites ;, the former, as he conceived,
lelieving the' miraculous conception and the deity of Christi the
latter denying his miraculous birth, a'nd regarding him as a mere
man. How far Grotius wat right in this distinction is another^
'luestion. — Ed.

192 LETTERS TO THE
Nazarenes in the time of Paul. Grotius says nothing
definite about their opinions ; but If his meaning must
be interpreted by his own opinion on the subject, It
would, I presume, be In my favour ; for it Is allowed,
I believe, on all hands, that his Comraentary on the
New Testaraent is very much Socinian, certainly not
Athanasian, 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 autho
rities that are of any weight are the ancients, and we
are now upon ground that appears to me not to have
been sufficientiy examined by any of the moderns.
Rather than tax me with ignorance of the senti
ments of modern critics on this subject, (which you
are soraetiraes ready enough to do, ) you suppose that
I was acquainted with them-, and had recourse to arti'
fiee. " Your atterapt," you say,, p. 38, " to set it
forth in that light I cannot but consider as a stratagem,
which you were willing to employ for the preservation
of your battered citadel, the argument from the Naza
renes, In this stratagem, if I mistake not, you are
completely foiled. In your sallies against the batteries
which I have raised, I trust you will be little more suc
cessful. But as too much of stratagem is apt to mix
itself with all you'r 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 from the
faith of their ancestors, were all believers in the simple

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 193
humanity of Christ ; and certainly the presuraption is,
that they learned this doctrlnefrora the apostles. For
who else were their teachers ?
At the close of this subject, having, as you think,
a manifest advantage over me, In answer to ray saying
that, if the Jewish christians were universally Ebionites
in the time of Origen, the probability is that they were
very generally so in the time of the apostles ; you say,
p. 62, " Whence should this probabiUty arise ? From
this general raaxira It seeras that whole bodies of raen
do not soon change their opinions. You are indeed.
Sir, the very last person who might have been expect
ed to forra conclusions upon an historical question
from mere theory. In defiance of the experience of
mankind, in defiance of the experience of our own
country, and our own times. How long Is It since the
whole body of Dissenters in this kingdom (the single
sect of the Quakers excepted) took their standard of
orthodoxy from the opinions of Calvin ,? Where shall
we now find a Dissenter, except perhaps among the
dregs of Methodism, who would not think It an af
front to be taken for a Calvinlst ?"
Indeed, Sir, you are peculiarly unfortunate with re
spect 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 rauch confidence. 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 raaxira.
It is so far frora being true, that there are few Dis
senters who would not think it an affront to be taken
for Calvinists^ that the great body of them would be

194 LETTERS TO THE
exceedingly offended If they were called by any other
name. This Is notorious. YoUr learned good and
able ally Mr. Badcock, of whom you boast so much,
p. 77, 78» li'is served two congregations of Dissenters,
both professedly Calvlnlstlcal, and in the highest de
gree. He himself ranks with that class ; having now,
as I am informed, no comraunion or connexion with
those who are usually called rational Dissenters. I
¦ appeal to hiraself and his present congregation at South
Molton, as well as his former at Barnstable, for the
truth of the fact.
We Dissenters are much better situated than you
are forjudging of the truth of my general raaxira, viz.
that large bodies of men do not soon change their
opinions. Notwithstanding the Dissenters have no
legal bonds, but are perfectly free to adopt whatever
opinions they please, yet, as they were universally Cal
vinists at the tirae of the Reforraation, they are very
generally so still. The ministers, as might be ex
pected, are the most enlightened, and have Introduced
some reforraation among the comraon people ; but a
majority of the rainisters 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 raaxira that you refer to,
viz, that great bodies of raen do not soon 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 christfanizlng of
the Gentile world ? I need not Inform you how long
the ignorant country people in particular continued
pagans, a word borrowed from their being chiefly the
inhabitants of villages. Does hot the history both of

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 195
the corruption and of the reformation of Christianity
prove the same thing ? How many yet beUeve the doc
trine of transubstantiation ? and, what I think as much
a case 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. Alban's employing the moderate share of learning
that he Is possessed of in the defence of a tenet so
palpably absurd.
You seem. Sir, to speak with contempt of the doc
trines of Calvin. I must however reraind you, that
the doctrinal articles of your church are Calvlnistic.
If you, therefore, be a true member of the church of
England, believing ex animo, and in their plain ob
vious sense, all the thirty-nine articles, you yourself
believe the doctrines of original sin, predestination,
and every other tenet that is generally known by the
narae of Calvinistic. I do not tax you, as you re
peatedly do me, with insincerity. - I presume you
really do believe the doctrines that are terraed Calvi
nistic, and therefore I think you ought to have treated
them with more respect. You ought also to have
spoken with raore respect of the Methodists. They
as well as you are professed members of the church
of England, and not Dissenters. I am, &c.

o2

196 LETTERS TO THE
LETTER IV.
Of the supposed orthodox Jewish Church at Jerusa
lem, and of the Veracity of Origen.
Rev, Sir,
X ou speak of a church of trinitarian Jews,, who had
abandoned the law of Moses, and resided at Jerusalem,
subsequent to fhe time of Adrian. Origen, who as
serts 'that all the Jewish christians of his tirae con
formed to the law of Moses, jou say, raust have
known of this church, and therefore you do not hesi
tate, after Mosheim, 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 pubHc controversy. He must
-have been a fool, as well as the knave you make him,
to have ventured upon -it. Your treatment of myself,
however, gives me the less pain, when I see you not
scrupling to fix a similar odium on the character of
the respectable Origen. But what. Sir, would you
not have said of rae if I had been reduced to this di-
leraraa in order to raalntain my opinion ? What an
outcry did not you and Mr. Badcock make' when I
disputed the evidence of Eusebius, though I could
confute him from himself * ! and with respect to
* Pearson makes no difficulty of contradicting .Eusebius iij
this case, and without making any apology for him at all. His
opponent Mr. Daille having said if that account te true, lie re
plies, " He knew very well tliat, strictly speaking, it was not
true ; for he knew many others long before Theodotus, and not
a few even before Ignatius, who taught the same heresy, a cata
logue of whom raay be seen in Epiphanius," and whom he pro
ceeds to mention. Vindicise, lib. ii< cap, it. p, 24.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 197
integrity, the character of Eusebius never stood so
high as that of Origen. But you, or rather your au
thor, Mosheim, shall be heard.
" I shall take," you say, p. 59, "'what you may
think a bold step. I shall tax the veracity of your
witness — of this Origen. I shall tell you that, what
ever may be the general credit of his 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 falsehood. He alleges of the Hebrew
christians In general, that they had not renounced the
Mosaic law. The assertion served him for an answer
to the invective which Celsus had put in the mouth of
a Jew against'the converted Jews, as deserters of the
laws and customs of their ancestors. The answer was
not the worse for wanting truth, if his heathen anta
gonist was not sufficiently informed in the true distinc
tions of christian sects to detect the falsehood. But in
all the time which he spent In Palestine, had Origen
never conversed with Hebrew christians of another
sort? Had he met with no christians of Hebrew fami
lies of the church of Jerusalem when that church was
under the government of bishops of the uncircum
cision ? The fact is, that after the demolition of, Jeru
salem by Adrian, the majority of the Hebrew chris
tians, who raust have passed for Jews with the Roman
magistrates had they continued to adhere to the Mo
saic law, which to this time they had observed more
from habit than from any principle of conscience,
made no scruple to renounce it, that they might be
qualified to partake in the valuable privileges of the
.^lian colony, from which Jews were excluded.
Having thus divested theraselves of the form of Ju-

198 LETTERS TO TlIE
daism, which to that- time they had borne, they re
moved from Pella and other towns to which they had
retired, and settled In great nurabers at .^lla. The
few who retained a superstitious veneration for their
laws reraained in the North of Galilee, where they
were jdlned perhaps by new fugitives of the same weak
character frora Palestine. And this was the beglnnliig
of the sect of the Nazarenes. But from this time,
whatever Origen may pretend, to serve a purpose, the
majority of the Hebrew christians forsook their law,
and lived In comraunion with the gentile bishops of
the new raodelled church at Jerusalem ; for the name
was retained, though Jerusalera was no raore, and the
seat of the bishop was at -^lia. All this I affirra with
the less hesitation, being supported by the authority of
Mosheim, from whom, indeed, I first learned to rate
the testiraony of Origen In this particular question at
its true value,"
Struck with this extraordinary narration of a trans
action of ancient times, for which you refer to no au
thority 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 conscience ; nothing of their making no
scruple to renounce their law in order to partake in
the privileges of the -^lian colony ; nothing of any
Jewish christians removing from Pella and settling ih
.^lia ; nothing of the retiring 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 Mosheim, and you ought to have produced it.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 199
Also, as you adopt the assertions of Mosheim, I
could wish to know his authority for supposing that
there was any such thing as a church, or part of a
church, of Jewish christians at Jerusalera after the de
struction of that city by Adrian. As to your additions,
they are a series of such Improbable circurastances as
hardly any historian of the time could make credible.
Bodies of men do not, whatever you may imagine,
suddenly change their opinions, and much less their
customs and habits : least of all would an act of vio
lence produce that effect; and, of all mankind, the ex
periment 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 iElian colony.
And you would have this to allege in your favour, that
from that time the bishops of Jerusalem were all
Greeks ; the public offices were no doubt performed
in the Greek language ; and the church of Jerusalem
was indeed In all respects as much a Greek church as
that of Antioch.
As you say, p. 134, with respect to myself, " that a
man ought to be accomplished In ancient learning who
thinks he may escape with Irapunlty and without de
tection in the atterapt to browbeat the world with a
pereraptory and reiterated allegation of testimonies that
exist not ;" how much more accomplished ought that
man to be, who now writes the history of transactions
ill the second century without alleging any testimony
at all!

200 LETTERS TO THE
Mosheim himself, who began this accusation of
Origen, produces no authority in his Dissertations for
his assertion. He only says that he cannot reconcile
the fact that Origen mentions, with his seeming unwiU
llngness to allow the Ebionites to be christians. But
this Is easily accounted for frora the attachment which
lie himself had to the doctrine of the divinity of
Christ, which they denied ; and from their holding no
coramunion with other christians.
All the appearance of authority that I can find in
any ancient writer, of the Jewish christians deserting
the law of their ancestors, is in Sulpitius 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, thinking tbat he should destroy chris-
tianity by destroying the place, erected the iraages of
dseraons 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 Jeru-
salera had all its clergy of the circuracislon,) ordered
a cohort of soldiers to keep constant guard, and drive
all Jews frora 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 removed from the
liberty of the faith and of the church. Then was
Marc the first bishop of the Gentiles at Jerusalem*."
* Qua tempestate Adrianus, existimans se christianam fidera
loci injuria perempturum, et in tempio ac loco dominicae passionis
daemonum simulachra constituit, Et'quia christiani ex Judaeis po
tissimum putabantur (namque tum Hierosolymae non nisi ex cit-
eumcisione habebat ecclesia Sacerdotem) militum cohortem eus-
todias in perpetuum agitarc jussit, quse Judaeos omnes Hieroso.

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's. 201
Where-, Sir, do you find in this passage any promise
of immunities to the Jewish christians if they wovrid
forsake the law of their fathers ? , On the contrary, the
historian says that the object of Adrian was to overturn
Christianity, and that the Jews were banished because
the christians there were chiefly of that nation. Ac
cording to this account, all the Jews, christians as well
as others, were driven out of Jerusalem; and nothing
is said of any of them forsaking the' law of Moses ;
and your assertion of their having been gradually pre'-
pared for It, by having before this time observed their
law more from habit than from conscience, is unsup
ported by any authority or probability. Eusebius raen
tions the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, but
says not a word of any of the christians there aban
doning circumcision and their other ceremonies on
that occasion. Indeed such a thing was in the highest
degree improbable.
Independent of all natural probability, had Sulpitius
Severus actuaUy written all that Mosheira advances,
and all the curious particulars that you have added to
complete the account; whether is it, Sir, from this
writer or from Origen that we are more likely to gain
true information on this subject ? Origen writing in
controversy, and of course subject to correction, ap
peals to a fact as notorious in the country in which he
himself resided, and in his oyvri times, to which there
fore he could not but have given particular attention.
lymae aditu arceret. Quod quidem christianae fidei proficiebat;
quia lum pene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatiope ere-
debant. Nimirum id domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus
a libertate fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur. Ita tum primum Mar
cus ex Gentibus apud Hierosolycnam episcopus fuit. Hist. lib. ii.
C. xxxi, p. 245,

202 LETTERS TO THE
Whereas Sulpitius Severus Hved in the remotest part
of Gaul, Several thousand railes frora Palestine, and
two hundred years after Origen, so that he could not
have asserted the fact as frora his own knowledge, and
he quotes no other person for it. But In fact SulpU
tins Severus is no raore favourable to your account of
the matter than Origen himself ; so that to the autho
rity of both of them, of all ancient testiraony and na
tural 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.
Having consulted Eusebius and other ancient writers
to no purpose, for sorae account of these Jews who
had deserted the religion of their ancestors, I looked
into Tilleraont, who Is wonderfully careful and exact
in bringing together every thing that relates to his sub
ject ; but his account of the matter differs widely in
deed from Mosheim's and yours. He says (Hist, des
Empereurs, tom, u, part Ii. p, 506.) " The Jews con
verted to the faith of Christ were not excepted by
Adrian from the prohibition to continue at Jerusalem.
They were obliged to go out with the rest. But the
Jews being then obliged to abandon Jerusalera, that
church began to be composed of Gentiles ; and be
fore the death of Adrian, in the middle, of the year
138, Marc, who was of Gentile race, was establishecf
their bishop." He does not say whh Mosheim that
this Marc was chosen by the " Jews who abandoned
the Mosaic rites." Hist. vol. I, p, 172,
Fleury, I find, had the same idea of that event. He
says, Hist, vol, I. p, 316, " Frora this tirae the Jews
were forbidden to enter Jerusalem, or even to see it at
a distance. The city being afterwards inhabited by

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's, 203
Gentiles, had no other narae than JElia.  Hitherto
the church of Jerusalera 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 remain there, and guards were
placed to defend .the entrance of it, there were no
other christians there besides those who were of Gen
tile origin ; and thus the remains of the servitude of
the law were entirely aboUshed,"
Thus ends this church of orthodox Jewish christians
at Jerusalem, planted by Mosheim, and pretty well
watered by the Archdeacon of St, Alban's; from
which you have derived such great advantage to your
argument. But what evidence can you bring that thfe
ancient Jewish church at Jerusalem, even before the
time of Adrian, was trinitarian ? ' If they were Naza
renes, Epiphanius represents them as unitarian when
John wrote ; and who was it that converted thera 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 brethren at Pella,
or Bersa, in Syria, from which they had come to re
side at Jsfrusalem ; and, indeed, what became of the
whole body of the ancient christian Jews (none of
whom can be proved to have been trinitarians) I can
not tell. Their nurabers, we may suppose, were gra
dually 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 further no
tice of what you say with respect to this charge of 4

204 LETTERS TO THE
a wilful falsehood on Origen, " Time was," you say»
p, 160, " when the practice" (viz. of using unjustifi-
able means to serve a good end) " was openly avowed,
and Origen hiraself was among Its defenders.*' This,
Sir, as Is usual with you. Is much too strongly stated ;
and, as you raention no authorities, you might think to
escape detection, I believe, indeed, you went no
further than Mosheim for it, Jerom, in his epistle to
Pammachius, Opera, vol, I. p. 496, says tbat 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 eneraies, &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 themselves in
any greater violations of truth than those who hold
other speculative opinions concerning the foundation
of morals.
Jerom was far from saying as you do, that " he re
duced his theory to practice." He mentions no in
stance whatever of his having recourse to It, and is
far indeed from vindicating you In asserting, p, 160,
that " the art which he recomraended he scrupled not
to eraploy; and that to silence an adversary he had re
course to the wilful and deliberate allegation ofa noto-
rious falsehood." Here, Sir, Is much more In the
conclusion than the premises will warrant. Many per
sons hold speculative principles, which their adver
saries think must necessarily lead to IraraoraHty : but •
those who hold thera should be heard on the subject;
and the conclusion will not be just, unless they them
selves connect Immoral practices with their •principles.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 205
1 find. Sir, that the characters of the dead are no safer
in your hands than those of the living. I am unwil--
ling to say a harsh thing, and I wish to avoid It the
more, lest I should be thought to return railing for
railing : but really, unless you can make a better apo
logy for yourself than I ara able to suggest, you will
be considered by impartial persons as a falsifier of
history, and a defamer of the character of the dead,
in order to serve your purpose*.

LETTER V.
Of Heresy in the earliest Times.
Rev. Sir,
1 ASSERTED that the unitarians were not originally
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 evi
dence of antiquity, he could not but have known that
unitarians were numerous in his time, never censures
them ; whereas he writes with the greatest Indignation
against the tenets which belonged to the opposite
system of Gnosticism. I observed the same with re
spect to Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, and Clemens Alex
andrinus. I now find the same to be true of Polycarp
* The Archdeacon endeavours to establish his charge against Ori
gen, part ii, chap. 1. of his Reply to these Letters. He complains
with some reason, that Dr, Piiestfey imputes to him ivhat were in
fact the assertions of Mosheim, and he endeavours to prove the ex
istence of an'orthodox Hebrew church at ./Elia upon evidence inde-
f indent of Mpsheint' Ibid, ehaj^. 3.— Ed.

206 LETTERS TO THE
and Ignatius, and that even Irenaaus, Tertullian, and
Origen did not treat the unitarians as heretics.
¦ 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 maintain that
it likewise alludes to a prior state ; so that we may ne
cessarily infer frora It, that he was a being of a higher
rank before his coraing in the flesh.
You say, p. 27, " The attempt to assign a reason
why the Redeeraer should be a raan, Implies both that
he might have been, without partaking of the human
nature, and by consequence that, in his own proper
nature, he was originally something different frora
man ; and that there might have been an expectation
that he would raake his appearance in sorae form above
the human," But It Is certainly quite sufficient to ac
count for the apostle's using that phrase, coming in tke
fiesk, that in his tirae there actually existed an opinion
that Christ was not truly a man, but was a being of a
higher order ; which was precisely the doctrine of the
Gnostics, That before the appearance of the Messiah
any 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 raan's dis
course." 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.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 20J
As you call upon rae so loudly to give any proof
that the phrase coming in the fiesh is descriptive of
the Gnostic heresy only, and not of the unitarian doc
trine also, I shall give an answer that may perhaps
satisfy 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
Gnostics only, he introduces this very phrase, coming
in the,fiesh. See sect. vi. vii. In Abp. Wake's trans
lation, p. 55. " Being zealous of what is good, abs
taining frora all offence, and frora false brethren, and
frora those who bear the narae of Christ In hypocrisy,
and who deceive vain men. For whosoever does not
cenfess that Jesus Christ Is come in the flesh, he Is
Antichrist ; and whosoever does not confess his suf
fering upon the cross Is from the devil ; and whoso
ever perverts the oracles of God to his own Interests,
and says that there shall be neither any resurrection nor
judgement, he Is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore,
leaving the vanity of many and their false doctrines,
let us return to the word that was delivered from the
beginning." Had this writer proceeded no further than the second
clause, in which he mentions those who did not be
lieve that Christ suffered upon the cross, it might have
been supposed that he alluded to two classes of men,
and that the latter were different from those who de
nied 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

208 letters to the
apostle John, frora whora the writer of this epistie had'
this phrase, used it in the sarae sense, and meant by It
only those persons who believed that Christ was not
truly man, i. e. the Gnostics.
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 ambiguous ex
pression ? You own that he marks the Gnostics clearly
enough, and expresses the strongest aversion 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 interpreted, militate strongly
against the doctrine of the divinity of Christ; as
when, according to him, our Saviour says the Father
is greater than I; Ican do nothing of 'myself ; I live
by tke Fatker ; tke Fatker witkin me ke dotk the
works. The Father is the only true God, &c. If the
apostie knew that there w ere In his time those who be
Heved that Christ was a mere man, while he himself
believed hira to be God, is it not extraordinary that he
should give thera such an advantage frora the lan
guage 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. You will probably say that John taught the divinity
of Christ wMth sufficient clearness in the introduction
to his gospel, which might serve as a guard against
any mistake with respect to such expressions as those
above quoted. But it appears that the ancient uni-

ARCHDEAC03JT OF ST. ALBAN's, 209
tarians understood that Introduction as we now do,
taking the logos to mean not Christ, 'but the wisdom
and power of God residing In hira, and acting by him.
The Noetian, in Hippolytus, says, " You tell me some
thing new when you call the Son logos*." And the
oldest opinion on the subject Is, that in that introduc
tion John alluded to the Gnostics only, as he did in
his epistles,
Ignatius also frequently mentioHs heresy and here
tics, and, like John and Polycarp, wkh great Indigna
tion ; but It Is evident to every person who Is at all ac
quainted with the history, learning, and language of
those tiraes, and of the subsequent ones, that he had
no persons In his eye but the Gnostics only. I desire
no other evidence of this besides a careful inspection
of the passages, I shall recite only one of them, frora
the Epistle to the Smyrnseans, sect, Iv, v, in Wake's
translation, p. 116, Speaking of his own sufferings
he says, " he who was made a perfect man strength
ening me. Whom some not knowing do deny, or
rather have been denied by hira, being the advocates
of death rather than of the truth, whora neither the
prophets, nor the law of Moses, have persuaded, nor
the gospel itself, even to this day, nor the sufferings
of every one of us. For they think also the sarae
things of us. For what does a man profit me If he
shall praise me and blaspheme my Lord, not confessing
that he was truly made a man ? Now he that doth not
say ihis, does in effect deny him, and is In death. But
for the names of such as do this, they' being unbe
lievers, I thought It not fitting to write them unto you,
* Axa' epsi /xo( ris, ^evov y^oi <pspsis Xoyov Xsywv vlov. Contra
Noetum, sect. xv. p, l6. P

210 LETTERS TO THE
Yea God forbid that I should raake any raention of
them till they shall repent, to a true belief of Christ's
passion, which is our resurrection ! Let no man de-,
ceive himself," &c. He afterwards speaks of these
persons abstaining frora the eucharist and the public
offices, " because they confessed not the eucharist to
be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered
for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness
raised again from the dead. It will therefore," he
adds, " become you to abstain frora such persons, and
not to speak with them, neither In private nor in
• public," How Hke is this to the writings of the apostle John,
and how well they explain each other ! Here we see
the blasphemy ascribed to the Gnostics, which Justin
raentions, their separating themselves frora the com
munion of christians, their denying the resurrection,
and their pride. Now, how carae this writer, like John,
never to censure the unitarians if he had thought them
to be heretics ? That they existed In his tirae there
never was a doubt, except what Is just started In this
last pubUcation of yours. It can only be accounted for
on the supposition that he himself 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 doctrine of
the Ebionites in his^Epistle to Polycarp, and In thoae
to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, and the Philadel-
phlans ; but I find no such references In them, except
perhaps two passages, which raay easily 'be supposed
to have been altered ; because, when corrected by an
unitarian, nothing is wanting to the evident purpose of

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's, 211
the writer ; whereas his censures of the Gnostics are
frequent and copious; so that no person can pretend to
leave thera out without raaterially injuring the epistles.
Besides, there are In these epistles of Ignatius several
things that are unfavourable to the doctrine of the di
vinity of Christ, Thus to the Ephesians he says, sect. v.
" How much more raust I think you happy who are so
joined to hira [the bishop] as the church is to Jesus
Christ, and JesusChrist to the Father, that so all things
may agree In the sarae unity !" To the Magnesians,
sect, vn. he says, " As therefore the Lord did nothing
without the Father, being united to hira, neither by
himself nor yet by his apostles, so neither do ye any
thing without your bishop and presbyters."
What this excellent raan said when he appeared be
fore the Eraperor Trajan, was the language of an uni
tarian. " You err," he said, " In that you call the fevll
spirits of the heathens gods. For there is but one God,
who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that
are in them ; and one Jesus Christ, his only begotten
Son, whose kingdora raay I enjoy !" Wake, p. 13L
I ara, &c.

LETTER VL

Of the Sentiments of Justin Martyr, Irenceus, arid
Clemens Alexandrinus, concerning Heresy.
Rev, Sir,
If, after what I have seen In your Charge and in these'
Letters^ I could be surprised at any thing you say on
these subjects, it would be at your so confidently main-
p 2

212 LETTERS TO THE
taining, p.- 79, that Justin Martyr had a view tothe
unitarians in those accounts of heresy in general which
I tjuoted from hira ; 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
accounts, especially the charge oi, pride, atheism, and
blasphemy, is appropriated to the Gnostics, and the
Gnosftics only. I must take the . liberty to say that
you know nothing at all of the ancient ecclesiastical
•vvrlters. If you can Imagine that the unitarians are ever
described by thera in this manner. I ara even ashamed
to argiie with any man vvho, if he has read the early
fathers at all, has read them to so little purpose.
To rae It is indisputably cleat that Justin Martyr
considered no other class of persons as heretics, unfit
to have communion with christians, but the Gnostics
only. Let any reasonable man but compare these
•¦passages in which he censures the Gnostics with so
much severity, with t!hose In which he speaks of the
uiiitarlalns, (In which I still ara of opiriloh he makes an
apology to thera for his own principles, but which cer-
tainly imply no censure,) and I think he cannot but
conclude with me, that unitarianism was considered in
those times in a very different light from what it was
afterwardft, and is now, ^
Justin also particularly mentions his having no ob
jection to hold communion vt^ith those Jewish christian
who. observed the lawof Moses, provided they did not
impose it upon others. Dial, p. 23,* Now who
* This circumstance may throw some light on the passage- in
Jerom, in which lie speak's of" the Ebidnitfes as anathematized
(solely on actount of their iadherence to 'the Jewish law, !the
Ebionites, at least many of them, would have imposed the yoke
of the "Jewish law upon (hte 'Gentile christians, 'theyVould not

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. > 213
could those be but Jewish unitarians ? for, agreeable to
the evidence of all antiquity, all the Jewish christians
were such.
It is truly remarkable, and may not have been ob
served by you, as indeed It was not by myself till very
lately, that Irenseus, who has written sp large a work
on the subject of heresy, after the time of Justin, and
In a country where It is probable there were fewer uni
tarians, again and agam characterizes them in such a
raanner, as raakes it evident that even he did not con
sider any other persons as being properly heretics be
sides the Gnostics. He expresses a great dislike of the
Ebionites ; but though he appears to have known none
of them besides those who denied the miraculous con
ception, he never calls them heretics. I had thought
that in one passage he had included them in that ap
peUation ; but observing that in his introduction and
other places, In which he speaks of heretics in general,
he evidently meant the Gnostics only, and could not
carry his views any further, I was led to reconsider that
particular passage, and I found that I had been mis
taken in my construction of it,
" All heretics," he says, " being untaught and ig
norant of the dispensations of God, and especially of
that which relates to man, as being bUnd with respect
to the truth, oppose their own salvation ; some Intro-
communicate with those who were npt cirpumcised, and of course
these could not communicate with them ; so they were necessarily
in a state of excommunication with respect to each other. This
would also be the case vi ith the Cerinthians as well as the Ebior
nites, and therefore Jerom mentions them together, the separation
of communion with respect to both arising from, the observance of
•the law of Moses ; though Jerom m'ight write unguardedly, as he
often did, in confoutiding the case of the Ceriiithiaps so iniich as
he here does with that of the Ebionites. >

214 LETTERS TO THE
ducing another Father besides the maker of the worid ;
others saying that the world, and the matter of it, was
made by angels," &c, and after mentioning other
similar opinions, he adds, " others not knowing the
dispensation of the virgin, say, that he (Jesus) was be
gotten by Joseph, Sorae say that neither the soul nor
the body can receive eternal life, but the internal raan
pnly*," i. e, that they denied the resurrection^
Now, as Cerinthus and Carpocrates, and other
Gnostics, denied the rairaculous conception, as well as
the Ebionites, and all the rest of this description, both
before and after this circurastance, evidently belongs to
the Gnostics only, and as in no other place whatever
does he comprehend them in his definition of heresy,
it Is natural to conclude that he had no view to them
even here, but only to those Gnostics who, in common
with thera, denied the miraculous conception. If there
be any other passage In Irensus, 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 Irenseus
says nothing at all of the unitarians among the Gen
tiles, who generally believed the miraculous concep
tion, though, as appears from other evidence, they con
stituted the great mass of the unlearned christians.
Clemens Alexandrinus makes frequent mention of
* Indocti omnes haeretici, et ignorantes dispositiones Dei, et
inscii ejus quae est secundum hominem dispensationis, quippe cae-
cutientes circa veritatem, ipsi suae contjradicunt saiuti. Alii qui-
dem alterum introducentes praeter demiurgum patrem. Alii au
tem ab angelis quibusdam dicentes factum esse mundum, et sub-
stantiam ejus, &c. Alii autem rursus ignorantes Virginis dispen.
sationem, ex Joseph dicunt eum generatum. Et quidam quidem
neque animam suam neque corpus recipere posse dicuut aeternatn
vitam, sed tantum hominem interiorem. Lib. v. cap, xix. p. 429.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAX's. 215
heretics, and expresses as rauch 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 heresy
was confined to Gnosticism, He considers It as an
answer to all heretics to prove that " there is one God,
the almighty Lord, who was preached by the law and
the prophets, and also in the blessed gospel *." He
also speaks of heresy as " borrowed frora a barbarous
philosophy ;" and says of heretics, that " thoiigh they
say there is one God, and sing hymns to Clirist, It was
not according to truth ; for that they Introduced an
other 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, oiyi<riv
yviAxrswg siKvi(poroov. Strom, lib, vii, p. ^54/. He calls
them ^o^ia-o(poi, men who think that they have found
the truth, p. 755, and vtto lo^o(rc(piscg S7t'i]§[jt.svoi, 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 Basilides and the raost distinguished
of the Gnostics made their appearance. Strom, lib. vii.
p. 764. He says the heretics went by different naraes,
as those of Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides, raen
tioning none but Gnostics, p, 765. It raay only be
conjectured that he raeant the Ebionites by the Pera-
tici, enumerated by him among those who had their
denomination from the place of their residence. But
this is the only passage in which the word occurs. He
never includes the Gentile. unitarians araong heretics,
* Kai aitarais syrsvisv rais aipsreriv sva Ssmywai .&eoi' kxi,
Kvpiov KavroKgaropa, rov Sia vo/xou Kai iipo(prjrwv,' ispos Ss nai (lx-
naqiov tvxyysXiov yyr^riius KSKvipvyii-svov. Strom, lib. vi. p. 475.

216 LETTERS TaTHE
and even your great authority, Mosheim, allows (what
indeed he could not deny) that the unitarians lived in
coraraunion with the catholic church in the early ages.
As the strict Ebionites held no comraunion with the
Gentile christians, it is very possible that Clemens
Alexandrinus might insert them in-a catalogue of he
retics, and allude to them under the narae of Peratici,
without Intending any censure of their doctrine with
respect to Christ, Besides, this was a name given
them, as he says, from their place of residence, and
therefore did not include the unitarians among the
Gentiles, It is clear to me, from the attention that I have
lately 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 common
people were well known to believe nothing of the
matter; and yet. If they raade no disturbance, ¦ and
did not think proper to separate frora the coraraunion
of the orthodox themselves, they were not excommu
nicated. This may be Inferred from the passage which
I quoted from Athanasius ; but of which you have
taken no notice, from which it appears that the unita
rians were the oi ttoAAw, tke many. In the time of
Tertullian they were tbe major pars credentium, tbe
greater part of believers ; and in the time of Origen
they were the ro TrKriSog, tke multitude, and the t«
TfK'^Sn, the multitudes. I ara, &c,

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAn's, 2l7

LETTER VII,
Of the State of Heresy in the Time of Tertullian.
Rev. Sir,
JNoTHiNG can well be more evident than that Tertul
lian 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 pos
sible In any form of words to describe this state of
things raore clearly than he does. Jndeed, with re
spect to this you are pleased to raake sorae concession,
though by no raeans such as the case requires.
" I raust confess, Sir," you say, p. 74, " here
seems to be a complaint against the unlearned chris
tians, as in general unfavourable to the trinitarian doc
trine ;" but you add, " the coraplaint is of your own
raising. Tertullian will vouch but for a sraall part of
it. Simple persons, says Tertullian, {not to call tkem
ignorant and ideots,) who always make tke majority of
believers, because th6 rule, of faith itself carries us
away from the many gods of the heathens to the one
true God ; not understanding that one God is indeed
to be believed, but with an (economy (or arrange
ment') startle at the oeconomy. They take it for
granted that ihe number and disposition ofthe trinity
is a division of the unity. They pretend 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. JLiatins have caught up
the word monarchia, Greeks will not understand
(ECONOMiA, Let our author's words be thus exactly

218 LETTERS TO THE
rendered, and you will find In them neither complaint
nor acknowledgement of a general prevalence of the
unitarian doctrine among christians of any rank. Ter
tulUan alleges, that what credit it obtained was only
with the illiterate, nor with all the illiterate, but only
those who were ignorant and stupid In the extreme.
To preclude the plea of nurabers, he reraarks that the
IlUterate will always raake the raajority of believers.
Some simple people, he says, take alarra at the notion
of a plurality of persons in the unity of the godhead,"
Here, Sir, I complain of two gross misrepresenta
tions 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, stupidity. Whoever Ter
tullian meant by the simplices and the idiotce,- 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 ara ready to allow that some of these simplices and
idiotce might profess to beUeve the doctrine of the tri
nity, though he says nothing of it ; but making aU
reasonable deductions on this account, he asserts a
palpable falsehood, and against himself, if a very great
majority of these simplices and idiotce .were not unita
rians. On the whole, it Is Impossible not to Infer frora
this passage, that in the time of Tertullian the great^
body of unlearned christians were unitarians, and that
they were jso in part from- their construction of the re-
gula 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, ea-

. ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 219
joining the worship of more gods than one. Coramon
sense can put no other construction on this passage,
and TertuUian is far from being singular in this ac
knowledgement. It is made in different modes by se
veral ofthe fathers, even later than the age of Tertul
lian. . In the next place, I complain of the degree of sim
plicity, or, as you call It, stupidity, with which you
charge these unitarians, TertulUan calls thera idiotce,
which you render ideots, and this you have the assur
ance 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 extraordi
nary, did you find this sense of the terra idiold in La
tin, or iltuiTVjg in Greek ? Can you produce any passage
In an ancient writer in which the word has that raean
ing ? I will venture to say that it properly signifies an
unlearned man, or a person who has not had a learned
or liberal education. But such persons may have as
good sense as those who have had that advantage, and
may judge as truly concerning the great principles of
reUgion as the raost learned. The doctrine of one God,
or two Gods, requires no knowledge of the learned
¦ languages ; and you. Sir, perhaps, would have under
stood 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 sarae age,
character, and profession. Now the translator of Ire
nseus certainly uses the word idiota {iSiwryjg, no doubt.
In the original Greek) for an unlearned man, without
the least reference to any weakness of understanding.
Speaking of the heretics, who boasted of their know-

220 LETTERS TO THE
ledge, he says, lib. v. cap, xx. " Non contemplahtes
quanto pluris sit idiota reUglosus a blaspherao et Im-
pudente sophista : Not considering how rauch 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 frora Justin.
Theodoret, in his explanation of 1 Cor, xiv. 16,
says that " by ihwr'yig was meant a layman, because It
is the custom to call those i^iurexg who were not en
gaged in war ;" meaning, perhaps, " those who had
no pubUc employments." Opera,-vol. HI. p, 191.
Our translators qf the New Testaraent had a very
different idea frora yours of the raeaning of the word
t?>icorrig. For in Acts iv. 13, we read that when Peter
and John were examined before the High Priest and
his kindred, " they wondered at their boldness, be
cause they perceived them to be i^iuirai ;" 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 un
learned; and in 2 Cor, xi, 6, Paul calls himself i^twrrii,
and he could not be supposed to have called himself
an ideot. It is there rendered rixde.
One of your proofs, p. 83, that unitarianisra was
proscribed in the primitive church in the time of Ten-
tulUan, is his saying that the regula fidei in his trea
tise de Press crip tione was the belief of all christians.
But every writer, if we wish not to cavil, but to under
stand his real meaning, must be interpreted In a man
ner consistent with himSelf. It is a degree of candojir

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's, 221
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
himself in such a manner (in his treatise de Virginibus
velandis) as gives us clearly to understand that this,
was all that was necessary to the faith of a christian.
This creed might be subscribed by any unitarian who
beHeved the miraculous conception. The other creed,
therefore, which is not the apostles', must be his own
coraraent or exposition of the ^ro^^er -regula fidei, or
creed, (and indeed it has all the appearance of a com
ment, as raay 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
Prcescriptione was the belief of all christians in that
age, you must prove that it was the creed that all chris
tians gave their assent to ; and -this assent was only
.given at the time of baptism. But that regula fidei
(which supposes the pre-existence of Christ) is no
where to be found but in this particular passage In the
writings of Tertullian ; whereas that which is called
the aposiles' creed is, with sorae variations, frequently
mentioned, and is known to have .been the only creed
that was used at baptism In the time of Tertullian, and
long afterwards.
That Tertullian alluded to none but the Gnostics In
the regula fidei of his treatise de Prcescriptione is evN
dent from every cla'use in it, and from the object of
the work, which respects the Gnostics only, the uni
tarians being only occasionally and slightly mentioned
in it. Though, therefore, a single feature in this ac-

222 LETTERS TO THE
count is found In the unitarians as well as in the
Gnostics, it is the whole character that we are to at
tend to, and not that feature In particular.
In all other places In which I have found Tertullian
to speak of heresy in general, it is most, evident that
his ideas went no further than to the opinions of the
Gnostics,, except that he once calls Hebion a heretic,
and then he expressly raakes his heresy to consist in
his observance of the Jewish ritual*.
'" Heresies," he sayg, " do not differ frora idolatry,
having the same author and the same work whh ido
laters ; for that they make another God against the
creator ; or. If they acknowledge one creator, they
discourse of him In a raanner different frora the truth f.
Heretics," he says, " deny that God is to be feared J ;"
which agrees with his saying that " the heathen philo
sophers were the patriarchs of heresy §," for they held
that doctrine ; but It was very reraote frora any ' thing
that is ever laid to the charge of the unitarians.
" Heretics," he says,' " associated with the raagi,
with- fortune-tellers, with astrologers, with philoso
phers ; being actuated by a principle of curiosity ; so
that the quality of their faith may be judged of frora
their manner of life, for discipline Is the index of doc
trine i|."
* Ad Galatas scribeus invehitur in observatores et defensores
circumcisionis et legis. Hebionis haeresis est. De Praes.' s. xxxiii.
p. 214.
f Neque ab idololatria distare haereses, cum et auctoris et operis
ejusdem sint cujus et idololatria. Deum aut fingunt alium adversus
creatorem, aut, si unicum creatorem confitentur, aliter eum disse-
runt quam in vero. De Praescriptione, s. xl. Opera, p. 217,
J Negant deum timendum. De Praes. S. xliii. p. 218,
§ Haereticorum patriarchae philosophi. Adv. Hermog. s. viii.
p. 236. 11 Notata etiam.sunt commercia hsei'eticorum cum magi^,.quara-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 223
The whole of this account is inconsistent with Ter
tuUian's considering unitarians as heretics ; but rauch
more is his saying that " the Valentlnians were the
most numerous of all the heretics*," and that " the
heretics had nothing to do with their discipline. Their
want of communion," he says, " shows that they are
foreign to usf." For it is most evident that those whom
he caUs simplices and idiotce 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 Tertul
lian, and Inconsistent with himself, to call those per
sons heretics, who could not subscribe to that forra 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 forra, 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 said
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 dlspensa-
pluribus: cura circnlatoribus, cum astrologis, cum philosophise cu-
riositati scilicet deditis.  Adeo et de genere conversationis qua
litas fidei aestimari potest : doctrinae index disciplina est. De Prae
scriptione, s. xliii. p. 218.
* Valentinlani frequentissimum plani collegium inter haereticos.
Adv, Valent. s. i. p. 250.
f Haeretici autem nullum habent consortium nostrae disciplinae,
quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio comnaunicationi*. De
Baptismo, s. xv. p. 230.

224 , LETTERS TO THE
tion which we call the oeconomy ; 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; 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 tb his
proraise, sent from the Father the holy spirit, the com-
forter, and the sanctifier of the faith of those who be
lieve In the father, the son, and the holy spirit*."
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 chrislians,
unmixed with any peculiar opinions of TertuUian's own,
in the treatise de Virginibus velandis, in which he is
not opposing orthodoxy to heterodoxy, but simply
faith to practice.
I am really surprised that you should lay so much
stress on the testimony of TertulUan, admitting it to
be clear and uniform', which it is far frora being, and
* Unicum quidem deum Credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione
quam oeconomiam dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius,
qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo
factum est nihil ; hunc missum a patre in virginem, et ex ea na
tum hominem et deum, filium' hominis etifilium dei, et cognonii-
natum Jesum Christum. Hunc passum, hunc mortuum, et se-
puhum, secundum scripturas, et resuscitatum a patre, et in caeks
resumptum, sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et
mortuos, qui exinde miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a
patre spiritum sanctum, paracletum, sanctificatorem "fidei eorura
qui credunt in patrem et tfilium et spiritum -sanctum. Hanc re
gulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse, &c. Adv. 'Eraxeam, 3, Ji.
p. 501.

ARCHDEACON Of ST. ALBAN's. 225
also on that of Eusebius, with respect to thie general
faith of christians even in their own times, and much
more in times preceding them, when it is so comraon
for raen to represent the opinions of those whora they
esteera, as the sarae with their own. Every raan should
be heard with caution when he praises hiraself; and
what he says in one place, should be corapared with
what he says In another, and especially what he drop^
as It were accidentally, and when he was off his guard;
As I said before, " their evidence in these cases is not
to be regarded, unless they bring some sufficient 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 opi
nions 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 very important circumstance 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
nature ; the knowledge of which, and a due attention
to it, would have been of much more service to you
in these inquiries 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. 1 74, that if I admit the evidence of
Eusebius for the existence of the Ebionites in the time
of the apostles, I raust adrait his testimony to their
condemnation of them.
As Theodotus who appeared in the time of Tertul
Uan is called a heretic in the appendix to TertuUian's

226 ..LETTERS TO THE
book De Prcescriptione, I thipk.it probable that, after
his excomraunication, he forraed a church of pure uni
tarians, and might be the first who set up a separate
place of worship on that account, and therefore was
denominated a heretic In the original §ense of that
word; and this circumstance might give rise to the
opinion that he was the iirst wbotaught the doctrine.
When Eusebius 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 assertion of, a
writer over zealous to overwhelm his adversary by au
thorities." I suspect that he raay have been guilty of
soraething like this, .when he said that Theodotus was
.excommunlcated-by Victor on account of his unitarian
principles.. That he was excommunicated 1 admit; but
that his unitarian principles was the sole ground of his
.excoramuiiicatlon L have sorae doubt, considering your
ovvn idea of the, credit of the witness, which Indeed is
pretty much. the. same. as ray own. I am, &c.

