-. N

DISCOURSES AND DISSERTATIONS

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES

ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE.

VOL. II.

DISCOURSES AND DISSERT A

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES

ATONEMENT AND SACRIFICE;

THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, AND THE MODE
OP REASONING EMPLOYED, BY THE OPPONENTS OP THOSE DOCTRINES,
AS HELD BY THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH:

AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING SOME STRICTURES ON MR. BELSHAm's ACCOUNT OP
THE UNITARIAN SCHEME,
IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WILBERFORCE's TREATISE:
TOGETHER WITH
REMARKS ON THE VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LATELY
PUBLISHED BY THE UNITARIANS.
BY THE LATE
MOST REVEREND WILLIAM MAGEE, D.D.,
ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.
FKOM THE FIFTH LONDON EDITION,
WITH NUMEROUS AND IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS.
IN TWO VOL UMES.
VOL. II.

NEW-YORK:
D. APPLETON & CO., 200, BROADWAY.

M DCCC XXXIX.

Mntf &
v/,2.

f'iEr.7

H. LUDWIO, PRINTER,
72, Vesey-street, N. Y.

CONTENTS

OF VOL. II.

No. LXIV. — On the probable time and occasion of the institution of
Sacrifice  Page 9
No. LXV. — On the true interpretation of the passage Gen. iv. 7., contain
ing God's expostulation with Cain  13
No. LXVI. — On the comparison, between the sacrifice of Abel and that of
Christ  23
No. LXVII. — On the nature of sacrifice before the law : tending to
show its confinement to animal sacrifice, except in the case of Cain . . 24
No. LXV1IL— On the disproportion between the effects of the Mosaic and
the Christian Sacrifices  26
No.LXIX. — On the correspondence between the sacrificial language of
the Old Testament, and that employed in the New to describe Redemp
tion by the Death of Christ : and the original adaptation of the former
to the subject of the latter  31
Postscript to Number LXIX. : on Bolingbroke and Hume  55
No. IjXX. — On the correspondence between the Annual Expiation under
the Law, and the One Great Expiation under the Gospel  82
No. LXX1. — On the nature and import of the ceremony of the scape goat 83
No, LXXII. — Socinian objections urged by a Divine of the Established
Church against the doctrine of the vicarious import of the Mosaic sacri
fices, and against other doctrines of the Church of England .... 85
No. LXXIII. — The Atonement by the sacrifice of Christ more strictly vica
rious, than that by the Mosaic sacrifices whereby it was typified . . . 106
No. LXXIV. — Concluding Number . . '.  107
Appendix, containing an account of the Unitarian Scheme, as described
by Mr. Belsham •  Ill
On the Unitarian Version of the New Testament  161
Supplement to the Remarks on the Unitarian Version  191
Index of the Principal Matters  435
Index of Texts  452
List op books  465

ILLUSTRATIONS

EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS.
[continued.]

ILLUSTRATIONS

EXPLANATORY DISSERTATIONS.

NO. LXIV.  ON THE PROBABLE TIME AND OCCASION OS1
THE INSTITUTION OP SACRIFICE.
Page 59. ( s ) — The event, which, according to the principle
of sacrifice maintained in the page here referred to, gave birth
to the establishment of the rite, seems obviously to determine
the time of its institution. The commission of sin, and the
promise of a Redeemer, being the grand objects of its reference,
no period seems more fit for its appointment, than that, at which
Sin first entered, and the promise was first delivered : that is,
the period immediately succeeding the fall. And, indeed, the
manner in which the first sacrifice recorded in Scripture is in
troduced in the narrative strongly indicates the pre-existence of
the rite ; the words jQifti Vp)2> intimating (as Kennicott has
shown in the 2d of his Two Dissertations, p. 177 — 183.) a
stated time for the performance of this duty : and the whole
turn of phrase marking a previous and familiar observance.
See Richie's Peculiar Doctrines, Part ii. § 42. vol. i. p. 138.
If, then, sacrifice be admitted to have been coeval with the
Fall, every argument, which has been adduced to prove that
Abel offered sacrifices in obedience to the divine injunction,
will apply with increased force to show, that Adam must have
done the same. Scripture also supplies additional confirmation,
by the fact which it relates, of the first pair having been, by the
Vol. 2.-2

10 THE TIME AND OCCASION OF THE
express command of God, clothed with the skins of beasts.
Much as some have endeavoured to depreciate the value of this
fact, it will be found, when more closely examined, to supply a
strong evidence on this head. That the beasts, whose skins
were alloted for covering to our first parents, had been slain, it
is natural to suppose ; as it is not reasonable to think that any
animals had died of themselves, so soon after their creation, and
without having yet experienced any severities of climate or situa
tion. Now, there were no purposes for which they could have'
been slain, unless those of food, sacrifice, or covering. That they
were not slain for food, has been, it is hoped, sufficiently estab
lished in Number LII. Neither can it be admitted, that they
were slain merely for covering ; since it cannot be supposed, that
Adam would, immediately after the sentence of the divine dis
pleasure, have dared to kill God's creatures without his per
mission ; nor is it likely, that God should order them to be slain
solely for their skins, when man could have been supplied with
sufficient covering from the hair and wool ; and when, the flesh
of the animal not being permitted for food, there must have been
an unnecessary waste of the creatures. It follows, then, that
they had been slain with a view to sacrifice. This alone sup
plies an adequate reason. The ivhole of the animal (if the
offering be supposed an holocaust, as there is good reason to
conclude all to have been,* until the Mosaic institution) would
here be devoted to the uses of religion, except the skin, which
would be employed for the purpose of clothing. And even this
might not be without its moral and religious end, as it might
serve to our first parents for a constant memorial of their trans
gression ; of the death which it merited ; and of the divine
mercy by which that death was withheld. It seems also not
unlikely, that from this institution was derived the appointment
in Lev. vii. 8. that the priest should have the skin of the burnt-
offering. See particularly, on the subject of this number,
Kennic. Two Diss. pp. 67—70. 227, 228. and Wits. Misc.
Sacr. Lib. II. Diss. ii. § 12. — also Heideg. Histor. Patr.
Exercit. v. § 16. Delan. Rev. Exam. vol. i. diss. viii. p. 99

See pp. 465, 466; vol. I. also Number LXVII.

INSTITUTION OF SACRIFICE. H
— 103. , Barringt. Miscell. Sacr. vol. iii. pp. 17. 67. Shuckf.
Connect, vol. i. b. 2. pp. 80, 81. and Patr. and Ainsw. on
Gen. iii. 21.
A translation, indeed, has been given of the passage in Gen.
iii. 9. which subverts the entire of the argument derived from
the skins given to the first pair for clothing, by referring the
word -|-$ to the skin of Adam and his wife, and reading it in
this sense, "that God made for them coats, or coverings of their
skin." Cloppenburg remarks, (Sacrif Patriarch. Sch. p. 13.)
that the word -p^ *s never to be found in Scripture in any
other signification, than that of the hide of an animal. Ken-
nicott also concurs in this criticism, with one slight and conjec
tural exception. But the truth is, there are many exceptions,
which these distinguished scholars must have hastily overlooked.
Exod. xxxiv. 30., Job. x. 11., xix. 20. 26., with others which
may be seen in Cocceius, Schindler, and Calasio, and need
not be enumerated, supply examples as strong as that which
has been noticed by Kennicott, from Exod. xxii. 26. But al
though the word is in these several instances applied to the
human skin, yet the form and construction of the passage before
us will not admit it here. It is here introduced absolutely, and
without any of those connecting parts of speech which might
mark its relation to the persons spoken o£ whilst, in the pas
sages above referred to, the relation is always so pointed out.
On the supposition that the human skin is here meant, the last-
named passage, viz. Exod. xxii. 26. exactly corresponds to this,
the raiment for his skin, in the one, agreeing precisely with
the covering for their skin, in the other. But there the word
has the preposition % and the pronoun suffixed to it, -mj>i : in
like manner, both of these, or at least the suffixed pronoun
{Q"llS)) would undoubtedly have been used here, had the skin
of the persons covered been intended ; whereas the word T|J>
js introduced absolute and unconnected. See Kennic. Two
Dissert, pp. 68, 69. Accordingly the ISXX., and all the an
cient versions, except the Chaldee, have uniformly rendered the
sentence in its present received acceptation.
So little deserving of serious attention did the translation which
has been here discussed appear to Dr. Lardner, that in his

12 THE TIME AND OCCASION, ETC.
Essay on the Mosaic Account, &c. (Kippis's edit. vol. xi. pp.
239. 249.) when engaged in a direct examination of the subject,
he does not condescend to notice it, at the same time that he
observes upon Le Clerc's interpretation, which is scarcely less
extraordinary r viz. that the word, FnJFo, aoes not signify
coats, but tents : so that the covering provided for Adam and
his wife were not coats, but tents, of skins. In this, however,
Le Clerc has nothing to support him but his own ingenuity of
invention. The word {fc5i£"D, which is exactly the Greek
Xirav, being never used to signify any thing but a garment.
And even if it were, it seems rather extraordinary, as Kennicott
remarks, that God should take care to make a tent or habita
tion for the first pair in Paradise, when, in the very next words,
we read of God's turning them out of Paradise. This, how
ever, is not the only instance in which Le Clerc has indulged
an arbitrary fancy* in his Comments on Scripture.

* Whoever wishes to be satisfied of the levity of Le Clerc's occasional
strictures on Scripture, may consult the dissertation of Witsius, on the
Author of the Pentateuch, in his Miscellanea Sacra, (torn. i. p. 106 — 130.)
in which he discusses, at considerable length and with much force, the ob
jections urged by Le Clerc against the received opinion that the Penta
teuch was the work of Moses. It is true, indeed, that Le Clerc afterwards
retraced his steps, and, in the third dissertation of the Prolegomena of his
commentary on the Old Testament, refuted the several objections, which
he had himself before advanced. The rashness, however, which, upon so
important a subject, could have led to so wild a theory as this writer had
set up, in opposition to the suffrage of all antiquity, to the authority of
Christ and his Apostles, and to the plain evidence of the thing itself, is not
done awajy, although its mischiefs may be mitigated, by his subsequent
recantation. Having made mention of the objections raised against the
authenticity of the five books of Moses, I think it right to direct the young
reader, in addition to the dissertation of Witsius already noticed, to Bishop
Watson's Apology for the Bible in answer to Paine, and to Dr. Crravesys
Lectures on the Pentateuch.

TRUE INTERPRETATION, ETC. 13
NO. LXV.  ON THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE PAS
SAGE, GEN. IV. 7. t CONTAINING GOd's EXPOSTULATION
WITH CAIN.
Page 61. ( * ) — The plain, natural, and significant interpreta
tion, which in the page here noticed has been given to a part of
Scripture, which had long exercised, but to puzzle and perplex,
the commentators, was first proposed by the learned Lightfoot,
(see his Works, vol. ii. pp. 1085. 1243.) and has since been
adopted by Kennicott ( Two Dissert, pp. 216., 217.) and Pil-
kington. {Remarks, (fee. p. 163.) The use of the word J-ijaftfj,
Sin, for a Sin-offering, is so familiar, that it can scarcely be
necessary to adduce instances in proof of it. Examples of it
maybe seen in Exod. xxix. 14. xxx. 10. Levit. iv. 3. 21. 24.
29., vi. 25. 2 Kings xii. 16. Ezek. xlv. 23. Hos. iv. 8., and in
numerous other passages. On this idiom, see also what has
been said in p. 178—181. of the first vol. of this work, and in
Pilkington's Remarks, pp. 163, 164.
But the translation of the passage here given receives its
strongest confirmation from the peculiar force of the word V^%
which is connected with Jig^n, ana which strictly implies
couching, or lying down as a beast- For this see Schindler
and Castelloin the word. And, indeed, all the commentators
\ This text suggests to me the recollection of an error into which a
critic of no small distinction, the Margaret Professor of Divinity, has lately
fallen in one of his Lectures delivered from the Professor's chair. In
his Tenth Lecture, p. 74., he has both asserted it as a fact, and deduced it
as a consequence from a criticism of his upon the word Jehovah, that in
the Septuagint the word Jehovah is never expressed by e»j, but uniformly
by KwpJM. Now, the text of Gen. iv. 4. supplies a direct contradiction to
this assertion. But it is not only in this text, but in a vast number besides,
of which Trommius and Biel supply not a few instances, that we find the
word Jehovah rendered 0»? by the LXX. Nor is this rendering confined
to them : among the Jewish interpreters, Aquila in Exod. iv. 24. has
done the same. The various fallacious applications of the word eels, lately
attempted by Socinian writers, joined to the authority of Dr. Marsh's name,
and the peremptory and unqualified manner in which he has made this
erroneous assertion from the chair of a professor, has rendered it unavoid
able that this notice should be taken of it.

14 TRUE INTERPRETATION
have been obliged to admit this sense of the phrase, even whilst
they adopted a translation of the passage with which it seems
but little consistent : the idea of Sin lying couched at the door,
being, to say the least of it, a bold image. Yet in this sense
they have been compelled to apply the term. See Fagius, Va-
tablus, Clarius, Dathe, and Rosenmiiller. But the word
Sin-offering being substituted for Sin, the whole difficulty is
removed, and the peculiar propriety of the term employed instant
ly appears.There is yet another circumstance of some weight which is
remarked by Parkhurst, and is also noticed by Castalio,
Dathe, Rosenmuller,, although they have not drawn from it
the natural inference; namely, that J"|j$ton> which is feminine,
is here connected with a word of the masculine gender, v^"| ;
which, as Parkhurst judiciously observes, is perfectly consistent,
on the supposition that J-uaftn denotes a Sin-offering : for then
according to a construction common in Hebrew, which refers the
adjective not to the word but to the thing understood by it, the
masculine y^ is here combined with the animal, which was
to be the sin-offering. In conformity with this reasoning, it will
be found, that Jijafcn, in other parts of Scripture where it is used
for a Sin-offering, is, though feminine itself, connected with a
masculine adjunct. See Exod. xxix. 14. Lev. iv. 21. 24. v. 9.
and other places in Leviticus, where the masculine pronoun ^-i j-r
is used instead of the feminine ^ifi. But in Gen. xviii. 20. xx.
9. Exod. xxxii. 21. 30. and other places, where the word occurs
in its-original signification of Sin, it has constantly the adjective
connected in the feminine.
Dr. Geddes was either not aware of this peculiarity, or did not
choose to notice it, whilst he laboured so hard in his Critical
Remarks (p. 54.) to show, that there were no authorities to jus
tify the connecting fraton a feminine, in its ordinary sense of
sin, with a masculine adjunct. He has not taken the like
pains to show, that such a connexion is unauthorized, in the ap
plication of the word in the sense of sin-offering: in which par
ticular application it is, that this anomalous connexion is specially
contended for. He has merely contented himself with asserting,

OF THE PASSAGE, GEN. IV. 7. 15
(p. 55.) that the rendering the word in this sense is liable to the
same objections, which he has urged against its application to
the sense of sin. This he has asserted : whilst it will appear,
upon a single glance, that, to every objection which he has ad
vanced, the signification of the term supplies an immediate and
satisfactory reply.
The principal difficulty attending the translation of the verse
in question has arisen from the apparent want of connexion
between the concluding clause and those which go before. If
however, the context be well considered, the connexion becomes
t>lear and convincing. Of Cain, who was filled with rage at
the preference given to his brother Abel by the acceptance of his
sacrifice, whilst his own was rejected, Jehovah demands the rea
son of his anger : " If thou doest well (says he,) shalt thou
not be accepted'? (or rather as the margin of our Bible reads
shalt thou not have the excellency, or exaltation, above thy
brother, which thou conceivest to belong to thy birth-right?)
And if thou doest not well, a sin-offering lieth at thy very
door, to make the due reconciliation, and restore thee to the sta
tion which thou hast lost by thy misconduct. So that in either
case it depends upon thyself, that he (thy brother) shall be ren
dered subject unto thee, and that thou shalt have the superi
ority over him." This meaning naturally and spontaneously
flows from the literal rendering of the passage as it stands con
nected. And the Lord said unto Cain, wherefore art thou
wroth, &c. (with thy brother?) Is there not, if thou doest
well, exaltation ; and, if thou doest not well, a sin-offering
lying at thy door ? And thus he may become subject to
thee, and thou mayest have the dominion over him. It is
apprehended that thisrwhich is an exact translation of the ori
ginal, affords, in the view of the above paraphrase, a clear, con
sistent, and satisfactory sense of a part of Scripture which has
hitherto caused much trouble to interpreters.
The rendering by the LXX is so very different from this, and
from the commonly received translation, that on the first view
it would seem to have been derived from a Hebrew original,
entirely dissimilar to that, which we at present possess. It
therefore will not be unacceptable to the curious reader, to show

16 TRUE INTERPRETATION
how the Greek translators must have considered the text, in order'
to have derived from it a sense apparently so foreign from its
import. They render it thus ; oix. lav l^Ss Trgotrsuyy^i, «f&»s Se
airS: or, as In some of Holmes's various readings, — Isris-gap*
«ura, x.u) o-a «urs «f Ijis. Though you may have rightly offered,
yet if you have not rightly divided, have you not sinned ?
Be at rest. To you shall he submit himself, and you shall
rule over him. Now, if in the original. fr^xO i^H be con"
strued in connexion, making fi^ the infinitive mood, and
expressing by iiftifi the mode in which the action denoted by
that infinitive was performed ; and if, in like manner, the words
n£"l3b i'1to'1tl ke made to coalesce, whilst pjtlS is interpreted
in the sense of dividing ; if fr^ton be considered as a verb, and
y^»l also as a verb, with a stop preceding and following it ; —
the sense affixed by the Septuagint may be elicited. For then
STIJAID i"1^!"! may be rendered of0»s a-goo-eveyKjis ; and j-[£-|S^
^iftifl: SglSs Siixyi;. f|i%tin a^so may be rendered by i//w.«fT£«)
and y^-\ by ve-vxetnt. All this, however, it must be. remem
bered, is to be considered rather possible than natural. For
although the infinitive certainly admits such a connexion with
the verb iptiifi, as to imply the doing well* that which is
expressed by the infinitive, yet the use of the very f^j^1^ for
offering sacrifice, and of nflS f°r dividing, can scarcely be
said to be authorized by any passages in Scripture. Indeed that
j-jftS should admit the sense of dividing, it ought to be written
f^g, unless we suppose the word to be taken in the sense of
freely sharing, or imparting (whieh dfig *s not incapable of
expressing,) and that thence the Greek translators felt them
selves justified in extending it to the above signification. As
for y 2^f, also, it is only by a considerable latitude of figurative
application that it can be interpreted as in the Greek ; its literal
meaning being that of lying down as an animal. So that,
upon the whole, the version by the LXX is rather to be defended
* Of this construction, Prov. xxx. 29., Psal. xxxiii. 3., Isai. xxiii. 16.,
Ezek. xxxiii, 32., and many other parts of Scripture, supply instances.

OF THE PASSAGE, GEN. IV. 7. If
than approved : whilst the translation by Jerome, and still more
that by Theodotion, presents a view of the passage much more
natural as well as grammatical.
Jerome's translation runs thus, " Nonne si bene egeris, demit-
tetur tibi 1 Et si non bene egeris, ante fores peccatum tuurri
sedebit? Et ad te societas ejus : sed tu magis dominare ejus."
( Qucest. Hebr. in Genes.) And this, again, is thus modified
in the Roman Vulgate : — " Nonne si bene egeris, recipies ? Sin
autem male, statim in foribus peccatum aderit ? Sed sub te erit
appetitus ejus, et tu dominaberis illius." In both of these the
sense is nearly the same as that in our common English Bibles ;
except that the last clause is applied by the followers of the Vul
gate, not to Abel, but to the sin just before spoken of, and is
interpreted as pronouncing on the full dominion of man over his
sinful desires, and asserting the uncontrolled freedom* of his
will. The Romish writers adduce Jerome's paraphrase! on the
text, as clearly proving this to have been his view ; and also
refer to the authority of Augustine, who specifically argues the
point thus, " Tu dominaberis illius ; nunquid fratris ? absit.-
Oujus igitur nisi peccati ?" On these authorities, together with
that of the Jerusalem Targum, the Dowayt translators ground

* Erasmus (Hyperaspist. Diatrib. ii. § 96.) cites the passage thus :
" Sub te erit appetitus tuus, et tu dominaberis illius :'' and from this un
authorized reading he deduees an argument in opposition to Luther, on the
free will of man.
t In his Questions on Genesis he thus explains the text : " Quod si male
egeris, illico peccatum ante vestibulum sedebit, et tali janitore comitaberis :
verum, quia liberi arbitrii es, moneo ut non tibi peccatum, sed tu peccato
domineris" % Ernesti, in his Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, p. 79., exclaims,
" Quam multi errores orti sunt in Ecclesia ex linguae Hebraicae ignorantia !
Doctrma de purgatorio, pcenitentia, fide bonis operibus, et aliae, ex August
tino quidem et versione Vulgata proferri quidem, sed adseri et defendi non
possunt contra interpretem linguae Hebraicae gnarum." — Other reasons,
however, very different from mere ignorance of the Hebrew language,
have been assigned for the errors in Scripture interpretation, imputable to
the advocates of the Church of Rome. Father Paul informs us, in one
of his Letters, (Letter 25.) that the Pope, complaining of Fra. Fulgentio,
said, " that preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing ; and that he,
Vol. 2.-3

18 TRUE INTERPRETATION
a triumph over the heretical (Protestant) versions, whose object
in referring the clause to J.6e?and not to sin, they conceive to

who keeps close to the Scriptures, will ruin the Catholic faith." And*
again (Letter 26.) the Pope is made to say of him, "that, indeed, he made-
some good Sermons, but bad omes withal : and that he insisted too much
upon Scripture ; which is a book, to which if any keep close, he will quite
ruin the Catholic faith."— And indeed, that the Pope- had reason to com
plain of Fra. Fulgentio's sermons, must be admitted, when we find from;
Burnet' 's Life of Bishop Bedell, (p. 119.) that that father, in preaching on
the words, Have ye not read? took occasion to tell the auditory, that if
Christ were now to ask this question, al the answer they eould make to it
would be ; No, for they were not suffered to do it : and thence proceeded
to remonstrate, with the most animated zeal, against the restraint put ois
the use of the Scripture by the See of Rome.
In a work, which, within a few years, has. obtained the most distin
guished mark of approbation, from the highest and most learned society of
a nation holding communion with the church of Rome, we meet with a
detailed statement of those causes which have disqualified the votaries of
that Church for the task of Scripture interpretation. After an enumera
tion of the advantages, derived to the literature and civilization of Christen
dom, from religious houses, as depositaries- of the remains of' ancient
learning, the author thus proceeds. — " If the Chsn-chmen preserved m this
manner the faint tradition of knowledge, it must, at the same time, be
acknowledged, that in their hands it more than once became dangerous,
and was converted by its guardians to pernicious purposes. , The domi
nation of Rome, built upon a scaffolding of false historical proofs, had
need of the assistance of those faithful auxiliaries, to employ on the one
side their half knowledge to fascinate men's eyes, and on the other to pre
vent those eyes from perceiving the truth, and from becoming enlightened
by the torch of criticism. The local usurpations of the Clergy, in several
places, were founded on similar claims, and had need of similar means for
their preservation. It followed, therefore, both that the little knowledge' per
mitted should be mixed with error, and that the nations should be carefully
maintained in profound ignorance, favourable to superstition. Learnings as
far as possible, was rendered inaccessible to the laity. The study of the an
cient languages was represented as idolatrous and abominable. Above all
the reading of the holy Scriptures, that sacred inheritance of all Christians,
wasseverely interdicted. To read the Bible, without the permission of one's
superiors, was a crime : to translate it into the vulgar tongue would have
been a temerity worthy of the severest punishment. The Popes had, indeed,
their reasons for preventing the word of Jesus Christ from reaching the
peaple, and a direct communication from being established between the

OF THE PASSAGE, GEN. IV. 7. 19
be that oft escaping from the doctrine of free will ; for the hosti
lity to which doctrine, entertained by the first Reformers, they

Gospel and the Christian. When it becomes necessary to keep in the
shade objects as conspicuous as faith and public worship, it behoved the
darkness to be universal and impenetrable." ViUer's Essay on the Re
formation of Luther, p. 88 — 90. The same writer, in another place, thus
contrasts the characters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, as to
their grounds of assent to sacred truths. — " The Church of Rome said,
' Submit without examination, to authority V The Protestant Church said,
' Examine, and submit only to thy own conviction. ' The one commanded
men to believe blindly : the other taught them, with the Apostle to reject
the bad, and choose only that which is good." Ibid. p. 294. — -And when
the Church of Rome was, at length, obliged by the necessities of self-
defence, to grant to her faithful sons the privilege, of theological investi
gation, in what way does the same writer represent the system of studies
permitted for this purpose t The theology of the Romanist, and that of
the Protestant, he describes, as ." two worlds in opposite hemispheres,
which have nothing common except the name." — " The Catholic theology
rests on the inflexible authority of the decisions of the Church, and there
fore debars the man who studies it from all free exercise of his reason.
It has preserved the jargon, and all the barbarous appendages of the
Scholastic philosophy. We perceive in it the work of darkness of the
monks of the tenth century. In short, the happiest thing which can befall
him who has unfortunately learned it, is speedily to forget it. The Pro
testant theology, on the contrary,1 rests on a system of examination, on
the unlimited use of reason. The most liberal exegesis opens for it the
knowledge of sacred antiquity ; criticism, that of the history of the
Church ; it regards the doctrinal part, reduced to purity and simplicity, as
only the body of religion, the positive form which it requires ; and it is sup
ported by philosophy in the examination of the laws of nature, of morality,
and of the relations of men to the Divine Being. Whoever wishes to be
instructed in history, in classical literature, and philosophy, can choose
nothing better than a course of Protestant theology."— Ibid. p. 307, 308.
— Such are the observations contained in a work which has been distin
guished by a prize, conferred by the National Institute of France.
Perhaps one of the most decisive proofs of the justice of this writer's
remarks on the state of sacred literature in the Romish Church has been
supplied by the late republication, in this country, of that wretched speci
men of Scripture criticism, Ward's Errata. This powerless offspring of a
feeble parent, which was supposed to have perished when it first saw the
light above a century ago, has lately, upon signs of re-animation, been hail
ed in Ireland with shouts of joy. And the meagre abstract of Gregory

*20 TRUE INTERPRETATION
are branded by these translators with the title of Manichees.
(See the Doway Bible on Gen. iv. 7 J)

Martin's Discovery of the manifold Corruptions of the Holy Scriptures, a
-work which has itself lain for two hundred years overwhelmed by confuta
tion, has been received by the Romanists, of this part of the Empire, with
¦a gratulation that might well become the darkest ages of the Church. A
work, condemning the Protestant translation of the Bible for using the term
messenger instead of angel, (in Mai. ii. 7., iii. 1., Mat. xi. 10., Luke vii.
27, &c.) by which the character of angelis withdrawn from the priesthood,
and of a sacrament from orders : — for not rendering the words (in Hebr,
•xi. 2 1 . ,) Trpocroivmnv 'Eni to uxfiv ris f aCefou airS, as the Rhemish does, adored
the top of his rod, and thereby surreptitiously removing one of the princi
pal Scripture arguments for image worship : — for, ascribing to the word
bDS' in the second commandment, the meaning graven image, whilst the
Rhemish renders it graven thing, which, with those who admit an image
not to be a thing, wrll exempt images from the prohibition of the commands
ment : — for not giving to the words /uerdniz and pcenitentia, the sense of
penance, but merely assigning to them their true interpretation, repentance,
and thus doing wilful despite to the sacrament of penance : — a work, I say,
condemning the Protestant translations of the Bible for these, and some other
such errors ; and in all cases demonstrating the error by one and the same
irrefragable proof, — that the Romish version is the true one, and that the
Protestant version which differs from it must consequently be false, — is cer
tainly not such a one, as might, in the nineteenth century, be expected to
he raked up by the clergy of a widely-extended communion, and exhir
¦bited triumphantly as a master-piece of critical erudition. In the opinion
of many, this miserable performance did not deserve an answer ; especially
as every argument which it contained, had been in former times repeatedly
confuted. Perhaps, however, they judged more rightly, who thought, that
.even the weakest reasonings should be exposed, lest they might be ima
gined to be strong ; and that even the most hackneyed arguments should be
•replied to, lest they might be conceived to be new. Accordingly, this work
received an answer from Dr. Ryan, whose zealous exertions in the cause
of religious truth are well known, and is about to receive another from The
Rev. Richard Grier, of Middleton. These gentlemen, at all events, display
courage in their enterprise, since the author whom they attack, backed by
the whole Council of Trent, has pronounced, that whoever shall not receive
the books of Scripture, as they are read in the Catholic <Romish) Church,
and as they are in the Vulgate Latin edition, shall be accursed. Errata
?. 37.
Mr. Grier's work has been published since the date of the above obser*
yation jn the third edition of this work ; and, by the ability with which i*

ON THE PASSAGE," GEN. IV. 7. 21
To these Romish Doctors I leave a Romish Doctor to reply.
Dr. Geddes, in his Critical Remarks, pp. 54. 55., has endea
voured to show that Jerome's version, or that of the Vulgate,
cannot be maintained. He has not, however, adduced the ar
guments which bear most strongly against their interpretation ;
namely, those which apply to the mistranslation of the conclud
ing clause of the seventh verse, and to the violence offered even
to that mistranslation in pronouncing that Cain having sinned
should acquire dominion over his sinful desires, which is as
much as to say', that by yielding to sin a man acquires the
power of controlling it. But too much has been said upon
Romish expositiou. *

has been exfcuted, seems to have completely silenced the battery which
had been just opened upon the received English translation of the Scrip
tures. * How little entitled the orthodox member of the Romish Church is, at
this day, to expect serious consideration in the walks of sacred criticism,
maybe inferred (in addition to what has been said in the last note) from the
description given of him by a Doctor of his own communion. " The vulgar
papist rests his faith onthe supposed infallibility of his church, although he
knows not where that infallibility is lodged, nor in what it properly consists :
it is to him a general, vague, indefinite idea, which he never thinks of
analyzing. He reads in his catechism, or is told by his catechist, that the
Church cannot err in what she teaches ; and then he is told, that this unerr]
ing church is composed only of those who hold communion with the Bishop
of Rome, and precisely believe as he and the bishops who are in communion
with him believe. From that moment reason is set aside : authority
usurps its place, and implicit faith is the necessary consequence. He
dares not even advance to the first step of Des Cartes's logic ; he dares
not doubt': for in his table of sins, which he is obliged to confess, he finds
doubting in matters of faith to be a grievous crime." Such is Dr. Geddes's
account of him whom he is pleased to call the vulgar papist : under which
title he, in truth, means to include all who are sincere votaries of the
Church of Rome, and whom that church would acknowledge as such : in
other words, he means by this term to designate all who are actually within
the pale of Popery.
And let it not be supposed that this is the testimony of an enemy in the
disguise of a friend"; and that the author, whilst he assumed the name of
Catholic, was influenced by the feelings of a Protestant. On the contrary,
jt is manifest from the following passage that his mind remained under the

22 TRUE INTERPRETATION, ETC.
I come now to the translation by Theodotion, which, as it ap
pears to me, does perfect justice to the original, and with which
the version which I have proposed entirely coincides. od«, «»
ayuDSs sre/jis, Sixtov ; tt»i ay f&ti aya.6£f sre<»!5, mi $-vgccs UfiapTia
iyx,a8yiTu,r xxiTrgos trs igfiij ctirS, Ml «f|e(5 turS. Here is an
agreement in all its parts with the rendering which has been
submitted ; the force of a^agrU, like that of fi^ftHj extending
to the sin-offering; f.yx.a6nrai , as well as y^-|, denoting the
posture of an animal; and «wt» the masculine decidedly
marking, that the reference in the last clause was, not to aftagrU*
but to Abel. See Theod. apud Montefalc.
Grotius has given the passage somewhat of a different turn,
and yet departs but little from the meaning which has been here

powerful influence of Romish impression, and that he continued still a par
tisan of that faith whose errors he affected to decry. For, says he, " Is the
faith of the vulgar Protestant better founded? He rests it on a book call
ed the Holy Bible, which he believes to be the infallible word of God." —
And thus he pronounces the faith of the Protestant and of the Papist to be
alike implicit and alike unfounded. '¦ If the instructor of the Protestant be
asked how he knows that the book which he puts into the hand of his cate
chumen is the infallible word of God, he cannot, like the Priest, appeal to
an unerring church ; he acknowledges no such guide : and yet it is hard
to conceive what other better argument he can use." — He goes on even to
pronounce, that " in the Popish controversy, the Romanists have, on this
point, the better side of the question ; called, by some of their controversial
ists, the question of questions." And in what way does their superiority
appear upon this question of questions f By " its never having been satis
factorily solved by the Romanists themselves : they having always reason
ed in what is termed a vicious circle : proving the infallibility of the Church
from the authority of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture from the
¦Church's infallibility." (Preface to Critical Remarks, p. v.) This must
undoubtedly have given the Romanists the better side of the question • for
what Protestant logician could successfully reply to such an argument 1 
But the reader must be weary of this fatuity.
* That is, to fy.*f tiV, in the sense of sin ; in which sense alone it is, that
it has been by some made the subject of reference, in opposition to Abel.
In the sense of sin offering, it would, as we have seen, -admit the masculine
•pronoun «i™: but to the word, taken in that sense, the reference of the
pronoun would have no meaning.

SACRIFICES OF ABEL AND OF CHRIST. 23
assigned. He considers the force of the si bene egeris, as car
ried down to the concluding clause, so as to make the sense this:
" If thou doest well, Abel as the younger shall be rendered sub
ject to thy authority." And so makes the clause beginning with,
"If thou doest not well," &c. parenthetical; of which, he says,
innumerable instances are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
This mode of translating the passage has been adopted by Purver
in his English version ; and it is certainly not unworthy of com
mendation. At the same time, I cannot but think the view of
the sentence, which I have offered to the reader, more gram
matical, more consistent, and more natural. *

NO. LXVI.  ON THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SACRI
FICE OF ABEL AND THAT OF CHRIST.
Page 61. (v^ — Dr. Richie judiciously observes, on this pas
sage of Hebrews, that " it makes the sacrifice of Abel to have
been of the piacular kind, by the comparison which it makes
between the effect of it and that of the sacrifice of Christ, which
without doubt was of the piacular kind. For, unless these two

* The note of Ludov. de Dieu on this passage deserves to be noticed.
"An non, sive bene qfferas, sive non bene, ad ostium peccatum cubat ?
Quum scilicet, indigne ferret Cain, fratris sacrificium suo esse praelatum,
quod non minus recte, sacrificiorum ritus observasset fratre, neque quic-
quam, sive quoad rem oblatam, sive' quoad externam offerendi rationem ac
ceremoniam, dignius a fratre ac melius profectum esset, monet Deus, non
esse hie ipsam oblationem respiciendam, recte ne ea secundum legem sci
licet, cerimonialem facta sit, an secus : sed personam offerentem, dedita
he ea sit peccato, an non. Tu peccatum perpetuo circumfers, illudque in
procinctu habes, Cubans quippe ante fores : itaque nihil refert, bene ne a»
male secundum, rites legales offeras. Vel optima tua oblatio a peccato
vitiatur. Nondebebat appetitus tuusferri ad peccatum, sed peccati appe-
titus ad te, sicut mulieris appetitus ad maritum cui subest, tuque ei domi-
nari.— Posset etiam verti, An non sive pukhrum quid adferas, sive non
pukhrum," &c.—Animadv. in Vet. Test. p. 13.— These interpretations
possess much ingenuity : but are liable to the grammatical objection already
urged, of taking f^toH' in the sense of sin in the masculine gender.

24 SACRIFICES BEFORE THE LAlV
sacrifices had been uf the same kind, and productive of similar
effects, such a comparison could not have been made, nor the
effect of the one pronounced to have been better, or much greater,
than the effect of the other : causes of a different nature pro
ducing effects of a dissimilar kind : and between effectsiof a dis
similar kind, no such comparison as that here made being ad
missible." Peculiar Doctrines of Revelation, Part II. § xiii.
p. 138.

NO, LXVII.  ON THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE BEFORE THE
LAW : TENDING TO SHOW ITS CONFINEMENT TO ANIMAL
SACRIFICE, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF CAIN.
Page 62. (w)^From the time of Abel's sacrifice to the givj
ing of the law, we find the sacrificial offering described by no
other appellation than that of nbi? or HiTj the holocaust or
burnt-offering, and the Zebach or immolated victim. Thus
we see the former expression used of the sacrifice of Noah in
Gen. viii. 20., and again repeatedly applied to the sacrifice of
Abraham in the 22d chapter. It is also employed by Moses in
speaking of sacrifices to Pharaoh, in Exod. x. 25. and again in
describing the offerings of Jethro, xviii. 12. The oblations of
Job likewise (Job i. 5.) and of his friends (xiii. 7, 8.) are so deno
minated : as are those of Balaam, in the 23d ch. of Numbers.
In the numerous other instances of the mode of worship by
sacrifice, which occur in this early period, the expression used
is either n^T* or* where the sort of sacrifice is not exactly speci
fied, a word immediately derived from and clearly implying it
hiT?3; which, though translated generally by us an Altar, and
being sometimes applied to that on which Incense was presented
cannot, as Sykes remarks, {Essay, p. 246.) when used abso
lutely, and in its strict sense, be otherwise understood, than as
signifying " that on which slain animals were offered."
Doctor Richie, indeed, not only maintains that none but ani
mal sacrifices were offered from the time of Cain to the pro
mulgation of the law, but that all during that period were none
other than holocausts, or burnt-offerings ; the Zebach, or slain

ANIMAL SACRIFICES. , 25
animal, having been uniformly offered up in that manner : and
that, consequently, all the sacrifices of this early period were
piacular. In this last position Sykes concurs, so far as to
allow, that "all holocausts before the days of Moses were
deprecations of wrath ;" and he admits also, that, from the
time of Abel until that of Jacob, there is no instance of any
other sacrifice than the burnt-offering. But from his peculiar
notions concerning the nature of sacrifice he is led to contend,
that the sacrifice of Jacob, and those of Moses and Jethro,
included a peace-offering, although he confesses, that in no
one instance is there any mention expressly made of peace-offer
ings before the law.
The circumstances, on which Sykes grounds his opinion, are
— 1. The introduction of the word pQj : which is of no weight,
because nothing prevents the Zebach from having been an
holocaust. — 2. The mention of the eating of Bread at the
time of the sacrifice: from which no inference can be drawn
respecting the nature of the sacrifice, as weJiave already seen in
Number XLIX. — and, 3. The mention of both the Zebach and
the Holocaust, in the cases of Moses and Jethro, in Exod. x. 25.
and xviii. 12.: to which Richie has satisfactorily replied, by show
ing that the particle -|, is to be taken, not in the sense pf and,
but in that of even. Indeed Dr. Richie deserves particularly to
be consulted on the whole of this subject. See Pccvl. Doclr.
Part II. § 42—49. vol. i. p 137—144. See also Sykes s Es
say, p. 231 — 251.; where, if allowance be made for the author's
peculiar bias on the subject of sacrifice, considerable support will
be found for the principal part of Dr. Richie's positions. But,
whether Dr. Richie be well founded or not in his opinion, that
all the oblations prior to the law, excepting that of Cain, were
holocausts, this, at least, must be admitted, that they , were ani
mal sacrifices : more than which, the present argument does
not require.
Josephus, it is to be observed, expressly describes the holocaust
offered by Noah, as a sacrifice of deprecation. He states that
this patriarch, under a persuasion that God had doomed man
kind to destruction, and through terror of the repetition of the
dreadful judgment he had so lately witnessed, offered up prayers
Vol. 2.-4

26 DISPROPORTION OF THE MOSAIC
and sacrifices to God, to turn away his wraths Anliq. Jud.
Lib. I. cap iv. This testimony of the Jewish Historian, as to
the received notions of the nature of sacrifice in his day, the
reader will please to add to those which have been adduced in
Number XXXIII:, in reply to Dr. Priestley's remarks upon
that head. It will most naturally fall in at p. 203. vol i.

NO. LXVIII.  ON THE DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE
EFFECTS OF THE MOSAIC AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRI
FICES.
Page 65. (x)- On this subject particular attention should
be paid to the observations in Numbers XXXI. XXXIV.
XXXVI. and XXXVII. ; especially to those contained in pp.
186, 187. and pp 245—247. of the first volume.
The following elucidation by the learned Grotius, whose
unbiased reflections are always valuable, deserves to be noticed.
Lex vetus dupliciter spectatur : aut carnaliter, aut spiritualiter.
Carnaliter, qua instrumentum fuit noxiruxi, reipublicice Juda-
icai. Spiritualiter, qua <rx.ia.i elxe T^v |K.eAAo»rwv, umbram habe-
bat futurorum. Hebr. x. 1. Q.uod ad priorem considera-
tionem attinet, sacrificia Legis expiatoiia sanctificabant ad carnis
puritatem, Heb. ix. 13. — Deus enim Rex Hebrseorum (quoniam
Legislatori licet suam legem, prasertim pcenalem, nonnihil
relaxare) in quibusdam delictis victimas expiatorias admisit
vice ipsius peccatoris, et per illas ac non aliter peccatorim a mor
tis poena (qua? juxta carnalem sensum erat sanctio Legis) libe-
rare voluit. — In qu busdam ergo delictis ; quod ad poenam
carnalem attinebat, admittebatur placamen, redemptio, satisfac-
tio, compensatio denique mortis b stise cum morte hominis alioqui
debita. — Victims pro peccato ita in Veteri Foedere peccata expia-
runt ; nimirum Deum movendo, ut poenam carnalem remitteret,
idque per satisfactionem quandam.
Q,uod autem tipi preestiterunt carnaliter, hoc » crnhvprof, excm-
plar, Christ u- praestat spiritualiter; et quod typi in quibusdam
dunta at delictis, id Christ.us in omnibus Deum scilicet moven
do, ut spiritualeni pcenam remittal, iriqiiK p-r satisfactionem

AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES. 27
perfectissimam. Plus enim, non minus semper est in re typo
designata, quara in typo; ut ratio monstrat. Commune est
sacrificio expiatorio legali et sacrificio Christi illud, quod sine
sanguinis effusione non fit remjssio, Hebr. ix. 22. Hanc impe-
trationem. remissionis per sanguiiiem ibidem divinus scriptor
appellat mo lo a.yi*^f>,sanctificationem{\'i.) modo k*0»jio?«.oi>,
expiatinnem. (14,22, i\.) Sed in Veteri Lege victimee erant
pecudes. (12 ) in hac nostra Christus ipse non sacerdos tantum,
sed et. victi la (11, ij.) Le-.ralis iila e piatio hujin ccelestis
sive spiriiuali-i !>ir'i$nyu.-t. (23) et cm'rw)^* exewp'a • (24.)
quomo.'lo / Quia ilia piaesiabu cami munditiem 14.) id est,
reaiui ablati mem, non auiem spiritui sive conscient.iae (9.) haec
autein ipsi conscieniioe ( i 1.) Q, tia qiud in Teieii Lege erat
mors temporalis., hoc hi Novo Feed ere est mors seterna, Hebr.
x 29. . ac proin.de il.i; liberalio erat le iporalis, hie vera «<»«;««
ftirfurtf, ceterna r demptio, Hebr. ix. 12. Qnare sicut eodem
loco ab eff.tctu le^ilis viotimae a 1 e'Feelum huju.s per spiritum
obkrse arguinentuin producitur Quanta magis, &e. sic et
nobis licet huric in raoluin ceitissime argumentari, Victim a
legalis rralum carnalem, suslulit, Deum movendo ad remis-
stouem : ergo ttut If) mat? is reatnm spirititalem, I hum
it dem ad remissi< nem m.vendn, tnllit oblafa per spiritam
victima. Grotii Opera 7 heolosc. ton . iv p. 331 — 3 3.
Theprin i pies from which Groiius has derived his conclusion
are rninifestly f.hess. 1. Tint the expiation wrought by the
sacrifices under the Law were typical of that, effected by the
death of Christ: 2 That in every type there must be some
thing of the same general nature with that which is contained
in the tiling typified : and 3. That, combined with this general
correspondence between the type and the thing prefigured, there
should exist that disproportion which might be expected between
the shadow and the substance.
These principle-!, indeed, are so clearly and unequivocally
laid down by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews, that

* . Grotius has here used the word antitype improperly, and in a sense
directly opposite to that in which he has just before properly applied the
term.