LETTER VIII.
OfiOrigen's Idea of Heresy^ •
Rev. Sis,
What I have said concerning Clemens Alexan
drinus 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,, considering them as of an Infe-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 227
rior rank ; but I believe he never classes them with
heretics ; aiid whenever he speaks of heretics in ge
neral, he, as well as all precedlhg vwriters, evidently
had a view to the Gnostics only. S|ee his Coramen
tary on Matt, vol. i. p, 156, 159, 212, 287, 475, and
many other passages in his writings.
In his treatise entitled Philosophumena, which is
the first of his books against the heretics. It Is evident
that' he considered none in that light besides the Gno
stics, see p, 6, 8, and 16, of that work, as ptiblished
by Wolfius at Hamburg In 1 706.
In one place he evidently considers the unitarians
and heretics separately, as two distinct classes of men ;
but supposes that the unitarians confounded the per-,
sons of the Father and the Son, on which accquAt they
were called Patripassians. But notwithstanding the
evil that he says of themj he acknovvledges that they
adhered tolheir 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, him honour. Such are those who con-
foupd the intellect of the Father and the Son, distin
guishing their substance In idea and name only ; and
also, the keretics, yhq, out of a desire of, speaking mag
nificently concerning him, carry their blasphemy very
high, even to th,e inaker of the world, are not on his
side*." ..1 .: .
* Ov vofji-iirreov yxp eivai vifep avrov rovs ra 'i/evSr^ fgovowrag
itipi avrovipavraria, jfov So^a^eiv avrov, oitotoi siriv rvyysovrss itd-
rpos 'x.ai vXov svyoixy,Kd.i r-n vitoara<iei eva SiSovrss eivai rov'tarspx
KXI roy vUv, rji eitivoioi, it.oyj, Kai rois ovojAxri, Sixipovyre; rt kv
62

228 LETTERS TO THE '
It Is evident to rae that in the tirae of Origen, viz,
the beginning of the third century, the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ was so far from being generally re
ceived,' except by the bishops and the more learned of
the clergy, that it was considered as a subUrae doctrine,
proper indeed for persons who had made advances in
divine knowledge, but not adapted to the vulgar, who
were content with the plain doctrine of Jesus Christ,
and him crucifiedj looking no further than to his hu
manity, as It Is delivered in the gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. John's doctrine of the logos vras
thought to be too subUme for the generality of Chris
tians. *' No one," says Origen, " taught the divinity of
Christ so clearly as John, who presents him to us, say
ing, I am the light of the world ; t am the way, ,the
truth, and the life; I am the resurrection ; I am the
gate; I am the good shepherd; and in the Revelation,
I ara 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) ofthe scriptures, so the gospel of John is the first
fruits of the gospels ; the sense 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
Johii, who was shown by Jesus as another Jesus. For,
he who is perfect does not himself Hve, but Christ
lives in hira ; and since Christ lives in him, he says to
vitoKsiihEvov, 'kai 01 xito rtuv aipsffeaiv, (payrairia. rov i^syxXx itepi
avrov (pgoveiv, aSaiiay eiy ro C^os XxXovvres, Kai kxkuis Xeyovres
rov Srji),iovpyoy, ovk surfv vifsp' avrov. Comment, in Matt. Origeni*
Commeiitdr. edit. Huetii, Rothomag. vol. i. p. 470.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 229
Mary concerning him. Behold thy son, Christ him
self*."
" This," says he, " we ought to understand, that as
the law was a shadow of good things to come, so is
the gospel as it is understood by the generality. But
that which John calls the everlasting gospel, and which
raay be- raore properly called the spiritual, instructs
the InteUigent very clearly concerning the Son of God.
Wherefore the gospel raust be taught both corporeally
and spirituaUy; and, when it Is necessary, we raust preach
the corporeal gospel, saying to- the cariial that we know
nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. But when
persons are found confirmed In the spirit, bringing
forth fruits In it, and In love with heavenly y/Isdom,
we must impart to them the logos returning frora his
bodily state. In that he was In the beginning with
Godt."
* OvSeis yxp sKeivujv xKpxrws sipavspwrsy avrov rry ^sorr^ra, w;
Jwavviis, iraparrnjirois xvrov Xeyoyra, lEyw eijxi ro ipws rov Korfjiov,
eyw £1^1 IJ hSos, v.ai ^ aXijSsia, jcai i; g'tui). sym si\i.i ij avarraris,
syw sijj.1 ¦!) bvpa, eyw gi/<.i o itoipn/jv o KaXos, Kai sv r'ri Aito'KOt.Xv^st,
Eyw si^i ro X kxi ro w, ij apx'O "*' '''o rsXos, o itgwros Kai 6 srvxro;.
To\jK.ijr£oy roivw siiteiv aitn.px'iv f*6v itarwy y^acpwv sivai tx evxy-
yeXix, rwv Ss svxyysXiwv aifxi^tjv ro xara lajwvvijv, ov rov vow
ovSeis Svvarai Xatsiv ju,ij xvaiterwv eiti ro rrrfios Iijo-ou, ix.'y^Ss Xa^wv
aito hjrov rrjv Magiav ysvO[/.syiiiv Kai avrov luffrsqa, Kai rrjXiKovrov
Ss ysvstrixi Ssi roy sroy-svov xXXoy luiavvipi, ws rs oiovsi rov lutxyyijy
Ssi)(irjvxi ovrx lijirovv aito li^trov  Kai yap it^s o rereXeiuip-tvos ^»)
ovKeri, aXX' ev xvrw fij 'Xpirros, kxi eitei ^i) ev avrw Xpirros, Xe-
yerxi itepi aiirov r-^ Mapix, iSe o vios rov o Xpiaros. Comment, in
Johan. vol. ii. p. 5.
f K«» rovro Ss giJijvai s^pvjv, ori writsp san yojAog a-Kiav itspi-
fywy rwv (/.eXXovrm aya&wv, vito rov Kar aXifisiav KarxyysXXa-
jMsvov vojAov SrjXovii.svwv, ovrw Kai evayyeXiov rKiav [/.vtrrr/piuiy
Kpirrov SiSamst, ro voit,i^O[isvoy uito itavrwy rwv evrvyy^avovrwy
yostrSxi. 'O Se (pyjo-iv Iwavvris evxyyeXiov aiaii'iav, oiKeiws xv Xs%9^-
(fBl/.svoy itveviMnriKOv , rxipws itapirrijn rois voovri rxitavrx evwitiov
Itepi avrov rov viov rov beov,  Atoieep xvayKaiov tyevY<ariKWs koi
(Twii.xri'Kws Xp^irriayi^siy, xxi otov [^svxP^ ro o'M^i.ariKoy Krjpvrrtiv

230 letters to the
" There are," says he, " who partake of the logos
which was frora the beginning, the logos that was with
God, and the logos that was God, as Hosea, Isaiah,
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 flesh ;
thinking they have every thing of the logos when they
acknowledge Christ according to the flesh. Such Is the
multitude of those who are called christians * ."
Again, he says, " the multitudes {i. e. the great mass
or body) of believers are instructed in the shadow of
the logos, and not in the true logos- of God, which is
in the open heaven f."
These humble christians of Origen, who got no
further than the shadow of the logos, and the simplices
and idioi<e oi Tertullian, were probably the simplices
credentium of Jerom, who, as well as the heretics, he
says, " did not understand the scriptures as became
their majesty." For had these simple christians, within'

svayysXiov, tpxffKOvrx [/.riSev eiSsvxi rois rapKivots >) Iijirouv Kpirr^
Kai rovrov s(rravpwii.evoy, rovro itoir^reov, eitav Ss sopeiouri Kxrrjpnr-
fj.svoi rw K\evfj.ari, Kai Kxpitofopovvrss sv xvrw, spwvrss rs rvjs ovpa-
fiov roifiixs , f/.srxSorsoy xvrois rov Xoyov, sKavsX&ovros xito rov rsrxp-
xwrSai, ep' 6 -riv ev xpyri it^os rov ^sov. Comment, in Johan. vol. ii.
P-9- '/
* Ovrw roivvv 01 p.sv rivss fisre^ovriv avrov rov sv apx^ Xoyoo
Karifpos rov Bsov Xoyov, Kai Beov Xoyov, waitsp 'Slrtjs Kai Hraias
KXI lefsfj.ias, KXI SI ns srspos roiovrov kavrov itxpsrrr^rsv ws roy
Xoyov KVPIOV, r) rov Xoyov ysverdai itpos xvrov. hrspoi Ss ol [/.j/iSev
siSorss SI jj.'/j Irjtrovv Xpirrov Kxt rovrov srravpwf/.svov, rov ysvofj^svov
vxpKa Xoyov, ro Kav vofj.iravrss sivai rou Xoyov Kpirrov Kara rapKX
povof yvwrKOvai, roiovrov Ss srri ro itXyfios rwv itsitirrsvKevQLi vop.i-
^Q^Lsvuiv. Comment in Johan. vol. ii, p. As, 49.
-|- Ta Se TTXijfii) rwv irsifirrsvKsval vou.i^Oix,sywv rri ckix rov Xoyw,
%xi ovyj rw iXXi\hivw Xoyw Bsov sv rw avscpyori ovpavw rvy^avoyn, ¦
lix&ijrsvsrxt. Comment, in Johan. vol. ii, p. 52,

ARCHDfeAdaN' OF ST. alban's. 231
the p>ale of the church, Inferred frora 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 thqt they did not under
stand the scriptures according to their majesty: for he
himself would not pretend to a perfect knowledge of
the mystery of the trinity. " For these simple chris
tians," he says, " the earth of the people of God
brought forth hay, as for the heretics It brought forth
thorns*." For the Intelligent, I suppose, It produced
richer fruits. v
Frora all these passages, and others quoted before,
especially the major pars credentium of XertulUan, I
cannot help inferring, that the doctrine of Christ being
any thing more than a inan^' who was crucified and
rose from the dead, (the whole doctrine ofthe incarna
tion of the eternal logos, that was in God, and that was
God,) was considered as a raore abstruse and refined
doctrine, with which there was no occasion to trouble
the coramon people ; > and It Is evident that this clas^
of christians was much staggered by It, and Offended
when they did hear of iti This could never have bieen
the case if it had been supposed to be the doctrine of
the apostles, and to have been tlelivered by them as the
most essential article of christian faith, in which light It
Is now represented. Such terms as .scandalizare, ex^
pavescere, he. used by Tertullian, and Tot^cta-irstv by
Origen, can only apply to the case of some novel afld
* Quod dicitur super terram populi mei spince effaenum ascen
dent, referri potest et ad haereticos, et ad simplices quosque creden
tium, qui non ita scripturam intelligunt ut illius convenit majestati.
Unde singula singulis coaptayimus, ut terra populr dei haereticis
spinas, imperitisquibusque ecclesiae foenumafFerat. Id Is. xxxii, 20.
Opera, vol. iv, p, 118.

232 LETTERS TO THE
alarming doctrine, something that men had not been
accustomed to. In the language of Origen, it had been
the corporeal gospel only, and not this spiritual and
mysterious one, that they had been taught. I ara, &c.

LETTER IX.
Of the Light in which the Unitarians were considered
in later Ages, and of the Stale of the common
People at all Times.
Rev. Sir,
It appears from what has been advanced in the pre
ceding letters, that, whatever might be the opinion of
the more learned christians, and of course that of the
writers, the bulk of the common people were not
brought to a belief, or rather a profession, of the doc
trine of the trinity till a pretty late period ; and that. If
they did not of theraselves leave the comraunion of the
orthodox, and raised no disturbance in the church,.they
were connived at. In fact, they were considered by
the raore learned as siraple ignorant people, who knew
no better, and who acquiesced in the doctrine of the
siraple humanity of Christ, because they were. In
capable of comprehending that of his divinity, and the
sublime doctrine of three persons in one God. This
must have been the case with the ol ttoXKoi, the many,,
or multitude, of Athanasius,
This Writer, considering the violence of his cha
racter, speaks of the unitarians with a good deal of
tenderness on account of the difficulty of understand'

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 233
ing the doctrine of the trinity. In my former letters
I quoted a passage from him in which he represents
them as the oi rrroKXoi, ihe many, and persons of a low
understanding, but by no raeans as persons out of the
church. Contrasting thera with the Gnostics and the
Arians, he says, " some persons considering what is
human in Christ, seeing him thirsting, labouring, and
suffering, and degrading him to a mere man, sin In
deed greatly; but they may readily obtain forgiveness
if they repent, alleging 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 jmystery of godli
ness, God was mcmifest in tke fiesh*."
According to him, many persons within the pale of
the church raust either have been unitarians, or have
believed the doctrine of the trinity without under
standing 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 Samosatensis, after
acknowledging that persons of low understandings
were chiefly Infected with it, and quoting what Paul
says of the great mystery of godliness, God manifest
in fke flesh, he says; " those who understand the sub
ject accurately are few, but all pious-persons raay hold
* 'Orxv rives, tis ra avipwitivx ^Xsit,oyrss, iSwri rov Kvpioy
Si^wvrx, rj KOKiwvra, ij ita<r')(oi/ra, kxi ^ovov (pXvxprjrwriy ws Kxr'
pivBpwitov rov rwrripos, x^ccpravovri ^sv (jisyxXws. Svvxvrxi Ss o/ncwf
raxews \>.erayivwrKoyres Xxii.^xvsiv rvyyvai^i^v, syovrss Kpo(pa<riy
rrjv rov rwpi.aros ao'&svsiay s^ova<i ya§ Kai rov xicoaroKov (rvyyvwjj.rjv
avrois ve[j.ovra, Kai oiokei ysipa xvrois ev rw Xeysiv eKreivovrx, orr
KXI 6u.oXoyovi^svws |M.ey« ern ro rijs svrstsixs jivrrrj^iov, B'sos e(px-
vepwarj sv rapKi. In illud Evangelii Quicunque dixerit, &c. Opera,
vol. i, p. 97s,

234 "LETTERS TO THE ^^ '
the faith deli vered to ^them *." But what kind of hold-
ing must it be, SvheH they had no perfect understanding
of what they held ?¦
Gregory Nazianzen also represents, the common
people as excusable for their" eri-ors, and safoj' from
not being disposed to scrutinize Into things f.' ^,
'I have also observed many instances in writers so
late as Chrysostora,' who^ notwithstanding -the preva-
Ience of a different raodo' of treating unitarians,' use
the terra^herieties in its ancient and proper^ sense for
the Gnostics only. Here I shall content myself with
one from Afh'anasiuSi He-says, " The heretics make
to theraselves another maker of the Universe besides
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ |.'? Indeed Atha
nasius considered the proper unitarians in a more, fa
vourable light' thaH' he did either thecGnostics Or the
Arians. See Opera, vol. i, p, 975* 977, 978.
Cyril of Jerusalem complains of heretics, both uni
tarians and Arians, in the bosom of the church,
"Now," says he, "there is an apostasy; for men
have departted from the faith, some' confounding, the
Son with the Father, others daring to say that Christ
was created out of nothing.^ Formeriy heretics were
open, but now the church is full of jconcealed here
tics §." The more zealous of the orthodox bishops,
* 'Ort rrjV IJ.SV aKpitsiav. avrrjs sitip^rsiv oXiywv ern, rrjv-Ss.
itirriv Kxreysiv a-isavrwy riav itpos rov Beov evitsi^wv. Hn Incar,
natione, contra p. Saraosat. Opera, vol. i; p. 592.
+ Tois t^ev yap rov Xaov rxyx xv kxi rvyyiywrKOi\t.ey rdvr^
Kar-xovnv, ovs rw^ei itoXXxKis ro atarxvirrov. Oi-atio-xxi,
Opera, vol. i. p. 388. ' ' '-
X Ol Se xito rwv xl^erswv aXXov sxvrois xvxitXxrr'ovri Srj^iov^yov
ruiv Itxvrwv ita^a rov itmrspa rov Kvpiov,--^jJi,wv Irjrov Kpirrov. De
Incarnatione. Opera, vol. i. p. 55.
i^ Nuy Ss srriv avornnrix- xtirrtjrav yap ol aySpuiitot rrjs ophjs

ARCHDEACON DF ST. alban's. 235
might do something more than complain, but in ge
neral it may be presuraed 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 espe
cially among the common people, though raany of the
clergy were also Infected ; and what Is remarkable, 'the
malcontents complained loudly of his mnoua^zon*, both
with respect to ancient doctrines and ancient practices.
For some time Basil, called the great, was obliged to
give way tp the storm, and retire frora his diocese,
though this it seems was a dangerous step ; for, ac
cording to him, unremitted vigilance was necessary to
guard their flocks from seduction. " If any person,"
he says, " leave his diocese for the shortest time, he
leaves the coramon 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 comraon people were well known to consider Christ
as a mere man, and yet were not disturbed on that ac
count. As the passage in his, writings from which I
infer this Is a pfttty 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 afterwards changed their
itirrsws, KXI 01 pisy v'loitxropixv KxrxyysXXovriy, o'l Se rov Kp'iarov
eJ ovk Of Ttuv. eis ro eivxi itapsvsyhsvra Xsysiv roXy.wriv, kui itpors-
oov ii.sv rjffav (pxvepoi al^eriMi, vvv Se KsicXrjpwrut rj eKKXrjcria ks-
Kpvy.j^sywv atpsriKcuv. Cyrilli Catech. xv. p. 209. See also p. 5.
* E( yap ris kxi itpos ro ^pa'/vrarov rrjs sKKXrjrias avrov aito-
arairf eiiSiorovs afrjirei rovs XxovsWs sfsSpsvovffi. fiasiUi Epist, li^x,
Opera, vol. iii. p. ll*.

236 LETTERS TO THE
opinion.  What will they do with Martha, and then
with Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, who were particu
larly attached to our Lord while he was upon earth ?
And yet both of thera, first Martha and then Mary,
are said to speak to hira thus: Lord, if ihou kadst
been here, my brother had not died; who, though
they thought that he was the Son of God who was to
corae into the world, yet would they not have said if.
thou hadst been here. If they had believed hira to be
God omnipresent. They therefore only thought as
Theodorus is said. to have done, and were excommuni
cated along with him ; and how many of this kind do
we know, by the writings of the apostles and evange
lists, there were at that time, and how raany even now
are there still ih the coraraon herd of the faithful, who,
by only partaking In the holy mysteries, and by a
simple observance of the coramandments, we see pleas-
ine God ; when even the apostles theraselves, the first
teachers, only thought as those whom we see to be In
cluded In this condemnation of Theodorus*."
The case is indeed the same. In a greater or less de-
, ^ Condemnaverunt omnes abipso in quem ilium incidisse pu
tant errore conversos.^— r-Ubi quid agent de Martha et Maria, so-
roribus Lazari, qua familiari devotionefpsi domino dum hie in came-
degerit adhaeserunt ? Et famen utraque, id est, prius Martha, ac de
inde IVIaria, legitur illi dixisse, Domine, si fuisses hie, frater men; .
non fuisset mortuus. Quae licet crederent quod ipse esset filius Dei
qui in mundum venisset, tamen -non diceretit si fuisses hie, si eum
cognoscerent sicut Deum, ubique esse prsesenteim. Eadem ergo
sapuerunt quae dicitur sapuisse Theodorus, et eum Theodoro simul
anathematisatae sunt. Et quantos vel eo tempore in evangeliis et
apostolicis scriptis tales fuisse cognovimus } Quantos etiam nunc
tales in grege fideliiim, sola sanctorum mysteriorum participatJone^
et simplici praeceptorum obedientia, placentes Deo vidimus; cnoii
et ipsi primi pastores ejus Apostoli sic aliquando sapuerunt, quos
omnes cum Theodoro vidimus in hoc anathemate condein.natP$>
Fro Defensione trium Capitulorum, lib. x, c, vii. p. l62.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 23^
gree, at all times and in all churches. Quiet people
will generally be indulged in their own way of think
ing ; and they are only those that disturb others that
are themselves disturbed.
Is it not well known that there are both Arians and
Socinians members of the church of England, and
even among the clergy themselves ; and yet if they
can reconcile It to their own rainds to keep in corarau
nion with a trinitarian church, there are no atterapts
made to molest them. Zealous as the heads 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
zejlous than this. The excellent Mr. Firraln was not
only an avowed Socinian, and in coraraunion with the
church of England, but In habits of Intlraacy with
Tillotson, and sorae of the most distinguished church
men of his time.
At present there are Arian and Socinlan writers
within the pale of your church ; and yet I dare say it
never occurred to any archdeacon, bishop, or arch
bishop, that it would be proper to excommunicate any
of them for the part they have acted. Such a thing as
this might not have passed so easily in the time of
Theodosius ; but even then I make no doubt but that
persons who could content themselves without disturb
ing others, would not have been molested.
You and I are both agreed that persons who do not
hand fide hold the acknowlediged tenets of any church
(I mean such great and distinguished ones as those re
lating to the object of worship) ought to withdraw
themselves from it, and not, by continuing in corarau
nion with it, to countenance its errors. But hovv many

238 , , LETTERS TO THE
are there who do not see the thing in the same light,
or vvhose habits and prejudices are such, that they can
not bring themselves to act as we think every prin
ciple of honour as well as of religion dictates 1 And yet
I cannot agree with you if you should say that all such
persons are hypocrites, and in^ncere, doing what they
themselves know and feel to he wrong. They have
excuses which I doubt not satisfy their own minds,
though they do not satisfy me. Great allpwanceJ^ no
doubt, is also to be made for the force of habit, and
even for a natural timidity. There are many Erasmuses
fbr one Luther, many Dr. Clarkesfpr one Whlstqn^a
name which, not withstaiiding the weaknessof his judge
ment in some, things, ought never to be mentioned
withput respect, on accotint of his almost singular and
unparalleled uprightness.
As to the common people, the idiotce of Tertullian,
we generally, see that, as they are not innoyatprs. in
dpctrine, they gp to public worship where they h^ve
been used to do, withput any nice .discrlraintttipn of
what is transapted there; and the observation >yin ge
nerally apply to the bulk of the inferior clergy. VTheu
Henry VIII, reformed the churph of England, how
many joined him in it who woiild never,have declared,
themselves dissenters frpn^i the, established church |
The church is now trinitarian ; but supposing that an
Arian or Socinian parliament (which is a possible case
in this inquisitiye and. fickle age) should changethe
ejstabHshed religion in that fespect, how many do you
think of the clergy (excepting those who possess tl|q^
ran}?, the knpvpledge, and the zeal of Archdeacons,
&c. and also those vvhom ypu wpiild pla.ce in thp dregs^
of methodism^f. 62.) would become, dissenters ? espe-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 239
cially if, as was often the case in forraer tiraes, they
had no alternatiye but a prison with a good conscience,
or their present emoluraents whhout one. I rather
think they would contrive to keep both, and soon raake
themselves perfectly easy in their new situation.
With respect to the common people in general,
settled as you may think thera to be in the doctrines
of the church of England, perpetually hearing of three
persons and one God, and daily making their responses
to the holy blessed and gloriou.s trinity; yet could
they, without any preparation or discussion, hear Mr.
' Lindsey's reformed liturgy read to them by their usual
ministers, and no Archdeacon should sound the alarm,
bu^ they were to take it for granted that all was done
by order of their superiors, and therefore 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 observation, may render it
credible that the majority of the coraraon people, the
idiotce of Tertullian, though not the ideots . of Dr.
Horsley, might be unitarians, and yet continue in com
munion with the church after its forms becarae trini
tarian, especially as they would not become so all at
once. In the most ancient liturgies, you know, there
were no prayers addressed to Christ ; and as the mera
bers of christian societies were not required to subscribe
to anything*, there was nothing that they were ex
pected to bear' a part in, concerning which they might
not be able to satisfy themselves. I am, &c-
* In the tiraes iri which the doctrine ofthe trinity was most agi
tated, some of the more zealous bishops proposed the Nicene creed
and other tests to those who were in communion with them ; but
aven then this practice does not appear, t« have been general.

240 LETTERS TO THE

LETTER X.
Of the Quotation froth Athanasius.
Rev, Sir, /
It Is vrith very little effect, indeed, that you cavil at
my quotation from Athanasius, and the defence I made
of it. To every impartial reader It discovers how ex
treraely averse the Jews were to the doctrine of the divi
nity of Christ; and, to borrow a word from you and
Mr, Badcock, to what management th? apostles were
reduced in divulging this offensive doctrine to thera. I
have nothing to offer in addition to what I said on that
subject, except that I have no objection to your render
ing sv'keyog anix, a goodreason, instead oi a plausible
pretence; ior I doubt not that it appeared a very good
reason to Athanasius, who had nothing better to suggest.
^ Athanasius, however, by no raeans stands single in
his view of the prejudices of the Jews, and of the con
duct of the apostles with respect to thera. Epiphanius,
as quoted above, shows how prevalent the doctrine of
th^ siraple humanity of Christ was at the time that John
wrote. There are also passages in several of the fathers,
and especially a great number in Chrysostora, by which
we clearly perceive that i:helr idea of the conduct of
the apostles was precisely the sarae with that which I
have ascribed to Athanasius; and as it is possible. that,
by a different kind of instinct, my rapid glances may
have discovered more passages 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

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 241
apostles with respect to their insisting on the doctrine of
the resurrection of Christ, rather than that of his divi
nity, Imraediately after the descent of the Holy Spirit,
he says, " As to the Jews, who had daily heard, and
sbeen taught out of the law. Hear 0 Israel, ihe Lord
thy God is one Lord, and besides him there is no other ;~
having seen him (Jesus) nailed to a cross, yea having
killed and buried him themselves, and not having seen
hira risen again, if they had heard that this person was
God, equal to the Father, would not they have rejected
and spurned at it." I want words in English to express
the force of the Greek, In this place. The Latin trans
lator renders it nonne maxime omnes ab his verbis ab-
horruissent, ac resilissent, et oblatrassent. " On this
account," he adds, " they (the aposties) brought them
forwards gently, ^nd by slow degrees, and used great
art in condescending to their weakness*."
In how different a light do Chrysostora and you repre
sent the sarae thing! According to you, the Jews were
always fully persuaded that their Messiah was to be
God, equal to the Father ; - and therefore, after the
apostles had persuaded them that Jesus was the Mes
siah, they had nothing to apprehend from their attach
ment to the doctrine of the unity of God, and had no
occasion for any art or management with respect to it.
However, their view of things, I doubt not, assisted
* liws Ss XV lovSxioi, ot KxS' sKarrrjv ¦^ix.spxv fixv^xvovrss, kxi
syrj^ovpi-evoi vito rov vofiou, Akovs IrpxrjX, KVpios o Bsos rov Kvpios els
srriv, KXI itXrjV xvrov ovk srriv xXXos, eiti ^vXov rrxvpov iSovre;
irpoffriXwiJt.svoy avrov, iJ.aXXov Se kxi rj'xvpwrxvrss kxi Bx^xvrss,
KXI ovSs avarravra Bearafusvoi, XKOvovres on Beos erriv avros ovros,
Kai rai itargt iros, ovk av \j.aXirra itxvrwv xiteitrjSrjrxv rs kxi xitep-
pxyrjffxv; Atarot rovro ijf £/*a, kxi Kxrx (/.iKpov, xvrovs uportita^ovn,
kai mXXri ihsv Ke)Q>rjvrxi ry rrjs rvyKxrxSxrsws oixovofAia, Chry
sost, in. Acta Apost, Hom. 1. Opera, vol. viii. p. 447.
R

242 LETTERS TO THE
Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others, who lived neara:
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 sarae among the Gentiles, considering,
as Athanasius does, that they could only learn Chris
tianity from the Jews; and it would have answered no
end for the apostles to have spoken with caution to the
Jews, and with openness to the Gentiles. Besides, ac
cording to Chrysostora, the Gentiles were not rauch
better prepared to receive the doctrine of the divinity
of Christ, than the Jews theraselves.
In the same passage, part of which 1 have quoted
above, after observing that, if the apostles had not
conducted themselves In this cautious manner with re
spect to the Jews, their whole doctrlme would have ap
peared Incredible to them, he ^dds, " and at Athens,
Paul calls him (Jesus) simply a man, and nothing fur
ther, and for a good reason. For if, when they had
heard Christ hiraself speaking of his equality to the
Father, they would on that account have often stoned
him, and caUed him a blasphemer ; they. would hardly,
therefore, have received this doctrine frora fishermen, ;
especially after speaking of him as crucified. And why
do I speak of the Jews, when at that time, even the
disciples of Christ himself were often disturbed, and
scandalized at hira, when they heard subUrae doctrines j
on which account he -said, I have raany things to say
to you, but ye are not yet able to bear thera.( And If
they could not bear these things who had lived so long
with him, and had received so raany mysteries, and
seen so many rairacles, how coiild men from their al
tars, and idols, and sacrifices, and cats, and crocodiles ;

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAn's. 243
for such was the worship of the. heathens ! But being
first brought off frora these aborainations, they would
readily receive their discourse concerning more sublirae
doctrines*." But we find no trace of either Jews or Gentiles
having received these sublime doctrines that Chry
sostora alludes to In the age of the apostles. Nay he
himself represents the apostle Paul as obliged to use
the sarae caution with respect to the Jews, when he
wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, which was so late
as A. D. 62, about two years before his death. And
if the body of the Jewish christians were at that tirae
unitarians, can It be thought probable that they became
trinitarians soon afterwards ? If the apostles themselves
had not succeeded in this business, which required
equal address and authority, vdio else can be supposed
to have done It ?
, 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 son, and not
that Christ hiraself had spoken by them, because their
minds were weak, and they were not able to bear the
'* El' Ss ASrjvais, Kai avSpwitov avrov ditXws kxXsi o TlavXos, ovSg
itXsov siKwv. eiKorws. si yap avrov rov ^^irrov SiaXeyo^evov its^t
rrjs SIS '"'«>' irarspa irorrjros, XiSarai HoXXaws eiesxei^rjray , Kat
PXxr0rjij.')v Six rovro skxXovv, cfp^oX^i yxp av lixpx rwv dXiiwv rovroii
rov Xoyov sSs^avro, kxi ravrx rov rrxvpov itpo-xw^r^ravrss. Ka; rt
Ssi Xeysiv rovs lovSaiovs ; oitovys Kai avroi rors itoXXams o'l f^aSrjrxt
rwv v^ijXorspwv xKOvovres Soyfj.arwv s^opvtovvro kxi srKXvSxXi^ovro.
Six rovro kxi eXeye, UoXXx 6%cy Xsyeiv vjj,iv xXX' ov Svvx(rie^a.rra-
' ^siv xpri. ei Ss sksivoi ouk eSvv'avro o'l rvyysvo^svoi ¦)qiovov rorovfov
xvrw, KXI rorovrwv KOivwvrjrxvrss atopprjrwy, kxi roravrx Bexrajx-e-
voi Bav^xrx, icws xv^pwiioi aito jScoju.W)', kxi siSwXwy, kxi Bvriwv,
kxi aiXovpwv, Kai KpoKoSeiXwv, roixvra yap rjy rwv 'EXXrjvuiv ra re-
Sarjjixrx, kxi rwv aXXwv rwv kxkwv rors itpwrov aiioritxr^evrss,
xSpoov rovs v^^?\ ovs rwv Soy^j^xrwy eSs^xyro Xoyovs } In Acta
Hom. 1. Opera, vpl, viii. p. 447.
R 2

244 LETTERS TO THE
doctrine concerning Christ*." 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, opix rp irvvsa-iv.rvjv ttoKK'^v, ib. p. 115b,
the very expression used by Athanasius on a similar oc
casion, and which you think I have not rendered right
ly, and have mistaken the sense of the passage, though
Beausobre, 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 John 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 araong them,;
were not prepared to receive a doctrine of such sub
limity. Chrysostom represents all the preceding writers of
the New Testament as '' children, who heard, but
did not understand things, and who were busy about
cheese-cakes and childish sportsf ; but John, he says
* Kai Bsa n rvvstws xvro sipr/Ksv. ov yxp siitsv 6 Bsos eXxXrjre,
kaifolys avros rjv 6 XaXrj<rxs, aXX' SKsiSrj xrSevsis avrwv r^rav dt
^vxxi, KXI ovSsvw xKOvsiv rjSvvavro ra itepi ¦i'ov Kpirrov, iprjriy o
^sosSi avrov sXaXrjrsv. In Heb. cap. i. Opera, vol. x. p. 1756.
i, e, " See how prudently he spoke : for he said God spake, though
it was himself that spake ; but because their minds were weak,
and they were not able to .bear the things concerning Christ, he
says God spake by him." N. B. The iov) in the second clause of
this passage must be inserted by mistake for (xai), or some other
particle, as it contradicts what is said in- the close of the sentence,
and the obvious sense of the whole. — [The best editions read K^ir-
vos for ®eos. See Horsley's Reply, p. 34. — E'D.] ,
\ "Ol ye aXXoi aitavrss, KdSaitep ra itaiSix ra fjjiicpa. xKOvovri
fi,ey, OVK irari Se direp aMvcvriv, xXXx itepi irXxMvvr-xs sitronjvtu, -
K*< x^vfiuxtx icaiSiKQi.. In Johan, Prolog. Opera, vol. viii! p. 2.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 245
taught what the angels theraselves did not know before
he declared it * ;" and he represents them as his most
attentive auditors. Opera, vol. viii. p, 2. " Leaving
the Father," he says, p. 11, "he [John] discoursed
concerning the.Son ; because the Father was known to
all, if not as a Father, yet as God, but the only-be-
begotten vvas unknown f."
Observing that in the beginning was ihe logos, ..he
says, " This was not preached Imraediately, for the
world could not bear it. The evangelists Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John," (this last is inserted by some
mistake.) " when they began the preaching, spake at a
distance, and not Irnmediately what becarae his dignity,
but what was convenient for their Hearers |."
Of the three first evangelists, he says, that " they
-all treated of the fleshly dispensation, and silently, by
his rairacles, indicated his dignity. The dignity of the
logos of God was hid, the arrows against the heretics
were concealed, and the fortification to defend the right
faith was not raised by the pious preaching. John,
therefore, the son of thunder, being the last, advanced
to the doctrine of the logos," or the divinity of
Christ 5.
* 'A'fJ.rjSe ayysXoi itpiv 5) rovrov ysverhxi r^Ssirav. \i.eh' -^piwvyap
S^ KXlovroi Sia rrjs Iwxwov ipwvrjs kxi Si' itijj.wv eii.a^ov xiCsp syvw^i,sy.
Prolog, in Joiian. Opera, vol. viii. p. 2.
¦\ Tl Sriitor ovv rov itars^x xipsis, itspi rov viov'SixXsyerai; ori
SKSlvos (/.sv SrjXos aitariv rjv, si Kai fj.rj ws Kxrrjf, aXX' ws ^eos, 6
Se jMvoysvrjs rjyi/oeiro. In Johan. Opera, -vol. viii. p. 1 1.
J-.Ev apx'? 0 Xoyos. Ovx evSvs rovro eKrj^v^Srj. ov yap e-ywpsi p
•xorfi-os. MaKpav rjjAiv oi eva-yyeXirrat Mariaios, .MxpKos, Aovkxs,
Kat Iwavvrjs, ore rjp^avro rov Krjpvyp.xros' ovk evivs sXaXrjrxv r»
itpeitovrx rri a^ia, aXXx rx xp[;.o^oyrx rots xKpow^evois, De Si-
gillis. Opera, vol. vi. p. 171,
J TLxyres ovv e^aiprjrxv eisrrjv rrjs rxK^os oikovoiuxv, Kai rjpe^i.^
•goiSf Six ruiy Bavjioirwy, eyytfipitoy ry «g;ay, 'E.Kpvisr^ro Ss fp na/

246 LETTERS TO THE
Austin writes to the same purpose: -" And if there
be any other things which, to those who rightly un
derstand them. Intimate the divinity of Christ, in which
he is equal to the Father, John almost alone has given
them in his gospel*," ^
Theodoret observes, that, in the genealogy of Christ
given by Matthew, this writer did not add according
to the fiesh, " because the men of that time would not
bear It ;" evidentiy 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
Roraans, 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 forra that opinion of hlraf," This writer also says
that the apostle Paul, in mentioning the subjection of
Christ to the Father, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,
Bsov Xoyov ro a^iw^).x. ^K^vitrsrii Sera Kara rwv alperiKwi iSeAij,
Kai ro rrjs opSrjs So^rjs sifirsi^ffjj,x ovSsitors rw K-^pvyiuar-i rrjs evre-
'losias syTjyspro, Iwavvrjs roivvv, o vios rrjs fipovrrjs, rsXevraios,
irspirjX^ev eiti rrjv BeoXoytav. De Sigillis. Opera, vol. vi, p. 173.
N. B. The sense of the passage absolutely requires mpvitrero and
not sKrjpvrrero in both the clauses, and in the latter it is so ren
dered by the Latin translator, though not in the former. The ob
servation, that the first verses in the gospel of John are a refutation
of all heresies is common witb the Fathers'. No person, except
one who is pretty Well conversant with riiem, can imagine how
often those verses occur in their writings.
* Et sl qua alia stmt, quae Christi divinitatera, in qua aequaliS est
patri, recte intelligentibus intiment, pene solus Jc^pes in evan
gelio suo posuit. Austin de Consensu EvangeHstarum, Opera,
vol, iv. p. 374.
+ Upo (lev rov rravpov kxi rov itx^ous, 0 Seritorrjs Kpirros ou
I1.0VOV rois aXXois lovSxiois, xXXx kxi xvrois xitorroXois ovk sSokH
eivai Bsos  kxi ovSs rx Bavjuara avrovs itpos rxutrjv. sitoSijysi rrfy
fogav'. In Rom. lib. iv. Opera, vol. iii, p. 11,

archedacon OF ST. alban's. 247
" spake of him more lowly than was necessary on ac
count of their weakness." ' 1 Cor, XV. Opera, vol. in.
p, 201.
. And yet you. Sir, who have no doubt read, con
sidered, and re- considered, all these passages, and
many more than I can produce to the same purpose,-
can say, p, 93, " The desire of instructing the Jews,
not the fear of offending them, was the motive with the
apostles for propounding first what Vi/as 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 inti
mate that they were afraid of giving offence to the
Jews. When we consider how late the thi'ee 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 n;ientioned, all this caution and reserve had been
necessary 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 thera, that could have effectually taught a doctrine
which, according to them, they were ill prepared to
receive. And the history of both Peter and Paul suf
ficiently prove, that the influence 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 qf
christians.

248 LETTERS TO THE
The christians of that age required something more
than the private opinion of an apostle. They required
some supernatural evidence that his doctrine was from
God ; and we have no account of the apostles pro
posing to them this article of faith, and alleging any
such evidence for it. Chrysostom says, that " If the
Jews were so much offended at having a new law su
peradded to their former, how much more would the^
have been offended if Christ had taught his own divi
nity." May it not be supposed, therefore, that they
would have required as particular evidence of a divine
revelation in the one case as in the other ?. And what
remarkably strong evidence was necessary to convince
thera that the obligation of their law did not extend to
the Gentiles ? Would they, therefore, have received
what Chrysostora considered as the more offensive
doctrine of the two, without any pretence to a parti
cular revelation on the subject ?
It may be said that all the caution of which we have
been speaking was necessary with respect to the unbe
lieving Jews only, into whose hands these gospels and
the other writings of the New Testament might fall.
But how impossible must It have been to conceal from
the unbelieving Jews the doctrine of the divinity of
Christ, If it had been a favourite article with the be-
lievirig Jews I 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 corae too late, and
would have answered no purpose whatever.
This caution, therefore, raust necessarily have re-
spepted those persons Into whose hands the gospels, ^C\

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 249
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
spoken of it, of whatever weight that opinion may be,
this caution in divulging the doctrine of the divinity of
Christ was necessary with respect to the great body of
christians themselves, and especially the Jewish chris
tians. Corisequently, they must have suppo,sed that at
the time of these pubUcations, which was about A. D.
64, the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was not ge
nerally held by christians, and that -there would have
been danger of giving thera great offence If it had been
plainly proposed to thera by the apostles theraselves.
At this time therefore It may be Inferred, that, in the
opinion of these writers, the christian church was prin
cipaUy unitarian, believing only the simple humanity of
Christ, and knowing nothing of his divinity or pre-ex
istence. From the acknowledgment which these orthodox
fathers could not help virtuaUy making, (for certainly
they would not do it unnecessarily any more than your
self, ) that there were great numbers of proper unita
rians In the age of the apostles. It seems not unreason
able to conclude that there were great numbers of them
In the age imraediately following, ajid in their own ;
and-their knowledge of this raight be an additional
reason for the opinion that they appear to have formed
of that prevalence In the apostolic age. Would those
fathers have granted to their eneraies spontaneously,
and contrary to truth, that the Jews were strongly pre
possessed against the doctrine of the divinity of Christ,

250 LETTERS TO THE •
and that the, unitarians were a formidable body of chris
tians while the apostles were living, if it had been in
their power to have denied the facts ? The conse
quence, of making these acknowledgements is but too
obvious, and must have appeared so to thera, as weU
as it now does to you, which makes you so uriwilling
to make it after them.
You say that the unitarian Jews mentioned by Atha
nasius were not christians, and that the Gentiles to
whom they taught the doctrine of the huraanity of the'
Messiah were mere heathen Greeks. " Have you for
gotten. Sir," you say, p. 97, " have you never known,
or would you deny, what is not denied by candid infi
dels, that the expectation of a great deliverer or bene
factor of mankind was universal even in, the Gentile
world about the time of our Lord's appearance." This,
however j, I do very much question, and I should, be
glad to know the naraes of the candid infidels who have
acknowledged it. ,
An expectation of a Messiah certainly existed among
the Jews, and of course araong their proselytes ; but If
any such Idea had been universal araong the Gentiles,
so as to interestthera In discussions about the nature of
this great deliverer, as 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 nature
and of the obscurity 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 ac
count of the origin and foundation of this universaJ
ppinibn.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 251
" You will produce, I suppose, Virgil's sixth 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 pro
phecy brought probably from the east, and ultimately
frora the Jewish scriptures, (but seriously believed by
no person that we know of,) merely to embelHsh a
poem, is one thing ; but the actual and universal ex
pectation of such a person Is another. I ara, &c.

LETTER XI.

Of the Time when Christ began to be considered as
God, arid the Opinion of the ancient and modern
Jews with respect to ike Messiah.
Rev. Sir,
J TOOK the liberty to request that you would endea-
Your to fix the tirae when the apostles and priraitive
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 hira to be a raere man.
This I thought no person living would have denied.
That the Jews expected only a man for their Messiah
is clearly supposed by Justin Martyr and all the chris
tian fathers. The Jews of their lime were perpetually
objecting to the christian doctrine on account of their
making Christ to be a God, and I have no doubt but
jthat the expectation of the Jews at this day is the same
with that of their ancestors two thousand years ago.

252 LETTERS TO THE
-You, Sir, have however ventured to deny all t^is.
Speaking of the apostles, you say, p. 107, that " frora
their first acknowledgement of our Lord as the Mes-
Slab, they equally acknowledged his divinity. The
Jews," you say, p. 109, " in Chrjst's days had notions
of a trinity in the divine nature. They expected the
second 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 AlHxi
entitled. The Judgraent of the ancient Jewish Church
against the Unitarians ; a work which it is to be hoped.
Sir, you will carefully look through before you send
abroad your intended View of the Doctrine of the first
Ages concerning Christ."
When my stock of arauseraent from the writings of
Bishop Bull is exhausted, which Is by no means the
case at present, I may perhaps throw away a few kil
lings on this Dr. Alllxf. In the mean time, without
entering into a large discussion 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. In.-
forra me then, if you can, how our Saviour could pos
sibly, on your Idea, have puzzled the Jewish doctors as
* On this subject the ppitiion 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 de
livered so obscurely on account of the proneness of the Jews to
idolatry that they did not understand it. Theodoret says, 'EiieiSyj
yap 'E.tpxiois sy^aOsv, oi fiovov rtfLav stw^atri rov narspa, xvayKXiius
ro Sl xvrov itporeSeiKs. i. e. " The Jews had been accustomed tp
worship the Father only, and for that reason the writer of the"
epistle to the Hebrews was obliged to say, B'y him let us offer' sar
frifices lo God continually." In Heb. Opera, vol. iii. p. 46l.
-j- Sonie accoimt of Dr. AUix's opinion, and also of the confuta?
tion of it by Prideaux and Capellus, may be seen in Mr. Linds^'*
Apology, p. 88, note.. ' '

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's^ 253
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 them-
, selves been fully persuaded, as you suppose, that the
Messiah, though carnally descended from David, was
in fact the maker and the God of David, and of them
all, a very satisfactory answer was pretty obvious. Or
without asking any other question of my own, what
say you to Facundus, quoted above, who says that
" Martha and Mary would never have said to Christ
if thou hadst been here, had they thought hira to be
God oranipresent." He adds, " neither would Philip
have said to hira Show us^ the Father, if he had enter
tained any such idea of hira,"
Facundus also says that the Jews always had ex
pected, and in his tirae did expect, a mere man for
their Messiah, " They did not know," he says, " that
Christ, the Son of God, was God, but they thought
that Christ would be a mere man, which any one may
perceive that the Jews at this time also think*."
I am willing, however, to consider a few of tbe
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) beUeved"
in Jesus as the Messiah, In the same degree they un
derstood and acknowledged his divinity. The proof
which I have to produce of this from holy writ con
sists of too many particulars to be distinctly enume
rated In the course of our present correspondence^ I
shall mention two, which to any but a decided unita-
* Sed non propterea Christum dei filium, deum sciebant j ho
minem autem purum arbitrati sunt Christum.  Quod etiam
nunc putantes Judaeos quilibet videbit. Lib. ix, cap. iii. p. 139,

254 LETTERS TO THE
rian will be very striking. Nathaniel's first profe^ion,
and Peter's consternation at the miraculous draught of
fishes. It was in Nathaniers very first interview with
our Lord that he exclaimed Rabbi, thou art the. Son of
God! thou art the King of Jsrael ! and this declara
tion was drawn from Nathaniel by sorae particulars In
our Lord's discourse, which he seems to have inters
preted as Indlcatlpns of omniscience. When Siraon Pe
ter saw the number of fishes taken at a feingle draught,
when the net was cast at our Lord's coramand, after a
night of fruitless toil, he fell down at the knees of Je
sus, saying, Depart from me, for I ara a sinful man, O
Lord. Peter's consternation 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
Shechlnah, which was founded on a notion that a sin
ful mortal might not see God and live."
With respect to Nathaniel's calHng Jesus the Son of
God, this phrase was, in the mouth of a Jew, syno
nymous to the Messiah, or Son of David, and it is
fully explained by the subsequent expression of Na
thaniel hiraself, viz. King of Israel ; and therefore, the
Jewish doctors, expecting nothing more in their Mes
siah than a glorious King of Israel, such as David had
been, could not give any satisfactory reason why David ¦
should call hira Lord, having no notion of his spi
ritual kingdom, extending to all raankind. If the raere
appellation Son of God, iraplies equality with God,
Adam must have been a God, for he is called the Son
of God, Luke ui, 38. Solomon also must have been
God ; and so must all christians, for they are called
Sons of God. 1 John in. 2. John i, 12. Rora, viii. 14.
Phil, u. 15.

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's. 255
As you are so intimately acquainted with the Fathers-,
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 confessed Christ as a man,
as appears by his adding. Thou art the King of Israel,"
In John, 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
omnipotence, all the conclusion that the spectators drew
from it was, that God had given such power unto men.
Matt, ix, 8. They, did not infer from It that he him
self was God, or pretended to be God ; and yet they
probably thought that he was the Messiah.
As to the consternation of Peter, I should Imagine
that by the sarae mode of Interpretation you raight con
clude that the widow of Zarephath, took Elijah to be
a God ; for on the death of her son, she said, ] Kings
xvii. 1 8, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of
God? art thou come to me to call my sins ta remem
brance, and to slay my son f Pray, Sir, why might
not the exclamation of Peter be considered as being of
the same nature with th3t of this woman ? The lan
guage Is very sirailar, and I will not answer for it, but
that you, not being a decided unitarian, may really be
of opinion, that she took the prophet to be God incar
nate. ?
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 cip-ious. It is as follows : Acts

^56 letters to THE
ii, 33. Jesus -being by the right-hand ofGod, exalledt
and having received of the Father the promise of the
holy ghost, has shed forth this, &c. " I shaU raaln^
tain," you .say, p, 101, "that the three persons are
distinctly mentioned, in a manner which implies the di
vinity of each." Well raay you say, p. 102, that you
shall " argue thus for the edification of your own flock,
but with little hope oi' my conviction, from Peter's first
sermon." Indeed, Sir, I see nothing In this passage but as per
fect a dependence of Christ upon God as any raan can
have. Why should Christ receive the Holy Spirit from
the Fatherj according to a preceding proraise, if he had
been as rauch In the power of the Son as of the Fa
ther? And why raust the Holy Spirit be so raUch 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 hiraself ?
The Father, you say, " is distinguished frora the Son
by not being called God in this place. Paternity is the
property that distinguishes the person. But from whom
is this first principle distinguished ? From his creatures ?
Frora them he were more significantly distinguished
by the name of God." But, Sir, to adopt your own
language, have you forgot, or did you never learn, that
we, who are raere raortal 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 you draw
from this circumstance ? Indeed, Sir, you raust be
happy In a very tractable flock. If such provision as
this will satisfy them. You would make a sad ex
change of your 'flock for mine. If such arguments do

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 257
not of themselves expose a cause, I do not loiow
what can do It, It Is well for your cause that it has
other supports besides arguments.-
Considering the case of Stephen, which is your ca
pital argument for th^ worship of Jesus Christ, you
say, p. !02, " What could be the blasphemy against
God" (with which he was charged) " what was there
iri the doctrine of the apostles which could be interpre
ted 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 martyr to the deity
of Christ." «As you have forraed this resolution, it
would be presuraption 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, blasphemy against Moses,
by whora God spake, would naturally be considered
as blasphemy against the God by whom he spake ; on
the same principle as our Saviour says, Matt. x. 4a,
He tkat receiveth you, receiveth me ; and he that re
ceiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.
Besides, we are expressly told what was the blas
phemy with which Stephen was charged. Acts vi. 11,
viz. against Moses' and against God, against this holy
place and the law ; and this js fully explained as fol
lows, ver. 14, For we have heard him say, tkat this
Jesus of Na-iareth shall destroy this place, and change
the customs which Moses delivered us. This was the
whole of the accusation, very clearly stated, and where
do you find any thing said conceming the deity oJ
Christ ?
I shall consider another of your curious arguments.
s

258 LETTERS TO THE
You say, p. 101, " I shall .particularly desire thera"
(i. e. your gentle flock above mentioned) " to remark,
that It Is said of our Lord Jesus, that it was not pos
sible that he should be holden of death, The ex
pressions clearly Iraply a physical impossibility." 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 impossible for
hira to be holden of death. It must certainly have been
naturally impossible for hira to have died at all; and
if death could hold him three days. It might for any
thing which appears in -riature, have held him for ever,
if the divine power, a power foreign to himself, had
not interposed. 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 tt)
strange conceptions of things, and strange language;
or I should wonder that you should not be shocked at
the Idea of God's dying. For when you speak of the
natural Irapossibillty of Christ's being holden of death,
you raust certainly have an idea of soraething raore
than the death of his' body.
You, Sir, suppose that our Lord's disciples raight
have conversed with him as familiarly as they did, and
have taken the liberties with him which they sometimes
did (as when Peter rebuked hira for coraplaining of
being touched In a crowd, &c. &c.) and yet have con
sidered hira as their God and maker. You say, p. 143,
** the most that could be inferred, were the assumption
true, would be something strange in their conduct, and
even this might be a hasty inference. The singularity-

ARCHDEACON OF ST, alban's, 259
of their conduct might disappear if the accounts they
had left pf our Lord's life on earth, and of their at
tendance upon him, were more circumstantial. But
the truth is, that the foundations of this argument are
unsound," After mentioning instances In vvhich you
think they invoked him as a deity, you say, " If the
angels Michael or Gabriel should come and live among
us In the raanner which you suppose, I think we should
soon lose our habitual recollection of their angeUc
nature. It would be only occasionally awakened by
extraordinary Incidents, This, at least, would be the
case if they ralxed with us upon an even footing, with
out assuraing any badges of distinction, wearing a
common garb, partaking of our lodging, and of our
board, suffering In the same degree with ourselves from
hunger and fatigue, and seeking the same refreshments.
The wonder would be if angels. In this disguise, met
with any other respect than that which dignity of cha
racter commands, and something of occasional homage
when their miraculous help was needed. This was the
respect which our Lord met with from his followers."
To this, I can only say, that I am really astonished
how you can entertain the Idea of any nuraber of per
sons living on this even footing, as you call It, wlth^a
being whora they actually believed to be the maker of
themselves, and of all things, even the eternal God
hiraself. Certainly, Sir, you never atterapted to reaUze
the Idea, or even thought of putting yoUrself in their
place, so as to have Imagined yourself Introduced into
the actual presence of your Maker, in the form of raan,
or any other forra whatever. You raust have been over-
whelraed with the very thought of It ; or If you should
have had the courage, and unparalleled self possession,
s 2

260 LETTERS TO THE
to bear such a thing, must there not have been num
bers who wbuld have been filled with consternation at
the very idea, or the mere suspicion, oi the person they
were speaking to being really God. And yet wp per
ceive no trace of any such consternation 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 marks of indignation or exclamation of blas
phemy, &C. against those who disbelieved It.
I am surprised 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
divinity, till the descent of the spirit at Pentecost*."
Chrysostom frequently pbserves that Christ only In
timated his divinity obscurely, and left the full discovery
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 Invislblet.
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
showed clearly enough, as by the blind man ; but when
he was discoursing about the formation of the first man,
he did not say, / made them, but he that made them,
made them, male and female. And that he made the
* ToX[/,w yap Xsyeiv irt ovSe avrot ot [/.xKapioi avrov fjtafliji'ai ro
teXeiov leipt rrjs avrov Beo'frjros ei%oy (ppoyri(;.a, ews "fo iiysvjj.x ro
dyiov xvrois r'ri itevrxKOrrf eitefoin^'rev. De Communi Essentia, ,
' Opera, vol, i. p,237.
•)- 'On ovpavov, Kai yrjv, kxi BxXarrav avros sKoirjrs, kxi rx
dgw/AEva, Kai ra aopara itavrx, auro; {/.sy ovSaft-ou irxipws ii^rpav.
In Matt, cap. v. Horn. I6. Opera, vol, vii, p, 154.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 261
world he signified by the fishes, by the wine, by the
loaves, &c. but never clearly in words*." He even
says, " It was more necessary to be concealed frora his
disciples, becaiise they would Iramediately have told
every thing through an excess of joyf."
" Christ," he says, *' did not reveal his divinity im
mediately ; but was first thought to be a prophet, and
the Christ simply a man, and it afterwards appeared by
his works and his sayings what he really was J."
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 doc
trine of the divinity of Christ from the first, and con
sequently it had always been the belief of the christian
church, the unbeUeving Jews must 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 Apostles, nor In any of the« Epistles, we
find the least trace of any such objection, the least no
tice of It, or the raost distant reference to it, by those
* Kai ri Bxviuxlsis st Irtjoi (/.ei^ovx itepi avrov ei^rjKariv wv
avros eiprjKey oitov ye KoXXa Sia rwv itpayit.xrwv siriSsiKwi^svos Sia
rwy prjpuarwv caipws ovk eXeyev; on yaq rov av&pwirov avros eifotrj-
csy sSsi^s r<paw( Kai Six rov rvipXou, ^vikx Se itepi rijs ev ap^-ri
"gXarews o Xoyos rjv avrw, ovKsiitev ori syw siroirjrx, xXX' o itoirjrxs
aprsv KXI BrjXv sitoirjrsv xvrovs. HaXiv, on rov Korfiov sSrjfiiovpyijrs
Kat ra ev avrw, Sta rwv i^Bvwv, Sia rov oivov. Six rwv xprwv 
prjiiart ovSx[t.ov rovro irapws eiitsy. In Matt. cap. v. Horn. l6.
Opqra, vol. vii, p. 154.
f ESsi yap rsws XavSxvstv, kxi /iOiXirrx sift rwv piaSrjrwv. Kcei
yxp SK itoXXrjs ^Sovrjs itavra xv sKrjpv^xv. In Matt. cap. viii.
Hom. 28. Opera, vol. vii. p. 274.
t Ov yxp sv&sws iJ/Aiv savroo rrjv Bsorrjra s^sKaXv^sV aXXx
Itpwrov {/.sv eyoi/.t^ero eivat ifpofrjrrjs, Kai Kpirros, ditXws avSpwiros,
vrrsgov Ss s^xvrj. Six rwv epywv xai rwv prjp.xrwy, rovro bitsp rjv.
In Johan, cap, i, Horn, 2. Opera, vol. viii, p. 20.

262 LETTERS TO THE
who were concerned to answer It ? The most probable
conclusion from this fact is, that no such offence had
been given to the Jews, the apostles not having preached
any such doctrine.
With respect to the time when our Saviour's dis
ciples began to consider him as God, you say, p. 99,
that I am the person most concerned to find the solu
tion. I told you in my forraer letters that I had solved
the diflSculty to ray own perfect satisfaction In my His
tory of the Corruptions of Christianity ; where Tshowed
by what steps the idea of the divinity of Christ was in
troduced. I did it upon my own hypothesis, of Its not
being an original doctrine, but a corruption of Chris
tianity ; 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, revealed at some
-time or other by Christ to the aposti eSj and bythe
aposties to the body bf christians. But, according to
you, it required no revelation at all. The whole Jewish
nation were prepared to receive their Messiah as their
God, and Immediately to worship him accordingly.
I have no dpubt, however, but that the Jews iri our
Saviour's time expected a man in the character of the
Messiah, Mary, his mother, evidently expected that
he would even be bprn In the usual way of two hu
man parents ; for when the angel informed her that
she should conceive and bring forth a sori, who shoUld
be called the son of the kighest, to whom God would
give tke throne of his father David, she replied,
Luke i. 34, How shall ihis .be, seeing I know noi a
man ? The apostles evidently appear to me to have
considered him as no other -than a man, and, they
taught no other doctrine after our Saviour's death.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 263
We perceive no trace of it in the book of Acts ; and
Athanasius, Chrysostora, 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
siraple huraanity of Christ were, according to Atha
nasius, christian Jews, and that their proselytes 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 unitarians, Jews and Gentiles, in the earliest
times, that led these Fathers to this hypothesis, to ac
count for the fact. , But that the great body of Jewish
christians should be unitarians in the time of the apo
stles, without their having learned that doctrine frora
the apostles, Is a thing that I cannot conceive. More
over, it does not appear that the apostles took any um
brage at the prevailing doctrine, but connived at it ;
and XlU the indignation they expressed against any opi
nions, was against those of the Judaizing teachers and
the Gnostics.
If the apostles did theraselves really believe the doc
trine 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 doc
trine among their countrymen, and frora them, accord
ing to Athanasius, among the Gentiles. How would
Bishop Bull and the Archdeacon of St, Alban's have
written If they had been in the situation in which Epi
phanius and all the Fathers place the apostie John when
he wrote his epistle ? Would they have contented them-

264 LETTERS TO THE
selves with condemning the dangerous tenet of the uni
tarians In no more than one clause of a single sentence,
which likewise contains the condemnation of the Gno
stics ? Would they not have thought the unitarian the
more dangerous heresy of the two ; and therefore have
bent their chief force against it?
It is remarkable, however, and really curious, that
before the unitarians were considered as heretics, we
find a very different account of the reasons that In
duced John to write both his episties and his gospel;
Ignatius says it was solely with a view to the Gnostics,
and so does Irenaeus, again and again. This, there
fore, 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
occurs) that it was imagined that the apostle had any
view to the unitarians In any of his writings. This is
a circurastance that well deserves to be attended to.
You Imagine, Sir, what appears very extraordinary
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 uni
tarian principle. " For the Jews," yoju say, p. 151,
*' whenever they begin tO/Open their eyes to the evlr
dences of our Saviour's mission, they will still be apt
to consider the New Testaraent in, connexion with the
Old. They will look for an agreeraent In principle, at
least, between the gospel and the law. When they ac
cept the christian doctrine, it will be as a later and a
fuller discovery. They will reject it if they consider
it to be contradictory to the patriarchal and Mosaic re
velations. Successive discoveries of divine truth may
41ffer, they will say, in fullness and perspicuity, but in

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 265
principle they must'harmonize, as parts of one system.
They will retain some veneration for their traditional
doctrines ; and in their most ancient Targums, 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 chrisr
tians 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 enmity with their
ancient faith."'
So different, Sir, are your Ideas and mine on this
subject, that one would think we had never read the
same authors, or lived in the same world. Our diffe
rent views of things must have arisen frora 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 those later Rabins were who
abandoned the notion of their fathers, and frpm ex
pecting 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 haye been earlier than Justin Martyr ; and indeed
of this memorable ckange 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 indig
nation. I shall content myself on this subject with appealing
to two testimonies. One of thera Is that of Basnage,
and the other of later date.

266 letters to the
Basnage, I suppose, you wUl allow, had sufiicientiy
studied the history and opinions of the Jews. He has
written largely on the subject ; and yet, though a tri
nitarian himself, he has exploded all the pretences of
Cudworth and others to find the doctrine of the trinity
either among the ancient or the modern Jews.
" The christians and the Jew.?," he says, " separate
at the second step in religion. For, after -having adored
together one God absolutely perfect, they find the rao
raent after the abyss of the trinity, which entirely se
parates them. The Jew considers three persons as
three Gods, and this tritheism shocks him. The chris
tian, who believes 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 attempt It*." You, Sir, are
one of those bold divines, or, if not bold yourself, at
least a follower of the bold.
This writer also says that the " Jews consider them
selves as bearing their testiraony to the unity of God
among all the nations of the world f." Deny these
facts if you can. What ought or what ought not to
offend the Jews is not the question. The doctrine of
* " Les Chretiens s'ecartent des Juifs des le second pas qu'ils
font dans la religion. Car apres avoir adore ensemble un Dieu,
souverainement, parfait, iis trouvent un- moment apres I'abime de
la trinite, qui les separe, et les eloigne souverainement. Le Juif
regarde trois personnes comme trois dieux, et ce tritheisme lui fait
horreur. Le chretien, qui croit I'unite d'un Dieu, v«ut a meme
tems qu'on donne ce litre au pere, au fils, au Saint Esprit, et qu'on
les adore. II est impossible de concilier des opinions si contraires j
cependant il y a des theologiens hardis, qui ont tente de le faire,"
Hist, des Juifs, lib. iv. cap. iii. s. 1.
\ *' Les temoins de I'unite de Dieu dans toutes les natrons du
monde." Ibid, lib, vii, cap, xxxiii, s. i.5. '

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 267
the trinity does in fact, and frora the time that it was
started always did, offend the whole body of the Jews,
and Is, rio doubt, one of the greatest obstacles to their
conversion. My second testimony I shall give in the postscript of
a letter frora a correspondent in the West of England,
Inthe 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 Devonshire. An
event, which then gave me much concern, occasioned .
the discontinuance of my correspondence with the writer
of that letter; and though desirous of knowing the issue
of the business, I have not learned it. If this publi
cation should be the means of bringing me acquainted
with It, I shall think myself happy. If the learned
Jew himself should meet with these letters, I shall be
very glad to hear from him, whatever may be his pre
sent thoughts on the subject. In the mean tirae I
would recoraraend it to you, Mr. Archdeacon, to en
quire of any Jews now living, and not to argue frora
suppositioTis when fads are within your reach.
My correspondent's postscript is as follows : " I
have lent your Institutes to a sensible and religious
Rabbi, bred at the university of Halle. He has read
thera with great care, and taken curious extracts frora
thera. 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 de
spise him, and told him, that as long as Christianity was
thought contradictory ta the first law of Judaism, the
conversion of his brethren would be impossible. The
parson wanted to baptise him. The Rabbi said reli-

268 LETTERS TO THE
gipn was a serious matter, and he would be a convert
in reaUty before he would be one in profession. He
has been much with me. I hope to be able to send
you a pleasing account of him." , J am, &c.

LETTER XII.
Of the Personification of the Logos.
Rev. Sir,
JLou stllldeny that the christian fathers were ac
quamted with any such thing as the personification, .
that Is, the making a real intelligent person oi the
logos, or wisdom of God ; whereas, absurd as I ac
knowledge the notion to be, it was most Indisputably
the real doctrine both of Philo, the platonizing Jew,
and of those who were called orthodox christians, who
platonized likewise. I speak within compass when I
say that I can produce hundreds of passages which
prove in the clearest raanner that the divinity which
they ascribed to Christ was the very sarae principle
which had constituted the wisdom and other powers oi
God the Father ; and that the generation of ihe Son
was the coraraenceraent of the state of actual person
ality of the Zog 05,"' whether in time, as some thoughtj
or from all eternity, as others, which latter was after
wards 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 rae in platonism, p. 1^^, (which how-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN S. 269
ever does not, I hope, prevent 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 Ig
norant of with' respect to it. If this kind of literature
be your home, p. 163, I raust say that you have been a
considerable time from home, and that you are at pre
sent' unacquainted with several apartments In your own
house. I shall then wait upon you at this house of
yours, and endeavour to point thera out to you.
With respect to ray quotation frora Athenagoras, and
my accdunt of his meaning, you are pleased to say,
p, 124, " It only finishes the proof, if it was before
defective, of your incompetency in the subject. It
shows that you are so little acquainted with platonism,
that your mind cannot readily apprehend a platonic
notion, when It is clearly set before you. What you
take for ray raere conjecture, viz. that the external
display of power, is the thing that is called generation,
is the express assertion of Athenagoras, in the very
passage which you have quoted."
On the contrary, I raalntain that, if your external
".display of powe'r be any thing different frora what I
have called the personification of tke logos, or his be-
coming a proper person, so as to be God, in himself
considered, it is contradicted by Athenagoras in this
very passage, as well as by all the christian writers who
treat of the subject. In this passage he calls the Son
" the first production of the Father, not that he was
ever properly raade," (that Is out of nothing) " for
God being an eternal mind, had logos always in him
self, being always KoyiTcog;" that Is, being always a
reasonable intelligent being. Now, Sir, what could any
man mean by this expression, but that before this cir-

270 LETTERS TO THE
cumstance, pr event (which I call the personification
of the logos, and you the external display of his
powers) took place, there was no raore a proper trinity
^ of persons in God, than there Is In man ? for God, like
man, was then siraply Koyix.og, an intelligent being ;
wisdora, or intelligence, being' one of his attributes.
Many of the fathers use this comparison, supposing
the logos in God to have been driginally exactly similar
to logos, or reason in man. Now are there, think you,
or was it ever Iraagined that there were, proper distinct
persons in the mind of man, merely because that raind
was KcyiKog rational? The very expression 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 distinct personality ; and
this generation was with a view to the production of
material beings, and not the production itself^ or the
display of powers In that production. For this gene-
• ration was represented as the proper act of the eternal
Father, whereas the display of powers in the production
of raaterial beings (if I raust adopt your quaint language)
was according to thera, the proper act of the Son^ Ac
cording to thera 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 ge
neration of the Son took place in time, and not from
all eternity ; because he says that from the beginning,
or from eternity, God was simply vovg, a mind, having
logos in hiraself, as being always Koyixog, reasonable,
or intelligent.
Athenagoras, however, as appears from this very

ARCHDEACON OF ST'. ALBAn's. 271
passage, the beginning of which I quoted, was very far
from having a notion of three distinct persons in the
trinity. For though he thought, with Justin Martyr,
that the logos, frora the time of his generation, assumed
a permanent personality, the holy spirit did not, but
was like a beajm of ihe sun, sometimes emitted frora the
Father, and sometiraes drawn into hira again, .agreeably
to the phUosophy,of those tiraes concerning the sun
and his light. This was also the kind of persona] ex
istence that Justin Martyr said that sorae persons In his
tirae ascribed tothe Son, and which was also said to
have been the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra.
You say, p. 123, that " Tertullian, to prevent the
very conclusion which you draw frora this analogy, that
the logos was at sorae tirae or another a riiere attribute,
reraarks that nothing empty or unsubstantial can pro
ceed from God. For the divine nature admitting neither
quality nor accident, every thing belonging to it raust
be substance." " This arguraent," you add, " is ably
stated In the Dialogues of the learned Dr. LesUe."
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 saying that, after the emission of
the logos, the original divine mind was not destitute of
logos f Did they not mean that he was not destitute of
reason, or understanding ? Is there not then necessarily
Implied an identity of nature between the logos emitted,
and logos retained ?. Does It not follow from hence,
and frora Its being said that the Father was still Kc-
yinqg, rational, that they were both originally what
we call reason P Nay, do not some of the fathers
compare the emission of the logos from God to the

272 LETTERS TO THE
ernission of reason from man, in discoursing with one
another ?
You say, for it is you that say this (I have met with
nothing so yery absurd in Tertullian), that. " the divine
nature admitting neither quality nor accldept, every
thing belonging to It must be substance.". The divine
being then has no properties, no attributes, no per
fections 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? In all my
reading I do not • reraeraber to have met with any ab
surdity equal to this, except your own peculiar conceit,
that " one mind can beget another by the contempla
tion of its perfections" (now called substances) a notion
which you ascribe 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 justly observe, a progress in ab
surdity, as well as In truth.
Laetantius, you acknowledge, expresses hiraself
clearly enough according to my idea of this subject,
but you dispose of his orthodoxy, as ypu did of Origen's
veracity. You boldly deny It. This, indeed, is a very
compendious method of answering rae. But, Sir, the
questioa Is not whom' you are noiv pleased to call or
thodox, but who was deeraed to be so In the age in
which he Hved. Now I challenge you to prove that any
writer of the age of Laetantius considered hira as hete
rodox. Indeed It was very unlikely that the raan 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.

ARCHDEACON OP ST. ALBAn's, 273
p. 1 29, that " he ascribed a beginning tp the existencie
of the eternal Father. No wonder then," you add,
" that he should ascribe a beginning to the Son's ex^
istence. You are welcorae. Sir/' you say, " to any
advantage you raay be able to derive from the autho
rity of such a writer." Laetantius, however, candidly
construed, may perhaps be said only to have used an
iraproper 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 you ascribe to him. He advances this In proof
of his general maxim. Nee enim potest, ut ab ullo esse
generatus, 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 beginning, the maker
could have none ; and who was the 'maker' in this case
but God himself ? The terra self-existent is in fact (as
will appear If It be analysed) equally iraproper ; for It
implies that God Is the cause of his own existence.
For this reason, some who wish to speak with exact
ness avoid that terra, and rather say that God is eter
nal ; But they do not tax those who use the word self-
existent with really believing that God had a begin
ning. Whatever mistakes Laetantius may be supposed to
have made as a metaphysician. It does not appear that
in his own tirae he was charged with any; and they
might have been as little noticed still If he had been a
sound divine ; and though you suppose that he ascribed
a beginning to the eternal Father, yet. If you had
found that from the raoraent of the Father's existence,
that of the Son had. In his idea, commenced also, you
T

274 LETTERS TO THE
would perhaps have contented yourself with smiling at
his notion, or at least have abated of the severity of
your censure.
Constantine, whora you quote, p. 127, as In your
favour. Is directly iigainst you. Taking your own
words, he says, " the Son was begotten, or rather he
himself came forth, (being even ever in the Father,)
for the setting In order of the things which were made
by him. Here," you say, " the emperor expounds
generation by coming forth." But then. Sir, he does
not say that this generation, or coming forth, was the
sarae thing~wlth the setting in order the things that
w^ere made by him ; but it was evidently soraething
that took place previous to this setting in order, and
with a view to it; so that. this raysterious generation .
preceded what you quaintly call the projection of ener
gies, and was npt the same thing with it.
You still Ukewise confound the doctrine of Arius,
p, 116, with that of the personification of tjie Logos,
than which no two things were more different, having
always been opposed to each other, as you must have
known had you been so weU read as you pretend to
be In the ancient ecclesiastical writers, since a great
proportion of their works. Is occupied in the discussion
of this subject. The Arians maintained that Christ
was a being created out of nothing, as other creatures
were, notwithstanding the vastness 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 exist. Both these propositions were denied by
the orthodox of that age, who maintained that Christ
was not made out of nothing, for that he was the Lo-

ARcttbEACON OF ST. alban's. 275
gos, the wisdom, the power, &c, df the Father, and
that he had alvrays existed in the Father, as reason
does in man, though his personality was by some sup
posed to have coraraenced in time. You raust give rae
leave to say you are but Uttle acquainted with the prin
ciples even of platonism, and .especially those of the
later platonists, frora whdra the christian fathers raore
iraraediately derived their notions. If you are not able
to enter into this idea.
This personification, or the coraraenceraent of an
actual personality of what was an attribute of God, is
a strange idea ; but, strange as it Is, it nevertheless ac
tually took place in the rainds of thousands, and was
in truth all the orthodoxy of the earlier ages. This
incipient orthodoxy grew immediately out of platonism,
and Is certainly absurd enough. The orthodoxy of the
later ages and pf the present grew out of that, and Is
infinitely more absurd. Their doctrine was mere non
sense, yours the plainest of all contradictions, as I shall
clearly show in my next letter.
" What difference there may be," you say, p, 118,
" between a making out of nothing, and the conversion
of a mere attribute Into a substance, or how a person
made out of an attribute may differ frora a person raade
out of nothing, 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 rauch raore than It does me ;
for, absurd as the notion is, it certainly prepared the
way for the still more absurd notion of three equal di
vine persons in one godhead.
I am, &c.

T 2

276 LETTERS TO THE
LETTER XIIL
Considerations relating to tke Doctrine of tke Trinity,
Rev, Sir,
1 OWN I was particularly desirous of hearing what
you could possibly say on the subject of my seventh
letter, m. which I advanced some general considera
tions relating to the doctrine of the trinity ; but, un
fortunately, you " content yourself," p. 1 36, " with
giving only a general reply to some parts of that letter.
A particular answer," you say, " to the several objec
tions which it contains would lead me into metaphysical
disquisitions, which I wish to decline, because in that
subject I foresee that we should want common prin-
ciples-and a common language."
Now I make no doubt. Sir, but that if It had been
possible for you to have given- any plausible answer to
the difficulties started in that letter, you would have
found some principle, comraon or uncoramon, on
which to found it, and some language also, which
might have been intelligible to me and your readers.
But as you profess that you do not expect to convince
me, it would have been quite sufiicient for your pur
pose if you could have found comraon principles and
common language for others.
I ara the more concerned at your silence, as, I was in
hopes of having some further account of your own pe
culiar notion of the necessary origin of ihe Son from
the Father's contemplation of his own perfections ;
but to my great mortification I find not one gleam of
raore light on thii curious subject. You said that this

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 277
doctrine was agreeable to the notions of all the fathers,
as well as to the sacred writers, and I challenged you
to produce any authority for it, except what exists in
your own imagination. In my opinion, nothing can be
conceived raore absurd than the Idea of the necessary
production of an intelUgent being, possessed of actual
substantial personality, equal in all respects to the ori
ginal intelligent being, from the mere self-contempla
tion of that original being's perfections, I said that
nothing in the Jewish Cabbala could be more absurd.
You intimate, p, 1 49, that I may know but little of the
Jewish Cabbala; but for my purpose It Is quite enough,
that it is a known proverbial expression to denote the
extreme of absurdity ; and if so, 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
soon learn enough frora Basnage,) the phrase could
not be raisapplled *.
I find, however, a few other things on the subject of
that letter which are curious enough ; so that, for the
arauseraent, if not the Instruction of ray readers, I
shall raake some observations on thera.
* The learned Prelate, in thefourth Disquisition annexed to the
edition of his Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley, has laboured
much, not indeed to defend the mysterious doctrine of the Son's ge
neration from the Father's contemplation of his own perfections, but
to prove that he was not himself the inventor of the sublime mystery i
In his appeal to the writings of the fathers the Bishop totally fails :
nor does he succeed much better in those qf the schoolmen. Thefrst
plain example cf this curious doctrine is found in a treatise 'published
under the sanction of the Council of Trent, entitled " Catechismus
ad Parochos," in ivhich " the true believer is exhorted to pray that
he may be thought worthy to be allowed to see what that wonderful
fecundit-y of God the Father is, that, contemplating and exerting his
intelligence upon himself, he should beget a son, the exact counter
part and equal of himself." Melanchthon appears to have entertained
the same extravagant notion, and Zanchius reproves it. At any rate
it is sufficiently apparent- that the honour of the invention does not
appertain to Bishop Horsley," — Ed,

278 LETTERS TO THE
^ I.
In the first place,, I still think that yoU yourself are
not perfectly orthodox ; for besides your virtual dis.
approbation of the damnatory clause in the Athanasian
creed, p. 1 65, you aUow a real superiority in the Fa
ther. " If," you say, p. 1 45, " frora such expressions
as my Father is greater tkan I, you would be content
to infer that the Almighty Father is indeed the foun
tain and the center of divinity, and that the equality of
godhead is to be understood wiih some mysterious sub
ordination of the Son to the Father, you would have
the concurrence of the ancient fathers, and of the ad
vocates of the true faith in .all ages." But give me
leave to say, that any proper subordination, myste
rious or not mysterious, implies inferiority, and is an
infringement of the doctrine of the perfect equality of
the three persons ; so that it cannot be, as your creed
says, no7ie is afore or after anotker. You say, p. 149,
" I maintain the equality of the three persons In all the
attributes of the divine nature. I maintain their equa
lity in rank and authority with respect to all created
things, whatever relations or differences may subsist
between themselves." But their equal superiority to
all created beings is no proof at all of any proper equa
lity araong themselves. If so, all men would be equal
among themselves, because all raen are superior to
brutes. Your notion of a real subordination, which raust
iraply inferiority, and indeed imperfection, in any of
the persons in the trinity, is certajnly not the orthodoxy
that took place after the council of Nice, and that pf
the Athanasian creed.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 279
II.
I now corae to soraething still raore extraordinary.
" I maintain," you say, p, 148, "that the three per
sons are one being — I raalntain that each person by
himself is God ; because each possesses fully every at
tribute of the divine nature." Then, Sir, I assert, that
you maintain as palpable a contradiction as It Is In the
power of man to form an idea of. The terra being
raay 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 raay be referred,
were manifestly absurd ; and therefore when you say,
that " each of these persons is by himself God," you
raust mean, and in effect say, that the Father separately
considered, has a being, that the Son likewise, sepa
rately considered, has his being, arid likewise that the
Holy Spirit, separately considered, has his being. Now,
Sir, If you wiU be pleased to count thera up, ypu will
find that you have got three beings as -well as tkree
persons, and what can these three beings be but tkree
Gods, without supposing that there are " three co-or
dinate persons, or three Fathers, three Sons, or three
Holy Ghosts." If you like an algebraic expression
better than this, it will stand thus, 1 -f- 1 -{-1=3, Have
the courage then. Sir, to speak out, and say what you
must mean, if you have any meaning, at all, that you
worship three Gods.
But you say, p, 148, that " these three persons are
all Included In the very idea of a God, and that for
that reason, as weU as for the identity of the attributes
In each, it were impious and absurd to say that there

280 LETTERS TO THE
are three Gpds." If there be any foundation for this
remark, It raust be Irapossible for any man to have an
. idea of a God without having at the sarae tirae an idea
of these three persons ; and then either there cannot
be any such thing as an unitarian, denying these three
persons in the godhead, or else all unitarians are In
fact atheists, having no idea of any God at all.
As you seem to have bewildered yourself very much
upon the subject-of three persons and one God, I shaU
enter a little further into the metaphysical analysis of
it. By the words being, 'substance, substratum, &c.
we can mean nothing more 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 dis
course, all the discrimination of things depending upon
their peculiar properties. Sp that whenever the pro
perties differ, we say that there is a corresponding dif
ference in the things, beings, or substances themselves.
Consequently, if the Father, Son, and Spirit differ in
any respect, so as to have dififerent 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 iden
tity of attributes in each of thera, so that, being con
sidered one after the other, no difference could be per
ceived even In idea, as raay be supposed to be the case
of three men, who should perfectly reserable one an
other In all external and internal properties ; and sup
posing, raoreover, that there should be a perfect coin
cidence in all their thoughts and actions ; though there

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 281
might be a perfect harmony among them, and this raight
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. l45, they had
" the raost perfect Identity of nature, the raost entire
unity of will, and consent of intellect, and an Incessant
co-operation in the exertion of common powers, to a
comraon 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 understanding these mo
dern metaphysics. But though I suppose I have left
you far behind (perhaps gone to look into Plato, to see
what he says on the subject) I shall proceed without
you, and give the modern reader my opinion with re
spect to the proper and only intelligible use of the word
person. The term being, as I have observed, raay be predi
cated of every thing, without distinction ; but the term
person Is liraited to intelligent beings. Three men,
therefore, are not only three beings, but likewise three
persons ; the former Is the genus, and the latter the
species. But a person Is not less a being on this ac
count ; for each man may be said to be a being, as well
as a person. Consequently, though the word person
be properly applied to each of' the three component
parts of your trinity, yet as person is a species, com
prehended under the genus being, they must be ihree
beings, as well as tkree persons.
While you, Sir, are either absent, or wondering at

282 LETTERS TO THE
these novelties, I proceed to observe, that the terra God
is a subdivision under the term person ; because we de
fine God, to be an intelligent being possessed of all
possible perfections. Consequently, If the Father, Son,
and Spirit, be each of thera possessed of all possible
perfections^ which you do not deny, they are each of
them a person, each of them a being, and each of thera
a God ; and what is this but making ihree Gods ?
Avoid this conclusion from these principles, or assume
other principles more just and natural, if you can.
These, Sir, if you be within hearing at all, are such
metaphysics as you might have learned frora- Mr, Locke
if you had not been, unfortunately for yourself and ypur
flock, poring so long over the Parraenides. You will
probably object to ray definition of the word person, as
applied to the doctrine of the trinity; but if you give
any other definition, I will venture to assert, that you
might as well say, that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are
three Abracadabra's as three persons. .They will be
equally words without meaning.*
Athanasius, and many of the ancient fathers, ' after
the council of Nice, becarae absolute tritheists on this
principle, believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are
no otherwise one, than as three particular raen may be
considered as one. Athanasius, considering this very
difficulty, says, " since the Father Is called God, the
Son God, 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 dignity is
likewise common*." And he iUustrates this, by God's
* Kai Kws prjri Svvarai XeyerSai o itarrjp Beos, ^ai o mos ^sos,
Kat ro itvevii.x ro dyiov Beos, kxi ov rpeis etrt Beoi^ oitov koivx ra
rr/s (pvrews, koivov kxi ovo/Aa rrjs a^ias. De' Communi Essentia,
Opera, vol, i, p, 213.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 283
calHng the whole human race by the name of man, in
the singular number, and by MoSes's speaking of the
horse and the hor.<ieman being drowned iri the Red Sea,
when in fact, great numbers of each sort were intended.
" If this," says he, " be the case with respect to raen,
who differ so rauch as they do from each other, so that
all men may be called one man, rauch more may we
call the trinity one God, when their dignity Is undivided,
they have one kingdora, one power, wUl, and energy,
which distinguishes the trinity from created things*."
1 am far frora saying that Athanasius is consistent
with hiraself 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 unbegotten Father, the
sole fountain of deity, &c. but this representation oc
curs In many of the fathers, and in ray larger history
I shall show to what a variety of other miserable sub
terfuges the orthodox were driven to raalntain the unity
of their trinity.
In the dialogue against the Macedonians, written after
the age of Athanasius, the orthodox' speaker is repre
sented as saying, " as Paul, Peter, and Timothy, are of
one naturp, and thr^e hypostases ; so I say, the Father, ,
Son, and Holy Spirit, are three hypostases, and one
nature t."
You say, p. 5, " The opinion of three persons in
the godhead, unrelated to each other, and distinct In
all respects, is rank tritheism ; because what are un-
* Ala ro KOIVOV ri)f (pvrews itarxrj oiKovit.svrj sis av&puiitos ekAijAi),
oKov Se ai^epirros ij x^ta, [Lia fixriXeia, p.ix Svvxfj.is, kxi ^ovXrj kxi
evspysix, iSia^ovrx rrjv rptaSa aito rrjs Ktia-ews, evx Xeyw &«ov. De
Gommuni Essentia, Opera, vol. i. p. 214.
f '£lri(e§ IIxvXos, kxi Herpos, kxi Tif^o^sos, <pvrsws /.waj sirt
KXI rpsis vitorrxrsis, ovrws Harepa, Kat 'Tioi', Kai 'Ayiov nysojAa,
rpsis VTtorrarsts Xsyw, kxi jjlixv ^vriy. Opera, vol. ii. p. 269.

284 LETTERS TO THE
related, and distinct In all respects, are many In all re
spects ; and beirig n^ny in all respects, cannot in any
respect be one." But ^o relation, ler it, be ever so inti
mate, can remove their numerical difference. Let three
men be connected In any manner that you can iraagine,
they can only be one, as partaking of the same-nature,
and therefore, though they resemble one another ever so
much, they can only be said to be similar in all respects ;
but still they wUl be numerically three. In like man
ner, suppose any relations you please, known or un
known, between the three persons to whoih the title
of God equally belongs, they will no more make one
God, than three related men can make one raan, but
must be numerically three Gods. Councils and Synods,
kings and houses of parliament, may decree that three
are one, and archdeacons may defend the doctrine, but
rairacles cannot prove it. As you and your friends s^y
with respect to some late proceedings In the Royal So
ciety, " Two and two ever will he 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 trinity was not
-derived frora reason or the scriptures, but frora Plato,
" I then set rayself," you say, p. 163, " to consider
whether I knew enough of the divine uniii/ to pro
nounce the trinity an infringement oi It. Upon this
point the platonists, whose acquaintance I now began
to cultivate, soon- brought me to a right mind,"
They did the same good office for Austin before you,
and I fear they are still doing the same for others, not
withstanding the cautions given us in the scriptures
against the mixture of vain and absurd philosophy with
Christianity. You kindly advise me to take the same

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 285
course. " If," you say, p, 142, " 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 anywhere, that a raan's eyes are
likely to be opened to his own ignorance," But, Sir,
what raust they do who cannot read the Parmenides ?
I suppose they must go without the doctrine of the tri
nity, and like the lower order of christians in the tirae
of Origen, be content with the corporeal gospel, the
plain doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified. But
with this the apostle Paul was contented, and so ara I.
I have, however, read the Parmenides ; and though
I expect you will exult over me as usual, calHng me,
p. 15, a child in platonism, and say, that " I cannot
apprehend a platonic notion when ii is clearly set be
fore me," p, 124, I have no scruple to declare, that I
was not able to get one ray of good sense frora the
whole of it ; I should even think the extracting of
sun-bearas frora cucumbers the more hopeful project
of the two. And so far ara I frora 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 confounded, let him read the Par
menides*. I shall say the same .with respect to almost
all the metaphysics of the ancients ; and it Is very pos
sible that I may have given as much attention to these
* Among other mysteries, as Mr. Sydenham calls them, of the
Parmenides, Plato, after showing that littleness cannot belong either
to the whole or the pari of any thing, concludes, that" nothing is
little but littleness itself," ovSs n sen rfj^iKpov irXrjv avrrjs rrjs rpn-
•itpw^ros. It would be no bad parody on this to. say. Nothing is
nonsensical but nonsense itself j and this nonsense (if it can exist
in the abstract) is in the Parmenides.

286 LETTERS TO THE
things as you have done, though I have not been so
ostentatious 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 Parraenides raay do very well by way
of preparation for 'that of the doctrine of the trinity*. '
III.
Perhaps the most extraordinary part of your whole
performance Is what you say of the mysteriousness of
the doctrine ofthe divine unity, and of the unitarians
having nothing to plead for theraselves but single texts
of scripture. Interpreted in a figurative raanner. " 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 uni
verse, In this view of the scripture doctrine, was con
veyed entire 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 ca
tholic faith."
In reading this and other passages in your Letters, I
cannot help admiring your, talent Pf lessening the dif
ficulties of your own scheme, and magnifying those of
others. If you use the same telescope, you certainly
turn different ends to different objects.
Pray, Sir, what Socinian ever raaintained that," the
divine attribute wisdom, in the degree which was equal
* If Plato's school has this talismanic power of opening a man's
eyes to his own ignorance, I would adyise Dr. Hotsley to continue
in it a while longer ; for this is a branch of science in which be
has yet something to learn. Nor will it be amiss if he take his
good a'nd able ally along with him ; though, ag it will lessen his
presumption, it may hurt him as a Reviewer, which, no doubt,
ought to he considered.

ARCHDEACON OF ST- ALBAn's, 287
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 interpretation of the
logos (as meaning the divine attribute wisdom) is, that
a portion only of the same wisdom that formed the
universe was communicated to Christ, a portion suffi
cient to enable him to do what he actually did, arid to
say what he actually said. The Socinians do not be
lieve 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 su
spected any difficulty In God's making man the Instru-
raent 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 ofthe rairacles which
attended the release of the Israelites from Egyptian
bondage, and their passage through the wilderness,
Moses was the Immediate or ostensible agent, but the
power was of God ; and yet this was no proper in
fusing of the divine power into Moses. The power
was StUl the incommunicable attribute of the Divine
Being. Accordingly, Jesus says, that it was not him
self, but the Father within him, or acting by him, that
did the works ; and that the word's ivhich he spake were
not his own. Moreover, he says of the aplastics, that
they should do greater things than he himself had
done.. From' this, then, you ought to conclude, that
the divine attributes of wisdora and power were con
veyed entire into the rainds of the apostles, or even
that they were Gods superior to Christ, Such reason
ing as this I haye hardly patience to refute. But
surely you cannot be serious In saying that this diffi-
cuhy in the Socinian scheme Is equal to that of three

288 LETTERS TO THE
persons in one God In the Athanasian trinity, or to that
in your own account of the Platonic trinity.
But perhaps the raost 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 manner," you say, p. 141, " Be pleased,
Sir, to produce one of the many;" raeaning evidently,
that there is no such passage; and p. 17, you add,
" the unitarians themselves pretend not that their doc
trine is to be found ih the plain literal sense of holy
writ. On the contrary, they take the greatest pains to
explain away the Uteral meaning."
Now, Sir, If you had really read any unitarian trea
tise at all, you must have known that this representa
tion 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 plain literal sense of scrip
ture is in our favour; that they are only /JoriztM/ar
texts, and those Ill-understood, that you avail your
selves of; and we say that there is no difficulty In in
terpreting even those texts in perfect consistency with
the unitarian doctrine. If the true Idiom of the lan
guage be considered.
You complain of my not reading, but only looking
through authors. But surely you cannot have even
looked through the very Letters of mine that you are
professedly replying to. Let me therefore bring again
before your view a paragraph or two In those letters,
which, as far as pretension^ go, directly contradict your
confident assertion. See p. 90, where you will find as
follows : " I wUl venture to say, that for one text in
which you can pretend to find any thing harsh or dif-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 289
ficult to me, I win engage to produce ten that shall
create more difficulty to you. How strangely must
you torture the plainest language, 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 be
tween God and man, ihe man Christ Jesus ; 1 Cor.
viu. 6, To us there is but one God, ihe Father, of
_whom are all tkings, and we in kim, and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him^
or that expression of our Sa,viour hiraself, Jphn xvu, 2,
That they might know thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Never upbraid us
unitarians with torturing the scriptures, while you have
these and a hundred other plain texts to strain at, and
to bend to your Athanasian hypothesis ; besides raany
general arguments, from reason and the scriptures, of
raore real force than any particular texts, to answer."
This, Sir, was certainly answering your challenge to
produce one plain text in favour of the unitarlari doc
trine before it was thrown out, I appeal to yourself
for the obvious sense of the passages I have now re
cited ; and you say, p. 23, " It is a principle with me,
that the true sense of any phrase In the New Testaraent
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 small piece I lately pub
lished, entitled A general View of the Arguraents for
* It is remarkable that the orthodox, even after the council of
Nice, complained of the advantage which the unitarians had in ap
pealing to the literal sense of the scriptures. " If," says Gregory
Nyssen, " a man rests in the bare letter, so far he judaizes in opi
nion, and has pot learned that a christian is not the disciple of the
letter, but of the spirit j for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
U

290 LETTERS TO THE
the Unity of God, and against the Divinity and Pre
existence of Christ, frora Reason, frora the Scriptures^
and from History, which you seem to have seen, as
you refer to my twopenny pamphlets, for this is sold
for two-pence. There you will find, not only that So
cinians pretend to have, the clear sense of scripture In
their favour, but raariy of those passages, expressive of
that clear sense, produced. I there observe, p. 10, that
" tho scriptures contain the clearest and the most ex
press declarations that there is but one God, without
ever raentioning any exception in favour of a trinityj or
guarding us against being led into any mistake by such
general and unlimited- expressloris." And If this lan
guage, as you suppose, always respected the multipli
city of gods among the heathens, why is this one God
in the New Testaraent always called the Father, and
even the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ f
and why are we no where told that this ofte God is the
trinity, consisting of the Father, the Son, and tke
Holy Ghost ? This, Sir, Is the language of your litany
only. The Bible used in our conventicles contains no
such barbarous jargon,
I would also recomraend to your perusal another
paraphlet of mine, called An Appeal to the serious and
candid Professors of Christianity, of which more than
life." QvKovy, st vJ'iXu; itapafievei rw ypaii.^art, kxi Kara rovro ro
fjkspos lovSai^et rri yvwiJ.'ri,KXi ovuw itsiraiSevrxi on ov')Q ypai^i/.aros
ern Kpirnavos f^aO^jri;;, aXXx iivevp.aros'._ ro yap ypxu.i/,x, (prjffiv,
xKeKretvet, ro Se iivev^x ^woisoisi. Contra Eunoraium Oratio xvi.
Opera, vol. ii. p. 341.
It is to be bbservedj that hy judaizing was meant adopting the
doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. For the ancient uni
tarians were commonly compared by the orthodox to Jews, and
the Arians to Gentiles, as worshippers of two Gods, the Ariah lo
gos not being of the same substance with the Father; and therefore
a maker ofthe world, or a'God, quite distinct froiii him.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 291
ten thousand have been sold for a penny each ; and of
this I have lately published a new edition, and have an
nexed to It the reraarkable Trial of Mr. Elwall, of
Wolverhampton, in this neighbourhood, for his publi
cations in defence of the Socinian doctrine. These
sraall publications of raine have, I trust, done rauch
good, though you will call it much mischief, in this
country ; and I rejoice In perceiving the increase of
this good or this mischief every day ; and I have no
doubt of the successful spread of reUgious truth by
raeans of these publications, notwithstanding all you
can do to counteract thera, as you boast, by raeans of
the Monthly Review. IV.
In one thing I ara glad to find that you and I enter
tain the same opinion, which Is, that there is no rae-
dluni between adraitting the siraple huraanity of Christ,
and that he is properly God. " Having once ad
mitted," you say, p. 162, " his pre-existence in an ex
alted state, I saw the necessity of- placing him at the
head of the creation. Being thus convinced that our
Lord Jesus Christ is Indeed the maker of all things, I
found that I could not rest satisfied with 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 coiild have little opinion of the truth
of a principle which seemed so big with mischief."
You also observe, very justly, p. 137, " Canany
power or vrisdom less than the suprerae be a sufficient
ground for the trust we are required to place In provi
dence ? Make the wisdora and the power of our ruler
what you please, still, upon the Arian principle. It is
u 2

292 LETTERS TO THE
the wisdom and the power of a creature. Where theii
will be the certainty that the evil which we find in the
world has not crept In through some imperfection in
the original contrivance, or in the present manage
ment; since every intellect below the first may be
Hable to error, and any power short of the supreme
may be inadequate to purposes of a certain magnitude ?
But if evil raay have crept In thus, what assurance can
we have that it will ever be extirpated ?"
But if there be no proper mediura between the Atha
nasian and the Socinian scherae, which I readily adrait,
I also maintain that there Is no medium at all between
the Socinian doctrine and an absolute contradiction,
for such Athariasianism Is ; so that there Is no resource ,
biit in the Socinian doctrine, oppose It as much as you
will. I am, &c.