28 DISPROPORTION OF THE MOSAIC
even the great fathers of the Socinian school, Faustus Socinus
and Crellius, admit their-evidence, and differ from Grotius only
in the application. In establishing the correspondence, and
the disproportion,-^ the Mosaic and the Christian expiation,
they urge the reasoning of the apostle no less forcibly than
Grotius has done ; as may be seen in the treatise of Socinus
De Jes. Christ. Serv. {Opera, torn. ii. pp. 157, 158.) and in
Crelfius's Respi ns. ad Grot. {Opera, torn. i. p. 204—211.)
These expositors, not having been initiated into the convenient
artifice, so familiar to their followers, of rejecting the authority
of an apostle when it. made against, them, found themselves
compelled by the plain language of scripture to acknowledge
the validity of these principles
The nature of their system, however, being at variance with
their admission, they were led to strain one principle to an
extreme, subversive of the other ; and, by urging disproportion
within the confines of dissim litvde, they were enabled to
escape the bearings of that correspondence of the two dispen
sations, which forms the foundation of the apostle's argument,
and for which they had themselves in the first instance strenu
ously contended. For whilst, in professing to represent the
expiation by the sacrifice of Christ as of a superior order to
that effected by the sacrifices of the law, they endeavour to
establish this by such a d< scription of its nature, as divests it
of every character which the Mosaic sacrifice possessed, they
in truth show, that the death of Christ bore no relation what
ever to those sacrifices by which they admit it to have been
typified : that is, in other words, they make the Mosaic sacrifices
at the same time typical and not typical of the death of Christ.
See this point well treated, though in a different manner, by
Stillingfleet, in his Discourse concerning the true Reasons,
&c. p. 365 — 367.
On another fallacy in the reasoning of the above writers it
is also necessary to remark. Whilst they profess faithfully to
follow the apostle's reasoning in his address to the Hebrews
they represent the expiation of the legal sacrifice as wholly
typical; whereas it was not less real and effectual under its
own proper system, than the sacrifice of Christ was under that

AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES. 29
by which it was succeeded ; whilst at the same time it prefigur
ed that more important expiation, which was to be introduced
under the new -dispensation ; all the parts of which, the apostle
distinctly informs us, had their corresponding circumstances in
that which: went before.
Upon the whole, then, briefly to sum up the present subject.
The peopL of the Jews being placed under a peculiar polity,
whereby they stood at the same time in a civil and rilual rela
tion to their divine Governor; their offences in these several
relations exposed them to the inflictions appropriate to each.
The mercy of the Legislator at the same time provided for them
the means of expiation by sacrifice, whereby, in certain cases,
the corporal punishment incurred by the violation of the civil
law, and the legal impurities contracted by the neglect of the
ritual institutions, might be done away. The entire system,
however, being hut preparatory for another by which it was to
be superseded, was constituted in all its essential parts in such a
manner as to be emblematical of that which it was intended to in
troduce ; and the several parts of the one were, consequently,
adjusted by the same proportions which were to obtain in the
other. Hence it follows, that the sacrifices under the temporal and
ceremonial dispensation of the Law had a real efficacy in
releasing those who were subjected to it from its temporal pen
alties and ceremonial disqualifications ; in like manner as the
one g'-eat Sacrifice under the Gospel possesses the power to
release mankind at large from the everlasting penalties of that
spiritual law under which all men are bound, and to cleanse
the conscience from those moral impurities which forbid all
access to that holy Being, who is to be worshipped only
in spirit and in truth. The expiation, then, under the old
law, was no less real than that which it prefigured under the
new, whilst it bore to the dispensation of which it was a part,
the same proportion which that more perfect expiation by the
death of Christ bears to the more perfect dispensation to which
it appertains ; the wisdom of the divine contrivance, in this as
in the other branches of providential arrangement, rendering
that which was complete and effectual for its own immediate

30 DISPROPORTION OF THE MOSAIC
purpose, at the same time introductory and subservient to other
and more import i nt objects.
Berriman, in treating of the typical interpretation of the Law,
although leaning a little too much to the notion of its being.
merely symbolical, places the parallelism and proportion of the
two dispensations in a just and satisfactory light. " From what "
(he asks) " was the offender delivered by the legal sacrifices 1 —
Was it not from the temporal death, and the danger of being cut
off from the congregation 7 And to what privilege was he re
stored or entitled? Was it not to the privilege of appearing be
fore God, and joining in the public worship ? What was the
purifying or sanctification consequent upon such atonements ?
Was it not (as the apostle styles it) the purifying of the flesh ;
an outward and a transient efficacy, which could not reach to
purge their consciences from dead works? And why was
all this necessary to be often repeated, but because it had no
solid or permanent effect*, nor deserved to find acceptance of itself?
But if we take it in a symbolical or typical point of view, then it
leads us to acknowledge the benefit of Christ's redemption, and
those invaluable privileges he has purchased for us. That tem
poral death, which was denounced by the Law, will denote that
everlasting punishment to which sinners are exposed as such. —
The legal impurity, which wanted to be cleansed, will denote the
defilement and impurity of sin. The outward admission to the
service of the temple, will denote our spiritual privilege of ac
cess unto God, as well in the present ordinances of his church,
as in the future inheritance of his eternal kingdom. And all
this being performed by the oblation of sacrifices; clean and
perfect in their kind, will import our being redeemed with the
precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without bletni h and
without spot ; who through the eternal Spirit offered him
self without spot to G.id, for a sweet-smelling savour, and
entered not into the holy places made with hands, which are
the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, that true taber
nacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. there to plead
the merit of his sacrifice and make for ever intercession fur
us." — Boyle Lecture Sermons, vol. iii. pp. 776, 777.
On the subject of this Number in general, there are some ex-

AND THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES. 31
cellent remarks of Bishop Stillingflcet, to be found in his Dis
course concerning the true Reasons, &c. p. 315—318.
NO. LXIX. — ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE
SACRIFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND
THAT EMPLOYED IN THE NEW TO DESCRIBE REDEMP
TION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST : AND THE ORIGINAL
ADAPTATION OF THE FORMER TO THE SUBJECT OF THE
LATTER.Page 66. ( y ) — If, indeed, it be considered, that the sacrifice of
Christ was the great object held in view in the appointment of
all preceding sacrifices, and that these were primarily designed
as sacramental representations of that, it will follow, that in
reference to it must the sacrificial terms have been originally
framed : and that/ therefore, when applied by the Apostles to
the death of Christ, they were adopted, not merely as being fa
miliar to the Jews from their application to the sin-offerings un
der the law, but because of their original adaptation to this one
great Sacrifice, in consequence of which they had been applied
to the legal sacrifices ordained to represent it. For some valua
ble observations on this subject, see Holmes's Four Tracts, pp.
102, 103.
If this view of the matter be just, it then follows, that so far
were the writers of the New Testament from employing the
sacrificial terms in mere accommodation to Jewish notions, (an
argument much insisted on by Dr. Priestley, H. Taylor, and
others, see pp. 46, 47. and p. 186 — 189. of the first volume,)
that they must have used them as primarily belonging to the
death of Christ, and as in strict accuracy more aptly Characteriz
ing the Christian sacrifice, than those sacrifices of typical im
port to which they had been applied under the law. "From this
also it might be expected, that a fuller light would now be
thrown upon the nature of the Jewish sacrifice ; and the true
force and value of the sacrificial ceremonies and phrases be more
perfectly understood. And this we find to be the case ; the lan
guage of the New Testament on the subject of atonement being

23 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
more precise and significant than that of the Old. Instances of
this may be seen in pp. 250. 275, 276. of the first volume, and
are not denied by the opponents of the doctrine of Atonement,
as has been already observed in the places referred to. Thus,
then, we find the Old Testament and the New bestowing mutu
al elucidation, on this head : the rites and terms of sacrifice in
the Old exemplifying and describing the leading principles and
fundamental notions of atonement ; and the more exact and
perfect delineation of it in the New filling up the outline, and
exhibiting the great work of our Redemption, in its genuine
magnitude and beauty.
The train of reflection pursued in this Number leads me
naturally to notice the opinions of Archbishop Tillotson, as con
nected with its subject. Nor is it without much regret that I
find myself compelled to notice, for the express purpose of mark
ing with condemnation, the opinions of a prelate, whose great
talents and virtues have combined to shed so bright a lustre on
the annals of the English Church. This distinguished writer,*

* So highly was Tillotson esteemed a.sa,-wriferby the celebrated Locke,
that, in his treatise Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman, he
specifically recommends the constant perusal of the works of that prelate,
as a most useful exercise for the student who is desirous to acquire the
talent of perspicuity. So very highly, indeed, did that most excellent
judge of whatever is requisite to clearness of expression, rate the Arch
bishop's endowments in this particular, that he has joined with him but one
other writer in the English language, as exhibiting a just model for the
acquisition of a perspicuous style. That writer is Chillingworth, whom
he commends also for attainments of yet higher value. — " Besides perspi
cuity " (he says) "there must be also right reasoning; without which,
perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for the attaining of this,
I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his ex
ample, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better
than any book that I know ; and therefore will deserve to be read upon that
account over and over again; not to say any thing of his argument." 
Locke's Work s, vol. iv. p. 601.
Why I have so readily availed myself of the opportunity, afforded by
this honourable testimony, of presenting Chillingworth, to the more imme
diate notice of the student, at this period, and in this country, will not be
difficult, upon reflection, to discover.— Quaere ; Are Tillotson, and Chilling-

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 33
having been forcibly impressed with the many visible traces of
the doctrines and truths of revelation discoverable in the my
thology and worship of the Heathen world, was led to conclude,
with a rashness little to he expected from such a man, that the
Christian religion, whilst it was in its substance a most perfect
institution, was yet, in condescension to the weakness of man
kind, accommodated to the existing prejudices of the world, so
far as was consistent with the honour of God, and its own great
and valuable purposes. And, accordingly, he maintains, that
the doctrine of our redemption by the sacrifice of Christ had its
origin in the notion of sacrifices entertained amongst the Pa-
gans. " This notion," he says, « of the expiation of sin, by sacrifices
of one kind or other, seems to have obtained very early in the
world ; and, among all other ways of divine worship, to have
found the most universal reception in all times and places.—
And, indeed, a great part of the Jewish religion and worship
was a plain condescension to the general apprehensions of men,
concerning this way of appeasing the Deity by sacrifice: and
the greatest part of the Pagan religion and worship was likewise
founded upon the same notion and opinion, which, because it
was so universal, seems to have had its original from the first
parents of mankind, either immediately after the Creation, or
after the Flood; and from thence, I mean as to the substance of
this notion, to have been derived and propagated to all their
posterity. And with this general notion of mankind, whatever
the ground or foundation of it might be, God was pleased so far
to comply, as once for all to have a general atonement made for
the sins of all mankind, by the sacrifice of his only Son." —
Tillotson's Works, vol. i. p. 440. For similar observations, see
do. pp. 439. 446, 447. 451. And again, in vol. ii. p. 112., he
states the matter thus : — " With these notions, which had gene
rally possessed mankind, God was pleased to comply so far, as
in the frame of the Jewish religion, (which was designed for a type

worth, and writers of that manly stamp, those with whom the youth of the
present day are most solicitous to converse, for the improvement of their
reasoning and their style 1
Vol. 2.-5

34 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T.
of the more perfect institution of the, Christian religion, and a
preparation for it,) to appoint sacrifices to be slain and offered up
for the sinner," &c. And, he adds, that, afterwards, in the dispen
sation of the Gospel, the same condescension to the apprehen
sions of mankind was likewise observed, as has heen already
stated. Now, it is surely much to be lamented, that when this learn
ed Prelate had, upon a full examination of the case, been led to
discover such a striking conformity between Paganism and
Christianity, as must reduce the matter to this alternative, either
that the Christian dispensation was framed in compliance with
Heathen prejudices, or that Paganism was a corruption of those
oracles which conveyed anticipations of the Christian scheme ;
it is much, I say, to be lamented, that he should have been
drawn into a conclusion so directly at variance with history and
Scripture, when one so powerfully sustained by both was im
mediately at hand.
The stumbling-block to the Archbishop, as an ingenious
writer has justly remarked, was the supposition of a Religion
of Nature* prior to and independent of revelation. Hence

* One of the most singular theories ever devised on the subject of
Natural Religion, is that of Bishop Warburton ; which I subjoin here the
more readily, as it tends to show to what strange conceits even the greatest
men may be carried, when they attempt to be wise beyond what is written,
and presume to substitute their own conjectural reasonings for the solid
truths of Revelation. Man, he contends, was created mortal, in the imma
terial as well as the material part of his nature, immateriality simply being
common to him with the whole animal creation. But by God's breathing
into his nostrils the breath of life, and thereby making him a living soul,
the life in man was discriminated from the life in brutes ; since by this
act was communicated to his immaterial part a rational principle, which,
by making him responsible for his actions, must require, according to the
existing constitution of things, a continuance of life, and, consequently,
a distinct existence of the soul after its separation from the body. In the
state, in which, according to the Bishop, the first couple were placed pre
vious to their admission into Paradise, they were subject only to the law
of Natural Religion, the constituent parts of which religion were dis
coverable by the efforts of the human understanding unassisted by divine
instruction. On being advanced to the Paradisiacal state, man became

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 35
arose the assumption, that the notion of expiation for sins by
sacrifice, which he found so early and so universal, was the

the subject of Revealed Religion ; and, as the reward of his obedience to
the positive precept attached to his new condition, immortality (meaning
thereby the perpetual duration and uninterrupted union of the body and
soul,) a quality which was altogether extraneous to his original nature,
was placed within his reach by the free grace of God. The opportunity
now afforded to him of exalting his nature by the superinduced blessings
of immortality was lost by his non-compliance with the condition : and at
the same time the corruption, which his disobedience caused to that rational
nature in which he had been made to resemble the divine image, degraded
him to his first condition of mortality, and made him again liable to that
total death, that complete annihilation to which his frame was originally
subject. But, by the intervention of Jesus Christ, man was not only re
stored to the advantages of his original state, namely, the continuance of
the soul after the dissolution of the body, but he was also enabled to obtain
that immortality, which Adam by his obedience might have secured ; with
this difference however, that, in the immortality procured by Christ, death
is permitted to give a temporary interruption to that existence and union
of the soul and body, which, in the other case, would have been unbroken.
But not only had the transgression occasioned a relapse into that state of
mortality in which man had been originally created, hut it also threw him
back into that subjection to natural Religion in which he was at first placed.
In this dispensation of Natural Religion, which, according to Bishop
Warburton, was thus permitted to precede the dispensation of Grace, the
aids and succours of virtue were not, however, according, to his Hypo
thesis, wanting ; for, in his view of the subject, the Tight of revelation is
by no means required to make known the efficacy of repentance, or the
rewards of upright conduct. Both these points, he contends, are evidently
manifest to the eye of reason, tracing the connexion that must subsist be
tween the creature and his Maker. Such are the paradoxical, and, it must
be added, unscriptural sentiments, conveyed by this learned writer in the
9th book of the Divine Legation. They will be found well, though briefly,
treated by Mr. Pearson, in the first three sections of his Critical Essay ;
a work, of which I have already had occasion to speak, in p. 88. of the
former volume. Dr. Graves, also, in the 4th section, Part III. of his
Lectures on the Pentateuch, has made many valuable remarks, affecting,
though not directly, these positions of the too ingenious Bishop.
It ought not to pass unnoticed, that his Lordship, in one of his Letters
to his friend Dr. Hurd, speaks of this his favourite theory, as intended
" to confute the triumphant reasoning of unbelievers, particularly Tindal,
who say redemption- is a fable; for the only means of regaining God's

36 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
mere suggestion of human apprehensions ; not deduced from
any express revelation concerning the Lamb of God slam, in
decree and type, from the foundation of the world ; not
springing from any divine institution, ordained for the purpose
of showing forth Christ's death, until he should himself appear
jn the flesh, to fulfil all that was prefigured of him, and to take
away sin, and put an end to sacrifice, by the one great sacrifice
of himself.
Had the Archbishop, as the same writer observes, reflected,
that a religion or law of nature* is a mere ens rationis ; that

favour, which they eternally confound with immortality, is that simple one
which natural religion teaches, vis. repentance. To confute this, it was
necessary to show, that restoration to a. free gift, and the recovery of a
claim, were two very different things. The common answer was, that
natural religion does not teach reconciliation on repentance ; which if it
does not, it teaches nothing, or worse than nothing." Of Natural Religion,
then, after all that Bishop Warburton has written about it, we have his full
confession, that if it does not teach the sufficiency of repentance^ it teaches
even wm-se than nothing.^-The opponent of the notion of Natural Reli
gion may safely allow the .matter to rest upon the ground on which the
Bishop has placed it. That God will accept repentance in compensation
for obedience, nothing short of the word of God can ever establish satis
factorily to any reasonable mind. The consequence of this position is
supplied by the author of the Divine Legation.
* To him who would wish to see, how little the Religion of Nature, so
far as it contains any thing truly valuable to man, is strictly entitled to that
name, I would recommend the perusal of the preface to The Religion of
Jesus delineated. The observations there contained, whilst they tend to
show, in animadverting upon The Religion of Nature delineated, how sad'
ly deficient the scheme of natural religion is found, even at this day, al^
though sketched by the hand of a master, and aided hy the borrowed dis
coveries of revelation, at the same time clearly evince, that the promulger
pf the truths of what is called natural religion, in almost every case in
which he advances any that are of importance to mankind, is in reality to
be deemed, not AuTotf/Ja^Toj, but SufUwyrK, Of this, however, the fullest
and most complete proof is to be derived from the invaluable work of Dr.
Ellis, in which he may be said tp have demonstrated The knowledge of
Divine Things to be from Revelation, not from Reason or Nature, ie-
land has also abundantly established the fact, of the total insufficiency of
human reason in religious concerns, by the view, which he has given, of

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 37
the first parents of mankind were not left to the unassisted light
of reason or nature, but were, from the beginning, fully in
structed by their Creator in all things necessary for them to
know ; that after their fall, the way and method of their salva
tion was, in a certain degree, made known to them ; that all
religious rites flowed from the same divine source, viz. the
original revelation of the redemption of the world by the sacri
fice of our Lord Jesus Christ; that all the apprehensions and
common prejudices of mankind, as they are called, were de
rived from the same fountain ; that all, until the apostacy at
Babel, had the same tongue, the same faith, the same Lord ;
that the Heathen carried off from thence the same religious rites

the, state of religion in the heathen world, in his work on The Advantage
and- Necessity of the Christian Revelation. From Clark's 6th and 7th
propp. of his Evidence of Natural and Revealed Religion, although this au
thor is disposed to attribute to the powers of reason rather more than their
due share, the same inference may be deduced — especially from what is
said, p. 659 — 665. and 666 — 671. vol. ii. of his works.-; — I should be
guilty of injustice to an accomplished modern writer, if on this subject I
permitted to pass unnoticed Dr. Maltby's Thesis for his degree of B. D.,
contained in the volume of his Illustration's of the Truth of the Christian
Religion. The following proposition, " Nequit per se humana ratio cogni-
tione satis plena et certa assequi, quo potissimum modo Deus sit colendus ;
qua? sint hominum officia ; vitadenique futura sit, necne, seterna," is there
treated with a justness, a succinctness, a good taste, a correctness of style,
and a strength of authority, which reflect honour upon its author as a divine
and as a scholar, and cannot fail to give satisfaction td the reader, who
wishes to find the substance of what can be said upon this important question,
compressed into the smallest compass, and in the best manner. The con
cluding observation, concerning such as at the present day repose on the
sufficiency of reason for a knowledge of their duties, contains a truth, in
which every reflecting mind must necessarily acquiesce. " Profecto ea-
dem, qua veteres philosophi, caligine animi eorum sunt mersi : aut si quid
melius sapiunt, id omne a Christian^ religione maid fide mutuati sunt.''
p. 355. And therefore, as the writer -finally remarks, it is most devoutly
to be desired, that the advocates for the all-sufficiency of reason would deep
ly imprint upon their minds this momentous maxim of the great Bacon : —
" Causa vero et radix fere omnium malorum in scientiis ea una est, quod
dum mentis humanae vires falso miramur et extoUimus, vera ejus auxilia non
qureramus." p. 359.

38 SACRIFICIAL TELIMS IN THE 0. T.
and ceremonies, and the same sentiments concerning God and
his ways with man, which, by change of language, length of
time, wantonness of imagination, perverseness of human
nature, and subtlety of the devil, were reduced to that corrupted
state of faith and practice in which our Saviour at his advent
found them ; — and that, as already observed, from the first prom
ise made to Adam, during the patriarchal and legal dispensa
tions, all was Christianity in type and figure; so that Christi
anity was the first religion in the world, corrupted afterwards
indeed by the Gentile, but preserved by the Jew in type, till
Christ, the great Antitype, the reality and completion, came ; —
had he (this writer observes) pursued this train of thinking, he
would have found the reverse of his conclusion to be the truth ;
namely, " that Christianity was not instituted in compliance
with Paganism ; but that Paganism was nothing else but the
great truths of Christianity split and debased into a legend of
fables, such as we meet with in their mythology." * — Speer-
man's Letters to a Friend concerning the Septuagint
Translation and the Heathen Mythology, pp. 150,
151. The writer who has made the above observations, and whose
reasonings would not have been less valuable had they taken
less tincture from the Hutchinsonian school, has endeavoured,
and not without success, to establish the point last adverted to ;
namely, the derivation of the Pagan mythology from the
divine revelations.
Tillotson s idea corresponds with that which was afterwards
adopted by Spencer. For since he admits the Jewish dispen
sation to have been typical of the Christian, the accommodation
of the Christian scheme to Pagan prejudices, for which he
contends, could only have been effected through the previous
accommodation of the Jewish scheme to those prejudices ;
which, as we have seen in Number XL VII., falls in with the

* If this view of the case be a just one, we certainly might reasonably
expect to find in the mythology of the ancients, in a much larger and more
important sense, what Plutarch says of the Egyptian fables, a/uvfybs tnit
ipparu; tJs dxudffac, some faint and obscure resemblance of the truth,

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 39
theory maintained by Spencer. And this theory, as we have seen
in the same number, p. 336. of the first volume, is satisfactorily
refuted by Shuckford, whose work on The Sacred and Pro
fane History of the World connected, goes to establish the
direct contradictory of Spencer's position.* The arguments
of Spencer are also successfully combated by Witsius in his
JBgyptiaca : see likewise the same author's Misc. Sacr. Lib.
I. Diss. i. p. 429 — 437. Warburton confesses truly, that
Spencer's work is but a paraphrase and comment on the third
book of the Moreh Nevochim of Rabbi Maimonides ; and,
joining forces with Spencer^ in maintaining the orthodoxy of

* The particular application of his arguments to Spencer's notion will
be found briefly sketched in vol. i. p. 313 — 317.
f How little Spencer deserved to have the support of Warburton, is not
only manifest, from the whole scheme of his argument, in his great work
De Legibus Hebrmorum, (which is itself unsupported by true history, and
has always been resorted to by Infidel writers in order to wing their shafts
more effectively against the Mosaic Revelation,) but may also be made to
appear, more evidently and briefly, by the quotation of a single passage
from this writer's Discourse concerning Prodigies. " It is," he says, " the
nature of the soul to be greatly impressive to a persuasion of parallels,
equalities, similitudes, in the frame and goverment of the world.— This
general temper of the soul easily inclines it to believe great and mighty
changes in states, ushered in with the solemnity of some mighty and
analogous changes in nature ; and that all terrible evils are prefaced or at
tended with some prodigious and amazing alterations in the creation : —
Hence perhaps it is, that we generally find great troubles and judgments
on earth described, especially by persons ecstatical, prophets and poets,
(whose speeches usually rather follow the easy sense of the soul, than the
rigid truth- of things,) by all the examples of horror and confusion in the
frame of the creation. The Prophet David describes God's going forth to
judgment thus ; The earth shook and trembled, the foundations also of the
hills moved and were shaken," &c. (p. 70 — 72.) — Now can it be any de
fence against this irreverent attack upon the prophets inspired by God,
which charges them with indulging in enthusiastic visions and expressions
founded only in their own fancies, and not in the truth of things ; can it, I
say, be deemed any defence to urge, as Warburton has done, that,
" through his intention to the argument, he often expresses himself very
crudely?" {Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 341.) If he be so crude in his expres
sion, as to cast discredit upon Revelation, whilst his intention is to support

40 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
the philosophizing Jew,* he contends, with all his might,
against the arguments of Witsius and Shuckford.- — Div.
Leg. Book IV. Sect. 6. To this he was urged by the necessity
which his paradoxical system had imposed upon him, of jiak'
ing out for the Egyptian rites and institutions an extravagant
antiquity : and in defence of his dogmas he advances every
thing- that a powerful but perverted ingenuity, acting on a
wide range of learning, could supply.t

it, he must surely be a very unsafe guide in theology. ' At the same time,
it can hardly be imagined, that an author, possessing considerable powers
and facilities of language, could, in any case, especially in one affecting the
very foundation of Revealed Religion, express himself so crudely, as to
represent himself destitute of a belief, which he firmly, habitually, and
reverently maintained. At all events, it is evident, that, such a writer is to
be consulted with much caution, and his authorities scanned with much
suspicion. *. For a very curious and interesting account of the circumstances
which gave rise to the production of the celebrated work, the Moreh Ne-
vochim, in which Maimonides first gave to the world the theory of the
ceremonial institutions of the Jews here referred to, the reader may con
sult Warburton's Div. Leg. vol. ii. pp. 353, 354- He will probably, how
ever, not be altogether satisfied, that the existing necessity of " showing to
the apostatizing Jews, that the Scriptures might be defended or even ex
plained on the principles of Aristotle ; and of gratifying the inquisitive arid
disputatious tendencies of those, who enquired after the reasons of the
Jewish laws, by finding out a reasonableness and convenience in their
ceremonial rites," supplies a proof, that those reasons, which the philosophic
Jew had thus assigned, were the true reasons which influenced the divine
Legislator in the several ordinances of this Law. The parallel, which
Warburton here insinuates, between the nature of his own great work and
that of Maimonides, will not escape the notice of the observing reader.
j- The character of this distinguished scholar and divine, as it_is por
trayed by the hand of a master, I here willingly subjoin. — " He was a man
of vigorous faculties, a mind fervid and vehement, supplied by incessant
and unlimited inquiry, with wonderful extent and variety of knowledge,
which yet had not oppressed his imagination, nor clouded his perspicacity.
To every work he brought a memory full fraught, with a fancy fertile of
original combinations, and at once exerted the powers of the scholar, the
reasoner, and the wit. But his knowledge was too multifarious to be
always exact, and his pursuits were too eager to be always cautious. His
abilities gave him a haughty confidence, which he disdained to conceal

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 41
Lord Bolingbroke has seldom been found instrumental in
correcting theological mistakes, and yet nothing can be more

or mollify ; and his impatience of opposition disposed him to treat his
adversaries with such contemptuous superiority, as made his readers com
monly his enemies, and excited against him the wishes of some who fa
voured his cause. He seems to have adopted the Roman emperor's deter
mination, oderint dum metuant ; he used no allurements of gentle lan
guage, but wished to compel rather than persuade. — His style is copious
without selection, and forcible without neatness : he took the words that
presented themselves : his diction is coarse and impure, and his sentences
are unmeasured." — Johnson's Life of Pope.
For a view of the character more favourable, but not more just, I would
refer to that which Bishop Hurd, the uniform admirer and panegyrist of
Warburton, has given in the life he has written of that prelate. His enco
miums, on The Divine Legation especially, are overcharged ; and the re
collection that the cause of truth and of religion, no less than the reputation
of his friend, was involved in the estimation of that important work, should
have rendered his panegyric more qualified.
My friend Dr. Graves, in his late excellent work on the Pentateuch, has
sketched a portrait, which, for likeness of feature and justness of colouring,
seems to me to merit a place in the' neighbourhood of that which has been
drawn by Johnson. — Speaking of the Divine Legation, and having observ
ed, that "While its author lived, his splendid talents and extensive learn
ing raised in his followers and defenders such enthusiastic admiration, that
they could not perceive, or at least would not allow, that he had been in the
smallest point erroneous : while the keenness of his controversial asperity,
the loftiness of his literary pretensions, and the paradoxical form in which
he too frequently chose to clothe his opinions, roused in his answerers a
zeal of opposition, which would sometimes yield him no credit for the dis
covery of any truth:" he then proceeds: " Time should now enable us to
view him in his true light-, in reasoning, sagacious yet precipitate ; in cri
ticism, ingenious but not unprejudiced; his comprehensive view sometimes
embraced in the process of his inquiries too wide an extent; while his
quick: imagination sometimes led him to combine his arguments with too
slight a connexion. But when he directed, to any one grand point, his un
divided and unprejudiced attention, he frequently diffused over it the ra
diance of genius, and discovered the recesses of truth. Happy, had his
humility been equal to his talents, and had his temper been as calm and tole
rant, as his understanding was luminous and penetrating. His researches
would then have been conducted with more caution and impartiality, would
have produced more unexceptionable conclusions, and had been attended
Vol. 2.-6

42 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
apposite in reply to these dangerous notions of Tillotson, Spen
cer, and Warburton, than his observations upon this very sub
ject. For the weighty reasons assigned by these writers, he says
(alluding to such as held the opinions of Spencer,) — " The God
of truth chose to indulge error, and suited his institutions to the
taste of the age : he contented himself also to take ordinary and
natural means, in a case to which they were not adequate : and
whilst miracles and divine interpositions were displayed in great
abundance before the eyes of the Israelites, yet Moses, under the
direction of the Almighty, chose to make use of superstitions
which he did not want, and which defeated instead of securing
his intent ; insomuch that, if the apostasies of the Israelites,
after such manifestations of the one true God, can be any way
accounted for, it must be by the effect of the very expedient
which had been employed to prevent those apostasies." In short,
he says, the whole plan of Providence seems to have beenj " to
destroy idolatry by indulgence to the very superstitions out
of which it grew?* — Bolingbroke' s Phil. Works, vol. i. p.
313—319. What the noble Sophist had intended with no better will to
Revealed Religion itself, than to those of its advocates whom he
professes to rebuke, I have, in this extract, taken such liberties
in modifying, as will permit the argument to bear, only where
truth would have directed it ; namely, upon those mistaken
interpreters of revelation, who depart from the written word of

with happier success." Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. ii.
p. 209—211.
* On the same subject, this writer, in another place, thus pointedly,
(though, as his custom is, irreverently,) expresses himself. " In order to
preserve the purity of his worship, the Deity is represented as prescribing
to the Israelites a multitude of rites and ceremonies, founded in the super
stitions of Egypt from which they were to be weaned ; and he succeeded
accordingly. They were never weaned entirely from all these supersti
tions : and the great merit of the law of Moses was teaching the people to
adore one God, much as the idolatrous nations adored several. This may
be called sanctifying Pagan rites and ceremonies, in theological language :
but it is profaning the pure worship of God, in the language of common
sense." — Phil. Works, vol. v. p. 375.

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST 43
God, to follow the guidance of their own fancies in explaining
the grounds and motives of the divine dispensations. Such it
is impossible not to pronounce Tillotson, Spencer, and Warbur
ton, to have been, on the particular subject now before us.
In how very different a manner we ought to pursue our
inquiries, from that which these writers would propose, I have
already endeavoured to enforce, p. 56 — 66. of vol. i. ; also Num
ber XLVII. and pp. 31, 32. 36—37. of this volume. And
how fully we are justified in so doing, will yet more satisfactorily
appear, on consulting Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Penta
teuch, (especially the two sections of Lect. vi. part iii.) and the
Eight Discourses on the Connection between the Old and
New Testament ; in which latter work, the unity of the scheme
of Redemption pervading the entire series of. the divine dispen
sations has been treated with much ability by Archdeacon Dau-
beny ; whose opinions, upon so many important points, I am
happy to find perfectly coincident with those, which I have sub
mitted to the public, throughout these pages, on the nature of
the atonement.
- To such as may be desirous to investigate more deeply the
opinions of the three distinguished writers against whom I have
found it necessary to contend in discussing the subject of the
present Number, I recommend an attentive perusal of the tenth
book of Eusebius's Prceparatio Evangelica : — Book iii. chap.
v. of Stillingfleet's Origines Sacra. : — Bochart's Geogra-
phia Sacra : — Witsius 's JEgyptiaca : — Winder's History
of Knowledge : — Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things
from Revelation, (especially p. 122 — 129. :) Nichols's Confe
rence with a Theist, (particularly vol. i. p. 290 — 308. and pp.
319, 320.:) Faber's Rorce Mosaica.: and Dr. Woodward's
Discourse on the Ancient Egyptians* {Archa,olog. vol. iv.)

* An extract from this disconrse I here subjoin, as particularly worthy
of attention, in reply to the favourite theory of Spencer.—" Whatever
might be the bent and dispositions of the Israelites, it was Moses's proper
business to rectify them. He was not to indulge them in their fancies, but
inform them of their duties, and direct them to what was fit, reasonable,
and consistent with good morals and piety, though that happened to be

44 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T.
Bishop Tomline, in his excellent Elements of Christian The
ology, (Parti, chap. i. p. 37—48.) has admirably summed up
the argument from the concurrence of profane tradition with the
Mosaic history ; deducing both from the common source of reve
lation, disguised, indeed, and disfigured in the one by allegories
and fabulous conceits, but conveyed to us by the other in its
pristine and uncorrupted purity. The laborious and valuable
researches of Mr. Bryant, Mr. Maurice, and, particularly, Sir
William Jones, have thrown new and powerful lights upon this
important subject.
As to the searching, with a curious minuteness, into the
resemblances which subsist between the Pagan mythologies and
the great truths of the Jewish and Christian revelations, this
may, undoubtedly, be carried too far. And I agree entirely with
the learned and judicious Dr. Nares, that we are not bound, in
the proof of the authenticity of Revelation, to mark out its
traces amidst the rubbish of absurd fables and disgusting mys
teries, which compose the various religions of the Heathen world.
See Nares's Bampton Lecture, pp. 251, 252. — And yet, since
these resemblances have been employed, by the pen of infidelity,
to overthrow Revelation, under the pretence, that the discoveries
which we ascribe to it had been derived from Pagan mythol-

never so much against their gusts and inclinations : which accordingly he
every where did ; and there are numerous instances of it through all his
government of them. His doing otherwise might, indeed, have shown a
great deal of policy, but not near so much probity and goodness, as are
discoverable through his whole conduct of this great people. I can very
easily allow Dr. Spencer, that this was the method that Mahomet, Apollo-
nius Tyaneeus, and some politicians, have taken : nor will I enter into
any contest with him, whether the Devil makes use of the same in order
to seduce mankind from the worship of God; all which he gives, I think,
surely with a little too much looseness, as parallel instances in confirmation
of his notion : but this I am mighty sure, Moses was on all occasions very
far from it." pp. 281, 282. — Spencer had justified these observations by
his strange assertions. " In eo enim eluxit sapientia divina, quod antido-
tum e veneno faceret, et illis ipsis ceremoniis adpopuli suiutilitatem, quibus
olim Diabolus ad hominum perniciem uteretur." And again he cites this
political axiom, to x.ik.m »} Htiptm am. Ss-r Kintict.

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 45
ogy, it surely must be admitted, that such inquiries of the learned
as tend to reverse this position possess no inconsiderable value.
The engines, designed for the destruction of Christianity, are
hereby converted into instruments for its defence. The infidel,
who laboured in the support of error, is thus rendered an auxili
ary in the cause of truth. And it may, perhaps, not unfairly be
viewed as a sort of providential retribution, that a Hume, a
Bolingbroke, and a Voltaire,* should be pressed into the ranks
with the champions of Revelation, and compelled to march in
the triumphal procession which celebrates their own defeat.
The latest claim, that has been set up in opposition to the

* Volney is not, perhaps, of sufficient calibre to be ranked with the
above-mentioned discoverers of moral and religious truths. And yet
he has given specimens, which prove him not wholly unworthy of such
society. He has, amongst many curious matters, discovered that the
mysterious birth of the Messiah signifies nothing more, than the Sun
rising in the. constellation of Virgo ; that the twelve apostles are the
twelve signs of the Zodiac ; and that all " the pretended personages
from Adam to Abraham, are mythological -beings, stars, constellations,
countries.'1 Ruins, pp. 348. 388, 339. —Of this work of Mr. Volney,
it has been well remarked by a learned writer, that it " is truly styled
The Ruins ; for that, agreeably to its title, it menaces destruction to
every thing that has justly commanded the respect and veneration of
man ; as it would rob men of the inestimable blessings of peace and
good order, of the endearing ties of social connexion, and consequently,
of what constitutes both public and private happiness ; and, by break
ing the salutary restraints of religion, would banish peace from the
human breast, and spoil it of its firmest support in life, and surest con
solation in death." And to this is most, properly subjoined, that " its
baleful influence is not confined to these alone : that it carries in itself
the seeds of its own ruin and confusion ; and that it would almost re
quire a volume, to enumerate the contradictory and jarring atoms, of
which this chaos of confusion is composed." An Enquiry into the
Origin of the Constellations that compose the Zodiac, p. 197.
Such are the judicious observations of a writer, whose learning has
enabled him to overthrow the principal theories which have been erect
ed by others upon the subject of which he treats ; while it has not
prevented the writer himself from adding one more to the numerous
instances, that already existed, of the danger of adventuring into those
visionary regions, in which fact supplies no solid footing, and fancy is
the only guide.

46 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T.
Hebrew Scriptures, is on behalf of the sacred books of the Hin
dus. These, it has been pretended, evince not only the priority
of the Indian records, but also, that Moses has borrowed from
the Brahmens much of what has been commonly ascribed to
him as original, especially with regard to the creation of the
world. The fallacy of such pretences has, indeed, of late years,
been fully manifested by the valuable exertions of Sir William
Jones, and those of his respectable fellow-labourers in the field
of Indian literature. At the same time, it is to be lamented,
that the admissions of that illustrious vindicator of the Hebrew
writings, as well as those of Mr. Maurice, and others, respecting
the antiquity of the Vedas, have been such as to furnish those who
are desirous to pervert the truth with an opportunity of applying
the produce of then meritorious labours to the prejudice of the
Jewish records ; an opportunity which was not neglected.* The
futility of the attempt was, happily, at once, exposed by a few
judicious observations in the British Critic, (vol. xvi. pp. 149,
150.) and has since received more ample refutation from the pens
of Mr. Faber, and Dr. Nares, in their Bampton Lecture
volumes. But, in truth, notwithstanding that, as has been
abundantly proved, such admissions of the great antiquity of
the Hindu records by no means justify an inference affecting
the originality and priority of the Hebrew Scriptures, yet it is

* See the Advertisement prefixed to the 5th volume of the London
edition of the Asiatic Researches: in which, after noticing the anti
quity ascribed to the Vedas by the above Orientalists, the Editors in
sidiously subjoin the following observation : — " We shall not take up
your time, with a dissertation on the exact age of either the Hebrew
or the Hindu Scriptures : both are ancient : let the reader judge. 
Whether the Hindu Brahmens borrowed from Moses, or
Moses from the Hindu brahmens, is not our present enquiry," p.
iv. The merit of these observations, it should be noticed, belongs ex
clusively to the London Editors : the advertisement being altogether
a fabrication of theirs ; and no one part of it being to be found in the
original Calcutta Edition, of which this professes to be a faithful copy.
Such is the use to which the pure gold of Sir W. Jones would be con
verted by these workers of base metal !

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 47
fairly to be questioned whether that antiquity has not been rated
much above its real standard.
The astronomical tables of tho Hindus, it is well known
supply the only reasonable data from which to judge of their
chronology : their habitual exaggerations rendering every other
source of chronological information altogether chimerical ; inso
much that Sir W. Jones pronounces, (in his Dissertation on
the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India,) " that the comprehen
sive mind of an Indian chronologist has no limits ; " and at the
same time proves his assertion by a number of the most extra i
ordinary instances. Their astronomical calculations, therefore,
having naturally become a subject of great curiosity and interest
with men of science, the celebrated M. Bailly, in the year 1787,
published, at Paris, a volume on the Indian astronomy, in
which he contended for its great antiquity, carrying it back to a
period of more than 3000 years before the Christian era. This
conclusion he founded upon the nature of certain of their astro
nomical tables; which, he contended, contained internal evidence
that they had been formed from actual observation, and must
therefore be carried up to so early a date as that of 3102 A. C.
His reasoning upon this subject, in his elaborate Traite de
I'Astronomie Indienne et Orientate, were followed by other
astronomers, particularly by Professor Playfair in the 2d vol. of
the Edinburgh; Transactions, in 1789: and the SuryCt
SiddhantA* supposed to contain the most ancient astronomical

* M. Davis, who was the translator of this most ancient of the
Sastras, thinks that he finds in it sufficient data, from, which
computing the diminution of the obliquity of the Ecliptic at the
rate of 50" in a century, he can fairly infer the age of the work itself
to be 3840 years; thereby carrying it back more than 2000 years A. C.
(Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. 238.) — But, Professor Playfair, proceed
ing at a rate of computation, which he conceives more accurate, places
the date of the work above 3000 years earlier than the Christian era.
(Edin. Trans, vol. iv. p. 103.) He therefore thinks himself perfectly
secure in adopting the interval of 2000 years A. C. : in which, also he
fortifies himself by the authority of Sir W. Jones. The demands, both
of Mr. Davis and Professor Playfair, must certainly be admitted to be
modest, compared with that of the Hindus themselves ; who require of

48 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
treatise of the Indians, was also carried up to a very high date,
not lesslhan 2000 years before the Christian era.
That the reasonings, however, which led to both these con
clusions, are erroneous, later discussions of the subject leave but
little room for doubt. Mr. Marsden, in an ingenious paper in
the Phil. Trans, for 1790, had, without attempting to impeach
M. Bailly's astronomical arguments, pointed out a satisfactory
mode of accounting for the apparent antiquity of the Indian
tables, by conceiving the computations to be founded, not upon
a real, but an imaginary, conjunction of the planets, sought for
as an epoch, and calculated retrospectively. The celebrated M.
Laplace, again, after the most accurate mathematical investiga
tion, has not only * pronounced upon the recent date of the tables,

us to believe, that this book is 2,164,899 years old, having been at that
distant period given by divine revelation.
* I cannot refrain from giving, at full length, the opinions and reason
ings of so distinguished a mathematician as M. Laplace on a point of
such vital moment, as that of the great antiquity which it has been the
fashion to ascribe to the astronomical tables of the Hindus ; and on a point,
also, in which the opinions of a mathematician can alone have weight.
" Les tables Indiennes indiquent une astronomie plus perfectionne ; mais
tout parte & croire qu'elles ne sont pas d'une haute antiquite. Ici, je
m'eloigne a regret de Popinion d'un savant illustre (M. Bailly,) qui, apres
avoir honore sa carriere, par des travaux utiles aux sciences et a l'huma-
nite, mourut victime de la plus sanguinaire tyrannie, opposant le calme et
la dignite du juste aux fureurs d'un peuple abuse, qui sous ses yeux meme
Be fitun plaisir barbare d'appreter son supplice. Les tables Indiennes ont
deux epoques principales, qui remontent, l'une a l'annee 3102 avant l'ere
Chretienne, l'autre a 1491 : ces epoques sont liees par les moyens mouve-
mens du soleil, de la lune, et des planetes, de sorte que l'une d'elles est
necessairement fictive. L'auteur celebre dont je viens de parler a cherche
a etablir, dans son traite de 1' Astronomie Indienne, que la premiere de ces
epoques est fondee sur l'observation. Malgre ses preuves, exposees avec
l'interet qu'il a su repandre sur les choses les plus abstraites, je reo-arde
comme tres vraisemblable, que cette epoque a ete imagine f. pour donner
une commune origine dans le Zodaique aux mouvemens des corps celestes.
En effet, si, partant l'epoque de 1491, on remonte, au moyen des tables
Indiennes, & l'an 3102 avant l'ere Chretienne ; on trouve la conjonction
generate du soleil, de la lune, et des planetes, que ces tables supposent :

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 49
but has also pointed out errors in the calculations from which
M. Bailly deduced his results; and has clearly demonstrated the

mais cette conjonction trap differente du resultat de nos meilleures tables,
pour avoir eu lieu, nous montre que I 'epoque a, laquelle elle se rapporte n'est
point appuyee sur les observations. A la verite, quelques elemens de
l'astronomie Indienne semblent indiquer qu'ils ont ete determines meme
avant cette premiere, epoque ; ainsi, l'equation du centre du soleil, qu'elle
fixe a 2°, 4173, n'a pu etre de cette grandeur, que vers l'an 4300 avant l'ere
Chretienne. Mais, independamment des erreurs dont les determinations
des Indiens ont ete susceptibles, on doit observer qu'ils n'ont considere les
inegalites du soleil et de la lune, que relativement aux eclipses dans les-
quelles l'equation annuelle de lalune s'ajoute a l'equation du centre du soleil^
et l'augmente d'environ 22'; ce qui est a-peu-pres la difference de nos
determinations a celle des Indiens. Plusieurs elemens, tels que les equa
tions du centre de Jupiter et de Mars, sont si differens dans les tables
Indiennes de ce qu'ils devoient etre a leur premiere epoque, que l'on ne
peut rien conclure des autres elemens en faveur de leur antiquite. L' en
semble de ces tables, et surtout l'impossibilite de la conjonction quelles
supposent d la meme epoque, prouvent au contraire qu'elles ont ete con-
struites, ou du moins rectifies, dans des temps modernes; ce que pon-
firment les moyens mouvemens, qu'elles assigrient a la lune, par rapport a
son perigee, a ses noeuds, et au soleil ; et qui plus rapides que-suivant Ptole-
mee, indiquent evidemment que la formation de ces tables est posterieure
au temps de cet astronome ; car on avuque ces trois mouvemens s'acce-
lerent de siecle en siecle." — Exposition du Systeme du Monde, pp. 293,
294. Thus has M. Laplace, from the evidence which the tables themselves
supply, not only overturned the prevailing notion of their great "antiquity,
but reduced their date even lower than the first century ; since he places
them lower than the age of Ptolemy, who lived until 161 A. D.
Having been led to make mention of this eminent mathematician, than
whom a greater name has not arisen since the days of Newton, I cannot
forbear noticing, as a matter of singular curiosity, the coincidence of a re
markable astronomical epoch, as fixed by his calculations, with the year in
which Archbishop Usher has placed the creation of the world, accordingto
the chronology of the Hebrew. The epoch is that of the coincidence of
the greater axis of the earth's orbit with the line of the equinoxes, at which
time the true and the mean equinox were the [same. This M. Laplace
computes to have taken place, about the year 4004 before the Christian era ;
which is the very era of the creation, as chronologists have derived it from
the Hebrew Scriptures.— Traite de Mechanique Celeste, torn. iii. p. 113.
This point I have stated merely for the gratification of the curious reader
Vol. 2—7

50 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE 0. T.
epoch in the tables, not to have been real, but fictitious. And
last of all, Mr. Bentley seems completely to have settled the
point, in his two most ingenious and learned papers, in the 6th
and 8th volumes of the Asiatic Researches, in which he not only
contends, that, from the principles of the Hindu astronomy, the
recent date of the tables can be deduced ; but that also, from
authentic testimony, independent of all calculations, the age of
the Surya Siddhanta can be proved to be such, as not to carry
the date of its composition farther back than the year 1068. In
his endeavours to establish these points, he has not scrupled to
pronounce M. Bailly and Professor Playfair to have been totally
mistaken in their reasonings concerning the antiquity of the In
dian astronomy ; and to have proceeded upon an entire ignorance
of the principles of the artificial system of the Hindus : the na
ture of which he states to consist in this, — that "certain points
of time back are fixed upon as epochs, at which the planets are
assumed to fall into a line of mean conjunction with the sun in
the beginning of Aries ; and that from the points of time so as
sumed as epochs, the Hindu astronomer carries on his calcula
tions, as if they had been settled so by actual observation ; and
determines' the mean annual motions, which he must employ
in his system, from thence, as will give the positions of the
planets in his own time, as near as he is able to determine the
same by observation." (Vol. vi. p. 542.) — He then proceeds to
show by what means such fictitious epochs may be assumed,
without incurring the danger of a perceptible variation from
the real mean motions: and, upon the whole, he has fortified
his argument in a way that renders it not easy to be shaken.
The high authority of the names which Mr. Bentley has to op
pose on this subject, (Sir W. Jones himself having, as well as
M. Bailly and Professor Playfair, maintained the antiquity of

without intending to lay upon it any partie ilar stress. At the same time, I
cannot avoid observing, that if a coincidence, equally striking, bore an
aspect unfavourable to the truth of the Scripture history, it would be cried
up by a certain class of literati, (who admire Mr. Brydone's lavas and such
like trash,) as a circumstance amounting to a demonstration of the false
hood of the Hebrew Scriptures.

ADAPTED OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 51
the Indian astronomy,) may occasion some delay to the recep
tion of his opinions. But, from the proofs which have been ad
vanced in their support, and from the additional lights to be ex
pected upon this subject, -there seems little reason to doubt that
they will ere long be generally acquiesced in.
At all events, the main foundation, on which the extraordinary
antiquity of the Indian records has been built, must be given up
as no longer tenable : and the decided priority of the Mosaic
Scriptures cannot any longer reasonably be questioned.* So
that, as the Chaldean, Phoenician, Egyptian, Grecian, and
Chinese antiquities, which at different times have been deemed
irreconcileable with the truth of Scripture history, have, on a
more minute inspection, contracted their dimensions to a per
fect agreement with the Scripture standard ; so it may without
hazard be pronounced of the Indian antiquities, that the day of
their exaggerated extent has nearly gone by; and that there is
no longer much danger of any serious impediment, from that
quarter, to the belief of the Mosaic history. That the Indians
did, at a very early age, cultivate astronomy, and that to them
we are indebted for that most ingenious and useful invention, of

* Dr. Nares, in his valuable note upon this subject, (Bampton Lecture,
p. 256 — 273.) seems somewhat reluctant to admit Mr. Bentley's results,
in opposition to those which could boast so many distinguished names in
their support He has, however, with great learning and ability, shown,
that even from the evidence, which M. Bailly himself adduces in corrobo
ration of his opinion, no inference can reasonably be drawn, which in any
degree interferes with the truth and originality of the Scripture history. —
Indeed, the whole of Dr. Nares's discussion of this subject is particularly
worthy of attention. Of his entire work, it may be, as it has been, most
truly affirmed, that there is perhaps no other extant,, which, within the same
compass, brings so much argument to bear against the various enemies of
our religion from without, or against the betrayers of it from within. And,
as compressing, in the best manner, the greatest quantity of important in
formation, on all the important subjects, on which modern wisdom has at
tempted to assail Revelation, I most earnestly recommend it to the Theolo
gical student. — I cannot permit the very favourable mention which this
author has made of my former publications on the Atonement to prevent me
from giving a testimony which the cause of religious truth so imperiously
demands.