LETTER XIV.
Of Prayer to Christ.
Rev. Sir,
xlAviNG got three persons, all of thera possessed of
all divine perfections, all of them having Intercourse
with mankind, and consequently all of them naturally
qbjects of prayer, I do not wonder that you appear to
be a little embarrassed In your Ideas of what Is proper
to be done with respect to each of them, indlyldually
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 seem to make the assertion,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 293
in prejudice and exdusion 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.
Tbere is also an honour personally due to the Son, as
the Son, and to the Spirit as the Spirit, but our know
ledge of the personal distinctions Is so obscure. In
comparison of our apprehension of the general attrl
butes of the godhead, that it should seem that tke di
vinity (the TO Baiov) Is rather to be generally worshipped
In the three persons jointly, and indifferently, than that
any distinct honours are to be offered to each sepa
rately. Prayer, however, for succour against external
persecution, seems addressed with particular propriety
to the Son."
Now, Sir, as this is a thing that relates to practice,
I should have imagined that, if each of the three per
sons had been to be addressed separately, we should
have been distinctly informed concerning the tircum-
stances in which we were to pray to one of them, and
not to the others ; considering how difficult it must be,
from the nature of the thing, for raere raen to di
stinguish the separate rights of tkree divine persons.
That you yourself have raade sorae mistake in this
business, will not, I think, be difficult to show. In
order to this, let us consider how your supposition or
theory, corresponds to the fact. For if It be not sup
ported by corresponding facts, how ingenious or pro
bable soever It may seem to be, a priori, it raust fall
tothe 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

294 LETTERS TO THE
what directions they gave, and also what tbey them
selves actually did In this case.
The apostle James, writing to christians In a state of
persecution, says, ch, I, 2. &c. My Tirethren count it
all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, or trials,
&c. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God,
You will hardly say that in this he advises them to apply
td Christ, or to the trinity, for direction In these cir
cumstances. If you do, I will venture to assert, that
your hypothesis has no countenance either in the scrip
tures, or in any christian writer before the council of
Nice. For they all understood the Father alone to
be intended wheaever mention is made of God abso
lutely. Peter, writing to christians in the same situation, says,
1 Pet. iv. 1 9, wherefore let theni that suffer according
to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to
him in well doing, as unto a faithful creator. This is
certainly raeant of God the Father ; but raore evidently
must we so interpret, 1 Pet. v, 10, The God of all
grace, who has called us into his eternal glory by
Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make
you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you. I do not
find here, or any vvhere else in the scriptures, any di
rection to pray to Christ in time of persecution, or in
deed, in any other circumstances.
Let us now attend to some particulars In the history
of the apostles. When Herod had put to death James,
the brother of John, and imprisoned Peter, we re^d,
Acts xu. 5, that prayer was made without ceasing of
the church to God, not to Christ, for Mm. When Paul
and- Silas were In prison at PhiHppi, we read. Acts xvi.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 295
25, that they sung praises to God, not to Christ. And
when Paul was warned of what would befal him if he
went to Jerusalera, Acts xxi. 14, he said, the will of
the Lord be done. This, you must suppose, was raeant
of God the Father, because Christ hiraself used the
same language in this sense, when, in praying to the
Father, he said. Not- my will but thine be done.
These, you raay perhaps say, are only incidental cir
cumstances, on which no great stress is to be laid.
But in Acts vi. 24, &c, we have a prayer of some length
addressed to God the Father, at the very beginning of
the persecution of christians, 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 raay 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 raouth of thy servant David,
hast said. Why did the heathen rage and the people
imagine vain things f The kings of the earth stood up,
and the rulers were gathered 'together, against the
Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against
thy holy child" (or servant) " Jesus whora thou hast
anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered to
gether, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
deterrained before to be done. And now. Lord, behold
their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants, that
with all boldness they may speak thy word, by stretchy
ing forth thy hand to heal ; and that signs and wondiSrs

^96 LETTERS TO THE
may be done by the narae of thy holy child" (or Servant)
" Jesus." We have now examined sorae particulars both of the
instructions, and the examples of scripture, whh 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 hiraself prayed in his affliction ; and If
we be not authorized to pray to Christ in time of per
secution, there is, by your own acknowledgement, 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 stake, ready to be
burned alive. Now this prayer, which is a pretty re-^
markable 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
hira. - The prayer begins as follows : " O Lord, God
Almighty, the Father of thy well-beloved and blessed
Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the know
ledge of thee, the God of angels and powers, and of
every creature, and especially of the whole race of just
men," &c.
You see then, Sir, how greatly you have been misled
by your speculative tkeology, by your attention to par
ticular texts, single incidents, and Imaginary proprie
ties, without attending to the general tenor of scripture,
the plain directions that are there given for our con
duct, and the constant practice of the apostles, which
supply the best interpretation of their doctrine. To
conclude, as you have done from the single case of

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 29
Stephen, that all christians are authorized to pray to
Christ, is like concluding that all matter has a ten
dency 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 Stephen, having your
mind strongly impressed with a vision of Christ sitting
at the right-hand of God, you may then, perhaps, be
authorized 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 XV,

Of the Unitarian Principles witk respect to Maho
metanism and Infidelity.
Rev. Sir,
We are not, I hope, to judge of your acquaintance
with the opinions of the ancients (which we have dig
nified with the name of learning) 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, Sir, you cer
tainly have no choice but of the grossest ignorance,
and consequently presumption, or the most perverse
and wilful of all misrepresentations. Your Ignorance
pf the state of the dissenters, of which a sufficient spe
cimen has been given, shows that you are far from
being at home even In your own country ; but the ac
count you give in your sixteenth letter, of the prin^

298 LETTERS TO THE
ciples of the unitarians, and the relation they bear to
those of unbelievers, is such as can hardly be accpunted
for frora raere ignorance. I fear it has a worse origm.
I hope I shall not be thought uncandid ; but I cannot
put any favourable construction upon your insinuations
on this subjeet.
You say, p, 151, " the whole difference between
you and them" (that is, between the unitarians and
Mahometans) " seems very inconsiderable. The true
mussulman believes as much, or rather more, of Chris?
than the unitarian requires to be believed ; and though
' the unitarians "have not yet recognized the divine mis
sion of Mahoraet, there is good ground to think they
will not long stand out. In unitarian writings of the
last century, it is allowed of Mahoraet that he had no
other design than to restore the belief of the unity of
God.-  Of his religion, that It Was not raeant for a
new religion, but for a restitution of the true intent bf
. the christian.  Of the great prevalence of the Ma-
horaetan religion, that it has been owing not to force
and the sword, but to that one truth contained In the
Alcoran, the unity of God, With these friendly dis
positions towards each other. It should seem that the
Mahometan and unitarian raight easily be brought to
agree." Now all these propositions which you have laid
down as certain facts, are so highly iraprobable In
theraselves, that few persons, perhaps, will believe that
you can be serious In advancing them; and I shall
think rayself at liberty to treat thera as groundless ca
lumnies till you shall produce sorae authority or evi
dence for thera. For the state of things, as they now
are, and which ought to be known to you, gives not

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 299
the least colour of plausibility to them. If the diffe
rence between the unitarians and the Mahometans be
so 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 it, and actually turned mussul-
mans ? I think It is possible that, notwithstanding the
extensive reading of which you give us so many inti
mations, 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 men
tion ; and I think if you could have produced any such
in support of your assertions, you would not have
failed to do It.
You may at any time see what I have said of the
Mahometan religion on several occasions, and also what
other unitarians of the present age have advanced con
cerning 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
approximate towards those of the Mahometans, it
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, con
sider what you have said on this subject as another
specimen of your invention oi facts, and of your un
paralleled effrontery In pubUshing them. In order to
throw an odium upon the unitarians. You might in
deed alraost as well assert that all the unitarians in
England are already so far Mahometans, 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 calumnies, for

SOQ letters to THE
they cannot be called by any softer name. In order to
blacken his adversaries ? And what can we think of
the cause that requires to be thus supported ?
Your curious account of " the negotiation regularly
opened," p. 152, "on the part of the EngHsh unita
rians in the reign of Charles the Second, with the am
bassador of the Emperor of Morocco," for which you
quote Dr. Leslie, was probably an invention of his,
similar to those of yours In these Letters, and calcu
lated to answer a similar purpose. As it is a stale bu
siness, it may be sufficient to give a stale answer to it ;
and therefore, 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 :
" As to your rarity of the address to the Morocco
ambassador, I see not what it amounts to more than a
complaint of the corruption of the christian faith in the
article of one God, which the Mahometans have kept
by consent of all sides. Yet, for as much as I can
learn nothing from any unitarians of any such address
from them, nor do you produce any subscribers names,
I conclude no such address' was ever made by any de
puted frora them, whatever any single person might do.
I suppose you conclude frora the matter oi it that, It
must be from some unitarian, and perhaps so ; yet you
may reraember that so you concluded from the matter
of Dr. Tillotson's sermons, that they, were a Socl-
nlan's." Emlyn's Works, vol. ii. p. 93.
After being represented as having made near ap
proaches to Mahometanisra, I cannot be surprised that
you should seera to Insinuate that I ara an unbeliever
in Christianity. For certainly I can be no. less, If what

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 301
you say, p, 106, be true. " With your notion of In
spiration, 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 acknowledgement for these gross misrepresenta
tions, but the. Public, whom you have Imposed upon,
have a right to demand it qf^'ou.
Your endeavour to show the littie value of Chris
tianity on the unitarian principles, besides showing 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 sober deists, who, re
jecting revelation, acknowledge, however, the obliga
tions of morality, beUeve a providerice and a future re
tribution. The whole difference between thera 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 huraan testimony, &c.
I wish. Sir, you would produce a few of these sober
deists. I think I am acquainted with as many unbe
lievers as you are ; but whatever may have been the
case formerly, I know no such persons at present as
you describe ; i. e. unbelievers who have a serious ex
pectation of a future life. We may see frora fact that
the arguments from reason alone are unable to make
any lasting 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 mmd.
The present state pf things furnishes an abundant

302 letters TO THE
proof that It is by the gospel alone that life and immor
taUty are fully brought to light. This gives the m6st
satisfactory of all evidence of a future, life, such as we
see can really influence the heart and the life ; such as
can controul the strongest passions of the huraan breast,
and give raen a raauifest superiority of rhind'to the
world, and all the pleasures and pains of it.
To Imagine, as you do, that the arguraents for a fu
ture life frora reason alone, that is, frora appearances
in the coramon course of nature, are at all comparable
to the evidence that results frora the gospel history,
and especially frora the death and resurrection of
Christ, (a raan like ourselves, and' therefore the raost
proper pattern of a future universal resurrection,) dis
covers such a want of real discernraent and judgeraent,
and such Ignorance of huraan nature, as I will venture
to say are no where more conspicuous than in these
letters of yours.
Your representation of the doctrine of materialism
as favourable to atheism, only shows your ignorance of
the systera that you wish to expose, as indeed what you
dropped on the subject of ideas, p. 113, sufficientiy
showed before. But upon this I have said so much
(more I suppose than you will ever take the trouble to
read) In ray Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, that
i shall not reply to such trite and idle reasoning as
yours here.
What you say on the subject of the resurrection, li
it has any weight at all, affects the christian doctrine,
as taught by St, Paul. " The hope which you hold
out," you say, p. 156, " ofa resurrection, he" (the
unbeliever) " will tell you Is no hope at aU, even ad
mitting that the evidence of the thing could, upon

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 303
your principles, be mdisputable. 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 corapose when once the present me is
dissipated. I have no recollection of a forraer, and no
concern about a future self."
This raight have been copied from the writings of
the heathen philosophers agairist Christianity. For If,
as I have already intiraated, there be any force in the
objection. It will operate against the doctrine of a re
surrection 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
proper resurrection at all.
Whatever hope of a future life you raay bmld on the
Platonic doctrine of a soul. It is I will venture to say
" universally abandoned by the philosophical unbeUevers
of the present age; and therefore, with respect to
thera, you can never establish any hope pf a future Hfe
at all on any other principles than those purely chris
tian ones which you endeavour to expose ; and what
ever difficulties may attend the consideration of it, they
will all vanish, even to the philosophical mind, before
the certain promise of that great 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 sub
sist, feel, and act when the body is in the grave. And
what I maintain Is, that we must depart from all the

304 LETTERS TO THE
known rules of philosophizing before we can conclude
that any suOh thing belongs to raan.
From the sarae mode of reasoning by which we can
prove that there is an immaterial principle 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 in
animate parts of nature are possessed oi powers or pro
perties, 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 the
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 gravi
tation and the matter of which the earth and the sun
are raade ; and whenever you shall be able to deduce
the powers of a magnet from the other properties of
iron, you may perhaps be able to deduce the powers of
sensation 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 objec-
jectlons 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, including 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 doctrine, which they consider as so palpable an
absurdity and contradiction, as not even miracles can
make credible. I am, &c.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 305

LETTER XVL
Of Bishop Bull's Defence of Damnatory Clauses,
Rev. Sir,
In this Letter I shall exhibit a Curious specimen of
your peculiar mode of controversial writing, and the
advantage you take of the raost trifling oversights in
your opponents.
You gave the highest encoraiums to the works of
Bishop Bull, without any qualification or distinction,
and recomraended them to your clergy, as an InfaUible
guide in every thing relating to the subject of our con
troversy. On this I said, " As you recommend the
writings of Bishop Bull without exception, 1 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 vvhich of Bishop Bull's
treatises I really meant, as what I said sufficiently cha
racterized it. And though he does not mention the
Athanasian creed In, particular, he defends every thing'
that is harsh and severe in the treatment of unitarians
by the orthodox in the primitive times, and particularly
the anathema annexed to the Nicene creed.-
On thissubject, however, you write as follows, p. 1 65;
" Sir, did you write this In your sleep, or is it In a
dream only that I seem to read it ? Bishop Bull's de
fence of the damnatory clause ! From you. Sir, I have
now my first information that Bishop Bull ever wrote

306 LETTERS TO THE
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 recol
lect, any mention of the Athanasian creed. There is
no defence of the damnatory clause in the Sermons and
English Tracts, pubhshed by Mr. Nelson, nor can I
find any such tract mentioned by Mr. Nelson among.
the Bishop's lost works ; for raany sraall pieces, which
it was known he had written, were never found after.
bis death. Where have I mentioned. Sir, with such
high approbation a work whieh I declare I have never
seen, and of which, you will forgive me, if I still doubt
the existence ?"
Notwithstanding this ridiculous parade, which hath
helped to swell out your book, you might just as well
have said, that I never wrote an Answer to your Charge,
merely because I called my work Letters to Dr. Horsley ;
and I will engage, that whatever doubt you might have
had. If you had given an order to any bookseller in
I^ondon in the very words that I used, he would have
sent you the Judicium, &c. i. e. The Judgement of tke
Catholic Ckurck in the three first Centuries, concerning.
tlie Necessity of believing. that our LordJesus Christ
is the true God. Now, Sir, what is implied in the ne
cessity of believing, but the condemnation of those who
do not believe? The whole truth, and the occasion of
all this laraentable outcry Is, that, not having the book-
before me at the time, I said the damnatory clause in
the jithanasian creed, instead of the anathema annex
ed to the Nicene creed, a thing of exactly the same
nature. Besides, from your account, one would imaginethat,
as you declare yoMr*e/^ no lover of damnatory clauses,,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 307
this good bishop, whose writings you so much recom
mend, was no more a friend to thera than yourself, but
that he raight be the raeekest and most candid of all
christians To give a specimen, therefore, of this most
excellent prelate's writings, f shall produce a few pas
sages from the preface of this particular work, from
which a judgement may -be forraed of the object and
spirit ofthe whole.
Giving a reason for this publication, he says, " There
have appeared a few years ago in England many writ
ings of wicked raen who have laboured with all their
might to overturn the capital article of our creed, on
which the hinge of Christianity certainly turns, namely,
concerning the Son of God, born of God the Father
himself before all ages, very God of very Godj by
whora all things were made, who for our salvation was
incarnate, and made raan ; sorae of thera irapudently
defending the Arian, and sorae the Saraosatenian blas-
pheray*."
• He then quotes with approbation, a passage from
Zanchius, in which he calls the writings of the unita
rians idle -ravings, inepta deliria; and afterwards speak
ing of Episcopius and others, who though orthodox
themselves, pleaded for some moderation towards these
erring brethren, he calls it " an attempt to reconcile
Christ and Belial,'' and adds, " These men, professing
to hold and beUeve with the cathohcs (in which I wish
* Prodiere in Anglia nostra, intra paucos abhinc annos, scripta
non pauca hominum nefariorum qui dogma fidei nostrae kv^iw-
ralov, in quo certe christianismi cardo vertitur (defilio nempe dei
ante omnia secula ex ipso deo patre nato, vero deo de vero deo,
per quem omnia condita fuere, nostrae salutis causa incarnato, ho-
miiieque facto) labefactare atque evertere omni ope adnisi sunt;
eorum aliis Arianam, aliis vero Samosatenianani blasphemiam im*
pudentur propugnantibus.'
X 2

^OS LETTERS TO THE
they were sincere j in the truth of the article concerning
the co-essential Son of God, yet do not acknowledge
the necessity of It*." Then, with respect to their main
taining that the christian Fathers had the same modera
tion, he says, " It is throwing the greatest reproach
upon the doctors, bishops, confessors, and raartyrs of
1the best ages; as if in defending the greatest of all the
articles of the christian religion, they were lukewarm,
yea, absolutely cold; — whereas all those churches with
one voice and judgement condemned the Arian and
Socinian doctrine, as a most pernicious and deadly he
resyt." He further says that, as in his former works he had
defended the Nicene creed itself, so in this, " he main
tains and defends the anatkema annexed to it, viz, those
who say 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
siAject to change or alteration, the catholic and apo-.
stoUc church anathematizes J."
He concludes the preface with saying, " This judge-
* Hi homines, cum veritatem articuli de co-assentiali dei filio
cum catholicis se tenere atque credere profiteantur (utinam sincere)
ejusdem tamen necessitatem minime agnoscunt.
f Adeoque consequenter optimorum saeculorum doctoribus, epis
copis, confessoribus, martyribus, gravissimam impo'suerit contume-
liam; quasi scilicet in tutando capite religionis christianae omnium
maximo, tepidi, imo prorsus frigidi fuissent.  -Quam ecclesfae
illae oranes ut haeresin perniciosissimam ac Bxyar-^i^apov consenli-
enti calculo ac judicio damnaverunt.
X In hoc opiisculo ava&si».anr^ov symbolo isto annexum tue-
mur ac defendimus  rovs Ss Xsyovrxs riv itors on ovx, YjV, -mu
icptv yevrj^vat ovk ijv, xai eJ ouk ovrwv syevero, rj e^ krepxs vin-
rrxasws ¦>) ovrtas farKOvras eivai, rj Krtrrov, rj rpenrov, rj xXXoiwroy
rov im rov Beov, nvnvs acafle/^Aaw^eJ ij ^KxhXiKi}- kki xtforroXticn
t>o<,Xr\&ia,

ARCHDE'ACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 309
ment of the universal church of Christ, in all times, all
pious and sober minded persons will reverence ; and
therefore will be upon their guard against, and with
all their souls abhor, the God-denylng heresy of both
the Samosatenians and the Arians *."
I need not, surely, go any further 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 Father, and to his co-essential and co-eternal word,
and Son, for our salvation made incarnate, together
with the Holy Spirit the comforter, be all praise, ho
nour and glory, frora angels and raen, fbr ever and ever,
Araent." Can you read all this. Sir, and not acknowledge that
Bishop Bull was a friend to daranatory clauses ; and If
you be not so yourself, as you say you are not, how
carae you to recoramend the writings of this fiery bishop
so unreservedly as you have done? and indeed, how
can you be a true* mem ber" of that church which gives
Its sanction to these damnatory clauses. Those dara
natory clauses are as much an article of faith in the
church of England, as any of the thirty-nine, and he
that does not bona fide maintain them, ought, in ray
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.
* Hoc judicium ecclesiae Christi universalis omnium temporum
reverebuntur certe pii ac sobrii oranes, adeoque ab apyr/riBtw Sa-
mosatenianorum s'liaul et Arianorum hseresi cavebuut sibi, totoque
animo abhorrebunt.
f Sanctissimae atque individuae trinitati, Deo patri, co-essentiali
et coaeterno verbo ac filio, nostrae salutis causa incarnato, una cuna
Spiritu sancto paracleto, ab angelis et hominibus tribuatur laus^
'honos, ct gloria omnis in secula seculorum. Amen.

310 letters to THE
If you cannpt say amen to this curse, you have no bu
siness where you are, and certainly ought not to pro
nounce it. For this ypur Athanasian creed asserts, and
I suppose no figure was intended by the devout com
poser of it.
The first time that Bishop Bull's writings were re
comraended to rae, was by a popish priest, in whose
conipany I passed several days at Brussels, who took
serious pains to make rae a Roman catholic, and .after
wards wrote to me very earnestiy 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.
Alban's. I am, &c.

LETTER XVII.

Of the Light in which thd Dissenters are considered
by the .Arckdeacon of St. Alban's, and of the Pe-
' nalties to which ihe Unitarians among them are
subject. Rev. Sir,
JL HOUGH you profess yourself tP be no lover of dam*
natory clauses, p. 165, and now and then are pleased
to drop some obliging expressions of respect for dissen
ters, it is, however, with a considerable mixture of con.
tempt, and with an intimation that we unitarian dissen
ters (and all unitarians, we both agree, either are, or
ought to be dissenters In this country) are subject to
many palps a^d penalties, as the laws now stand. With

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's. 311
what view you threw out those hints, and so particularly
recite those acts of parliament to the penalties of which
¦we ar"e 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 araong dissentersj
when you called them conventicles. In your present
publication, after something of an apology for using
that word, which I think aukward enough, you do not
perhaps rauch mend the matter, by saying, p. 167,
" I could have wished that the use of It had been con
sidered as one of the mere archaisms of my style. In
which nothing of insult was intended. I must, how
ever, declare, that it would give me particular pleasure
to receive conviction that Mr. Lindsey's Meeting-house,
and your own, are not raore emphatically conventicles
in your own sense, that is,, in the worst sense of the
word. From personal respect for you and him, Ishould
¦be happy to be assured that you stand not within the
danger of the 35th of E'Uz. ch. I., or the 17th Ch, II.
.c. n., to the penalties of which, and of other statutes, I
*must take the liberty to tell you, you are obnoxious,
notwithstandipg the late act of the 1 9th of his present
Majesty in favour of dissenters, unless at the general or
quarter sessions of the peace for the county where you
live, you have made a certain .declaration, which is re-
¦quired by that act, instead of the subscription to articles
required by the former acts of toleration. I am sorry.
Sir, toinform 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 same Inquiry concerning you (which
the distance of your residence prevents) I fear I should

312 LETTERS TO THE
have the mortification to find that you have no more
than your friend complied with the laws frora which
you claim protection, ' A report prevails that you both
object to the declaration from conscientious scruples, a
very sufficient excuse for not making it : but no excuse
at all fpr doing what the law allows not to be done, ex
cept upon the express condition that the declaration be
previously raade."
You afterwards say, p. 169, " your meeting-house
andhis, contrary to your imagination, are illegal, un-
knov/n to the laws, and unprotected by them."
Here, Sir, It Is you, and not we, who are mistaken.
Both our conventicles, you wiU find, are protected,
though we ourselves are not. The consequence, there
fore, of any prosecution of me (if any person, taking
the hint from you, should proceed to it) would be the
depriving of the dissenters belonging to the New-Meet
ing at Birmingham of one of their present pastors : but
the Meeting-house would remain under the protection
of the law, as much as any of your parish churches,
which owe all their consideration to the same law ; and
would not prevent their choosing another minister, who,
if he had more caution than myself, might defy your
maUce ; but the congregation that 1 serve, would think
themselves disgraced by a mlrilster of that timid cha^
r.acter, As you were so very desirous of getting information
concerning ray conduct in this business, I wonder that
you should not have been able to find sorae person in
this, neighbourhood like-rainded with yPurself, to make
the Inquiry for ypu. IJowever, I will save you and
your friends that trouble, and perhaps some sraall ex
pense, by informing you, that as I never made the mbv

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN.'s. 613
scription required of all dissenters before the late act,
so neither have I made the declaration which that act
makes necessary to my legal toleration, nor have I at
present any inlention to do it.
I shall further inforra 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 re
sided pretty much in London, I was a member) whether
we should desire our friends In parliament 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 rea
son for my voting In this manner was, I believe, peculiar
to myself. I observed, that I had not, on my own ac
count, any objection to raake 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 bUl passed into a law. But I said that I per
ceived that many persons, for whora I bad the greatest
respect, had their serious scruples, and such as-it was
probable they would not be able to overcorae ; and I
thought that the passing of the law, and especially a
general compliance with It, would make them raore no
ticed, arid perhaps bring thera into trouble; whereas,
the requisitions of the forraer law were so unreasonable,
that though few, if any of us, had compUed with them,
it did not appear that any body would ever molest us
on that account. For the same reason that I did not
then wish for the law to pass, I do not now choose un
necessarily to avail rayself of It.
But with respect to myself, and many others, the
ihing is of little consequence. There are laws enow in

S14 LETTERS TO THE
this country from the penalties of which the '¦ late act
would riot exempt us. In this happy land of religious
liberty and toleration, I ara liable, at any time, and with
out any offence of a civil nature, to have all my goods
confiscated, and to be imprisoned for Hfe. But though
I think these laws most absurd and unreasonable, and
that, as a man who has not disturbed the peace of his
neighbours, I ara entitled to all the rights-of other citi
zens ; so that I neither ought to be molested on account
of my own religion, nor compelled to contribute to the
support of that of another person, any more than to pay
his physician ; I think myself happy, considering how
much more unfriendly to truth civil governments and
civil governors have been, that I am not exposed to all
the difficulties and hazards that the apostles were ex
posed to ; and when I cannot obtain a legal toleration,
I am very thankful for a connivance.
You say, p, 1 68, that " conscientious scruples are no
excuse at all for doing what the law allows not to be
done." In this you totally mistake the ground of ray
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 and again all
that you have to say In defence of your trinitarian no
tions, and trinitarian worship, without any approach to
wards conviction, and yet we think it our duty to make
a piablic profession 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

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 315
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 opposi
tion to you, and Incurring the penalties of the laws
now in force against us, there Is no medium.
If you really be a friend to any thing that deserves
the name of toleration, you must feel for the disgrace
of your country, on account of the unjust and impo-
Htic restraints the laws of it lay upon us, and you will
use your endeavours to proraote the repeal of all pe
nal laws in matters of religion, and likewise to lay
open all civil offices to all persons who are qualified to
fill thera ; 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 expense of it, without compelling us
to assist them in It, while they do nothing for ours in
return, though a thing perfectly reasonable, is more
than I expect the Archdeacon of St. Alban's to coun
tenance. I, however, 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 bf all affairs,
bringing good out of all evil. I therefore believe that
good will finally take place of all evil, and, conse
quently, equity of Injustice.
You Sir, as Archdeacon of St. Alban's, 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 EngUsh language, and can read the book of Com
mon Prayer in the original) will fiow into it. On the
other hand, it is ipy firm persuasion that when Baby
lon ihe great, the mother of harlots, shall faU, all her

316 LETTERS TO THE
daughters, all the little Babylons, all the lesser esta-
iliskments, of what I deem to be corrupt Christianity,
vrill fall with her, or soon after her ; and therefore I
^pply to thera as well as to the church of Rorae, that
awful warning, Rev. xviii. 4, Come out of ker, my
people, tkat ye partake not of her sins, and that ye
-receive not of her plagues.
While we unitarians behave as good subjects, (and
I do not know that we are worse thought of than other
dissenters 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 inquiry and to
leration, and less favourable to old and corrupt though
venerable estabUshments,) that I have little doubt but
that I shall be suffered to proceed 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 heresy and
blaspkemy. What our present legislative body. If the
question ^as brought before them, would decree is un
known ; but I am pretty confident that when the sub
ject shall come properly before thera (and this raay be
pretty soon) they will be disposed to hear reason and
to dp justice*.
Ji'rora what you say of your own freedom of inquiry,
one would think J:hat you might have treated us dis-
* The learned writer was mistaken in expecting that he should
le permitted lo proceed unmolested in his defence of important truth,
Jiaving been .'driven from his pastoral charge by the disgraceful riots
at Birmingham in July 1 791. when his house was burned tothe
ground, and his laboratory, his library, and his papers were de-
'fitrayed. He was right, however, in his expectation of the incrsat-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 317
senters with a little more respect. For after observing
-that you are much at home in the Greek language,
and that you have read the ecclesiastical historians, you
add, p. IQS, " I had been many years in the habits of
thinking for myself upon a -variety of subjects before I
opened Dr. Clarke's book. There Is in most men a
culpable timidity ; you and I perhaps have overcome
that general infirmity, but there Is in raost raen a cul
pable tiraidity, which Inclines them to be easily over
awed by the authority of great names." It will make
some persons smile to see you. Sir, groupe yourself
with me upon this occasion, and they raay ask for sirai
lar evidence of your having overcome this culpable ti
midity, and of your having really thought for yourself,
when they see you professing to believe, arid comply
ing with every thing that those who do not think for
themselves at all, profess to believe and comply with.
Your profound admlratiori 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 conse
quence. If, however, you still retain the habit of thinking
for yourself, allow me to return your civility to me,
when you joined my narae, p. 1 64, to those of Bo
lingbroke, Foltaire, and Gibbon, by adding yours
also to this list oi free inquirers, and your sentence
ing liberality of succeeding times : the penal laws against the im
pugners of the doctrine of the Trinity having been totally repealed
by a bill introduced into parliament by Mr. IV, Smth, the upright
member for Norwich, in July 18)3, which passed wilhout ant/ op
position through both houses, — Ed.

318 LETTERS TO THE
will then close thus, — a Gibbon, a Priestley, or a
Horsley. For ray own part, I cannot say that I rauch dislike
my situation in the light in which I view the different
characters ; since I find myself placed between an wn-
believer on the one hand, and a high churchman on
the other. Medio tutissimus ibis.
I am, &c.

LETTER 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 perversions, wilful mis
representations, artifice, management, he. &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 subject.
I was wilUng to hope that, in this second publica
tion, you would have observed the rules of decency
and of probability in your charges against v^e, and
that you might have expressed some Httle concern for
your former violations of them. But I am sorry to
find, that, instead of retracting any thing, you have
considerably added to your offences of this kind. You
had before charged rae with knowingly ralsquoting the
English translation of the Bible, when, In fact, I should
not have gained any thing by it. You now talk, p. 5,
of my designedly omitting a significant adjective, as you

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. S19
say, in a quotation from Athanasius, when I neither In
tended, 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, candour, consist
ency, and dealing in sarcasms.
You also think with Mr, Badcock, tbat I really
meant to conceal from the unlearned part of a quota
tion from Justin Martyr, which I printed in Greek at
full length, and this in a public controversy with yoiir-
self, of whose vigilance In this respect 1 could not en
tertain a doubt. " The entire passage," you say, p. 83,
" as long as it appears not in your translation, lay in
nocently enough in the Greek, at the bottom of yout
page," But I raust have been an ideot Indeed in plain
EngHsh, and something worse than the idiota oi 'Ver-
tullian, as well as the homo nefarius oi Bishop Bull,
to have attempted a deception in these circumstances.
As, In another place, you speak more fully on the
subject of ray artifice and insincerity, enlarge upon the
nature of It, and the degree of its guilt In controver
sial writings, I shall produce the passage at length, and
then give a general answer to It.
" Indeed, Sir," you say, p. 159, " in quoting an
cient authors when you have understood the original,
whiirh in many instances Is not the ease, you have too
often been guilty of much reserve and management.
This . appears in some instances In which you cannot
pretend that your own Inadvertency, or your printer's,
hath given occasion to unraerited imputations. I wish
that my complaints upon this head had been ground-^
less : but In justice to my own cause I could not suffer
unfair quotations to pass undetected. God forbid that

320 LETTERS TO THE
I should draw any conclusion from this unseemly prac
tice against the general probity of your character. But
you will allow me to lament that raen of integrity,- In
the service of what they think a good end, should in
dulge theraselves so freely as they often do in the use
of unjustifiable raeans. Tirae was when the practice
was openly avowed, and Origen himself was araong its
defenders. The art which he recomraended he scrupled
not to employ. I have produced an instance. In which',
to silence an adversary, he hath recourse to the wilful
and deliberate allegation of a notorious falsehood. You
have gone no such length as this. 1 think you may
believe me sincere when I speak respectfully of your
worth and integrity, notwithstanding that I find occa
sion to charge you with some degree of blame, in a sort
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, disdains them.' How would It have height
ened the pride of victory, could Ihave found a fair oc
casion to be thus the herald of my adversary's praise!"
All these. Sir, and such like charges of artful, and
therefore highly criminal misrepresentation (for they
cannot amount to any thing less notwithstanding all
your qualifying clauses,) which you and Mr. Badcock
are perpetually urging, are In their own nature too ab
surd to gain any credit, and therefore can only show
that what you want In argument you are willing to
raake up some other way. I have completely vindi
cated the character of Origen, which you have endea
voured to blot ; and as to myself, you are quite at
Hberty to think of me just as you please. I am not

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 321
conscious of any unfairness whatever In any part of
ray proceedlrigs, but have a perfect willingness to bring
before the public every thing that may enable them to
form a true judgement on the subject of this contro
versy. If I knew of. any circurastance favourable to
your arguraent, I would produce it as readily as I
should do any thing in favour of my own ; and I am
as willing to detect* my own mistakes as you or any
person can be to do It for rae. For this I appeal to
the tenor of all ray wrItingSj and to my general cha
racter, which I will venture to say is as fair as yours.
You are pleased, indeed, to balance the account of
ray wilful misrepresentations, &c. with an allowance
for the general probity of my character, 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 sup
pose not much ; and I shall not atterapt to balance your
account in the sarae raanner ; for really of your private
character I know but little, either good or evil ; and
therefore • I presurae the forraer, though the liberties
you have taken as a writer are not very favourable to
that presuraption. But this kind of apology Is absurd;
and had I thought you or Mr. Badcock capable of the
things with which you charge me, I should not say that
" your virtues were either great or amiable."
By way of softening those charges, which materially
affect ray moral character, you sometiraes (though it
makes a poor compensation for defects of a moral
nature) introduce compUraents (whether sincerely or
Ironically is equally Indifferent to me) respecting merit
of a philosophical kind. These also, for want of In
forraation, I ara unable to return. For If I were asked

322 LETTERS TO THE
what Improveraents in science the world owes to you,
I really could not tell ; and I think it Is very possible,
that, In fact, you are as rauch a stranger to my pursuits
as I ara 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 some years
I appHed pretty closely to the study of pure mathematics,
and was thought to have made some proficiency In them,
it was when I had not the means of eraploying ray time
as I now do, so that I give but Uttle 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 expense of others.. I have therefore
made my choice of the different objects qf pursuit, and
shall hardly change it now, except, as I get older, to
circumscribe 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 in-
papable of ourselves. But as I am conscious of the
utmost fairness in my own ponduct, I cannot lightiy
believe the contrary of others.
As I observed to Mr, Venn, in the first theological
controversy in which I engaged, p. 9, " It behoves us
-carefully to distinguish between a latent insincerity"
(the nature and causes of which 1 there explain) " un
der the influepce of which men deceive themselves,
and that direct prevarication, with which those who
are engaged in debate are too ready, to charge one an
other, as if their adversaries knowingly concealed or
opposed the truth. This is a crime of so heinous a
nature, that I should be very unvvilling to impute it to

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 323
any person whatever," I am therefore unwilling to
charge it on you or Mr. Badcock, notwithstanding
some appearances might seem to justify me in It.
I am the most puzzled to account for the strange
and Improbable history that you. Sir, have given of a
church of orthodox Jews at Jerusalem after the time of
Adrian, and the series of historical yhc/*, as you have
the assurance to call thera, for which It Is not possible
that you should have any authority In ancient or even
in raodern writers ; and yet had you yourself been
present at the surrender 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
beUeve, was, that, without any pxamination of your
own, you took It for granted frora the authority of
Mosheira, (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 thei'efore hnew that you added, must have been so
too. On this you have not hesitated to relate the whole
in one continued narrative, just as if you had been
copying from some historian Pf the time ; and Origen,
who lived in those tiraes, and in the very country, and
whose veracity was never questioned before. Is treated
without ceremony as a wilful liar, because he has given
a different account of things*.
* The learned, writer is under a mistake in supposing that .Dr.
Horsley invented the circumstances relating to <^e church at jElia.
The fact is, and the Archdeacon confesses it in his Reply to these
Letters, part ii. chap. 2. that he did copy these circumstances from
the note in Mosheim's Commentaries, i^c. to which he refers. But
Dr. Priestley ai that time not having access to this work, consulted
only Moiheim's Ecclesiastical History, in which Mosheim had with
great discretion omitted many of those circumstances which he had
introduced into his Commentaries, and which had no foundation but
Y 2

324 LETTERS TO'THE
As it has been very much my object to trace effects
to their causes, and I consider the human raind, and
consequendy all huraan actions, to be subject to laws
as regular as those which operate in my laboratory,
(for want of knowing or attending to which Mr. Gib
bon has egregiously failed in his account of the causes
of the spread of Christianity, and you in this contrp-
versy,) I had framed an hypothesis to account for Mr.
Badcock's censure of what I said concerning Eusebius ;
but not being quite satisfied with it I rejected it. How
ever, notwithstanding strong appearances, I ara still wil-
ling to hope that the raisrepresentation, though exceed
ingly gross, was not directly wilful, I ara, &c.

LETTER XIX.
Miscellaneous Articles, and the Conclusion..
Rev. Sir,
UisposED as you are to raake-the most of every trifling
oversight that you can discover in ray History, and of
every concession that I raake to you, I still have no ob
jection to acknowledge any real mistake that I have
fallen into, Iraportant or unimportant ; and I shall cer
tainly correct all such in any future edition of ray
work ; and likewise, as far as I am able, in jthe trans
it his own imagination, as the Archdeacon afterwards found to his
great disappointment and chagrin. And the remainder of this con
troversy is occupied chiefly in elaborate and ingenious but unsuccess
ful efforts to extricate himself from the difficulties in which he had
involved hi'mself by hastily adopting the unfounded positions and ca
lumnies of Mosheim, — Eo,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 325
lations that are making of it Into foreign languages.
I shall now make two acknowledgements, 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 s^d that " Valesius Was of opinion that the
history of Hegesippus was neglected and lost, because
It was observed to favour the unitarian 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 unitarians;"
and if I had consulted the passage at the time, I cer
tainly should have expressed myself in that more
cautious manner. 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
Tiis insolent manner, challenges me to produce It, and
to put him io shame. That I believe to be impossible,
otheTwise it would have been effectuaUy done In my
Reraarks on the Monthly Review ; at least, by ray no
tice of his most shameful conduct with respect to my
censure cf Eusebius, p. 21, of which he says nothing
at all in his Letter to me. 1 suppose he thought it not
to be regarded. However the passage which I refer to,
and which sufficiently answers my purpose, is as fol
lows : " Moreover, those books of Clement contained
a short and compendious exposition of both the testa
ments, as Photius, In his Bibliotheca witnesses ; but
on "account of the errors with which they abounded
being negligently kept, they were at length lost ; nor
was there any other reason. In my opinion, why the

326 LETTERS TO THE
books of Papias, Hegesippus, and others of the an
cients are now lost*."
You, Sir, however, have observed this passage, and
you say, p, 4, " Valesius has indeed expressed an opi
nion that the work of Hegesippus was neglected by
the ancients on account of errors which it contained.
But what the errors might be which might Occasion
this neglect is a point upon which Valesius is silent.
And what right have you to suppose that the unitarian
doctrine was the error which Valesius ascribed to He
gesippus more than to Clemens Alexandrinus, upon
whose last work of the Hypotyposes he passes the
same judgement ? "
I answer, that there were no errors of any conse
quence ascribed to that early age besides those of the
Gnostics and of the unitarians. The former certainly
were not those that Valesius could allude to with re
spect to Hegesippus, because this writer mentions the
Gnostics very particularly as heretics, but makes no
mention of unitarians at all ; though they certainly ex
isted, and I doubt not constituted the great body of
unlearned christians In his tirae, which is one circura
stance that, together with his being a Jewish christian,
(all of whora are expressly said to have been Ebionites,
and none of them to have beHeved the divinity of
Christ,) leads me to conclude that he was an unitarian
himself. Though Clemens Alexandrinus was not an
imitarian, yet he never calls unitarians heretics ; and
* Porro ii Clementis libri continebant brevem et compendiariam
utriusque testamenti expositionem, ut testatur Photius in Biblio
theca. Ob ei rotes autem quibus scatebant, negligentius habiti,
tandem perierunt. Nee alia, meo quidem judicio, causa est, cur
Papiae el' Hegesippi, aliorumque veterum libri, interciderint. In
Euseb, Hist, lib, v. cap, IJ. .

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 327
since in his accounts of heretics in general, which are
pretty frequent in his works, he evidently raeans the
Gnostics only, and therefore virtually excludes unita
rians from that description of men ; it is by no mearis
Improbable but that, in those writings of his which are
lost, he might have said things directly in favour of
unitarians. In this passage Valesius also mentions the writings of
Papias as having, in his opinion, been lost for the same
reason. Now Papias has certainly been supposed to
be an Ebionite. Mr. Whiston has made this very pro
bable frora a variety of circumstances. See his Ac
count ofthe 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 fora catholic," p. 21, &c.
In this Mr. Whiston rriay be supposed to have been
sufficiently irapartial, as he was an Arian, and expresses
great dislike of the Ebionites ; as, indeed, Arians al
ways have done.
I also acknowledge that I ought not to hjive exempt
ed Epiphanius (as you have observed, p. 4, though with
more severity than the case requijed) from the impro
priety of charging Noetus with being a Patripassian.
But this also Is a circumstance of as little consequence
to the main argument as the former, though my negli
gence with respect to it, I frankly own, was greater.
I had rayself discovered the raistake, and should have
corrected it, if your Letters to rae had never appeared.
That the Patripassian notion was injuriously charged
upon the unitarians of antiquity Is sufficiently shown by
Beausobre^ who was hiraself a trinitarian and a nian of

28 letters' Tb THE
learning If ever there was one. This charge was so
comraon that, without any proper evidence w"hatever,
all the unitarians are called Patripassians by one writer
or other. Optatus even says that Ebion, the supposed
father of the Ebionites, was a Patripassian *, though no
early writer who raentions the Ebionites says any such
thing of thera.
I must, however, acknowledge that you have otie
just cause of triumph over me, and all the friends of
free inquiry ; but this also, as with respect to every ,
other advantage which you have gained, you exult in
too much, and make too great account of. The Month
ly 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- pre
sent publication, which has no less merit of the same
kind, its praises, I doubt not, are already sung, or at
least set to music, and the. whole choir of Reviewers,
who have been unanimous in their ' condemnation of
me, are ready tp join the chorus on this occasion.
You plead your right, p, IS, to make the most of
this your new acquisition.; and In this you think your
self justified by my conduct in the publication of small
and cheap pamphlets, for the purpose of disseminating
my principles among the lower and poorer class of
people, though, in ray opinion, the two cases are very-
different indeed. This post, however, which we were
once In possession of, you and your friends have now
* Ut Hebion qui argumentabatur patrem' passum esse, non
filium. Lib. iv. p. 91.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 329
got, and it is not to be supposed that you will ask our
leave what use toraake of it; so that we raust yield
with as gOod a grace as we can, and endeavour to raake
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 my not being acquainted with the opini
ons of some modern ivriters, and those either difficult
to procure, or such as could have been of Uttle use to
rae, If I had known them. I acknowledged that I had
not heard of D. Zuicker ; I did not know what Episco
pius, Petavius, or Huetius, thought on a particular sub
ject, and I had not read your great authority, bishop
Bi^ll. " 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 intuitive
knowledge of the opinions, or the facts, of past ages,
the historian of religious corruptions, confessing him
self unredde in the polemical divines, confesses igno
rance of his subject. You repel the imputation of pla
giarism by the most disgraceful confession of igno
rance, to which foiled polemic ever was reduced,"
Now the probability is, that my reading in polemical
divinity is much raore extensive than yoj.irs. 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
theseauthors had no better access than myself. You
yourself, I ara pretty confident, have formed your opi-

330 LETTERS TO THE
nions on these subjects chiefly from raodern writers;
and it has been by this means, and by the help of your
fertile imagination, as I have shown, that you have been
so miserably misled as you have been.
III.
You and Mr. Badcock both pride yourselves in your
knowledge ofthe Greek language, and you insult me,
and my F'indicator, ior our Ignorance of it. But to
criticize others Is the easiest road to farae. In the same
way you raight set yourself up even against Casaubon,
Scaliger, or Bentley, to whora you acknowledge, p. 58,
that you " stand bowing at a distance :" for the greatest
scholars sometiraes raake great raistakes.
Out of the nuraber of citations that I have raade, is
it extraordinary that two or three, and those of no great
consequence, should have been found in some degree
faulty ? You and your ally have had no occasion to pro
duce many, and writmg In coijtroversy,- would naturally
be raore guarded ; and yet your errors In this way far
exceed mine. Concerning one of these, you say, p.
15, " the words are so very clear, that the sense was
hardly to be missed at first sight, by a school boy in the
second year of Greek." W^hat, then, will be said of
the man who can translate idiota, ideot, who can argue
from OVTOS as necessarily referring to a person (for if this
was not your raeaning,, it was Irapertlnent to alledge It
at all) and censure me for rendering ovk aKKuj rm rj by
to nothing but ? And what can you say In excuse for
your learned ally translating uKkoi yaf kwt' uKKov rpo-
TTov, Others upon ariother plan, instead of some in one
way and others in another, on which he founds the
most improbable and malignant of all his accusations

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 331
against me, for concealment, wilful perversion, &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 rendered 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 ya^ 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 F'indi
cator, on the subject of Greek, with a degree of Inso
lence that exceeds any thing that I have met with, and
yet has himself blundered in this manner, ought to hiss
tke rod. If not, without a figure, to feel it, and take
shame to himself. His friends, however, if he have any,
must blush for him.
Though frora the age of seventeen to twenty-seven,
I believe, I read> as rauch Greek as almost any man can
be supposed to have read in the same time, and after
that taught It nine years, the last six of them at War
rington, and chiefly the higher Greek classics (for the
elements of the language were not taught in that acade
my) I do not pretend ever to have been properly at
home in the language, I mean so as to read it with the
same ease with which It is coramon 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 employing my tirae 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 Hfe, my ac
quaintance with It is not likely to Iraprove. However,
such as it is, I shaU m^ke the best use that I can of It
in the larger work on which I ara now employed. It

332 LETTERS TO THE
is possible, however, that I might make but a bad ex
change of the remains of my Greek literature for yours,
or that of your Scotch correspondent. IV.
You are pleased to make some apology for your
haughty style, and the comemptuous airs you gave
yourself, both with respect to Dissenters, and to your
own inferior Clergy. To what 1 observed on this sub
ject, you now say, p, 158, " it raight be a sufficient,
and not an unbecoraing reply, to rOralnd 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 Iretalned not, under all
our differences, a very considerable degree of personal
esteem. But as Dr. Priestley Is ray adversary. In some
points I, could wish to set hira right, and in sorae I de
sire 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 in
ferior, the far inferior clergy, to whom it was ad
dressed, were, I presurae, fully sensible of It. The only
question is, whether. you ever think that you are not
speaking ex cathedra f Please, however, to reraeraber
that I ara not oneof those to whora you have any right
to speak in that raanner, and that I do not hold rayself
accountable to any raetropolitan, or diocesan, or even
to the king, or any person or potentate on earth, in mat
ters of religion. Also while I have " credit enough
(p. 17 Ij) to collect," or to find, " a congregation," 1

Archdeacon of st. alban's. 333
shall preach, without applying to your church, or the
church of Rorae, for holy orders ; and I shall think ray
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 \ ara living In the close of
the eighteenth century, when I read what you say in
this publication concerning the dignity and the power
of the priesthood,, dexhed by regular succession, p.
171,- from the aposties, aud of course through the
Popes, and find that you seriously disallow of my au
thority to exercise the sacred function, &c. As a cu
riosity; in the year 1784, I am tempted to give my
reader a pretty long extract frora your work on this
subject. After enumerating the mischiefs that you say,
p. 1 70, 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
ofa principle, of which you seem disposed to be an ad.
vocate, 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 pro
pagate his own opinions ; I ara IncllRed to be jealous of
a principle -which has proved, I had almost said, so rui
nous ; and I lean the rapre to the opinion, that the cora-
ralssion of a rainistry, perpetuated by regular succession,
is something more than a dreara of cloystered gowns
men, 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 raust have

334 LETTERS to THE
within Itself a provision for harmony and order. And,
upon those principles, though I wish that all Indulgence
should be shown to tender consciences, and will ever
be an advocate for the largest toleration that may be
consistent with political wisdom (being indeed persuaded
that the restraints of human laws must be used with the
greatest gentieness and moderation to be rendered raeans
of strengthening the bonds of christian peace and araity)
yet I could wish to plant a principle of severe restraint-
in the consciences of men. I could wish- that the Ira
portance of the ministerial office were considered, that
the practice of antiquity were regarded, and that it might
not seera a raatter of perfect indifference to the laity, to
what house of worship tl;iey resort. I cannot admit that ,
every assembly of grave and virtuous men, in which
gra.ve and virtuous men take upon thera to officiate, is
to be dignified-with the appellation of a church," &c.
That these doctrines, which will justify all- the vio
lence of-the church of Rome, and which condemn the
reformation, should be raaintained by a protestant 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 tirae of Dr, Sacheverel, if not that of
Archbishop Laud. But were I, in my turn, to make
an enumeration of the complicated 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 ¦
injurious to- both the contracting parties, though occa
sionally useful to those clmrchmen andstatesmen who»

archdeacon of ST. alban's. 335
to serve the purposes of their own ambition, had drawn
the contract.
When I contemplate "the dignity you assume as Arch
deacon, and the high tone of your whole performance,
superior to any thing on my shelves, I wonder that you
should profess any respect for tender consciences at all.
•I find, however, that the respect you profess for dis
senters is only for those who are favoured by the laws ;
so that our obligations to you are not great ; nor do ybu
think there is any Impropriety In the restraints of human
laws in matters of religion, only you would have them
used, p. 171, with gentleness and moderation, • How
far this gentleness and moderation would go. If yoU real
ly thought the church in danger, I cannot tell. I ara,
therefore, happy that yop are so easy on that account,
as you represent yourself, p. 8.
You are pleased, however, though in no perfect con
sistence with'what you say oi the powers of tke priest
hood; as derived by succession frora the apostles, to
say, p. 161, "You wUl reraember 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 cele
brate your own praises, I will take the liberty to ob
serve, that, allowance being raade for your superior
numbers and superior advantages, with respect to con
veniences for study, from which, by a poHcy as weak
as it is iliiberal, you exclude dissenters, (thinking, per
haps, to raake us despicable, by keeping us In Igno
rance,) I do not think that the body of dissenting mi
nisters, with all their disadvantages, need be afraid of
a comparison with you ; and candid persons among
the clergy have acknowledged the benefit you have

336 LETTERS, ETC.
derived from us ;, not to say that you are Indebted to
us for some of your greatest ornaments, as Tillotson,
Butler, and Seeker.
In what you say of Dr. Chandler (whose infirraity^
and I raay aidd whose misfortune. It was to pay too •
much court to leading raen both in the church and in
the state), viz. that he preferred the church of England
to any other establishment of christiariity, p. 161, It
would be no great compliment from me If I should say
it after him. But I really cannot do it ; and If I could
adopt ypur idea of the transralsslon of the powers of
the priesthood from the apostles, and was to conform
to any estabUshment, I should choose to be member of
a much older and raore venerable establishment than
yours, and In which the claim to that valuable succes
sion should be less liable to Htlgatlon.
As to yourself In particular, who are so proud of
being a churchman. It would have been happy for the
public, and likewise a particular satisfaction to myself^
if you had had a (greater share of that learning of
which you think your church possessed. More Infor
raation would then have been given to our readers by
both of us ; and at least I raight have been able to say
with the person who exarained Dr. Clarke, Probe me
exercuisti. All I can now say Is, that I have raade
sorae use of your ignorance, though I should have
made more of your knowledge, to throw light on the
subject of our discussion. My task has been much
too easy; but I would wilUngly have done raore If
there had been any occasion for It, or indeed a pro-
prleity in it,
I ara. Sir, your very hurable servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
Birmingham, September, 1784.