52 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T.
an arithmetical character, possessing at the same time an ab
solute and a local value, cannot, undoubtedly, be denied. And
yet it must be admitted, that tliere are such indications of gross
ignorance in the very science which they have so much studied,
that one scarcely knows how to give them credit for certain
other discoveries which are ascribed to them. To make the cir
cumference of the earth amount to 2,456,000,000 British miles,
(Adat. Research, vol. v. art. 18.) and to hold the moon's dis
tance from the earth to be greater than that of the sun,* are
not proofs of any great progress in astronomical research. On
this subject, see Montucla's observations, in the part referred to
in the note below. In truth, from circumstances such as these,
joined to the fact, of the Indians being unable to give any ex
planation of, or assign any reasons for, their particular tables and
calculations, there seems good reason to think that much of
what has been supposed to be their own invention, has been
derived to them from other sources ; as has proved to be the case,
with respect to the Chinese tables ; and as Dr. Nares has well
shown to be extremely probable, with respect to those of the In
dians likewise, t Bampt. Lect. pp. 27U, 271 .
As to the readiness of the Indians to impose fabrications upon
the Europeans, all must now be tolerably well satisfied, since
the publication of Mr. Wilford's Essay in the 8th volume of the
Asiatic Researches, (p. 245 — 262.) in which he confesses,
with a grief that had actually reduced him to a fit of sickness,
that " his Pundits had totally deceived him, in almost all that

* " Us font aussila Lune plus eloignee de nous que le Soleil, et meme ils
sont aussi attachees a cette opinion, qu'on l'est encore dans certaines con-
trees a nier le mouvement de la terre. Un brame et un missionaire etant
dans la meme prison, le premier suffroit assez patiemment, que 1'autre en->
treprit de le desabuser du culte de Brama ; mais lorsque, dans d'autres
conversation?, il vitquele missionaire pretendoit, que le Soleil etoit au-delft
de la Lune, e'en fut fait : il Tompit entierement avec lui, et ne voulut plus
lui parler." — Montuc. His. des Mathem. torn. i. p. 404,
f Will not this supposition throw some light upon that extraordinary
acquaintance with certain Trigonometrical principles, laid down in the
Suryd Siddhantd, which have excited Professor Play fair's wonder in
Edinb. Trans, yol. iy,1

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 53
he had written about the Sacred Islands in the West;
having at different times, and in proportion as they became
acquainted with his pursuits and his wishes, made erasures in
the Sanscrit MSS., and on those erasures inserted the names,
Rajata Dweep, for England, and Suvarna Dweep, for
Ireland." He adds, also, that "those frequently recurring
erasures in most Indian MSS., tended to throw a deep shade
over their presumed authority." Another imposition, on a sub
ject infinitely more important, has also since come to light. For
unfortunately, we find that the remarkable passage in the 3d
yolume of the Researches, which Sir W. Jones affirms to be an
exact translation by himself, from an Indian MS., forwarded to
him by Mr. Wilford, relative to Noah, under the name of
Satyavarman, and his three sons, Sherma, Charma, and
Jyapeti, is altogether a fokgery by the Brahmens.
See As. Res. vol. iii. pp. 465, 466. 312, 313. 320.
I cannot forbear annexing to this Number a passage from an
old translation of a work of the celebrated Amyraut. It has a
close connection with the principal topics under discussion ; and
the singular value of its contents will, 1 trust, justify its inser
tion. " Furthermore, whereas it was well said by one, that things
of greatest antiquity are best ; and the philosophers themselves,
when the}' treat concerning God and religion, extremely cry up
antiquity, and attribute much to the dictates of their ancestors ;
as if nature itself had suggested to them, that there was a
source of all these things, from which they, that were nearest it,
drew the purest and sincerest waters ; whereas, accordingly as
they are derived through several minds, as so many several con
duit pipes, they become corrupted and tincted with extraneous
qualities, and contract impurity. If there be found a doctrine
that has all the marks of antiquity, and there appears nothing in
the world that equals it, it ought not to be doubted, but that the
same proceeded from Him that is more ancient than all, as
being Author of all things. If the language in which it was
revealed be as the mother and stock, from which others, though
very ancient, are sprung ; if it describe the history of the world,
and of men, and their propagation upon the earth ; if it affords

54 SACRIFICIAL TERMS IN THE O. T.
the demonstration of times, and that without it the knowledge
of chronology would be more intricate than a labyrinth ; if it
deduces its history from point to point with an exact correspond
ence ; if it clearly and certainly relates histories, that are as the
body of the fabulous shadows that we see in the writings of the
most ancient authors in the world ; who will doubt, but all
which they have is taken from thence, and that we ought to re
fer what is therein depraved and corrupted thereunto, as to its
principle, and have recourse thither to learn what we are igno
rant of 7 — If there be found a religion, all whose parts accord
together with an admirable harmony, although it has been pro
pounded at several times, and by several persons, in several
places ; if there be a discipline, a doctrine, a book, a society, in
which God himself speaks to men in a style and manner agree
able to the eminence of his majesty, displays his justice to them
most terrible in its appearance, discovers his power in its highest
magnificence, and gives them to sound the breadth and length,
depth and height, of his infinite mercies ; lastly, if examples of
an incomparable virtue be found therein, with incitations and
instructions to piety ; such as are not to be paralleled any other
where in the world ; 'tis an indubitable argument, that they
are proceeded from some other than the human mind, or the
school of Man."
In referring to the authors who have illustrated the primary
subjects of this Number, I ought not to omit the name of Mr.
Lloyd, who, in his valuable treatise on Christian Theology,
has so justly propounded, and so impressively and eloquently
enforced, the leading doctrines of the Christian religion. Were
not this Number already carried to an unreasonable length, I
should add to it some extracts from his 1st and 2d chapters
which could not fail to enhance its value. From his remarks
in the 1st chap, (particularly p. 6 — 10.) On the proper pro
vinces of Natural and Revealed Religion, and from those
in the 2d, On the unity of divine truths displayed in the
Jewish and Christian dispensations, I can promise the
judicious reader much satisfaction and instruction.

ADAPTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 55
In bestowing upon Lord Bolingbroke the epithet of So
phist, in the preceding Number, at p. 42., I feel, upon second
thoughts, that I have not been strictly correct in the application
of the term. Ingenuity, exerted under a subtle show of reason
ing, for the purpose of misleading and over-reaching the contro
versial opponent, is the distinguishing attribute of the character
so denominated. His Lordship, however, has not condescended
to deal in this treacherous manner with those whom he combats
in argument. His magnanimity, and his candour, are both at
war with such mean and petty artifices. The one raises him
above the little forms of logical and exact ratiocination ; and the
other inspires him with the disdain of concealing from his op
ponent any vulnerable part. His argument is, accordingly, of
that elevated quality, that deals in lofty language and privileged
assertion ; and of that intrepid character, that fears not, as oc
casion may demand, to beat down the very positions, which,
when other occasions demanded, it had been found convenient
to maintain. The noble writer, in short, too courtly to associate
with the antiquated followers of Aristotle, and too free to be
trammelled by the rules of a precise and circumscribing dialectic,
passes on fluently in one smooth and gentlemanly tenor, undis
turbed by any want of connexion between premises and con
clusion, and at perfect liberty to relinquish either, or both, just
as is lordly humour may happen to direct. — To these ingenious
qualities, which exalt his Lordship's reasoning above the pe
dantic exactnesses of logic, is superadded an easy freedom
which releases his Lordship's history from the troublesome
punctilios of fact. So that, upon the whole, there is scarcely
any writer, who, in a flowing and copious vein of declamation,
possesses, in any degree comparable to his Lordship, the art of
arriving at whatever conclusion he pleases, and by whatever
route : not merely overwhelming the astonished adversary, by
a rapid succession of movements the most unexpected, but dis
playing still greater argumentative powers, in overturning those
very dogmas which had just before been rendered impregnable
to all but himself, and thereby defeating the only antagonist
worthy to be opposed to so illustrious a disputant.

56 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
To be serious, there is no writer of any name, Voltaire per
haps alone excepted, whose attempts upon Christianity are6more
impotent and contemptible than those of Lord Bolingbroke.
The bare enumeration of the positions he has maintained,
throughout his Letters on History, and what are called his
Philosophical Works, would be an exposure of ignorance and
imbecility, sufficient not merely to satisfy truth, but to satiate
malice. It was, therefore, scarcely necessary that his deistical
productions should have been submitted to the careful dissection
of Clayton, Warner, and Leland, and the powerful and merci
less lacerations of Warburton* They must soon have done
the work for themselves. Having little more than their impiety
and their viciousness to recommend them, they must inevitably,
excepting only with those to whom impiety and vice are a re
commendation, have ere long reached that oblivion, to which,
save only with such persons, they are now, I may say, almost
universally consigned. On their first publication, it was pro
posed, as the best mode of counteracting their mischievous
design, to collect the contradictory passages, and merely arrang
ing them mutually confronted in opposing columns, so to leave
them without comment to the reflections of the reader: and, if
I mistake not, this idea, was acted on by one writer, in a work,
entitled an Analysis of the Philosophical Works of the
late Lord Bolingbroke. This work I have not seen : but so
exact a specimen of this nature is supplied by the very part of
this writer's works, to which I have had, in the foregoing Num
ber, occasion to refer, that I cannot refuse to produce it for the
readers satisfaction.
Being anxious to prove, in opposition to the received opinion,
that the idolatries of the Gentile world could not have been de
rived from the corruptions of an original Revelation, he peremp-

* See the View of Lord Bolingbroke 's Philosophy in Four Letters to a
Friend, in which all that fervid vigour and burning severity, for which its
author is so distinguished, are overpoweringly exerted for the purpose of
laying bare to the public eye the miserable deficiencies of his Lordship, as
a philosophical writer, under the several heads of ingenuity, of truth of
consistency, of learning, and of reasoning.

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 57
torily asserts, that " it is impossible for any man in his senses
to believe, that a tradition" (namely, that of the unity of God)
" derived from God himself, through so few generations, was lost
among the greatest part of mankind ; or that Polytheism and
Idolatry were established on the ruins of it, in the days of
Serug, before those of Abraham, and so soon after the deluge."
{Philos. Works, 8vo. Ed. vol. i. p. 299.) At the distance of
less than two pages, we find it as peremptorily asserted, by the
same extraordinary writer, that " Polytheism and Idolatry have
the closest connexion with the natures and affections of rude
ignorant men : " and in less than half a page more, that " the
vulgar embrace them easily, even after the true doctrine of
a divine unity has been taught and received, as we may
learn from the example of the Israelites : and that superstitions
grow apace, and spread wide, even in those countries where
Christianity has been established and is daily taught, as we may
learn from the examples of the Roman churches," &c. — But
this is not all. We find this same writer again, in vol. ii. p.
200 — 210., both deny the fact, that the divine unity had been
taught to the Israelites and soon forgotten by them, (which is
the very example he builds upon in the above passage,) and
also the application of that fact to the case of other nations
(which application is the very use he has himself made of that
fact.) — And then, after all this, and almost in the same breath
in which he has made these assertions, he draws back again in
part, and says, "I do not so much deny the truth of the facts,
as L oppose their application." (p. 210.) That is, — I cannot
resist the recapitulation, — our author first denies a certain fact
as impossible : then establishes its strong probability upon
general principles of human nature, supported by an example
drawn from the case of the Israelites, and applied to that of
mankind at large : then he both denies the truth of that very
example, and the justness of its application (both of which
are his own undisputed property :) and then again he admits them
both, in certain (but different) degrees ; since he does not so.
much deny the one, as he opposes the other. What does
all this mean 1 Is it, or is it not, nonsense ? Have we not
here, then^ (to use the sort of pleasant and sportive phrase, that
Vol. 2.-8

58 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
might not improbably have been used by such writers as his
Lordship,) in beating about for game, sprung a whole covey of
contradictions, which, after winging their tortuous course in all
directions, have at last sought shelter, by taking flight into the
impenetrable thickets of nonsense ? Now what is to be done
with such a writer as this 1 The author of the memoirs of his
life, whilst he speaks in terms much too strong of his qualities
as a statesman, remarks, in alluding to the excursions which, as
an author, he had ventured to make beyond his proper sphere:
" I should be sorry, thatyou took your politics from priests ; but
I should be in more pain if I thought you in danger of receiving
your religion from a politician." Memoirs of the Life of
Lord Bolingbroke, p. 232.
In truth, to sum up all in a word, my Lord Bolingbroke was
no more than a coxcomb in literature, and a pretender in
science. Nor has religion, though the principal object of his
hostility, so much to complain of his bungling attempts as
philosophy : at the same time that both have experienced more
of malevolence, than injury, at his hands. With him, the
great sages of antiquity have been as much the objects of
lordly contempt, as the Prophets and Apostles ; and the maxims
of ancient wisdom have been held as cheap as the established
doctrines of Revelation. Whatever, in short, is not Lord
Bolingbroke, is not sense. All, whether ancient or modern,
who have trod the same ground before him, historians, chro-
nologists, moralists, philosophers, divines, all are either block
heads or impostors. And even Locke and Newton dwindle
into drivellers, where they have presumed to meddle with those
subjects, which the Viscount condescends to illustrate. — [Phil.
Works, vol. ii. Essay 3. ubique, especially p. 160.)
The treatment which the truly wise and learned, both of an
cient and modern times, constantly receive at his Lordship's
hands, naturally calls to mind the sarcasm of Crito in Berkeley's
Alciphron. — " I tell you, Euphranor, that Plato and Tully
might perhaps make a figure in Athens or Rome : but were
they to revive in our days, they would pass but for underbred
pedants, there being at most coffee-houses in London several
able men who could convince them they knew nothing, in

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 59
what they are valued so much for, morals and politics." And
Lysicles immediately subjoins, " How many long-headed men
do I know, both in the court-end and the city, with five times
Plato's sense, who care not one straw, what notions their sons
have of God or virtue !" Berkeley's Works, vol. i. pp. 369, 370.
The versatility, also, with which this noble writer can, at one
time, affect grave and learned research, and at another, as it
may suit' his purpose, profess to hold all such pedantic argumen
tation in contempt, is most happily illustrated, in the same ad
mirable treatise, by the picture which is there drawn, of the
Proteus shiftings and modifications of the free-thinking tribe. —
" When one of these has got a ring of disciples around him,
his method is, to exclaim against prejudice, and recommend
thinking and reasoning ; giving to understand that himself is
a man of deep researches and close argument, one who ex
amines impartially and concludes warily. The same man, in
other company, if he chance to be pressed with reason, shall
laugh at logic, and assume the lazy supine airs of a fine
gentleman, a wit, a railleur, to avoid the dryness of a regur
lar and exact inquiry. This double face of the Minute
Philosopher, is of no small use to propagate and maintain
his notions. Though to me it seems a plain case, that if
a fine gentleman will shake off all authority, and appeal from
religion to reason, unto reason he must go." (pp. 460, 461.)
But the truth is, as the same writer again remarks, (p. 639.) " that
in the present age thinking is more talked of but less practised
than in ancient times ; and that, since the revival of learn
ing, men have read much and wrote much, but thought (com
paratively) little : insomuch that, with us, to think closely and
justly is the least part of a learned man, and none at all of a
polite man. The free-thinkers, indeed, make great pretensions
to thinking, and yet they show but little exactness in it. A
lively man, and what the world calls a man of sense, are often
destitute of this talent, which is not a mere gift of nature, but
must be improved and perfected by much attention and exercise
on very different subjects ; a thing of more pains and time than
the hasty men of parts in our age care to take."
What time our man of parts employed for this purpose,

60 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
may easily be inferred from the circumstance, of his, having
commenced his philosophical investigations at the age of forty,
after a youth revelled in the most voluptuous and dissipating'
enjoyments, and a manhood distracted by the. most tumultuous
political agitations. But it is full time to have done with him :
I shall therefore only add to what I have said upon so un
worthy a subject, by referring the reader, who can have .any
curiosity to know more of such a man, to the characters that
have been given of him, by Chesterfield and by Blair. The
latter concludes a very qualified commendation of his style, by
observing, that in his matter there is " hardly any thing to
commend ; that in his reasonings, for the most part, he is
flimsy and false : in his political writings, factious ; in what he
calls his philosophical ones, irreligious and sophistical in the
highest degree." Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric, vol. i. Lect.
xix. p. 282. See also the observations in Lect. xv. p. 211. of
the same volume. The former gives such an account of him,
upon the whole, as must be edifying, particularly, to the young
reader ; who will thereby be completely let into the secret of
such men, by one of themselves ; and will have the benefit of
observing how much even a libertine, when in cold blood, can
be shocked by libertinism. One or two passages I cannot avoid
transcribing, as proving how greatly, even from the testimony
of his warmest admirer, Lord Bolingbroke is found deficient in
every thing that is truly valuable, either in a philosopher or in
a man. His noble panegyrist, in recommending to his son to
study the manner, that would best enable him " to seduce and
to impose," proposes to him Lord Bolingbroke's style and mode
of writing, for his imitation, in direct opposition to works of
learning and sound reasoning, which he particularly decries :
and, after pressing upon him, again and again, the repeated
perusal of Lord Bolingbroke's writings, he assigns as his rea
son for so doing, that he wishes him " to lay aside all thoughts
of all that dull fellows call solid, and exert his utmost care to
acquire what people of fashion call shining." Chest- Letters,
vol. iii. p. 151. And in another place, where he speaks of the
whole of that unhappy Lord's character, he is obliged, though
with much softening, to describe him as " a most mortifying

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 61
instance of the violence of human passions, and of the weak
ness of" (what he chooses to call) "the most exalted human
reason." — -" His youth" (he says) " was distinguished by all the
tumult and storm of pleasures, in which he most licentiously
triumphed, disdaining all decorum. His fine imagination has
often been heated and exhausted with his body, in celebrating
and deifying the prostitute of the night ; and his convivial joys
were pushed to all the extravagancy of frantic Bacchanals.
Those passions were interrupted but by a stronger, ambition.
The former impaired both his constitution and his character,
but the latter destroyed both his fortune and his reputation."
Vol. ii. p. 328.
Such was the Pythagorean institution of this great philoso
pher, who was to be qualified, by these intense lucubrations, to
communicate new lights to mankind, and to improve the world
by a juster set of notions' in morals and philosophy. The
noble characterizer, after glossing over these hideous enormities,
and contrasting with them what he is pleased to represent as
splendid qualities, is compelled, after all, to conclude, in words
no less applicable to the insincere and unprincipled writer, than
to his subject ; " Upon the whole, of this extraordinary man,
what can we say, but, Alas, poor human nature !" — Poor, in
deed, when it presumptuously rejects those aids which Heaven
designed to minister to its weakness, and to rectify its cor
ruption. In a course of observations, in which I have insensibly been
drawn to enlarge at so much length, upon the subjects of free-
thinking and scepticism, it is impossible to forget David Hume.
The ideas suggested in the progress of it bring into view, by
necessary association, this chief of modern sophists ; who,
whether the precedence be determined by the boldness of im
piety, the contempt of truth, the perplexities of disputation, or
the inconsistencies and contradictions in reasoning, — is undoubt
edly entitled to the first place in the list of British infidels.
The leading subject also of the discussion, in which we are at
present engaged, naturally summons him to our tribunal. For,
as his philosophic forerunner, Bolingbroke, has bestowed much
unprofitable labour on the questions of polytheism and the

62 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
divine unity, the same questions solicit the minutest investiga-
tions of this author; especially in his treatise upon the * Natural
History of Religion ; a title, which, as has been remarked,
contains a form of expression much as proper as if he had
spoken of the Moral History of Meteors. And here, having
positively pronounced, that " Polytheism must have been the
first, and most ancient " (which certainly may be admitted, if
it was the first,) " religion of mankind :" (Essays, vol. ii. p.
402.) and having affirmed it to be an incontestible fact, that
about 1700 years back all mankind were Polytheists ; (p. 403.)
and that, as far as history reaches, mankind appear univer
sally to have been Polytheists ; at the same time that he does
not pretend to be ignorant, that about 1700 years back, there
was in existence such a book as the Old Testament, and such
a history as that of Josephus ; and that he himself informs us,
(p. 433.) that it appears from Herodotus, that " the Getae were
genuine Theists and Unitarians :" — having, I say, thus dog
matised as became a sceptic, and falsified as became an histo
rian, he proceeds, in a manner perfectly his own, to show what
never had been dreamt of before, not even in the craziest re
veries of a Bolingbroke, that the notion of the Divine Unity
had sprung up from the blundering conceptions of the Vul
gar, and that it demanded the reasoning powers of the
Philosopers to restore again the old system 'of a plurality
of Gods!
This will hardly be credited. Let the reader therefore turn
to the precious original, (p. 435.) where he will find the manner
fully described, in which this notion takes its rise amongst the
vulgar ; for of these it is that he has been speaking throughout

* On this treatise Warburton makes the following observations, in a letter
to his friend Hurd. "The Essay is to establish an atheistic naturalism,
like Bolingbroke : and he goes upon one of Bolingbroke's capital argu
ments, that idolatry and polytheism were before the worship of the one
God. It is full of absurdities. They say this man has several moral
qualities. It may be so. But there are vices of the mind as well as
body : and a wickeder heart, and more determined to do public mischief I
think, I never knew." Letters of a late eminent Prelate,?. 239.

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 63
the preceding page. " Men's exaggerated praises and compli
ments still swell their idea upon them; and elevating their
deities to the utmost bounds of perfection, at last beget the at
tributes of Unity and Infinity, simplicity and spirituality."
Thus, then, the one, infinite, uncompounded, and spirit
ual first Cause, springs, as we see, out of the tendencies of the
vulgar to praise and panegyric. But, immediately after, we
find, that this is a height too giddy for those who have thus
risen to it, and that it is necessary that they should be quietly
let down again to the firmer and more peaceful footing of Poly
theism. For, " such refined ideas, being somewhat dispropor-
tipned to vulgar comprehension " (although having grown
naturally out of vulgar oonception,) " remain not long in their
original purity ; but require to be supported by the notion of in
ferior mediators or subordinate agents, which interpose between
mankind and their supreme Deity. These demi-gods, or mid
dle beings, partaking more of human nature, and being more
familiar to us, become the chief objects of devotion, and gradu
ally recall that idolatry which had been formerly banished by
the ardent prayers and panegyrics of timorous, indigent mortals."
See also pp. 429, 430., or rather the whole of the extraordinary
reasoning upon this subject in the 6th, 7th, and Sth sections. —
Thus, then, we see, that the vulgar, in their high flights of
praise and panegyric, rose to the discovery of a. first Cause ;
while a set of wiser men* we must suppose called in to restore

* In truth, Mr. Hume himself seems entitled to rank amongst those
wiser men, as he has been able to discover many advantages in the scheme
of polytheism. "For," he says, "if we examine, without prejudice, the
ancient heathen mythology, as contained in the poets, we shall not discover
in it any such monstrous absurdity, as we may at first be apt to apprehend.
Where is the difficulty in conceiving, that the same powers or principles,
whatever they were, which formed this visible world, men and- animals, pro
duced also a species of intelligent creatures of more refined substance, and
greater authority than the rest \ That these creatures may be capricious,
revengeful, passionate, voluptuous, is easily conceived ; nor is any circum
stance more apt among ourselves to engender such vices than the license
of absolute authority. And, in short, the whole mythological system is so
natural, that, in the variety of planets and worlds contained in this universe,

64 postscript to no. lxix.
th> mob of middle deities, to their pristine honours, since the pur
pose is to suit the objects of woifship to vulgar comprehensions:
And so we find, that, under the direction of this wonder-working
X'evyoi;, the philosophers and the people are made at once to
change sides, and act each other's parts ; the people taking to
themselves the discovery of the first Cause, and the philoso
phers, in return, the discovery of denti-gods and middle
beings. Unless, indeed, as Bishop Hurd says, the people are
supposed to have done both ; '.' discovered the urtity in their
blind, timorous, and indigent state ; and, when they were so

it seems more than probable, that somewhere, or other it is really carried
into execution." Essays, vol. ii, p. 242. — Thus the cautious investigator,.
whose scepticism will not yield to the proofs of the existence of one God,
sees no difficulty in admitting it as more than probable that there are many.
In this system of polytheism', also, our philosopher finds many advantages.
For ", where the Deity is represented, as infinitely superior to mankind ;
this helief, though altogether just, when joined with superstitious terrors;
is apt to sink the human mind in the lowest submission and abasement, and
to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and
passive suffering, as Che only qualities which are acceptable to him. But
where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to
have been many of them' advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at,'
our ease in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness,
aspire sometimes to arivalship and emulation of them : hence activity, spi
rit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggran
dize a people." lb. p. 440. Our author has forgqtten to add, that in our
aspirings to arivalship with these nearer gods, that he proposes as the ob
jects of our addresses, we might rise also to that capriciousness, revengeful-
ness, passionateness, voluptuousness, and other such qualities with which
he has been pleased to invest them, and such qualities seem in the view of
himself and Mr. Gibbon to be the principal ingredients in that " elegant,
mythology," which they would so strongly recommend to our admiration.
It has been well remarked, by an eloquent and interesting writer, that anti-
christian writers, while they are giving us their opinions, may in truth be
giving us more ; may be discovering their morals, while they mean to
teach us only their creed: and thus may carry, like Bellerophon, their own
condemnation, while they imagine they are, graciously, conveying intelli-"
gence and new light to mankind. So that the old proverb, Bellerophontis
Literal may.be a proper motto for the learned labours of them all.—
Young's Centaur, p. §9.

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 65
well informed, struck out, in a lucky moment, their gross sys
tem of Polytheism."* On this, and the whole monstrous as
semblage of falsehoods, inconsistencies, and nonsense, with which
this extraordinary Essays is stuffed, I would refer the young
reader to the Remarks on Mr. David Hume's Essay on the
Natural History of Religion, in which J Dr. Hurd has so
successfully employed the weapons, with which his friend War
burton had, just before, transfixed the brother-infideL Boling
broke. Yet such writers as these, such writers as Hume and Boling
broke, (at least until their ignorance^ falsehood, and absurdities;
had become sufficiently notorious to expose their followers to the
like imputations,) it had been the fashion to extol and admire;
How such writers could ever have obtained followers, may at
first sight, indeed, appear difficult to explain^ The difficulty;
however, admits a satisfactory solution; and one which has
been so justly given by a late respected writer, that I shall con-
* Diderot, indeed, in bis execrable SystSme de la Nature, has completed
the view of this subject, that had been so imperfectly sketched by Boling
broke and Hume. He has manfully undertaken to prove, not only that
Polytheism must have been, in the early ages of the world, the necessary
result of men's observation of nature ; but that it must be much more so
now, that the course and progress of philosophy has tended to remove men's
prejudices!— This completely relieves Hume's argument from ail its per
plexities. f Dr. Nares in his admirable collectibn of sermons, preached at the
Bampton Lecture, in 1805, pronounces, respecting this extraordinary pro
duction, that,ifhe wishedtosatisfyany person of the indispensable necessity
•of a divine Revelation in the first ages of the world, upon the infidel's own
view of things, he would refer him at once to Mr. Hume's Natural Jlistory
of Religion. (Nares's Bampton Lectures, p. 485.) And Dr. Maclaine says
of the same work, in his Letters to Mr. Soame Jenyns, that perhaps no
book is more adapted to show the unspeakable advantages of a divine
Revelation. \ This work has been here, agreeably to the hitherto commonly received
opinion, ascribed to Bishop Hurd. But, from the Letters of Bishop
Warburton lately published, it now appears, that it was the production of
his own pen, and received only some additional colouring from his literary
friend. See a curious account of this transaction in the Letters of a late
eminent Prelate, pp. 239, 240.
Vol. 2.— 9

66 postscript to no. lxix.
tent myself with the mere repetition of what he has said upon
the subject. Having remarked, that, in his Treatise of Human
Nature, Mr. Hume's vain love of singularity had led him to
endeavour to involve even the fundamental principles of geo
metry in confusion ; but that, finding it impossible by his para
doxes on such a subject to rouse the attention of the public, he
turned himself to moral paradoxes ; this writer goes on to
show, that Mr. Hume in doing so had calculated rightly, for
that these, (; when men begin to look about for arguments in
vindication of impiety, debauchery, and injustice, become won
derfully interesting, and can hardly fail of a powerful and nu
merous patronage. The corrupt judge ; the prostituted cour
tier ; the statesman, who enriches himself by the plunder and
blood of his country ; the pettifogger, who fattens on the spoils
of the fatherless and widow ; the oppressor, who, to pamper his
beastly appetite, abandons the deserving peasant to beggary and
despair ; the hypocrite ; the debauchee ; the gamester \ the
blasphemer ; — prick up their ears when they are told, that a
celebrated author has written a book full of such comfortable
doctrines as the following : — That justice is not a natural but
an artificial virtue, depending wholly on the arbitrary institutions
of men, and previous to the establishment of civil society not at
all incumbent : — that moral, intellectual, and corporeal virtue,
are all of the same kind ; in other words, that to want honesty,
to want understanding, and to want a leg, are equally the ob
jects of moral disapprobation,, and that it is no more a man's duty
to be grateful or pious, than to have the genius of Homer, or
the strength and beauty of Achilles : — that every human action
is necessary^ and could not have been different from what it is :
— that when we speak of power as an attribute of any being,
God himself not excepted, we use words without meaning : 
that we can form no idea of power, nor of any being endued
with any power, much less of one endued with infinite power :
and that we can never have reason to believe that any object
or quality of an object exists, of which we cannot form an idea :
— that it is unreasonable to believe God to be infinitely wise
and good, while there is any evil or disorder in the universe ;
and that we have no good reason to think that the universe pro-

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 67
ceeds from a cause : — that the external material world does not
exist ; and that if the external world be once called in doubt as
to its existence, we shall be at a loss to find arguments by which
we may prove the being of God, or any of his attributes : — that
those who believe any thing certainly are fools : — that adultery
must be practised, if men would obtain all the advantages
of life ; that if generally practised, it would soon cease to
be scandalous ; and that, if practised secretly and frequent
ly, it would by degrees come to be thought no crime at all ;*

* "My inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals is of all my writ
ings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best." Hume's
Life, p. vii. — The passage, referred to above, affords an excellent speci
men of the writer's qualifications as a moral instructer. And yet it is of
such a man as this, that such a man as Adam Smith has delivered the fol
lowing testimony : — " I have always considered Mr. Hume, both in his life
time and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfect
ly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will
permit." — Letter from Adam Smith, LL.D. to W. Strahan, Esq. annex
ed to Hume's Life, and prefixed to the late edition of Hume's History of
England. — For the reception which such a declaration as this so amply
merited, I refer the reader to Bishop Home's Letter to Dr. Adam Smith :
in which, as well as in the Letters on Infidelity at large, he will find the
ablest and most incontestable confutation of Hume and his infidel associ
ates. In truth, the extract from Hume on the subject of adultery appeared to
me so monstrous, that, with some doubts of Dr. Beattie's accuracy, I
turned to the original to ascertain its fairness, and there found the follow
ing justification of the reporter : — " It is needless to dissemble. The con
sequence of a very free commerce between the sexes, and of their living
much together, will often terminate in intrigues and gallantry. We must
sacrifice somewhat of the useful, if we be very anxious to obtain all the
agreeable qualities; and cannot pretend to reap alike every advantage.
Instances of license daily multiplying will weaken the scandal with the
one sex, and teach the other by degrees to adopt the famous maxim of La
Fontaine, with regard to Female infidelity ; that if one knows it, it is but a
small matter ; if one knows it not, it is nothing." (Hume's Essays, vol. ii.
p. 394.) Again (p. 255.) he contends, that the necessary " combination of
the parents for the subsistence of their young is that alone which requires
the virtue of chastity or fidelity to the married bed. Without such a utility,
it will readily be owned (he asserts) that such a virtue would never be thought

68 postscript to no. lxix.
that the question concerning the substance of the soul is unin
telligible : — that matter and motion may often be regarded as-
the cause of thought: — that the soul of man becomes every dif
ferent moment a different being ; so that the actions I performed
last year, or yesterday, or this morning, whether virtuous or
vicious, are no more imputable to me, than the virtues of Aris-
tides are imputable to Nero, or the crimes of Nero to the man of
Ross."— Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth,
by Dr. Beattie, p. Ill — 113. See also pp. 315, 316., where?
many other doctrines equally rational and valuable are to be
found, together with the references to those parts of Mr. Hume's
works in which they are contained.
But this is not alL Mr. Hume had not done enough, it seems,.
for the extinction of religion and the subversion of morals ; but,
with a zeal bespeaking his fidelity to the master whom he served,
he left behind him blasphemies to be published after his death,
which even he was afraid to publish whilst he lived. So-, indeed,
his great admirer tells us, in his Apology for the Life and

cf." And, this being a favourite subject with this writer, whose Inquiry
concerning the Principles- of Morals, is- boasted of by himself as his best
work, he proceeds to enlarge upon it in an additional note, (p. 490.) in-
which he calls in- the aid- of Greek to sustain him in his philosophic profli
gacy, and, referring all notions of virtue and vice to public utility, asks,
with an air of final triumph, — "-And indeed to what other purpose than that
of utility do all the ideas of chastity and modesty serve ? " — This is the
PERFECTLY WISE AND VIRTUOUS man of Adam Smith.
Dr. Aikin's remarks (in the General Biography) on this extraordinary
language of Dr. Smith, although not pressing upon the parts of Hume's-
writings here adverted to, deserve to be noticed, " We may (he says)
reasonably demur to Dr. Smith's moral estimate, in attributing the perfec
tion- of- virtue to a man, whose leading principle was, by his own confession
selfish (the acquisition of literary fame,)- and who never seems to have-
made any of those saorifiees of interest and inclination to public good, in
which virtuous action chiefly consists. Further, whatever degree of free
dom of discussion may be justifiable, with the benefit of mankind in viewr
it may be doubted whether a mere fondness for speculation, or a love of
philosophic applause, will morally excuse a writer, for sporting with opin
ions which are commonly held of the highest importance to human, wel,
fare.'*

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 69
Writings of David Hume : whose posthumous papers, he
says, would probably " carry his philosophy still nearer to that
point, which he might not think it discreet to push too vi
gorously in his life time." What that point was, it but
too evident on a single glance at the works which he thus be
queathed for the public benefit. The Dialogues on Natural
Religion, and the Essay on Suicide, are standing monuments
of a heart as wicked, and a head as weak, as ever belonged to
any man who pretended to the character of a philosopher and a
moralist. To leave deliberately, as a legacy to mankind, a re
commendation of self-murder, and an assurance that there
is no god, at the very moment when he was himself about to
appear before the bar of that dread Being ; and, whilst thus oc
cupied for the destruction of his fellow-creatures, to amuse him
self with pleasant conceits about Charon and his ferry-boat,
(as his biographer informs us he did, when he was almost drop
ping into his grave,) has something in it so frightful, that one
naturally recoils from the thought of it with horror. It seems
to be equalled only by the hideous impiety of Diderot, who ad
duces it as a decisive proof of the nonexistence of a God, that he
was permitted to write a work filled with blasphemies against his
nature, and arguments against his being.*
Having, however, made mention of this valuable bequest of
Mr. Hume, I cannot deny the reader the satisfaction of know
ing somewhat of the precious materials of which it consists.
And first, as to his Dialogues. He there exhibits various
modes, in which the world may have been produced ; all of
which he pronounces to be to the full as satisfactory, as that of
a creation by the will of the Deity. Generation or vegeta
tion, he says, will answer the purpose : and the latter process,
which he prefers, he thus particularly explains : '< In like man
ner as a tree sheds its seed into the neighbouring fields, and

* " Si ce Dieu tout puissant est jaloux de ses prerogatives,— comment
permet-il, qu'un mortel comme moi ose attaquer ses droits, ses theres, son
existence meme V Vol. ii. p. 60. of Systeme de la Nature; a work which
was published under the name of Mirabaud, but is supposed with good
reason to have had the atrocious Diderot for its author,

70 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
produces other trees, so the great vegetable, the world, or this
planetary system, produces within itself certain seeds, which,
being scattered into the surrounding chaos, vegetate into new
worlds. A comet, for instance, is the seed of a world : and after
it has been fully ripened, by passing from sun to sun, and star
to star, it is at last tossed into the unformed elements which
every where surround this universe, and immediately sprouts up
into a new system." {Dialogues, p. 132.) But, as this pro
cess of vegetable production supposes a mother vegetable already
in existence, or a world already in being, so accurate a reasoner
could not but account for the formation of the first world, from
which all others are to sprout. And this he does in two ways,
that he may the better satisfy all descriptions of readers Either
such a process has been going on from eternity ; or a world
might have been formed originally thus: — " A finite number of
particles is only susceptible of finite transpositions : and it must
happen in an eternal duration, that every possible position must
be tried — The continual motion of matter, therefore, in less
than infinite transpositions, must produce order ; and order,
when once established, supports itself." [Dialogues, pp. 146,
149.) Now must not Ephraim Jenkinson, and his cosmogo
nies, hide their diminished heads, on a comparison with this
Philosopher and his sublime inventions ? How far inferior
also was the object of the former sage to that proposed by the
latter ! The one but sought to cheat the honest Vicar of
Wakefield of his horse, but the other looks to the more glo
rious attainment, of cheating mankind of their trust in a God,
and their hopes of a futurity. How meagre and unphilosophi-
cal is the first chapter of Genesis, compared with such lofty
speculations as these of Mr. Hume !
If we turn, now, to that other valuable performance, the
Essay on Suicide* there we find truths no less momentous,
and reasonings no less acute, than those which the former had

* Some of Mr. Hume's admirers became so much ashamed of this
monstrous and absurd performance, that they were led to deny that it ever
came from his pen. Whoever wishes for a complete proof of his being
the author, may consult the Monthly Review for 1 784, vol. lxx. p. 427.

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 71
exhibited. He informs us, that the whole scope of man's crea
tion is limited to the present life: — that the life of a man is of
no greater importance than that of an oyster: — and as it is
admitted that there is no crime in diverting the Nile or the
Danube from their courses, so he contends that there can be
none, in turning a few ounces of blood from their natural
channel : and so, upon the whole, he peremptorily concludes in
favour of self-murder ! He goes farther : and, to satisfy the
conscience of the Theist, he maintains, that, on the supposition
of a God, we are acting under the direction of Providence,
when we put an end to our existence : and, again, to satisfy
the conscience of the Christian, he endeavours to evince the
lawfulness of suicide under the Christian dispensation.
The last point, indeed, it has been remarked, it is not difficult
to make out, proyided the liberty of putting two texts together
be permitted : — thus, Judas departed, and went and hanged
himself. — Go and do thou likewise. Mr. Hume's arguments
are little better.
So much for this paragon of modern metaphysicians ; this
deep thinker and acute reasoner, whom it was one time so
much the fashion with witlings and libertines to extol. As to
certain advantages of style, Mr. Hume, no doubt, possessed
them ; but as to his reasoning, nothing under that name can
be more contemptible. This, indeed, seems now pretty gene
rally admitted : and few, who have any regard for the opinion
of men of sense, would, at this day, venture to support
the paradoxes, and adduce the arguments, of David Hume.
By the species of reasoning adopted by that writer, Dr. Beattie
has well remarked, it would be easy to prove any doctrine : and
to evince this, he supplies the following recipe, as conveying
the whole mystery of the manufacture of his metaphysical
paradoxes. " Take a word (an abstract term is the most con
venient) which admits of more than one signification : and, by
the help of a predicate or copula, form a proposition suitable to
your system, or to your humour, or to any other thing you
please, except truth. When laying down your premises, you
are to use the name of the quality or subject, in one sense ; and,

72 POSTSCRIPT TO NO. LXIX.
when inferring your conclusion, in another. You are then to
urge a few equivocal facts very slightly examined (the more
slightly the better) as a further proof of the said conclusion ;
and to^shut up all with citing some ancient authorities, either
real or fictitious, as may best suit your purpose. A few occa
sional strictures on religion as an unphilosophical thing, and a
sneer at the Whole Duty of Man, or any other good book,
will give your dissertation what many are pleased to call a libe
ral turn ; and will go near to convince the world, that you are
a candid philosopher, a manly free-thinker ; and a very fine
writer." {Essay on Truth, p. 309.) This gives by no
means an exaggerated idea of Mr. Hume's mode of conducting
his metaphysical disquisitions ; so that, what has been said of
his Dialogues, may be applied, with truth, to almost all his
reasonings on moral or religious subjects :--namely, that they
cannot possibly hurt any man of a philosophical turn, or even
any man of common sense : that they may serve, indeed, to
confirm the giddy, the profligate, and the unprincipled, in their
prejudices against religion and virtue, but must be despised
by every man who has the smallest grain of seriousness or
reflection. Gray's estimate of his character 1 cannot prevail upon myself
to suppress, not only because it comes from a man of real genius,
learning, and reflection, but because it must be admitted to be
altogether untinctured with the supposed prejudices of a divine.
" I have always thought David Hume a pernicious writer, and
believe he has done as much mischief here as in his own coun
try. A turbid and shallow stream often appears to our
apprehensions very deep. A professed sceptic can be guided
by nothing but his present passions (if he has any) and his
interests ; and to be masters of his philosophy we need not his
book or advice, for every child is capable of the same thing,
without any study at all. Is not that naivete and good humour,
which his admirers celebrate in him, owing to this, that he has
continued all his days an infant, but one that unhappily has
been taught to read and write? That childish nation, the
French, have given him vogue and fashion, and we, as usual,

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 73
have learned from them to admire him at second hand." {Ma
son's Gray* vol. ii. pp. 249, 250.)
There are two striking features in the character of Hume,
which have not been adverted to in the sketch here drawn of him
by Gray : — his dis ingenuousness, and his bigotry.
To couple the term bigott with the name of David Hume,
may at first sight appear to partake of his own paradox. But
it should be considered, that bigotry is not necessarily connected
with religious belief; and that it is no less possible to display its
invincible prejudices, by an irrational and intolerant zeal against,
than for, religion. Now, undoubtedly, in this sense, no man

* For some admirable and beautiful remarks by the same author, on the
Materialists, and upon Lord Shaftesbury, and particularly on Lord Bo
lingbroke and his Philosophical Works, see the same volume, p. 118 — 125.
With respect to Hume, we are informed by Mr. Ritchie, that he was par
ticularly stung by the severe animadversions of Gray. For, as the
biographer adds, " notwithstanding the eulogium which he sometimes be
stows on the equanimity of his own temper, it is known, that he felt the
attacks on his literary reputation with exquisite sensibility : and although
he persevered in the resolution of writing no answers to his antagonists
(except in the single case of his quarrel with Rousseau,) he did not
always receive the criticisms of Others with the apathy he professes."
Account of the Life and Writings of David Hume, p. 301. Indeed, if
we yield credit to the account given of him in the London Review for
1777, we shairpronounce him one of the most choleric, instead of being
one of the calmest, of philosophers. His Treatise of Human Nature
having experienced considerable severity of criticism in a publication
entitled, The Works of the Learned, the author (as the Review states)
became so highly provoked, that " he flew into a violent rage to demand
satisfaction of Jacob Robinson the publisher ; whom he kept, during the
paroxysm of his anger, at his sword's point, trembling lest a period should
be put to the life of a sober critic by a raving philosopher." — It is well
known, also, that his resentment against Dr. Beattie was so violent, that
he could hardly put upon it any decent restraint.
t I find, indeed, from an anecdote in Ritchie's Life of Hume, that I
have his own authority for this epithet. For, as his biographer informs
us, his reply to a friend, who jocularly threatened him with writing an ac
count of his life and character, was, that as to his character he would him
self give it in a single sentence ; " candid and liberal with respect to the
prejudices of others, bigoted with respect to his own."
Vol. 2.— 10

74 postscript to no, lxix,
has proved himself more of a bigot than Hume. Far from
being the calm and philosophic inquirer which he pretends to
be, he is evidently influenced by an insatiable zeal for the pro
pagation of his Atheistical tenets ; and his intolerant and per
secuting spirit against those who oppose the adoption of his
infidel creed is every where manifested by his furious abuse of
all who are tenacious of their Christian hopes, but more par
ticularly of the clergy, and these, too, of every religious persua
sion, without distinction. Of this, abundant proofs are to be
met with in almost every part of his writings ; but more espe
cially in his 21st Essay, on National Characters, {Essays,
vol. i. p. 215.) where, and in the annexed noteT, he pronounces
" priests of all religions to be the same," and goes on labo
riously to prove, that a priest, as such, must be destitute
of every virtue, and possessed by almost every vice. How
strongly Horace Walpole, (whom I particularly name, as not
having any undue leaning towards Revelation, and as being, it
must be supposed, tolerably free from that odium theologicum,
which our author so plentifully charges against the clergy,) —
how strongly, I say, he condemns this intolerant zeal in this
man of pretended moderation and philosophic calmness, may
be seen on looking into his works.* — Now, surely, this is a most
unreasonable intrusion into what our author so willingly admits
to be the exclusive province of the clergy. There is some ex-

* Lord Orford, indeed, omits no opportunity of expressing his dislike and
even contempt of the common run of what are called Geniuses, and Philo
sophers, in modern times. " No Genius I have known (says he) has had
common sense enough to balance the impertinence of their pretensions.^-
They hate priests, but love dearly to have an Altar at theik feet :
for which reason it is much pleasanter to read them than to know them."
(Lord Orford's Works, vol. v. p. 421.) This observation, though imme
diately directed against Rousseau, who was at this time introduced into
England by Hume, was manifestly not designed exclusively for him. And
although Hume is frequently spoken of in terms apparently favourable, yet
even in his Lordship's letters to Hume himself, (vol. iv. p. 260  265.) the
cutting sarcasms and contemptuous sneers against authors and philosophers
of a certain' class, sufficiently intimate in what light the noble author really
viewed the Scotch as well as the French philosopher.