APPENDIX.

The first of the following Paragraphs, which was to
have been the last of Letter VIII. p. 232, having
been dverlooked at the Time of printing, I have
thought proper to give it in this place, and to add
to it all that follows.
Admitting that the apostles had taught any doc
trines of a peculiarly sublirae nature, and above the cora-
prehenslonof ordinary christians; yet as aU their teach
ing was In pubHc, and there were no secrets among
them, nothing corresponding to the mysteries oi the
heathens, the coraraon people raust have heard of these
sublirae things, and have been accustoraed to the sound
pf the language in which they were expressed ; and
they would have learned to respect what they could
not understand. They could never have been offended
and staggered at things which they and their fathers
before thera had always been In the hearing of.
Besides this argument for the novelty of the doctrine
of the trinity, from the offence that was given by it in
the time of TertulUan, when, as far as I can find, the
coraraon people finst heard of It; that this class of
persons were generally unitarians before and even after
the council of Nice, appears pretty clearly ffom several
circumstances Jn the history of those tiraes. Besides,
that we do not read of any of the laity being excom
municated along with Noetus, Paul of Samosata, or

338 APPENDIX.
Photinus (though unitarians are acknowledged to have
been In great nurabers in their days, and to have been
in comraunion with the catholic church ) when the "two
last were deposed from their sees, the comraon people
were their friends. After the bishops had deposed Paul
of Saraosata, he could not be expelled from the episco
pal house tiU the aid of the emperor Ai^relian was call
ed in, and he raay be supposed to have been offended
at hira, for his having been In the interest of his rival
Zenobia. This could not have been' necessary, if the
majority of his people had not been with him, and there
fore, if his deposition had not, in fact, been unjust.
As to Photinus, he was so popular in his diocese, that,
his solemn deposition by three councils could not re-
mgve him from his see, '* He defended himself,"
says Tilleraont ( History of the Arians, vol. i. p. 116.)
" against the authority of the church, by the affection
which his people had for hira, even to the year 351 ;
though his heresy began to appear as early as 342 or
343, according to Socrates ; and the Eusebians con
demned It In one of their confessions of faith in 345.'*
At length the eraperor Constantius, a zealous Arian,
thought It necessary to Interfere, and get him banished
in a councU held at Sirraiura itself. I raay add,, that
Marcellus pf Ancyra left Galatia full of unitarians, as
Basil afterwards found to his cost. Had the body of
christians in those tiraes been generally trinitarians, we
dissenters, who are pretty rauch In the same situation
with unitarians in those times, not having the counte
nance of governraent, know well how ready the cora
mon people would have been to take an active part In
those affairs.

APPENDIX. 339
*' Sabellianism," which was precisely the same thing
with unitarianism in forraer tiraes. Dr. Lardner says
(Credibility, vol. iv. p. 606,) " must have been very
agreeable to the apprehensions of many people. Euse
bius speaks of its increasing very much in Egypt, when
Dionysius of Alexandria opposed It. According to Atha
nasius, the occasion of Dionysius writing upon that head
was, that some ofthe biskops of Africa followed the doc
trine of Sabellius, and they prevailed to such a degree,
that the Son of God was scarce any longer preached
in the ckurches."
It Is also remarkable that the first treatise that was
ever written against the unitarian doctrine was that of
TertuUian against Praxeas, with whora he was particu
larly provoked, on account of the active part he had
taken against Montanus, in getting hira excorarauni
cated and expelled frora the church of Rorae. This,
says Le Sueur, was the cause of the bitterness with
which Tertullian wrote against hira, — ^Now there were
treatises agairist the Gnostics in a much earlier period*
Why then were none written against the unitarians,
since pure unitarianism was certainly as old as Gnosti
cism ; and if it had been deemed a heresy at all. It would
certainly have been thought *to be of the raost alarming
nature, as it is considered at present ? In the opinions
of those who are now called orthodox, the Gnostics
thought much raore honourably of Christ than the uni
tarians did. The unitarians were likewise much more
numerous, and In the bosom of the church itself, a cir
cumstance which might be expected to render them pe
culiarly obnoxious.

z 2

340 APPENDIX. No. 11.
1 SHALL -extend this Appendix in order to observe
that, to the many false charges and Insinuations of
Dr. Horsley, which are noticed in the preceding Let
ters, he has added another to exculpate himself for the
conterapt which he had expressed of dissenters. " If
you are still," he says, p. 172, "disposed to be Indig
nant about this harraless word" (conventicle), " recol
lect, I beseech you, with what respect you have your
self treated the venerable body to which I belong, the
clerg.y of the estabUshraent. You divide It Into two
classes only, the ignorant and the insincere. Have I
no share 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. Horsley here charges rae
with, that I will venture to assert, that he cannot have
any more authority for this than for the privileges
granted to the Jewish christians of Jerusalem on their
abandonding the cereraonies of their old religion. That
many df the clergy are ignorant none can deny ; be
cause it Is true of every body of clergy in the world ;
and that sorae are insincere raay also, without great un-
charitabldriess, 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 raembers-of the church of En
gland. For no raan can be sincere In professing to be-
Heve what he openly writes against. And are there not
pej-sons in comraunion with the church of England who
publicly controvert the articles of it ; which articles,

APPENDIX,' 341
while they continue in the church, and especially If
they officiate in it, they virtually profess to believe.
That raany are both learned and sincere I have ac
knowledged 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 consider
this charge of Dr. Horsley as a mere calumny tiU he
shaU produce some evidence for it ; and If, in any of
my writings, he can find sufficient authority for his
accusation, I here retract what I advanced, and ask
pardon for It. '
The learning oi many divines In the church of
Rorae and that of England I have never denied.
Bishop Hurd I have styled learned and able, though,
in ray opinion, nothing can be weaker than his reason
ing on the subject of church establishments. As to
sincerity, 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 pastoral office in this place, p. 30,
" Think not that the most fervent zeal for what are
apprehended to be the genuine doctrines of the gospel
is at aU Inconsistent with true christian' charity, which
always judges of particular persons according to the
advantages they have enjoyed, and of the final 6tate of
men by their sincerity only. And for ray own part,
I have no doubt but that, though the church of Rorae
be the proper Antichrist of the apostles, not only in-
nuraerable zealous papists, but even some popes them
selves, and since the Reforraation, will sit down with
Luther, with Calvin, and with Socinus, In the kingdom
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Known unto

342 - APPENDIX.
God alone are the hearts of men ; and the man who
honestiy pursues truth, and ,who acts, according to the
best lights that God gives him an opportunity of ac
quiring, will be he whom the God of truth and up
rightness wiU approve ; and none will suffer a greater
or more just conderanation than those who hold the
4ruih in unrighteousness. Much rather would I be In
the case of raany worthy persons in the church of En
gland, or the church of Roracj-'who, at the sarae time
that they are fully sensible of the corruptions and errors
of the system In which they are entangled, are not able
to break their chains, than, from a spirit the reverse of
that of the gospel, make an improper use of my own
libertyby insuUIng thera."
Will Dr, Horsley hiraself say this after me ? With
respect to real candour, few, I think, will go greater
lengths than I have done. He charges rae with raany
instances of wilful misrepresentation, which is certainly
a charge of insincerity ; whereas I have not charged
hira with any, though I raight have done it with rauch
greater appearance of reason. With respect to igno
rance, viz. of what relates to the subject of this con
troversy, with which he likewise repeatedly charges rae,
I own that I return the accusation, and let our readers
Judge between us.

No. III.
Jtx A VINO shown these Letters to sorae of my friends,
and been favoured whh their remarks, I wish to add
the following explanations ;

APPENDIX. 343
I. P. 191 . A passage has been pointed out to me In
Grotius, (Opera, vol. u, p, 5,) In which he speaksof
the Nazarenes as " holding the coramon faith of other
christiaus with respect to Christ, 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 passage
is, that, in his opinion, the Nazarenes differed from the
Ebionites, by believing the doctrine of the rairaculous
conception. By the common faith of christians in that
early age (supposing hira to have had a view to the
doctrine concerning Christ more extensively consi
dered) Grotius, no doubt, meant his own opinion,
which was far frpm thaf high orthodoxy which Dr.
Horsley ascribes to the Nazarenes.
Grotius also says that " It Is well observed by SuU
pitlus Severus, that all the Jewish christians till the time
of Adrian held that Christ was God, though they ob
served the law of Moses," in the passage which I have
quoted from him, p. 41. But the sense in which Gro
tius understood the term God in this place raust be ex
plained by his own sentiments concerning Christ. As
to Sulpitius himself, he raust be considered as having
said nothing raore than that " alraost all the Jews at
Jerusalera were christians, though they observed the
law of Moses." This writer's raere assertion, 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 Eusebius.
II. The latter part of the quotation from Chrysostom,
p. 242, 243, will admit of a translation more favour
able to my purpose, by introducing a parenthesis and

344 APPENDIX.
a note of Interrogation, as follows : " How could men
who were then first taken frora their altars. Idols, &c.
(for such was the worship of the heathens) and being
then first brought off frora these aborainations, readily
receive subUme doctrines?'*

LETTERS TO
Dr. horsley,
PART in.
CONTAINING
AN ANSWER' TO
HIS REMARKS ON LETTERS, PART XL

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.

Infelix ! qus tanta animunj dementia cepit !
Non vires alias, conversaque numina sentis? Virgil.

PREFACE.

When, in the advertisement of ray History of early
Opinions concerning Christ, 1 pledged myself to show
that Dr. Horsley's Remarks on my Letters to him were
" as defective In argument as they are in temper," I
did not raean that I would aniraadvert upon thera im
mediately, or very soon ; but intended to wait till I
should hear what would be objected to that larger work,
and then reply to hira and others at the sarae tirae. I
found, however, that the advertiseraent had raised a
general expectation of a speedy reply to Dr. Horsley
in particular ; and being unwilUng to disappoint any
expectations I had even unintentionally excited, and
more unwilling to appear desirous of shrinking from
this discussion, I have done at present what many of
my friends will probably think might as well have been
deferred a while longer.
Besides, as Dr. Horsley's Reraarks were written be-
fore„ he had seen ray large History, I thought It raight
not be araiss. In this raanner, to close the first act in
our dramU ; the second being reserved for what raay
be occasioned by that work, which will probably be
much more considerable than any thing that has. been
produced by the History of the Corruptions of Chris
tianity. And ray design (after the terrainatlon of the
present 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 produce, and then to reply to all my opponents

348 PREFACE.
at once ; frankly acknowledging any mistakes I shall
appear to have fallen into, and vindicating whatever I
shall think capable of It, and deserving it.
As this Is a controversy that will probably have last
ing consequences, let all who engage in it, on either
side, be careful to acquit themselves in proportion to
tbe character which they apprehend they have at stake ;
but above all, let truth be our great 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 wbo is
the God of truth, who secretly guides all our pursuits,
and whose excellent purposes will be answered by them,
with whatever views we raay engage in thera.

LETTERS

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN'S.

AN INTRODUCTORY LETTER.
Rev. Sir,
In 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 ac
count that Origen gives of the state of things in his time
does not admit of the existence pf such a church, you
scrupled not to say, that " he had recourse to the wil
ful and deUberate allegation of a notorious falsehood."
This you did on so little foundation, that I charged you
with being a falsifier of history, and a defamer ofthe
character ofthe dead-.
On this article you have thought proper (notwith
standing your previously declared-resolution to the con
trary) to make your defence, in which you produce five
passages from ancient writers, two from Origen him
self,' two from Jerora, and one frOra Epiphanius. In
these Letters I undertake to show that, though you
have taken eighteen momhs to write, and .to revise
your Reraarks, you have grossly ralsunderstopd, or mis
applied, all the passages, so that not one of thera is to
your purpose, and my charge still reraains in its full
force. For the justness of my Interpretation of the

350 LETTERS TO THE
passages In question, I appeal to all who have any pre
tensions to scholarship. In this or any other country^
and In this public manner I call upon you to vindicate
your oivn.
On this article, ^at least, an article deliberately se
lected by yourself, let the controversy between us come
to a fair issue. Nothing has been or shall be wanting
to it on ray part ; and therefore the Public wiU certain
ly expect your expHcit and speedy answer.
I ara. Reverend Sir,
Your very hurable Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BiSMiNGUAM, June I, 1786.

LETTER L .
Of the Peracity of Origert.
Rev. Sir,
After having Indulged your indolence, a? you say,
eighteen months, I ara happy to find that, notwith
standing your opinion of my manifest insufficiency as
your antagonist, (which you observe " left you at
liberty to Indulge yourself without seeming to desert
your cause,") there was something In my Letters to
you that lias at length roused you- to make a reply.
To me this Is a very high gratification. For, my pre-
tdominant disposition not being indolence, I rejoice In
any circurastance that contributes to keep the subject
of our controversy in view ; being confident that no
thing but a continued attention to it is requisite to a

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. BSl
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 pursued
the discussion of every article in debate between us ;
but, as you have thought proper to confine yourself
chiefly to what relates to the orthodoxy of the prirai
tive Jewish church, I must do the same, first consider
ing what you have advanced in order to impeach the
veracity of Origen, and then the testiraonies of Epi
phanius and Jerom, as evidences of the existence of a
whole church of orthodox Jews at Jerusalera after the
tirae of Adrian.
" In the second book against Celsus," (to use your
own words, p, 22. ) " near the beginning of the book,
Origen asserts of the Hebrew christians of his own
tiraes, without exception, that they had not abandoned
the laws and customs of their ancestors, and that for
that reason they were called Ebionites." This Is also
the appellation that he gives to all the Jewish christians,
of whom he raakes two classes, one of thera believing
the miraculous conception of Jesus, and the other de
nying it ; but neither of thera adraitting his divinity.
This testimony of such a person as Origen to the
unitarianism of all the Jewish christians in his time,
goes so near to prove the unitarianism of the great
body of Jewish christians, and consequently of the
christian church In general, in the time of tke apostles,
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 re
spectable man knowingly asserted an untruth. You
even add that you would not take his evidence upon

352 LETTERS TO TH£
oath. Indeed, this writer was so circurastaiiced, Iri
consequence of living so near Judasa, and soraetiraes
in it, that he could not but have known whether there
was any considerable body of Jewish christians who be
lieved the doctrine of the trinity, and who had aban
doned the custoras of their ancestors, or not ; so 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 haye done.
The general character of Origen makes the suppo
sition highly iraprobable. For he was a man not more
distinguished by his genius and learning, (In which he
had confessedly 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 subse
quent age, his opinions were deemed to be heretical, his
greatest eneraies left his moral character, unlmpeached*
In such esteera was he universally held, that, as Euse
bius inforras us. It was generally said of him, " As was
his speech, such was his conduct ; and as was his con
duct, such was his speech*:" his eloquence and the
virtues of his life corresponding to each other. And
yet this Is the man whose evidence, because It makes
against yourself, you declare that you would not adrait
upon oath.
Had the testimony of Origen tp the unitarianism of
* O'loy yovv rov Xoyov roiovSs fxirt rov rpotov kxi o'iov rov rpoitov
rtmh KXI roy Xoyov stsSemvvro. Euseb, JHjst, 1. yi, cap.' 3. p. 261. ¦

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN*S. 353
the great body of Jewish christians not been well
founded. It was greatly the purpose of raany of the
early writers (and particularly of Eusebius, who raain
tained the novelty of the unitarian doctrine) to have
refuted it. But neither Eusebius nor any other an
cient writer, the most zealous for orthodoxy, and the
most hostile to Origen on other accounts, has at
tempted it. Might It not have been expected of Eu*
sebius In particular, that after he had copied Origen's
account of the Ebionites, by dividing thera into two
classes, just as he had done, (viz. sorae of thera be
lieving the miraculous conception, and others not,) he
would have added that, notwithstanding what Origen
had said to the contrary, many of thera 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. In
deed, I am willing to think that few persons are so
abandoned as to be capable of doing this.
With respect to this particular assertion concerning
the state of the Jewish christians in the time of Origen j
it is so circumstanced, that, if he had even been capable
of asserting a falsehood, tkis was the last that he would
have had recourse to ; because he was writing in a
public controversy, in which he has insisted largely on
this particulcir article, and Insulted his adversary for his
ignorance of a notorious fact. In this situation, he
must have been nothing less than infatuated to have
advanced what all his readers must have known to be
feilse. A, falsehood so circumstanced, and which must
have been a wilful one, would have been so evidently
2 A

354 LETTERS TO THE
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 christian
Jews not abandoning, the custoras of their ancestors,
was not of so rauch consequence to his general argu
ment In defence of Christianity, but that he might very
well have neglected it. Nothing, therefore, but a per
fect confidence that what he did advance was true, could
have led him to make any declaration on the subject.
What Is more extraordinary still, you say, " he hira
self contradicted his own assertion at no greater distance
than the third section of the same book, where the good
father," as you ironically call him, " takes quite an
other ground to confute his adversary." Certainly this
must be thought to be d priori in the highest degree
iraprobable. I shall now consider this flagrant contradiction, by
which this great raan (for so all "the world has ever
called hira) 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 ;
and I shall recite it in your own words,
" At no greater distance than In the third section of
the sarae book, the good father takes quite another
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 Cel-
sus's Ignorance, who has made a Jew say to his coun
trymen, to IsraeUtes believing in Christ, Upon what
motive have you deserted the law of your ancestors ?
But how have they deserted the law of their ancestors.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 355
who reprove those who are inattentive to it, and say,
TeU me ye, &c.?' Then, after a citation of certain
texts from St. Paul's epistles, in which the apostie avails
himself of the authority of the law to enforce particular
duties, which texts make nothing either for or against
the Jew's assertion, that the christians of the circum
cision had abandoned their ancient laws, but prove
only that the disuse of the law, if it was actually gone
into disuse, could not be deemed a desertion, because
it proceeded not frora any disregard to the authority of
the lawgiver. After a citation of texts to this purpose,
Origen proceeds in this remarkable strain. ' And
how confusedly does Celsus's Jew speak upon this sub
ject, when he might have said more plausibly. Some of
you have relinquished the old customs upon pretence
of expositions and allegories ! Some again expound
ing, as you call It, spirituaUy, nevertheless observe the
institutions of our ancestors. But sorae, not admitting
these expositions, 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 having
in the letter the whole meaning of the spirit*.' In
these words Origen confesses all that I have alleged of
him. He confesses, in contradiction to his former as
sertion, that he knew of three sorts of Jews professing
Christianity; one sort adhered to the letter of the Mo
saic law, rejecting all figurative interpretations ; another
* Kai lis rvyKeyv^evws ye rxvS o itacx rw KeXrw lovSaiog
Xsysi; Swe(,fi,svos utrnvwrspov siKeiv, on rivss /*¦£" 'ijfi.wv KxraXsXoi-
irari ra s&r/ it^ofaast Strjyrjffswv kxi xKXrjyopiwv rives Se kxi Strj-
y6vf).evot, ws eitayyeXXerSe, itvevu.ariKws, ovhv -^rrov ra itxr^ix
ttjpsire' rivss Se ovSe StrjyovpLeVoi, povXsr&e rov Irjrovv itxpxSs^ar&xt
i«S Kpo^revSsvrx, Kat rov Mwvrews vop.oy rrjprjrai, Kxrx rx itarptx'
us ev rri Xe^st e'Xfivres rov itavrx rav itvevpLaros vow, Origeni%,
eontra (ielsum lib. ii. p, 59. Cantabrigiae, 1658, 4to.
2a 2 ,

356 LETTERS TO THE
sort admitted a figurative interpretation, conforming
however to the letter of the precept ; but a third sort
(the first In Origen's enumeration) had relinquished
the observance of the Hteral precept, conceiving it to
be of no importance in comparison of the latent figu
rative raeaning."
This contains the whole of your curious reasoning,
in which you suppose that Origen, in treating of the
same subject, and in continuation of the sarae argu
ment, has given you this pretence for Impeaching 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 contradicted himself In two
passages, not in different works written at different
times, or In distant parts of the same work (In which
he might have forgotten what he had said in one of
the passciges, when he was writing the other), but In
the same work, the same part of the work, and in pa
ragraphs so very near to each other. And I believe
aobody before yourself ever imagined that there was
any contradiction in them at all.
In the forraer he asserts In general terms, without
making any particular exception, that the Jewish chris-'
tians adhered to the customs of their ancestors; and In
the latter, which almost impiedlafely follows it, he says
that his adversary, who had asserted 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 ; al
luding, perhaps, to a few who had abandoned those
customs, while the great body of thera had not; which.
is sufficiently consistent with what he had said befote.
For Inconsiderable exceptions are not regarded in ge-j

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 357
neral assertions. It would have been very extraor
dinary indeed, if no Jewish christians whatever had
abandoned the rites of their former religion, when in
all ages some Jews, whether they became christians or
not, have done so. In like manner, it concerns me not
to assert that no individuals of the Jewish christians
embraced the doctrine of the trinity, because my pur
pose is sufficiently answered if ihe great body of them,
to whom the rest bore no sensible proportion, 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
for raaking 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 chris
tians in general.
That this was really the case, and that the great body
of Jewish christians were likewise unitarians, we have
the express testimony of Origen, uncontradicted, asi
have shown, by hiriiself, or any other authority what
ever. He could not but be well informed with respect
to the fact, his veracity was never Impeached ; and If
he had been disposed to deny the truth, (which he had
no temptation to do,) he wrote in circumstances In
which his attempts to falsify could not have availed
him'. But to prove Origen to be guilty of contradicting
himself, Is not the only use you make of the passage.
You say, p. 27, " But this is not all. In the next
sentence he gives us to understand, though I confess
more Indirectly, but he gives us, to understand, that of
these three sorts of Hebrews professing Christianity, they.

358 LETTERS TO THE
only who had laid aside the use of the Mosaic law
were in his time considered as true christians." ThIs'
Is extraordinary indeed ; but let us see kow It is given
to be understood. Having found so little in your clear:
conclusions, I do not expect rauch from your supposed
insinuations. " For he mentions It as a further proof of the Igno
rance 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, hehad 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
altogether alienated from Christ, and others which have
renounced the Creator, and has not noticed [or knew
not of] Israelites believing In Jesus^ and not relinquish-'
ing the lawof their fathers *? ' What opinion," you
say, " is to be entertained of a writer's veracity, who in
one page asserts that the Hebrews professing Chris
tianity had not renounced tbe Jewish law, and In the
next affirms that a part of thera had renounced it, not
without an insinuation that they who had not were he
retics, not true christians? Ego huic testi, etiam
JtlRATO, QUI tam manifesto FUMOS VENDIT, ME
non CRiDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO."
Such is the curious inference of the learned Ai*ch-
* AxXa yxp ito^sv KeXrw rx Kara rov r oitov r^xvwrai, os Kat
cuperewv iJ.sv a&swv, Kat rov Irjirov itxvr-^ aXXorptwv ev rois e^ijS
E^i'ijaovEuo'g, KXI xXXwv KxrxXeiitovrwv rov hip.iovpyov ovk otSs Ss
KXt lapzifXiras sts Iijaoui' iria-nbovrac , kxi ov KxraXsiKovras rov ifx-
rpi'jv V0IJ.0V ) ov yap irposKsiro avrw <piXaXrj&ws oXcC ra Kara rov
roTT'jv ^eixuxi, \v' Sl ri ^prjiTiij,ov svpitrKOi KxpaSs^ljrai, aXXx xa*
tus e)(^^pos, x-xt OAOS rov xvxrqeitsiv x]j.x rip xxovrai ysvoiJ.svos> ra
roixvia xve'Ypaiisy, Ong. contra Cels. lib, ii, p. 5^,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 359^
deacon of St. Alban's. From this construction of the'
passage a person raight be led to think that Origen re
presented Celsus as having undertaken to give an ac
count of the heresies In the christian church, and as
having in that account omitted the Israelites believing
in Jesus, and not laying aside the rites of their an
cestors ; 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 pro-,
fessed Christianity, and adhered to the laws of Moses."
Where then is the most distant insinuation that the
Israelites believing in Christ, and not laying aside the
rites of their ancestors, were heretics? That the Gno
stics were classed with chris^tians, was a common com
plaint of the orthodox in that age.
You strangely allege another instance of what you
caU prevarication in Origen, in the same book against
Celsus. In the controversy with the Jews about the
meaning of the word HDT'i^, which he contends signi
fies a virgin, he says, " The word nobj;, which the
LXX have translated into the word Tta^Qivcg [a virgin],
but other interpreters Into the word iisavis [a young
woman], is put too, as they say, in Deuteronoray,
for a virgin*."
On this you remark as follows : " What is this as
they say f Was It unknown to the compiler of the
* Eav Je lovSxios evpsriXoywv, ro iSov t/ ifxp6svos'[J^rj ysy^xpSxi
Xsysi xXX' xvr. xvrov iSov ij vsxvis' fijirojixs)' ispos avrov, on -rj pusy
Xs^iS ^ AaX(^x -^y ol p^sy stioii.rjKovra ij,srsiXri<part itpos rrjv itxpSs-
vov, aXXoj Ss sis rrjV vsxviv, Ksirat ws <pdri Kai sv rw Asvrspovi)pi,iaj
iKfitx^hvov ovrws s^o^ra. Orig. conO-a Cels. lib. i^ p. 27.

360 V LETTERS TO THE
Hexapla, what the reading of the Hebrew text, in his
own tirae, was ? If he knew that it was what he would
have it thought to be, why does he seera to assert upon
hearsay only ? If he knew not, why did he not inforra
himself, that he might either assert with confidence
what be had found upon Inquiry to be true, or not
assert what could not be maintained ? Ego huic
TESTI, etiamsi JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFESTO
FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM ESSE CON
FIRMO." I am astonished that any man could think this state
of the case probable. The question between Origen
and the Jews was not what was the word in the He
brew, but what was the raeaning of it in a particular
place. But even admitting that the dispute was about
the true reading in the original, what great raatter was
there in Origen's saying the Jews said so, when he
knew that what they said was true? Is this a founda
tion on which to affirm that you would not take a
man's evidence upon his oath ? What an appetite must
a man have for calumny, who can seize upon such a
f ircurastance as this to gratify it !
f cerium habet in cornu : hunc tu, Romand', caveto.
I am, 55c,

Archdeacon of st, alban's. 361
LETTER II.
General Observations relating to ihe supposed Ortko
dox Church of Jewish Christians ai Jerusalem after
the Time of Adrian,
Rev. Sir,
xlAviNG fully considered what you have alleged In
support of your extraordinary charge of wilful false
hood In Origen, because the supposition of his being
an honest man was inconsistent with the existence of
your church of orthodox Jewish christians at Jerusalem
after the time of Adrian, I shall proceed to consider the
positive evidence that you have produced for the actual
existence of such a church. But I shall, in the first
place, raention sorae observations of a general nature
relating to the subject.
That there "was a christian church at Jerusalera after
the time of Adrian, we all acknowledge; but you say,
" the point in dispute between us is, of what merabers
the church of JEIia was composed. He says, of con
verts of Gentile extraction : I say, of Hebrews, of the
very same persons, in the greater part, who were raera-
bers of the ancient Hebrew church at the tirae when
the Jews were subdued by Adrian."
1 . Now, that the raerabers of this church were not
Jews, but Greeks, I think indisputable frora 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 performed was Greek ;
whereas immediately before the bishops had been He
brews, and the public offices had been in the Hebrew
tongue.

362 LETTERS TO THE
2, If there was any considerable body of orthodox
Jewish christians, it is extraordinary that no particular
mention should be made of them by any ancient writer.
Jerora 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 suppose that the learned Ebi
onites were heretics, and the unlearned orthodox.
3. As so many writers speak of Ebionites, or hete
rodox 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 occasion, the mention of
the other. And yet no ancient writer speaks of thera.
4. As to a tvhole church of orthodox Jewish chris
tians at Jerusalem, or elsewhere, we hear of no inter
course between any such church and other orthodox
churches. None of th^r bishops, or deputies from
them, appear at any council ; no appeals are ever made.
to thera ; which would have been natural, as to the.
mother of all the chyrches. This is easily accounted
for, on the supposition that all the reraains of the Jewish
christians were the poor and -despised unitarian Ebi
onites, residing chiefly beyond the sea of Galilee, whose
numbers likewise were inconsiderable ; but hard to be
supposed, if there were any churches of orthodox Jew
ish christians residing at. Jerusalem, or elsewhere.
5. If there was any considerable body of orthodox;
Jewish christians, why do we never hear of any He^.
brew gospels besides that of Matthew ? If they held the

archdeacon OF ST. alban's. 363
doctrine of the orthodox gentile churches concerning
the person of Christ, it is probable that 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 raade little use of them.
By way of apology for your additions to the scanty
accounts of the ancients, concerning the conquest of
Jerusalera by Adrian, ypu say^ " The ecclesiastical
history of those times is so very general and imper
fect, that whoever attempts to raake out a consistent
story from any ancient writers which are corae down
to us, will find hiraself under the necessity of help
ing out their broken accounts by his own conjec
tures." But certainly, Sir, the contradicUng of an ancient
writer Is not the way to help out his account of things.
Now Eusebius, the oldest writer who mentions the fact,
says, that after the taking of the city by Adrian, the
whole nation of the Jews (jroiv s^vog, which excludes all
distinction with respect to religion) were forbidden even
to see the desolation of their metropolis at a distance*.
Ho help out this broken account, because it does not
contain aU that ybu wish it to do, (though I see nothing
broken in it,) you say that the Jews were allowed to re-*
main in the place, and enjoy the privileges of the .^lian
colony, on condition of their becoming christians, To'
help out this addition, I would further add, that another
of the terms of the capitulation was, that they should
from that time speak Greek, as without this, they
* Kai rov rrjs aitovoixs avrois airiov rrjv a^iav sxriravros SiKrjv.
ro Kav e^vos f£ exsivov kxi rr/S ite^i rx IsporoXv^a yrjs Kaii.itav sKt-
^aivsiv sipysrai, vo^ov Soyfj-xri kxi Siara^srtv ASpiavov ws av ftijj'
«J airotrov ^ewpoiev ro itarpiuov eSaipos syKsXsvcray.svov. Euseb,
Eccl. Hist, lib. iv. cap. 6. edit, R, Steph, Paris. 1544. fol. 34,

364 LETTERS TO THE
could have derived no benefit from the offices of a
Greek church.
Sulpitius says, that by this severity to the Inhabi
tants of Jerusalera, Adrian thought to destroy the chris
tian . faith. But to this you- oppose the authority of
Orosius, (calling it, however, p. 43, but a feather in
the scale,) that when the Jews were excluded, the chris
tians were allowed to reraain. If your liberty of help-'
ing out a broken story may be exercised here', I should
say that, in the idea even of this writer, the Greek
christians, might remain, butthe Jewish not. If any
regard is to be paid to Eusebius, the oldest historian,
or to Sulpitius, who is much more circumstantial than
Orosius, 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 say,
p. 44, " It is a notorious fact that Adrian was not un- .
favourable to the christians, and that the church in his
reign obtained a respite from persecution." But how
far did this* favour to christians extend? You say,
" the fury of their persecutors 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 cer
tain crime, and, when nothing more was alleged than
the bare narae of Christianity, to punish the Inforraer 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 w^ere 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 Christianity.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. A.LBAn's. 365
Your favourite' Mosheim says (Hist, vol. I. p, 128,)
that what was done by Adrian (in whose reign the perr
secutlon of christians had raged with peculiar violence)
was a solemn 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 deeraed sufficient 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 Adrian was so well disposed towards Chris
tianity, as to permit the rebellious Jews to remain in
Jerusalem oh condition of their embracing it.
I am, &c.

LETTER III.

Of the Testimony of Epiphanius to the Existence of
a Ckurck of Orthodox Jewish Chrislians at Jeru
salem after the Time of Adrian.
Rev, Sir,
After the preliminary observations contained in the
preceding letter, I shall now consider the testimony
that you have produced from Epiphanius.
You say, p. 46, that " the fact (viz. of the return
of the Jews from Pella to Jerusalem after the wars of
Adrian) of which Dr. Priestley has donp 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

S66 LETTERS TO THE
a great number of his own shameless intrepidity in as
sertion." 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 after
wards spring. Having now no character to lose, being
capable of asserting any thing, true or false^ that Is likely
to answer my purpose, I will, " with the raost sharae-
less intrepidity," assert that Epiphanius raentions no
ZMch fact as you so very confidently suppose hira to
have done. After carefully examining the passage
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 Jerusalera by-Titus, and not at all of any
return after the destruction by Adrian, This is raost
evident frora attending to the very next sentence which
foUows the words that you have quoted. The whole
passage is as follows :
After raentioning AquUa, as appointed by Adrian the
inspector of his works at ..^Ha, Epiphanius gives the fol
lowing history of him : — " Aquila, Uving at Jerusalem,
and seeing the disciples of the disciples of the apostles
flourishing In the faith, and working great miracles,
especially of healing, (for they had returned from the
city of Pella to Jerusalem, and taught there. For
when the city was about to be taken by the Roraans,
all the disciples had been forewarned by an angel to
leave the city, - which was devoted to destruction.
These, leaving It, went and dwelt In the above-raenn
tioned Pella, beyond Jordan, one of those that were
called DecapoUs ; but, returning after the desolation of

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 367
Jerusalem, as I have said, worked miracles.) Aquila
therefore, being convinced, becarae a christian, and,
after sorae time, requesting the seal of Christianity [viz.
baptism], obtained it*."
What can be raore evident, than that the return of
the Jewish christians from Pella, mentioned iri this pas
sage by Epiphanius, is that return which followed the
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus ? For he speaks of
their having left that city, antecedent to this return to
it, in consequence of being warned by an angel so to
do ; which was said to be the case before the destruc
tion by Titus, but never before that by Adrian ; and
it was by the disciples of those who then returned that
Aquila was converted to Christianity ; which was pro
bably a considerable time before the destruction ofthe
Jews by Adrian.
After the imperfect quotation of the passage of which
I have given the entire translation, you have the as-
,surance to add, " Whether this return of the chris-
' tians of Jerusalem from PeUa took place in the Inter
val between the end of Titus's war and the commence
ment of Adrian's, or after the end of Adrian's, is a
matter of no Iraportance. It is sufficient for ray pur-
* "0 roivvv AKvXas, Staywv ev rri 'Ispo'vraXyjpi,, Kai opwv rovs ft^*-
ifffas rwv iJ.a&rjTuiv rwv aitorroXwv xvSowrxs rri irirrsi, kcci trrif^eix
l),eyxXx spya^O[i.evovs, tarewv kxi aXXwv SrxviA,xrwv. rjrx'v yxp viro-
rrps^avres airo JJeXXrjs rrjs HoXews sis 'ispovtrxXyji/., Kai SiSarKOvrss,
'TjviKa yap rjp.eXXev t; KoXis dXurKer^ai viro rwv 'Vw^aiwv, -ir^osxPV
l>.xnrSrjrxv viro ayyeXov, itavrss o'l /xaSijra* (Asrao-rijyai xito rrjs
iroXews fi.eXXovrrjs a^Sifl xiroXXvrSaf oi rives "O" [i-eravxirrai ye-
XOftsvOl, WKrjCXv sv IleXXri rri irpoyeypapt.p.evri KoXel, irepav rov \op-
Sxvov, rjtis eK AsKaKoXews Xeyerat sivai, pi.era Ss rrjv sprj^wrtv 'U-
^ovraXrjp. xirorrps^xvres, (is £'?')''> rr,ii.etx \f.eyxXa eirersXow. 'O
Qvv AkvXxs -Kxravvysis rrjv Siavoiav, rw y^pirriaviri/.w sirirrevrsv,
xtrrjras.Ssu,era.')^ovoy rrjv sv Xpirrw rtppayiSx, eKop.iraro. De
Mensurig et Ponderibus, Epiphanii Opera, vol. ii. p. l/l. Paris.
1622.

368 LETTERS TO THE
pose that these r.-'turned christians were residing at Je*
rusalem, or raore properly at lElia, at the same time
that Aquila was residing there as overseer of the em
peror's works. Let not the public be abused by any
cavils which ignorance or fraud may raise about the
chronology of the return," •
But certainly It must be of consequence to know,
whether Aquila was residing at Jerusalem after the de
struction, of that city by Adrian ; and this is more than
Epiphanius says, or Is at all probable In Itself. For the
rebuilding of Jerusalem by Adrian, In which Aquila
was eraployed by him, was undertaken in the 1 Sth year
of his reign, a year before the revolt of the Jews ; and
h was not till the 1 Sth of Adrian that they were en
tirely subdued.
According to Epiphanius, Aquila, after his conver
sion to Christianity by' the descendants of the Jewish
chrlstiaris who were returned from Pella, (retaining his
former practices, ) was excoraraunicated by them. After
this he became a Jew, and, applying hiraself to the study
of the scriptures, made a translation of them inta
Greek. This translation Cave supposes to have been
made A. D. 128 or 129, the llth or 12th of Adrian.'
His conversion to Christianity, therefore, was probably
prior to the reign of Adrian : and yet that is the only
circumstance that proves any Intercourse he ever had
with Jewish christians returned frora Pella. On whicb
side then is the ignorance, I say nothing of the fraud,
of which you suspect rae In this business ? You raust.
Sir, dig deeper than you have yet done, for the founda-
tiqn pf this favourite church. I am, &c.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 369

LETTER IV.
Of tke Evidence from Jerom in favour of tke Exist"
ence cf a Church of Orthodox Jewish Christians at
Jerusalem after tlie Time of Adrian",'
Rev, Sir,
1 COME now to the two passages which you have
quoted frora Jerora. That on which you lay the
greatest stress you Introduce In the following manner.
" But t give hira Origen :" " I will rest the credit of
ray seventh position upon the raention which occurs
in Jerom's Commentary upon Isaiah, of Hebrews be
lieving in Christ, as distinct frora the Nazarenes. Je
rom relates two different expositions of the prophecy
concerning Zabulon and Naphtali, delivered in the be
ginning of the 9th chapter of Isaiah, of which exposi
tions he ascribes the one to the Hebrews believing in
.Christ, the other to the Nazarenes, The character
given bf these Hebrews, that they believed in Christ,
without any thing to distinguish their belief from the
common belief of the church, without any note of Its
error or Imperfection, Is a plain character of complete
orthodoxy," It is somewhat remarkable, that having before main
tained that those whom Jerom called Nazarenes, In his
epistle to Austin, were orthodox christians, you should
now allow that, by the same term, he here means here
tics; and that the phrase believing in Christ should
now be a character of complete orthodoxy, when in that
epistle It is predicated of the heretical Ebionites, What
clue can we have to any man's raeaning, if he be sup-
2 B

370 letters to the
posed to use terras in such different and even opposite
senses ? When neither hiraself nor any other writer
ever says that there ivere two such very different kinds
of Nazarenes, what right can you have to assert that
there were ?
The passage In Jerom on which though you lay so
much stress, you do not quote, is as follows. In his
interpretation of Isaiah Ix. 14, (cited In Matt. iv. 6,) he
says, " Galilee of the Gentiles Aquila translates Stvag
of the Gentiles, and Syraraachus the boundaries of the
Gentiles, By Btvoeg vve understand heaps of sand on
sea coasts or shores. The Hebrews believing in Christ
interpret the passage In this manner. At first these
two tribes, Zabulon and NaphtaU, 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 declares,
that the country whose people were first carried captive,
and began to Serve the Babylonians, and which was
first involved in the darknpss of error, was the first to
see the light of Christ preaching to thera, and from it
the gospel was preached to all other nations. The
Nazarenes, whose opinion 1 -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 NaphtaUm, being delivered frora the
error of the Scribes and Phari^es, shook from their
necks the heavy yoke of Jewish traditions ; but after
wards, by the preaching of the apostle Paul, who was
the last of the apostles, the preaching was increased.

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's. 871
or multiplied, and the gospel of Christ shone to the ut
most boundaries of the GentUes, and of the ocean.
Then all the world, which before walked, or sat, in
darkness, and was held In the chains of Idolatry and
death, saw the clear light ofthe 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 were com
pletely orthodox ; and thirdly, that those orthodox
Jewish christians resided at Jerusalera. And it appears
to me that not one of these suppositions Is at all pro
bable. That by Nazarenes Jerom did not intend any other
than the Hebrews believing in Christ, but only meant
* Pro Galilea Gentium Aquila bivxs gentium, Symmachus, ter-
minos gentium interpretati sunt : Siivas autem tumulos intelligi
mus arCnarum, qui vel in littoribus vel in ripis sunt. Hebraei cre
dentes in Christum hunc locum ita edisserunt. Primo tempore hae
duae tribus Zabulon et Nephtalim ab Assyriis captae sunt et ductae
in hostilem terram, et Galilaea deserta est, quam nunc propheta di
cit alleviatam esse, eo quod peccata populi sustineret. Postea au
tem non solum duae tribus, sed et reliquae quae habitabant trans
Jordanem in Samaria, ductae sunt in captivitatem, 'Et hoc, inquiunt,
scriptura nunc dicit, quod regii cujus populus primus ductus est in
captivitatem et Babiloniis servire ccepit, et quae prius in tenebris
versabatur erroris, ipse primum luctm praedicantis viderit Christi,
et ex ea in universas gentes sit evangelium seminatum. Nazarael,
quorum oplnionem supra posui, hunc locum ita explanare conan-
tur, Adveniente Christo, et prasdicatione illius coruscante, prima
terra Zabulon et terra Nephtalim scribarum et pharisaeorum est er
roribus liberata, et gravissimum traditionum Judaicarumjugum ex-
cussit de cervicibus suis. Postea autem per evangelium apostoli
Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum omnium fuit, ingravala est, i. e.
multiplicata praedicatio, et in terminos gentium et viam universi
maris Christi evangelium splenduit, Denique omnis orbis, qui ante
ambulabat vel sedebat in tenebris, et idololatriae ac mortis vinculis
tenebatur, clarum evangelicum lumen aspexit. Opera, vol. iv,
p. 33.
2B 2

372 LETTERS TO THK
to vary his raode of expression, is probable frora this
consideration ; that, after giving a translation of the
passage by Aquila and Symmachus, both Ebionites,
he speaks of the Interpretation of the prophecy by the
Hebrew christians in general, and then says, the Naza
renes, whose opinion he had given above, explained oil'
illustrated it in the raanner 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 passage are not
at all difi'erent frora one another, but the latter a further
illustration of the forraer ; the one being an interpreta
tion of the prophecy, and the latter a raore particular
appUcation of it to the time of Christ and the gospel.
This passage, 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, I9
the idea of Jerom, they were the very same people ; if
it does not also prove that their opinions were the sara'e
with those of Aquila and Syramachus, or of the Ebi
onites. You raay indeed say that the opinion of the Naza
renes, to which Jerom refers, as given above, was that
account of the Nazarenes which Is found In his com
mentary on the preceding chapter, viz. " their so re
ceiving Christ as not to abandon the old law." But
the remoteness of the passage, and Its having no rela
tion to the subject of which he Is treating In his com.
mentary on the ninth chapter, make it improbable.
2. Admitting that Jeroni alluded to sorae difference
between the Hebrews believing in Christ and the Na
zarenes, it is far from following that the former were

ARCHDEACON OF ST. alban's, 373
eompletely orthodox, and the latter not. For the phrase
believing in Christ is applied both by Origen and Jerom
to the heretical Jewish christians. His not expressly
saying that they were heretics in this place, on which
you lay so rauch stress, can never prove that they
were completely orthodox ; since their heresy had no
thing to do with the subject of which Jerom is here
treating. All the difference between these two descriptions of
Jewish christians that Jerom can be supposed to allude
to, is such a one as Origen made, of two sorts of Ebi
onites, viz. one who believed the miraculous concep
tion, and the other who disbelieved it ; or that of Jus
tin, viz. of those who would hold communion with the
gentile christians, and those who would not.
" It must strike the learned reader," you say, " that
the Nazarenes mentioned by St. Jerora in the passage
to which I now refer, of his annotations on Isaiah,
must have been a different people from those men
tioned by him with such conterapt In his epistle to St.
Austin, and described by Epiphanius. The Nazarenes
here mentioned by St. Jerom held the Scribes and
Pharisees In detestation, their traditions in conterapt,
and the apostie St. Paul in high veneration." Now I see
no intimation in this passage of there being any other
kinds of Nazarenes, or Jewish christians, besides such
as Paul found at Jerusalem in his last journey thither,
the raore intelligent of them being his friends, and re
joicing in the success of his preaching. But even his
greatest enemies must have admitted that the know
ledge of Christianity was extended by his means; which
is all that Jerora says of the Nazarenes in this place.
As to the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, we

374 LETTERS TO THE
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 thera at Jerusalem ;
which is the thing that you contend for.
" On these foundations," however, you say, "which
a stroriger arm than Dr. Priestley's shall not be "able to
tear up, stands the church of orthodox Jewish chris
tians at Jerusalera, to which the assertors of the catholic
faith will not scruple to appeal in proof of the anti
quity of their doctrine, whatever offence the very raen
tion of the orthodox church at Jerusalem raay give to
the enraged Heresiarch."
Alas! these new foundations, being like the forraer
built upon the sand, are also corapletely swept away.
I will add, that he raust be a bolder raan 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, that " he mentions Naza
renes who held the doctrine of our Lord's divinity.
For by an exposition of Isaiah viii. 13, 14, which Sti.
Jerora ascribes to thera. It appears that they acknow
ledged In Christ the m^as mni [the Lord of Hosts]
of the Old Testament." For any thing like a shadow '
of a proof of this most extraordinary assertion, I a
long tirae looked in vain, and thought the reference
must have been misprinted ; but at length, considering
what kind of a reasoner I had to do with, I believe I
discovered your real ideas on the subject.
The prophet says, (ch. viu. 13, 14.) Sanctify tke
Lord of Hosts himself, and let him be your fear, and

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 375
let him be your dread; and he shall be for a sanc
tuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a roek of
offence, io both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for
a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
In his comraentary on this passage, Jerom says, " the
Nazarenes (who so received Christ as not to abandon
the observance of the old law) Interpret these two
houses of Samraai and Hillel, frora which arose the
Scribes and Pharisees, &c. and that these were the two
houses which did not receive the Saviour, who was to
them for a destruction and an offence*."
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 Pharisees, they believed
Christ to be the Lord qf Hosts. They only call him
ihe Saviour, meaning, probably, a person speaking and
acting by authority frora God, who was In reaUty re
jected by those who rejected his raessenger, though a
mere man. As our Lord hiraself says, Luke x. 6, He
that despiseth you despiseth me ; and he that despiseth
me despiseth him that sent me. On this ground you
might rank both the Nazarenes and all the raodern
professed unitarians with believers In the divinity of
* Duas domus Nazarei (qui ita Christum recipjunt ut obser-
vationes legis veteris non amittant) duas familias interpretantur
Samai et Hillel, ex quibus orti sunt scribae et pharisaei, quorum
suscepit scholam Axibas, quem magistrum Aquilae proseliti autu-
mant, at post eum Meir j cui successit Johannen, filius Zacharaei,
et post eum Eliezer, et per ordinem Delphon, et rursum Joseph
Galilaeus, et usque ad captivitatem Hierusalem Josue. Samai igitur
et Hillel, non multo prius quam dominus nasceretur orti sunt in
Judaea, quorum prior dissipator interpretatur, sequens prophanus ;
eo quod per traditiones et Jsursfocrgif^siias, legis praecepta dissipa-
verint atque raaculaverint. Et has esse duos domus, quse salva-
torend non receperint, qui factus sit eis in ruinam et in scandalum.
Opera, vol. iv. p. 32,

376 LETTERS TO THE
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 top
much. I wonder, however, that this raode of Interpreting
scripture does not stagger even yourself. I thought
that the most orthodox of the present day had beHeved
that the person characterized by the title of tke Lord
of Hosts had been not the Son but the Father. If
the Lord, i. e. Jehovah, of Hosts, which Is no doubt
synonymous to Jehovah absolutely 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 Jerusalera
after the tirae of Adrian, I have particularly consi
dered your five quotations irom ancient writers, and do
not find that so rauch as one of thera Is at all to your
purpose. Thus agair? ends this church of orthodox Jewish
christians at Jerusalera, planted by Mosheira, and de,
stroyed by the too copious watering of the Archdea-
pon of St. Alban's,
I am, &c,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 377
LETTER V.
Of the Miraculous Conception.
Rev, Sir,
Your Serraon on the Incarnation ought to be con
sidered as making part of our controversy ; and indeed
it might with more propriety have been entitled a Dis
course against myself, as you have contrived to intro
duce Into It reflections on every opinion that I have at
any time advanced, that you could think would raake
me appear in an obnoxious light. But for this I am
not sorry ; because 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 corae to approve what they now dislike. As
to raere abuse, in which light only those reflections can
be considered as they appear In this Serraon, I think
my time, and even my ink, of too much value to be
thrown away In answering It.
As to the miraculous conception, to which your Ser
mon chiefly relates, I do n^t pretend to make myself a
party for or against It, haring only endeavoured to
supply materials for forming a right judgeraent in the
case. But I cannpt help observing that, instead of new
. ligkt, you have thrown upon it a great mass of addi
tional darkness, and of a deeper shade than any thing
that has been produced by the christian fathers, at least
till long after the councU of Nice.
With respect to the importance of the doctrine, you
say, that, " as an article of the christian faith, it is evi-
jiently the foundation of the whole distinction between

378 LETTERS TO THE
the character of Christ, in the condition of a man, and
that of any Pther prophet. 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 na
ture of any other man might have equally admitted,
 ^and how It should differ, otherwise than In the
degree of frequency and intimacy, it will not be easy
to explain, unless we adhere to the faith transmitted to
us frora the priraitive ages, and beUeve that the eternal
word, who was In the beginning with God, and was
God, so joined to hiraself the holy thing which was
forraed In Mary's womb, that the two natures, frora
the coraraenceraent of the virgin's conception, made
one person  Jesus, according to the primitive doc
trine, was so united to the ever-living word, that the
very existence of the man consisted In this union."
" It was," you say, " clearly the doctrine of holy
writ, and nothing else, which the fathers asserted, In
terms borrowed from the schools of philosPphy, when
they affirmed that the very principle of personality and
individual existence In Mary's son was union with the
uncreated word. A doctriSe In which the rairaculous
conception would have been irapiied, had the thing not
been recorded ; since a raan conceived in the ordinary
way would have derived the principles of his existence
from the mere physical powers of generation. Union
with the divine nature could not have been the prin
ciple of an existence physically derived from Adara ;
and that intiraate union of God and raan in the Re-
deeraer's person, which the scriptures so clearly assert,
had been a physical irapossibillty." •
You add, " On the other hand, it were not difficult

ARCHDEACON OF ST, alban's. 379
to show that the miraculous conception, once admitted,
naturally brings up after It thp great doctrines of the
atonement and the Incarnation."
To these uncouth assertions, expressed in language
utterly unintelligible, and equally unwarranted by scrip
ture or reason, I shall make no particular reply. He
that can receive tkem, let him receive them. I shall
only observe. In general, that if I should profess my
self 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 ab
surd doctrines do, as you say, necessarily depend upon
it. I shall add, that if Christ had so extraordinary a
coraraunication with God, in consequence of his having
no father, what must have been the case with Adam,
who had neither father nor mother?
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 quali
fied to write about it than you were at the tirae of
composing this Serraon. This History you ironically
call my great work, printing It twice In capitals.
This work, which Is now before the pubUc, and may
be In your hands, you are welcome 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 you ascribe to me. If
that work should stand Its ground against the fierce at
tacks of the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, the learned
Professor of Arabic at Oxford, the more learned
Mr. Howes of Norwich, and the other learned or-

380 LETTERS TO THE
thodox divines at home and abroad, whose animadver
sions it openly challenges, it may deserve a more ho
nourable 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.

LETTER VL
Miscellaneous Articles.
Rev. Sir,
Were I disposed to Indulge rayself In noticing all
the strange posltioris and inconclusive reasonings with'
which your Remarks abound, I should make a much
larger work than I fear my readers would care to look
through. Having, therefore, 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 at
tention. I.
As to my construction of ihe passage in Athana
sius, we are sufficiently corae to an issue. I ara fully
satisfied with what I have advanced in support of it,
and have nothing to add ; and, conteraptuously as ypu
treat it, 1 should not feel rayself disposed to distrust it
on that account, even if I had not the coiicurrence of
such names as Beausobre and Dr. Lardner in my fa
vour. I do not know that you can produce the name
of aqy writer whatever In favoiir of ypur interpretation,

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's. 381
II.
With respect to the passages from Chrysostom, you
will find in my larger work (if you should condescend
to look into such a quantity of unfinisked literature)
that your construction of his meaning is contradicted
by hiraself. You yourself, however, acknowledge all
that I want, when you say, " the apostles first taught
what was easiest to be learned, and went on to higher
points, as* the 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 riot
choose to teach the doctrine of Christ's divinity, or of
the trinity. If christians were not taught those doc
trines, they could not know thera, and consequently
they must have been unitarians, till they were instruct
ed In them ; and this, as all the fathers say, was not
tUl the publication of the gospel of John.
The learned and judicious Mr. Basnage, though
a trinitarian, very frankly acknowledges tbat Christ
found the Jews in utter ignorance of the divinity of
their Messiah, that his object was, " to accustora them
insensibly to a raystery so rauch above their reason, and
foreseeing that the church, would revolt agamst It."
Chrysostora, he says, has succeeded In maintaining
this. Hist, des Juifs, 1. v. cap. ix. s. 3.
III.
You are pleased to ridicule my Logic, as confound
ing being, substance, and substratum, and you find
me " unapprised of that great principle, without which
a logician will handle his tools but awkwardly, that the
^enus cannot be predicated of the specific differences."

382 LETTERS TO THE
I cannot tell where you learned this curious logic, with
which I acknowledge I am utterly unacquainted ; and
I imagine It is equally unknown to comraon sense. For,
according to it, since men are divided into Whites and
Blacks, he. &c, and the Whites may be subdivided
into those of Europe and Asia, &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 particular Whites
or Blacks, that they are men, and it would be still less
proper to say that they are animals 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 sarae error with myself, " In supposing that being
is an universal genus, under which all other genera
rank as species," I am content to class with these great
men, greater, as you say, than myself.
IV.
I am particularly araused with your account of ihe
dissenters in this country, with whora it may be pre
sumed that I ara better acquainted than you are. And
yet. In contradiction to what I asserted, and to what I
am confident every dissenting minister, of any denomi
nation whatever, will acknowledge to be true, ybu
largely maintain that " Calvinism Is almost extinguish
ed among us." However, I the less wonder at your
ignorance of ancient sects when you so peremptorily
decide with respect to modern ones, arguing on the
most fallacious principles, and neglecting, or despising,
the surest and the most easily accessible sources of in
formation. I sincerely wish that the rational dis-

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's: 383
senters were more numerous than they are ; but the
smallness of their nuraber, corapared to that of the
Calvinistic dissenters, is a clear proof of the truth of
my general raaxira, that great bodies do not soon
change their opinions ; and that maxim affords the
strongest presuraption that the body of christians,
having, according to the acknowledgeraent of all the
fathers, beeri at first unitarians, could not soon becorae
trinitarians. Accordingly, there are the clearest indi-
cations that, in fact, they continued to be unitarians
for several centuries. V.
You have taken great but unnecessary palris to
prove that the places in which Mr. Lindsey and my
self officiate are properly conventicles, because we who
preach in thera are not authorized by law. It Is a
raatter of Uttle consequence by what narae they are
called, since, even in the worst and raost obnoxious
sense of the term, as places unauthorized by law, the
apostles generally preached in conventicles.
I should think, however, that If, by any accident,
an unauthorized dissenting rainlster, like rayself, should
preach In a parish church, It would not, on that ac
count, become a conventicle, and require reconsecra-
tlon. And if not, neither does the building in which
I officiate, being licensed according to law, and there
fore in itself no conventicle, become one In conse
quence of my preaching in It.
VI,
You have a whole chapter on the general spirit of
my controversial writings, in which you take much

384 letters to the
pains to exhibit rae as a raan whose designs are hostile
to my couritry, and who has no pretension to the cha
racter of a good christian, or a good subject. I re
joice that I ara reproached on this account, as I am
conscious that it is unmerited, and shall only observe,
that the same things, and on the very sarae grounds,
were said of Luther, and may be said of any man who
shall endeavour to reform any thing that he finds esta
bhshed In the country in which he is born. For it is
irapossible that any man should wish for a new and
better state of things, without wishing for an alteration
of the old and worse state ; and if he may on this
account be denominated an enemy to the country In
which that old and worst state prevails, a physician
must, on the same principle, be deemed the enemy of
his patient, whose disorders he wishes to eure, and
especially if. In order to It, he has recourse to un-
pleasing remedies.
At the sarae time that you profess the greatest mo
deration, you cannot conceal your secret wishes for
the Interference of soi^e aid from a foreign quarter.
You say. Indeed, " Whatever Dr. Priestley may affect
to think of the intolerance of churchmen in general, of
of the Archdeacon of St. Alban's In particular, a
churchman lives not in the present age so weak, who
would not In policy, if not in love, discourage rather
than promote any thing that raight be called a perse
cution of the unitarian blaspheray, In the person of
Dr. Priestley, or of any of his adralrers. A churchman
lives not so weak as not to know, that persecution 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 sorae very weak

ARCHDEACON OF ST, ALBAN's. 385
churchmen, who, having less confidence in the force of
argument than you have, may be alarmed too soon,
and cry. The church is in danger ; In which case you
would yourself think the interference of civil power
very proper.
Confiding, however, in the good sense and modera
tion of my countrymen In general, though not In that
of the clergy in particular, I shall persist in using that
Hberty which the laws ought to give rae. Unitarianism
has flourished very well, as you allow, in persecution.
Let the experiment be fairly made, and we shall see
whether it will not flourish as well in that state of per
fect freedora which the generous teraper of the times
gives us.
In a spirit very different frora the general professions
quoted above, you cannot forbear to Insinuate that my
designs are truly alarming to the State, and say, " If
Dr, Priestley ever should atterapt to execute the sraallest
part of what he would now be understood to threaten,
it. raay then be expedient that the magistrate should
show that he beareth not the sword In vain,"
You say, " Let us trust for the present, as we se
curely may, to the trade of the good town of Birming
ham, and to the vise connivance of the magistrate,
(who watches, no (ioubt, while he deems it poUtic to
wink,) to nip Dr/ Priestley's goodly projects in thjs
bud ; which nothing would be so likely to ripen to a
dangerous effect, is constraint excessively or unseason
ably used. 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 means of
doing- It. In gratitude's estimation the will is ever to
be taken for the deed." What is this but saying that
2 G

386 letters to the
it would be wise and right to nip my projects even in
the bud, if there was any prospect of my succeeding in
thera ? And what could a Bonner or a Gardiner say
raore ? They would never have burned raen alive, if
it had not been to prevent what they thought to be
mischief Indeed, Sir, you do not know what spirit
you are of.
But ray projects are more than in the bud. I ara at
this very tirae actually executing all that I would be
understood to threaten, or ever have threatened. - I
am endeavouring by all the means in ray power to
rouse the attention of thinking men In this country to
the "corrupt state of the religion that is established in it,
and especially to convince them of the mischievous
tendency of worshipping Christ as a God, when Chris
tianity disclaims all knowledge of any other God than.
one, and that the God and Father of Christ ; being
confident that when this Is effected, (and towards this
considerable progress Is visibly making every day, and
it has met with no obstruction since the coraraenceraent
of this controversy,) not only will the present forras of
trinitarian worship be abolished, but ray. countrymen
will then thank me and my friends for what we may
have contributed towards so glorious a revolution. Till
this be actually effected, you will naturally call our at
tempts rebeUious. In the raean time, convince our go
vernors, If you can, that the country wIU suffer in Its
wealth, population, power, &c. he. by the people be
coming unitarians.
Whatever you may insinuate to the contrary, the
real nature and full extent of my views (which I carry
oil in obedience to a greater power than any In this
world) might easily be seen by yourself, especially In

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAn's.' 337
my late Observations on Freedom of Inquiry In Mat
ters of Religion, There you might also have seen that
the dreadful engine, by means of which I hope to ac
complish my dangerous designs, is free discussion or
controversy, — an obstinate controversy — in which
much rest, but I hope no lives, will be lost — much
ink, but no blood, will' be spilt; and in this I con
sider the Archdeacon of St. Alban's, Mr, White, Mr.
Howes, and all my opponents, as my coadjutors ; ior
without such concurrence no controversy could be car
ried on. But " the weapons of our warfare are not
carnal." To yourself. Sir, In particular, the world is indebted
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 believe, have occurred to me.
And I trust that a fire still more destructive to error
and superstition, and consequently to ail the ecclesias
tical establishments in the world, which are built upon
and proraote them, will be raised by the concurrence
of your seasonable pains in blowing up the flame of
this controversy; which wUl not, I trust, be extin
guished till its end be effectually answered.
Lest you should again relapse Into your criminal In
dolence of eighteen months, consider that the great
danger on which you. Sir, first sounded the alarra
(and Mr, White has sounded 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 faraous Charge to the Arch
deaconry of St, Alban's. Lest you should rerait of
2 c 2

388 LETTERS TO THE
your ardour, I shall here recite one paragraph from
it,
" The restless spirit of scepticism will suggest diffi
culties In the system, and create doubts about the par
ticulars of the christian doctrine : difficulties must be
removed, and doubts must be satisfied. But above
all, the scruples must be coraposed which the refine
ments of a false philosophy, patronized as they are in
the present age by men no less amiable for the general
purity of their manners, than distinguished by their
scientific attainments, will be too . apt to raise in the
minds of their weaker brethren. And this is the ser
vice to which they, whom the Indulgence of Providence
hath released frora the more laborious office of the
priesthood, stand peculiarly engaged. To thera their
more occupied brethren have a right to look up In
these emergencies for support and succour in the cora.
mon cause. It is for them to stand forth the cham
pions of the comraon faith, and the advocates of their
order. It Is for thera to wipe off the aspersion Inju
riously cast upon the sons of the EstabUshraent, as un-
-Informed 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 providen
tial exeraption frora work of a harder kind. It is the
proper business of the station which is allotted thera in
Christ's household. And deepvwill be their sharae,
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-
forraed." "If Tir, you read the above as often as you ought to
do, you \Aill never in this very critical- situation, when

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 389
the enemy is at every gate, and scaUng every rampart
of your old and ruinous fortress, indulge yoprself in
your soft couch of preferment, but, together with your
brethren, exert yourself pro aris ei focis.
VII.
You sav, that, " as you consider this controversy as
reserabling a state of war, in which no quarter is to be
given or accepted, you think yourself at liberty to strike
at your eneray without remorse. In whatever quarter
you may perceive an opening." This fell language
may well raake me shudder at my situation, especially
as in my large work, at this very time probably in your
cruel and reraorseless hands, there raust be raany open
ings, and your vigilance in discovering them cannot be
doubted. I trust, however, that though you raay draw
blood In many places, you will not be able to reach any
vital part. Out of eighteen, hundred references, I will
gladly conipound 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 open
ing, I raay presurae that the parts at which you have
aimed your remorseless blows are all that you thought
vulnerable. But, Sir, you are not skilful In the art of
tormenting, and, like the Indian warrior, I wHl teach
you how you might w^ound rae rauch raore deeply.
Your chief wish 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 writ
ings (but they are happily too voluminous for you to

390 LETTERS TO THE
look through) you might have found passages more to
your purpose than any that you have selected. You
have gone back as far as the year 1769; but you have
overlooked the Sermon which I preached on resign
ing my pastoral office at Leeds, in 1773, one para^
graph from which I shall Insert for yOur use on another
occasion. " All who are interested in the support of these anti
christian establishraents, which usurp an undue au
thority 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 maxiras universally
decried, and their unjust claims assailed from a great
variety of quarters, so that their kingdom is now full
of darkness, and tkey are gnawing their tongues for
pain, but without repenting of their deeds." Rev.
xvi. 10, &c. he, &c. VIII.
As you talk of " culling the flowers of my com
position," I shall, in return, present you with some of
your own. If they please so much when separate, what
must be their beauty and fragrance when united!
" Insufficient antagonist; confident ignorance, fiery
resentment, violent invective, and fierceness of wrath;
incompetency in the subject, fraudulent trick, meant
to be put upon the public, but not on Dr. Horsley;
unfinished erudition, shallow criticism, weak argument,
unjustifiable art to cover the weakness and supply the
want of argument; the vain indignant struggle of a
strong animal which feels itself overcome, the mere

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's. 391
growling of the tiger in the toils ; a never to be for
gotten attempt upon a passage in St. John's first
epistle * ; a professor of Greek, unqualified to teach
the eleraents of that language ; a false arid fraudulent
representation of an arguraent ; precipitance in asser
tion, and talent in accommodating his story to his
opinion; one instance out of a great number, of his
shameless intrepidity in assertion; enraged heresiarch;
prudence in not yet declaring his antipathy to the cIvH
as well as ecclesiastical constitution of this country; de
claiming in his conventicle to enlighten the minds and
excite the zeal of the mechanics of the populous town
of Birmingham; the excessive adrairation in which I
hold rayself; unjust claira to the titles of a good chris
tian, or good subject, &c. &c. &c."
In connexion with this, let the reader now see what
you say In other passages : " lion any branch of chris
tian duty my conscience be at perfect ease, the precept.
Judge not is that which I trusti have not transgressed ;"
and, " From my youth up, I have been averse to cen
sorious judgeraent." Who then, Sir, can deny that an
excess of meekness and moderation forms the leading
feature in your character ?
Having taken from me every moral quality, all know
ledge of human nature, hisiory, logic, and every thing
requisite to qualify rae for the controversy in which
I have had the presumption to engage, together with
* Referring to a supposed attempt to impose uppn my readers,
by a false quotation of the common English version of the Bible,
A man really capable of this could only be fit for Bedlam or I'y-
burnj and yet Dr. Horsley, in the very publication in which he
advanced that charge, said my " virtues were great and amiable ;"
as evident a .contradiction as the doctrine of transubstantiation ot
the trinity; But as these have been believed, so may the other.

392 LETTERS TO THE
the very elements of the Greek language, and even of
Latin, I think rayself happy that, having asserted your
own right to all virtue, and all, knowledge, you have
not yet expressly denied my ability to write a little
tolerably Intelligible English, and I shall erideavour to
make the best use that I can of it, before the fatal day
shall come when I raay be stripped of tkis also.
But, dropping this style, I must on one subject be a
little serious with you. You say that I have charged
you with gross and wilful misrepresentation. This I
deny; and if I have inadvertently said any thing that
iraplies as rauch, I shall publicly ask your pardon. I
must, therefore, insist upon your raaking good this accu
sation. You repeatedly charge me with wilful misrepre
sentation; but I doubt not you really believe me to be
that fraudulent and base character, which alone is ca
pable 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 speak
ing of you. I have, indeed, called you a falsifier of
history, because you have added, and (as you now ac
knowledge) 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 eigh
teenth letter to you, I ara surprised that you should
write as you do now. How different raust be your
feeHngs frora mine!
The conclusion oi your remarks, which Is so little
of a piece with the body of the work that It puts me

ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, 393
In mind of the introduction to Horace's Art of Poetry *,
is something extraordinary, and indeed shocking.
After ascribing to rae the worst designs, and the worst
passions, that can occupy the head or heart of man,
and for once Intimating the possibUity of something
wrong lurking unperceived in your own bosora, speak
ing of the awful solemnities of the last day, you ex
press a desire that " whatever of intemperate wrath,
and carnal anger, has mixed itself on either side with
the zeal with which we have pursued our fierce con
tention, may then be forgiven to us both ; a prayer,"
you say, *' which you breathe frora the bottom of your
soul," and to which you add, that If / have any part
in the spirit of a christian, I shall, on my bended knees,
say, Araen.
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 general
temper, conduct, and manner of writing. If / 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 soleran declara
tion of your perfect innocence, quoted above, you had,
when you wrote this conclusion, a latent suspicion that
all had not been right on your side, you certainly. Sir,
ought ld have paused, have carefully revised what you
had written, and have expunged what you could not
approve. Boasting of more Christianity than you "ft/ill
* Humano caplti cervicem pictor equinam
Jungere si velit, et varias inducere plumas
Undique collatis membris, ut turpiter atrum
Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne j
Speetatum admissi risum teneatis, amici ?

394: LETTERS, ETC.
allow to me, you ought to teach me, by your exaraple,
what it is that our religion requires In these cases, and
not give any occasion to an unauthorized teacher in a
conventicle to instruct an Archdeacon of the church
of England in one of the first lessons In the christian
school. lara, Rev. Sir,
Your very hurable Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.

LETTERS Dr. horsley,
LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S,
PART IV.
By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.
Facta minis quantum distent. OviB.
Hsec qua sacrilegis ausit convellere verbis
Schismat'icus sit, et haretieus-; 
 et in mentem quicquid tibi splendida bilis
Suggeret. Hue omnes tonitrus, hue fulgura linguss
Congere, pfoque focis hie depugnetur et aris.
• — 7- Animi non mores exuit atros
Vestis Hyperboreas superans candore pruinas.
BdCHANANI FRANCISCANnj.

PREFACE.

Waving undertaken the defence of the Unitarian
doctrine, or rather of this one position,, that unita
rianism was the faith of the primitive church ; but not
being wUling to trouble the Public unnecessarily on the
subject, I proposed to make one annual reply to such
publications of my opponents as should raake their ap
pearance 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 178^, I had no occa
sion to write at all. The case has been soraething dif
ferent this year. For though it will sufiicientiy appear
tbat the advocates for the doctrine of the trinity have
published nothing that is in the least degree formidable,
enough has been done to give me an -opportunity of
showing how Uttle the cause of unitarianism has to
fear from any thing that the keenest eyes of Its adver
saries 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 ex
araple in the whole history of controversy, of any man
having raade .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 oi plausibility.
Profe^ing to prove my ingompetency in the subject.

398 PREFACE,
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 hd 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 tirae of Adrian, and the want of veracity In
Origen, who appeared by his writings to know of no
such , church. Even these mistakes were borrowed
from Mosheim ; so that, In all probabUity, he was,
before the coraraenceraent of this controversy, en
tirely unacqualrited 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. Badcock, from the manner
in which they took up my quotation frora Athanasius.
It Is clear that the very idea of the apostles' not choos
ing openly to teach the doctrine of the trinity, because
It would give offence to their hearers, was absolutely
new to thera ; though I have shown it to have been
the opinion of all the christian fathers without excep
tion, who mention the subject ; so that ray construc
tion of this passage of Athanasius is abundantly con
firraed by all the writers who either preceded or fol
lowed 'hira ; to say nothing of such raen as Beausobre
and Dr. Lardner having understood it exactly as I did,
and of ray antagonists being unable to produce the
opinion 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 ad
vantage themselves, (for I hope that no raan Is capable
of such complicated folly and wickedness as in more

PREFACE. 399
cases than one they have ascribed to me,) but such
gross ignorance on the subject as Is barely credible
with respect to men who voluntarily undertook tp cri
ticize another.
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, decisive in favour of the Unitarian doctrine
having been taught by fhe apostles) the Bishop of St,
David's, in both his last publications, has been abso
lutely silent ; and I ara persuaded he will continue to
be so.
Mr, Badcock charging me with a luilful perversion
of the passage in Justin Martyr, in which he is also
countenanced by Bishop Horsley, is another instance
ofa premature triumph ofthe same kind; discovering
both their ignorance of the subject of this controversy,
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.
I cannot help congratulating the friends of free In
quiry 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 dis
cussion, it is frequently the subject of their charges to
the clergy, of which that ofthe Bishop of Peterborough,
noticed page 1 68, 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 session of parliaraent.
For among the provisos in this biU, the seventh in

400 PREFACE.
number is the following, 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 bUl was not actuaUy brought into parliament;
but it had been settled with the rainlster, and the se
veral articles of It had undergone much discussion.
That this proviso was not inserted by the Catholics is
very evident , nor could it have any meaning with re
spect 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
some persons who are known to disbelieve that doc
trine, and wh^o may be suspected of an intention to"
write against it' ; and the intimation it conveys Is, that
no favour is to be shown by governraent to such per
sons. But what is sufficient to ray purpose is, that it
shows, In the strongest Hght, the extrerae apprehen
sions of sorae persons in power (no doubt either bishops,
or statesraen influenced by bishops) on the subject of
this controversy.
As tothe intiraation, given In so awkward and round
about a manner, that no favour will be shown by the
present government to those who, like myself, write
against the doctrine of the trinity, it is sufficient to In
form 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 raust be by argu
ment, not by such irapiied threats. Let ministers of
state direct the bishops to defend their cause by writing,
and let not bishops so evidently betray their want of

PREFACE. 401
confidence In argument, as to engage the ministry to
oppose us by laws. Though both the methods will
be ineffectual, there will be greater propriety in the
former than in the latter.
This controversy having continued several years, and
so rauch 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 sarae
answers to the sarae arguraents ; and I ara as little
arabitioUs of having the last word, for the sake of its
being so, as the Bishop of St. David's ; and it must
be soraething raore specious, at least, than any thing
that I have yet seen frora hira, 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 controversy, and then I shall have
an opportunity of noticing any thing that I may think
deserving of it. My backwardness to write, when I
have been properly called upon, has not yet been com
plained of.
I had proposed to conclude this controversy 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 re
peatedly, advanced on several other occasions. In this,
however, I shall be determined by the circumstances
2 D

402 PREFACE. '
in which I may hereafter find myself. I particularly
recomraend an attention to what I have briefly urged
in the conclusion of ray History of the Corruptions of
Christianity, ray History of early Opinions concerning
Christ, and my Letter to Mr. Pitt.

¦ 'Kyjipov Se puoi srrty

Avris apt^rjXws ei^rj^eya fivSoXoyevsiv, HoMERi Odyss*

BlSMIMGHAM,
January 1, 179O.

LETTERS

TO THE

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.

LETTER I.

Of his Lordship's avowed Object to depretiate his
Antagonist.
My Lord,
After waiting, I believe, nearly twice eighteen
months, the interval between your two preceding pub
Ucations in this controversy, I am happy to see you
make your appearance in it once more. Your Lord
ship's greatest adralrers have not wished for this event
so ardently as myself and my unitarian friends ; be
cause we consider your publications In this controversy
as contributing in an eminent manner to the propaga
tion of tbat great truth for which we think it glorious
to contend, and which you oppose. The fact un
questionably Is, that, since the coraraenceraent of this
controversy, the progress of unitarianisra has been
rapid, compared to what it ever was before; and
more within the church of England than araong the
Dissentersj though araong thera the number of con
verts has been considerable.
Truth will never fail to recommend and establish
Itself, notwithstanding, and even by means of, all
2 D 2

404 LETTERS TO THE
opposition ; but your Lordship's raode of opposing It
is so singularly efficacious in promoting it, that of all
my antagonists I have always had the greatest satisfac
tion in replying to you. Besides, slow as your motions
are, (owing to the natural iridolence of which you corni-
plain,) your Lordship seems to be the raost alert of all
the raerabers of your church who are engaged on the
same side of the question with you. Mr. Howes,
whose expedition was the greatest at one time, has, I
fear, wholly decUned the contest; and Dr. Horne's
great work, so long promised, and so eagerly expect
ed, 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 aU.
He raay want the aid of ray quondara adralrer, Mr.
Badcock. On the whole, had I been perraitted to choose 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 Let
ters to me, I said to several of ray friends, that If I
could have dictated the whole of your perforraance
myself, it should have been just what I found it to be;
your arguraents were so extreraely futile, and your
manner of urging thera giving me even more advan
tage than I wanted or wished for.
The principle of your Lordship's attack upon me^
and the object of It, avowed. In your first publication,
and repeated In the preface of this. Is Indeed most ab
surd. " It seemed," you say, " that the most effec
tual preservative against the intended mischief would
be to destroy the writer's credit, and the authority of

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 405
his name ; which the farae of certain lucky discoveries
in the prosecution of physical experiraents had set high
in popular esteera, by proof of his incorapetency in
every branch of literature connected with his present
subject. — For this declared purpose a review of the
iraperfections 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.
Alban's," 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 Croesus, When he forraed
the design of making war upon Cyrus, he sent to con
sult 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 erapire was his own.
This, my Lord, would apply to your Lordship, If that
coiild be said to be overturned which was never esta
blished. 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 a historical kind, and of any
considerable extent, ever was free from Imperfections ;
and therefore, upon your principle, 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 acknowledged Iraperfections than you
have pretended to discover In mine ; not to say that
you have been completely foiled in alUyour attempts
to discover any error of the least consequence to my

406 LETTERS TO THE
main argument. Would it destroy the credit of the
late Dr. Johnson with respect to his knowledge of the
EngHsh language, to point out faults In his style, of
which many raight be found ? Was Newton no philo
sopher because he made a mistake In one of his expe
riraents ; or no raatheraaticlan, because he Is said to
have coramitted an error in one of the demonstrations
of Ills Principia f
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 of no use. The real
value of every work comes In time to be justly appre-
tlated. Allowance Is made for errors and iraperfec
tions, and due credit is given to every raan and 'to
every production for what is just, and will bear exa
mination. This is all that I desire, and I ara confident
that I shall not be disappointed. As to all preraature
atterapts to decry any particular work, or any particular
man, such as your Lordship's and those of your allies,
as you call thera, with respect to me, they always ope
rate in favour of what Is thus attempted to be cried
down. Because no person wUl take the trouble to
give an alarm where he apprehends no danger.
After the contemptuous raanner in which your
Lordship affects upon all occasions to treat rae, both
with respect to knowledge and integrity, you may
easily perceive that il has no effect In inspiring others
with the sarae sentiraents. It is not even believed that
you really entertain thera yourself. You raake rae
destitute of the very rudlraents of the Latin and Greek
languages, and altogether unacquainted with the writers
of christian antiquity. You pretend that I purposely

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 40*7
misquoted the comraoiv English translation of the
Bible In order to Impose upon my readers. You now
6ay in a pecuUar soleran manner that you would not
take my evidence upon oath, and perpetually repre
sent me as acting frora the vporst 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 raanner as that of the knight of La Mancha,
who mistook a windmill for a giant, and a flock of
sheep for an army. Your Lordship's peculiarly haughty
and indignant phraseology only serves to amuse yoUr
readers by the singular curiosity of It.
The manner In which your Lordship affects to speak
of ray History of early Opinions concerning Christ
cannot raortify any writer. I shall quote it for the en
tertainment of ray readers. " The author is well aware
that Dr. Priestley will charge hira with one capital orais
sion ; 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 Opi
nions concerning Christ ; that large work in four vo
lumes, 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 supposed to
contain better arguments, or at least his old arguments
&! a better forra. The only apology to be made Is a
sitnple declaration of thetruth. Not conceiving him
self obUged to engage In the Insipid task of reading so
long a book without better hope of Information from
it than his past experience of the writer's knowledge
iii the subject gives. Dr. Priestley's adversary Is as Ig-

408 letters to the
norant of the contents of that work as he could have
been had it never been published. It is reported. In
deed, that the work, whatever may be its merits, has a
very slow sale. Of consequence It has found but few
readers. The antagonist of Dr. Priestley, were he
better acquainted 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 to neglected arguraents, be the instrument
of drawing four volumes, fraught, as the very title
imports^ with pernicious heretical theology, frora the
obscurity In whicii they may innocently rot In the
printer's warehouse." Preface.
Now, my Lord, I am confident that my expectation
of your producing any thing new and valuable on the
subject of my History, is in reality less than yours con
cerning me ; and yet had you, in the course of this con
troversy, produced a work of the same extent, on the
same subject, raore engaged as I ara In business of vari
ous kinds than I can suppose so indolent a raan 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 Hterally
true,) and a reason that is not at all to Its disadvantage.
Slow as the sale of so large a work on such a subject
raust be expected to be, it produces Its effect, and will
do so still raore the more it is considered ; and of this, I
doubt not, you yourself have some secret suspicion; and
that if your Lordship thought that your considering and
answeriiig it would have done more than your silence,
indolent as you are, you would have been roused to a
Httie more exertion. But where there is no hope of

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's, 409
success there can be no motive to action. At present
your Lordship's conduct may be compared to that of a
general who should say to his antagonist, " Sir, I shall
return the fire of your small arms ; but as to your can
non, I shaU not trouble rayself about thera." 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 depretiate your antagonist too
much, which, however, lessens the iraportance of your
victory over him, you now speak of my philosophical
discoveries ( which on a former occasion you thought
proper to mention with sorae respect) as merely lucky
ones. On this subject I shall not make any defence ;
ior 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 vihoXhj fortuitous ; and some praise Is always
due to activity In any useful pursuit.
If I were disposed to imitate your Lordship's con
temptuous 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 Comraentary on the works of Newton,
undertaken, as you say, " Societatis Megiie Londi
nensis adhortatione, et summo Optimatum atque Lite-
ratorum totius Anglice favor e ;" frOra which the world
was led to expect a work that would do credit not only
to yourself, but to the nation which had produced the
original, I know as Httle as you do of my History of
early Opinions concerning Christ, and therefore I can

410 LETTERS TO THE
say nothing of my own knowledge ; but mathemati-
ci^ns of ray 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
subject of this controversy has been sufficiently ex
plored ; and"" what you have published In the form of
Sermons*, though at the request of grave bishops, on
ether 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 PubHc wiil not be Influ
enced by your mere opinion concerning 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 raore
than a candid attention to thera. I am, &c.

LETTER II,
Of the Charge of Want of Candour in Dr. Priestley t
My Lord,
iTROFEssiNG, as you somewhere do, to " strike at
your adversary without remorse," (and, as I may add,
without judgement or discretion,) and perhaps per-
* One of these, viz. an Ordination Sermon, has been well ani-
tnadverted upon by Mr, Wakefield, and another by the anonymous
author of A Letter to his Lordship, occasioned by his Sermon on
the Principle of Vitality in Man.

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVId's. 411
ceiving by the impression which your writings have
made upon others, that you had indulged your pride
and resentment rather more than became a christian,
or more than answered your purpose, you seemed
wilUng at least to bring me in as a sharer in yo,ur guilt,
and charged" me 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 fre
quently 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 excited some generous
sentiment ; but it is to mistake the soil to expect any
such produce from your Lordship.
After being frequently called upon to cite the passage
on which your charge was founded, you now produce
one in which I speak of trinitarians in general (but
without any particular view to ihe 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 tritheists, holding three
equal and distinct Gods." You also quote two other
passages, in one of which I speak of some persons as
writing so v?eakly in defence 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 de
fenders of the established religion are insincere. But
who will say that the whole of any class, of men, de
fenders of an establishment or not, are sincere ? Must

4J2 LETTERS TO THE
coraplaisance require us to say that there are no bad
men In the world, or that any particular class of men
is free from thera, when truth requires the contrary,
and candour allows that there are raany who' are
good ?
If what I have said with respect to ingenuousness
had been Interpreted by the general strain of my writ
ings, the controversial ones not excepted, It would have
been ascribed to what I have more than once said of
that secret irfiuence of motives, of which the agent
himself is not distinctly apprized, and what only a ri
gorous examination of himself, and a coraparison of
his conduct with that of other raen, can enable hira to
discover. In this sense raany worthy persons are far
from being those ingenuous and Impartial inquirers
after truth that they take theraselves to be, not per
ceiving the real source or tendency of their principles.
As this Is a subject to which I wish that more atten
tion were given, I shall take the liberty to make a
pretty large quotation from what I advanced concern
ing it in the very first of my controversial tracts, viz.
Considerations on Differences of Opinion among Chris
tians, addressed to Mr. Venn; and I do It the rather, as
that paraphlet has now been long out of print, and j
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 influ
enced 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

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 413
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 prin
ciples of his own conduct. But the huraan raind 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 they occasion sirailar
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 con
nected, and reciprocally promote one another. For
the same reason, a dislike of opinions has an affinity
with the disHke of those who hold them, as men who
are embarked In an Interest opposite to ours, and whose
credit and authority obstruct our own; and all the
emotions of raind that are excited by the sarae object,
how different soever they be originally, by frequent as*-
sociation raix together, so that the parts of that cora
plex feeling which results frora their union are no
longer distinguishable. When two persons who have
had frequent intercourse, have been a long time at va
riance, and the subjects of their contention have been
numerous, can either of them analyse the sudden erao-
. tion they will feel In an unexpected raeeting ?
" We often begin to act frora one motive, but, as
we proceed, we corae Insensibly within the influence
of others ; so that In sorae cases the habit shall con
tinue, 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 9f another began ; the change

414 LETTERS TO THE
of principle and character having been insensible, and
altogether imperceptible.
" The application of this doctrine may be made both
by those who are provoked at others for holding opi
nions which they Jihink damnable, and by those who
laugh at tbem 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 overlook every thing in a
man who raeant 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 raay deceive theraselves as
well as others, are by no means entitled to so favour
able a reception.
" It behoves us, however, carefully to distinguKh
between this latent insincerity, under the influence of
which men deceive themselves, and that direct pre
varication with which those who are engaged In debate
are too ready to charge one another, as if their adver
saries knowingly opposed, or concealed, the truth.
This last Is a crime of so heinous a nature, that I
should be very unwUling to Impute It to any person
whatever. For a man voluntarily to undertake the de
fence 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 so totally void of
all principle of rectitude ; it Is such an insult upon the
God of truth, and such a contempt of his judgements,
that I think human nature could never be so dejwaved
as to be capable of It, and that no situation In human
Hfe could supply a sufficient temptation for such con-
duct. There are such well known instances of the

l6rD BISHOP OF ST. david's. 415
force of prejudice, that I had rather ascribe any opi
nion, how absurd soever, in any raan, how intelligent
soever in other respects, to wrong judgement, than to
a bad heart. I can hardly Iraagine any case in which
the chance would not be in favour of the forraer.
*' 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
judgeraent to be convinced of the integrity, and per
haps the right judgement also, of an adversary whom
I should have treated in an illiberal and insulting man
ner!" P. 4, &c.
Whether you, my Lord, wUl allow the truth of these
observations I cannot tell. You certainly have not
acted upon them, either with respect to the excellent
Origen, or myself. But I have not copied the above
for the use of your Lordship ; considering you to be a
person to whom sorae of thera are so far applicable,
that I do not expect the, least benefit frora the fairest
and just est representation of any thing connected with
this controversy ; and yet without thinking so III of
you, as you profess to do of rae.
That your Lordship is In this state of raind, destitute
of what I call per/ecf ingenuousness. Is evident from
the turn that you have given to a passage in ray Sermon.
to which I had referred you, In answer to your charge
of gross IlliberaUty. I there speak in the highest terras
that I could of the good understanding, and the sin
cerity, both of many Catholics, and merabers of the
church of England, even " those who are sensible of
the corruptions and errors of the systera in which they
are entangled, and yet have not been able to break
their chains." Of this you say, " It is a long passage,

416 LETTERS TO THE
in which he professes to hold the church of England
in no less estiraation than the church of Rorae;" which
I might have done without thinking well of either of
them. This I cannot call a fair and ingenuous con
duct, because It gives your readers (many of whom, I
believci never read any thing of mine) a false Idea of
what I write. Besides, I said nothing directly about
the two ckurches of England, or of Rome, but of the
members of them ; being openly hostile to the systems,
but friendly to their adherents, I ara, &c.

LETTER III.
Ofthe Ckarge of borrowing from Zuicker.
My Lord,
Jl hough ray rule In controversy is by no raeans your
Lordship'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 ara upon the subject bf
latent disingenuousness, produce an instance which has
much the appearance of it in your Lordship's conduct
to me.
You charged me with having "produced few, if
any, arguments, but what are found In the wrltihgs-
either of Zuicker or Episcopius." From this It might
naturally be concluded, that you had compared my
arguments with those of - those .two writfers, and had
found thera to be the sarae ; which implies that you

LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVID's. 417
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 me by a learned foreign correspondent, and I find
Zuicker's views of the state of opinions In early times
to be so different frora mine, that I ara confident. If
you had ever seen his work, you had never read it.
For, if you had, you could never have asserted that I
had borrowed frora hira at aU.
Zuicker says, p. 16, that Justin Martyr, besides
availing hiraself of his Platonic principles, derived his
notion of a trinity froirthe-spurious verses of Orpheus,
which he supposes to have been written by some dis
ciple of Simon Magus. He also makes Simon Magus
the parent of the Praxeans, Patripassians, and Sabel-
Hans, 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 Gnosticism, which
was the offspring of the school of Siraon Magus, that
he wrote a treatise against It. And I consider the
Praxeans, Patripassians, and SabelUans, as no other
than philosophical Unitarians.
Except these opinions, there is nothing of rnuch.
consequence in the work of Zuicker, besides a proof,
very rauch detailed for so sraall 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;
2 E

418 LETTERS TO THE
and this, if I had read nothing of antiquity rayself, I
might have borrowed from Dr. Clarke and twenty
other writers as well as Zuicker.
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 ob
serve that he had no doubt, p, 11 4,, but that, in the
passage of Jerora, the true sense of which has been de
bated between iis, the writer meant to assert the Iden
tity of the Ebionites and Nazarenes with respect to
every thing of importance.
Zuicker also makes a good observation, p. 1 10, on
the manner in which Austin introduces his account of
the Ebionites Iraraediately after that of the Nazarenes,
which is, Ebioncei Christum etiara lantummodo homi-
. nem ducunt; " The Ebionites also suppose Christ to be
a raere raan," As if it Irapiied that the Nazarenes
thought the sarae, though he had not expressly asserted
as much in his account of thera, the word etiam inti
mating as much. I am inclined to think that Austin
had written this In the account of the Nazarenes, but
that the clause Is now lost, I cannot else account for
the insertion of etiam, also, in the next sentence.
I ara, &c.