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 75
cuse for warmth, in the man who perceives an attempt to rob
him of what he holds most precious ; but there is none for the
man, who makes that attempt, flying into a passion, because it
is resisted. Again, as to the disingenuousness of Hume ; this is suffi
ciently manifest on the inspection of his works. The instances
adduced by the various writers who have taken the trouble to
expose his flimsy sophisms are so multiplied, as to render it un-1
necessary to dwell upon this subject. Of these writers, in addi
tion to the authors of the well-known answers to his Essay on
Miracles, (an essay which but for adventitious circumstances
could not have deserved an answer,) I would particularly recom
mend to the young reader, Dr. Beattie, and Bishops Hurd and
Home, who have, in the works already alluded to in this Post
script, exhibited this imposing and deceitful infidel in his true
colours. Nor is it only in matter of reasoning, but in matter
of fact, that he stands convicted of dishonesty. No writer, per
haps, has established this more clearly than Dr. Ellington, in
his Donnellan Lecture Sermons, to which I refer particularly
at pages 233, 234. and 296—302.
It is but fair, however, to confess, that Mr. Hume has not con
fined altogether to religious subjects his talent of disingenuous
representation. His unfaithfulness, and gross partiality, as an
historian, have been long pretty generally acknowledged: end
it has been pronounced by judicious and candid writers, upon ths
subject of English history, that the History which Mr. Hums
has given to the world is a most injurious work to put into the
hands of the British youth, in order to give them just ideas of
the history or constitution of England. Dr. Towers, in his
Observations on Mr. Hume's History, says, that " fidelity,
accuracy, and impartiality, are requisite in an historian : and
that in these Mr. Hume is greatly deficient."— Dr. Gilbert Stuart
also points out, in his View of Society in Europe, (see parti
cularly pp. 320. 323. 326.) many gross and wilful errors in the
Historian .-—and, at p. 327. he fully demonstrates how unfit
Mr. Hume was for the task which he undertook.— Mr. Hume
(he says,) struck with the talents of Dr. Brady, deceived by his
ability, disposed to pay adulation to government, or willing to

76 postscript to no. lxix.
profit by a system, formed with art, and ready for adoption, hag
executed his history upon the tenets of this writer. Yet, of Dr-
Brady it ought to be remembered, that he was the slave of a fac
tion, and that he meanly prostituted an excellent understanding,
vindicate tyranny, and to destroy the rights of his nation. —
With no less pertinacity, but with an air of greater candour,.
Mr. Hume has employed himself to the same purposes : and
his history, from its beginning to its conclusion, is chiefly to be
regarded as a plausible, defence of prerogative. No friend to
humanity, and to the freedom of this kingdom, will consider his
constitutional inquiries, with their effect upon his narrative^
and compare them with the ancient and venerable monuments
of our story, without feeling a lively surprise, and a patriot in
dignation." Mr. Fox also, in his late celebrated work, speaks
of the continual display, in Hume's History, of his " partiality
to kings and princes, as intolerable. Nay (he adds,) it is, in my
opinion, quite ridiculous ; and is more like the foolish admiration
which women and children sometimes have for kings, than the
opinion, right or wrong, of a philosopher." — And a set of writers,
whose national partialities would not indispose them to Hume,
agree fully in this sentiment. " Few things (they say) seem
more unaccountable and, indeed, absurd, than that Hume should
have taken part with high church and high monarchy men.
The persecutions which he suffered in his youth from the Pres
byterians may, perhaps, have influenced his ecclesiastical par
tialities. But that he should have sided with the Tudors and
the Stuarts against the people, seems quite inconsistent with all
the great traits of his character." — {Edinb. Review, vol.
xii. p. 276.) — What great traits of character 1 We have already
seen what they amount to. No, no : the man who is not in
fluenced by a love of truth must be destitute of principle. And,
in such a character, inconsistencies must abound. Where there
is no standard to refer to, no anchor to hold fast, what can be
expected but perpetual vacillation 1 The man who laboured to
traduce Scripture would not fail to falsify history. He, who could
be blind to the grandeur and glory of the Christian dispensation,
could not easily discover the beauty and sublimity of the British

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 77
constitution. And we need not be surprised to find the same
man a renegade in religion, and a slave in politics.
The_ mischievous and dishonest uses, also, to which Hume
perverts his history, should not pass without observation. Mere
historic falsehood had lost much, of its interest in the breast of
this writer, had it not been made subservient to his favourite ob
ject, the subversion of moral and religious truth. The picture,
which has been already drawn of the historian in this light, is.
sketched with such justness and good taste by the masterly pen
cil of Mrs. H. More, that I cannot do better than present it to the
reader's view as it has come from the hand of that admirable
woman. " There is a sedateness in his manner, which imposes ; a sly
gravity in his scepticism, which puts the reader more off his
guard, than the vehemence of censure, or the levity of wit ; for
we are always less disposed to suspect a man who is too wise to
appear angry. That same wisdom makes him too correct to
invent calumnies, but it does, not preserve him from doing what
is scarcely less disingenuous. He implicitly adopts the injurious
relations of those annalists who were most hostile to the reformed
faith ; * though he must have known their accounts to be ag-

* Villers, in his Essay on the Reformation, (Mill's translation, p. 107.)
offers the following observations, which go to support the above allega
tion, and deserve to be particularly attended to.—" It is well known
with what fury the rage of party pours out calumny upon eminent
men. Upo^JLuther, above all men, it has been discharged in torrents.
Among other causes, it has been found out, that his zeal arose only
from the discontent of the Augustins, who beheld, it is said, with envy
the Dominicans invested by the Pope with the permission of preaching
Indulgences. That Maimbourgh should have picked up such a story
is nothing wonderful. But it is inconceivable, that Voltaire and Hume
should have repeated it as a certain fact." This author then proceeds
to expose the falsehood of the calumny, and refers to a note of Dr.
Maclaine on Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, in which, he says, is
" proved, beyond dispute, the absurdity of the imputation." The transla
tor, pursuing the same subject, goes on thus : — " The credit of Voltaire
is now so low in this country, that no means, however base, of forward'
ing a favourable object, will be thought beneath him. He is now detected ;

78 postscript to no. lxix.
gravated and discoloured, if not absolutely invented. He thus
make others responsible for the worst things he asserts, and

and his authority is of very little value. But Hume, who through the
whole course of his history lies in wait for an opportunity of throwing
discredit upon the cause both of religion and of liberty, who possessed a
rooted enmity against all the best interests of mankind, and whose ac
tions exhibit more of deliberate misanthropy than those of any other man
perhaps that ever lived, still enjoys a reputation and authority which he by
no means deserves ; and his writings contribute strongly to corrupt the
public sentiments. Dr. Maclaine's note, referred to by Villers, is a full
exposure, more full perhaps than was necessary, of one of those instances
of bad faith with which his history abounds. If any one were to publish
an edition of his history, with notes, pointing out the eagerness with which
he has used not only lawful but poisoned arms against religion and liberty,"
exposing the unfounded assertions, the weak reflections, and the barbarous
phraseology which he so often employs, he would abate that false admira
tion so long attached to his works, and confer a great obligation upon the
public". These charges against Hume may possibly not be sufficiently tem
perate and measured : but they contain in them much of truth ; and the prin
ciple charge, that of historical bad faith, is undoubtedly made out by Dr.
Maclaine, in. the note alluded to ; which note I here subjoin, not merely be
cause it establishes the point at present under consideration, but because
it so completely rescues the author of the Reformation from the unfounded
calumnies which Hume had contributed to circulate, and which of late days
an interested zeal has propagated in this country with more than usual in
dustry. " Mr. Hume, in his history of the reign of Henry the VHIth, has
thought proper to repeat what the enemies of the Reformation, and some
of its dubious or ill-informed friends, have advanced, with respect to the
motives that engaged Luther to oppose the doctrine of Indulgences. This
elegant and persuasive historian tells us, that the Austin friars had usually
been employed in Saxony to preach Indulgences, and from this trust had
derived both profit and consideration ; that Arcemboldi gave this occupa
tion to the Dominicans ; that Martin Luther, an Austin friar, professor
in the University of Wirtemberg, resenting the affront put upon his own
Order, began to preach against the abuses that were committed in the sale
of Indulgences, and, being provoked by opposition, proceeded even to decry
Indulgences themselves. It were to be wished, that Mr. Hume's candour
had engaged him to examine this accusation better, before he had ventured
to repeat it. For, in the first place, it is not true, that the Austin friars
had been usually employed in Saxony to preach Indulgences. It is well
known, that the commission had been offered alternately, and sometimes

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 79
spreads the mischief without avowing the malignity. When he
speaks from himself, the sneer is so cool, the irony, so sober, the

jointly, to all the Mendicants, whether Austin friars, Dominicans, Fran
ciscans, or Carmelites. Nay, from the year 1229, that lucrative com
mission was principally intrusted with the Dominicans; and in the re
cords which relate to Indulgences, we rarely meet with the name of
an Austin friar, and not one single act by which it appears that the
Roman Pontiff ever named the friars of that order to the office under
consideration. More particularly it is remarkable, that, for half a century
before Luther (i. e. from 1450 to 1517,) during which period Indulgences
were sold with the most scandalous marks of avaricious extortion and im
pudence, we scarcely meet with the name of an Austin friar employed in
that service, if we except a monk, named Palzius, who was no more than
an underling of the papal questor Raymond Peraldus : so far is it from
being true, that the Augustine Order were exclusively, or even usually
employed in that service. Mr. Hume has built his assertion upon the sole
authority of a single expression of Paul Sarpi, which has been abundantly
refuted by De Priero, Pallavicini, and Graveson, the mortal enemies of
Luther. " But it may be alleged, that, even supposing it was not usual to employ
the Augustin friars alone in the propagation of Indulgences, yet Luther
might be offended at seeing such an important commission given to the
Dominicans exclusively, and that, consequently, this was his motive in op
posing the propagation of Indulgences. To show the injustice of this alle
gation, I observe, secondly, that, in the time of Luther, the preaching of In
dulgences was become such an odious and unpopular matter, that it is far
from being probable, that Luther would have been solicitous about obtain
ing such a commission either for himself or for his order. The princes of
Europe, with many bishops and multitudes of learned and pious men, had
opened their eyes upon the turpitude of this infamous traffic : and even the
Franciscans and Dominicans, towards the conclusion of the 15th century,
opposed it publicly, both in their discourses and in their writings. Nay,
more, the very commission, which is supposed to have excited the envy of
Luther, was offered by Leo to the General of the Franciscans, and was re
fused both by him and his order, who gave it over entirely to Albert, bishop
of Mentz and Magdeburg. Is it then to be imagined, that either Luther, or
the other Austin friars, aspired after a commission, of which the Francis
cans were ashamed ? Besides, it is a mistake to affirm, that this office was
given to the Dominicans in general ; since it was given to Tetxel alone, an
individual member of that order, who had been notorious for his profligacy,
barbarity, and extortion.
" But, that neither resentment nor envy were the motives that led Luther

80 POSTSCRIPT to NO. LXIX.
contempt so discreet, the moderation so insidious, the difference
between Popish bigotry and Protestant firmness, between the

to oppose the doctrine and publication of Indulgences, will appear with the
utmost evidence, if we consider, in the third place, — That he was never
accused of any such motives either in the edicts of the pontiffs of his time,
or amidst the other reproaches of the contemporary writers, who defended
the cause of Rome, and who were far from being sparing of their invec
tives and calumnies. All the contemporary adversaries of Luther are ab
solutely silent on this head. From the year 1517 to 1546, when the dis
pute about Indulgences was carried on with the greatest warmth and ani
mosity, not one writer ever ventured to reproach Luther with these ignoble
motives of opposition now under consideration. I speak not of Erasmus,
Sleiden, De Thou, Guicciardini, and others, whose testimony might per
haps be suspected of partiality in his favour : but I speak of Cajetan, Hog-
strat, De Prierio, Emser, and even the infamous John Tetzel, whom Luther
opposed with such vehemence and bitterness. Even Cochlaus was silent
on this head during the life of Luther ; though after the death of that great
Reformer he broached the calumny I am here refuting. But such was the
scandalous character of this man, who was notorious for fraud, calumny,
lying, and their sister vices, that Pallavicini, Bossuet, and other enemies of
Luther, were ashamed to make use either of his name or testimony. Now,
may it not be fairly presumed, that the contemporaries of Luther were
better judges of his character and the principles from which he acted, than
those who lived in after-times ? Can it be imagined, that motives to ac
tion, which escaped the prying eyes of Luther's contemporaries, should
have discovered themselves to us who live at such a distance of time from
the scene of action, to M. Bossuet, to Mr. Hume, and to other abettors of
this ill-contrived and foolish story 1 Either there are no rules of moral evi
dence, or Mr. Hume's assertion is entirely groundless." — Mosheim's
Eccles. Hist. cent. xvi. sect. i. chap. 2, vol. ii. pp. 17, 18.
Dr. Maclaine has very properly observed, that the cause of the Refor
mation (which must stand by its own intrinsic dignity, and is, in no way,
affected by the views or characters of its instruments,) can derive no
strength from this inquiry, but as it may tend to vindicate the personal
character of a man, who has done eminent service to the cause of religion.
In truth, so far from looking for selfish and ignoble motives to account for
Luther's zealous opposition to the publication of Indulgences by Tetzel,
one has only to read the account given by Mosheim of this transaction, to
have his astonishment excited, that Luthers did not start up in thousands
to raise their voices against it. — " This bold and enterprising monk," he
says, speaking of Tetzel, " had been chosen, on account of his uncommon
impudence, to preach and proclaim in Germany of those famous Indulgences

ON BOLINGBROKE AND HUME. 8i
fury of the persecutor and the resolution of the martyr, so little
marked ; the distinctions between intolerant frenzy and heroic
zeal so melted into each other, that though he contrives to make
the reader feel some indignation at the tyrant, he never leads him
to feel any reverence for the sufferer. He ascribes such a slen
der superiority to one rehgious system above another, that the
young reader, who does not come to the perusal with his princi
ples formed, will be in danger of thinking that the reformation
Was really not worth contending for. But, in nothing is the skill of
this accomplished sophist more apparent, than in the artful way
in which he piques his readers into a conformity with his own
views concerning religion. Human pride, he knew, naturally
likes to range itself on the side 'of ability. He therefore skil
fully- works on this passion, by treating with a sort of contempt
uous superiority, as weak and credulous men, all whom he re
presents as being under the rehgious delusion. To the shameful
practice of confounding fanaticism with real religion, he adds
the disingenuous habit of accounting for the best actions of the
best men, by referring them to some low motive : and affects to'
confound the designs of the religious and the corrupt, so artfully^
as if no radical difference existed between them." (Mrs. H.
More's Hints for a Young Princess, vol. i. p. 156 — 158.) —
Thus does this elegant writer describe the pernicious tendencies
of Hume's History, which, as possessing at the same time many
of the beauties of style, she happily characterizes in a wordj as

of Leo X. which administered remission of all sins, past, present, and
to come, however enormous their nature, to those who were rich enough to"
purchase them. The frontless monk executed this iniquitous commission,
not only with matchless insolence', indecency, and fraud, but even carried
his impiety so far, as to derogate from the all-sufficient power and influ
ence of the merits of Christ." The translator adds, in exemplification,
that, "in describing the efficacy of these Indulgences, Tetzel said, among
other enormities, that even had any. one ravished the mother of Godj he"
(Tetzel) had wherewithal to efface his guilt. He also boasted, that he had
saved more souls from hell by these Indulgences, than St. Peter had con
verted to Christianity by his preaching." — Yet Hume could discover no
cause for Luther's resistance of such Indulgences, but that he had lost the
sale of them himself.
Vol. 2.— li.

82 ANNUAL EXPIATION, ETC.
tfa serpent under a bed of roses." (P. 155.) — And thus we see,
that in no occupation of Mr. Hume, whether exercising himself
as the light Essayist, the deep Philosopher, or the grave Histo
rian, does he ever lose sight of the one great warfare, in which
he had enlisted himself against truth, virtue, and religion.
In this Postscript to the foregoing Number, I have wandered
far, indeed, from my subject ; but by no means from my object :
for, if I shall have the good fortune of impressing any one of
my youthful readers with a just opinion and abhorrence of such
writers as Bolingbroke and Hume, I conceive I shall have done
no small service to the cause of truth, of virtue, and of religion.

NO. LXX.  ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE AN
NUAL EXPIATION UNDER THE LAW, AND THE ONE
GREAT EXPIATION UNDER THE GOSPEL.
Page 66. (z)-^-The sacrifice en the anniversary of expiation
seems to be distinguished from all others by a peculiar degree of
solemnity, as if to mark its more immediate reference to the
great sacrifice of Christ. Thus, on this day, we find the High
Priest exclusively commanded to officiate : and on this day'
alone, in the stated exercises of his office, was he permitted to
enter into the Holy of Holies, and to carry the blood of the
victim into the presence of God, to offer it before that Glory,
which, seated between the two chenibims, overshadowed the
mercy seat, and represented the Divinity : — a circumstance,
which the Apostle particularly marks, (Hebr. chap, ix.) as pre
figuring the entrance of our great High Priest, with the blood
offered by him for our redemption, into the true presence of the
most High, the immediate habitation of God's holiness and
glory. The High Priest also seems to have been selected for
the solemn services of this day, as more adequately representing
the whole assembly, in whose name he sacrificed and supplicated
forgiveness ; and therefore more properly typifying Him, who,
representing the whole human race, was to procure redemption
by his blood for the whole assembly of mankind.
Whoever wishes for a more minute detail of the particulars of

CEREMONY OP THE SCAPE-GOAT. 83
this solemn sacrifice, and of its peculiar fitness to represent the
sacrifice of Christ, may consult Outram. De Sacr. lib. 1. cap,
xviii. § 6, 7. lib. 11. cap. iii. § 2, 3, 4. He will also receive
much satisfaction, from an examination of Ainsworth's com
ment on the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. For many valua
ble remarks, connected with the subject of this Number, Dau-
beny's Discourses on the Connexion between the Old and
New Test, may be consulted. And in Rhenferdius's treatise
De Comparatione Expiationis Anniv. Pontificis Max. V-
et N. Test. {Meuschen's Nov. Test. &c. p. 1013—1039.) a
most copious and circumstantial enumeration is given of the par
ticulars, in which the annual expiation by the Jewish High
Priest resembled the one great Expiation of the New Testament.
It may be proper to observe, that such is the force of the resem
blance, that Socinus himself admits this anniversary sacrifice of
atonement, — inasmuch as " it was of special divine ordinance,
at a stated season, offered by the High Priest, and appointed to
atone for all the sins of all the people," — to be fairly accounted
typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Socin. Oper. {Prcelect.
Theol. cap. xxii.) torn. i. p. 583.

NO. LXXI.  ON THE NATURE AND IMPORT OF THE CERE
MONY OF THE SCAPE-GOAT.
Page 66. ( a) — On this, see what has been said in p. p. 259,
260. of vol. i., and attend particularly to the 5th, 7th, and 10th
verses of the 16th chap, of Leviticus, from which it appears, that
the two goats are, throughout the chapter, spoken of as one sin-
offering ; being expressly so called in the first of these verses ;
presented jointly as the offering of the people in the second ;
and, though separated into two distinct parts by the lot cast in
the 9th verse, yet eac#_described as contributing to the atone
ment for the people, as appears from the 10th verse compared
with the 1 7th. Indeed, that the two goats made but one sin-
offering on this occasion, the best commentators freely admit.
See Jameson's observations on this chap, of Leviticus. The
reason of this seems obvious. The death of the animal was

o4 CEREMONY OP THE SCAPE-OOAT.
requisite to represent the means by which the expiation wag
effected : and the bearing away the sins of the people on the
head of the'animal was requisite, to exhibit the effect ; namely,
fhe removal of the guilt. But, for these distinct objects, twq
animals were necessary to complete the sin-offering.
It must be allowed, that an account somewhat different ha?
been given of this matter by some very judicious commentators.
The goat sent into the wilderness, and that which was offered
up in expiation, jointly, they say, typify the great Redeemer of
mankind : the former animal exhibiting that, which could not
be'displayed by the latter, as having been slain ; namely, that
Christ was not only to be delivered for our offences, but to be
raised again for our justification ; ;Rom. iv. 25.) and that
although he was to be crucified through weakness, yet he was
to live by the power of God. (2 Cor. xiii. 4.) Thus, Ains-
worth, Bochart, Alting, and, before them, Augustine and
Procopius, understand it. The opinion of these writers, re
specting the truth to be illustrated by the dismissal of the second
goat, may perhaps not improperly be cornbjned with that which
has been here proposed : so that whilst the goat which was slain
exemplifies the Sacrifice offered for the sins of mankind ; that
which was sent away alive may represent, not only the removal
pf those sins in consequence of that sacrifice, but also the resto
ration to life of Him by whom they were so removed. Whe-r
ther, however, this point be admitted or not, the circumstance of
the two goats jointly constituting one offering, by exhibiting the
different adjuncts, cannot, I think, with any reason be control
verted. Rhenferd contends, that this point is completely established
by an evidence resulting from the nature of the ceremony itself.
For, he says, the imposition of hands, and the confession and
implied translation of sins upon the victim, being usual in the
sacrifice of animals in expiation ; and this ceremony being omit
ted in the case of the goat that was slain, whilst it was employed
in the case of the goat- that was sent away ; decidedly prove,
that both animals were designed to be considered as one offering,
and that the latter, consequently, represented Him who was. to
bear the sins of Israel, and by his sufferings to expiate and. to

MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS. 85
remove them. See Jac. Rhenferd exp. anniv. &c. p. 1033. of
Meuschen, Nov. Test, ex Talm,
Whoever may have a curiosity to know whether any, and
what ceremony, analogous to that of the Scape-goat, is observed
by the Jews of modern times, on the day of Expiation, may
turn to vol. i. pp. 200, 201., where he will find, that a cock is
now substituted for the legal victims ; and that the entrails of
the animal to which the sins of the offerers are conceived to
have been transferred by imprecation, are exposed upon the top
of the house, to be carried away by the birds into their solitary
haunts, in like manner as, under the law, the scape-goat had
been conceived to carry away the sins of the people into the
wilderness. See also Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. and Broughton's
Dictionary of Religions, Article Expiation.

NO. LXXII. — SOCINIAN OBJECTIONS URGED BY A DIVINE
OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, AGAINST THE DOCTRINE
OF THE VICARIOUS IMFORT OF THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES,
AND AGAINST OTHER DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND.
Page 67. ( b ) — The arguments in behalf of the vicarious
import of the Mosaic sacrifices, have been so fully examined in
Numbers XXXVIII. and XXXIX., that nothing need here
be added to what has been already offered upon this head.
It is with great regret that, in reverting to this subject, I feel
myself obliged to notice the following observations ; which have
been recently hazarded by a Divine of the Established Church,
with a rashness and a flippancy which cannot too strongly be
condemned. " Those who seek a protection for their absurd and unscrip-
tural ideas of a vicarious punishment, under the shelter of the
Jewish ritual, do not consider that that ritual was solely intended
to preserve the Jews from the idolatry and polytheism of the
neighbouring nations, by keeping tbeir imagination sensibly in
terested, then minds perpetually employed, and their time con
tinually occupied with the performance of rites and ceremonies,

86

MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,

sacrifices and oblations, which all tended to keep alive in their
minds the unity of the Godhead; and thus to preserve them a
distinct people, till the time appointed came for the opening of the
Christian dispensation ; when the distinction between Jew and
Gentile was to be done away.* There are, I know, some people

* The same idea this author takes pains frequently to enforce. In
his Religion without Cant. (p. 112.) he states it thus. — "The cere
monial laws of the Mosaic dispensation were intended merely to pre
serve unbroken the barrier between Jew and Gentile, till the coming of
him," &c.^— And yet, will it be believed, that in the very same page,
this determined enemy of every thing typical in the Mosaic dispensa
tion, affirms, that, in thcMosaical law, the great scheme of redemption
was obscurely insinuated, rather than distinctly portrayed, in types
and figures, in the sacrifices of the altar, and the atonements of the
Priest? The Redeemer, he adds, was seen through the rites of the
Mosaic dispensation, as through a veil or a glass darkly." How then
does this " wise and sober" writer differ from those, " whose fancy pre
vailing over their judgment " has led them to view the Mosaic dispensa
tion as containing in it something typical of the Christian 1 He admits)
that the sacrifices and atonements under the one, did obscurely typify
the great schem,e of Redemption in the other. And who contends
that the type was any other than a faint and obscure draught of the re
ality ? Thus, then, he saves his^ reader the trouble of confuting the
assertion, that the Jewish ritual was solely intended to form a barrier
between Jew and Gentile, and that none but a visionary could ever
hSrve dreamt of its bearing a typical relation to the Christian scheme.
This is not the only case, in which the freedom and variety of this
author's views have led him to mutually confronting positions on the
same subject. — To select one instance more out of a rich abundance. —
In p. 179. of the last named work, he tells the Christian, that " it is
only by personal acts of sin, hardening into habits of sin, that he be- .
comes a transgressor, subject to the wrath of God ;" and, agreeably to
this, he asserts again, in p. 210., that " it is not by some occasional mis
doings that we are to pass sentence on any man ;" — that, " in estimating
the worth of thejhuman character, we are not to form our calculations
on the conduct of one single day, but to take the average of many
days and years, and see what proportion a man's violation of his duly
bears to its performance, his virtues to his vices, his sins to his
righteousness." — And yet this indulgent moralist, who had thus far
endeavoured to relieve us'from any inconvenient pressure of sin upon
our consciences, by enabling us to reduce the bajance against us in^the

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 37
whose fancy is stronger than their judgment, who suppose
that the varied sacrifices and ordinances of the Mosaic ritual,
and indeed all the fractional parts of the Mosaic dispensation,
were intended only as types and figures of particular facts and
doctrines in the history and institution of the Messiah. — Those,
whose minds are not fitted for larger and grander views of
the ways of God, may well employ their time in these puerile
conceits ; but they will be despised by wise and sober men,
who do not like to assimilate the operations of the Deity to
the trick and pantomime of a conjuror." — The Guide to
Immortality, by Robert Fellowes, vol. iii. pp. 55, 56.
Such are the modest insinuations of a divine, whose mind is
of course " fitted for large and grand views of the ways of God ; "
whose comprehensive ken enables him, although unaided by
any lights from Scripture, to discern what was the sole design
of the Jewish ritual; who is possessed of "a judgment," that
at once detects the silly fancies of all such as " suppose" that
that ritual could bear any relation to the Messiah ; and who is
also " wise and sober " enough, to " despise " all those, who, by
forming such a supposition, " assimilate the operations of the
Deity to the trick and pantomime of a conjuror*"
Now, who are the persons, who, by forming such strange sup
positions, and by indulging in such " puerile conceits," have ren
dered themselves the objects of this gentleman's contempt?
Not to speak of the person alluded to in the last note, (who
probably stands too well with the author, to be exposed to any
portion of that scorn which is to be shared among those who
entertain such notions,) one of the first and most distinguished
in this way is the -Apostle Paul. He has gone the unreason-

debtor and creditor account of transgression and righteousness, shortly
after turns upon us, all at once, with this unpleasant sentence: " The
moment we have violated any one duty of truth, justice, and humanity,
or any one saying of the perfect law of Christ, that moment we are
polluted with guilt, and, without repentance, obnoxious to punish
ment." See p. 220.— Really, it were by no means unadvisable, that a
writer (not excepting even a teacher of theology) should take some
little pains to know what his own opinions were, before he proposed
them for the instruction of the public.

88

MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,

able length of endeavouring to prove, in a most minute and la
boured detail, that the institutions of the Law were but shadows
of things to come. But then, of St. Paul,- arid his various
?'¦ puerile conceits," this writer makes no account. The Apostle,
he informs us, " labours with mysterious meanings, which he
fails in developing with sufficient perspicuity." — " He
was of the sect of the Pharisees, who were wont to allegorize
on the" literal sense of Scripture. His writings have a tincture
of cabalistical refinement^ — and even occasionally glimmer
with a ray of Grecian philosophy." " The Epistle to the
Romans is bewildered "with the polemical Christianity of that
day." — His Epistles, generally, are "filled with the abstruse
discussions of Rabbinical learning; or relate to questions which
are at present of more curiosity than importance." — " A mo
dern believer has " (consequently) " very little concern with any
of the Epistles of this Apostle ; " or indeed^ it must be added,
with any of the Epistles, all of which this writer finds to be
"involved in a tenfold obscurity ;" and to which he pronounces
it impossible that we could ever pay the smallest attention, but
that " we prefer stumbling in darkness ; that we delight more
in error than in truth ; or that we imagine there is no piety
where there is no mystery." — Picture of Christian Philosophy,
Pref. pp. iv. — vi. pp. 131, 132. — See also Guide to Immort.
vol. iii. pp. 230, 231., where the same point is again earnestly
enforced. In another work {Relig. without Cant, pp. 13, 14.)
the same author takes care to acquaint his reader more particu
larly with those pharisaicat dogmas and heathenish notions,
which St. Paul had so deeply imbibed ; and he illustrates the
power of ancient prejudices over the mind of the Apostle, by a
happy and elegant allusion to the tang of the tainted cask ;
which, as he has presented it in a Latin phrase, likely to excite
attention from its novelty, will, he thinks, give to "the sagacious"
a sufficient idea of his meaning.
Of his meaning, in truth, no person can entertain a doubt.
His language is plain and intelligible enough. It is neither
more nor less than this ; that St. Paul, and, indeed, the Authors
of all the Apostolical Epistles, have shown themselves to be mere
drivellers : that we should consequently reject all their fancies ;

AND OTHER DOCTRINES,' OBJECTED TO. 89
discard the hitherto received doctrines of Christianity, as idle
dreams ; and regard the Gospel merely and exclusively as a
moral system, or, as he chooses sometimes to term it, as a rule
of life. This is the point which this writer mainly labours to
establish throughout his various theological * publications. And,
for the purpose of effecting this, he strenuously contends that the

* The Anticalvinist, a Picture of Christian Philosophy, Religion with'
out Cant, and The Guide to Immortality, are the works with which this
author has favoured the public on theological subjects. [Another theolo
gical work has, I understand,, issued from the same pen, since the time at
which this note was written : but what the nature of its contents may be,
I confess I have not been anxious to discover.] In these several volumes,
all largely descanting upon the morality, to the disparagement, or rather.to
the exclusion, of the doctrines of the Gospel, the Christian excellence
which forms the favourite theme, is benevolence. It were well if he had
treated those from whose opinions he thinks proper to dissent with that
mildness, and brotherly forbearance, which might prove him to have
written under the influence of the virtue which he so highly praises.
His language, on the contrary, is every where that of the bitterest ran
cour, and the most arrogant contempt, against all who embrace the doctrines
which he rejects, and which, in subscribing the articles of the Church to
which he belongs, he bound himself by a solemn promise to maintain.
Nay, he even dooms to the place of future torments, in common with the
most profligate and abandoned of sinners, all who have taught the " false
and pernicious doctrines of innate depravity, imputed righteousness, and
such other dogmas as are contrary to goodness." — Guide to Immort. vol. i.
p. 316. Yet with all this gall perpetually discharging itself, charity and
the kindly affections are the never-ending topics of declamation ; a decla
mation even sometimes swelling intopindaric.
Love, indeed, of one kind or other, is with this writer so favourite a
theme, that a late work, in which he has indulged in the effusions of poe
try, is exlusively devoted to the subject. It must be confessed, however,
that the love there treated of is as far removed from Christian love, as any
that a /Christian minister could feel himself justified in recommending.—
Poems chiefly descriptive of the softer and more delicate sensations and
emotions of the "heart ! Surely, surely, there is mischievous stuff enough
of this kind abroad, without calling in the clergy to contribute their stock
of silly love-songs, to the increase of the nuisance.— And yet, perhaps,
the love-songs of this clergyman are not more mischievous than his
theology. They certainly are not more poetic.
Vol. 2.— 12

90 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,
Christian religion contains in it no doctrine that is mysterious',*
that it pronounces a good moral life to be the only requisite con-

* "In the following work, it will perhaps be objected that I have intro
duced no mysteries : but whatever is mysterious is unnecessary. The es
sentials of a religion consist in few, and those the plainest truths." —
"False religions- may extol Ihe importance of mysteries : but there is no
mystery in the true." — Guide to Immortality, vol. i. pref. p. xiv. — Simi
lar language is scattered plentifully amongst the pages of this work. Be
ing thus prepared to render all perfectly smooth throughout the Gospels,
and the Epistfes being altogether discarded, our author proceeds with his
pruning-knife in his hand, and freely and unsparingly lops or bends every
thing to his own wish, and, as he conceives, to the great edification of his
reader. And yet, strange to say, notwithstanding his plain reasoning,
which, "all men in the possession of reason may understand," he has left
behind him mysteries not less than those which he boasts to have removed ;
if that which cannot be comprehended be allowed to be mysterious.
Amongst many such, his observations upon the Incarnation and the Atone
ment supply notable specimens. The very opening of his work, indeed,
cannot fail to satisfy all who examine it, of his qualifications as a com
mentator, who is to remove from the sacred writings all the obscurities
of mystery. Confessing that he cannot discover what meaning should be
assigned to the word Aiyos, he " gives no translation to this mysterious
term, but retains in the text the original word Logos, to which he leaves
every reader at liberty to annex whatever interpretation he may think
best." (Vol. i. p. 3.) — This is certainly a new mode of removing a diffi
culty : and Mr. F. is evidently not quite satisfied with it himself. He,
therefore, in the succeeding notes, calls in the aid of Dr. Lardner, and la
bours, with the help of this Socinian ally, to explain the nature of that, the
term to express which he does not venture to translate. And now the
matter comes out, that this Logos, let the word mean what it may, must
actually be God himself. For if it be the reason, the wisdom, or the power
of God, then what but God himself can it be 1 — Thus the first point gain
ed in making the matter plain, is, that the attribute of any Being is' that
Being. — Well, then, this Logos is actually God himself. How goes on the
plain reasoning now 1 — In the beginning icas God ; and God was with
God ; and God was God. — So far there is no mystery undoubtedly ; nor
yet in the succeeding assurance, that God was in the beginning with God.
And for such communications, it must be conceded to Mr. F. and his Soci
nian auxiliaries, that the Evangelists could have but little need of inspira
tion. But as we advance a little farther, we find that this Logos (that is,
God,) is called The Light; and that this Light, which in one verse is God,
becomes, in the next, the Messiah, " the visible image of the wisdom of

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 91
dition * of salvation ; that in the Gospels alone are to be found
comprised every useful truth and every rehgious duty; and that
consequently in his own work, which professes to give a just
view of whatever the Gospels teach, the Christian reader will
meet " a faithful and a cheering Guide to Immortality." The
author goes yet farther : he holds, that our Saviour's Sermon on
the Mount " contains a summary of every thing which it is
necessary to believe or to practise." (Anticalvinist, pp. 13. 25.)
So that even his own three volumes, explanatory of the true
meaning of the four Evangelists, are in a great degree super
fluous; inasmuch as the substance of a few chapters which have
been given by one of them, comprehends all that is actually
requisite. This is undoubtedly making brief work with the

God;" and that immediately after it becomes God again. — (See the notes,
p. 3 — 7. vol. i. of Guide, &c.) — So much for the freedom from mystery,
and clearness of exposition, in which this author exults; and for the want
of which he everywhere indulges in the most indignant invectives against
such as give support to the creeds and articles of the Established Church ;
all of whom, indiscriminately, he never fails to abuse as ignorant and into
lerant, in a manner that evidently marks where these terms may justly be
applied. A glance at the exposition of the introductory verses of St. John's Gos-<
pel, as given in pp. 77, 78. of the first vol. of this work, will satisfy the
reader, with what associates this Church of England divine is to be ranked
in his comments upon Scripture.
* Guide to Immor. vol. i. p. 3^7. — This is also the familiar language of
Mr. F. throughout. The clergy, he says, (Vol. i. p. 323.) " ought solely
and exclusively to be the moral teachers of the people." (He means to
say that the clergy " ought to be solely and exclusively moral teachers of
the people.") Indeed he carries this point so far, that he would have " the
ministers of the Establishment compelled to teach nothing but that pure
morality which Christ taught, without any cant or mystery." — Religion
without Cant, p. 131. — It has been remarked of the work so entitled, —
which deals, usque ad nauseam, in the cant or common-place usual with
a certain class of writers on the subjects of liberality, benevolence, morality,
&c. blended, at the same time (in the indulgence it is to be presumed of
benevolent and moral feelings,) with no small portion of the cant of invec
tive against all the supporters of the Established religion,— that instead of
being denominated Religion without Cant, it might by a slight transposition
have acquired a much more appropriate description, Cant without Religion,

92 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,
writings of the New Testament : and, in this view of the case,
he might with as much propriety have entitled his book, a short
cut, as a. cheering guide, to immortality.
But that we may appreciate the more justly the value of this .
writer's theological opinions, it is necessary to observe, that,
whilst he every where * insists on the propriety of confining the
entire range of Christian instruction within the limits of our
Lord's discourses, as recorded by the Evangehsts, he at the same
time very candidly informs us, that some of the grandest and
most important truths of Christianity were not made known to
the Apostles until after their Master's death. " The great mys
tery of a suffering Messiah," he says, (and with what consist
ency he talks of such a mystery, or of any mystery whatever,
let the reader judge,) " could not prudentially be explained, and
was not openly and unreservedly taught, till after his resurrec
tion." ( Guide, &c. vol. i. p. 344.) In the sentence preceding
this, he takes care to state distinctly, that, during the life of our
Lord, this knowledge was withheld even from his immediate fol
lowers. Neither could it have been communicated to them, in
the interval between the resurrection and ascension, consist
ently with the representation of the case which this author gives ;
for he particularly acquaints us (which he admits to be more
than the Evangelists themselves have done) with the subjects of
our Lord's discourse during that interval. " It was principally
occupied with instructions relative to their (the Apostles') minis-:

* Besides what has been already quoted upon this subject, in p. 88., .
we find the following remarks in this writer's Guide to Imm. voj. iii,
p. 231. — " Those, who prefer religious speculation to the practice of
religion, or who wish to keep alive the memory and to rekindle the
heat of controversies, whose lustre and whose interest have long since
been lost in the night of ages, may dedicate the best pQrtion of their
days to the fruitless study of that imperviously dark and inextricabjy
bewildering polemical matter, which is still preserved in the Apostoli
cal Epistles." — " But the precepts of Christ, as they are contained in
his various parables and discourses inJ.be four Evangelists, contain all
the instructions which are necessary to our improvement in righteous
ness; — include, in short, every essential principal of genuine Christi
anity,"

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 93
try," &c. But "all things necessary for the belief or the
practice ef men, and which are essential to salvation, our Lord
had repeatedly inculcated on his disciples before his death."
And, accordingly, "the Apostles dehvered nothing necessary to
salvation, which Christ had not previously enjoined in his dis
courses to his disciples ; and of which we have a copious sum
mary in the writings of the Evangehsts." ( Guide, &c. vol. iii.
pp. 229, 230.) What noty follows from all this 1— That " the
great mystery of a suffering Messiah" is of no importance
in the Christian scheme. For nothing is important that is not
contained in our Lord's discourses dehvered before his death, and
as they are given to us by the Evangelists : and in these dis
courses, we are told, the subject of a suffering Messiah is carefully
suppressed. But we have not yet- done with the variety of the author's
views upon this head. He has again and again assured us, that
Our Lord had, in several discourses before his death, communi
cated to his disciples every important truth : and yet he freely con
fesses, in other places, that there were several important truths
which were not so communicated, but which our Lord had pro
mised to convey to his disciples by the Spirit of truth, whom he
would send to them after his death. ( Guide, vol. iii. p. 64.) — It
is true, indeed, that as to this Holy Spirit, or Paraclete, Mr.
P. questions, * (p. 63.) whether it may not simply signify Christ's

* " It is a question, which may be proposed to calm and dispassion-.
ate and deep-thinking men, whether our Lord, under the idea of a Para
clete or Counsellor, spoke of his resurrection and ascension : events
which so greatly contributed to dispel the prejudices, to enlighten the
minds, and to elevate the hearts of his disciples ; and, in short, to lead
them into all truth." — So much for plain, unrefined, natural exposi
tion. Now, if, in speaking of the Comforter that was to be sent, our
Lord meant his resurrection and ascension, it is evident that we may
substitute these words for that which they imply, wherever it. is
spoken of. And then, our Lord's address to his disciples would run
thus: "If I go not away, my resurrection and ascension will not
come to you ; but if I go, I will send him (i. e. my resurrection and
ascension) unto you. And when he Is come," &c. " However, when
he cometh, even the Spirit of truth, (or, in other words, my resume-

94 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,
resurrection1 and ascension !" This, however, he pro
poses only to the " dispassionate and deep~thinking."~B\it
what again shall we say of the Evangelical narration,, as Mr, F.
describes the matter, in another place? (p. 68.) "After my re-.
surrection, I will declare to you the will and counsels of the
Father without any indistinctness or obscurity," And yet
to this he immediately subjoins : " The sacred historians have
only very briefly recited the discourses of Jesus with his disci
ples after his resurrection." — Thus, then, " the will and coun~
sets of the Father," the expounding in all the Scriptures
(beginning from Moses and all the prophets) the things
concerning himself, — which were vouchsafed by Christ to his
disciples after his resurrection, and which the Evangehsts have
(not " briefly," but) not at all " recited," are to be sought -for pre
cisely where it is confessed that they are not : and the Gospels
are alone to be referred to, for clear and distinct views of doctrines,
which the Gospels do not contain : whilst that part of scripture
is to be rejected as unnecessary, and even injurious, which was
specially allotted to the purpose of communicating to mankind
that knowledge of the truth which the Spirit of truth, as well as
the words of our Lord, conveyed to the Apostles, subsequently
to his resurrection.
Thus we find this writer, who is to clear away all mystery
and difficulty from Scripture truth, perpetually at variance. with
himself, no less than with the real doctrines of Christianity. —
Surely, he should have endeavoured to form at least a consistent
set of opimons, before he attempted to obtrude them on the pub-^
lie ; and, more particularly, before he ventured to fly in the face
of the whole Christian world, by an open rejection of one of the
most important portions of inspired Scripture. Humility, how
ever, is not one of the weaknesses of this writer : and certainly
knowledge is not his forte. — Any reply to the arguments ad
vanced by Mr. Fellowes, for the rejection of the Epistles in the
investigation of the Christian doctrines, is rendered unnecessary

tion and ascension,) he will guide you into all truth : for he (that is, my
resurrection and ascension) will not speak of himself," &c. — I certain
ly must leave this to " the dispassionate and deep-thinking," for I find
it quite beyond the reach of my comprehension.

AND OTHER DOCTRINES OBJECTED TO. 95
by the arguments themselves. Independently of their extrava
gance, (I had almost said their folly,) they carry in them, as we
have ;seen, their own refutation. In truth, the object of our
Saviour's life was to supply the subject, not to promulgate the
doctrines, of the Gospel. The Evangelists, therefore, confine
themselves to the simple duty of narration: and the doctrines
which altogether depended upon what our Lord had done and
suffered, particularly upon his death, resurrection, and ascension
into heaven, were, after-this ground-work was fairly laid, to be
fully set forth by those, to whom our blessed Saviour had
solemnly promised the unerring aid of the Holy Spirit, and who
were especially designated by him for that very purpose. See
p. 222 — 324. of vol. i. for farther observations upon the attempt
made by Dr. Priestley and his Socinian phalanx, similar to this
of Mr. F:'s, to beat down the authority of the Epistles. By re
jecting the Epistles, or, which is the same thing, the doctrines
which they contain, Mr. F. indeed thinks that he may * recon-

* Upon this prudential plan of clearing away mysteries from Chris
tianity, in order to bring infidels of all descriptions within its pale, I
cannot avoid noticing the observations of a writer, whose opinions
deserve at least as much respect as those of Mr. Fellowes. — " As to
the mysterious articles of our faith, which Infidels would by no means
have us forget ; "Who," say they, " can swallow them V In truth,
none but those who think it no dishonour to their understandings to
credit their Creator. Socinus, like our Infidels, was one of a narrow
throat ; and out of a generous compassion to the Scriptures, (which
the world, it seems, had misunderstood for 1500 years,) was for weed
ing them of their mysteries; and rendering them, in the plenitude of
his infallible reason, undisgusting and palatable to all the rational
part of mankind. Why should honest Jews and Turks be frighted
from us by the Trinity, $C. 7 He was for making religion familiar
and inoffensive. And so he did; and unchristian too."— The same
admirable writer subjoins. " Those things which our hands can grasp,
our understandings cannot comprehend. Why then deny to the Deity
himself, the privilege of being one am.idst that multitude of myste
ries, which he has made?"-Such are the striking and just reflections
of the celebrated Dr. Young, on this important subject, in his Centaur
not Fabulous; (p. 14.) a work which, in this age of frivolity, volup
tuousness, and irreligion, I would particularly recommend to the atten-

96 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS!,
cire "Jews, Turks, and Infidels of whateyer denomination," to
Christianity. {Guide, &c. yol. i. pref. p. xv.)— No; that- he
will not effect : sbut he will accomplish this, — he will render
Christianity very little different from what Jews, Turks, and
Infidels, have already embraced.
Thus then, upon the whole, it is manifest, that we have the
very essence of Socinianism presented to us, by a writer, in the
garb of a Minister of the Established Church : a writer, too,
who expatiates in every page on the moral virtues ; on the vir
tues of truth, honesty, and fidelity ; whilst he openly boasts of
the good policy of continuing in the bosom of that Communion
which he labours to subvert ; and exultingly avows his breach
of those solemn engagements, by virtue of which he obtained
admission within its pale. Such plain and unenlightened
Christians, as have not acquired a relish for the refinements,
which enable an ingenious casuist to violate his promise and to
betray his trust, will be apt to suspect that, in this author's
hands, Christianity has not only been abridged of its mysteries,
but also curtailed somewhat in its morality. For what do those
articles contain, to which every clergyman of the Established
Church has declared his entire and unfeigned assent, but the
very doctrines which this gentleman ridicules and rejects ?
Surely, the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Re
demption, and the various other momentous Christian truths,
which they pronounce to be indispensable to the formation of a
genuine Christian faith, are not to be found comprised in the
Sermon on the Mount, which this author maintains to be a
" summary of every thing which it is necessary to believe or
or to practise."
It is, indeed, scarcely conceivable, how a person in the pos
session of a sane understanding can reconcile to himself sub
scription to the articles of any Church, and rejection of the doc
trines which those articles define. To say, as this author does,

tion of my young reader, promising him in the perusal, not less enter-:
tainment from the liveliness of its illustrations and the brilliancy of its
wit, than improvement from the soundness of its reasonings and the
animation of its piety.

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 97
that the sixth article, in pronouncing that nothing is to be
received as an article of faith which is not founded in Holy
Writ, supplies a dispensation from the obligation of the rest, is
to make as short work with the articles of the Church, as he has
already made with the canon of Scripture. Would it not, un
der these circumstances, have saved much unnecessary trouble,
to reduce the articles of the Church to the single declaration of
the sixth 1 Or, indeed, were we to seek the simplicity, which
this author so strongly recommends, the sixth article itself must
be yet farther reduced, to correspond to the just dimensions of
Gospel truth ; and the whole that our Church should pronounce
to be requisite, for the true belief of a Christian teacher, should
at once be confined to the range of Christ's Sermon on the
Mount. But, to a person not desirous of escaping from the
obligations of a solemn engagement, it would naturally occur,
that the Church, in propounding certain articles of belief, could
never have acted so absurdly, as to superadd to these one para
mount article, which was to do away the, obligation of all the
rest. On the contrary, he would necessarily reason thus : that,
whilst certain doctrines are proposed as articles of faith, and it
is at the same time declared that none are to be received as
such, which are not founded on the authority of Scripture ; it
is clearly intended to be conveyed, that the articles proposed
are founded upon that authority, and to be received as articles
of faith by those only who conceive them to be so founded.
The language which Mr. Fellowes's reasoning would put into
the mouths of the framers of the articles, is rather whimsical.
" For the purpose of avoiding diversities of opinion, and the
establishing of consent touching true religion* we require
from the clergy of the Established Church of England an un
feigned assent to the several doctrines which we propose ; and
for the better effecting the aforesaid purpose, we also require of
them, each for himself, according to his private interpretation
of Scripture,, to modify or to reject these doctrines at pleasure,

* The Title of our Articles, in describing the object for which they
are framed, uses the very words which are here printed in Italics.
Vol. 2.— 13

MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS

and to introduce such diversities of opinion, as they may respec
tively think fit." — This is Mr. Fellowes's view of the matter.
I would suggest to him a view of it somewhat different, in the
words of one of the most distinguished ornaments of the Eng
lish Church at the present day.—" / do willingly and ex
animo subscribe to the thirty-nine articles of the Church of
England, is the indispensable form of subscription ; and therer
fore it behoves every onej before he offers himself a candidate
for holy orders, to peruse carefully the Articles of our Church,
and to compare them with the written word of God. If,
upon mature examination, he believes them to be authorized
by Scripture, he may conscientiously subscribe them : but if, on
the contrary, he thinks that he sees reason to dissent from any
of the doctrines asserted in them, no hope of emolument Or
honour, no dread of inconvenience or disappointment, should
induce him to express his solemn assent to propositions, which,
in fact, he does not believe." *— (Bishop Tomline's Elements,
&c. vol. ii. p. 567.) — According to Mr. Fellowes's reasoning,
on the other hand, a Christian minister may express his solemn
assent to propositions, which, in fact, he does not believe. And this
is the writer who resolves the whole of Christianity into morality.
Juravi lingua, mentem injuratam gero, is a sentiment
which has seldom been so openly avowed, as by this gentleman,
The dishonest subterfuge of mental reservation has been often
charged upon that Church, against whose corruptions it has
been the glory of ours to protest- It might t now with justice

* Dr. Balguy, in speaking of the duties of the clergy, touching the
articles, affirms, that "every word that comes from our mouths in
opposition to the established faith, is a violation of the most solemn
engagements, and an act of disobedience to lawful authority."
t It has, in truth, been retorted, in a late publication, by a Roman
Catholic writer, and directed even against those of our clergy, who
conceive themselves to be bound by their subscription to consider the
articles merely as articles of peace. Even of these this author pro
nounces, that they must be allowed to have acted under impressions
" contrary to every principle of Christian sincerity, and favourable to
perjury." What then would the same writer have said of a minister
of the Established Church, who, so far from viewing those Articles, to

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 99
be retorted upon our own, if indeed it could (as I confidently
trust it cannot) reasonably be supposed, that opinions on the
subject of subscription, similar to those entertained by Mr. F.,
prevail in any degree amongst the clergy of the Establishment,
But, after all, we do not find this gentleman completely satis
fied with his own views of the subject. In the wish which he
expresses,* that Parliament should give relief from all subscrip
tions to doctrine, it is manifest, that he is not altogether con
tented with the dispensation, which he conceives the 6th
article to supply. Whether Parliament, however, grant such
relief or not, his free spirit is not to be restrained. — " When the
Church of England got rid of one Pope, it never intended to
raise up thirty-nine in its place."t (p. xxi.) And if the church
presume to do so, he is at all events released from such iniqui
tous exercise of authority, hy a duty of higher obligation, — the
duty which he owes to the great spiritual King, (p. xxi. — xxiii.)
But it may be askedj whether this duty authorizes him to be-
which he had solemnly declared his unfeigned assent, as Articles of
peace, openly arraigns them as grossly antiscriptural, and professes it
to be his determination to oppose and to overturn them by every means
in his power 1 — The passage to which I have referred, is to be found
at p. Ivi. of the Introduction to a work, enitled The Protestant Apo
logy for the Roman Catholic Church— -The author of the Introduction
(who styles himself Jrenmus, possesses ability and information, worthy
of a better cause than that which he has undertaken to support ; and
many things have fallen from his pen, in that treatise, which well
deserve the consideration of Protestant divines.— I mention this the
more willingly, because it has not been my lot to meet with publica
tions by any late writer of the Romish Church, alike deserving of notice.
* Guide to Imm. vol. i. pp. xviii. xix.
t It is curious to observe this advocate for Christian freedom, who
spurns with such indignation these Popes which are imposed by the
authority of the Church, devising at the same time a Pope of his own,
to which he would have the whole body of the clergy compelled to
bend the knee. For, as we have already seen, (note * pp. 91, 92.) his
favourite plan is, that the ministers of the Establishment should be
compelled to teach nothing but pure morality. Thus, like most of
the other mighty advocates for freedom, the liberty which he wishes
for, is merely the liberty to deprive others of theirs.