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVId's. 419
LETTER IV.
Of the Damnatory Clause in the Athanasian Creed.
My Lord,
Do ready is your Lordship to charge rae with the
grossest ignorance, that you raost egregiously expose
your own, or, which Is worse, your disposition to cavil,
when you say, " Dr, Priestley, I believe, is the only
writer who ever confounded two things so totally di
stinct 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 reraark, of your
Lordship's turns, relates to the acts of those councils in
which It was the custora to raake a creed, and then to
annex anathemas to It, But this creed of Athanasius
is no act of any council. You neither know who com
posed it, when it made its first appearance, or how it
came Into the public offices of the church. Frora the
structure of It it is evidently a mere creed, containing
nothing besides propositions, which were apprehended
by the coraposer 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 is not only introduced both at the beginning and
at the end of the creed, but, as If that was not suffi
cient, it has a place in the raiddle likewise: thus,
" Whosoever will be saved, before all things it Is ne
cessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith
except every one do keep whole and undefiled, wlth^
out doubt he shall perish everlastingly." Thus this
2 E 2

420 LETTERS TO THE
celebrated creed begins. About the middle we find
the following clauses : " He therefore that will be
saved raust thus think of the trinity. Furthermore It
is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also beUeve
rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Lastly, it closes with this sentence, " This Is the ca
tholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved."
Do not these anathemas or damnatory clauses con
tain real propositions ? and does not the person who
pronounces thera affirm the truth of those proposi
tions ? Can any person seriously say, 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 ?
Had the word anathema only been used. It Is pos
sible that the force of It might, not have been attended
to by the composer ; it being too coraraon to raake use
of words, especially in learned and foreign languages,
without attending to their strict raeaning ; and your
Lordship says It is so used in your Ecclesiastical Ca
nons when It Is applied to those who speak disrespect
fully of the Book of Coraraon Prayer (though I would
pot answer, as your Lordship does, for the compilers
of those canons not intending eternal damnation by
it); but where the words perish everlastingly are ex
pressly and repeatedly used, there can be no doubt
with respect to the nature of the anathema. The

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 421
daranatory clause so expressed is raost unquestionably
an article of faith, and certainly of a raost serious and
alarming kind. Indeed, ray Lord, it Is trifling with
your readers, and an insult on coraraon sense, to talk
of any real difference between this damnatory clause
and the other parts of the Athanasian creed.
Whatever profession, therefore, your Lordship may
inconsistently raake of your charity, and notwithstand
ing 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 contro
versy ; unless my everlasting damnation be an article
In your creed, you have subscribed the most solemn
form of words that can be devised by man without
meaning' any thing at all by them ; and why then raay
you not have subscribed every thing else with as little
truth ? Many, no doubt, do subscribe In this light and
careless raanner ; which shows the dreadful effect of the
habit of subscribing. It leads to the utter perversion
of the plainest raeaning of words, and opens a door to
every kind of insincerity. By your Lordship's' own
confession, you yourself no raore believe what you
have subscribed with respect to this creed, than you
do the Koran.
Indeed, your Lordship's account of the trinity is a
vefy different thing from the doctrine of this creed.
For you suppose a raauifest superiority in the Father,
and yet In repeating this creed you can say of the three
persons, " that none of thera 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

422 LETTERS TO THE
in your declarations, and feel the same horror at sub
scribing, that I do.
If your Lordship defends these damnatory clauses
on the principle of meaning nothing at all by tkem,
you vindicate the coramon cursing and swearing that
we every day hear in our streets ; where profane per
sons 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 ever
lastingly does not mean perish everlastingly, your
Lordship should have informed us what it does mean.
It Is certainly no blessing, but a cui'se of some kind or
other. I do not wonder that men of enlightened and in
genuous rainds, such as Archbishop Tillotson, should
express a wish that they were well rid oi this creed.
But others, I fear, (now, my Lord, mark my uncha
ritableness,) would not be sorry if the language of it
was still more harsh, that by the obligation to subscribe
it] there might be fewer competitors for those emolu
ments which may be obtained by subscription. For all
your subscriptions do not exclude unbelievers In all re
ligion, natural and revealed ; persons who, on such
terms as you offer, will subscribe any thing that is ten
dered to thera. If you would have fewer of these,
either in the church or out of It, you raust throw out
every thing from your creeds and subscriptions which
any sincere christian, or believer In the divine missloft
of Christ, cannot conscientiously assent to. Thus,
however, you raay say, 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.

LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVId's. 423
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
ef . Almighty God as are to be found in all the civil
establishments of Christianity In the world ; corruptions
borrowed frora heathen polytheism, and which In their
nature and effects are very similar to it. I ara, &c.

LETTER V.
Of ihe Phrase, Coming in the Flesh.
My Lord,
Your Lordship maintained at large that the phrase
coming in the fiesh, 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 he that is lo come ; when, at the same time, it
is so well known that I shall not trouble rayself to re
peat the proof of it, that no Jews ever expected any
pther than a mere man for their Messiah. By him that
was to come they meant the person who had been pro
mised thera, as to raake his appearance in due tirae.
When, therefore, the Messiah was come, and a ques
tion arose concerning his nature, whether he had real
flesh, or not. It was certainly not unnatural for a Jew,
who believed that Christ, or he that was to come, was

424 LETTERS TO THB
a real man, and had real fiesh, to express his opinion
by saying that Christ was come in ihe flesh ; and yet
your Lordship says, that " no reason can be devised
why they (the Jews) should make choice of such un
couth mysterious words for the enunciation of so simple
a proposition, which they might easily have stated In
terms incapable of misconstruction." Now, considering
the phraseology to which the Jews had been long ac
customed In speaking of the Messiah, I appeal to our
readers whether there be any thing peculiarly uncouth,
mysterious, or unnatural In It.
I alleged a passage In the epistle of Polycarp, In
which I thought, and stiU think, that the same phrase
(evidently borrowed by him from the apostle John) in
dicates nothing more than simple humanity, in opposi
tion to those Gnostics who raaintained that Christ had
not real fiesh; because In the very sarae sentence he
gives two other characters, which evidently apply to
the Gnostics only. I therefore concluded that the for
mer clause was only another part of the description of
the same class of raen. Had he raeant to describe the
Gnostics, by enuraerating their raost distinguishing
tenets, he could not well have expressed himself other
wise. This, however, I shall argue no further, but
submit to the judgement 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 writer's purpose,
that If the phrase be understood 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 him, have been preserved, when they

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVId's. 425
who behold the sun, which Is to perish [_and is ihe
work of his hands^, are unable to look directly against
Its rays?" I shall continue the quotation a Uttle further
frora Wake's translation, p. 167, " Wherefore the
Son of God carae 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 hath said of the
stripes of his flesh, that they were from them ; and I
wHl smite the shepherd, 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 beUeve
that Christ pre-existed, and made the world. It does
not follow that he considered this phrase coming in
tke flesh as necessarily implying so rauch ; and the
general and obvious sense of the passage is complete
without supposing any reference to a pre-existent state
at aU. 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 foretold 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 [ivhich 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 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 soul and body, besides the divinity ; and If Christ
came from heaven, this ought to apply to the whole

426 LETTERS TO THE
and not to any part of him only ; and then his fiesh
and his human soul must also have pre-existed, and
have come down from heaven as well as the divine
logos. 1 am satisfied, however, that both Polycarp^
and the author of this epistle, In its original state, who
ever he was, alluded to nothing more than the opinion
of those Gnostics who held that Christ had no real
body, and therefore that, though he was come accord
ing to the prophecies concerning him, he was not come
in the fiesh. I am, &c.

LETTER VI,
Of the Meaning of the Word Idiota in Tertullian.
My Lord,
JL OUR Lordship stUl maintains that the word idiota,-
whlch 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, he. But for tkis, which is
the only one to your Lordship's purpose, you produce
no authority froni any writer whatever ; except sorae
dictionary makers, whom the learned Bentley would
have called " very idiots in Greek and Latin" for their
pains ; the only synonyms that he allows being illite-
¦ ratus, 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 ap
plied to thosewho luanted taste in ihe fine arts, and
among thera he ranks himself, quemvis nostrum, he.

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 427
Acknowledging, as I ha^fe no objection to do, that
by this word Tertullian raeant to express soraething
more opprobrious than by simplices, or even impru-
dentes (though the latter is not very evident), It must be
such an epithet as he thought applicable to the greater
part of christians ; and surely he would not choose to
call thera idiots, or even dunces- and boobies. Out of
humour he was, no doubt, with those who could not
relish his subUme doctrine of the trinity, and who
thought it to be an infringement upon the great doc
trine of the sole mofidrchy of God the Father ; but he
could not impute it to a natural defect in point of under
standing, it being so very evident that the bulk of man
kind are not deficient in that respect.
However, it is of no consequence by what epithet
Tertullian, or any other writer, should choose to de
nominate the common people ; ior 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 oi that age consisted, and how It
tended, as I have shown, to mislead men with respect
fo^their Ideas of the divine nature. It Is infinitely more
probable that the plain good sense of the coraraon
people would forra a right judgement In this case than
all the knowledge of the learned ; to say nothing of
the greater probability of the coraraon people longer
retaining the original doctrine concerning Christ. For,
whether your Lordship like the observation or not. It
is universally true, that old opinions are to be looked

428 LETTERS TO THE
for among the comraon people, rather than among the
learned and speculative.
You say, p. 432, that the naturaU sense of Ter
tuUian's words is, that " this scruple," viz. their ob
jection 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 coraraon people.
He Insinuates that persons of that weak character only,
were Hable to that alarra." But certainly In Tertul-
llan's Idea this objection to the doctrine of the trinity,
or rather this dread of It, was common to all those
whora he calls simplices, imprudentes, and idiotce, for
he makes no exception ; and of such, he says, the -
greater part of christians consisted. Consequently, by
his own reluctant confession, the majority of the chris
tians of his age, whatever he might choose to call thera,
were unitarians, and dreaded {expavescebant) the doc
trine 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
exist. 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 renders
your ignorance still more conspicuous than it was, by
the addition of Incorrigible obstinacy in error.
I am, &c.

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 429
LETTER vn.
Of Heretics, according to Irenceus,
My Lord,
Another question between us is, Who Were the he
retics of early tiraes ? And I have shown by a series of
quotations frora 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 assembUes separate frora those who called
theraselves the catholic chuick, I had said that Ire
nseus, though he wrote a large treatise against heretics,
and expressed great dislike of tbe Ebionites, had not
called thera heretics. In one passage I said I had once
been of opinion that he had appHed that epithet to
thera ; but that on reconsidering it I was of a different
opinion, and I ara sc»5tUl, notwithstanding what your
Lordship has advanced In reply to me.
' I further added, that " if there was any other pas
sage In which Irenseus called the Ebionites heretics, I
had overlooked it." Such a passage, however, your
Lordship now produces, p. 455, for araong other here
tics he there enumerates the Ebionites. But this Is of
no consequence to my argument ; and if I had attended
to the passage I should have produced It myself, as I
have never faUed to do with respect to every thing else
that appeared to me to be of any consequence, whether
it made for rae or against rae. But there Is an evident
reason why the Ebionites were pretty soon considered
as heretics, and a reason which did not affect the Uni
tarians araong the Gentiles. For the Jewish christians.

430 LETTERS TO THE
on account of their using a different language,, held
separate assemblies frora those who used the Greek
tongue ; and besides, Jerom expressly says they were
deemed heretics only on tke account of their attach
ment io the institutions of Moses.
I had further said, that It was contrary to Irenasus's
definition of heresy to consider the Ebionites as he
retics. To this your Lordship says, In your usual
strain of poUteness, when you think you have any ad
vantage, 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 Irenseus
that definition may be found."
1 answer, that a strictly logical definition of heresy
may not perhaps be found In Irenseus, for such defini
tions are not common In antient writers. But he re
peatedly says that concerning all heretics, which does
not In the least apply to the Ebionites, which. Is fully
equivalent to what I said; 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.
Irenaeus considered Simon MagUs as a person from
whora all heretics sprung. But his doctrines were those
of the Gnostics, and so opposite to those of the Uni
tarians, that they were never considered as having the
sarae source. Of all heretics, he says, that " they
drew men off from hira who made and governs the
world, as if they had something higher and greater to
show than he who made the heavens and the earth,
and all things therein. They all agree," he says, " in
the sarae blasphemy against the Maker of all things."

LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVID's. 431
" The doctrine of Valentinus comprehends all here
sies; so that in overturning his system all heresy Is
overturned. They also blaspherae in supposing the
Maker of all things to be an evil being, and they blas
pheme 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 heretics as " having quitted the
church," and as " taxing the holy presbyters with ig
norance, not considering how much better is an igno
rant person who is religious (idiota religiosus) than a
blasphemous and impious sophist." He likewise says,
that " all the heretics were much later than the bishops
to whora the apostles committed the churches."
.It would be losing my own time, and that of my
readers, to show that none of these characters, which
this writer applies to all heretics, belonged to the Ebi
onites, and therefore that, to have been consistent with
himself, Irenseus ought not to have considered the Ebi
onites 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 judgement of
our readers. In some respects, no doubt, the Unita
rians and Trinitarians are agreed ; but It does not there
fore follow that they would both be referred to the
same class of christians. There were, as I have shown
at large, Jewish Gnostics, and, being Jews, they might
be called Ebionites; but they all believed that the su
preme 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
Irenaeus ascribes to all heretics. I am, &c.

432 . LETTERS TO THE

LETTER VIII.
Of the Origin of the Son fi-om the Father's Contem
plation of his oivn Perfections.
My Lord,
This letter I shall devote to that most curious sub
ject, the origin of the Son from the Father's contem
plation of his own perfections, which your Lordship
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 pos
sible out of sight. You express yourself, however,
with raore diffidence than before; which Is a thing un
usual with your Lordship.
You justly say, p. 458, " In a subject so far above
the coraprehension of the huraan mind as the doctrine
ofthe trinity must be confessed 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 ex
plain Its difficulties. Every one who has ever thought
for any length of time upon the subject cannot but fall
inserislbly, and Involuntarily, upon sorae'way or other
of representing the thing to his own raind. In this
manner, every one who meddles at all with the subject
will be apt to form a solution for hiraself, of what
seeraed to hira the principal difficulties. But since It
raust be confessed that the human mind In these In
quiries Is groping In the dark, every step that she ven
tures to advance beyond the point to which the clear

LORD BISHOP OF ST. D'AVID's. "^-fSS
¦Kght of revelation reaches, the probability is that all
these private solutions are, in different ways, and in
different degrees, but all in sorae way, and In sorae
degree, erroneous; and It will rarely happen that the
solution invented by one raan will suit the conceptions
of another. It were therefore to be wished that. In
treating this raysterious subject, raen would not, in
their zeal to illustrate what after their utmost efforts
must remain in sorae parts incoraprehensible, 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 opi
nions he may have forraed as rauch as possible out of
sight, that divine truth raay not be debased with a mix
ture ofthe 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 iraprudent
forwardness to Ulustrate what is in itself so palpably
absurd as to be incapable of illustration, (as rauch as it
is of proof,) your Lordship produced a sentiment so
supereminently absurd as to have contributed not a
little to the entertainment of our coraraon readers ; and
what your Lordship has now added on the subject will,
if I be not mistaken, considerably add to their amuse
ment. Your Lordship's original observation, to which you
iiow, by abridging it, give a different turn, was as
follows: Tracts, p, 55, " The sense," viz. ofa pas
sage in Athenagoras, "is, that the personal subsistence
6f a divine logos Is impHed in the' very Idea of a God;
and the arguraent rests on a principle which was com
mon to all the Platonic fathers, and seems to be founded*
2f

434 letters TO the
in scripture, that the existence of the Son flows neces
sarily frora the divine intellect exerted on itself, frora
the Father's contemplation of his own perfections. But
as the Father ever was, his perfections have ever been,
•ind his Intellect has ever been active. But perfections
.which have ever been the ever-active intellect must ever
have contemplated ; and the conteraplation whieh. has
ever been must ever have been accorapanied with its
just effect, the personal existence of the Son." .
Such, ray Lord, was the original text, which is now
shrunk up Into a very sraall compass, viz. that *' the
existence of the Son," p. 460, " flows necessarily from
the divine intellect exerted on Itself," and which not
being diluted, as it was so curiously done In your Lord
ship's first publication, raight have escaped ray notice.
Accorapanied with your former illustration It struck
me, and I believe most of yoiir readers who gave any
attention to It, as something uncomraonly ridiculous-;
and I raaintained that It was also raost notorlously/a/ie
in point of fact, and betrayed an utter unacquainted-
ness with every thing of priraitive antiquity on the sub
ject. And this opinion, notwithstanding your Lord
ship'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 ne
cessary, and did not at all depend upon the will "of the
Father ; whereas, according to all the Platonic fathers
before the CouncU 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 neces
sary it could not but have been,) but which took place
in tirfie, viz, just before the creation of the world, and
for the purpose of that creation. In the work which

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's, 435
your Lordship has not read, and which it Is therefore
more necessary for me to quote, is the following evi
dence of this.
• Tatian represents the Father as having been alone
before the creation of the world, that at his will the
Logos came out of him. Theophilus says, that " ac
cording to John, God was at first alone, and the.LogoS
in hira." Cleraens Alexandrinus says that "the Fa
ther 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 frora the will oi the
Father," " Do you inquire about fhe generation of
the Logos," says Hippolytus, " God the Father gene-.
rated whom he pleased, and as he pleased."
' 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 sin;
and there was a time when both sin and the Son, which
made God to be a judge and a father,'werenot." Ad
Hermogenera, cap. Iii. Opera, p. 234.
Novatian (or rather Novatus) says, Nothing was be
fore Christ but the Father, and that the Son was ge
nerated frora God when ke- chose. " God," says Lae
tantius, " before he undertook the construction of this
worldjgenerated an incorruptible spirit, which he called
his Son." Eusebius, speaking of God's Intending to
forra the raaterial world, says, "he thought of raaking
one to govern and direct the whole," He also says,
'* light is emitted frora the sun necessarily, but the Son
becarae the Iraage Of the Father frora his knowledge
and intentloh ; and that wheri. he pleased, he became
the Father of a Son," " We beUeve," says Athana*
sius, '* that God generated the Son spontaneously, and
2 F 2

436 LETTERS TO THE
voluntarily." History of early Opinions concerning
Christ, vol. H. p. 130, &c.
Were not these writers, ray Lord, Platonic fathers,
according to all of whora 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 rae
it is matter of astonishment that any one can read
some of the passages which Dr. Priestley himself has
produced from Athenagoras, Tatian, Tertullian, and
others, and not perceive that this notion was comraon
to all those writfers, 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 di
vines were obliged to give up their opinion of the vo
luntary generation of the Son, and to raake his exist
ence as necessary as that of the Father hiraself; but
still their Idea was not the same with your Lordship's,
viz. that it was the necessary result of the Father con
templating, that is, viewing hiraself. This is a pecu
liar mode oi necessary origination, for which your Lord
ship finds no colour till you corae to a much later pe
riod than that of the Platonic fathers ; and after all it
is no raore 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 in
tellect, as no doubt he must if he came from the
Deity, who Is generally represented as pure intellect ;
but he does not say that this coming forth was a ne
cessary consequence of the Father's contemplating
himself. Froia the fathers you pass to the schoolmen : but

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 437
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 out.
For generation by intellect, or by will, is not suffi
ciently definite for your purpose.
Coming down lower in your laborious search after
nonsense than the CouncU of Trent, you do, I ac
knowledge, 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 Intelli
gence upon himself he begets a Son, the exact coun
terpart and equal of himself." But here the word
contemplating raeans only thinking, and not a raere
viewing of himself which is the idea that your Lord
ship's language suggests ; nor is this exerting of inteU
ligence upon itself, by which the Son was begotten,
said, or intiraated to be, necessary ; which your Lord
ship raakes it to have been. The other passages which'
you quote are all of thera frora writers subsequent to
the Council of Trent, (which, I own, I was not rauch
acquainted with, and which it is probable your Lord
ship knew as little of as rayself, till you found it neces
sary to look out for sorae authority or other, raodern
if not ancient, for your curious Imagination,) and ex
press no more than ihis : none of them therefore 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 ofthe religious opinions of
every age, and how much the oldest things are noveU

438 LETTERS TO THE;
ties to^^rae ;" but only my ignorance of such things as
I iraagine our readers. will think to be hardly worth
knowing. In all christian anlic^xiiy, to which my in
quiries have been chiefly confined, no such, idea as
yours occurs. Your Lordship is obliged to go even
beyond the age of the schoolmen for something only
like it ; so that I was abundantly 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 Duna
Scotus," .
¦ - YoU do very well, my Lbrdi, to forbear quoting any
of those texts of scripture (though you say, p. 461,
'^ many phrases of holy writ seeiii to you to allude to
it,") on which you are of opinion that this " curious
nbtion seems to be founded." You might Well sup
pose that you had already afforded tke propkane 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 ciirious subject once more before the public,"
I wish you had not contented yourself with endeavour
ing 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 ne
cessarily arising from it. A reductio ad absurdum is
always deemed a sufficient refutation of any propose
tion. Now, among other things, I observed^ that, if

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVId's. 439
the Father's conteraplation of his perfections neces
sarily produced a Son, this Son, being In all respects
equal to the Fatker, and consequently having the same
perfections to contemplate, and of course the same
power of contemplation, must have produced another
Son. That you raay the raore distinctly perceive the force
of this reasoning, I shall repeat concerning the Son-
what you say of the Father ; since you raust allow
^that, mutatis mutandis. It raust be equally just in one
case as the other. " As the Son ever was, hi^ perfec
tions have ever been ; and his intellect has been ever-
active. But perfections which have ever been the ever
active intellect must ever have conteraplated ; and the
conteraplation 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 grandson. .
The same reasoning will equally apply to the Holy
Spirit ; so that this divine person also, by the contem
plation of his perfections, must produce a son ; and
the same being true of all the sons, and grandsons, and
great grandsons, &c. &c. &c. of these divine persons, .
(to say nothing of the necessary repetition of the same
process with respect to them all,) we have here a source
of multiplication of divine persons ad infinitum; and
what expedient you can apply to stop the progress of
this wonderful fecundity, vs/hen 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 I ; and your Lordship alone is answerable for all the
ridicule which your officious explanation has brought
upon the doctrine, and upon yourself. If a raan will

440 LETTERS TO THE
say ridiculous things, he raust be content to be the;
subject of ridicule. This I hope will be a caution to
you ih future, especiaUy if you should feel yourself
tempted to enter into any similar explanation of the
miraculous conception.
Your Lordship had done rauch 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 yoluhtary, effect of any exertion of the Father's In
tellect, but that he was that intellect, or his reason
itself.. This appears to have been very nearly the Idea
of Bishop Sherlock, who says that the Son is the Fa
ther's reflex knowledge ; so that he understood the -
doctrine of the Platonic fathers rauch better than your
Lordship. To this, however, one of his answerers in,
the Unitarian Tracts, vol. i. raakes a very pertinent
reply, sirailar to what I have just observed with respect
to your Lordship's peculiar Idea. " But the Son," says
he, " being an Infinite and most perfect mind, Is un^,
doubted ly able to reflect upon his own wisdora and
knowledge ; and thus, as well as the Father, tp beget.
a son ; and this second son in the trinity raay, 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 va. God, there raay 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

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 441
this anonymous answerer of Bishop Sheriock, who
puts that construction upon his words, though they do
not appear to me necessarily to Imply what he deduces
frora thera. For he supposes, whh your Lordship,
that the Son was produced by a refiection upon tke
Fathers knowledge; whereas the Bishop raakes him.
to, be his refiex knowledge Itself.
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 rash defiance,,
p. 476, I may place araong the specimens with whlch^
his History, and his Letters to me abound, of his in
competency in this subject, and of the effrontery of
that incurable ignorance, which Is ignorant even of its
own want of knowledge." Many persons will be of
opinion that the ignorance (which your Lordship de
scribes 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 surprise, to
be found somewhere: but It wUl now be evident that
they are not with me.
As this letter relates- to a subject which many per
sons will not be at)le to contemplate with much gJ'avIty,
I shall subjoin to It another article of a similar nature.
This controversy affords many instances of different
persons being very differently affected by the sarae re
presentation 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 per
sons of the Godhead," and that " this is shown with
great brevity, 'but with the highest degree of evidence
and perspicuity, by Dr. Kennicott." Now, ray Lord,
had any person besides a Trinitarian suggested the idea

442 LETTERS TO THE
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 blasphemous; since a consultation'
among different persons ImpUes a previous ignorance
of each other's sentiments, and soraething like debate;
and consequently difierence of opinion; and that in a
consultation araong three persons, if a proposal did
not please any one of them, the other two would carry
it by a raajority. But, the idea being suggested by your
selves, you see nothing absurd in what is most obvi
ously and most ridiculously so.
I would further observe, that a consultation among
the persons of the trinity clearly supposes the same
distinction in these persons as' that which subsists in.
any three men, each of whora 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
thM, whatever they be called, they must in reality be
three Gods. If, however, such a consultation may,
" with the highest degree of evidence, and even per
spicuity," as your Lordship says, be inferred frora this
phraseology of Moses, is it not a little extraordinary
that no Jew ever made the same inference from thq
passiage? I am, &c. -

LETTER IX.
Of the Church of Orthodox Jewish Christians at
Jerusalem, and of the Veracity of Origen.
My Lord,
X o make it appear at all probable that the doctrine of
the trinity was taught by the apostles, your Lordship

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 443
has very justiy. 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 thera were so far fron\re-
ceiving this doctrine that they held it in abhorrence,
you cannot deny ; but your Lordship maintains that,
notwithstanding this, there was a church of Trinita
rian Jews at Jerusalera 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 scruple not
to call him a wilful liar. To silence " an adversary,"
you say, (Letters, p. 260 ) " he had recourse to the
wilful and deUberate allegation of a notorious false
hood*," 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, Sb ' positive a testimony as this, from^ so re
spectable 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 entirely bid farewell to
shame, and who were not determined to support a
hypothesis at any rate. It is not only the testimony
of a man of the greatest purity of character in all re
spects, but deUvered in the face of all the world, who
could not but have known it to be a falsehood If It had
... 1'' As this is nothing less than the lie direct, it may be well for
his Lordship of Si, David's that Origen is not now living, and ac-
tU3te(} by the modern notions of honour.

444 LETTERS TO THE
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 circurastances in which the greatest liar
would have told the truth.
This account which Origen has given of the Ebio
nites is also given by hira as an express contradiction
to what his adversary had said with respect to a known
fact, his ignorance of which he is exposing. Would
he, then, have knowingly exposed himself to the charge
of purposely misrepresenting the very thing which he was
there charging his enemy with misrepresenting ? More
over, this treatise of Origen was written by hira late in
life, and is the raost elaborate of all his corapositions ;
so that there can be no doubt of its having been written
with the greatest circumspection. It is a defence of
Christianity, then persecuted, against the heathens who
were Its persecutors. In these circumstances, would
not a heathen philosopher have rejoiced to expose such
a writer as Origen, and the cause in which he was en
gaged ; glad as. the heathens always were to load the
christians with unraerited caluranles of the raost atro
cious kind ?
If ever any man had a motive to keep himself within
the bounds of truth, It was Origen In this particular
case, a man who was considered as at the head of the
christians, and of whora the greatest men which that
and the following age produced, such as Dionysius of
Alexandria, Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Gregory of
Neocsesarea, were the greatest admirers. Would sucli
men as these have been so wonderfully attached, as
they are known to have been, to Origen, if he had
been a wilful liar f .

LORD BISHOP OF ST. david's; 445
- Can It then be supposed that such a man as this, in
the circumstances in which he wrote, would have as
serted concerning the Jewish christians in general, that
they were all Unitarians, though some of them were
believers in the miraculous conception, if it had been
notorious (as. If It had been true. It must have beep, )
that there was then existing a whole church of Trini
tarian Jewish christians in Judsea, the country in which
he resided a great part of his tirae, and in which he
probably wrote this very treatise ? Such a church, espe
cially In Jerusalera, could not but have been highly re
spected, as the comraon 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 thera ?
If we look Into history, we shall find no raention 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
comraon with other churches and their bishops. And
if these Jewish christians forraed a church, it raust
have been separate frora the Greek church, and have
had separate bishops ; for the congregation could nOt
have understood the Greek language.
This circurastance your Lordship entirely over
looked when you asserted, Letters, p. 59, that these
Hebrew christians were of the " church of Jerusalem,
when that church was under the governraent of bishops
of the uncircuracision." What connexion could they
~have with a church the public service of which they
could not have understood ? Worshipping in an un-

446 LETTERS TO THE
known tongue was hardly Introduced at so early a pe
riod. And least of all can it be supposed that the Jews
would have abandoned a language so respectable for its
antiquity and sacredness as their own, for the Greek
or any other whatever.
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 aUowed
to remain in the place ; and they expressly speak of
the new church which was formed in the place, as con
sisting 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
TUlemont, as much interested as yourself to find an
orthodox Jewish church at Jerusalem, or any where
else, understood these historians exactly as I do.
To this mass of evidence from the clearest 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 translated the
scriptures from Hebrew into Greek) being appointed
by Adrian to survey the works which he was erecting
at Jerusalera, and being converted to Christianity by
Jews who had returned from Pella; though he expressly -
says that" this return was after the destruction of Jeru
salem by the Romans, and not after the dispersion by
Adrian. You now say, p. 371, " But the question Is not at
what time the Jewish christians whora Aquila found at.
jElia had returned . thither, but at what tirae he con
versed with thera. Epiphanius says he conversed with

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID*S. 447
them at the tirae that he was superintendant of Adrian's
works at JElia. At- that tirae, therefore, there were
Hebrew christians settled at M\ia, or they could not
then have conversed with Aquila."
But surely, my Lord, as I observed before, (Third
Set of Letters, p. 368,) though you have not thought
¦proper to notice it, " it must be of consequence to this
arguraent to know whether Aquila was residing at Je
rusalera after the destruction of that city by Adrian ;
and this Is raore than Epiphanius says, or Is at all pro-
bable in itself. For the rebuilding of Jerusalera by
Adrian, in which Aquila is supposed to have been em
ployed 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 fhey were
entirely subdued."
Your Lordship may well say that I have embar
rassed your argument with chronological diff cullies ;
and when chronology Is against a man, he is naturaUy
against chronology. Find, if you can, any evidence
of Adrian carrying on any works at Jerusalera after
the destruction of that city by hira; or find, if you
can. In any writer, of raore 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
arguraent 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 all ancient historians,
and In no contradiction even to Epiphanius, your own
authority, that neither AquUa 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

'448 LETTERS TO THE
making positive testiraony subrait to our theories."
What I say Is frora the clearest and raost Indisputable
testimony; and: what you say is from theory only, un
supported by any testiraony whatever, nay in direct con
tradiction 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 JElia before the Jewish rebellion were in
cluded in Adrian's edict for the banishment of the
Jews." But were not Hebrew christians Hebrews, or
Jews ? and were not all the Jews, without any di
stinction of christians or no christians, banished both
from that place, and frora the district, by Adrian?
Your Lordship's attachraent to theory, and your In
attention to facts. In this case, is not a little curious.
To make Jerusalera a safe asylum for the christian Jews
rafter 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 eraperor 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, accord
ing to which they were not mistaken for Jews, and
neglecting all authority from fact, and contrary both
to all probability and the unlforra testiraony of all anti
quity, you say they kad discarded those rites ; which Is
nothing raore than an inference from, a conjecture.
On the contrary, all antiquity says that the Jewish
christians, without raaking any distinction, were rigo-'
rously attached to the observance of their law. Nothing
can be raore evident than that they were so during all
the time of the apostles; who also, Paul hiraself not

LORJ& BlStlOP OF ST. DAVID's. 449
fcxcepted, conformed to every punctlHo of the Mosaic
ritual, and never authorized any beside the Gentik
converts to neglect it. A system of peculiar rites is, I
doubt not, to distinguish that reraarkable nation, chris
tians or not, to the end of tirae ; and without being
confounded with the rest of the world, they are to be,
if there be any truth In prophecy, the most dlstln--
guished 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 eve*
i^iU. After these observations I submit the following
Curious paragraph of your Lordship's, p. 499, to the
inspection of our readers : " The disturbed founda
tions of the church of JElia are again settled. I could
wish to trust thera to their own solidity to withstand
any future attacks. I could wish to take ray final leave
of this unpleasing task of hunting an unlnforraed un
candid adversary through the mazes of his blunders^
and the subterfuges of his sophistry. But I have found
by the experience of this conflict, that a person once
engaged in controversy Is not entirely at liberty to
choose for himself to what length he will carry the dis
pute, and when he will desist. I perceive that I was
guilty of an indiscretion in discovering an early aversion
to tiie continuance of the contest. My adversary peN
haps would have been less hardy in assertion, and more
circumspect in arguraent, had I not given him reason
to expect that every assertion would pass uncontra"
dieted, and every argument uncanvassed. Unambitious?
as I therefore still remain ofthe honour of the last word^
be it however understood that, if Dr. Priestley should
2 6

450 " LETTERS TO THE
think jaroper to make any further defence, or any new
attack, I am not pledged either to reply, or be silent."
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 tirae of A'driah,
are again, arid, I will venture to say, for ever, over
turned; and a church, the foundations of which were
attempted to be laid on the grossest calumny, and on
the ruins of the fairest character that christian 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
uninforrned and uncandid adversary, it is perfectly In-
differentj, to himself, whether your Lordship replyj or
be silent. He only wishes to have a reply, because he
is persuaded that the great cause which you oppose will
be proihoted by It.
If your Lordship should tnake a fresh attempt to
rebuild this favourite church, I hope you will lay its
foundations deeper than on an Idle story of Epipha
nius. For it is not very probably that such a man as
Aquila, a Jew, and a translator of the scriptures, con
sequently a studious and pious man, should have been
eriiployed by Adrian In superintending any works of
building or fortification; without considering what you
add to this account, or rather in contradiction of It,
that this was when aU Jews were banished frora the
place, and Adrian had no works to construct there.
If, hoWeverj you will, for want of a better, build,
on so precarious an authority as this, at least take tha
pains to understand your author ; and also condescend^
to give some Small degree of attention to the humble
subject of chronology. Otherwise, how pompously.

tORD -BISHOP OF STi DAvId's. 451
and magisterially sbeVer your Lordship may write, a
plain tale will be sufficient to put you down.
As to your other proofs of the want of veracity irt
Origen, I am very willing to abide by the defence that
I have already made of hira 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 inconsistences as
the wisest and best of men, and especially voluminous
writers, must be subject to^ and such as by no means
affect a man's character for veracity. It Is hot from
things of so slight a nature as these.that you can be au
thorized to suppose, or suspect, that such a man as
Origen would be guUty of so flagrant 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 abridgements to a forra in which It may be
capable of refutation, indicates so near a resemblance
between the characters of Origen, and his Hyperas-
pistes, 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 Mosheira so freely uses
of the knight. Ego huic testi, etiamsi jurato,
QUI tam manifesto FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CRE
DITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO."
To this conjunction of myself with Origen I heartily
say. Amen. May my character b^e that of this great
man, with aU his faults ! and then It wIU be as.far re-
2 G 2

452 LETTERS TO TME
moved as I wish It to be frora 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 accu
sation ) a falsifier ( though I believe not a wilful falsi
fier) of history, and a defamer of the character of
the dead.
To show that I am not arabltious of having the last
word, except where I have soraething of importance
to add, I also freely submit to our readers what your
Lordshifi has added In your sixth Dissertation- con* .
cerning Jerom's orthodox Hebrew christians, in answer
to the fourth of ray Third Set of Letters. That the
Ebionites and Nazarenes were only two naraes for the
sarae set of people, and that they were all, as far as
we know, believers in the siraple huraanity of Christ,
I have abundantly proved In ray History of early Opi
nions concerning Jesus Christ; and certainly , your
Lordship's not choosing to look into that work canniot
be called an answer to It. Till I do see soraething at
least plausibly advanced in answer to what I have there
alleged, I shall think It unnecessary to say any thing
further on the subject. I am, he.

LETTER X.
The Conclusion.
My LorU,
Jlhis controversy will, I hope, teach your Lordship
and others, that whatever effect a bold, contemptuous
«nd imposing manner may have in conversation, it ia.

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVId's. 453
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 lasting
credit to the strange paradoxes that he advanced. -They
eerved to amuse his cotemporaries, but are now almost
sunk into oblivion. What, then, will be the fate of
your Lordship's paradoxical assertions, still more ex
travagant than his, advanced with greater effrontery,
and yet destitute of the least support in a real know
ledge of antiquity ?
On some of the subjects on which your Lordship
advanced to the charge with the greatest confidence,
my replies have been so effectual, that you have not
attempted any defence, especially with 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 Beausobre,
Dr, Lardner, 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 ob
servation was wholly impertinent,
I have clearly shown, 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 Chrysostom; so that I think it will hardly be dis-

454 LETTERS TO THE
puted again ; and yet what exclamations did not yott
and your worthy ally, Mr. Badcock,. make upon that
subject, as if I wilfully misconstrued the passage 1 But
they were the exclamations 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 argument
to which he was not able to reply. It has more than
once~~been done by Dr. Price, but not once by the Bi
shop of St. David's ; and this is a circurastance that
marks greatness of mind in the one, and littleness In
the other.
I shall further observe, at the close of this set of
Letters, that the haughtiness your Lordship has as
sumed as a churchman, and the contempt with which
you have always affected to speak of Dissenters, does
not becorae a man whose grandfather, If I have not
been misinformed, was a dissenting minister, and whose
father was educated for one. But perhaps this very
circumstance may lead to fhe true cause of the phse-*
nomenon ; for such is Its operation on some minds.
Where the suspicion of a leaning to an old connexion
will naturaUy fafl, they think they can never do enough
to guard against that suspicion.
^his controversy, I Imagine, has not tended to re
commend 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 most respectable
one, which has suppUed the diocese with many of its
most valuable clergymen ; alleging that, though they;
had received nothing more than classical learning from
Plssejiters, they would be too friendly to them. \%

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 455
looks as if In every Dissenter your Lordship dreaded
a scourge to yourself. Your Lordship's diocese, how
ever, is said to abound with them, and on this account
you will probably consider 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 Dissenters will
not be lessened by your Lordship's means, any more
than the nuraber of Unitarians In this country by your
controversy vvith me.
Some tirae ago your Lordship advertised soraething
on the subject of the Corporation and Test Acts, but
it was suppressed. Now is the tirae to bring it for
ward ; and we Dissenters wish rauch 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.
Frora the raanner in which I have taken the liberty
to address your Lordship on every subject on which
you have thought proper to resurae the controversy be
tween 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 raake one
with, effect ; especially as you now say that you are no
longer pledged to be silent, and you conderan your
forraer Iraprudence in prematurely declaring that you
would not continue this controversy.
Come forth then again', my Lord, and to all your
powers of language be pleased to add, those of ar gu
ment. If you have hitherto only trifled, as an indolent
man naturally might do, with an uninformed adversary
linfortunately ignorant of his own ignorance, (in which,

45$ LETTER? TO THE
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 fuU
projection of all your energies, and, if possible, over
whelm me at once. Consider, my Lord, that whUe, In
the late war, America was thys trifled with, it was lost;
and take warning by that example. That, my Lord,
was a fatal blow to your systera oi diocesan episcopacy,
and an unanswerable argument against all that you can
a,llege in favour of the necessity, or expediency, ofthe
establishment of any form of religion by civil poiver,
BuUd once more. If your Lordship can any wher»
find materials, your favourite church of orthodox Jewish
christians at Jerusalem, or assail once more the cha
racter of Origen. Bring new arguments to prove that
TertuUian's idiotce were English idiots, or describe the
curious process by which a father may generate a son
by contemplating his own perfections. You have to
pics 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 reraind you of the aniraated ex
hortation to the study of the chrlstlati fathers . with
which Cave concludes the Prolegomena to his Historia.
Literaria. Having shown the importance of these studies with
respect to the Catholics, he adds, " Nor* are new ar-
* Neque ad prosequendum hoc nobile institutum novanobia
Qesunt argumenta, piaeseriim ab infausta ilia ingeniorum nostrit
temporis in KXKoSo^iav prurigine quse tot antiqtias haereses ecclesiae
eatholicae judicio consiauter dainnat^^ ab orco revocavlt. Po«j

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 457
guments wanting to the prosecution of these studies,
especially from the unhappy Itch of heterodoxy In per
sons of our own age, which has revived so raany an
cient heresies which had been constantly conderaned
by the church. The disciples of Arius, or rather of
Photinus, are extending theraselves every where. See-.
ing their cause conderaned by the tribunal of the pri
mitive 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 raen, and they treat Athanasius, Hilary, and*
the other charapions of it, worse than dogs or serpents,
moeria sua longe lateque nuper apud nos dilatarunt famosissimi;
haeresiarchae Alexandrini discipuli, seu Photiai potius gregales et
asseclae ; qui cum videant pro veteris ecclesiae tribunal! se causam
suam sustinere non posse, in ipsam insurgunt antiquitatem, et ve-
jjerandos primaevae fidei testes lacerant, conculcant, execrantur.
' Perpetua his hominibus sudes in oculis Nicaena fides, cujus hyper-
aspistas Athanasium, Hilarium, &c. cane pejus et angue traducunb
odio. Habent quidem suam quam jactitant antiquitatem, sed an
tiqui illius serpentis progeniem. Suos habent patres, sed quos ?
Ebionem, Cerinthum, Symmachum, Theodotionem, Paulum Sa
mosatenum, -Photinumj et alios. Hos vendicant praecursores suosj
his fidei parentibus Unitarii nostri gloriantur. Catholicos aut aperte
rejiciimt, aut eorum testimonia sophisticis argutiis illudunt, aut, quod
caput est, in suas saepenumero partes pertrahere nituntur.
Evigilandum igitur studiosae juventuti totisque viribus scriptis ve
terum gnaviter incumbendum, ut his armis niuniti adversariorum
tela retundant, sophismata solvant, et ecclesiae catholica, ac prainda
Anglicanae, causam feliciter propugnent. State super vias et videte,
et interrogate de semitis antiquis, quae sit via bona, et ambulate in
ea. Jerem. vi. 16. Haec nobis serpentum latibula monstrabit, haec
ad ipsissimum veritatis fontem nos recta ducet, Claudam haec op-
timis Tertulliani verbis : De Praescript. Haeret. c. xxi . p. 209, Si
haec ita sunt, constat omnem doctrinam quae cum ecclesiis aposto
licis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandum j
sine dubio teneutem quod eccles ae ab apo.stolis, apostoli a Christo,
Christus a Deo accepit j omnem vero doctrinam de mendacio prae-
judicandam quae sapiat contra veritatem ecclesiarum et apostolorum
et Chiisti et Dei. — Ibid, c xxxvi. p. 215. Age jam qui voles curio.
(itatem melius exercere in negqtio salutis tuae, percurre ecclesias

458 ¦ LETTERS TO THE
They however boast of their antiquity, but It is. the
offspring of the old serpent. They have their fathers,'
but whom? Ebion, Cerinthus, Syi,ramachus, Theodo
tion, Paulus Saraosatensis, Photinus, and others. These
they boast of as their predecessors, and the fathers of
their faith. As to the CathoUc writers, they either re
ject them, elude the force of their arguments by so
phistry, or, vi'hat is more extraordinary, endeavour to ,
draw them over to their party,
" 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
apostolicas, apud quas ipsse adhlic cathedrae apostolorum suis locis
pr;Bsiderit, apud quas ipsae authenticae literae eorum recitantur, so
nantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Advers.
Marcion, 1. iv. c. 5. p. 415. Alibique, In summa, si constat id ve
rius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab
apostolis ; pariter utique constabit id esse ab apostolis traditum,'
quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanclum.
His igitur armis optime instructi simus, parati semper nostra
tneri, iisque respondere, qui fidei nostrae (quam vere primitivam,
catholicam, apostolicam esse sancte profitemur^ rationem requisi-
verint. Neque enim is est ecclesiae nostrae status, ut'pro summo
purioris antiquitatis tribunal! causam dicere defbgiaraus. Facessat
a- nobis inatilis omnis studiorum ratio, facessant difficiles nugae, ira-
placabiles rixajj leves et ludicrae disputatiunculae; aetatem teramus
non ih foro et praetoriis,' non agyrtarura more sursum et deorsum
cursitantes, non apud raagnatum limina sordidis obsequiis gratiam
et favorem aucupantes^ verum in rostris, in ambone, intra biblio-
thecae denique clathros et cancellos, ecclesiae commodo, animarum
saiuti, antiquitatis cognition!, bonisque literis promovendis, gnaviter
incumbentes. Quin ergo agite vosmet et ad sacra haec studia totis
viribus, omnibus nervis contendite ; vos, inquam, maxime, qui-^
bus melior indoles et libtrius otiumj dignitatibus ornati, reditibus
auct!, quos tanquam meliorum literarum praemia et cumulatiores
djligentiae stiraulos et inci^amenta majorum pietas consecravit. Vi-'
geal apud nos pietatis et liierarum ecclesiasticarum studium ; sint
in seterna memoria venerandi ecclesiae catholicae patres; sit scriptis '
eorum summus honor et ae^timatio, quorum notitiam si haec quam
contulimus symbola vel tantillum proraovebit, praeclaire mecum agi
putem, meque bonas horas bene coUocasse judicabot

LORD BISHOP OF ST, DAVID's. 459
these arras, they may repel the attacks of their adver
saries, answer, their sophistry, and successfully defend
the cause of the Catholic, and consequently that ofthe
English, church. Stand ye in the way and see, and
ask for the old paths, wkere is the good way, and walk
therein. Jeremiah vi, 1 6. These writings will show us
the lurking-hole's of the serpents. These will bring us
to the very fountain of truth.
" I shall conclude with an excellent passage from
TertulUan: « If these things be so, it is plain that
whatever opinion agrees with the apostpUc churches,
where our faith originated, it is to be considered as
true ; since they, no doubt, hold what the church re
ceived from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and
Christ from God. And every doctrine is to be con
sidered as false, which Is contrary to that truth which
was taught by the 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 apostolical churches, where the chairs of the apo
stles still are, and where their authentic letters are read.
So that you seem to see and hear them in person. De
Praescriptione, cap. xxi. xxxvi. 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 frora the beginning which was from the apostles;
it wUl be equally evident that that was from the apo
stles which Is held sacred In the apostolical churches.'
Adv. Marcionem, 1. I v. 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 primi
tive, cjithollc, and apostolic. Such are pur principles^

460 LETTERS TO THE
that we have no reason to decline the discussion of tfaerrt
before the tribunal of the purest antiquity. Let us then
abandon all useless pursuits, knotty trifles, violent con-
tentlouEi, ridiculous and absurd disputations ; and let us
pass our time, not in places of public business or di'*
version, 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 sal
vation of souls, the knowledge of antiquity, and all use
ful literature.
" Do you especially apply to these sacred sttidieS
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
consecrated as the rewards of useful learning, and ex
citements to greater diligence. Let us distinguish our^
selves by piety and sacred literature. Let the venerable
fathers of the CathoUc church be In everlasting re
membrance with us, and let their writings be held in
the highest honour and esteem. If my writings shall
contribute in the least to our better acquaintance with
theirs, I shall think that I have not laboured in vain."
This exhortation of this raost excellent raan, whose
writings, allowing for his prejudices, I highly value^
and endeavour to raake the best use of, has not been
sufficiently attended to by those to whom It was ad
dressed. 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 whieh I have
invited them to meet me ; and we should not have had
such crude opinions as have been advanced by your

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 461
Lordship, by Mr. Howes, and by Dr. Knowles, who
are the only persons of your church who have com*
upon it; thinking, no doubt, that they had sorae more
knowledge of these matters than their brethren, at least
more than myself, who have no access to your UbrarieSj
and none of those incitements which this writer men
tions. If we apply to these studies from the pure love
of truth, what raay riot be expected frora the merabers
of your church, who have every raotive 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 exhortation, be heard In vain.
If the general motives above mentioned be not suf
ficient, let particular preraiuras 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 arguraents of Unitarians, frora the
state of things in primitive times. This Is now done
in -Holland, which Is less interested In this controversy
than Great Britain. Your Lordship being now ad-
Yanced to one of the highest stations in your church,
and possessing more energy of character than othei?
men, wUl be expected to do soraething towards the re
vival of these useful studies ; the want of which yoU
must by this tirae, whether you will confess It or not,
bave sufliciently felt. In this one thing then, ray Lord,
kt us act In concert ; and if you have any generosity
in your nature, lay open the stores of learning locked
up at Oxford and Carabridge to us poor sectaries. Lefi
the universities, supported at the national expense, be
free to every inhabitant of Great. Britain, and of the
world. Throw down the ilUberal guard of your siib-^
seriptions to articles of faith at matriculation or gra-

462 LETTERS TO THE
duation ; and then we shall see who will raake the. best
use of those noble advantages which now, with so
much vigilant jealousy, you keep to yourselves. ¦
If you want a further raotive, consider, my Lord,
not only what, with so much justice and energy, your
Lordship formerly urged concerning the obligation In
cumbent on all persons of your Lordship's high station
in the church to defend the establishment which sup
ports you, but also the peculiar light in which you have
been placed with respect to this very controversy.
It is said that your Lordship's bishopric was grveii
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
gralitude 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 charapion.
Consider also that, high as your past services have
justly raised you, your Lordship may stUl be higher ;
and to myself it will afford a particular satisfaction 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;
lest, having been generally considered as the raeans of
your present advancement, I should (being, as you

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. 463
always represent me, naturally vain) be too vain of
being the instruraent of your further exaltation.
Report says, that one of the wisest of your Lord
ship's bench generally recora mends silence with respect
to siich writers as rayself. He himself religiously ob
serves it.
Absistaraus, ait, nam lux inimica propinquat. Viegil,
In all events, whether prudence should dictate that
it Is a time io speak, or a time to be silent, my motions
will, with all just deference, be governed by those of
your Lordship; being at all times, and with all due
respect. My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient, humble servant,
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY,

APPENDIX,

CONTAINING

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS,

UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY WITH
DR. HORSLEY.

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.

APPENDIX, CONTAINING
LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS.

LETTER L
Of the Nature and Importance of the late Contro
versy concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity.
My Lords,
You have all been spectators of, and I raust pre
surae not unconcerned ones, and one of your body has
been a principal actor in, one of the most important
controversies that has been agitated In this or in any
age of the christian church, as it relates to the great
Object of our coraraon worship. It Is no less than
whether that God, who In the scriptures is empha
tically styled The Father, the Maker of heaven and
earth, the only true God, and also the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, he the sole object oF our
reUgious addresses ; or whether he Is to share these
divine honours with two other persons, one of thera
Jesus Christ, called his Son, and the other his Holy
Spirit. I have had the honour, as I certainly deera it,
to maintain the former; and many ofthe merabers of
your church, as by law established In this country, to
gether with several who, like myself, dissent frora it,
have held the latter.
This controversy has now proceeded several years ;
so that, there being no probability of any thing very
considerable being further advanced on either side of
2 H 2

468 APPENDIX.
the question, ^ our readers wUl now be able to forra a
corapetent judgement of the merits of the case. Opettly
or silently, all who have given due attention to the
publications on both sides will soon arrange themselves
under the Unitarian or Trinitarian standard, not to con
tend by arms, but, being fuUy persuaded in their own
minds, to adhere firmly to what they think to be the
truth. And It raay reasonably be expected that. In due
tirae, the practice of all Unitarians will correspond to
their professions, and that they will not content thera
selves with holding a silent opinion, but will confess
the truth before men,, giving countenance to no other
mode of worship than that which they deem t(i be au
thorized by scripture and reason, in obedience to God.
and to conscience, and disregarding all that men may
say of them, or do to them.
There are, we all acknowledge, such crimes as blas
phemy and idolatry.. The former Is of an Indefinite
description, but It is generally ascribed to those who
derogate frora the honour of the true God, With this
you may charge me If I do not pay divine honours to
Jesus Christ, provided he be truly God; and with the
same I charge you, if by giving divine honours to a
creature you detract from the honour that belongs io
God only. With idolatry, which Is payliig divine
worship to that which is not God, you cannot charge
me, because the being that -I worship Is also the object^
of worship with you; and the far greater part of your
public devotions are addressed to no other. But the
charge will fall with all It§ weight upon you, if the
Father only be God, and you worship two other per
sons besides him.
You cannot therefore say that this is a matter of no

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 469
great consequence in Christianity. It affects the most
fundamental principle of all religion, the first and the
greatest 6f all the commandments, which says Thou
shalt have no other God besides me. And' such isthe
nature of this great doctrine of the unity of God, that
there never was a departure frora It which did not draw
after it very alarraing practical consequences. Th6
horrors of Gentile idolatry I need not enuraerate; and
those of Popish idolatry, which began with the worship
of Jesus Christ, soon proceeded to that of the virgin
Mary, and terminated in as many objects of worship
as the heathens ever adored, and sufficiently similar to
thera. Different persons will always have different cha-
raoi&rs and ofiices, and be entitied to xiifferent kihds
^d degrees of respect; and it Is not possible that, if
two other persons, besides the God and Father of all,
be considered as divine, and the proper o^'ec<.s of wor
ship, he should not be deprived of fome attribute that
belongs to him; so that those that ri take, any practical
use of the system will. In their own minds, whether
they openly declare It or not, divesc hira of some of
those attributes which would render him the object of
their greater reverence and love.
. This, ray Lords, you know, has been not only the
tendency but also the actual consequence of the belief
of tbe doctrine of the Trinity, at least with the vulgar.
With them mercy is the exclusive attribute of the Son, -
aad a constant iavigorating influence, the sole province
of the Spirit ; and nothing but power, and that npt of
a benevolent and engaging nature, but something un
known and terrific only, is left to the Father. Heis
not even supposed to be the immediate maker of the

470 APPENDIX.
world, and he is believed to have been implacable to
his offending creatures till satisfaction was made to his
justice by the death of his own son; whereas no men
tion is ever made of such Unrelenting severity in the
character of Christ, though he also is said to be God,
and In aU respects equal to the Father; and the Holy
•Spijrit is never considered as having had any concern
either In forgiving sin, or in procuring forgiveness.
Here then you have. In fact, three divine characters
as really distinct from each other as those of any three
men: arid is riot this a horrible degradation of the
Godhead, perfection not being found In any one of
thera ? It is true that the regards of Protestant Trini
tarians are not so rauch distracted as those ofthe Popish
ones; but the evil Is exactly of the same kind, and
differs only In degree; and Is certainly of great mag
nitude and extent.
If there be any religious truth of practical impor
tance, next to that of a future state of rewards and
punishments, it is that which leads us to consider all
adorable and amiable attributes as centring In one un
divided being, whom we can look up to as our raaker,
preserver, and benefactor, the author of all good; who
has within hiraself mercy for the penitent, not re
quiring to be made placable by the sufferings of
ariother, but by the repentance of the sinner only,
?tnd whose constant presence with us is sufficient for
all the purposes of providential care respecting the
mind or Body ; so that we have not to look to one
divine person for one thing, arid to another for some
thing else.
The zeal with which the doctrine of the Trinity has
in all ages been defended, and the severe penalties with

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 471
which the belief of It has been guarded, in the laws of
this country as well as others, sufficiently prove that
it always has been considered as a tenet of the greatest
consequence. It has. Indeed, been guarded and dor
fended in such a manner as Christianity Itself does not
•require to be, and would be ashamed of. But all that
laws and penalties can do Is only to impose silence.
They cannot enforce conviction.- On the contrary,
wherever they are eraployed, a suspicion necessarily
arises that the proper instruraent of conviction, viz.
rational evidence, was not to be had. For no man, in
dealing with his fellow creatures, would ever have re
course to compulsion if he thought that persuasion
would be sufficient.
Such being the acknowledged Importance of the
article of faith now contended for, It has been a sub
ject of controversy frora a very early period In the his
tory of the christian church to the present tirae. But I
have been led to Investigate the true christian doctrine
on this subject in a way which has not been much at
tended to, but which appears to me to proraise a raore
speedy and decisive determination of the controversy.
We all agree to be determined by the sence of. scrip
ture; but, on account ofour preceding prejudices, we
are not agreed what this sense is ; and experience
shows that, when any controversy is to be decided by
an attention to words and phrases only, the decision
will long remain In doubt. In matters of religion we
see It with respect to all the creeds and articles of faith
that have ever been composed by raan; and with re
spect to things of a civil nature In the raost explicit acts
of parliaraent, the sense of which is the subject of
daily dispute araong lawyers.

47S APPENDIX.
But, my Lbr^S, there Is another, and, as 1 have said,
kn easier and surer riaethod of aiscertaining the true
itteariing of the scriptures ; and that Is, to inquire In
"what sense they were actually understood by those per
sons for whoSe use they were written, and by whom
ijobody will say that they could Well be misunderstood
in an article of so much consequence as this. This
task I have undertaken; and I shall, by way of recapi
tulation, inforra you and the pubHc what has been the
feSult of my investigations, and what has been done by
'the abettors of the doctrine of the Trinity to Invalidate
what I have advanced. My a{>peal will then be to the
world, and even to your Lordships.

LETTER IL
jA. Review of the Controversy with the -Bishop of
St. David's.
Mt Lords,
What I Undertook to prove, frOm what is now ex-
tint concerriing the state of opinions In eariy times,
was, that the faith of the priniltive church was Unlta-
^riari. On the coritrary, Bishop Horsley said that it
must have been Trinitarian, because that doctrine ap
pears in ^he writhigs of Barnabas and Igtiatlus. To
this I answered that, admittinjg the pieces ascribed to
thern to be genuine iri the raain, they bear evident
marks of iriterpolatldn In what relates to this subject,
as is acknowledged by the most judicious critics; and
therefore that his argunient can have no weight. To

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 473
this the Bishop has not thought proper to make any
reply. I advanced, in agreement with the general strain of
ecclesiastical historians, that the Ebionites and Naza
renes were Jewish christians of the earliest age, and
did not beUeve the divinity of Christ, but held hira to
be simply a man inspired of God. On the contrary.
Bishop Horsley said, that those who Were called Ebi^
onites did not exist in the age of the apostles ; and also
that, though they believed the simple huraanity of
-Christ, they probably held sorae raysterious exaltation
of his nature aifter his ascension, which made him the
object of prayer to thera. This opinion, which I believe
Is peculiar to himself, I showed him to be destitute of
all evidence, or probability ; — and to this he has made
no reply.
As to the Nazarenes, ( which I think I have suffi-
tiently proved to have been nothing more than another
narae for the Ebionites, or the Jewish christians in ge-
%ieral,) Bishop Horsley strangely advanced that they
idid not exist till after the tirae of Adrian; and that
•they had their narae frora Nazareth, the place where
they settled after they were then driven frora Jerti-
salem; and he says that they were beUevers in the di
vinity of Christ. On the contrary, I have clearly
*sho\vn that the Nazarenes were believers In the simple
¦humanity of Christ; and that, according to aU the
'writers of antiquity, they certainly, existed In the age
;of the apostles; and that, as to his history of their ex-
'pulsion from Jerusalera by Adrian, their settling at
^Nazareth, and deriving their narae from that circum-
-'stance, they are wholly inventions of his own, without

474 APPENDIX.
the appearance of authority frora any ancient writer;
— and to, this he has raade no reply.
Bishop Horsley, to support the orthodoxy of the
Jewish christians, raaintains that there was a whole
church of thera, and speaks of their bishops, as ex
isting at Jerusalem after the time of Adrian ; alleging
that the body of Jewish christians, who had till this tlmfi
adhered to the laws of Moses, abandoned thera after
the destruction of that place, In order to enjoy the
privUeges of the iEUan colony settled there by Adrian.
And because Origen asserts that all the Jewish chris
tians were Unitarians, and had not abandoned the laws
and custotas of their ancestors. Bishop Horsley scruples
not to say of this great and upright raan that he- raust
have known the contrary, and therefore asserted a
wilful falsehood. On the contrary, I have evidentiy
shown, frora every history of that transaction now ex
tant, as they are understood by every modern writer
of credit, that Adrian expelled all the Jews, without
making any exception in favour of christians, from
Jerusalem ; that the christian church afterwards settled
there consisted wholly of Gentiles ; and that the testi
mony of Origen, agreeing with this, is highly worthy
of credit. So that the Bishop, who has impeached this
great man, must be considered by all impartial persons .
as a falsifier of hisiory, and a defamer of tke charac
ter of the illustrious dead. In order to serve his pur
pose. To this charge, so materially affecting his own
character, the Bishop has raade sorae atterapt to reply ;
but In so weak and Ineffectual a raanner, that I will
venture to say that henceforth the veracity of Origen
will remain unimpeached, and Dr. Horsley's church qf

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 475
Trinitarian Jews at Jerusalem after the time of Adrlari
wUl be considered as a mere chimsera. Consequently,
the unitarianisra of the early Jewish christians, which,
when It is considered, must draw after It the belief of
the truth of the Unitarian doctrine, remains fully esta
blished. Bishop Horsley maintains that, though he finds no
Unitarians in the apostolic age, they are censured by
the apostle John in the phrase of Christ coming in ihe
fiesh. This phrase I have shown to relate to the Gnos
tics only, notwithstanding the Bishop's endeavour In his
last publication to support his opinion.
Having proved that the great body of christians In
early times were Unitarians, it follows that they could
net have been considered as heretics, or persons out of
comraunion with the catholic church. On the con
trary, Bishop Horsley maintained that the Unitarians
were always considered as heretics, and that they were
by Justin Martyr included among those heretics whora
he charges with blasphemy. But I have shown that,
in these passages, Justin most clearly alludes to the
Gnostics only; and that, though no Unitarian hiraself,
he spake with great respect of those who were so, ' On
this subject the Bishop has not made any defence, and
I am confident he will not be able to make any that
shall be thought even plausible. I have shown by a
variety of evidence, that the great body of unlearned
christians continued to be Unitarians long after many
of the learned christians adopted the notion of a Tri
nity, which, as I have clearly shown, was derived from
no other source than the Platonic phUosophy, to which
they were unhappUy attached; that the term heresy
was long used as synonymous to Gnosticism; and that.

476 APPENDIX.
from loag use, it even continued to be taken In that
sen^. ?efter the TIaltarian doctrine was condemned by
pubKc councils.
Ha>^rig shown from T^ertuUIan that those whom hfe
calls Idiotce (who be says were the greater partof chris
tians) conceived the greatest dread of the doctrine of
the Trinity, Bishop Horsley maintains that by Idiots
he only meant such as were so ignorant, and stupid,
as to deserve to be called idiots. On the contra^ I
have shown, with the authority of the Jearned- Dr..
Bentley, and every critic of the least eminence, that
among the^ancients the word Idiota was never used df
persons v^ho were stupid^ or deficient in point of under
standing, but only of unlearned persons, or persons in
the common qr lower ranks cf life. This affecting 'the
Bishop's character as a scholar, he has. In his last pub
lication, greatly laboured his defence ; but still with
out being able to produce a single passage frora any
ancient writer. In which the word Idiota can be under
stood In his sense of it. It Is Indeed In the highest de
gree improbable that Tertullian, or any raan, should
^-eally mean to assert concerning the greater part of
christians, or Indeed of any large body of men, that
they were deficient in natural understanding; or, if
they had asserted it, It could not have been entitled to
credit. Consequently the testiniony of TertulUan, re*
tec-tantly given no doubt, to the Unitarianism of thfe
gr^at body of unlearned christians, remains unimi.
peached. I quoted a passage from Athanasius, In which he
«ays that the Jews were so fully persuaded^ of the simple
humanity of their Messiah, that th? apostles did not
think it prudent to inform them of his pre-existence of

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS, ¦177
divinity, and that the Gentiles receiving Christianity
from the Jews learned the sarae unitarian doctrine.
By these Jews Bishop Horsley raaintains we are to
understand unbelieving' Jews, and by the Gentiles
such unbelieving Gentiles as leiarned from the Jews
that the Messiah was to be a raan, Iraprobable as this
construction is, and the reverse of that of Beausobre
and Dr, Lardner, (which however It is probable he had
never heard of,) he. did not scruple to treat ray con-
struction of it as a wUful imposition on the public, and
expressed himself in such a manner as to excite senti
ments of horror and Indignation against me. Notwith
standing this, I supported my construction of this pas
sage by such a mass of evidence of christian >^rlters,
both before arid after Athanasius, that on this subject
he has not ventured to make any defence. And what
can we infer from this unaniraous acknowledgement of
^l the ancient Trinitarian writers, that their doctrine
was not taught with clearness and effect till It was done
by John, after the death of all the other apostles; but
that, in their idea, the nuraber of Unitarians in the
church was so great, that they could not account for
the fact on ariy other supposition, improbable as It must
have appeared even to them ? For who can believe
that the a:postles did not, without reserve, explaui tke
whole counsel of God? And how could such Iraportant
doctrines as those of the pre-existence and divinity of
Christ have been raade known to sorae christians and
have been concealed from the rest, sothait there should
be no trace of any question or debate on thfe subject,
and that no Jew should have laid hold of It as an ob
jection to the gospel?
- Air the ancient christian writers Suppose that th§

478 APPENDIX.
aposties had no Idea of Christ being any thing more
than a man during all the time of their intercourse with
hira ; and that their knowledge of his pre-existence and
divinity was subsequent to the day of Pentecost, the
Jews having always been Unitarians, and expecting.
only a man for their Messiah. On the contrary. Dr.
Horsley maintained that the Jews In our Saviour's time
were beUevers in the doctrine of the Trinity ; that they.
expected the second person of it as their Messiah; and
consequently that the apostles considered Christ as
being God from the time they were convinced of his
being the Messiah, I have supported the opinion of
the ancient christian writers, by showing, in concur
rence with the leamed Basnage, (who has taken the
greatest pains to investigate their opinions, and who
was himself a Trinitarian,) that the Jews, In every.
period of their history, were believers in the unity of
God In such a sense as to exclude all idea of a Tri
nity, and in the simple humanity of their Messiah.
Consequently the apostles must at first have considered
Chrlsf as a mere raan; and there Is no evidence, In
their history or their writings, that they ever changed
that opinion concerning him. On this subject Bishop
Horsley has not thought proper to make any reply.
It is evident to any person the least acquainted with
ecclesiastical history, that there was a gradation in the
sentiments of learned christians respecting the Logos,
and that the first Idea of It was that of something emit
ted frorri the divine mind, similar to the then supposed
emission of a beara of Hght frora the sun. But prior
to this eralsslon they considered this logos as the same
principle with reason, or sorae other inteUectual power
necessarily belonging to the Father; so that by the ge-

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 479
neration ofthe Son, or the emission of this logos, they
certainly meant a change of state, viz. frora a mere
attribute to a proper person ; and in their idea this
first took place with a view to the creation of the world.
JBIshop Horsley, however, asserts tbat the logos was
never considered as an attribute of the Deity previous
to Its assuming a proper personality, but maintains
that by the generation of the Son was meant the dis
play of his powers in the production of material
beings. However, this opinion of his is, as far as I
know, entirely his own; and such is the evidence that
I have produced for the opinion advanced above, in
my Letter to hira, that he has not thought proper to
riiake any reply. And so full and decisive Is the ad
ditional evidence that I have brought for It In my His
tory of early Opinions concerriing Christ, that I ara
pretty confident it will never be controverted again.
Bishop Horsley Is so extremely ignorant of the pro
gress of opinions in early times, that he says there is
no difference between the doctrine of the personification
of the logos' and the peculiar opinions of the Arians.
Whereas I have shown that the two scheraes were al
ways directly opposed to each other, and are so clearly
defined by all the ancient writers, that I believe there
is no exaraple of their" ever having been confoUnded
or raistaken except by hiraself. The Arians disclairaed
aU idea of personification, and the dOctrine of an un-
.created logos, holding that the Son was a proper crea-
tiire, being an Iraraaterial principle which supplied the
place of a huraan soul in the body of Jesus; while
their orthodox opponents always maintained that the
logos, which in Its original state had been an uncreated
attribute of the Father, was a third principle super-

480 APPENDIX.
add^d to tbe body and soul of the man Jesus. Thi^
I have shov^n with so much evidence, that the Bishpgi
has not been able to make any reply to it, and I am
confident he never will.
Bishop Horsley, at the entrance on this controversy,
asserted that it was both the opinion of all the plato
nizing fathers, and that It is Hkewise agreeable to th^
scriptures, that the second person In the Trinity had
his origin from the first person " conteraplating Ws
own perfections." For this most extraordinary opi-
nion I challenged him to produce any authority, ancient
or modern; and this. In his last publication, he l?a?
greatly laboured to do: but his attempts have been so
ineffectual, that it Is impossible to read what he ha^
advanced on the subject without contempt. All the
early fathers, that is, all before the Council of Nice,
clearly maintained the very reverse of this doctrine, re
presenting the generation of the Son as the voluntary
act ofthe Father, arid an act exerted in time; so that,
according tp them, there was a time when the Son did
not exist as a son, but only as the inherent reason of
the Father, And though the later fathers represented
the generation of the Son as a necessary act, and some
thing that took place from all eternity, they had by no
means the same idea of this production that Dr. Hors
ley holds forth ; so that It raust still be considered as a
notion of his own, and that it is certainly most arbitrary
and ridiculous. He has wisely thought proper to de?
elin^i all defence of it either from reason or the script
tures. Bishop Horsley malntcuns that, though the three per
sons ift the ;Trinity have each ol them all the perfec*
tions of Ddty, the Father is th^ fountain of divinity to

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 481
the two others, and has also some unktiown pre-emi
nence over them. On the contrary, I have shown that
this pre-eminence is inconsistent with any proper f^wa-
lily; and that, if the members of this Trinity be pro
perly equal, they must necessarily be tkree Gods, as
-well as three persons. On this subject the Bishop has
made no defence, nor is it possible to maintain such
anequality of the three persons as is asserted in the
Athanasian creed on the supposition of any pre-emi
nence In the Father; which however is maintained by
all the ante-Nicene fathers. The. three creeds adopted
by the church of England were drawn up at different
-times, and all contain different and inconsistent doc
trines. As three different persons raust have different pro
vinces, Bishop Horsley raaintained that prayer for suc
cour in external persecution was " with peculiar pro
priety addressed to the Son." But I showed that this
idea was entirely his own, and that it is destitute of all
countenance in scripture precept or example, and also
in the primitive times of Christianity, all proper prayers
having been uniformly addressed to the Father. On
this subjeet also the Bishop has made no reply.
Bishop Horsley had the assurance to maintain that
the Unitarians do not even pretend that the general
tenor of scripture is in their favour, that they cannot
produce any text that plainly contains their doctrine,
but that they derive it only frora particular passages
to which they give a figurative interpretation. This
must have been advanced without reading or much
thinking. It being evident to all who are the least ac-.
quainted with the writings of any Unitarians, that they
constantly appeal to the general tenor of scripture, and
2 I

482 APPENDIX.
the plain obvious sense of It. Onthe contrary, we
say that the Trinitarians cannot find their doctrine
either In the general tenorof scripture, or In any clear
passages of it; but that they deduce it only from par
ticular expressions and circumstances, which when
rightly explained do by no means authorize their con
clusions. To this no reply has been made either by
the Bishop or any other Trinitarian in this controversy.
They only continue to repeat the same thing, and have
recourse to the strangest and most unintelligible meta
physical jargon in support of their doctrine; and to this
they are necessarily driven, while the scriptures main
tain so clearly the doctrine of one God, and their doc
trine of ihree divine persons raust necessarily, accord*
ing to the dictates of coraraon sense, be that of three
Gods. Lastly, Bishop Horsley, with all the appearance of
being in earnest, said that the' difference between the
Unitarians' and the Mahoraetans was so sraall that there
-is ground to think they wUl soon adrait the divine rais
slon of Mahoraet, He also represented unitarian Chris
tianity as inferior to deism, and when joined with ma-
terialisra as highly favourable to atheisra. Such charges
as these, which however are perpetually urged by Trir-
"nitarian writers In this controversy, I have considered
as proceeding from nothing- but ignorance and male
volence, and undeserving of a serious refutation. The
Bishop has not chosen to repeat thera.
Such, ray Lords,, has been the issue of my contro
versy with your associate, the present Bishop of St.
David's; and I appeal to aU the learned world, whether
any man, pretending to scholarship, ever undertook
the discussion of a question of literature less prepared

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 483
for it, or acquitted hiraself so wretchedly In It. Such
strange paradoxes as those which I have recited, I wUl
venture to say, were never before advanced by any per
son who raade the least pretension to a knowledge of
ecclesiastical history ; and yet this is the man who bas
voluntarily stepped forth, not as deigning to enter Into
a regular discussion of the question, but only to show
ra^ incompetency in the subject; when, to repeat his
own phraseology, no man ever appeared to be raore
incompetent in any thing than he is in this business.
There are judges of this kind of Uterature in Europe.
-Before them I deliberately advance this; and whatever
be my credit and ihe authority of my name, of which
he speaks preface p. 4, and which he there declares It
to be his object to destroy, (and without any vanity I
may say I have soraething raore at stake In this respect
than the Bishop of St. David's) I wiUingly risque it on,
the truth of this assertion.

LETTER m.
A General Fiew of what has been done by other
Writers in this Controversy in Dbfence of the
• Doctrine of the Trinity.
M.Y Lords,
As this controversy engaged a considerable degree of
attention, otlier persons soon appeared In defence of
the doctrine which I undertook to oppugn, and araong
tlie' rest -Mr. Howes, a learned meriiber of your church ;
•but he- appeared to be as Uttle prepared for the disctfs-
2 I 2

484 APPENDIX.
sion as Bishop Horsley hiraself. By another prescrlp-
tive arguraent, raore curious than that of the Bishop,
he undertook to demonstrate the futility of the Unita
rian doctrine, by showing that it is not more ancient
than Photinus, If Indeed it be truly older than So
cinus. According to Mr. Howes, the Ebionites, the
Nazarenes, and all those In the church or out of it,
who^ by all ecclesiastical historians, Trinitarians as well
as others, have been considered as Unitarians, were
really believers in the divinity of Christ. He pro
ceeded half way in an attempt at a proof , of his pa
radox, and I replied to him. Since this, some years
bave elapsed without hearing any thing further from
hira, and the remainder of his arguraent has not ap-
p^red. Dr. Knowles, a Prebendary of Ely, Is another cham
pion belonging to your church in this controversy. But
his performance, I imagine, will be acknowledged to
be the production of zeal rather than of knowledge ;
his object being to prove the orthodoxy of the ancient
christian writers, which I can allow him without any
injury to ray arguraent. For what I have undertaken
to prove Is, that the coraraon people araong christians
retained the Unitarian doctrine, which they had re
ceived frora the apostles, while the learned christians
were raisled by the principles pf Platonisra, of which
they were great adralrers, and frora the three Platonic
principles got the Idea of three persons in the Trinity.
Dr. Knowles, however, has greatly mistaken and mis
represented the opinions of the early christian writers.
For, according to thera, a great superiority was left to
¦ the Father, which is Inconsistent with that equality
which the post-Nicene fathers insisted upon, and which

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 485
is the professed doctrine of your church. This Pre--
bendary appears also to be ignorant of the state of the
ancient writings which he has quoted ; not distinguish
ing those which are universally acknowledged to be
spurious from those that are genuine.
The Dean of Canterbury*, in an early period ofthe
controversy, besides pubUshing two sermons, promised-
a large work on the doctrine of the Trinity; but as it
has not yet raade its appearance, he must be ranked
among the crowd of writers, almost without number,
and altogether without name, who have stepped forth
to show their zeal for the cause; but, conscious of their
Inability to assail with success the only argument that
I have professed to maintain, viz. that which arises from
the state of opinions in early times, have contented
themselves with urging arguments from the scriptures,
to which replies have been so often made that it is
needless to repeat them. In the course of the contro
versy, however, I have not failed to notice every thing
even of this kind that appeared particularly deserving
of it.
In aid of the members of your church there have
appeared two writers of the Catholic persuasion, supe
rior in learning;, and greatly superior in point of can
dour, to the Bishop of St, David's, I mean Dr. Geddes
and Mr. Barnard. The former, not thinking It neces
sary to discuss the argument at large, thought by one
prescriptive arguraent, as he called it, to defeat my
whole object, maintaining that the decision of the
CouncU of Nice was a sufficient proof that the faith
of the primitive church was Trinitarian, But besides
that the Trinity of the fathers assembled at Nice was
* Dr. Hornc„ afterwards Bishop of Norwich,

486 APPENDIX.
a very different thing from that of a later age, which
has been adopted by the churches of Rome and En
gland, I have shown by a variety of arguments,- that
the real opinion of the fathers who were assembled at
Nice is far from being a sure guide to that of the un
learned christians even in that age, and much less in
that pf the apostles.
Mr. Barnard took a larger scope, but still, left the,
most Iraportant articles of the controversy untouched.
He has also made but a very weak defence of Dr.;
Geddes's prescriptive arguraent ; and his ignorance of
the state of ancient writings appears to be much the
same with that of Dr. Kriowles.
, These, my Lords, are all the writers who have come
to my knowledge' of the' established churches of En-,.
gland or Rome, who have controverted what I have
advanced with respect to the state of Opinions concern
ing Christ in early times. The only piece supposed to
be written by a Dissenter In this branch of the contro
versy. Is one that is entitled Priraitive Candour, in
which the writer does not, like Mr, Howes, deny, that
there were Unitarians In very early tiraes ; but he says.
that their tenets were considered as so much more in-
"nocent than those of the Gnostics^ that they passed
without censure. This I showed to be a hypothesis
unsupported by fact or probabUity. But the piece is
written with a degree of candour that does the greatest
credit to the writer *.
•* Dr. Benjamin Davies, then Tutor of the Dissenters' College
at Homerton.

LETTERS- TO THE BISHOPS. 487

LETTER IV,
Of Subscription,, and a Proposal for a Change in the_
Forms of Public Worship.
My Lords,
bupposiNG that a revolution in favour of Unitarianism
should not take place, it greatly behoves your Lordships
to consider how far you are partakers inthe guilt of those
Unitarians who, in consequence of subscriptions coun
tenanced and enforced by vou, are daily tempted to
violate their consciences in complying with them. You
need not be told that the iraraediate offender Is not the
only person who wUl l3e answerable for his guUt at the
tribunal of God. All are raore or less guilty who are
yoluntarUy the raeans of drawing others Into sin ; and
one of these means Is our not removing every tempta
tion which it is in our power to remove to the commis
sion of sin. In like manner we are chargeable with all
evils of any other kind that we are the raeans of bring
ing upon others.
Not only, therefore, are your Lordships answerable
to God for every teinpdral inconvenience incurred by
those worthy, clergymen who have resigned their
livings, or who have been prevented frora entering
the church, and for the want of the useful services
which they would have rendered It, but for the much
greater evil (viz. evil of a moral nature) both of those
who have subscribed when they knew that they did
wrong in so doing, and of those who, by any Im
proper consideration, have persuaded themselves that
they might safely subscribe, when, strictly and honestly

488 APPENDIX.
speaking, they ought not to have done it. And in
this latter predicament I scruple not to say are all
those who profess that they subscribed the articles not
because they really believed thera, but because they
thought, or had. been led to think, that on some other
principle, be it vi^hat it will, whether that lately ad
vanced by Mr, Paley or ,any other, they might law
fully, i. e. legaUy, subscribe without believing them.
And how great is the number of those clergymen, in
other respects worthy and honest, who are in this si
tuation, cannot be altogether unknown to your Lord
ships. It Is, my Lords, a disgrace to this country and to
human nature, that men should on any pretence what
ever subscribe to what they do not beUeve, It is per
haps the greatest article in the account of our national
guilt, and consequently that which threatens us with
the heaviest of God's judgements. » But this guilt is
yours, if by your means the cause of it might be re
moved, and It be not removed. And can it be doubted
but that,- if your Lordships joined in remonstrance to
Government on the subject, this great evU, with all Its
consequences, natural and moral, would be reraoved,
and without delay ?
You may say, that, as sincere believers in the truth
and iraportance pf the doctrine ofthe Trinity, you think
It your duty to maintain it at all event's. But, without
inquiring into the foundation of this your firm faith,
or questioning you about the seriousness and Impar
tiaUty of your inquiries, I would now observe, that
what we have to propose is not to prevent the serious
belief of that or of any other doctrine, but only to re
move every temptation to profess a belief of what is

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 489
not really beHeved. To continue such a temptation as
this cannot surely be for the credit of the doctrine of
the Trinity, or your own ; as it implies a suspicion that,
without this additional motive, which is independent of
all evidence of its truth, the very profession of this be
lief might cease.
When this great temptation to insincerity is re
moved, all men will still believe as they see reason ;
and this Is what all your restrictions cannot prevent.
But It is. certainly desirable that public institutions
should be calculated to favour sincerity as well as
truth. With respect to the latter, men wUl think dif
ferently ; but all raen know what is common honesty,
sincerity, or integrity. All likewise agree in acknow
ledging the value of It, and also that the public teachers
of religion and morality should set others an example
of the strictest adherence to it.
Now this greatest of all points will be secured by
expunging from your public creeds, and the public of
fices of your religion, whatever shall Iraply a belief In
any doctrine to which a serious christian may object.
When this is done, all men may still beUeve the doc-'
trine of the Trinity if they think there Is sufficient evi
dence for it, and if they please they raay introduce It
in their private devotions; only in public let thera con
tent theraselves with such services as all their fellow
christians raay join in.
Besides, nothing Is raore evident than that all the
provision you raake to secure uniformity of doctrine
within your church, and especially the real beHef of
the doctrine of the Trinity, does not answer the end.
It only produces refinements In sophistical casuistry.
On some pretence or other very different opinions are

490 APPENDIX.
well known to be held, and are even openly contended
for, by the members of your coramunion ; persons who
subscribed all your articles, and who join in the habi
tual use of your trinitarian Hturgy. Lady Moyer's
Lecture was established for the sole purpose of incul
cating the doctrine of the Trinity ; and yet one of her
lecturers, Dr, Benjamin Dawson, in his sermons on
that very occasion, preached nothing but Socinianism
under another name. The discourses are before the
public, and' may at any tirae be examined.
A very ingenious defence of Arianism was written
by another member of' your church, the Rev. Mr.
Hopkins, lately deceased, entitled An Appeal to Com
mon Sense. And there is no doubt of Dr. Clarke,
Dr. Jortin, and Mr. Jackson, with many other learned
and respectable members of your church, as well as
Mr. Whiston, who honestly left the' churchy on that
a,ccount, and as Mr.Peirce, Mr. Eqjlyn, and Dr.' Ben
son, among the dissenters, having entertained the same
opinion. It is also well known that the majority of
the learned clergy are professed Arminians, though t,he
compilers of the articles, and great numbers of the
more zealous of the clergy, are Calvinists. And to
my certain knowledge there^ have been unbelievers
among ypur clergy as well as among those of the
church of Rome. It is not therefore uniformity of
faith, but a system of hypocrisy, that is supported by
your subscriptions. If then you be the friends of sin
cerity and truth, you will not hesitate to aboUsh them,
especially In universities, where they ensnare and sOv
duce the unwary and the uninformed.
That an agreement of Unitarians and Trinitarians lu;
the public forms of worship is really practicable, and

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 491
even not liable to much objection. Is evident from the
actual construction of by far the greater part of your
pubHc offices. For .in thera there are addresses to
God the Father only. Consequently, If those prayers
to which Unitarians now object were altered, so as
to make them of a piece with the rest, and by this
means the whole service were made uniform. It could
i)ot give any just cause of offence to those who now
approve the greatest part of it*.
If this alteration were made, all the prayers in the
liturgy would be addressed to the one true God, and
in the use of these prayers Trinitarians might certainly
join, because they now do actually join in such prayers;
mentally conceiving, if they please, and as I suppose
they now do, that in this one God there are three per
sons ; while the Unitarians could use the same form
of words without any such ideas. If this one God was
uniformly addressed by the appellation of Father, It
It is what no Trinitarian could reasonably object to ;
because it Is the style In which the greater part of the
prayers of the church are now drawn up, and to which
he has of course been most accustomed.
We Unitarians should never exclude you frora join
ing In our devotions, because wie should not use any
language that you could not adopt ; but your Trini
tarian forras absolutely exclude us. If, therefore, there
be any sin In schism. It lies wholly at your door ; be
cause it is you who force us to separate ourselves,
when, without any violation of your consciences, you
might adrait us to join with you. What then Is there
* It is a remarkable circumstance, that in the first part of the
liturgy there is no appearance of Trinitarianism, No Trinitarian
dpxology. <J«, Was not this the most early composed ?

492 APPENDIX,
unreasonable in our demands, when you might grant
thera in their utmost extent without the least injury to
yourselves ? Thus the -unity of thv church, and the ex
tinction of all sects, which is your own favourite ob
ject, depend entirely upon yourselves ; and the acqui
sition would cost you nothing.
How glorious, my Lords, would It be to the heads*
of any christian establishment to require nothing df the
members of it besides the profession of our common
Christianity, and to leave alt particular opinions to every
man's own conscience ! Every cause of unpleasing
contention would then be removed, and one of the
most popular objections to Christianity would be re-.
moved with It, viz, the want of harmony among chris
tians. We should then meet as brethren, and the
disciples of one coraraon master ; and with respect to
all our differences, having no object but truth, they
would be discussed without animosity. No opinion
having then any thing in its favour besides Its own
proper evidence, all prejudice would much sooner give
way ; and truth, which we all profess to aim at, would
be much sooner attained, and becorae universal.
But the honour of producing so great and glorious
a revolution Is, I beUeve, too great for any powers,
civil or ecclesiastical, that will be able to effect it. It
is a scheme worthy of God only, and which in due
tirae will be brought about by his good providence,
contrary to the wishes of all the ruling powers of the
world, or of those who direct their councils. Inthe
mean time, we Unitarians shall not fail fo do every
thing in our power to exhibit these enlarged views of
things; confident that In this we are the Instruments
in the hands of providerice j tha\ our principles, beirig

LETTERS TO THE BISHOPS. 493
frequently exposed to view, will in time recommend
themselves to all who are truly liberal and unpre
judiced ; and that all bigotry, like the darkness which
It resembles, will at length give way before the light of
truth. With this glorious prospect before us, we wUIingly
bear all the obloquy and every temporal Inconve
nience to which the open profession of our faith can
expose us, and are infinitely happier in being opposed
and frowned upon by the powers of the world, than
you are iti opposing us, with every advantage that the
world can give you. Your associate says that my
History of early Opinions concerning Christ appears
by Its title to he fraught wiih impious heretical theo
logy; but such language only serves to amuse myself
and friends, who, in the way which you call heresy,
conscientiously worship the God of our fathers ; and
what you think to be most reproachful we consider as
highly honourable to us. THE END.

PRINTED BY RICHARD AND ARTHUR TAYLOR,
LONDON, M.DCCC.XV.

ALE RE I FLAMMAM.

A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS distributed by the
Unitarian Society for promoting Christian Know
ledge and the Practice of Virtue.
The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the Basis
of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation, with a corrected Text,
and Notes Critical and Explanatorj-. Royal I2rao. Boards, 7s.
The S3me Work without the Notes. Demy 18mo. Boards. 3s. Odi
Priestley on the Evidences of Religion, 3 vols. 15$.
Belsham's (Rev. Thomas) Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doc
trine concerning the Person of Christ. Svo. 1 2^.
' Progress of Intellectual Improvement; and Reply to the
Bishop of St. David's. Boards. 5s.
—¦ — .  Memoirs of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey. 1 2s.
- Review of Wilberforce's Practical View. 5s. 6d,
Priestley's (Dr.) Memoirs, 2 vols. lOs.
¦ Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, 2 vols. 7*.
¦ Church History, 2 vols. 10s.
— — — Heathen Philosophy. 3^,
Jones's (Rev. John) Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches. 10*. 6di
Baring (Charles) On. the Prophecies. 6s.
¦"  Examination respecting the Person of Jesus. 3j.
Aspland's Plea for Unitarian Dissenters. 25. 6d.
Cappe'siLife of Christ, g*.'
Kehrick's Sermons, 2 vols, lO*.
Grurjdy's (Rev.John) Lectures, Vol. II. 11*.
Carpenter's (Dr.) Introduction to the Geography of the New Tes
tament. 12mo. 4s.
- Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel. l2mo. 6s.
Cappe's (Rev. Newcombe) Discourses on the Providence and Go
vernment of God. 3s,
Locke on the Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the
Scriptures ; with a short Account of his Life and Writings ; to which
is added his Essay for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles. 3i". 6d.
Christie's Discourses on the Divine Unity, 4*.
Farmer's Dissertation on Miracles ; designed to show that they are
Arguments ofa Divine Interposition, and absolute Proofs ofthe Mis
sion and Doctrines of a Prophet. Boards, 4s, 6d.
¦ On the Demoniacs of the New Testament. Bdards. 3s.. 6di
 Enquiry into tbe Nature and Design of Christ's Tempta
tion in the Wilderness. Sewed in Marble Paper. 2s.
Lindsey's (Rev. Theophilus) Second Address. Boards. 2s.
Six Tracts jn Vindication of the Worship of One God; viz. Dr.
Disney's Friendly Dialogue between a common Unitarian Christian
and an Athanasian : Together with a second Dialogue between Euge-
nius and Theophilus on the same Subject. — His Reasons for resigning
the Rectory of' Panton, and Vicarage of Swinderby, in Lincolnshire,
and quitting the Church of England. — A Letter to the Rev. Mr. D — ,
by a Layman. — An Ejihortation to all Christian People to refrain from
Trinitarian Worship. — Mr. Trend's First and Second Addresses to th^
Members of the Church of England, and to Protestant Trinitarians in
general, limo. Boards, 2s.

Boohs distributed by the Unitarian Society.
Toulmin's (Dr.) Review of the Life, Character,. and Writings of
the Rev. John Biddle, M.A. who was banished to the Isle of Scilly in
the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell.— The Life of Mr. Thomas Fir-
min, late Citizen of London, written by one of his most intimate Ac
quaintance : With a Sermon preached on the Occasion of his Death.
12mo, Bound. 2s. 6d.
Sermons ; viz. Dr. Price's Sermons on the Security of a virtuous
Course ; the Happiness of a virtuous Course ; and the Resurrection of
Lazarus. — Dr. Priestley's Sermons on the Importance and Extent of'
free Inquiry in Matters of Religion, Habitual Devotion, the Duty of
not Living to Ourselves, and the Danger of bad Habits. 12mo.
Boards. 2s.
Hartley, (Dr.) On the Truth of the Christian Religion. I2mo.
Boards, Is. 6i.
Forster's (Mr. Thos.) Narrative ofthe Proceedings ofthe Quakers
against himself. lOs.
Christian Unitarianism vindicated by Verax. Js,
Memoirs of the Rev. Dr. Priestley. Boards. 2s, 6d,
Mason's Treatise on Self-Knowledge, with an Account of the Life
and Writings of the Author. I2mo. Boards. 2s. 6d.
Eaton's Scripture the only Guide to Religious Truth : A Narrative
df tlie Proceedings of the Society of York Baptists. Boards. 2s. 6d.
Law's (Bishop of Carlisle) Reflections on the Life and Character
of Christ; with an Es.say on the Nature and End of Death under the
Christian Covenant. I2mo. Boards. Is. 6d.
Turner's (Rev. W.) Abstract of the History of the Bible, for the
tfse of Children and Young Persons ; with Questions for E'xamina-
tion, and a Sketch of Scripture Geography, illustrated with Maps.
Half-bound. Is. 6d.
Belsham's Sermon on the Death of Mr. Lindsey.- 4d.
 ;  Sermon on the Death of the Duke of Grafton, is. 6d.
 Sermon on the Act to relieve Persons wfio impugn the
Doctrine of the Trinity. 2r.
Great Irapcfitance of a religious Life considered. Is.
Aspland's Sertnon on Religious Liberty. 15.
Barbatild's (Mrs.)" Hymns for theUse of Children. 18mo. Seived.Gd.
Butcher's (Rev. Edmund) Sermon on the Heresy of St. Paul, ap
plied to the Conduct of Modern Unitarians. I5.
Carpenter's (Dr.) " God even the Father, the true God." I5. 6d,
Clark's Answer to the Question, " Why am I a Christian ?"
Slitfhed. ,4d. . ,
Pox's (Rev. W. J.) Sermon on the Comparative Tendency of Uni
tarianism and Calvinism. Stitched. Is.
'Garrfham's Sermon preached at Trinity College, Cambridgeg, I2rao.
Stitched. 2d.
Jamieson's (Dr.) Essay on the Destruction of the Canaanites. 12mo,
Sailed in Marble Paper. 4d.
Kentish's (Rev. John) Sermon preached before the Western Uni
tarian Society at Plymouth, July 1811. 15.
Lardner's (Dr.) Sermon on th© Counsels of Prudence, 3d.

Booh distributed by the Unitarian Sociely.
Lindsey's (Rev. Theophilus) Sermon on opening ; tbe Chapel in
Essex Street. 6d.
• — '  Farewell Address to the Parishioners of Catterick, 3d.
Little's Sermon. 15
Madge's (Rev. T.) Sermon on the Atonement. 2s. 6d.
Marsom on the Impersonality of the Holy Ghost. Is. Qd.
Mort, (John) A short View of the Life, Character, and Sentiments
of, in a Sermon, by H. Toulmin. Stitched. Qd.
Paley's Natural Theology, Analysis of, by J. Joyce. 25.
Penn's Sandy Foundation Shaken, 4d.
Perry's Letters to Kinghorn on the Divinity of Christ. 35.
Porter's ( Rev, T.) Serious Thoughts on the Birth of a Child. 6d.
Practical Instructions for Youth. 18mo Seived. 4d.
Prayers for the Use of Faiiiilies. i2mo. Sewed. Is. Qd.
Priestley's ( Dr. ) Appeal to the Serious and Candid Professors of
Christianity. 6d.
 '  General View of theArguments for the Unity ofGod,4rf.
 on Religious Education. 3d,
 Familiar Illustration of certain Passages of Scripture. 8rf.
Rogers's Sermons, on the Nature of the Christian Church— the
Scripture Idea of Heresy — Mysteries made plain — Scripture Doctrine
of Atonement — and. the Place, Object, and Manner of Christian Wor
.ship. Stitched Qd.
Serious Address to unlearned Christians on the Trinity, 3d. _
Smith's Designed End to the Sociniaij Controversy (first printed in
1605). Stitched. 6d.
Toulmin's (Dr.) Manual of Prayers for the Closet, li.
 EtEcacy of the Preaching of the Apostles. 6d,
— — — Address to the Christian Laity on the Trinity, 25,
Town.send's (Rev. Josiah) Catechism. 4d,
Tremlett's Six Services for Public Worship. Is.
Triumph of Truth, being an Account of ihe Trial of Mr. Elwall. Id.
Watts's (Dr.) Hymns and Moral Songs for the Use of Children,
revised and altered h-y a Lady. To which are added. Prayers for the
Use of Children. ISmo. Sewed, Qd,
Wright's Essay on the Unity and Supremacy of the One God and
Father ; and the Inferiority and Subordination of his Son Jesus
Christ. Qd
 Essay on Future Punishment. Is.
' Answer to the Question, Why are you not a Trinitarian 1 3d,
 On the Two Natures of Christ. 4d.
Yates's (Rev. James) Sermon at Glasgow on the Grounds of Uni
tarian Dissent. Is.
A new Way of deciding old Controversies, By Basanistes. SvcJJj

¦%

3 9002 00528 9179

hm

in

.Y'hf I

P'fnHpiljIi'A '
fe :^''5s^;l ^il.hhr.xii'- ¦¦
niPlir,',.'' '^•

'm

. s't a* t 't|K
-thK

'JifllmV'-'.'y -
' ^ l' ( I !
, 4,. -.f. . »K.:
.1 ¦"¦ -s,<;',r4-l
' ^ ^ ^ t ^ : i''i^'