100 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,
tray his trust, by voluntarily continuing a member of a particu
lar communion, which he labours, in violation of the most
solemn engagements, to overturn ; labours to overturn, by the
very means which his connexion with that communion sup
plies ; and the enjoyment of which means, he pretty plainly
intimates to be the principal cause for which he maintains that
connexion, (pp. xix. xx.)
It is, however, but fair to state, that, in this deliberate endea
vour to overturn the doctrines which the articles enforce, this
author considers himself by no means chargeable with a viola
tion of his engagements. The argument indeed is somewhat
new. It amounts to this : that he who attends to the direct,
natural, and obvious meaning of the articles, is least likely to
arrive at their right construction : and that, as to the letter, they
are in truth more honoured in the breach than in the observ
ance. Whoever doubts this to be a fair representation, may
turn to the pages last referred to ; and also to p. 33 — 42 . of
Relig. without Cant, where" we find the author more fully
unfolding the entire mystery of his reasoning upon this sub
ject ; — for mystery and paradox this author does not dislike,
where they are of his own creation. It is there laid down,
authoritatively, that the true meaning of the articles is not to
be collected from the articles themselves, but from the sense of
the clergy at large ; who, it is affirmed, " may put any con
struction* upon them which they think best :" that, "according

* Dr. Paley, a writer certainly not of the same stamp with Mr. Fel-
IbWes, gives a very different account of this matter. " Subscription to
Articles of Religion, though no more than a declaration of the sub
scriber's assent, may properly enough be considered in connexion With
the subject of oaths, because it is governed by the same rule of in
terpretation ; which rule is the aK-imus imponentis. The inquiry,
therefore, concerning subscription, will be, quis imposuit, et quo
animo?" — (Principles of Moral and Political Economy, p. 148) —
This is manifestly an inquiry, of a nature very far removed from that
which Mr. F. recommends to us. And, although I cannot agree witri
Dr. Paley either as to his general notion of the intent of the articles,
or as to his idea, that the animus imponentis terminates with the
legislature that enacted them, yet it cannot, I think, be reasonably

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 101
to that construction, the articles may and ought to be subscrib
ed ;" and that he, who thus subscribes them, inasmuch as he
maintains a unity of doctrine with the majority of his brethren,
" is a-Ijetter friend to the Church of England, than he is, who
may subscribe the articles in a sense more agreeable to the let-

denied^ that he proposes the true principle of their interpretation. A
just corrective of the laxity with which Dr. Paley applies that prin
ciple, may be found in Mr. Gisborne's Principles of Moral Philo
sophy, p. 190—192. To this work, as well as to Bishop Tomline's
Elements, I would earnestly advise the divinity student to resort for
accurate notions upon this subject. Very loose opinions have been
scattered abroad, by various writers, upon this point ; a point, which
of all others demands a most conscientious precision. But of all these
writers, none, perhaps, of any note, has advanced a more relaxed
system, than the late Cambridge Professor, Dr. Hey, who, in his Lec
tures on Divinity, however much of learning and good sense they
may otherwise contain, has certainly merited the charge made by
Bishop Law, of leading the members of the Church "into all the la
byrinths of a loose and a perfidious casuistry." (Vol. ii. p. 13.) his
description of the nature of the tacit repeal adopted by the Church of
Geneva, (vol. ii. p. 56.) and his manifest recommendation of it as an
example to be followed by other churches, will supply a sufficient proof
of the truth of this assertion.-^-Dr. Powell, again, another eminent
member of the University of Cambridge, has given but too much colour,
by certain expressions of his in his Discourse on Subscriptions, for
the wild opinions of Mr. Fellowes upon this subject : although when
well considered, and in connexion with the context, they will be found
to give him no support, The following observations of this writer
deserve to be quoted. Speaking of the subscription of the clergy, he
says : " Our articles of Religion are not merely articles of Peace.
They are designed also as a test of our opinions. For, since it cannot
be imagined, that men should explain with clearness, or enforce with
earnestness, or defend with accuracy of judgment, such doctrines as
they do not believe ; the Church requires of those, who are appointed
to teach religion, a solemn declaration of their faith. Nor is it more un
reasonable to exclude a man from this office, who, through error, unavoid
able suppose, an innocent error, is unfit to execute it; than to deny him'
a single employment, for which he is accidentally disqualified. He,
therefore, who assents to our articles, must have examined them, and
be convinced of their truth."— .Dr. Powell's Discourses on various Sub
jects, pp. 33, 34. The whole of this passage is well worthy of attention.

102 MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,
ter," &c. — Thus we are informed by a writer, who boasts of
not submitting his opinions to authority, that we are not to
exercise our private judgment in discovering the true sense of
the articles, but to take it entirely on trust from others. This
however turns out, in the conclusion to be, after, all, but a con
venient mode of rendering the whole dependent upon the judg
ment of the very individual^ who thus modestly disclaims its
exercise. For, since all is now to be decided by the suffrage of
the clergy, and since there is no practicable contrivance where
by this suffrage can be numerically collected, the sense of the
majority must, of course, be precisely that which each individual
may conceive it to be. But, again, as it is not merely " the
majority of the living members," but "particularly the most
learned, upright, and judicious members of the Church of Eng
land, that constitute that Church-;" it must be the sense of the
majority of these, it is manifest, that is to determine the point.
Now, who are most learned, upright, and judicious members
of that Church ? These clearly can be no other than they who
reject all mystery; who make Christianity nothing but a moral
rule ; who can discern in it nothing more than Dr. Priestley, or
Mr. Belsham, or any other free expositor who would divest it of
all its peculiarities ; who, in short, agree with Mr. Fellowes, in
pronouncing the entire sum and substance of the Christian reli-
ligion to be comprised in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Thus,
then, it appears, that our author ends where he began, and that
the true meaning of the articles as well as the genuine sense
of Scripture, is to be collected only from him who has supplied
us with The Guide to Immortality.
Now what is all this less than insanity 1 But it is the insanity
of a vain mind, of which we see too many instances on religious
subjects daily. Well might a periodical writer, whose attach
ment to religious truth entitles him to general praise, describe
this writer as "presumptuous, idolizing his own conceptions,
and fancying his own reason infallible, and cutting short the
fine of faith, exactly where it happens to interfere with their
suggestions.-  Already " (it is added)* "he is a latitudinarian
* It should be observed, that these remarks were drawn forth by one

AND OTHER DOCTRINES, OBJECTED TO. 103
in the widest sense of the word : the natural progress is from
that to a fanciful, self-willed, merely nominal Christian ; mak
ing even the Gospels bend to his own whim. From this point
the descent to Deism or even Atheism is perfectly easy : nor do
we know, indeed, that a Deist differs much, except in name
from such a Christian."
Mr. F. has, it is "true, congratulated himself on his good for
tune, in being the subject of these animadversions of the Brit
ish Critic ; as they have furnished the occasion of his " re
ceiving so much elegance of praise, from one who is equally
distinguished by the vigour of his intellect, and the fervour of
his benevolence." (Relig. without Cant, pref, p. xxxviii.) —
That Dr. Parr has proved his benevolence, by, the high pane
gyric which he has bestowed upon Mr. F., there can be no ques
tion ; but whether he has done equal credit to his intellect, or,
what is of more consequence, whether he has served the cause
of truth and of Christianity, by such indulgence of that amiable
feeling, is certainly much to be doubted. Had Dr. Parr con
fined himself to the testimony which he has borne to the purity
and benevolence * displayed in the private life of Mr. Fellowes,

of the earliest of this writer's performances. He has since travelled
farther in the same direction ; and given additional proof of the justice
of those animadversions, and the truth of those prognostics.
* Dr. Parr speaks in terms altogether unmeasured of the benevolent
and charitable feelings which uniformly govern the life and guide the
pen of Mr. Fellowes. And yet it is an extraordinary effect of those
benevolent and charitable feelings, that he should every where through
put his writings pour forth the language of virulence and contempt
against all who support the creeds and articles of the Church, against
all, in short, who deem anything beyond his abridged form of Christi
anity necessary for a Christian. Perhaps even from the writings of.
the most illiberal bigot a stronger instance of the want of charity can
not be adduced than that which this author supplies (as has been no
ticed, p. 89.) in speaking of those, who " teach the false and perni
cious doctrines of innate depravity, imputed righteousness," &c. In
short, it-is of a writer, who has war continually in his mouth, that Dr.
Parr pronounces peace to be for ever in his heart. It is almost ludi
crous to see such a writer represented as using in his own person the
language of Grotius, " Pacem amavi semper amoque," even in the qua-

104

MOSAIC SACRIFICES VICARIOUS,

as he is a competent, so he would have been admitted to be an
unexceptionable witness. But, in speaking of an author, whose
works are before the public, Dr. Parr, however highly his learn
ing and talents may be (and highly they ought to be) rated, yet
cannot possibly expect, that the opinion, which he thinks fit to
pronounce upon that author's productions, shall necessarily regu
late the public decision. Perhaps, indeed, in the declarations
which this classical and most elaborate writer has hazarded on
the subject of Mr. Fellowes's theological publications, although
nothing can shake his reputation as a scholar, he may not have
added much to his character as a divine. For when he tells us,
that he finds but " two or three points of controversial divini
ty in which he dissents from Mr. Fellowes," (who in almost
every point of controversial divinity dissents from the Articles
of the Established Church :) and that he discovers scarcely any
thing to be objected to, except " that Mr. F. does not assent to
some positions of Mr. Wilberforce * about original sin ; for

lifted sense in which this pacific disposition is described. (Spital Ser
mon, p. 82.) — Dr. Parr's universal acquaintance with the ancient clas
sics will readily suggest to him whose language I use, when (without
being deterred by the " tales pacis hostes insurrecturos," &c.) I beg
to substitute for the foregoing the following description, as more aptly
illustrative of the character of his friend, — "ns-s u tu, mtovc %wi'&.m, <fn.in
vrepuiuvau wri t^ fj.mz aLrous t%tiv ^ff-v^iuv, p»ri <rovs ax\ove &vBpJflrous fipv, opQois ay
*Dr. Parr, in speaking of the state of his mind respecting the book
published by this excellent man, and sincere Christian, which gave rise
to the strictures of Mr. Fellowes, says, that the description of it lies
in the following narrow compass — to ph ii- ty^Jt, ov /uiftn/uai ; to t\ pio-n
ou <rmkfju ; to it «ri irmo-iv, oil iiKtfid^a. — Now although there be some
opinions in Mr. Wilberforce's work, to which I am as unwilling to
apply the tauftagu as Dr. Parr can be ; yet I cannot help thinking,
that it would neither have discredited his discernment to have under
stood the reasoning, nor his taste ar.d piety to have stored his memory
with many of the results which it contains. — I confess, I think it but a
bad symptom of the times, when even grave characters can be found
to join in the vulgar ridicule of distinguished piety : when religious
seriousness but serves as a ground for ludicrous denominations and sar
castic epithets ; and these too not confined to the light and the male
volent, but receiving a partial sanction from the philosopher and the

AND OTHER DOCTRINES OBJECTED TO. 105
the attempt to refute whom, some enlightened believers may ap
plaud, and some orthodox churchmen would pardon him :" 
when he tells us these things, he proves beyond a doubt, either
that he has perused Mr. F.'s writings with an eye of blameable
partiality, where the cause of religious truth demanded an honest
search and even a piercing scrutiny ; or that his own opinions
hang but loosely and uncertainly upon the point of orthodoxy.
Dr. Parr needs not to be informed, that the truths of Christiani
ty are not to be conceded even to the amiable sympathies of
friendship ; nor their just measure and degree to be accommo
dated to the formation of a polished and a pointed sentence. It
were to be wished, that in his praises of Mr. F. he had not select
ed as a mark of his sense, his being " a Christian without
bigotry." It certainly, on the other hand, is not to be won
dered at, that Mr. Fellowes has returned the compliment, by de
scribing his eloquent encomiast, as " a Priest without in
tolerance and without guile." — The reciprocal panegyr
ic might surely have been rendered sufficiently palatable, with
out the seasoning of illiberal aspersions upon Christianity and
its Priesthood.
Dr. Parr, for whose general character and talents I feel, in
common with all who can appreciate integrity and genius, a
sincere and unaffected reverence, may think that I have spoken
too strongly upon this subject. But the impress of his praise is
no slight matter; and the danger of its giving a circulation to
what ought not (and without it perhaps would not) obtain cur
rency with the public, demands an open exposure of the base
ness of the coin, to which it would attach a fictitious value.
In truth, mischievous as are the publications of Mr. Fellowes,
I should not have thought it necessary to animadvert upon them
in this place, but that the eloquent eulogies of Dr. Parr, joined
to the writer's presenting himself to the public as a clergyman
of the Establishment, might, by throwing young readers off their
guard as to the true character and object of his works, expose

divine, and even admitted with more than toleration in one of the great
assemblies, with whose morality and corruption those of the entire
people of these nations are vitally interwoven.
Vol. 2.— 14

106 THE ATONEMENT BY THE SACRIFICE, ETC.
them to be misled by the false lights of a treacherous Guide.
To such readers, the satis eloquentice, sapiential parum, of
the author, is imposing ; the specious gloss of liberality and be
nevolence, which his writings wear, is attractive ; the classic
authority of his splendid panegyrist is commanding. And, as
it was for readers of this description, especially for students in
divinity intended for holy orders, that the present work was
originally designed, it naturally falls within its province to en
deavour to secure them against such snares, when calculated to
entrap them into false notions of their duties as professors of a
Christian faith, or of their engagements as members of a Nation
al clergy.

NO. LXXIII. — THE ATONEMENT BY THE SACRIFICE OF
CHRIST MORE STRICTLY VICARIOUS, THAN THAT BY
THE MOSAIC SACRIFICES, WHEREBY IT WAS TYPIFIED.
Page 68. (c) — The justness of the position, here laid down,
will be readily perceived, not only from the observations in pp.
67, 68. of vol. i., but yet more fully from comparing what has
been said in Numbers XXXYIII. and XXXIX. On the vica
rious import of the legal sacrifices, with the remarks in Num
ber XLII. on the true and essentially vicarious sacrifice of
Christ. The reflections contained in pp. 250, 251. 274, 275. of
vol. i. should be particularly attended to, as pointing out the due
proportion of the Mosaic and Christian atonements. See also
p. 65, 66. of vol. i., and Number LXVIII. and p. 175, 176. in
Number LXIX.
I subjoin here a very extraordinary paragraph, which I find
in a treatise of Danzius de Aire? Redemptionis humanm,
on the subject of an admission by the Jews of the vicarious suf
fering of the Son for the sins of men, pursuant to an eternal
compact with the Father to that end. — " Consentiunt hie no-
bismet Judsi, scilicet Deum Patrem cum Filio suo jam ab Kter-
no de redimendo humano genere consilium iniise. Hinc notab-
ilem quendam hac de re inter Deum et Messiam dialogum, per
fabulam, fingunt : quern ex Helvico hie apponere placet, qui

CONCLUDING NUMBER. 107
eundem ex. R. Mos. Haddarschan, super Gen. i. 3. excerpsit,
et ita sonat ; Dixit Jehova sanctus Benedictus, Messia juste
mi ! isti, qui sunt reconditi apud te, hujusmodi erunt, quod
futurum, utpeccata eorum inducant te injugum grave, &c.
Respondit corum eo Messias, Domine mundi ! Ego qui
dem Icetus suscipio super me tribulatiohes istas, sive tor-
menta : eo tamen pacto, ut tu in diebus meis vivifices mor-
tuos, et eos, qui a primo Adamo usque ad illud tempus mor-
tuifuerint, fyc. Dixit ei Sanctus Benedictus, Concedo. —
Protinus igitur suscepit ex dilectione super se Messias tor-
menta omnia et tribulationes, sicut scriptum est, les. LIII.

Test, ex Talm. p. 850.  This extract I give to the reader as
matter of curiosity.

NO. LXXIV.  CONCLUDING NUMBER.
Page 68. (d)— Those objections, the discussion of which
would have been improper and impracticable from the pulpit,
have been carefully canvassed in the preceding dissertations. It
has been the wish of the Author to notice all that seemed in any
degree deserving of attention. They, who are acquainted with
the subject, will, it is hoped, do him the justice to allow, that he
has omitted none of moment. Whether he has been as suc
cessful in their refutation, as he has been industrious in then-
collection, it is for others to judge. This at least he can venture
to affirm, that he has examined them with a conscientious
regard to Truth and Scripture. And he now concludes this
inquiry with an humble, and not unanxious, hope, that the
Word of God may not have suffered in his hands.

APPENDIX,
CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF THE
UNITARIAN SCHEME,
AS DESCRIBED BY MR. BELSHAM,
IN HIS REVIEW OF MR. WILBERFORCE's TREATISE ;
WITH OCCASIONAL STRICTURES
ON THE LEADING ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THAT PUBLICATION.

' Out-cos &.rcL\au7rupos to?? farowoie « ^HTflflVf T«f dA«6f/at?, xcti \7ri t« trof/^a. fta^Xav
Tptirnrai." — Thucyd. lib. i. u. 90.
" I like not that arrogant theology, which presumes to explore what angelt
desire to look into, and which, failing in its attempt, rejects as absurb what it
is not able to understand." — Bishop Watson's Charge in 1795.
" Aperte dicite non vos credere Christi Evangelio : nam qui in Evangelio
quod vultis creditis, quod vultis non creditis, vobis potius quam Evangelio
creditis." — Aug. cont. Faust, torn. vi. p. 336. ed. 1569.

APPENDIX.

In supplement to certain remarks in the preceding sheets, (par
ticularly to those in vol. i. pp. 34, 35. 71—83. 122—125. 135
— 141.) it becomes necessary to exhibit a brief outline of the
opinions of that sect, which, under the assumed title of Unita
rian, has presumed to arrogate the exclusive profession of the
Divine Unity ; and which has of late years exerted itself, in
the Sister Country, with uncommon zeal and activity, for the
subversion of the doctrines and the establishment of the National
religion. An abstract, presenting at one view the leading principles and
consequences of the system, divested of the imposing phrase
ology which writers of modern days know so well how to apply
to all objects whether worthy or unworthy, may prove not less
beneficial to some who have, than to others who have not,
embraced its doctrines. The task, indeed, is not without its
difficulty. To seize what is fugitive ; to fix that which is ever
in the act of change ; to chain down the Proteus to one form,
and to catch his likeness ere he has shifted to another ; — this is
certainly a work not easy to be accomplished. What Unitari-
anism, however, was in the year* 179&, a writer, who professes
himself its faithful interpreter and vindicator, has circumstan
tially detailed. Mr. Belsham, the late theological teacher at

*This Appendix was originally drawn up in the year 1800. What
have been the wanderings of the fugitive since that period, the Author
has had little leisure, and less inclination, to explore. He is also dis
posed to think, that full as much consequence has been already attached
to the subject, as it is entitled to.

112

APPENDIX.

Hackney, has, ex officio, announced the creed of the day :
and, so far as the principle of dissent can admit concurrence, the
doctrines which he has promulged may reasonably be pre
sumed to be those generally received by the Dissenters of the
Unitarian denomination throughout the Sister Country.
The scheme, as presented by this writer, in his Review of
Mr. Wilberforce's Enquiry, is briefly as follows. — Beginning
with the existence of " an infinitely powerful, wise, and good
Being, as the first and fundamental principle of rational reli
gion," he pronounces the essence of this Being to be love : and
from this he infers, as a demonstrable consequence, that none of
the creatures formed by such a being, " will ever be made eter
nally miserable." To suppose the contrary, he maintains, is
not only inconsistent with the Divine benevolence, but directly
contradictory to the plainest principles of justice. That all will
rise again after death, he admits to have been taught by Christ :
and he likewise admits, that " the wicked will be raised to suf
fering." But, since God would act unjustly in inflicting " eter
nal misery for temporary crimes, the sufferings of the wicked
can be but remedial, and will terminate in a complete purifica
tion from moral disorder, and in their ultimate restoration to vir
tue and happiness ;* or, as he elsewheret expresses it, " Moral
evil must be expelled by the application of natural evil ;" and, if
not fully effected in this life, " the process must be carried on by
the severer sufferings of a future retribution." — Thus the doc
trine of a purgatoryt stands immoveably fixed on the basis of
the Divine justice : and the antithesis between eternal misery
and temporary crimes is made to complete the demonstration
of the Unitarian ; by which he is not only enabled to commu
nicate « confidence" and <' tranquillity" to the " enlightened and
virtuous believer," § but, he might have also added, a hardened
and fearless security to the impenitent offender: and. without
this, he contends, " the God of nature must be viewed as frown
ing over his works, and, like a merciless tyrant, dooming his
helpless creatures to eternal misery," &cll — Whoever desires to
* Review, &c. p. 12—16. t PP- 41, 42.
X See, besides the above references, p. 154.
$ P. 21. II P. 20.

APPENDIX. 113
see this curious specimen of reasoning fully examined and
exposed; will find ample satisfaction in Mr. Walker's Letter
to Mr. Belsham, p. 40—42.
Having thus softened down the article of judicial retribution;
and lightened guilt of most of its terrors, as well as of much of
its deformity, (there being; as he contends, " a preponderance of
virtue, even in characters contaminated with the grossest vice ;"*)
he naturally proceeds to depreciate the value of the atonement
by Christ-^-The notion of his death, as a propitiatory sacrifice
for the sins of men, Mr; B. totally" rejects : and the doctrine of
redemption through his blood, beholds to be an entire mistake;
founded in the misunderstanding of certain phrases peculiar to
the Jews :f and finally, for th& full establishment of his opinions;
he refers us to Dr. J. Taylor ; the amount of whose reasoning
on this head; " in his admirable t Key," as Mr. B. thinks pro
per to call it; has been already examined at large, in the forego
ing work; especially voL i. pp. 141-^-145. 152-^-154. 229—236:
The merits and the sufferings of Christ having, in the scheme

* Pp. 14. 38, 39, 40. 42. t Pp. 17, 18. 105, 106,
% In a periodical-publication, distinguished for the uprightness and
talent with which it is conducted, there is to be found a series of
valuable letters, upon the subject of the work above alluded to: and
in the conclusion, the writer observes as follows; upon this " admirable
Key." — " The key of this author is not, I am persuaded;- the legitimate
one. I should rather be tempted to resemble it to some of those false
keys, vulgarly called picklocks.— 'The web of the key, to speak tech
nically, is, in those ingenious instruments, cut to as slender a form
as is consistent with the strength necessary for turning the bolt, in
order that the chance of the impediment from the wards may be as
little as possible. But the lock, with which this theological adventurer
had to do, was of such a peculiar construction, as to resist every effort
to open it, except with the true key. The Doctor gave some desperate
wrenches, and doubtless imagined that he had effected his purpose
when he found the key turn in his hand. But4t has been discovered
by others, that he did no more than break it in the lock, and the bolt,
for any thing which he has done to remove it, remains where it was
before."— Christ. Observ. vol. vi. p. 504.— The figure undoubtedly
conveys no incorrect idea of the work which it is so much the fashion
with Socinian writers, and with good reason, to extol.
Vol. 2.— 15

114 APPENDIX.
of this writer, no connexion with the acceptance of man ; the
notion of his divine nature, and even that of his pre-existence*
are discarded as wild chimeras. Jesus Christ he considers " as
a man in all respects like to his brethren : " and he seems
particularly anxious that the opinions of the Unitarian should
not be confounded with those of Socinus ; who, he says, whilst
he properly maintains, " that Jesus had no existence before his
birth, yet admits the unscriptural and most incredible notion,
that, since his resurrection, he has been advanced to the govern
ment of the universe."* The father of Socinianism had out half
accomplished the work of degrading the Son of God, whilst he
allowed him a superiority over the human kind after death.
Mr. B., with strict consistency, completes the system ; and boldly
contends, that as he differed in no respect from man in his mode
of coming into the world, so can he have no dominion or superi
ority over him in the world of spirits. That he " is indeed now
alive, and employed in offices the most honourable and benevo
lent," he does riot attempt to deny : but, since "we are totally
ignorant of the place where he resides, and of the oc
cupations in which he is engaged," he maintains, that
" there can be no proper foundation for religious addresses to him,
nor of gratitude for favours now received, nor yet of confidence
in his future interposition in our behalf. "t Thus, because we
are ignorant of the place and occupations of the Son of God, is
all intercourse between man and his Redeemer at an end !
Thus says Mr. Belsham. And so far is he from considering our
blessed Lord as an object of religious address, that he can look
on him only as the " most excellent of human characters, the
most eminent of all the prophets of God ; " whose " memory he
reveres," whose " doctrine he embraces," in whose " promises
he confides," and to whose " authority he bows."t
To what then does Christianity amount, on Mr. Belsham's
plan 1 To nothing more than good habits ; and these habits,
the result of man's own unaided and independent exertions, or
rather the result of external influences and irresistible impres-
* P. 74. f P. 85. % Pp. 84, 85.

APPENDIX. 115
sions.* Those usually received,1 and (as Mr. Wilberforce pro
perly styles them) peculiar doctrines of Christianity, which
declare the corrupted state of human nature, the atonement
of the Saviour, and the sanctifying influence of the Holy
Spirit, our author rejects as utterly inconsistent with truth and
Scripture.t The preponderance of virtue Over vice in the world
at large, and. with a very few, if any exceptions, in every indi
vidual in particular, he maintains -to be indisputable. t The
practice.of virtue, he pronounces to be the only ground of accep
tance with God, without any regard to faith in Christ, to his
meritSj or his sufferings, all which he proscribes as notions un-
scriptural and absurd : § and as to the influence of the Holy
Spirit being that which prompts to virtue, he finds little difficulty
in expunging this likewise from his creed, being fully satisfied
" that the Scriptures do not teach the existence of any such
person as the Holy Spirit, and that there is no ground for the
expectation of any supernatural operation on the mind." II The
sole incitements to virtuous conduct spring, according to Mr.
B., from " the circumstances in which men are placed, and the
-impressions to which they are exposed : " — " moral and reli
gious habits, not being acquired in any different way from other
habits of mind :"1T— that is, according to his reasoning, all
being equally the result of a necessary operation : the religious
tendency, as well as its opposite, naturally arising out of a certain
"state of the brain;"** and "habits growing by the influence
of particular impressions with the same regularity and certainty,
with which the fruits of the earth are produced and matured by
the genial influence of the sun, and of the fructifying showers."tt
Thus does the advocate of human merit vindicate the inde
pendency of human virtue. Let us stop for a moment to
examine this more fully. — " Virtuett is a system of habits, con-

* Pp. 170—175. f P- 17°- i PP- 13> U- 38' 39>
& Pp. 104, 105. 172, 173.
|| P. 97.— See also pp. 70, 71. 76, 77, 78, 79.
IT Pp. 134. 148. 173. 180.
** P. 171. ft pP- 174> 175.— also p. 41.
XX Mr. B. in his Elements, where it is his intention to convey his ideas
in the most scientific form, defines virtue to be, "the tendency of an action,

116 APPENDIX.
dueing to the greatest ultimate happiness :."* "and men being'
the creatures of circumstances, the habits they form, whether
good or bad, are the result of the impressions to which they are
exposed ;" t — or, as we have just seen, are the result of a neces
sary and mechanical operation, and arise out of causes inde
pendent of the agent, if such he can be called. Now it seems
natural to demand of this writer, in what respect his scheme
differs from that part of the high doctrines of Calvin, which he
most strongly reprobates ? Does he not equally with the re
former of Geneva contend that man has nothing which he can
call his own ? Does he not, equally with him reduce every
action under the necessary and irresistible control of motives,
in which the agent has no choice, and over which he can have

affection, habit, or character, to the ultimate happiness of the agent."
(P. 371.) It is at the same time to be noted, that of this tendency the true
and proper judge is the agent himself. What then follows ? "Why, plain
ly this, as Dr. Price has properly objected, that, agreeably to this defini
tion, " any the most pernicious and horrible effects will become just and
fit to be produced by any being, if but the minutest degree of clear advanr
tage or pleasure may result to him from them." (Review of Morals, ,$. 183.)
Now how does Mr. Cooper, who coincides in Mr. Belsham's sentiments,.
reply to this T " Granted. But let God look to that. A future state of
retribution has been ascertained for the very purpose of obviating this ob
jection." Mr. B. indeed admits, that "the expression is harsh, and hardly
consistent with the reverence due to the Supreme Being ;" but contends
" that the meaning is just, and the reply satisfactory." — What ! a retribu
tion hereafter ! Wherefore a retribution ? Must a being, whose only
business was to calculate the balance of advantage, suffer for a mistake in
that calculation,. when he made it with a view to that which alone he was.
bound to look to, his own advantage 1 And this, too, when he could not by
any possibility have made a different calculation; For, as Mr. B. informs
us, (Elements, p. 391.) " the only difference between the most virtuous
and the most vicious person is, that the former was placed in circumstances,
and exposed to impressions,whichg'enerczfe<Z virtuous habits and affections,
and the latter in circumstances by which vicious principles and dispositions
were produced :'' the one so circumstanced as that he must unavoidably
calculate right, and the other so circumstanced as that he must unavoida
bly calculate wrong. —So much for the true distinction between virtue and.
vice. * P. 38. f p. 41.

APPENDIX. 117
ao power? And does he not, whilst he thus concurs with the
follower of Calvin, differ from himself, by abolishing the very
idea of merit, whilst he makes merit the foundation of his
system ? '
Mr. B., indeed, exerts all his ingenuity, as Dr. Priestley had
done before,* to escape from this resemblance to the Calvinist.
The attempt, however, is vain. The Unitarian may fancy
that he has provided a complete salvo for the difficulties of his
system, and a clear distinction from that of the Calvinist; by
substituting his notion of a purgatory for that of eternal
punishment. But here, the consequences with which he
presses the Calvinist return upon himself. For, if it be incon
sistent with "infinite justice and goodness to doom a being to
eternal misery, for no other cause, but that of not extricating
himself out of the state in which his Creator placed him, with
out any power to act or will ; " t I would ask, by what principles
of reasoning it can be reconciled to the same infinite' justice and
goodness, to doom to temporary misery a being placed in cir
cumstances precisely similar; i. e. determined to one certain
mode of action, by an indissoluble chain of motives, and an ir
resistible necessity. If the idea of punishment for that which
was the result of inevitable necessity, be repugnant to the essen
tial nature of justice, it must be equally so, whether that
punishment be of long or of short duration. The quantity of
the' evil endured, if no evil whatever ought to be inflicted, can
make no change in the nature of the case. The Power that
prolongs Or heightens the punishment, where no punishment
was deserved, may be more malignant, but cannot be more un
just. Thus, then, allowing to the Unitarian the full benefit of
his purgatorial t scheme (for which however Scripture supplies

* Philosoph. Necessity, sect. xiii. f Review, p. 58.
X The formal notion of apurgatpry I fipd laid down by our author, in
the philosophical treatise before alluded to, in which it is his professed ob
ject to give to students accurate and fundamental notions on all the leading
subjects of morality and religion. That the precision of his ideas may not
suffer in the reporting, I shall state them in his own words. " If there be
a future life, the immediate condition of the great mass of mankind when

118 APPENDIX.
not the smallest foundation,) he is exposed, equally with the
Calvinist, to the charge, which he himself brings against the
latter, of "impeaching the character of his Maker, and traduc
ing his. Works."*— Thus much for the consequences of the two
systems. Again, as to the principle of necessity, it is precisely the
same, whether the Unitarian endeavour to dignify it, by the
title of philosophical ; or degrade it, by that of predestina-
rian. Or, if Mr. Belsham will still pretend to differ from the
follower of Calvin, whom he describes as equally with himself
pronouncing man a necessary instrument destituteof self-agen
cy, it can only be in this ; that whilst the latter makes man a
necessary instrument in the hand of God, Mr. B.'s system. ad
mits the possibility of rescuing him from this slavish subjection
to his Maker, by placing him under the irresistible control of
chance, or destiny, or some other equally conceivable power.

they enter upon it must be a state of very considerable pain and suffering.
For the great majority of human characters are alloyed with one or more
vicious habits and affections. These must 'be put under a process ofcure,
more or less severe in proportion to the malignity of the moral disease." —
Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind, p. 402. Our author also affirms
that he has the testimony of Scripture for this doctrine. I apprehend it
must be the Second of Maccabees, where others have pretended to find it
also. Or, perhaps, as he has not joined in turning the doctrine to so good
account as those who profess to have found it there, his authority has been
of that classical nature which might better suit a philosopher.
" Ergo exercentur peenis, veterumque malorum
Supplicia expendunt : aliae panduntur inanes
Suspense ad ventos ; aliis sub gurgite vasto
Infectum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igni.
Quisque suos patimur Manes." JEn. Lib. vi.
" For this are various penances enjoined :
And some are hung to bleach upon the wind ;
Some plunged in waters, others plunged in fires,
Till all the dregs are drained, and all the rust expires.
All have their Manes, and those Manes bear." Dryden.
Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Papists, have heretofore held these no
tions : to these we must now add the Philosophical Unitarian.
* Revieio,]>. 37.

APPENDIX. 119
For, to suppose all the actions of man to spring necessarily from
motives, and these motives the unavoidable result of external
impressions and local circumstances ; the divine Spirit giving
no direction in the particular case? and the man having no
power either to regulate their operation or to resist their im
pulse; is to suppose all that the Stoic and the Atheist could
desire. Such is the exalted merit of man, fashioned by the deistical
jargon of that, which equally disgraces Christianity and philo
sophy, by assuming their names. Such are the lights afforded
us by the Rational Christian : who mends Calvinism by Pur
gatory ; secures to man a property in his actions, by rendering
him the unresisting slave of motives ; and maintains the inter
ests of religion, by subjecting' human conduct solely to the
mechanical operations of secondary causes.
It is indeed extremely difficult to make out Mr. Belsham's
system. But it is one of the advantages of inconsistency, that
the statement of the absurdities in one part of an argument, is
liable to be discredited by contradictory positions in another.
Thus, whilst Mr. B. repeatedly affirms, that man is not to look
to the influence and sustaining aid of the divine Spirit, but solely
to his own exertions, or, as he most singularly explains these ex
ertions, to circumstances and impressions which work upon his
mind by a mechanical and necessary operation ; he professes,
in other places, not altogether to banish the notion of the divine
agency. " We are," he says, " thankfully to ascribe1 all our
improvements, our hopes, and our consolations, to God."* Mr.
B. has here struck a little out of the path to direct Atheism, in
which he seemed before ' rapidly advancing : and this saving
clause was indispensable to a writer, who professes a. belief in
the existence of a God. But when we come to inquire, on what
ground our gratitude is due to a Being, who has not contributed
by any beneficial influence to the improvement of our virtue,
we find our independence of a divine grace still carefully secur
ed, inasmuch as the sole foundation of our thankfulness to the

* P. 175.

120

APPENDIX.

Supreme Being is, that " to his appointment, and continued
agency, all causes owe their efficacy."* It is, then, for the origi
nal constitution and general arrangement of the works of
nature alone that we are to be grateful ; and not for any special
operation of a divine influence, in any individual case. May
we not, therefore, fairly apply to our philosopher, what Cicero"
pronounced of the refiners of ancient times, " verbis reliquisse
Deosj te sustulisse?"
But; that we may the more perfectly understand our author's
meaning, he supplies us with a specimen of the mode in which
a judicious instructer should endeavour to reclaim a vicious"
person, desirous of reformation. Having first carefully guarded
him against all unscriptural doctrines, such as original sirtj
atonement, merits of Christ, and the like ; having warned
him, not to expect any supernatural impressions upon his mind,
nor to imagine that moral and religious habits are to be acquir
ed in a way different from any other ; having pointed his atten
tion, particularly, to those parts of Scripture, which direct him
to do justice, to love mercy, &c. : having urged him to fix in
his mind just and honourable sentiments of God, as the great
est, wisest, and best of beings ;"t — he proceeds, more circum
stantially, to the case of the offender ; and beginning, in due
form, with a definition of Virtue, "as a course of conduct
leading to the greatest ultimate happiness," and of Vice, as
" that which leads to misery ;" — he next lays before the sinner,
(or, in the milder vocabulary of Mr. B., the " person oppressed
by the tyranny of evil habits,"!) the exact state of his case. —
" You are deficient in virtuous habits ; you wish to form them :
you have contracted vicious affections ; you wish§ to extermi-

* Pp. 175. 180. f P- 174. X P- 172.
§ N. B. It is above all things necessary for the reformation of this
person '' oppressed by the tyranny of evil habits," (so alarming and
fanatical a phrase as that of sinner I must not use,) that he feel no
remorse, be the vicious acts that he has committed ever so enormous.
For Mr. Belsham informs us, in his Elements, (pp. 307. 406.) that
" the doctrine of philosophical necessity supersedes remorse." And,
indeed, it is happy that it does so ; because, whilst, on the one hand,

APPENDIX. 121
nate them. You know the circumstances in which your vicious
habits were originally contracted, and by which they have been
confirmed. Avoid* these circumstances, and give the mind a
contrary bias. You know what impression will produce jus
tice, benevolence, &c. — Expose your mind repeatedly and
perseveringly to the influence of these impressions and the
affections themselves will gradually rise^ and insensibly improve;

he pronounces remorse not to be essential to repentance ; he proves,
on the other, that it is a thing in itself highly pernicious; inasmuch
as it is "founded upon the belief, that in the same previous circum
stances it was possible to have acted otherwise." — A perfect freedom
from uneasiness of mind, after the murder of a parent, or the seduction
of the innocent ; an undisturbed composure, flowing from the convic
tion that under all the circumstances it was impossible to have acted
otherwise, must surely contribute much to accelerate the repentance
of the offender, and to complete his reformation I
* This is a whimsical sort of address, from a writer who, upon his
principle of necessity, maintains the impossibility of avoiding, upon
the recurrence of similar circumstances, any act which has once been
performed. For if this be, as he contends it is, (Elements, &c. p. 107.)
a sufficient reason for asserting that the person, who has once yielded
to any temptation, must under the like circumstances yield to it again,
and that, consequently, the only chance for his escape is to be found
in flight; it must likewise be a sufficient reason for eoneludiug that he,
who has not at one time been able to fly from the circumstances which
brought the temptation, will not be able to fly from them at another ;
the circumstances at the time of the intended flight being the same as
before : and thus the impossibility recurs ad infinitum. — Our writer
had condemned Mr. Godwin, (Elements, &c. p. 405.) for the indiscreet
avowal of the consequences of this system ; namely, that necessary
agents are incapable of moral discipline. But has not Mr. B. him
self, as completely disclosed the secret by his reasoning ? For, if a
necessary agent can never acquire an increase of strength, to resist the
temptations of vice, where is the improvement in moral discipline 1
This Parthian moralist, who is to be for ever unequal to the r*S!»
io-fitw, and can hope to conquer only by flying, will find that he will
not have much to boast of in the way of conquest, if his steed is to be
as much fettered in the flight as he is himself manacled in the conflict.
Alas! that Mr. B. Would not permit his penitent to call to his aid that
auxiliary, and that armour, which would enable him to quench all the
fiery darts of the wicked !
Vol. 2—16

122

APPENDIX.

&,c.-~ALL that is required is judgment, resolution, time,
and perseverance ! "*  Really, Mr. B. must excuse me, if I
take the liberty of saying, that I know nothing in the English
language equal to this, except the Energies of Miss Bridge-
tina Botherim.X It is not my intention to introduce ludicrous
ideas upon such a subject : but the resemblance is too striking
and apposite to be overlooked.
So far as Mr. Belsham's language is intelligible, his process
of conversion amounts to this : — He tells the vicious person,,
that he has contracted bad habits ; and he desires him by all

* Pp. 174, 175.
f Modern Philosophers :— a work which, if perused with feelings
favourab leto religion and order, must be allowed to furnish a decisive
proof that Mrs. Hannah More is not the only female, of the present
day, by whom zeal and talents have been eminently displayed, in de
fence of all that can be deemed valuable in this life, and in that which
is to come.
Were we, in truth, to search out among the authors of later times,
for those who have most successfully promoted the cause of virtue and
religion, by the combination of what is most interesting with what is
most edifying in their writings, we should find them to have been princi
pally of th e other sex. With th e name of Mrs. Hannah More, who ranks
eminent in that class, — «nd whose numerous and diversified publica
tions, scattering their benefits through every gradation of society, from
the prince down to the peasant, have come home to the breasts of all
with that irresistible force whieh springs from the united powers of
piety and genius, — we have to connect, in grateful remembrance, the
names of Hamilton, of Bowdler, of West, of Chapone, and (notwith
standing something that one could wish to be otherwise) of Barbauld.
To " the venerable Elizabeth Carter and the blooming Elizabeth
•Smith," we have also to cast our eyes; if, in Mrs. More's words, we
would "contemplate profound and various learning chastised by true
Christian humility ; and if we would wish to dwell on the recollection
of '' acquirements, which would have been distinguished ina university,
meekly softened and beautifully shaded by the gentle exertion of
every domestic virtue, the unaffected exercise of every feminine em
ployment." (Calebs, pp. 250, 251.) Did my present subject lead me
merely to advert to the distinction which superior talents, exquisite
taste, and the charms of fine composition, confer upon the female
writers of the present day, it would be impossible to overlook the com
manding claims of Miss Edgeworth.

APPENDIX. 123
means to get rid of them. How far this salutary advice and
direction would operate to the reformation of the sinner, they,
who may have been reclaimed from vicious courses by such
means, can best say. But one thing deserves particularly to
be remarked, that, whilst the mind of the sinner is directed to
contemplate the excellence of virtue, to excite its own energies,
to expose itself to impressions, and the like, not one word escapes
of the propriety of prayer ; on the contrary, all supplication
for divine assistance seems to be expressly excluded, and, in
deed, evidently must be so, on Mr. Belsham's principles. For,
if goodness be the necessary result of impressions and circum
stances, the mechanical effect of particular traces on the brain,
derived from the general operation of established and unaltera
ble laws of our constitution, there is no room, in the particular
case, for divine interference. We may, according to Mr. B.'s
principles,'indulge in sentiments of complacency to that first
Cause, the beneficial effects of whose Original arrangement we
feel in the individual instance ; but prayer addressed to the
Divine Being can have no rational object. Prayer, accordingly,
forms no part of this writer's system. In no one line of his
work does he recognise it as a Christian duty : — indeed the
mention of it has not once escaped him.
It is not then surprising, that we should find Mr. B. endea
vouring to diminish the opportunities and inducements to prayer
by contending, that the Christian religion has not prescribed
the appointment of a day for the purposes of divine worship.
But he goes farther. He affirms, that " Christianity expressly
abolishes every such distinction of days : " * that, " under the
Christian dispensation, every day is alike ; no one more holy
than another: that whatever employment, or amusement, is
lawful or expedient upon any one day of the week, is equally
lawful and expedient on any other day : " t that, consequently,
"a virtuous man is performing his duty to the Supreme Being,
as really, and as acceptably, when he is pursuing the proper
business of life, or even when enjoying its innocent and decent

* Review,?. 20. fPp-20. 139.

124

APPENDIX,

amusements, as when he is offering direct addresses to him in
the closet, or in the temple," * From these premises he peremp
torily concludes, that all distinctions of days should be exploded :
that our business, and our amusements, should be pursued on
every day alike : and that the laws which enjoin the observance
of the Sabbath are "unreasonable and unjust." t He likewise
maintains, that the Sabbatical spirit naturally leads to unchari
table and censorious feelings; X that "persons who are so very
religious on a Sunday," (as to make regular attendance on the
services of the church a matter of conscience,) " are too apt to
lay aside religion for the rest of the week ; " § and that, upon
the whole, the Sabbalical observance is highly injurious to the
cause of Virtue. To this pernicious institution our author does
not scruple to attribute the desrease of national morality : and
he rejoices, with a Christian joy, that the late " ill advised "
proposition, " for enforcing a stricter observation of the Lord's
day,." was wisely rejected by the Legislature. II
Now, it may perhaps occur to a plain, unphilosophical reader
to inquire, what sort of teaches of Christianity ig this, who thus
levels Christ, through the whole of his existence,, to the rank of
human nature ; — leaves man, for acceptance, to his own merit;
and that merit the pure result of external impressions, and
mechanical operation ; — rejects the notion of prayer, "IT making

* P. 133. f Pp. 140, 141. X p- 141-
§ P. 142'. |f P. 203.
T[ How different are the reflections of true philosophy, guided by a
pious reverence for the superior lights of Revelation 1 The words of
a distinguished and attractive writer, whose publications have always
tended to promote, what his life has uniformly exemplified, the love
and practice of virtue, are too interesting and important to be omitted
on this subject. — "If we admit the truth of Revelation, the evidence
which it delivers of the special interposition of God, in the physical
and moral government of the world, must be deemed decisive. Instead,
therefore, of involving ourselves in the mazes of metaphysical subtilty,
let us direct our attention to the foundation of that intercourse with
the Deity, which is at once the most interesting duty, and the noblest
privilege of our nature. We are taught that he who cometh to God,
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who -dili
gently seek him : that in him we li%e, and move, and have our being :

APPENDIX. 125
man as it were independent of his Maker ; — and, finally,
proscribes the Sabbath, as destructive of Religion and moral-
that as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that
fear Mm : that if we, being evil, know how to give good gifts to
our children, how much more shall our Father, which is in heaven,
give good things to them that ask him. For this thing; says St.
Paul, / besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me :
And our Saviour is recorded to have prayed the third time, saying the
sama words, O ! my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me : Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Indeed the form of
devotion, which Christ recommended to his disciples, affords the clear
est proof that he regarded prayer as an acceptable and efficacious act.
Nor is this supposition inconsistent with that immutability of the divine
attributes, which is essential to their nature and perfection. The wis
dom, benevolence, and justice of the Deity are the same yesterday,
to-day, and for ever. But this unchangeableness implies, that in their
exercise they are always accommodated to the purest rectitude, and to
the greatest sum of felicity. And thus a Providence is established,
which discriminates between the virtuous and the vicious ; which adapts
the properest means to the accomplishment of the best ends ; and regu
lates all things so as to work together for the highest good. To this
superintending direction a pious Christian will look up, with humble
confidence, for ease under suffering, for protection in danger, and
consolation in sorrow. If prayer were not enjoined, as a duty, he
would instinctively perform it as a refuge for human infirmity. And
he may reasonably presume, that such filial dependence will be indul
gently accepted by his heavenly Father, who in his divine administra
tion is characterized as being ever ready to bind up the broken in
heart ; to heal the wounded in spirit ; and to give good gifts to
them that worthily ask him." Father's Instructions — Part the
Third— by Thos. Percival, M. D. p. 118—120. I the more willingly
refer to this excellent performance, because, independent of the value
of the passage here extracted, and the vein of fervent piety which per
vades the entire volume, the observations which it contains on the sub
ject of the Divine permission of Evil, the topics it suggests for the
farther confirmation of the Evidences of Christianity, and the direc
tions it conveys for the due regulation of the Clerical conduct and
character, entitle it to the most serious perusal of every friend to reli
gion and virtue.
Since the date of the first edition of this work, the revered person,
spoken of in the above note, has paid the last debt of nature : and has

126 APPENDIX.
ity ? Mr. B. being aware that such a question would naturally
suggest itself, has been careful to supply the answer. He tells
us, that he desires to be considered, as a "Moral teacher of
Christianity." * And, lest we might not perfectly understand
the nature of this Moral or Unitarian Christianity which he
teaches, he informs us, that it is substantially the same with the
system of Lepaux, and the Theophilanthropes of France. This
is a fair and candid account of the matter. The same title,
which they can produce to the denomination of Christians, Mr.
B. can undoubtedly advance. Indeed, his must be allowed to
be yet stronger : for, though, as he observes, their " common
principle is a belief in the existence, perfection and providence
of God, and in the doctrine of a future life ; and their rule of
morals, love to God, and good will to men ; " and thus, as he
remarks, their " professed principles comprehend the essence
of the Christian religion; yet, in not admitting the resurrec
tion of Christ, the Theophilanthropists deprive themselves of
the only solid ground on which to build the hope of a future
existence." t Thus, we see, in one short view, the nature of
Mr. Belsham's Unitarian scheme, and its advantage over that
of the French Theophilanthropes. He not only holds, in com*

gone to receive, in another staje, the reward of the piety and virtues
which distinguished him in this. — To offer any general remarks here
upon the life and character of a man so estimable and so esteemed,
would be little worthy of a subject whose magnitude and interest enti
tle it to the most ample consideration. To the memory of this vene
rated friend, I have already elsewhere offered an humble tribute. And
happily, as preserving to society a valuable light, a complete Memoir
of his life and writings has been given to the public, by his son, Dr.
Edward Percival, now of Dublin. — This Memoir, prefixed to the entire
collection of Dr. Percival's works, must be too well known and top
justly appreciated, to render it necessary for me to enlarge upon the
fidelity and ability with which it has been executed. The spirit which
it breathes, and the talent which it exhibits, conspire to afford the hap
piest presage, that the son will prove himself, through life, not unworthy
of the father, whose endowments, whose attainments, and whose excel-
lencies, he has recorded. * P. 227. t P- 217-

APPENDIX. 127
mon with them, the above-mentioned essential principles of
Christianity; but he also maintains, in addition, that a man
has actually risen from the dead ; the admission of which fact
into the creed of the Theophilanthropes, he candidly confesses,
would have left his scheme no superiority over theirs ; inasmuch
as, by laying a solid ground for their doctrine of a future
life, it would have rendered their system perfectly complete.
But, seriously, are these the doctrines of that sect, who call
themselves Unitarians, in the sister country : or are they er
roneously ascribed to them by Mr. Belsham? Indeed, if we are
to judge from the applause bestowed on Mr. B.'s performance
by writers of that denomination in England, we have reason to
think that he has given a fair representation. Now, if he has.
it surely seems unworthy of men, who exult in the open and
fearless avowal of their opinious, to trifle with the name of
Christian ; and if he has not, it is full time, that they should
throw back Mr. B.'s doctrines on himself, and his Theophilan-
thrope associates. I am most willing to admit, that no person
has a right to deny to Mr. B. the appellation of a "Moral
teacher." To this he is fully entitled, as having a firm belief
in the existence and general providence of God ; and as incul
cating principles^ that tend to beget love and gratitude to that
Being, and to produce a corresponding benignity of affection to
our fellow-creatures, impressing the duties of benevolence and
social kindness to man, as, I make not the smallest question, he
truly feels them. But, whilst thus much is freely admitted,
surely Mr. B. cannot reasonably be offended if he should be
denied the apellation of a " teacher of Christianity ? " For
what is Christianity 1 Is it any thing differing from the natural
religion of the Deist 1 And if differing ; is it in doctrines, or in
precepts ? Not in doctrines, according to Mr. B. ; for he asserts,
again and again, that it has none peculiar. Is it in precepts 1
No, says Mr. B. ; for the pure and simple scheme of the Theo-
philanthrope, who rejects Revelation, " comprehends the essence
of Christianity." And has, then, Jesus Christ passed as a mute
across the great stage of human affairs ? And shall we denomi
nate ourselves from Him who has taught us nothing different
from what we knew before? No, says Mr. B., this is not so :

128 Appendix.
by his rising from the dead, he has proved to us the certainty
of a future life. — Is this then Christianity ? — Of this, Mr. B.
may be an excellent teache'r : but in sUch Christianity, his in
structions will, I trust, ever be confined to a very small number1
indeed. And is Mr. B. displeased with Mr. Wilberforce, for calling
this "a sort of halfway-house between orthodoxy and infidelity?"
I cannot but think, that most people of plain sense and candid
minds, who have not been visited by any rays of modern illumi
nation, will rather be of opinion, that Mr. W. has erred, in not
advancing this mansion a little beyond the middle point. Nor is
this without countenance from Mr. B. himself, since he confesses,
that "of the two he would rather approach the confines of cold
and cheerless scepticism, than the burning zone of merciless
orthodoxy ; " * by which last it must be observed, he Understands
the principles of Christianity, as held by the Established Church;
merciless being merely the ordinary adjunct to the character
of every established priesthood.
On this subject, Mr. B. exhibits rather an unfortunate spe
cimen of that calm and softened charity, which distinguishes
and adorns the temperatei region, where he rejoices to find him
self placed, in a happy medium between the two above-men
tioned " ineligible extremes." A want of integrity, a disregard
of truth, " indolence, pride, and bitter zeal against all who oppose
the doctrines of the public creed," he represents as the never-
failing consequences of .an established religion, whether true or
false ; " the unvarying characteristics of " an established priest
hood." Such a body, he contends, " is, in its very nature, a
persecuting order." " All breathe the same fiery and intem
perate spirit. Truth and honest inquiry they are paid to dis
countenance and repress." t " Interested priests and crafty
statesmen will continue to support a rehgious establishment,
which answers their private and political purposes, at the same
time that they hold its doctrines in contempt." X The object, to
which these observations are intended more immediately to ap-

P- 263. f P. 199. t Pp- 230. 233.

appendix. |2g
ply, Mr. B., does not leave his reader at a loss to discover; when
he plainly affirms, that the heads of our Establishment look to
means very different from that of " a sincere faith in" their own
"creeds and homilies, for the prosperity of the National
Church : " * — and with the same liberal reference it is, that he
reminds us of the saying of Cicero, "that he wendered how
augur could meet augur without laughing :" and again, of that
memorable exclamation of Leo, in the! days of papal Rome;
"How lucrative is this fable of Jesus Christ ! " t — thus clearly
intimating, what a warm supporter of his doctrines and his per
formance has since announced in terms a little more direct, —
" it is well known, that many of our public teachers laugh in
their sleeves, — and some of these sleeves, they say, are of lawn,
— at those doctrines, which they inculcate from the pulpit, with
a pretended earnestness." {
Nor does Mr. Belsham confine his charges to those who are
the immediate superintendents of the national religion.
Though particularly favoured with Mr. B.'s notice, they do not
entirely engross it. By his observations on the institution of a
national fast, § he takes care to hold Up the civil, no less than
the ecclesiastical heads of the state, as objects of public con
tempt and execration^ for their gross insincerity, and unprin
cipled imposition on the people. Now, if all this be of the
nature of that charity, which belongs to the middle region, un
der whose temperate influence Mr. B. professes to enjoy philoso
phic repose, I rather apprehend that the inhabitant of this
" pleasant and commodious dwelling " is as far removed from
the charity, as he boasts to be from the peculiar doctrines, of
Christianity. It must, indeed, be confessed, that great allowance is to be
made for those who have been, as it were, rocked in the very
cradle of discontent ; and who have been used, from infancy, to
view every act of the Government, and every ordinance of the

* P. 220. t P- 230.
J Layman's Letters to Mr. Wilberforce on the Doctrine of Hereditary
Depravity, p. 172. $ Review, pp. 204, 205.
Vol. 2.— 17

130

APPENDIX.

Church, with the bitterness of a discomfited and vindictive
enemy. But it is strange, that whilst language of the nature
here cited every where deforms Mr. B.'s pages, and those of his
Unitarian associates, they should make the want of charity
the principal charge against all who hold Christianity in any
other, than the vague, and fleeting form, in which they profess
to embrace it. In the management of a controversy, it may
not indeed be bad policy to charge the adversary with whatever
unfair arts you mean to resort to yourself. Thus, whilst the
opposite party bears all the odium, you possess yourself of the
profit. So, at least, it seems to be with the writers of Mr. B.'s.
way of thinking. A total want of candour and charity is per
petually objected to all who defend the rectitude of the National
religion ; whilst every principle of both is grossly violated, by
those who oppose it : — and at the same time that the charge of
self-interest is freely bestowed upon such as support the Estab
lishment ; it is hoped that it will not be remembered that in
terest is as much concerned to acquire, as to retain ; it is mo
destly expected that no mention will be made of the pride and
fervour of party ; and that no note will be taken of the resent
ful jealousy of those temporal advantages, which, as they form
the leading theme of animadversion, may not unreasonably be
presumed to be the principal ground of hostility.
In a spirit congenial to these feelings, Mr. B. seems not a
little to have participated, when he thus openly states, as in
another place * he indirectly insinuates, under the thin covering
of the terms paganism and popery, that the religion of the
Church of England is a mere engine of state ; and as such
" cried up by interested statesmen and their hireling priests ;"
who, he says again, naturally " support that religion which
supports them : "t and that, at this moment, " pure Christian
ity" (by which he describes the system taught by himself and
Dr. Priestley) " is so far from meeting with public encourage
ment in England, that it is in a state bordering upon persecu
tion. '''% This last remark indeed seems, according to Mr. B.'s

• P. 196. f P- 233. X P< 187.

APPENDIX. 131
view of things, to have been altogether unnecessary. The
assertion, that " an established priesthood is in its very nature
a persecuting order," renders this a tautologous position. But,
in what way do these professors of pure Christianity ap
pear to be " in a state bordering upon persecution ?" Simply,
because they are not permitted to rail against established
authority with impunity ; to preach up doctrines in politics,
subversive of subordination ; to bring the government, both in
church and state, into disrepute and contempt, amongst the
people, by every species of calumny; to establish the enlight
ened system of France, the Theophilanthropism of Lepaux,
and the miso-monarchism of Paine. The government, the
clergy, and the people of England, are surely much to blame
for throwing any obstacles in the way of such great reforms !
And what is the grand proof, adduced by Mr. B. of the per
secution carried on against pure Christianity, in England,
at the present day ? Plainly this, that the great champion of
Unitarianism has been driven from his native country, and
" compelled to seek for refuge " from the rage of persecuting
bigotry " in the transatlantic wilderness ;" — in which, however,
it appears that he is subject to no deprivations ; since we are
informed in the very next line, that, in this wilderness, he has
the good fortune to be surrounded by " enlightened sages." *
But, ludicrous as is this picture of the wilderness of sages,
here presented by our author, it were unfeeling, and unpardon
able, to trifle on such a subject. What Dr. Priestley's reasons
may have been for exchanging England for America, I shall
not presume to pronounce. That they are not to be resolved
" solely " into his religious opinions, as Mr. B. seems desirous
to convey, is, I believe, pretty generally understood. That the
purity of Dr. P.'s private character, the amiable simplicity of
his manners, the variety and strength of his talents, the perse
vering industry with which he pursued what he deemed useful
truth, and the independent spirit with which (had it not been
frenzied by the intemperance of party) he might have so profit
ably maintained it, — are circumstances, which must make

Pp. 197, 198.

132 AFPENDI^.
every good man regret that misapplication of his powers, which
rendered it necessary for him to abandon his native country in
the decline of life, I will most readily admit ; and I freely sub
scribe to the strongest testimony which his warmest admirers
pan bear to the many and great virtues which adorn his private
life.* But, whilst I most cheerfully make these concessions to

* From a friend, of the highest literary distinction and moral worth, who
was connected by habits of early and continued intimacy with Dr. Priest
ley, I received, on the first publication of these remarks on that author's
character, a letter containing the following observations.
."The character you give of Dr. Priestley has reminded me- of that
drawn by Dr. Samuel Parr, in his letter from Irenopolis to the inhabitants
of Eleutheropolis. As this pamphlet was a temporary publication during
the riots of Birmingham, and you have probably never seen it, I will tran
scribe the passage to which I refer. — ' I confess, with sorrow, that, in too
many instances, such modes of defence have been used against this formida
ble Heresiarch, as would hardly be justifiable in the support of Revelation
itself, against the arrogance of a Bolingbroke, the buffooner-y of a Mande-
ville, and the levity of a Voltaire. But the cause of orthodoxy requires
not such aids. The Church of England approves them not. The spirit of
Christianity warrants them not. Let Dr. Priestley be confuted where he
is mistaken. Let him be exposed where he is superficial. Let him be
rebuked where he is censorious. Let him be repressed where he is dog
matical. But let not his attainments be depreciated, because they are
numerous almost without a parallel. Let not his talents be ridiculed, be
cause they are superlatively great. Let not his morals be vilified, because
they are correct without austerity, and exemplary without ostentation ; be
cause they present even to common observers the innocence of a hermit
and the simplicity of a patriarch ; and because a philosophic eye will at once
discover in them, the deep-fixed root of a virtuous principle, and the solid
trunk of virtuous habit.' This beautiful portrait is, I think, accurate in
its lineaments. But there are two features in the character of Dr. Priest
ley, which it does not exhibit, and which to you I will not scruple to com
municate. He has a sort of moral apathy, which makes him absolutely
insensible of the severity of the wounds he inflicts in his polemic discus
sions. Feeling no enmities in his constitution, he makes no discrimina
tion between friends and foes. And having adopted the language and dip
ped his pen in the gall of controversy, he suspects not that he excites
bitterness of heart, because he is unconscious of it in himself. I could
exemplify this observation, by his treatment of Dr. Enfield, Dr. Brockles-
by, Judge Blackstone, and several others whom he really loved or re-

APPENDIX. 133
the talents and the virtues of Dr. Priestley, and whilst I join in
the most decided reprobation of those savage acts of violence,
which in his instance, have disgraced the annals of English
polity, yet I cannot hesitate to believe that if, in any country
in which the direction of affairs was held by those enlightened
politicians, and professors of pure Christianity, who form the
associates of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, any man had em
ployed himself, for a series of years, in labouring to overturn
the established order of things, and had even advanced so far,
as, in the intoxication of his fancied success, openly to boast
that he had prepared a train whereby the whole must inevitably
be destroyed,* a very different lot from that which has fallen to

spected. Another striking trait in his character, is an almost total defi
ciency in discretion, that intellectual faculty, which is, as Pope well ex
presses it, ' although no science, fairly worth the seven.' — A report has
prevailed here,, that Dr. Priestley proposes to return to England. But I
find that his latest letters signify his intention of passing the remainder of
his life in America, where he is happy in every respect, except the enjoy
ment of literary society, and possesses a library and philosophical appara
tus far superior to those which he had at Birmingham."
This fragment, containing so much that is interesting concerning Dr.
Priestley, will, I conceive, not be unacceptable to the reader ; and although
I consider the bright parts of the character to have been too highly embla
zoned by Dr. Parr, the darker spots to have been too sparingly touched by
my much valued correspondent, and some important points to have been
entirely overlooked by both, yet I cannot withhold from the memory of a
man certainly possessed of many amiable qualities, and some extraordinary
endowments, a tribute, to which two persons, eminent for their worth and
their attainments, have conceived him to be justly entitled.
* " We are, as it were, laying gunpowder, grain by grain, under the old
building of error and superstition, which a single spark may hereafter in-;
flame, so as to produce an instantaneous explosion." — Importance of Free
Enquiry, p. 40. What Dr. P. means by the old building of error and
superstition, the context sufficiently explains. On the impossibility of
supporting the ecclesiastical constitution, if once a great majority of the
people can be made hostile to it ; and on " the power of small changes in
the political state of things, to overturn the best-compacted establish
ments," he likewise enlarges with much earnestness and force : ibid. pp.
39. 41. 44. The fittest seasons, and best opportunities, for silently work
ing out the great effects, which he here professes to hold in view, this

134

APPENDIX.

Dr. Priestley would await him. The privilege of trans
ferring his residence to another land, unless indeed it were to
that land from which no traveller returns, would hardly be con
ceded. Our enlightened philosophers, of the present day, adopt
on these occasions much simpler modes of proceeding ; and a
peep across the British Channel may readily satisfy us as to the
nature of the process, where there is no " lucrative fable of
Jesus Christ" to be maintained; no "established* clergy to
breathe the fiery spirit of persecution ;" and where the rights
of civil and religious man are explained and exercised upon
the broadest principles of a philosophy, untrammelled, even to
Mr. B.'s most sanguine wishes.
One distinction between the two cases may, indeed, possibly
exist. The professors of an all-perfect philosophy and a rational
Christianity knowing theirs to be the cause of virtue, and acting
only from a love of truth, are meritorious in removing, by what
ever means, all impediments to the accomplishment of ends so
glorious, as those they hold in view : whereas the advocates of
received doctrines, and of existing establishments, not even
believing what they profess, and being only concerned to defend
a lucrative falsehood, are, by the original sin of their cause, crim
inal in the performance of every act, however natural and

writer had before communicated to his fellow-labourer Mr. Lindsey, in the
dedication of his History of Corruptions, pp. 6, 7. — " While the attention
of men in power is engrossed by the difficulties that more immediately press
upon them, the endeavours of the friends of reformation, in points of doc
trine, pass with less notice, and operate without obstruction." Times of
public danger and difficulty are thus pointed out, as best suited to lay that
train, which was finally to explode with the ruin of the establishment.
And, indeed, at an earlier period of life, he had even ventured to promise
himself a more rapid accomplishment of the great object of his wishes.
Speaking of the Establishment, a,nd those abuses which he ascribes to the
principles of the hierarchy, he does not scruple to predict, that in " some
general convulsion of the state, same bold hand, secretly impelled by a
vengeful Providence, shall sweep down the whole together." — View of the
Principles and Conduct of the Protestant Dissenters, p. 12. — Passages
conveying similar sentiments in the writings of Dr. Priestley might be
accumulated : but their notoriety renders it unnecessary.
* It will be recollected that this was written in the year 1800.

APPENDIX. 135
necessary, which has a tendency to maintain it. This distinc
tion may, possibly, supply a satisfactory explanation : but to
proceed. As I cannot entirely agree with Mr. Belsham respecting the
persecution carried on by the Established- clergy against those,
who, under the title of Unitarians, are, as Mr. B. affirms, the
only professors of a pure Christianity ; so neither do I agree
with him respecting that, which he deems a natural consequence
of this persecution, — the great increase of this body in numbers
and'cbnsequence. Possibly, indeed, without making any very
valuable concession to Mr. B., it might be admitted, that " the
number of Rational Christians," (by which he means Unita
rians, or the professors of his Moral Christianity,) "was
never so great as at present :"* — a position, which, at the same
time, but badly accords with the assertion, that the early Chris
tian church was almost exclusively Unitarian. But, that " it
is still a progressive cause,'r can by no means be allowed. So
that Mr. B. may safely release his mind from all apprehensions
of that, which he so sincerely deprecates, " the support of civil
authority ;" from which he-seems to dread the only impediment
to its triumphant progress.
If, indeed, by " progressive cause," be meant a progression in
its course to that, which seems its natural termination, Deism ;
it might, undoubtedly, in that sense be admitted to be progres
sive. But if thereby be meant, a continued increase of num
bers, nothing can be more opposite to the real state of the case.
For let any candid and reflecting man, even of this very denomi
nation, lay his hand upon his heart, and say what he thinks
likely to be the case of the rising generation, educated in the
Unitarian principles : let him say, what has been the case of
those educated in the straitest principles of the sect, under
the immediate instruction of its greatest luminaries, Dr. Priestley
and Mr. Belsham, at the Academy of Hackney. Let Mr. B.
himself say, what has been the progressive nature of the cause
in that seminary. Mr. B. has too great a regard for truth, not

* Review, p. 198.

136 APPENDIX.
to admit, that the pupils of the new light had gone beyond their
teachers a little too far ; that they had somewhat too strongly*

* Mr. Belsham himself, in speaking of this subject, is obliged in a great
measure to acknowledge the truth of this charge. " This fact," (he says,
alluding to a statement similar to the above made by Mr. Carpenter,) " to
a certain extent, cannot be denied; and, most surely, it excited unpleasing
sensations in many, and not least in the minds of those whose endeavours to
form them to usefulness in the Church were thus painfully disappointed." —
However, immediately after, he seems, in the contrast between the
systems pursued at Hackney and in other seminaries where education is
conducted on a different principle, to change the tone of lamentation on
this head into a note of triumph. " It is an easy thing," he remarks,
" for tutors to educate their pupils in the trammels of any religious faith
which they may choose , Take away the Key of knowledge, and the
business is done.- You bring them out at once Calvinists, Arians, Papists,
Protestants, any thing that you please ; and ready to join in the cry against
any sect, which, for the season, may be obnoxious to the ruling party.
This was not the method pursued at Hackney, they gloried in encourag
ing freedom of inquiry : nor were they at all apprehensive, that the
interests of truth and virtue would suffer by it in the end. (Letters on
Arianism, p. 40.) — Thus, Mr. Belsham, on second thoughts, is of opinion,
that what was done in Hackney, is a thing to be gloried in ; and that in
educating those who were designed for the Christian ministry, so as to
render them Infidels and Atheists, " the interests of truth and virtue
cannot suffer in the end."
But, that we may the better form a right judgment of that which is
conceived to constitute the excellence of those dissenting academies, to
which such friends of rational inquiry as Mr. Belsham and Dr. Priestley
have been used to look for the real improvement of youth, I here give an ex
tract from Dr. Priestley's Memoirs relative to this subject. — "In my time,
the academy was in a state peculiarly favourable to the serious pursuit of
truth, as the students were about equally divided upon every question of
much importance, such as liberty and necessity, the sleep of the soul, and
all the articles of theological orthodoxy and heresy ; in consequence of
which, all these topics were the subjects of continual discussion. Our tutors
were of different opinions : Dr. Ashworth taking the orthodox side ; Mr.
Clark, the sub-tutor, that of heresy, though always with the greatest
modesty."  Here is a. view of the true way, in which, under the
guidance of the new lights of philosophy and religion, youth is to be led
on " intersylvas Academi quaerere verum." The calm and undisturbed
retirement of study exchanged for the unceasing wrangling of a debating
club. Tutor and sub-tutor, master'' and pupil, all together by the ears,

APPENDIX. 137
exempUfied the progressive nature of the system, by reaching at
once the goal of Deism, and that in some instances, perhaps not
a few, the race had been crowned with the prize of direct,
avowed, and unqualified'ATHEisM.
Mr. Belsham affirms, that " Mr. Wilberforce and others who
agree with him seldom regard their system in a comprehensive
view, on-pursue their principles to their just and necessary conse
quences :"* and he adds, that " it is from the absurd and injuri
ous consequences which necessarily result- from Mr. W.'s princi
ples, that he infers their falsehood and impiety, "t No words

continually, on the gravest and deepest subjects of theological controversy ;
and the sublimest truths and most awful mysteries. of revelation bandied
about amongst boys, as the common and hourly topics of disputation ;
whilst the parties of, combatants on every subject are equally matched,
and falsehood and. truth, infidelity and religion, maintained by equal num
bers. Under such circumstances of education, it has been truly remarked
in reference to Dr. Priestley, that in the course which, by his own account,
he steered in his theological opinions, there is nothing to excite surprise.
" A Calvinist at twelve^; becoming an Arminian at eighteen ; at twenty-
one an Ariah ; at twenty-four a denier of his Saviour, and a disbeliever in
the inspiration of the Scriptures. — Miserable infatuation ! (it is justly
added) to set the strippling on a sea, of which he knows neither the
soundings nor the shore ; and calmly to see him rush to every point of the
compass, before he knows the bearings of any!"
But this Academy, which was " in a state so peculiarly favourable to the
serious pursuit of truth," was distinguished by other circumstances enu
merated by Dr. Priestley, which were perhaps not less favourable to that
end, than those which have been already named. J1 There Was no pro
vision for teaching the learned languages. We had even no compositions,
or orations, in Latin. Our course of lectures was also defective, in con
taining no lectures on the Scriptures or on ecclesiastical history ; and by
the students in general (and Mr. Alexander and myself were no excep
tions,) commentators in general, and ecclesiastical history also, were held
in contempt." — (Memoirs of Dr. Priestley, p. 21.) — Thus, all the pre
judices of ancient learning, which might have acted as so many clogs
upon. the youthful genius, were completely removed; and nothing hindered
the boy of the academy from fancying himself at once arrived at that goal,
which, in the more measured walks of science, the matured student feels
many laborious efforts still requisite to attain.
* P. 10. f P- H-
Vol. 2— 18

138 APPENDIX.
can more aptly convey my ideas of Mr. B.'s scheme, than those
with which he has here supplied roe : for, strange as this gentle
man and those who think with him may affect to consider the
charge, they by no means follow up their principles to their just
and necessary consequences ; nor, whilst they boast in a loud
and exulting tone of their dauntless pursuit after truth, -have
they always the courage to be cpnsistent throughout, and to
advance boldly in the face of those conclusions, which to any
intelligent and unprejudiced mind could not fail to evince " the
falsehood and impiety " of the system. But Mr. B. himself has
well remarked, that " the natural and necessary consequences of
principles are the same, whether the advocates of such princi
ples are apprized of them or not, and whether they do or do
not choose to contemplate and avow them :"* and fact com
pletely proves, what reason would obviously suggest, that, where
the principles of this new sect have been fairly and honestly
followed on to their legitimate consequences, the system of reve
lation, and m many cases of theism, has been entirely thrown
up as a heap of mummery and priestcraft. To cite particular
instances were invidious ; but they are numerous, and could
easily be adduced.
By what has been said it is, however, far from my intention to
charge either Dr. Priestley or Mr. Belsham with a disingenuous
attempt to escape from such consequences as naturally flow from
the opinions which they maintain. No, I believe them both to
be incapable of duplicity. But, originally educated, as both con
fess to have been, in the strictest tenets of that creed whose dis
tinguishing doctrines they now reject, and having at an early
age entertained a full conviction of the truth and importance of
the Christian scheme, some latent influence of their first persua
sion naturally remaining, they cannot now release themselves
entirely from a Christian belief. Strangely as they have altered
and disfigured the structure, the foundation still remains. The
first impressions of the youthful mind are not easily effaced.
And fortunately for these gentlemen, something of " what the
nurse and priest have taught" still continues, in spite of their
* P. 11;

APPENDIX. 139
boast to the contrary, to retain a secret hold upon their thoughts.
To have a fair experiment of the system, we must look to its
effects upon those, who have never known Christianity but in
the Unitarian dress of Mr. Belsham and Dr. Priestley. Ex
amine these, and behold its genuine fruits.
How then can we admit the truth of Mr. B.'s assertion, that
the' numbers of this sect daily* increase ? In one way, indeed, but
in that way only, can it bear any resemblance to fact. Men,
who, having rejected the Christian revelation, are yet restrained,
by a regard to opinion and decorum, from openly abdicating the
Christian name, may find it not inconvenient to rank themselves
of a class, whose latitude of opinion can occasion but little
embarrassment to that freedom -for which they contend : and

* The writer of a judicious paper in a late periodical publication
makes the following observations on the nature of the Unitarian or
Socinian sect and on the unlikelihood of its extension : - — " Socinianism
must ever from its nature be the most harmless of all heresies, the least
contagious of all the varieties of human opinion. It has been called,
and how aptly the. history of its Hackney Academy and all its other
institutions may prove, the half-way house to infidelity : but it should
be remembered, that many who set out on ,the pilgrim's-progress of
inquiry, take up their place of rest there, who, if there were no such-
inn upon tho road, would infallibly proceed to Doubting Castle. It is
a system which saves men from utter unbelief more frequently than it
tempts them to it ; and . it never can become a popular "doctrine. It
appeals to the vanity of the half-learned, and the pride of the half-rea
soning: but it neither interests the imagination, nor "awakens the feel
ings, nor excites the passions, nor satisfies the wants of the human
heart. Hence it must ever be confined, to a few scanty congrega
tions composed wholly of the reading class, and is equally incapa
ble of producing either extensive good or extensive evil."— Quar
terly Review, vol. iv. p. 485. With this writer I entirely agree in the
opinion, that this jejune and cheerless heresy is not likely to be
embraced by many : but that, so far as its influence does extend, it will
be found productive of great evil without, any countervailing good, is,
I think, as evident, as that such an effect must follow from a derelic
tion of all the leading tenets of a Christian's belief: nor I confess, does
it appear to me a matter of much consequence, whether the traveller,
of whom the Reviewer speaks; proceeds on his entire journey, or stops
short at the inn which Unitarianism provides for him on the way.

140 APPENDIX.
thus Mr. B. may possibly reckon among the residents of his
" mansion," many who are content to sojourn there, on account
of its commodious neighbourhood to that region, which they
regard as their true and proper home.
One proof, however, Mr. B. produces of his assertion, which
might not have occurred to many, and which is entitled to a
more than ordinary degree of attention ; namely, that " there
are thousands" of those professing themselves of the Establish
ed Church, who think with him, " but are deterred by secular
considerations, and the harsh spirit of the times, from avowing
their real principles."* Indeed, according to the charitable
notions entertained by Mr. B. in common with Dr. Priestley,t
of the character of those who maintain the National Faith, it
is not surprising, that this should appear, to minds so prepared,

* P. 227.
t Mr. Belsham's liberal views of the character of the clergy of the
Established Church have been already noticed in this Appendix, pp.
125, 126. Dr. Priestley's representations are of a nature equally com
plimentary. In his Hist, of Cor. vol. i. p. 147. he says of the Trini
tarians of the present age, that " they are all reducible to two classes,
viz. that of those who, if they were ingenuous, would rank with Soci-
nians, believing that there is no proper divinity in Christ besides that
of the Father; or else with Tritheists, holding three equal and distinct
Gods," Having thus distributed the whole body of professed Trini
tarians between Insincerity and Ignorance, he afterwards, in the con
clusion of the same work, (vol. ii. p. 471.) narrows his attention to the
clerical part of that body, pronouncing their arguments in defence of
the system they support, to be " so palpably weak, that it is barely
possible they should be in earnest :" by which it is not difficult to dis
cover, to which of the two classes before named the Established clergy
were in his opinion to be consigned.— That Dr. Priestley should in
deed, have imagined, that many, who rejected the doctrines of the
Established Church, might yet be found among the ranks of its pro
fessed teachers, may well be supposed, when we recollect, that he
deliberately advised Mr. Lindsey to retain his preferments in the
Church, at the same time that he laboured to undermine its creed:
an advice, however, which the Rector of Catterick was too honest to
comply with, although it might not be unpalatable to certain oiergy-
men of the present day; such as Mr. Fellowes and Mr. Stone.

APPENDIX. 141
with all the circumstances of probability. And certainly no
argument can be more convenient : from no combination of
events can its force suffer any diminution, and from no inge
nuity of reply can it ever meet refutation. Though the entire
host of those professing the pure Christianity of the Unitarian
were ostensibly- reduced to Dr. P. and himself, yet by the appli
cation of this argument, aided by a portion of that faith, which,
not having been largely expended on other subjects, Mr. B.
might have to bestow in abundance on this and similar occa
sions, I should .not be surprised to find him solacing himself
even then with- the satisfactory persuasion, that the, " glorious
period" was fast approaching,- in which " the Unitarian church"
was about to " comprehend, in its ample enclosure, the whole
Christianized world :"* the prejudices and interests of mankind
causing but, a temporary and artificial suppression of those sen
timents, which must necessarily and universally prevail. This
argument, then, I must admit to be wholly unanswerable.
- Dr. Priestley has indeed advanced, that he " never knew a
single instance of any person, who was once well grounded in
Unitarian principles, becoming an unbeliever." 1 If the be
coming an unbeliever be admitted as the proper proof of an
antecedent deficiency of confirmation in Unitarian principles,
the position is a safe one. But if Dr. P. means to say, that
the influence of Unitarian principles is unfavourable to infide-
Utyt it need only to be replied; that the fact speaks a language
directly the reverse. For it is notorious, and it will require no
small degree of hardihood to deny it; that, from those who have
professed Unitarianism in England the largest stock of unbe
lievers has arisen : nay more, that their principal Academy, the
place in which Unitarian principles were inculcated in their
greatest purity, and with, every advantage of zealous ability in
the teacher, and of unbiassed docility in the learner, has borne
witness to the efficacy of those principles, by its dissolution, im
periously demanded'by the prevalence of Infidel opinions. Now
in what way shall we account for this event? Was Unitarian-

* Review, p. 266. t Theol. Repos. vol. iv. p. 24.

142

APPENDIX.

ism not properly taught at Hackney ? Or, with all its vaunted
simplicity, it is a scheme so difficult to conceive, that the learners,
not being able to comprehend it riglitly,* became unbelievers
from' not having been firmly grounded ? Howsoever it be
explained, the fact is incontrovertible, and seems not a little to
countenance the idea, that the road to Unitarianism differs- from
that which leads to Infidelity by so slight a distinction, that the
traveller not unfrequently mistakes his way. And surely," if,
with Mr. Wilberforce, we suppose the station of the former to
be placed at no great distance from the confines of the latter, it
is not surprising that they, who in the morning of life begin
their journey from this advanced stage, should be able to finish
the entire course with ease ; whilst those, who do not reach it
till the evening of their days, may have some indisposition to1
proceed, especially if, from early habits, they had been taught
to feel a salutary horror of those regions that lie beyond.
One difficulty, amounting to paradox, which attaches to this
entire system, yet remains to be noticed. It might appear to such
as have been used to consider Christianity as something more
than natural religion with a superadded proof of a future state of
retribution, that they who hold this to be the sum of the Chris-.
tian scheme must, at the same time, reject the writings of the
New Testament, or at least all those parts that go beyond the
mere facts, of the life and resurrection of Christ. Mr. B., how
ever, informs us in what manner the Unitarians, whilst they
retain the title of Christians by acknowledging the authority of
the New Testament, yet contrive to preserve their "simple
creed,"" unaffected by those important truths which it contains.
There are two ways in which the Avoid of Revelation and a
system of religious, belief .may be made to square. One is, by
conforming our belief to Revelation : the other, by adjusting

* Indeed, Mr. B. seems to represent Unitarianism as a matter com
plicated, and difficult to be understood. For the total rejection of
Christianity by some of his Unitarian brethren, he assigns the follow
ing reasons: — " They either did not understand their principles j or
they were perplexed with difficulties which perhaps patience and
attention might have solved ; or," &c. — Review, p. 265.

APPENDIX. 143
Revelation to our belief. The latter is that chosen by Mr. B.
and his Unitarian associates ; and, accordingly, the New Tes
tament, and the creed of the Unitarian, are, at the same time,
without difficulty retained.
Of the mode of adjustment Mr. B. exhibits a perfect speci
men.. " Christ," he says, " being described in the New Testa
ment as a man, having appeared as a man, having called him
self a man, — having had all the accidents of a man ; having
been born, having lived, eaten, drunk, slept, conversed, rejoiced,
wept, suffered, and died, as other men," there is sufficient reason
to pronounce him really such : no farther proof can be required :
and the onus probandi, he contends, lies with them, who
" maintain that he was something more than man :" and what
ever texts of Scripture can be adduced in support of that opinion,
he adds, " the Unitarians pledge themselves to show, that they
are all either interpolated, corrupted, or misunderstood :" * in
short, they engage to get clearly rid of them in some way or other.
Either the passage should have no place in Scripture ; or, if it
must be admitted, it should appear under some different modi
fication : or, if the present reading must be allowed, it is wrong
ly interpreted by -all but Unitarians ; and sometimes even the
subject originally misunderstood by the inspired writer himself :
until, at length, the Sacred Volume is completely discharged of
all that exceeds the convenient, portable creed of the Unitarian.
This, it will be allowed, is, in Mr. B.'s own words, " making
Scripture with a witness ;"f and exhibits no mean specimen of
my Lord Peter's ingenious device, in extracting the legitimate
meaning of his father's, will : the "totidem syllabis," or at all
events the " totidem Uteris," cannot fail to supply the deficiencies
of the " totidem verbis." %
Lest, however, these ingenious modes of eliciting the sense
of Scripture should be deemed too Dold, Mr. B. supplies a deci
sive reason to prove, that the Unitarian alone is duly qualified to
form a sound judgment in matters of sacred criticism. To com
prehend the true import of Scripture, he informs us,

* Review, pp. 270, 271, 272. t Id. p. 116.
X Tale of a Tub, sect., ii.

144 APPENDIX.
time, labour, patience, and candour." * How then could it be ex
pected, that any but the aforesaid moral teachers of Christianity
should rightly ascertain its meaning ? That this laborious, pa
tient, and candid expurgation of Scripture, whereby every pas
sage intimating the divine nature of Christ is completely ex
punged, or new modelled so as to speak a different language,
shall be stigmatized by the harsh representation, of " mangling
and altering the translation to the mind " of the Unitarian, as
Mr. Fuller and Mr. Wilberforce have, it seems, very uncivily
described it, only serves to recall to Mr. Belsham's " recollection
the honest quaker's exclamation, O argument ! O argument !
the Lord rebuke thee : "¦ X the argument being, without ques-

* Review, p. 272.
f This animated and delicate species of irony is, with Mr. Belsham, a
favourite mode of treating his literary antagonists. Having, in his contro
versy with Mr. Carpenter, established the inconsistency of man's freedom
with the divine foreknowledge, on such principles, that, as he modestly
affirms, " no proposition in Euclid admits of a more perfect demonstration,;
he suddenly recollects himself,— " But all this is metaphysical reasoning \
and why should we puzzle ourselves with metaphysical subtiltiesl" And
then in a spirit of humanity, sympathizing most tenderly with his galled and
lacerated opponent, he exclaims, — " O naughty metaphysics .' thus cruelly
to impale a worthy well-meaning gentleman, upon the horns of a goring
dilemma, and to leave him writhing and smarting there without relief. — I
am sorry for my friend's unfortunate situation." (Lett, on Arian. p. 47.)
And so he goes on grieving for the cruel discomfiture which he had himself
caused to his friend ; but which, it seems, he could' not well have avoided,
from the uncommon keenness of his argumentative talent, and the piercing
potency of his metaphysics. — It should however be observed, to the credit
of Mr. Belsham, that he has not been influenced by any unworthy fear, to
withhold from the world, the knowledge of the nature and use of those all-
subduing weapons, which have never failed to secure to him such easy
triumphs in his controversial campaigns. The Logic and Metaphysics,
whereby he has laid many a sturdy combatant low,he has fairly given to the
public ; and it is now the fault of those; with whom he has henceforward to
contend, if they do not conceive with the same clearness, and reason with
the same precision, as himself.
On the work which exhibits these, and which, dignified with the title of
Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind and of Moral Philosophy, professes
to give, within the compass of one octavo volume, a most complete view

APPENDIX. 145
tion, all on the side of the Unitarian, whose modifications of the
Gospel, exhibiting it as a mere revival and confirmation of natural

of logics, morals, and metaphysics, I have had occasion already to offer
some remarks, in the preceding notes of this Appendix. Those remarks,
however, as they relate, for 'the most part, to detached topics, rather inci
dental to the main object of the work than essentially connected with it,
scarcely supply an adequate idea of its true value, and of the benefits
which must have accrued, in point of strict reasoning and just conceptions,
to the students of Hackney, and which are now held out by this publication
to the world at large. I shall here adduce a few specimens, which go more
immediately to its general excellence as a treatise of logical and metaphy
sical instruction. First, in the list of axioms we find the following, which
may prove the degree of caution with which our author proceeds. —
" Axiom 4. The agreement of two ideas with a third, cannot prove their
disagreement with each other." (P. Iii.) — By this, such reasoners as are
naturally led to conclude, that when two ideas agree with a third, they must
disagree with each other, are completely guarded against falling into this
vulgar error. Again, in the next page, we are apprized of a term, so cir
cumstanced, as that it may become ^.proposition ; namely, the major-term
in a Syllogism, whose major premise is a particular affirmative. For of
such a term he says, " If it be the subject, it is particularly taken as being
a particular propbsition ;" and again, " If it be the predicate, it is particu
larly taken as being an affirmative proposition." This will provide against
the errors of those, who might have conceived that the term would still re
main a term, and could never have turned into a proposition of any sort. —
Again, in the matter of Definition; we find much more of copiousness and
versatility than can be met with in ordinary treatises of logics and metaphy
sics. The definitions with which the work commences, aTe those of Per
ception, and Sensation. These and their concomitants we find thus various
ly propounded. 1. " Perception is the attention, which the mind pays to a variety of
impressionsmade upon it by external objects or by internalfeelings."
2. " Perception is the faculty by which we acquire sensations and
ideas."
3. " Sensationis the perception of an object by the organs of sense."
4. " Sensation is the faculty of acquiring certain internaWeelings, by
the impression of external objects upon the organs of sense."
5. " A Sensation is the impression made upon the mind by an object
actually present. "-
6. " Sensations are internal feelings, excited by the impressions of
external objects upon the organs of sense." See pp. vii. 10, 11.
15, 16.
Vol. 2.— 19.

146 APPENDIX.
religion, cannot fail to approve themselves to all " men of en
lightened minds ;" whilst the old orthodox fancies — that " the

Now, not only have we here a rich variety of definitions, but such as, by
a due combination of their powers, is found capable of engendering more.
Thus, if we combine the second and fifth, we obtain a new definition for
Perception ; namely, " the faculty by which we acquire impressions made
upon the mind," &c. : so that Perception finally turns out to be its own
producer, inasmuch as it seeks after and acquires those impressions, from
which, we are told in the.first definition, it derives its existence. Again, if
we combine the first and sixth, we obtain a more extensive and detailed
view of the nature of Perception : for since, in the latter, Sensations are
described as a species of " internal feelings," it follows that " Perception
is the attention which the mind pays to a variety of impressionsmade upon
it, 1. by external objects, 2. by SensationsY 3. by all other internal feel
ings." And, lastly, since by the fifth definition, " a Sensation is an im
pression made upon the mind," jfwe join this in friendly union with the
two former, we have then contained in the definition of Perception, " an
attention to impressions made upon the mind, by irnpressions whieh are
made upon the mind." I will follow this no farther. I do not pretend
to' exhaust the combinations and their results: these few periiaps may
satisfy the reader.
Of our author's uncommon powers in definition, I shall only give
one instance more . but that one cannot but be deemed sufficient, inas
much as it will show the possibility of deciding, in an instant, the
most difficult questions in metaphysics. '.' Volition is that state of
mind, which is immediately previous ,to actions which are called vo
luntary."-^" Natural Liberty, or, as it is more properly called, Phi
losophical Liberty, is the power of. doing an action, or its contrary,
all the previous circumstances remaining the same." (P. 227.) Now here
is the point of free- willat once decided: for, volition itself being included
among the previous circumstam es, it is a manifest contradiction in terms,
to suppose " the power of doing an action or its contrary, all the previous
circumstances remaining the same ;" since that supposes the power of act
ing voluntarily against a volition. After this, surely, Mr. Belsham might
have spared himself the trouble of the ninety-two pages which follow, as
his opponents must have been at once suffocated by the above definitions.
But the philosopher was determined to give the absurd advocate for free
will no quarter ; and therefore has dealt out, argument after argument, blow
after blow, until the adversary is no longer able to stand before him. He
was not even content, until he brought the evidence of mathematics to his
aid, to prove, ex absurdo, that philosophical liberty totally confounds the
distinction between virtue and vice. Thus, " for example, benevolence

APPENDIX. 147
corruption of human nature,- the atonement of the Saviour, and
the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit," are the prominent
doctrines of the Christian Revelation, — are left to the professors
of the National Faith ; interested and unprincipled men, who,
not believing the doctrines they uphold, " testify theirTegard to
the Scriptures by empty professions ;" or ignorant and blunder
ing bigots, who are led by a slavish and " blind submission to
vulgar interpretations."* It needs scarcely to be remarked, that,

without liberty is no virtue : malignity without liberty is no vice. Both
are equally in a neutral state. Add abortion of liberty tpbolh; benevo
lence instantly comes an eminent virtue, and malignity an odious vice. —
That is, if to equals you add equals the wholes will be unequal ;
than which nothing can be. more absurd .1" Dees the reader doubt that
these words are fairly quoted I Let him turn to pp. 258, 259. of the trea
tise, and satisfy himself that there is in the world, such a mathematician as
the author of the above proof. But I have done with this work. It must
by this time be clear, that in logics,- metaphysics, morals, and mathematics,
the students must have been well instructed at Hackney.
Having been led by the subject of this note to the mention of a combi
nation of metaphysical and mathematical reasoning almost too ludicrous
for serious observation, I cannot make better amends to the reader for such
a demand upon his patience, than by directing his attention to a very small
but valuable tract, entitled, The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity briefly
invalidated ; in which the author, Mr. Dawson of.Sedbergh, has most
happily effected that which has been here so unmeaningly caricatured :
having enlisted the accuracy and brevity of mathematics (a science with
which he is so well acquainted) in the cause of metaphysics ; and having
thereby been enabled to plant the standard of Phdosophical Liberty on a
strength, from which the advocates of the [opposite dqctrine have not
¦found it convenient to attempt to dislodge him. One faint effort indeed
was made by a writer in the Monthly Review for July 1781. But this was
so easily repelled by the author in a second edition of his Tract, that, so
far as I can learn, the attempt has not-been repeated:
* For these iwo descriptions -of characters, and for that of the Unita
rians, placed in direct opposition to both, as ,the only " enlightened and
consistent Christians," the reader may turn to what Mr. B. has said,
Review, pp. 26W30. 196. 199. 220. 230. 233. ' Indeed it should be stated in
justice to Mr. B., that the charges of incompetency, insincerity, and slav
ish adherence to popular systems, are not confined by him to the divines
of the Established Church. Some not a little distinguished amongst the
Dissenters, are examples of the impartiality of his strictures. Even the

148

APPENDIX.

among the virtues of the new system, modesty seems not to
occupy, any more than charity, a very distinguished place.
1 For the fulfilment of the engagement, to overturn every in
terpretation of Scripture that wars with the simple creed of the
Unitarian, Mr. B. refers us, — for he has not thought proper to
undertake the task himself, — to a list of commentators, on whose
critical exertions he is willing to rest his cause. Here we find,
in addition to some respectable names, and to some from whom
his peculiar opinions will not receive much support, the names
of " Wakefield, Evanson, Lindsey, and Priestley."* These last
being the only persons now t living, of those whom he has enu-

pious, candid, and learned Doddridge had adopted an " erroneous and un-
scriptural system." " His love of popularity," with other causes, had
" strangely warped his' judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures ;""
and his works are, consequently, " not calculated to instruct his readers
in the true sense of the Christian' Scriptures, nor to infuse into them a
spirit of rational and manly piety." (Pp. 102, 103. 213, 214.) He had
unfortunately retained some of those old-fashioned notions about atonement
and grace, which have been vulgarly supposed to distinguish Christianity
from natural religion. He was not, in short, a Rational Dissenter : for it
is not from the members of the Establishment solely, but from the various
other classes of dissenters, that the grand characteristic of Rationality
divides the Unitarian.
* Review, p. 206.
f It is matter of melancholy reflection, that of the above-named writers,
all actively engaged in the propagation of their respective opinions When
the first edition of this work was published, not one is at this day living.
So rapidly do we all pass off in this fleeting scene of things ! — Respect*
ing those who, no longer live to answer for themselves, I confess I feel
somewhat of the force of the maxim, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. And
yet, when it is considered, that though the man dies, the author lives ; that
the interests of the living should not be sacrificed to a sentiment unpro
fitable to the dead; that, on the contrary, were the deceased himself to
rise from the grave,, he would probably feel it his first duty to oppose those
very errors which he had before been industrious to disseminate ; — there
seems no good reason, why any greater delicacy should now be used in
treating of the pernicious mistakes and misconceptions of such writers,
than had formerly been observed ; more particularly as the subject is in
finitely too important for compromise. " Nee nocet Veritas mortuis, et
multum prodest vivis," is undoubtedly a maxim deserving some eonsidera»

APPENDIX. 149
merated as the great oracles of Gospel interpretation, to these of
course he must principally refer, when he affirms, as we have
seen, that " the Unitarians pledge themselves " to get rid of every
passage in Scripture that militates against the principles of their
system. Now, I do agree with Mr. B., that if he had traversed
the entire range of all who profess to have a single shred of
Christianity hanging to them, he could not have found a phalanx
more admirably fitted, by the apparatus of " interpolations, omis
sions, false readings, mistranslations, and erroneous interpreta
tions,"* to empty Scripture of every idea, that does not corres
pond with the pure Christianity of those who call themselves
Unitarians. Paine could not well have been added to the list.
He most imprudently strikes down all at once, and would
brush away the flimsy cobwebs of both Old and New Testa
ment, at one stroke. But,- certainly more t resolute expungers,

tion. I have, then, on the entire view of the case, neither retracted nor
softened any observation applying to the works of the above-named au
thors, unless where I have had cause to doubt the truth and justice of the
observation itself.
* Review, p. 206.
t Dr. Geddes has travelled too slowly through the Old Testament, to
entitle him, by his meritorious services in the New, to a place in the
present list. But from the liberal views which the part of his trans
lation already published, joined to his late volume of Critical Re
marks, presents, concerning the false representations of the Deity in
the Pentateuch, — the cruel and sanguinary character of the God of
the Hebrews, — the juggle of the miracles said to be wrought by
Moses,— the incredible number of prodigies not literally to be believed,
—the frequent interposition of the Deity and his agents, not to be
admitted, — the absurdity of attributing inspiration to the writers of
the early books of the Old Testament,— (he error, inconsistence, and
downright absurdity, to be found in the Hebrew writings, from
which their inspiration cannot be credited, even on the authority of
St. Paul, or though an angel from heaven were to teach it, — the
information of the Hebrew historians derived from public registers,
popular traditions, and old songs, — from these, and other observa
tions of a similar nature, there is offered a reasonable promise, that
when this translator of the books accounted sacred shall have
extended his researches to the New Testament, and thereby clearly
made known his scheme of Christianity, he will prove himself fully

150

APPENDIX.

parers, and diversifiers of Sacred Writ, he could not have dis
covered in the whole tribe of polemics. Of their powers in this
way some few specimens have been exhibited, in the foregoing
Dissertations; and, from the notable exertions of master-criti
cism, which have been there occasionally noticed, little doubt
can be entertained of the sufficiency of these writers to fulfil
the engagement entered into on their behalf by Mr. Belsham.
Our author himself, indeed, has favoured us with but few
displays of his critical ingenuity. Those few, however, prove
him by no means unworthy of the cause which he supports.
The two passages, which expressly ascribe the office of interces
sion to Christ, are, (Rom. viii. 34.) He is now at the right
hand of God, making intercession for us ; and, (Hebr. vii.
25.) He ever liveth to 'make intercession for us. Now, as
Mr. B. cannot allow to Christ the officeof intercessor, he begins
with remarking, that " the exact import of the phrase is diffi
cult to be ascertained" in these passages : and for this he assigns
a reason, which cannot be denied to be sufficient, that "proba
bly the writers themselves annexed to it no very distinct
idea." * St. Paul, it is clear, was no Rational Christian ; or
he would not have used words so inaccurately and unphilosophi-
cally ; for, besides the aforesaid vagueness of expression, it is
certain, that " God has no right hand at which Jesus can
stand, to intercede !"t By this philosophical , discovery, the

entitled to have his name enrolled among the most enlightened of Mr.
B.'s Unitarian commentators. When we find him thus freely concur
ring with Lord Bolingbroke, in pronouncing the God of Moses to be
"partial, unjust, and cruel, delighting in blood, commanding assassina
tions, massacres, and even exterminations of people," can we doubt
that he will agree with his Lordship, and other philosophic inquirers
in viewing the God of Paul in a light equally unworthy of our reli
gious adoration ? — —Bolingbroke's Works, vol. v. p. 567.— Aio. 1754.
The earthly career of Dr. Geddes has been closed since the above
was written : nor did he live long enough to carry his mischievous
perversions of Scripture beyond the limit of the Pentateuch and the
historical books. * Review, pp. 69, 70, f Review, p. 70.

APPENDIX. 151
authority of St. Paul is completely and at once set aside. His
words, it is shown, admit no precise meaning. That, however,
which St. Paul ought to have said, Mr. B. informs us : viz.
" that Jesus, having been advanced to great dignity and felicity,
is, by the appointment of God, continually employing his renovat
ed and improved powers, some unknown way, for the benefit
of his church.'' We are told, that " we may imagine what
we please, but that more than this is not revealed ; '' of which
it unfortunately happens, that not one word is revealed — except
by Mr. Belsham : St. Paul having simply said, that Christ is
now at the right hand of God, making intercession for us.
— God, however, has not right hand; and interceding does
not mean interceding*

* Mr. Belsham's remark on the force of the original word, rendered
by us, making intercession, deserves to be noticed. " The word," he
says, " expresses any interference of one person for or against an
other." Now, from this it follows, that if Christ be not supposed to
interfere for us, he must be employed in exercising his powers against
us. Does Mr. B. prefer this to the received sense ? It appears, how
ever, that he has borrowed his view of this passage from Dr. Taylor's
note on Rom. viii. 27., as he refers us to that for full satisfaction. Such
then is the joint light of Dr. Taylor and Mr. Belsham. But it seems
necessary to remind Mr. B. of the difference between wwj^aW xdi-a,
and ivTuy%aveiy Cwig. I must therefore take the liberty of referring him
to his Lexicon. Or, if he will look to Commentators, perhaps were he
to consult Locke and Pierce, — two of those very commentators whom
he himself has named, but seems to have namedonly asgiving a grace
and character to his list, whilst they certainly deserved to have been
placed in better company, — he would find their interpretation decidedly
in favour of that, which no scholar can question to be the sense of the
original, interceding. As the authority of a German commentator is
likely also to have considerable weight with Mr.B., I would recom
mend it to him to attend to Rosenmuller's distinction, (Rom. xi. 2.) —
" 'Evnyximv wreg tms, est negotium alicajus commendare, intercedere
pro aliquo ; ivny^amt x-vri rim;, est aliquem accusare ;" so say s Schleus-
ner likewise (who deserves to be particularly consulted on the word
it<ruyx<*"»,) and so say all the Lexicons. Mr. B., however, says other
wise. " Time, labour, patience, and candour," have, no doubt, con
vinced him that they are wrong.

152

APPENDIX.

With a few other criticisms of the like nature Mr. Belsham
has enriched his work. He has, however, not adventured
As Mr. B. has- referred to Dr. Taylor, for the true and adequate sense
of the original word in these passages, it is but fair to state that writ
er's observations on the force of the term as applied in Rom. viii. 27.
" The spirit of God makes intercession for the saints, not by making
application to God on their behalf, but by directing and qualifying their
supplications in a proper manner, by his agency and influences upon
their hearts ; which, according to the Gospel scheme, is the peculiar
¦Work and office of the holy spirit." What then ? Is Dr. Taylor,
he who has so " well explained the Jewish phrases in his admirable
Key," — is he, after all, but one of those " popular interpreters," who,
in opposition to the "Rational Christian," contend for the idle notion
of the existence and influence of the Holy Spirit? And does he, to
whom Mr. B. refers, for a full explanation of the original phrase com
monly rendered in the sense of making intercession for MS, expound
the words invyxamv i/Vsg, when applied to the Holy Spirit, as signifying
that benevolent interference, whereby our supplications are rendered
more acceptable and effectual with our Almighty Father ? The same
words, it is clear, cannot be instantly purged of this meaning, when
they are applied by the same writer, in a few lines after, to the case of
our blessed Lord : so that I fear much, that, when Mr. B. comes to
reconsider this matter, he will be obliged to repudiate his boasted aux
iliary, Dr. Taylor, as little belter than orthodox.
What, had been thus given, in the former editions of this work, as
matter of speculation, has now become matter of fact : Mr. Belsham,
in his latter views of this subject, has carefully omitted the mention of
Dr. Taylor. He finds it much safer to place his reliance on Mr. Lind-
sey ; an authority which is not likely to fail him in any Unitarian per
version of the sense of Scripture. And, with his assistance, having
first explained the word \vrvy%xiui, as expressing any kind of inter
ference whatever, he arrives at this conclusion, that what is called the
intercession of Christ implies the " operation and effect of his mission
and doctrine in the world." (Calm Inquiry, &c. p. 327.) In like
manner the Unitarian Versionv to which he refers, and in which proba
bly he but quotes himself. For an admirable exposure of the absurd
ity of the interpretation thus given by Mr. Belsham and his Unitarian
Version, I refer the reader to Dr. Nares's Remarks, p. 140 — 144. I
shall only add, for the purpose of showing how miserably unfit the
Editors of this Version are for the work which they have undertaken,
that in their note on this word in Rom. viii. 34., whilst they profess to
give the interpretation of it by Schleusner, (an authority to which I

APPENDIX. 153
far into the field of controversy. He has trusted rather to ab
stract reasoning, upon what he calls philosophical principles ;
and whilst he has confined himself to the stringing together of
a number of rapid conclusions from plausible premises, or to
what is vulgarly styled * declamation, he has left it to the more

had formerly taken the liberty of referring Mr. Belsham,) they garble
and actually falsify his application of the term ; and again, that in
their note on the same word in Hebr. vii. 26., they repeat the identical
error of reference into which Schleusner had fallen, quoting Acts
xxvii. 24., instead of Acts xxv. 24. : and this too, whilst they are en
gaged in enumerating the precise parts of the New Testament in which
the word is to be found, and would have us believe that they have con
sulted those very passages for its meaning : thus evincing, at the same
time, their servile adherence to any authority on which they may choose
to rely, and their negligent rashness united with affected research in
matters relating to the accuracy of the sacred text.
* One of the finest possible specimens of the species of criticism that
goes by this name, is to be found in another publication of Mr. Belsham's,
which I have already noticed, entitled Letters on Arianism. At p. 129.
of that work, he attacks the absurdity of deducing from the language used
throughout the New Testament respecting the creation of all things by
Jesus Christ, the strange conclusion, that by him a creation was literally
effected. He admits, indeed, that in Ephesians iii. 9. it is said, that " God
created all things by Jesus Christ :" — that in Heb. i. 2. it is said, " by
whom also he made the worlds :" — and again in Colossians i. 15, 16.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature :
for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in
earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or prin
cipalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him : and he
is before all things, and by him all things consist." But after launching
against these, the usual Socinian refutations, — that creating does not mean
creating, and that worlds are dispensations, &c. &c. — he proceeds, by a
still happier flight, to show that the same language is as applicable to
Bonaparte as to Jesus Christ. I give his words. — " Of a certain person,
who now makes a very considerable figure in the world, it may be said with
truth, so far as the civil state of the continent of Europe is concerned,
that he is the creator of all these new distinctions, high and low, whether
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all these things are
made by him, and for him, and he is before them all, takes precedence both
in time and dignity, and by him do all these things consist. Yet who
would infer from such language as this, that the present ruler of France is
Vol. 2.-— 20

154

APPENDIX.

critical advocates of Unitarianism to prove, that the words of
Scripture bear that meaning which he every where assumes.
Indeed, this work, the professed object of which is to try the doc
trines of the Gospel by the standard of Scripture, no less than
by that of reason, is so miserably deficient in the point of critical
inquiry, that its avowed admirers, the Analytical Reviewers,
feel it necesary to admit, whilst they endeavour to vindicate, this
defect. — " We have said, this is a popular work. The reader
must not look into it for verbal criticism, or the citation of ancient
authority." But they add, in excuse, " the work to which it is
a reply, was altogether declamation."* And if so, it has un
doubtedly been answered in its own way.
I have now done with Mr. Belsham ; nor should I have di
rected the attention of the reader so much to this gentleman's
performance, had I known anyt other work, than the Review

a being of superior order to mankind, much less that he is the maker of the
world % The language which is true of Bonaparte, in a civil sense, is
applicable to Jesus Christ in a moral view ; but it no more implies pre-
existence, or proper creative power, in one case than in the other. n\ — This
comment of Mr. Belsham requires no comment from me.
* Review for March, 1798.
t That part of the Unitarian creed, which relates to the person and
character of our Lord, has received some additional touches from the
hand of Mr. Belsham, in a work recently published ; which he entitles,
A calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of
Christ ; and in which he professes to give a formal digest of the re
cognised opinions of the Unitarians upon this subject in the year 1811.
Of this digest I select the few passages which follow. — " The Unitarian
doctrine is, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man constituted in all respects
like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, pre
judices, and frailties," — "that he was born in low circumstances, having
no peculiar advantages of education, or learning," &c. — " The Unitari
ans maintain, that Jesus and his Apostles were supernaturally instructed
as far as was necessary for the execution of their commission, that is, for
the revelation and proof of the doctrine of eternal life, and that the fa
vour of God extended to the Gentiles equally with the Jews ; and that
Jesus, and his Apostles, and others of the primitive believers, were occa
sionally inspired to foretel future events. But they believe that superna
tural inspiration was limited to these cases alone : and that when Jesus or
his Apostles deliver opinions upon subjects unconnected with the pbject of

APPENDIX. 155
of Mr. Wilberforce' s Treatise, in which the entire system
and bearings of the doctrines called Unitarian are exhibited

their mission, such opinionsj and their reasonings upon them, are to be
received with the same attention and caution with those of other persons
in similar circumstances, of similar education, and with similar habits of
thinking." (Pp. 447. 451.) Here then is an improved view of the case :
a manifest progress in the Unitarian system. The supernatural instruc
tion vouchsafed to our Lord was strictly limited to the object of his mis
sion: this object was, exclusively, to make known the doctrine of eternal
life, and the admission of the Gentiles to divine favour equally with the
Jews : in all matters not connected with this object, the opinions and
reasonings of our Lord are to be esteemed of no greater value than those
of any person of similar circumstances and education, he being subject to
the same ignorance and prejudices to which the common nature of man is
subject ; and as he was of low circumstances and had no peculiar advan
tages of education or learning, of course it follows, upon the whole, that
the opinions and reasonings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are
(except when they relate to the doctrine of a future life and universal
retribution) to be treated with as little respect, as those of any person
of low origin and circumstances who had received as few advantages
of learning or education. I have not carried on the argument as re
garding the Apostles, for Mr. Belsham and his associates have long
ago disposed of the Epistles. But how much of the Gospels must
now follow them as waste paper ?-- Yet farther, it is not merely the
ignorance and prejudices, to which our Lord was as subject as other
men, that we have to guard against in his opinions and reasonings on
all topics, save the one above excepted ; but we have also to secure
ourselves against the consequences of those infirmities and frailties
of all descriptions which are incident to human nature, and to which
our Lord was not less liable than other human beings. Thus, accord
ing to Mr. Belsham, the moral as well as the intellectual imperfections
which render the opinions and reasonings of men, and more particu
larly of men who have had no peculiar advantages of education or
learning, liable to error and exception, alike affect the opinions and
reasonings of our blessed Lord ; save only on that one subject, to
which, Mr. Belsham informs us, his commission was rigidly restricted.
As Mr. Belsham's language seems here to cast a reflection on the
moral character of our Lord, it is but justice to Mr. B. to state what
he has expressly said upon that point. "The moral character of
Christ, through the whole course of his public ministry, as recorded
by the Evangelists, is pure and unimpeachable in every particular.
Whether this perfection of character in public life, combined with the

156

APPENDIX.

with equal brevity, distinctness, and candour. To Mr. B. i3
certainly due the praise of an honest and open avowal of his
sentiments. And, in his work, as I doubt not in his life, are
exhibited strong traits of talent, combined with amiable and vir
tuous feeling. The same freedom with which he has treated
others, and with which, were he to offer any animadversions on
these volumes,* his pen would be directed towards me, I have

general declaration of his freedom from sin, establish, or were intend
ed to establish, the fact, that Jesus, through the whole course of his
private life, was completely exempt from all the errors and failings of
human nature, is a question of no great intrinsic moment, and con
cerning which we have ho sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory con
clusion," (p. 190.) Here Mr. Belsham admits, that we have no actual
proof of any sinful acts committed by our Lord in his private life, so
that we cannot positively and satisfactorily pronounce any thing upon
that head. But it must be observed, that this admission has been made
after the recital of certain declarations of Scripture, that " he knew no
sin;" that he was "holy, harmless, undefined, and separate from sin
ners;" that he "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth;"
and others of the same import :^although, as these declarations do not
relate to the object of Christ's mission as stated by Mr. Belsham, it is
difficult to discover to what credit they are entitled upon the principle
which he has laid down. In a distant part of his work, however, in
which he was sufficiently removed from the influence of the above
testimonies, and when he prepares himself to sum up resolutely the
articles of the Unitarian creed, he rises above the weakness into which
he had here allowed himself to fall; and (as we have seen in the two
preceding pages) affirms of that great Being, who came to redeem the
world from sin, that he was subject to the common infirmities and
frailties of human nature. It will not now appear surprising, that
Mr. Belsham and his Unitarian associates are so extremely anxious to
establish the apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes to be the true ori
ginal Gospel of St. Matthew : for that Gospel, as Jerem. Jones (a
favourite with the Unitarians) has shown, in his Method of settling
the Canonical Authority of the New Testament, vol. i. p. 376. has
left us reason to believe, that " Christ was a sinner, or at least that
it is doubtful whether he was so or not." I
* It is now more than fourteen years since the first publication of
this work : and, during that time, neither Mr. Belsham nor any of his
learned Unitarian fellow-labourers have, so far as I know, favoured the
public with any observations upon the arguments which it contains.

APPENDIX. 157
not scrupled to use with him. If I have misrepresented him,
it certainly has not been my intention. His language, I con
fess, has offended me by its arrogance : and perhaps the feeling
which that would naturally excite may have dictated a mode of
reply, not always sufficiently respectful. If any thing like
asperity or sarcasm has escaped me, I wish it to be considered
as applied to the cause, and to the manner of supporting it
rather than to the writer himself. His opinions, as undermin
ing the best interests of human kind ; and his style, like that
of all the writers of the same side of the question, as tending to
overbear by an imposing confidence of tone, and a familiar and
frontless assumption of superiority, can scarcely be received
without indignation,* or met without warmth. I do not pretend

Dr. Priestley, if I recollect rightly, about the year 1790, stated in one of
the public prints, that, his History of Early Opinions having remain
ed a long time unanswered, if the same silence should be observed
during a limited period which he specified, he would consider it as an
acknowledgment on the part of the whole Christian world that it was
unanswerable. In this I will not presume to follow Dr. Priestley's
example. It had better become Dr. Priestley to suppose, that his work
had not received an answer, because it was not deemed of sufficient
moment to demand one. It must surely become me to suppose the
same of mine. At the same time, I cannot but rejoice, that its recep
tion and circulation have been such as to give good reason to believe,
that there is no small portion of the community to whom it appears to
contain useful matter : and I shall certainly feel most sincere satisfac
tion, if it be allowed to continue to work its silent way without the
noise and the exasperation of controversy.
* I cannot allow myself to employ the term which Mr. B. does not
scruple to combine with this, on much slighter provocation, — " con
tempt." (Review, p. 64.) And yet, — to pass from Mr. Belsham to
the entire class of his fellow-labourers, and to speak, not of the indivi
dual, but of the cause at large, and of its champions, — what can be
more fitly calculated to excite even the feeling which that term ex
presses, than the impotent and arrogant attempts of a few loquacious
sciolists, directed against the sublime and solid -truths of Revelation?
Bishop Watson, whose tolerant moderation is the subject of general
praise, is forced to exclaim, that " it cannot but move one's indignation,
to see a smattering in philosophy urged as an argument against the
veracity of an Apostle." (Two Apologies, &c. p. 359.) — What shall

158

APPENDIX.

to have been free from the impression of these feelings. I trust,
however, I have not permitted them to carry me beyond the due

be said, when the same sort of smattering is employed to overturn the
whole edifice- of Christianity, to subvert the sanctioned wisdom of ages,
and to overwhelm in one shapeless ruin the joint structure of learning
and inspiration ? — The Dean of Winchester, who is so justly distin
guished for the brilliancy of his talents, the richness of his acquire
ments, and the eloquence and vigour of his style, has described the
modern Socinianism, as " consisting of a train of whimsical paradoxes,
the mere abortions of the mind ! strange without originality, dull
without sobriety, flippant without wit, and contagious without allure
ment." (Discourses on various Subjects, p. 145.) — A feature equally
appropriate, and more offensive, because more insulting and more mis
chievous, remains to be added to the picture; namely, an imposing
affectation of superior knowledge, without possessing any of its at
tainments. That grandest of all mischiefs, which an admired ancient
has described as, ' Ap^di* w pi*.* ^-txera, Smovu-a. ihaj //eyis-it <ffora«;, eminent
ly belongs to the race of modern Socinians, or Unitarians as they
choose to call themselves, and requires of course only to be unmasked
in order to be put down. To this, I confess, my efforts (throughout
this Appendix especially) have been particularly directed ; and so anx
ious have I been to effect this point, which in such a case I conceive
to be vita], that I have not hesitated to expose myself to those imputa
tions, which are generally cast upon the liberality and the politeness
of the writer, who scruples not to press home-truths in a direct man
ner, without fear, and without compromise. If I have had the good
fortune to accomplish this object, I am satisfied to submit to whatever
consequences may follow.
I am not, indeed, without the apprehension, that I may appear to as
sume somewhat too much in the application of the following passage
from Bishop Warburton ; and yet it approaches so nearly to the state
of my own feelings, in winding up this Appendix, that I cannot avoid
transcribing it. In speaking of the particular manner in which he had
thought it right to treat the pernicious sophistries which were op
posed to the fundamental truths of Christianity, that glowing and
powerful writer thus expresses himself. — "He knows what the gentle
reader thinks of it. But he is not one of those opposers of Infidelity,
who can reason without earnestness, and confute without warmth.
He leaves it to others, to the soft Divine, and courtly Controversialist,
to combat the most flagitious tenets with serenity ; or maintain the
most awful of religious truths in a way, that misleads the unwary
reader into an opinion of their making but little impression on the

APPENDIX. 159
limits. My object has been truth : and my wish, not unneces
sarily to hurt the feelings of Mr. B. or of those, who, with him,
assume the title of Unitarians. If, to the body of that de
nomination at large, I have attributed sentiments and opinions
which they do not recognise as justly imputable, it is to Mr.
Belsham, not to me, they are to ascribe the error. My repre
sentation of their peculiar tenets has been chiefly derived from
the work which he has given to the public with the express
purpose of promulging, and vindicating, the creed of the Unita
rians, or Rational Christians. If he has not been a faithful
interpreter of their opinions, it is for them to correct the mistake.
Hitherto that publication has been circulated, as the Unitarian
Manual ; and, whatever reception it may have experienced
from others, has certainly seemed to obtain among that descrip
tion of Christians no small portion of applause.

writer's own heart. For himself, he freely owns, he is apt to kindle
as he writes ; and would even blush to repel an insult on sense and
virtue with less vigour than every honest man is expected to show in
his own cause." — Remarks on Hume's Essay, &c. p. 12.

Such observations as have been added to the Appendix, since the
appearance of the first Edition of this work, it has been thought right
to introduce in the form of Notes, so as to leave the text (as it origin
ally stood) unaltered.

REMARKS

ON

THE UNITARIAN VERSION
or
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Ma. Belsham's engagement on behalf of the Unitarian
critics, to which allusion has been made at pp. 148. 150. of this
volume, has in fact been fulfilled by the Version of the New
Testament which has lately issued from the press ; and which,
as appears by a note on the beginning of the first Epistle of St.
John, has been founded principally upon the labours of those
able expositors and associates of Mr. Belsham, to whom we have
been there referred. I hold myself therefore now bound, in
point of justiee, to retract (so far at least as the New Testament
is concerned) what I had ventured to pronounce, in pp. 138,
139. of Vol. I., concerning' the unlikelihood of any Unitarian
version of the Scripture being, given to the public. It must
however be confessed, that, by what has been done, these Uni
tarian expositors have not much abridged the liberty for which
they so strenuously contend. Their version is of that conveni
ent latitude, that a person may, at the same time, admit its
authority, and yet disbelieve almost every doctrine, and every
important truth, of the Christian Revelation.
The Editors of this work have not, it must be observed, con
ducted themselves in the pubhcation of it with that manly
boldness, which they are at all times so ambitious to put forward
as their distinguishing characteristic. They have, on the con
trary, not scrupled to adopt one of those pious frauds, which
they are pleased to consider the ordinary expedients of their
Vol. 2.— 21

162 ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION
orthodox opponents. The name of a Bishop of the Established
Church was calculated to lull suspicion, and to contribute to a
more extended circulation ; and, accordingly, this Improved
Version, which they have now sent abroad, they profess to
found upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's transla
tion of the New Testament ; whilst, in truth, they adopt no
part of that translation, which in any degree shackles them in
point of doctrine, but. abide by it in such places only as are of a
nature perfectly indifferent. They have thus contrived to give
a respectable name to their Unitarian blasphemies. They thus
hold out deceitful colours to the unwary, and vend their poisons
under a false label.
To give any adequate idea of the nature of this Improved
Version within the limits to which we are here necessarily con
fined would be impossible. The reader may easily conceive
that the whole apparatus of " interpolations, omissions, false
readings, mistranslations, and erroneous interpretations," on
which, as we have seen, Mr. Belsham places so firm a reliance,
has been fully brought to bear, and has most thoroughly per
formed its work, in the forging of this last great production of
the Unitarian foundry. A few particulars, however, which
may suffice to give some faint notion of the design and execution
of the performance, I cannot but advert to.
In the Introduction of the work (p. v.) we are fairly apprized,
that it has been a principal part of its design, to " divest the
Sacred Volume of the technical phrases of a systematic theology."
— That is, in other words, we are told, that the great object has
been, so to render the New Testament, as to empty it of all such
expressions, as might give support to any of the received and
peculiar doctrines of Christianity. This appears pretty mani
festly to be what is here intended : for, agreeably to this, we
find that all those phrases, which in any way connect with the
unscriptural notions, of the miraculous conception, the pre-
existence, and the divinity of Christ, — the personal existence,
divine nature, and gracious influences of the Holy Spirit,
— the existence of evil spirits and angels, &c. — are complete
ly swept away ; and nothing left to us, but what perfectly agrees
with Mr. Belsham's idea, — that Christianity comprises a good

- OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 163
moral system, with indeed the knowledge of this one fact, that
a man has risen from the grave  In the next place we are
told, what sufficiently explains how this has been effected. It
is stated, that it has not been the intention, " to exhibit a version
critically correct in every minute particular ; " and that " verbal
criticism had of course not been attended to in the degree that
some might wish and expect." (p. vi.) — Thus we are fairly in
formed, that certain liberties are to be taken in the translation,
to which the minuteness of verbal criticism might possibly pre
sent some impediment. That is, in a work, whose very object
is to ascertain the exact meaning of words, the exact meaning
of words is not to be attended to. lest it might embarrass the
freedom of translation, and force upon the translator a sense
different from that which he chooses to assign. Gf what na
ture are those freedoms in translation, which have grown out
of the facilities, and are adapted to the objects, which the Editors
have here planned for themselves, I shall now give two or three
slight specimens.
The first which I shall mention relates to the doctrine of the
Incarnation, which is at once thrown off, by rejecting from the
beginning of the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Luke, the whole
of what belongs to the miraculous birth of our Lord. This has
been done, it must be allowed, with sufficient boldness ; for it is
fairly admitted, that these portions of the Gospels "are to be
found in all the MSS. and versions now extant." — Now it is
actually amusing to observe, what is the leading evidence, by
which the Editors conceive themselves justified, thus to expunge
from the canon pf Scripture, what has. come supported by the
testimony of all the Manuscripts and all the versions. With
respect to the passage in Matthew, they tell us, that the Ebion-
ites did not read the two first chapters in their copy of his Gos
pel; and with respect to St. Luke, they tell us, that Marcion, a
heretic of the 2d century, did not admit the two first chapters
of his. Therefore, it follows, that since the sect of the Ebionites,
and the heretic Marcion of the 2d century, are against all the
Manuscripts, and all the Versions, it is impossible that these last
can be received as true. The argument is certainly quite intel-

164

ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION

ligible. But let us inquire a little about these irrefragable wit
nesses. And, first, as to these Ebionites, we are informed, that their
Canon of the New Testament rejected the three last Gospels,
and all the Epistles of St. Paul. And, next, as to this Marcion,
we find, that he rejected the Old Testament, and every part of
the New which contained quotations from the Old, and that he
used no Gospel but that of St. Luke, expunging from this also
whatever he did not approve : and we are told these things too,
upon the very authority, on which the Editors build, respecting
the omissions from St. Matthew and St. Luke. — Why then have
not these admirers of Marcion and the Ebionites received the
testimony of such unimpeached witnesses throughout 1 Why
have they not, on the authority of the latter, rejected all the
New Testament except St. Matthew ; or, on the authority of
the former, rejected the entire of the Old Testament, and all the
New excepting a part of St. Luke and some of the Epistles : or,
on the authority of both together, why have they not rejected
the whole Bible, both Old and New Testament? — But it
seems, that these witnesses are to be brought up and turned
down at pleasure : they are both good and bad, according as
may serve the present purpose. For, not only do we find, that
they are not believed, by the party producing them, in any part
of their testimony except that which relates to the beginnings
of the two Gospels ; but we find that, even in these, they are
believed only so far as is convenient : our Editors themselves
admitting, that the Ebionites had mutilated the Gospel of St.
Matthew, by taking away the genealogy; that is, by taking
away the first 16 verses of the first chapter. And therefore
respecting these first 16 verses, the Editors reject the testimony
of the Ebionites as being convicted of a mutilation of the Gos
pel ; but as to the remaining verses of the first chapter and the
whole of the second, they hold the testimony of these same
Ebionites to be good against all gainsayers, against all Manus
cripts, and against all Versions. — All this is put forward honestly
and without any attempt at disguise. The Ebionite witnesses
pronounced, on one side of a leaf, as not credible, from their
acknowledged mutilation of the sacred text ; and upon the other

OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. 165
side of the same leaf, maintained to be witnesses of such repute,
as ought to be relied upon, in opposition to all the MSS. and all
the Versions of the New Testament in the whole world.
But that we may form a better judgment of the value of this
Ebionite testimony according to the showing of its Unitarian
abettors, let us attend to a few more particulars on this head.
The gospel of the Ebionites began, it is said, with these words,
It came to pass in the days of Herod, King of Judea,
that John came baptizing with the baptism of repentance
in the river Jordan. This the Editors distinctly state, in their
third note, from the authority of Epiphanius ; whilst in the very
note which precedes they reject the text of St. Matthew, ex
pressly because it places the birth of Christ before the death of
Herod ; which event they contend, from Luke iii. 23., must
have taken place two years at least before Christ was born.
Thus, the gospel ascribed to Matthew is spurious, because it
fixes the birth of Christ before the death of Herod ; and yet the
gospel of the Ebionites, which fixes it not less than thirty years
before that event (inasmuch as it represents Herod to be alive
at the commencement of the Baptist's ministry,) is notwithstand
ing to be relied on as a genuine and indisputable document.
Yet farther, — for the Editors seem ambitious to make an over
powering display of the riches of their criticism on the first
opening of their work, — they inform us, from Epiphanius that
Cerinthus and Carpocrates argued, from the genealogy at the
the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was the son of Jo
seph and Mary ; whilst, at the same time, they acquaint us,
that the gospel which was used hj Cerinthus and Carpocrates
was the gospel of the Ebionites, to which they admit no genea
logy was prefixed, or from which (to use their own and Epi-
phanius's words) the genealogy was taken away. This, it
will be confessed, is making a tolerably large demand upon the
complaisance of the reader ; yet there remains still more occasion
for his courtesy, if he will travel on amicably with the Editors
even through the first two pages of their translation.
The genealogy appears, upon the first view, to be a difficulty
in their way, which they have themselves unnecessarily created.
The Ebionites they have produced, as their favourite witnesses,

166

ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION

to ascertain what was the true and original gospel of St. Mat
thew. But the Ebionites omit the entire of the first two chapters
of that Gospel. Why then injure their evidence by contending
for the genealogy, which they reject ? The reason is plainly
assigned. The genealogy, as it stands, may answer the pur
pose of proving that Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary ;
and, accordingly, the Editors apprize us, that Cerinthus and
Carpocrates applied it to this use, and hence deduced the mere
humanity of Christ. They proceed also to show the reasonable
ness of admitting the genealogy to be genuine, on the ground,
that " it can hardly be supposed, that an author writing for the
instruction of Hebrew Christians would have omitted to trace the!
descent of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which they
justly laid so great a stress." They then proceed to evince the
like reasonableness of discarding all that follows the genealogy to
the end of the second chapter. " This" (they say) "could not
have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it
contradicts his design, which was to prove that Jesus,
being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and
David ; whereas the design of this narrative is to show that
Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father.
This account, therefore, of the miraculous conception of Jesus
Christ must have been wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and
Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebionites: and if the
genealogy be genuine, this narrative must be spurious."
Thus, then, the whole matter is completely arranged. The
genealogy must be genuine, as marking the human descent of
Christ from Abraham and David ; a thing expected by the
Jews : and by all who received it as genuine, the narrative of
the miraculous conception, as contradicting its design, must be
rejected as spurious. At the same time, lest we should imagine
that the force of this reasoning might have operated so power
fully upon those Hebrew Christians who received the genealogy
and maintained the proper humanity of Christ as to induce them
to take away the narrative which so directly contradicted the
genealogy, in like manner as it is admitted that others of them
had taken away the genealogy itself, the Editors take care, in
the very next note, to assure us, that to that description of

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 167
Christians " the account of the miraculous conception could not
have been in any degree unacceptable : " "nor would it" (they
add) "at all have militated against the doctrine of the pro
per humanity of Christ; it being a fact analogous to the mira
culous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the
Hebrew nation." Thus it appears that the history of the mira
culous conception is itself something miraculous ; for it at the
same time contradicts, and yet does not at all militate
against, the idea of Christ's human descent.
Now, perhaps, it may be doing no more than justice to these
erudite and luminous commentators, to bring together into
one point of view the scattered „ lights which have been
here distinctly noticed ; but which cannot fail, from their com
bined brilliancy, to shed a brighter glory upon the work which
they are designed to illustrate. — 1. The Ebionites and Marcion
have omitted, in their respective copies of certain portions of
Scripture, passages which are undoubtedly parts of the genuine
sacred text ; and the former (it is confessed) have actually taken
away the genealogy from St. Matthew's Gospel: the proof,
therefore, arising from their omission of whatever relates to the
miraculous conception of Christ, must be received as decisive
against that fact, although it is admitted that the narratives of
it, as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, come attested
by every manuscript and every version now extant, without
exception. — 2. The Gospel of St. Matthew, as it is conveyed to
us at this day by all the MSS. and all the versions, cannot be
genuine, because it requires us to believe that our Lord was born
before the death of Herod ; but we may admit as unquestionable
the Gospel of the Ebionites, which pronounces Herod to be
living at the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, or about
the thirtieth year after our Lord's nativity. Lastly, the narra
tive of the miraculous conception ascribed to Saint Matthew
must have been rejected by all who received thej genealogy, as
contradicting the design of the genealogy, which was to establish
the human descent of Christ ; at the same time that it is quite
clear, that the fact of the miraculous conception could not at
all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity
of Christ, nor consequently have been in any degree unaccept-*

168 ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION
able to those who held that doctrine.^- Such are the new views
presented at the opening of this Improved Version, which is
to set every thing to rights in the Christian Scriptures ! See
pp. 1, 2, 3. 5. and also p. 121.
There are, moreover, certain chronological deductions connect
ed with some of the foregoing observations, which I cannot
avoid laying before the reader. Four pages back it has been
stated, that the Editors contend that the death of Herod must
have taken place two years at least before Christ was born.
Their mode of establishing this point is deserving of some de
tail. It follows, they say, as a necessary consequence from the
death of Herod being placed (as it is by Lardner) in the year
750, or 751, U. C. Lardner, in the part referred to by the Editors
(p. 129.) had asserted, that " if Herod died in 750, U. C. he died
three years and nine months before the vulgar christian
era ; if at a certain time before mentioned in the year 751,
then he died about two years and nine months before the said
era :" and which is the truth, he professes himself unable to de
termine. (See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 428.) Our Editors,
referring to Lardner, (twice upon the same subject, at p. 2. and
p. 129.) contend, peremptorily, that Christ " must have been
born at least two years and nine months, and probably
three years and nine months, after the death of Herod :"
and thus, in utter disregard of all the arguments by which the
Vulgar Christian Era has been disproved, or rather with an ap
parent ignorance of the existence of any such arguments, they
have at once assumed the vulgar and the true era of our Lord's
nativity to be the same ; and on this assumption, as in itself
sufficient to invalidate the whole story of our Lord's birth as
given by St. Matthew, they build the rejection of that story as
an utter fabrication. They profess at the same time to ground
their reasoning on the authority of Lardner ; whose main ob
ject has been to establish the direct reverse of their position, —
that Christ " must have been born two years at least after the
death of Herod ;" — inasmuch as, with great learning and sound
argument, he has laboured to demonstrate the consistency of
St. Luke's declaration respecting the age of Christ in the 15th
of Tiberius, with the narrative of St. Matthew, which places

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 169
the birth of Christ about two years before the death of Herod.
{Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 339 — 382.) That learned wri
ter, however, in his Appendix concerning the time of Herod's
death, has, unfortunately for our Editors, in the. passage above
refefred to, spoken of the Vulgar Christian Era as posterior to
the death of Herod :' and -they, substituting for the Vulgar
Christian Era the time of Christ's nativity, have at once
inferred the priority of Herod's death to the birth of Christ, and
have adduced the authority of Lardner's name in behalf of a
position which Lardner has most triumphantly overthrown.
A similar instance of careful reference to authorities, and of
minute attention to the accuracies of Ecclesiastical History, is
presented to us in -the very front of this elaborate performance,
which I cannot avoid adverting to in this place. The Editors,
whilst dealing out in their Introduction large portions of that
knowledge of manuscripts and the various critical apparatus for
the translation of the New Testament; Which Wetstein, Michae-.
lis, Griesbach, and others, had already amply supplied, take oc
casion to speak of Ephrem the Syrian, as " a writer of some
note in the sixth century.'-' (P. xiv.) In this at least they
have thought and spoken for themselves : the commonly
received opinion having hitherto been, that Ephrem flourished
about the middle of the fourth 'century. From Asseman
we learn, that he was present at the council of Nice, in the year
325 : and wo are told by- Jerome, that he died in the time of
the Emperor Valens, that is, at some time before the year 379.
We are also informed by the early authorities, that this same
Ephrem, who is here so slightly glanced at as " a writer of some
note," was a person of the most distinguished celebrity ; a man,
of j whom Jerome says, " ad tantam venit claritudinem, ut post
lectionem Scripturarum publice in quibusdam ecclesiis ejus scrip-
ta recitentur :" who is described by Ebedjesu, a learned Syrian
of the 13th century, " Ephraem magnus, qui appellatus est Sy-
rorum propheta ;" who was even entitled by the Syrians, " the
doctor of the whole world ;" and who, in truth, with the consent
of all who have hitherto made mention of him, has been esti
mated as one of the most illustrious divines and writers in the
century in which he lived, that is, as we have seen, in the fourth
Vol. 2.-22

170 ON the unitarian version
century. The Editors of the Improved Version, however, ac
quaint us, that he was u a writer of some note in the sixth
century." It is the less pardonable, I may add, in these Edi
tors, to have been thus inattentive in the case of Ephrem'; as
he is reported (Lardner, vol. ii. pp. 419, 420.) to have written a
commentary upon the Harmony of Tatian^ a writer, whom
the Unitarians have been at all times anxious (though most un
foundedly indeed) to claim as an auxiliary to their cause. (See
Williams's Free Inquiry, p. 60 — 66.)
I need not, I think, go much farther upon this subject. — I shall
however touch briefly upon two or three points more. The be
ginnings of the Gospels (at least of three of them) have always
been found sadly troublesome to Unitarians. Matthew and
Luke, however, have now been forced to part with theirs. ' This
could not be so easily effected with regard to St. John. We
have no Ebionite or Marcion appropriate to his use. But we
-have what answers just as well, a Unitarian expositor. — For ex
ample. " The word was in the beginning, and the word was
with god, and the word was a god." "The word then is
found, not to be god, but only a god. But again, lest, as being
a god, it might still by possibility be supposed, that the formation
of the world has been ascribed to this word in the verse which
follows, we are told that " all things were done by him J and
without him was not any thing donk, that was done." That
is, says the note, " all things in the Christian dispensation were
done by Christ ; i. e. by his authority, — the word ylie^en never
signifying to create." Well ; but then we come to the 10th
verse, in which we find the words, 'O xie-fus Si' airoZ iyhere —
This, to common readers, would indicate, that the world was
created by this word. But as we have seen above, that ¦xaira.
iyaotre must be rendered, "all things were done by him-" of
course it must follow here, that " the world was done by him : "
let these words mean what they may. No such thing after all.
Our expositor tells us, that the only true rendering is, " the world
was enlightened by him." And thus the whole matter of the
Divinity of Christ, and his creation of the world, are cleared
away from the introduction of St. John's Gospel. For it must
be observed, that, in the opening clause (In the Beginning

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 171
was the Word,) nothing indicative of Christ's pre-existence is
contained ; inasmuch as the beginning here means simply (we
are told) " the commencement of the Gospel dispensation, or of
the ministry of Christ." The whole, then, as duly explained
by these critics,- stands thus r Christ (for so they admit the
word is to be understood) was from the commencement of
the'ministry of Christ ; and Christ withdrew to commune
with God, and to receive instructions for his ministry ; and
Christ was a Gad. For the excellent and strictly classical
reasons assigned for these' improvements upon the common ver
sion, I refer to this profoundly learned work itself, pp. 199;
200. If the reader should not be altogether satisfied with those
reasons, he will however be pleased to recollect that the Editors
have given fair notice,^ that it. was not their intention to conde
scend to the "minuteness of verbal criticism."
I shall content myself with one specimen more of the qualifi
cations of the Editors for the work which they have undertaken.
I have given one, as an example of their accuracy, in ascertain
ing the genuine text of Scripture ; a second as an example of
their precision in reference to historical dates ; a third, as an ex
ample of their attention to the minutias of Ecclesiastical history ;
a fourth, as an example of their acumen, in detecting (the precise
signification of the original language^ and this will serve as an
example of the justness of their inferences on general principles
of reasoning., Acts vii. 60., we find St. Stephen addressing his
prayers to Jesus Christ, — "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;" and,
— "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." On these passages,
our expositors favour us with the following just distinction and
salutary caution. " This address of Stephen to Jesus, when he
actually saw him, does not authorize us to offer prayers to him,
now he is invisible:'" and for farther explanation they
refer to Mr. Lindsey, who states the matter thus. " Unquestion
ably Stephen addressed this prayer to the Lord Jesus. But this
can be no precedent for directing prayer to him unseen, or ad
dressing him as God, whom the blessed martyr declares he saw
with his eyes, and calls him the Son of Man standing on the
fight hand of God ; calls him the Son of Man, in that his
highest state of exaltation."— Apology, &c. p. 129.— This rea-

172 ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION, ETC.
soning is quite invincible, and contains in it a mine of valuable
matter, which does not at first sight present itself. Jesus must,
it is evident, be a mere man, or he could not have been seen by
Stephen in bodily form, " standing on the right hand of God,"
nor have been called by him the Son of Man. — (" Behold I see
the Heavens opened, and the Son of Man. standing on the right
hand of God.") He might then of course be worshipped and
prayed to, whilst he was plainly visible as a man. - But when
he ceased to appear as a man, he ought no longer to be addressed
in prayer. Or, perhaps, generally speaking, it isrneant, that no
being that is invisible can properly be an object of worship. —
How all the arguments which Popery has ever devised, in defence
of image worship, fade and vanish, in comparison of the bright
and overpowering evidence which this reasoning supplies !
By this time the reader jmust be sufficiently aware of the great
value of this Improved version of the New Testament ; and
it may accordingly be safely dismissed : more particularly as
Dr. Nares's valuable Remarks render all farther criticism upon
the work nearly superfluous. .And yet, before I finally take my
leave of it, I must do it the justice to say, that there are criti-
cisms, the production of certain Unitarian commentators, which
are too bold even for its adoption. Of this, one striking instance
is to be found in the translation of Acts xx. 28., in which the
Editors prefer the safer mode of evading the admission of pur
Lord's divinity, by reading Kvelov instead of ©«£, Lord instead
of God. Mr. Wakefield, on the contrary, contends strenuously
for BeoZ, and afterwards effects his escape from the consequence,
by proposing two of the most extraordinary criticisms that were
ever ventured by a Greek scholar, leu }}iev aif^aref, he renders,
not his own blood, but his own son, because, truly, a man's son
may be said to be his own blood ; and, therefore, the son of
God may be expressed by God's own blood, — an expression
which, had it been used of God the Father by a Trinita
rian in defence of his doctrine, would have subjected him to
Mr. Wakefield's ineffable contempt, Mr. W. supplies also ano
ther mode of getting rid of the difficulty, (that is, the difficulty
of acknowledging the divinity of our Lord,) viz. that of transla
ting the words, " by the blood of his own," (supplying the word

ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS, ETC. 173
Son.) — Tliis, observe, is the rendering of Si» reZ iSUv a,'in»rei.
So much -for the most celebrated scholar of the modern Unita
rian school which England has produced.— The reader will be
rewarded for his trouble in looking into Middleton' s Doctrine
of the Greek Article, p. 418 — 428., on this passage. In truth,
I refer most willingly to this work, as to one which will supply
to the Scripture student some of the most valuable helps to the
critical investigation of the Text of the New Testament, which
can be derived from any modern publication.
ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
Having been led, in the foregoing observations, to advert to
the rejection, by the Unitarian Editors, of the portion which
follows the genealogy in the first two chapters of St. Matthew's
Gospel, I deem it not unadvisable to offer here a few remarks
upon the subject of those chapters, which, without going at
length into the proof of their authenticity, will, I trust, be found
sufficient to supply at once a ^satisfactory assurance on that
head. Dr. Marsh, in his ninth lecture, observes, that if we
turn to the second volume of Griesbach's Symbola. Critical,
we shall find a quotation from the first chapter of St. Mat
thew's Gospel, and a reference to the second, made by Celsus
the Epicurean philosopher, which quotation and reference are
noted by Origen, who wrote in answer to Celsus. Griesbach,
he adds, justly remarks, '•' Hinc patet duo priora Mattheei capita
Celso nota fuisse." And, with no less justice on his own part,
he deduces the following inference : — that if Celsus, who wrote
his celebrated work against the Christians in the time of Mar
cus Aurelius, and consequently little more than a hundred years
after St. Matthew himself wrote, yet found the first, two chap
ters in his manuscript of St. Matthew!s Gospel, those chapters
must either have been original parts of St. Matthew's Gospel,
or they must have been added at a time so little antecedent to
the age of Celsus, that a writer so inquisitive, so sagacious, and
at the same time so inimical to Christianity, could not have
failed to detect the imposture. But that, in this case, he would
not have quoted those chapters as parts of St. Matthew's Gos-

174 ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS
pel. And consequently, that the truth must lie in the other
part of the dilemma, namely, that those chapters are authen
tic. — Course of Lectures, Part ii. pp. 55, 56.
To this reasoning of the learned and able Professor nothing
can be added, which will give greater force to his conclusion.
In point of fact, however, it is important to observe, that we
are not left to a single quotation from the first, and a single
reference' to the second chapter of St. Matthew, for the proof
that these two chapters were known to and admitted by Cel
sus. In truth, we find, from Origen's refutation of that au
thor's charges against Christianity, that his references to those
chapters were so numerous, as nearly to supply a perfect detail
of the facts which they relate. See Origen against Celsus,
pp. 108. 119 125. 134. 139 184. 189. 192. 208. The reader,
who may dislike the trouble of referring to Origen's work for
the proof of this, will probably acquiesce in the following re
capitulation given by Lardner of the testimony borne by Cel
sus to the facts recorded in the first two chapters of St. Matthew.
" We learn from him " (Celsus) " that Christ was born of a
virgin, in a small village of Judea, supposed to have been
descended from the Jewish kings ; that she was married to a
carpenter ; that for some while her husband was doubtful about
her chastity; that Chaldeans, or other wise men from the
East, came to Jerusalem soon after his nativity, to do him
homage as King of the Jews, having been excited to. that
journey by the appearance of a sar ; that Herod, moved by
jealousy, put to death many young children, hoping to kill
Jesus with them ; that by direction of an angel he was carried
by his parents into Egypt for the preservation of his life ;
where, as Celsus insinuates, Jesus learned the charms practised
in that country. He calls Jesus the Nazarsean man, or man of
Nazareth, from the place where he was brought up and chiefly
resided before his appearance in a public character." — See
Lardner's Works, vol. viii. pp. 10, 11. 19—22. 58, 59.; and
for a yet more particularised detail by Dr. Doddridge, see ibid.
p. 63.
Now, what is this, but an abridgement of the history given
by the Evangelist 7 Indeed, the testimony thus borne by Cel-

of st. Matthew's gospel.. 175
sus is so irresistable, that its application is not denied even hy
those writers who most strenuously oppose themselves to the
authenticity of the first two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel.
Thus, Dr. Williams, in his Free Enquiry, p. 49., when
urging his objections strongly against those chapters, asserts,
that" we have no certain references or allusions to them, till
the days of Celsus the Epicurean, about the year 150 or later."
That the reference made by Celsus to these chapters is certain
and undoubted, is, then, plainly admitted. As to the lateness
of that reference, the drawback .thence arising will not be con
sidered very formidable, When it is recollected, thnt the date of
Celsus's work is not removed from that of St. Matthew's Gos
pel by more than one hundred years, nor from the death of St.
John by more than fifty ; and when, in addition to this, the
remarks already quoted from Dr. Marsh are held in remem
brance. But imaginary as this drawback is, yet cannot even
this be conceded to Dr. Williams ; the very reverse of his alle
gation being the truth. For we do find certain references to
the first two chapters of St. Matthew before the date of Cel
sus's work.
In the first place, we find them numerous and decisive in the
writings of Ju tin Martyr : so much so, indeed, as nearly to
supply a recapitulation of all the facts related in those chapters ;
and in such language as clearly to prove, that from those chap
ters the information of the writer was principally derived.
The very words also of St. Matthew are sometimes quoted with
a precision so unequivocal as to determine the source of the quo
tations. Passages and phrases which occur in St. Matthew
only, and applications of the prophecies of Isaiah, Micah, and
Jeremiah, which are made by no other Evangelist, are adopted
by Justin ; and adopted by him with a literal adherence to St,
Matthew's text; and, what renders the demonstration perfect,
with a literal adherence in those very citations from the Old
Testament, in which St. Matthew has departed from the words
both of the Hebrew and the Septuagint. (See Just. Mart.
pp. 53, 54. 304 — 307., and the observations upon these parts of
Justin, p. 181 — ¦ 184. of this volume.) These references to St.
Matthew are contained in Justin's First Apology, presented

176 ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS
by him to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in the beginning of his
reign, and in his Dialogue with Trypho ; both of which are
supposed by the best commentators to have been written about
the year 140. Thus we have travelled nearer to the age of the
Apostles ; and in truth we eome nearer still, if we consider that
Justin's testimony, though not published till the year 140, may
fairly be carried back to the period at which he became a
Christian ; inasmuch as we must suppose him at, that time well
acquainted with the Christian Scriptures, which must in fact
have been the means of his conversion; and consequently can
not easily imagine, that what was not then conceived to form a
part of St. Matthew's Gospel, could be afterwards received by
him as such. In this view of the case, the authority of Justin's
testimony reaches backwards nearly to the year 130.
To a date equally early may be referred the testimony of the
Composer, (or perhaps I might more properly say,) the Chris-
tianizer of the Sibylline Oracles ; who, as Lardner justly ob
serves, was manifestly acquainted with the first two chapters of
St. Matthew. For a few extracts from this work, see pp. 184,
185. of this volume. The objection, that this collection, or at
least a part of it, was the forgery of a Christian writer, instead of
detracting from its value, supplies the very circumstance which
renders it admissible as evidence in the cause ; since otherwise,
(were it, what it professes to be, strictly prophetical,) its similari
ty to any other written document could afford no proof of that
document's previous existence. The only point, which it is im
portant to establish, is the date to be assigned to this collection :
and, that it existed from an early period of the second century,
may be fairly deduced from the authorities collected by Lardner.
Celsus makes the interpolation of these Oracles a subject of
reproach against Christians. And Justin quotes them in mat
ters relating to Christian doctrine. I shall not, however, dwell
upon the testimony which these writings present ; but proceed
to that, which brings us back within the limits of the Apostolic
age, and which offers itself with an authority not inferior to that
of Apostolic origin : — I mean the testimony of Ignatius.
This Apostolic Father, who suffered martyrdom at Rome in
the tenth of Trajan, that is, in the year 107 (see Lardner, vol.

of st. Matthew's gospel. 177
ii. p. 69.,) we find, in his (genuine) Epistle to the Ephesiahs,
plainly referring to the history of the Virgin Mary's miraculous
conception of our Lord, and to the appearance of the star which
so wonderfully announced his birth. (See Patr. Apost. vol. ii.
pp. 38. 94. 110. 112. 114.) In the larger Epistle also (ibid.
part. 4. p. 78.,) we find au exact quotation of the passage in
Matth. i. 23. : on which, however, I will not lay particular
stress, as the larger epistles of this Father are, and not unjustly,
suspected of interpolation, and therefore this quotation may pos
sibly be of spurious origin. We have now travelled back within
about forty years from the publication of St. Matthew's Gospel ;
and we have the testimony of a contemporary and associate of
the Apostles, one who outlived the Apostle John but by six or
seven years, who had received the teaching of the Apostles, who
had been appointed by the Apostles themselves to the Bishopric
of Antioch, the first and oldest Christian Church among the
Gentiles ; appointed to it within less than ten years from the
date of St. Matthew's Gospel (see Lardner, vol. ii. p. 66.,,) and
who himself, like the Apostles, died a martyr to the truth of the
religion which he professed. We have, then, in fact, what
amounts to Apostolic testimony for the truth and authenticity
of the disputed chapters of St. Matthew. Yet, strange to say,
a deficiency in this very respect has been alleged as an objection
against their authenticity.
It is urged by Dr. Williams, that the silence of the Aposto
lical Fathers supplies an argument of this nature. It is true, in
deed, he does not here mean to inclpde Ignatius, having made
his testimony the subject of a distinct inquiry. He speaks only
of the other Fathers ; and, of these, he adds that, without which
their silence could afford no semblance of an argument whatever ;
namely, that they " often cite and refer to other parts of St.
Matthew's Gospel, and had frequent occasion, in their debates
with Jewish unbelievers, to refer, also, to the first and second
chapters, had they known or acknowledged them to be genuine."
{Free Enq. p. 103.) And in another place (p. 93.) he says,
that, " as these Fathers frequently had occasion to speak of the
family and birth of Christ, it is hardly credible, that none of
them should have referred to those chapters, had they been ex-
Vol. 2.-23

178 ON THE first two chapters
tant, and acknowledged to be the composition of St. Mat
thew."
Now, the' direct opposite of both the assertions herein con
tained is precisely the fact. For, in the first place, the references
made by these Fathers to St. Matthew's Gospel are extremely
few ; and, in the next place, they are in no part of their writings
engaged in any debate or discussion whatever on the subject of
the birth of Christ : (both of which points shall be more parti
cularly adverted to at the conclusion of these remarks.) So that,
were any inference tobe drawn from the silence of these Fathers
upon the subjects contained in the first two chapters of St. Mat
thew, it should rather be, that on those subjects ho controversies
existed at that day, the facts related in those chapters being ac
quiesced in without dispute : this, I say, should be the natural
inference, when we find the facts familiarly alluded to by the
only one of the Apostolical Fathers whose subject led him to
refer to them, — Ignatius ; and again by Justin, who immediate
ly succeeded the times of those Fathers, and who, in truth,
wrote both his First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho
before the death of one of them, namely, Polycarp.
Many have been the occasions on which I have found my
self compelled, in the course of these volumes, to protest against
the disingenuousness of Unitarian critics in their treatment of
ancient authorities ; but, perhaps, there is no one, against whom
such a protest is more loudly demanded, than against the writer
whose objections I have been engaged in noticing. — The fore
going observations, coupled with those which will be found
subjoined to these remarks, will probably appear to most readers
sufficient to substantiate this charge ; and yet they supply but a
small, part of what might be adduced in its support. At the
same time, it remains to be remarked, that, notwithstanding the
strained exertions of this writer against the authenticity of the
introductory chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, he affords but
very imperfect aid to the Editors of the Unitarian Version ; in
asmuch as his arguments are principally directed against the
genealogy, which they retain as genuine ; and the proofs, by
which he endeavours to overturn St. Matthew's relation of the
circumstances attending the miraculous nativity of our Lord, are

of st. Matthew's gospel. 179
built upon the assumed genuineness of the history of the same
event as given by St. Luke : so that, if Dr. Williams be right in
his results, the Editors are wrong in theirs : wrong in retaining
the genealogy of St. Matthew, and wrong in rejecting the first
two chapters of St. Luke.
But to return to our immediate subject. We have seen that
the testimony supporting the authenticity of the first two chap
ters of St. Matthew carries us back to the age of the Apostles.
A farther confirmation is had from the Syriac Version, the date
of which is justly referred to the same early age, and in which,
as in every other Version of St. Matthew, (including the Old
Italic, whose antiquity is also unquestioned,) those two chapters
are found to exist. And, that evidence might not be wanting
from any description of the early writers, we have the testimony
of a Hebrew Christian, Hegesippus ; who, as Eusebius informs
us, was amongst the first successors of the Apostles ; and who is
described by Gobar, as 'Agx°nes re kiig, «.») anereXtxAs. In a
fragment of this writer, we have a reference to part of the history
in the second chapter of St. Matthew ; from which Lardner pro
nounces, that it " appears plainly, that this part of St. Matthew's
Gospel was owned by this Hebrew Christian : " so that, he adds,
" he must eithet have used our Greek Gospel, or, if he used
only the Hebrew edition of St. Matthew, this history must have
been in it in his time." (Lard. Works, vol. ii. p. 143.)
How, then, stands the evidence upon the whole? The
Syriac Version, which is one of Apostolical antiquity, and the
Old Italic, both contain the two chapters. Ignatius, the only
Apostolical Father who had occasion to make reference to them,
does so. The Sibylline oracles do the same. Justin Martyr
does the same. Celsus, the bitter enemy of the Christian faith,
does the same. Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian, does the same.
Irenes, and all the Fathers who succeed him, it is admitted
on all hands, do the same. * And the chapters are at this day
found in every unmutilated manuscript and every Version of
the Gospel of St. Matthew which is extant throughout the
world. Thus we have one continued and unbroken series of
testimony from the days of the Apostles to the present time ;
and, in opposition to this, we find only a vague report of the

180 ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS
state of a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, said to be re
ceived amongst an obscure and unrecognised description of
Hebrew Christians, who are admitted, even by the very writers
who claim the support of their authority, to have mutilated the
copy which they possessed, by removing the genealogy.
I should not have dwelt so long upon a subject, which is at
this day so fully ascertained as the authenticity of the first two
chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, did it not furnish a fair op
portunity of exhibiting the species of evidence which Unitarian
critics are capable of resisting, and the sort of arguments with
which they do not scruple to resist it.
I have mentioned above, that the first two chapters of St.
Matthew are found in all the unmutilated MSS. that are ex
tant. To those, hitherto commonly known, a late discovery in
the library of the University of Dublin enables me to add the
testimony of one more, and that of considerable antiquity.
For this discovery the public is indebted to the great industry
and accurate research of the Rev. Dr. Barret, Vice-Provost
of Trinity College. This manuscript, which is a codex re-
sCriptus, contains the Gospel of St. Matthew in the most an
cient Greek character, of which a fac-simile has been published
by the University : and it has been satisfactorily shown by the
learned Editor not to be of later date than the sixth century.
In this MS. we find the first two chapters of St. Matthew's
Gospel, with the exception of some parts wanting from mutila
tion : namely, the first sixteen verses of the first chapter, and
from the seventh to the twelfth, and from the twentieth to the
twenty-third; verse of the second chapter. — It is a circum
stance worthy of observation, that Dr. Williams, speaking of
this manuscript, of which he had received an account previous
to its publication, observes, " no information concerning our
inquiry can be derived from this manuscript." {Free Enq. p.
xxi.) Now the course of the inquiry had been to discover MSS.
that could justify the rejection of the first two chapters of St.
Matthew, or, at least, of the genealogy. For that purpose, un
doubtedly, this MS. could yield no information : but for that
which ought to be the purpose of an inquirer, it affords full in
formation ; viz. information of the fact, that at the date of the

of st. Matthew's gospel. 181
manuscript, the genealogy and the whole of the first two chap
ters of St. Matthew were deemed by its wrifer to be authentic,
and were found as a genuine part of the Gospel in the MS.
from which it was copied.

In support of what has been asserted (pp. 175, 176.) concern
ing Justin Martyr's reference to St. Matthew's Gospel, the fol
lowing remarks will probably be deemed satisfactory.
The quotation from Isaiah vii. 14., by Justin Martyr, is as
follows: 'lSeu i vagOsves h'yxre) «|«f, r-*i il%tTcti v'ter x.ai igeue-ii
lici tco hivpMTi auiev, p.et)' iftai e &il(. (p. 53.) In another place
(p. 223.) this is quoted with some little variation, xi-^eron being
read for egei, and there being added after vWi, the words, x«<
KXXursrcti t\ 'eioficc aireu 'Efifiatevy*. NoW-St. Matthew-, and he
only of the writers of the New Testament, has quoted this
prophecy. Both he and Justin quote it in the same application.
Both quote it in the third person, instead of the second {thou
shalt call,) in which it is given by both the Hebrew and Sep
tuagint of the Prophet ; and, what is most remarkable, both
annex the interpretation of Emmanuel in the very same
words, fieS' iS/tSfi ®iis, God with us. So that, upon the whole;
there can be no reasonable doubt of Justin's having taken the
quotation from St. Matthew ; as well from their mutual agree
ment in general, as from their common departure from, and
common addition to, the text of the prophet as it stands both in
the Hebrew and the Greek.
Again, in p. 54., Justin relates the declaration of the Angel
to the Virgin in the manner described both by St. Matthew and
St. Luke; and, having, through the first part of it, used the
expressions of both indifferently, he concludes with these words
Kctt z-aMtrns re 'ate/lot uvtou 'lyc-out, aires yccg e-aa-ei rev Aoeov ccuTeu
«!t« w aput^nai «.irav ; which last clause contains the very
words of St. Matthew ; words to be found in no other writer of
the New Testament. Justin, moreover, to prove that he was
giving a quotation from the Evangelists, adds, " as they have
taught us, who have written the history of all things concern
ing our Saviour Jesus Christ :" hereby clearly announcing, that

182

ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS

he derived his information from more than one of the sacred
historians, and therefore manifestly pointing out both St.
Matthew and St. Luke, who only of the sacred historians had re^
lated the story of the angel's address to Mary. And yet, what is
Dr. Williams's observation upon this passage of Justin? —
" The words supposed to be here cited from St. Matthew are,
For he shall save his people from their jsins. -This; how
ever, is by no means certain ; for all the other parts of the quo
tation are taken out of St. Luke, though in a manner some
what disordered. These words, therefore, may be no more than
a loose citation, by memory, from. St. Luke, or a reference to
some other passages of the same writer, see Acts iv. 12. x. 43.
The thought occurs in a variety of places in the New Testa
ment ; so that we are not necessarily obliged to conclude that
there is. an allusion to St. Matthew, and to no other Evan^
gelist." He adds, also, in a note, that the " manner in which
the writers of the New Testament make citations from the Old
plainly shows that they often quoted from memory." (Free
Enq. p. 93.) — Here is surely most extraordinary reasoning.
The very words of St. Matthew, to a letter, are used by
Justin. The same words are employed by no other writer of
the New Testament : And yet there is reason to think that this
precise repetition of St. Matthew is not a quotation from him,
but rather a loose citation from St. Luke, v/ho has not used
' any terms resembling them. And, because the thought occurs
in various places of the New Testament, we are not obliged to
conclude that there is an allusion to St. Matthew, who is the
only writer that has used the words : and this too, although
Justin tells us, that he quotes from the Evangelists, at the
same time that it must be admitted, that no other than Mat
thew and Luke can be alluded to : the one of whom does not
at all employ the words in question, and the other does most
accurately. Dr. Williams, indeed, in~ a note, adds, that " Justin also
seems to allude to the Arabian Magi, Matt. ii. 11., in his dia
logue with Trypho, p. 315, &c, but it may be only an allusion
to a common tradition." {Free Enq. p. 98.) — Now the reader
will be surprised to learn, that this seeming allusion to the

183
passage in Matth. ii. 11. concerning the Arabian Magi, Is1 almost
an exact transcript of that part of St. Matthew's history, and
in several places conveyed in the very words of St. Matthew.
The Magi, speaking of the king; whose birth was signified by
the appearance of the star, tell Herod in the precise terms of
the Evangelist, xa) «aS»j«.s» 7rgeo-xw>i<rxt aura: and having come
to Bethlehem, and fallen down and worshipped the young child,
they are described by Justin as bringing their gifts, in the very
language of St. Matthew ; neee-vmyxctt airu Sae», xevrei, x«i
ai'£«v»», *a\ Fftuew : and again, being warned in a vision not to
return to Herod, they are described by Justin, as returning into
their own country by a different way, in almost the very words
of the Evangelist likewise, Si' «aa«{ iSeZ iU -r«» %a^m eturav.
See Matth. ii. 2. 11, 12. and Justin, pp. 304, 305. 307. ; which
last pages, indeed, whoever reads, will be instantly satisfied,
that St. Matthew i3 scarcely out of the view of the writer in a
single line. It is true, indeed, that it is not to this part of Justin
that Dr. Williams has referred, when he has spoken of the
seeming allusion to the Magi, but to p. 315. C. Colon. 1686 :
that is, to p. 330. of the edition here cited. But why did not
Dr. Williams take care to inform himself of what Justin did
say, before he ventured to pronounce what be did not say ?
More, however, yet remains. We find in this history; as given
by Justin, two prophecies applied, which are applied by none
else than St. Matthew ; and we find, also, that these prophecies
are cited in the words of St. Matthew, and not in those of the
prophets by whom they were delivered. What can be
proof, if this be not? — 1. In like manner as in St. Matthew,
we there find Herod, when alarmed by the report of the wise
men, consulting the scribes and elders ; who inform him, that
Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, for that the Prophet had
said, K«* e-u UtiOte)/*., yn 'Ieu2a,ed2xfiaf i^a^iri it it to7{ vye/tent
'leuia, ex. o-eu yug IfyXiue-trcu ijyevfictes ir'i 7rot[t.cttt'i rev Xetoi (tow.
See Matt. ii. 6. and Justin, pp. 55. 305. Now, in this citation of
the prophecy, the Evangelist and the Martyr agree in every
letter ; whilst the prophecy itself, as given by the LXX, runs
differently, thus ; K«; <rv Bgfottyt eixes reu 'E.<pe*i*, ehtyoref t't reu
iitai li %(Ai«c-/» 'leuicr l» fuel ityXtirtrai qycu/ievef rev titan ei's

184

ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS

aex'trct it rZ 'ic-f«!)A. Alex. — 2. yVnen describing the slaughter
of the children at Bethlehem, and the consequent fulfilment of
Jeremiah's prophecy, Justin thus quotes the prophecy : 0«W it
Va/ia ixeutrSi), xXavlfios xat eSvej*j>% ireXus' 'TcefflX xXateve-a Tct rixtcc
aurqs, xa) eux 'nfoXt vagaxXiitijtai, ert eux tlrl. See Justin, p. 307.
and Matt. ii. 18. Here, also, we have a complete -agreement
between Justin and St. Matthew, with this single exception, that
the words SeHtoc, xa), found in the common readings of St.
Matthew, are here wanting. But it should be at the same
time noted, that these words are likewise wanting in some manu
scripts and many versions of St. Matthew ; and that Griesbach,
marks them as most probably to be expunged from the text of
the Evangelist. Now, on the other hand, how stands the pro-,
phecy itself as rendered by the Seventy? *»»>! !» 'Vap.* ixeue-6*
S-gytev, xat xXavOfteZ, xat oovefteZ, 'YafflX aTrexXxteptittis iiri rSv v'tZi
aurqs, xa\ eixriitXit TragaxXii&iitat, ert eux eitrtt. — Alex.- — Or, as in
Vatic. — aTrexXaieftitii eux qfaXe rraue-ae-iai ix) rets vte~i$ airSiq, ert
eux. cle-U. — These remarkable passages in Justin, it must be ob
served, have been altogether unnoticed by Dr. Williams. —
What then, upon the whole, is to be judged, concerning the like
lihood of Justin's having quoted from St. Matthew, and con
cerning the accuracy of Dr. Williams's examination of this
subject, — it cannot be necessary further to discuss.

At p. 176. of this volume, the Sibylline Oracles have been
referred to. A few extracts from those oracles are here subjoined.
In the eighth book are to be found several passages relating to
the nativity of Christ. The angel Gabriel is there described, as
visiting Mary the mother of our Lord, and foretelling the mira
culous production of the Saviour : and the birth of this illustrious
deliverer, at Bethlehem, of a virgin mother, is detailed at length.
To this detail is added what follows.
K.atte<patis St payeie-i e-s&ae-fa Seo-paref artie.
Xiraeyataitt St Peepef, Sci^l Stewet&ie-t (party.
K*( Xeyev gj BtDXetp. irare /« ^texXttref iXtyfil,
SevriXarctii ri xat aiyeie/teif xat iretfitnt agttu*.
P. 258.

of sTi maTthew'S gospel. 185
In the same work also, in the first book, we find the incarna
tion of the Son of God ; and the name, 'Ue-eZs, by which, in his
human form, he was to be known to men, thus described : —
A)J Tore xa) fteyaXete &eeu irats attgwirottnt
'TA%ti tragxeQeeef, 3-»ijto7s eputeifieies it yri.
Te<fo-aga <pafierr» (pietf ra Se' a<p*>tx Su1 eciriS.
Dr. Williams refers to both the above passages ; and admits*
that there are many which relate to the birth of Christ. Yet
he contends, that they are all evidently taken from St. Luke's
Gospel, one only excepted ; namely, that one first cited above;
which states, that " the wondrous new star that appeared was
revered by the wise men :" and this he endeavours to explain
away, as being derivable from the general tradition, and there
fore not necessarily to be traced to St. Matthew's Gospel. {Free
Enq. p 97.) — Dr. Williams has, however, been rather unfor
tunate in the assertion, that every circumstance noticed in this
work concerning the history of Christ, with the single exception
just made, is taken from the Gospel of St. Luke. Had he
examined the Sibylline Oracles for himself, and not contented
himself with looking to the extracts given by Lardner, he would
have discovered his assertion to be untenable ; he would have
found one passage at least, alluding to a fact not recorded by
St. Luke, nor by any Evangelist but St. Matthew, that of the
preservation of the infant Jesus by the flight into Egypt.
rere o-vi(tM /3f»TojVi»
E«-«i t|«i^»«5, iirerat 7repvXaypt£tes ifjj
Ex yvis AiyuTreie xaXe( XiSef it S' aea reirm
Aaes irgee-xei^et IQgatat, ehti S' aygeeutrai
AureZ u^tiytja-et. Pp.65, 66.

It has been asserted at p 1 77., that " the references made by
the Apostolical Fathers to St. Matthew's Gospel are extremely
few ; " and that, (with an exception in the case of Ignatius)
Vol. 2.-24

186

ON THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS

"these Fathers are, in no part of their writings,engaged in any
debate or discussion whatever on the subject of the birth of
Christ." The truth of these positions will be manifest on a
short review. The Apostolical Fathers are five, Barnabas,
Clement, Hennas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Now, first, as to
St. Barnabas ; the greatest number of possible references
made by this Father to St. Matthew's Gospel amounts to eight :
and, in the opinion of Lardner, those, that may with any
strength of probability be considered as such, do not exceed four,
viz. Matth. xvi. 24. ; xx. 16. ; v. 42. ; ix. 13. And neither in
these, nor in any allusion of this Father to any .part of the New
Testament, is there to be found any thing controversial respect
ing the birth or history of Christ. That the reader may satisfy
himself as to this fact, I subjoin the several passages, to which,
in addition to those above enumerated, St. Barnabas can be
supposed to have referred. Matth. xxii. 43, 44., xxiv. 22., xxv.
5, 6. 10., xxvi. 31. ; Luke vi. 30. ; Acts x. &2. ; Rom. iv. 3., v.
16 , ix. 10, 11, 12., xi. 36., xv. 8. ; 1 Cor. iii. 16., xi. 20. ; 2
Cor. v. 17.; Eph. ii. 2., v. 16, 17. ; Phil. iv. 5. ; 2 Tim. i. 10. ;
Heb. iii. 5., x. 25. ; 1 Pet. i. 17., ii. 5. ; 2 Pet. iii. 10. ; Rev.
xxii. 12.
2. As to St. Clement. In the Epistle, which, as Bishop of
Rome, he addressed to the Church of Corinth, we find but four
references to the Gospel of St. Matthew ; viz. vii. 1, 2. 12., ix.
42., xviii. 6., xxvi. 24. And neither in these, nor in any allu
sions to other parts of the New Testament, do we meet with
any matter connected with the history of the birth of Christ, or
relating to any object but that of moral and religious improve
ment, and the enforcement of Christian rules of conduct. The
passages supposed to be alluded to by this Father are, in addi
tion to those already specified, these which follow : — Luke vi.
36, 37, 33., xvii. 2. ; Acts xiii. 22., xx. 35. ; Rom. i. 29, 30. 32.,
ii. 20., ix. 4, 5., xiv. 1. 3., xv. 1. ; 1 Cor. i. 12., x. 24., xii. 12.
15. 22. 24., xiii. 4., xv. 20. ; 2 Cor. iii. 18., viii. 5., x. 17, 18.,
xi. 24, 25. ; Gal. i. 4. ; Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. ; Phil. i. 10., ii. 5, 6,
7. ; Col. i. 10. ; 1 Thes. v. 18. 23. ; I Tim. ii. 8., iii. 13., v. 4. ;
2 Tim. i. 9. ; Tit, iii. 1. ; Heb. i. 3, 4, 5. 7. 13., iii. 2. 5., iv. 12.,
vi. 18., xi. 5. 7, 8. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. 39., xii. 1, 2. 6. 9,

of st. Matthew's gospel. 187
10, 11. ; James U 5, 6, 7, 8.. ii. 21. 23., iii. 13., iv. 3, 4. 6. ; 1
Pet. iv. 8., v. 5. ; 2 Pet. ii. 5, 6, 7. 9., iii. 4.
[This Father's allusion to one of the above passages, Gal. i.
4., I insert here, though not connected with the present subject,
as throwing a strong light upon the sense, which, in those apos
tolic days, was assigned to the phrase, giving himself for us,
as applied to the sacrifice of Christ. Aj« t*» ayanw ij'y 'lr%ei ire )s
tlftaa-, re aiua aireu toaxet uTttg jjfuan '\riTeZs Xgie-re$ e lLiet'S ifteZv,
tt Z?eXri/x.art ®sou, xat tj;v o-ugxa oTreg tjj$ e-agxo$ tj^cat, xat Tajv "yv^flt
iirtg rat -^vx^t npat. — Pair. Apost. vol. i. pp. 189, 190.— r
Through the love which he had for us, Jesus Christ our
Lord, by the will of God, gave his blood for us : his flesh
for our flesh, his soul for our soul. The reader will please to
carry this exposition of the passage of Galatians i. 4. back to p.
179 — 199. of vol. i., where the substitutive force of the word
usref has been already considered]
3. In the Shepherd of Hermas we meet with allusions
(most of them remote) to ten passages of St. Matthew at the
most : viz. Matt. v. 28. 42., x. 32, 33., xiii. 5, 6, 7. 20, 21, 22.
31, 32., xviii. 3, 4., xix. 23, 24., xxiii. 6., xxviii. 18. The other
parts of the New Testament to which this Father may be supr
posed to allude, are the following: — Mark ix. 50- ; Luke xiii.
24, 25., xvi. 18. ; John xiv. 6. ; Acts v. 41. ; Rom. viii. 11., ix.
4., xi. 29., xv. 7. ; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. ; vii, 11. 15. ; 2 Cor. vii.
10!; Gal. iii. 27.; Eph. iv. 4. 30, 31. ; Philip, iv. 18.; Col. i.
15, 16. ; 1 These, v. 13. ; 2 Tim. i. 14., iv. 18. ; Heb xij. 17. ;
James i. 5., ii. 7., iii. 15. 17., iv. 2, 3, 4. 7. 12., v. 1, 2. 4. ; 1 Pet.
i. 6, 7., iii 15., v. 7 ; 2 Pet. ii. 15, 20. ; 1 John ii. 27., iv, 6., v,
6. ; 2 John 4. ; 3 John 3, 4. ; Jude 21. 24. There arc expres
sions also in this Father resembling several in the book of Reve
lation. But in none of these allusions to the books of the New
Testament, do we find the author concerned with any other than
topics of moral and religious exhortation.
4. In those Epistles of Ignatius which are received as
genuine, there are to be discovered, besides the allusions to the
first two chapters of St. Matthew noticed at p. 176. of this
volume, but six passages of thai Evangelist to which this
Father can be supposed to refer : viz. iii. 15., x. 16., xii. 33.,

188 ON the first two chapters
xviii. 19, 20., xix, 12. In addition to these, he may be con
sidered as referring to the following parts of the other Gospels
and of the Epistles. Luke xiv. 27. ; John iii. 8., viii. 29., x. 9.,
xii. 49., xvi, 11. 28.; Acts' x. 41. ; Rom. viii. 33, 39., xv. 7.;
1 Cor. i. 10. 18, 19, 20., iv. 4,, v. 7., vi 9, 10., xv. .8. ; 2 Cor.
v. 14, 15. ; Gal. i. 1., v. 4. ; Eph. ii. 22., iv. 3, 4, 5., v. 2. 25:
29., vi. 13, 14. 16, 17.; Philip, i. 21., ii. 3. 5.; Col. i. 7. ; 1
Thess, v. 17. ; 2 Tim. i. 16. IS., ii. 4. ; Tit. ii. 3,; Pbilem. .20.;
Heb. x. 28, 29., xiii, .9. ; 1 Pet. v. 5. ; I John i. 2. ; 3 John 2,
Of these, as of the passages of the New Testament alluded to
by the Fathers before named, it is to be remarked, that none are
connected with any discussion concerning the nativity of our
Lord. And the allusions, which this Father (as observed at p.
176.) has made to that subject, will be found, upon examina^
tion, not to have been studiously and formally brought forward
for the purpose of proving the miraculous circumstances of our
Lord's birth, as if they were at that time not generally assented
to ; but introduced familiarly and unqualifiedly, as relating to a
fact well known, and about which no difference of opinion
prevailed, or at least none that demanded a more detailed con
sideration. Lastly, with respect to Polycarp, of whose writings the
Epistle to the Philippians is the only one that has been
preserved ; his references to St. Matthew are as follow : Matt.
v. 3. 7. 10. 44„ vi. 12, 13,, 14, 15., vii. 1, 2:, xxvi. 41. These
relate merely to matter of religious exhortation and enforcement,
as do his remaining references to other parts of the New Testa
ment; namely, Acts ii. 24.; Rom. xii. 17., xiii. 9, 10., xiv. 10.
12. ; I Cor, v. 11., vi. 2. 9, 10. ; 2 Cor. iv. 14, vi. 7 , viii 21. ;
Gal. i, 1„ iv. 26, ; vi. 7. ; Ephes. ii. 8, 9., iv. 26. ; Philip, ii. 10,
11. 16.; Col. i, 28.; 1 Thess, v. 17,22.; 2 Thess, iii. 15.;
1 Tim, ii. 1, 2,, vi. 7. 10, ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.. iv. 10.; Heb. iv.
12, 13. ; I Pet. i, 8. 13. 21. ; 1 Pet. ii. 11, 12. 17. 22. 24., iii.
9. 14., iv, 5. 7., v. 5. ; 1 John ii. 7., iv. 3. ; Jude 3.
The purposes, for which the Apostolical Fathers referred to
the New Testament, will readily be discerned by a review of the
passages to which they can be supposed to have alluded, and
Which have been here yery fully enumerated, In truth, so far

of st. Matthew's gospel. 189
are they from having had occasion to refer to such parts of
Scripture as. relate to the family and birth of Christ, that, with
the exception of Ignatius, their subjects in no instance lead
them to any discussion, or even notice, of these points. The
Epistle of Barnabas consists of two parts : the one exhorting
to constancy in the belief and profession of the Christian doctrine
without the rites of the Jewish law ; and the other contain
ing a course of Moral instructions. (See Menard. Judic. de
S. Barn. Patr. Apost. vol, i. p. xxviii.) The Epistle of Cle
ment is designed to compose dissensions, which- had sprung up
in the church of Corinth respecting spiritual governors ; and is
principally occupied in recommending peace, and harmony, and
humility, and faith, and all the virtues of a Christian life,, The
writings of Hernias consist -of visions, mandates, and similitudes,
all totally unconnected with the person and history of Christ.
The short letter of Polycarp, which is scarcely of sufficient
bulk to fill ten octavo pages, is entirely employed in godly ex
hortation. And in the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, in which
heretical opinions are adverted to, we find that Father opposing
to those opinions the fact of our Lord's miraculous birth, agree
ably to the account given of it by St. Matthew ; and opposing
that fact as decisive and unanswerable in argument, whilst it is
itself assumed as a matter about which there was no dispute.
That the heretical opinions, moreover, against which he had to
contend, were not those which maintained the simple humanity
of Christ, but those, on the contrary, which denied his human
nature altogether, and the reality of his suffering and resurrec
tion, seems fairly deducible from the entire tenor and language
of his Epistles, and more especially from the 11th section of his
Epistle to the Magnesians, in which he lays particular stress on
these things having been done truly and certainly, 7rga%6itTa
aX>i6as xa) fieSatuf*

* On the subject of the above paragraph, I cannot forbear recommending
to the reader an excellent work of the late Mr. Wilson, of St. John's
College, Cambridge, on the Method of Explaining the New Testament by
the early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ. Let him
look particularly to p. 357, and the argument cpnnected therewith. I

190 ON the first two chapters, etc
How little, then, upon the whole, these early Fathers had to
do with establishing the truth of the history relating to "the
family and birth of Christ;" how little they Were, in their
writings, concerned in "debates with Jewish unbelievers;"
how little they were urged to the necessity of "referring to the
first two chapters of St Matthew," and how little, consequently,
Dr. Williams is at liberty to infer from the silence, which he
attributes to them on the subject matter of those chapters, the
conclusion that they are spurious, — I leave to the reader to
determine. That he may form the better judgment of the value of the
argument derived from the silence of the Apostolical Fathers
concerning any assigned portion of Scripture, I shall conclude
with transcribing some observations of the industrious and cau
tious Lardner, upon the subject of their writings. {Works,
vol. ii. pp. 103, 104.) — "All these are but short pieces. The
largest is the Shepherd of Hennas, which is almost as large as
all the rest put together. But it was inconsistent with the
nature of that work for the writer to quote books. All these
pieces, except the Shepherd of Hennas, are epistles written. to
Christians ; who, it is likely, needed not at that time to be
particularly informed what books they ought to receive; but
only to be admonished to attend to the things contained in them,
and to maintain their respect for them, as is here often done."
From these and other particulars, he proceeds to say, — "It is
apparent, that these Apostolical Fathers have not omitted to
take notice of any book of the New Testament, which, as far
as we are able to judge, their design led them to mention.
Their silence, therefore, about any other books can be no pre
judice to their genuineness, if we shall hereafter meet with
credible testimonies to them." What has been here justly re
marked respecting the books of Scripture, equally applies to
portions of those books.

cannot but think that this ingenious -writer has taken a juster view than
that which even the learned Bishop Pearson, the great vindicator of Igna-
tius's writings, has formed, of the nature of the heresies with which this
ancient Father had to contend,

SUPPLEMENT

REMARKS ON THE UNITARIAN VERSION

NEW TESTAMENT.

In a former edition, I had been led to make some observations
on the translation of the New Testament, which has been given
to the public by the Unitarians, under the title of an Improved
Version. To the version bearing this name, — a name, which,
Avere it not known to be the serious appellation bestowed upon it
by its authors, might well be suspected as the sarcastic designa
tion of it by its opponents, — I stated a few objections ; intended
rather for the purpose of presenting some specimens of the un
fitness and incapacity of the Editors, and of thereby guarding
the unsuspicious and unreflecting reader against the imposing
pretensions of the work, than for that of exhibiting in detail the
errors, corruptions, and falsifications, With which it abounds;
and which, in truth, render it a production, just as much fitted
to convey a correct notion of the great doctrines of Christianity,
as if it had been a translation of the chapters of the Koran.*

* I find in the Brief Memorial of that excellent and learned prelate,
Bishop Burgess, the following observations and quotation, in which, the
story of Unitarian ingenuity in. the management of Scripture is accurately
paralleled : — " The Unitarian Version of the New Testament unites the
two characters of Marcion and Valentinus. Alius manu scripturas, alius
sensus expositione intervertit. Neque enim, si Valentinus integro instru-
mento uti videtur, non callidiore. ingenio, quam Marcionj manus in|ulit
veritati. Marcion enim exerte etpalam machaera non stilo usus est; quo-
niam ad materiam suam csedem Scripturarum confecit. Valentinus, autem
pepercit ; quoniamnon ad materiam scripturas, sed ad scripturas materiam,
excogitavit; et tamen plus abstulit, et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates

192 supplementary remarks ON THE
The excellent treatise of Dr. Nares (of Which I rejoice to see
a second and improved edition lately published,) together with

singulorum quoque verborum, et adjiciens dispositiones non comparentium
rerum. (Tertull. De Prescript. Hmret. c. 38.)" — The Bishop adds,
i " Teflullian calls the Valentinian New Testament a travesty-;— fabulam
in totum aliara componi : and such is the English Unitarian Version ; as
any one may see who will compare jt with the original." (P. 32.) In
truth the joint picture of Marcion and Valentinus admirably completes the
Unitarian Editor, who, at the same time, it must be confessed, has wasted
strength in his performance ; since he has in his nature enough of Marcion
to do without Valentinus, and enough of Valentinus to make him inde
pendent of Marcion.
At the moment of finishing the above paragraph, another valuable tract
of Bishop Burgess, just published, has fallen into my hands, in which I
find a passage of Mosheim so exactly applicable to the subject, that I can
not deny, myself the satisfaction of adding it to this note. That writer,
contrasting the orthodox interpreter, with the Socinian of Ids day, whose
moderation is the scorn of the Unitarian of ours, says, " Nos simplicitatem
unice consectamur ; verba, ut usus hominum postulat, accipimus, nee aliter
quam sana ratio jubet, interpretamur. Illi omnia contra : qui quidem uni-
versas ingenii vires intendunt, ut vim dictorumsacrorum, multis variisque
ambagious, verborum conlorsionibus, novis interpunctionibus, emendationi-
bus denique, enervent, et a naturali sensu defiectant. Ita qui ratIonem
SEMPER NOBIS OBTRUDUNT, ID FACIUNT IPSI, QUOD RATIO FIERI POSSE
negat." — Disert. ad Sanct. Discip. p. 341. — See p. 72. of The Bible and
nothing but the Bible.
To mention a single eanon, of those laid down for the interpretation of
Scripture by modern Unitarians, will abundantly justify the application to
them of the observations of Mosheim upon their Socinian forerunners.
" Impartial and sincere inquirers after truth must be particularly upon their
guard against what is called the natural signification of words and phrases."
(Calm Inquiry, pp. 4, 5.) By the " natural signification of words" is
not here understood a signification of words established by nature;
against which (as it is known not to exist) no person needs to be put upon
his guard ; but simply, that signification, which has been sanctioned by
continued usage, by the rtrue "jus et norma loquendi;" in other words,
that signification, which a thorough knowledge of the language attributes
to the words. This is the signification of words, against which the Unita
rian, in the person of Mr. Belsham, the promulger of the above canon,
would guard the reader and interpreter of Scripture ; and this, on the
ground, that "the connexion between words and ideas is perfectly arbi
trary." The misfortune of a little knowledge is, that the phrases of a sci-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 193
the valuable observations of Dr. Laurence and Mr. Rennell,
had been successfully directed to the latter object. These writ-
ence are used without a perception of their import. Locke and other Meta
physicians have said, that the connexion between words and ideas is not a
natural but an arbitrary connexion. And, in the sense in which they in
tend it, they have said truly ; — namely, that sounds being indifFerent in
their nature, the signification of words must be the result of an originally
arbitrary imposition. But the connexion of words and ideas being con
ventional, when once established, it is so far from being arbitrary, that
nothing is more out of the power of individuals to alter. As Locke re
marks, " even the great Augustus himself, in the possession of that power
which ruled the world, acknowledged he could not make a new Latin
word : " that is, says he, " he could not arbitrarily appoint what idea any
sound should be a sign of, in the mouths and common language of his sub
jects." (Essay, b. iii. c. 2.) — Not so the Unitarian Metaphysicians.
They have read somewhere, that " -the_ connexion between words and
ideas is arbitrary ; " and mistaking the true meaning of the position, they
are enabled, by their ignorance, to accomplish what Augustus could not
by his power, to give arbitrarily to words whatever signification they may
choose. Mr. Belsham very properly follows up this canon, by another, which
pronounces, that learning is by no means a necessary requisite for the just
comprehension of Scripture — but that "a sound understanding and an
honest mind " are fully suificient for the purpose. The critical knowledge
of a language can undoubtedly be of little use, where words have no esta
blished meaning. And the Editors ofthe Unitarian New Testament haTe,
accordingly, acted with perfect consistency, in paying (as they openly
avow) but little attention to " verbal criticism " in the execution of their
translation. In fact, the grossest ignorance (and especially of the original
language of the N. T.) is displayed by them and their assistant Commen
tators in every page of their compilations. This, indeed, seems at all
times to have been a distinguishing characteristic ofthe Socinian School.
The learned Eisner speaks of that Sect in the following language, which
is surely not unappropriate to its followers ofthe present day : — " Ad con-
futandos adversarios, et pestilentissimce prmsertim Socinianorum Sects
dogmata convellenda, prEesentissimum auxilium fert Grcects lingua peritia.
Summum horum hominum artificium in eo consistit, ut novas et insolentes
notiones, quasque situs verborum plane respuit, voeibns subjiciant, loquu-
tiones violenter divellant, omniaque misceant et turbent, ut aliquam saltern
hseresi suae veri speciem ex sacris libris inducant, Gracte enim Ungues fere
expertes sunt. — Sane ut novum religionem excogitarunt hi homines, cui
postea accommodare sacros libros sunt conati, sic et nova lingua opus
Vol. 2.-25

194 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ers, Dr. Nares especially, had detected and exposed many of
the principal and most pernicious of the fallacies and blunders
of this Improved Version. Some of the periodical journals
also, more particularly the Quarterly and Eclectic Reviews,
had contributed their aid to the same salutary purpose. It,
therefore, became the less necessary "for me to carry my animad
versions beyond the extent and the object to which 1 had pro
posed to confine myself.
The Glasgow Religious Tract Society, whose exertions
in the dissemination of religious knowledge are highly meritori
ous, finding that uncommon efforts were making to spread Uni
tarian principles in Glasgow and its vicinity, and conceiving that
the circulation of the Remarks on the Unitarian Version in
a detached form, might assist in counteracting the threatened
evil, applied in the year 1813 for my permission to publish them
separately, as an extract from the work. To this I willingly
assented : and that Society accordingly printed and circulated a
large edition of the Extract, under the title of An Exposure of
the unwarrantable Liberties taken by the Unitarians with
the Sacred Scriptures in their Version of the New Testa
ment. No sooner did this short tract make its appearance, than
it was determined to assail it without mercy, lt presented itself

habent, qua omnes opinionis suae errores eant confirmatum." Observ. Sac.
praef. ad Lect. — It is with good reason that Mr. Belsham exclaims against
a critical attention to the " niceties " of the Greek language, and against
what he denominates " grammatical subtilties : " — this seems also not un
seasonably inserted in the Introduction to his Calm Inquiry. Indeed this
writer seems disposed to carry his ideas of the inutility of the knowledge
of the Greek language for a just translation of the Greek Testament some
what beyond the " niceties " and " grammatical subtilties " of the lan
guage : for he asks in triumph : " Who ever heard of a juryman being chal
lenged, because he was not a good grammarian ? Can no one know that
Gustavus is banished fr,om his throne, who is not able to read the instru
ment of his deposition in the original language ? " (P. 6.) — After this, will
any one pretend to say, that, for a perfect knowledge of the contents of
the Old and New Testament, an acquaintance with the Hebrew and Greek
languages, or a knowledge of the grammar of any language, is in any de
gree necessary 1

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 195
in a size and compass adapted to the Theologians of Hackney :
and, as without much demand for literature, or much expendi
ture of thought, a pamphlet of about the same dimensions could
be easily thrown off, in their usual popular style of dashing de
clamation and confident assertion ; with a shew of learning and
logic sufficient to disguise gross ignorance and rank sophistry ;
a mixture of pleasantry and sarcasm suited to the taste of those
likely to become its readers ; and, above all, with the note of
triumph so uniformly and so ludicrously sounded by the modern
writers of the Unitarian School, on every repetition of argu
ments which have been a thousand times refuted, and are yet
as often advanced without the slightest notice of p revious refu
tation : — such a thing was manufactured and sent abroad, for
the total discomfiture of the author of the work on Atonement
and Sacrifice, and, consequently, for the entire subversion of
the doctrines which that work maintains. The pamphlet itself
1 did not consider entitled to notice. But as its anonymous
author, under the assumed appellation of the Calm Inquirer,*

* The writer, although he entitles himself a " Calm Inquirer," it
should be observed, does not thereby mean to announce himself as the Au
thor ofthe " Calm Inquiry." And yet it seems somewhat whimsical, that
Mr. Belsham, in his Letters to the Rev. H. Horsley, denominates the Au
thor of the '¦' Calm Inquiry " continually by the title of the " Calm Inqui
rer:" (Month. Rep. vol. viii. pp. 387. 452. 724, 725.) and this in the
pages ofthe very volume in which the " Address " of the " Calm Inqui
rer " is inserted.
The two things, however, are reconcilable. A person, entitling him
self a Calm Inquirer, may yet not be the author of a Calm Inquiry: but
he who has been the author of a Calm Inquiry, cannot be other than a
Calm Inquirer. — Dr. Nares, in the new edition of his Remarks, (p. 248.)
speaks, from what authority I know not, ofthe Author of this pamphlet be
ing " said to be Mr. Belsham himself, the principal Editor of the Improved
Version." Dr. Wardlaw, of Glasgow, also pronounces the " Calm In
quirer as generally understood to be Mr. Belsham:" and assigns as the"
ground of his own belief that it is so, the prevalence of the report, and
likewise certain characters of internal evidence, arising from the calmness,
the modesty, and the suavity, which he represents as markedly indicative
of the style and manner of that writer. (Discourses on the principal
points ofthe Socinian Controversy, p. 431.)— Whether the conjectures of

196 supplementary remarks on the
has charged me with unfair treatment of the Editors of the
Unitarian Version, now that the sending out the present edition
brings me again upon the subject, I shall not scruple to recon
sider the objections which I have already advanced against that
Version, and- at the same time to bestow a few observations upon
the vindication of the Version, which has been attempted by
this Calm Inquirer in answer to those objeciions. This I am
the more readily disposed to do, because (so far as I know) this
pamphlet contains the only defence of the Version that has been
offered to the public in a detached form ; and because the body
of English Unitarians have attributed to it (trifling as it is) so
high a value, that, not content with printing and circulating it
at the expence of their public fund, they have superadded the
publication of it in their Magazine, thus securing to it every
degree of currency and credit, that it is in the power of the en
tire body to bestow. Recognised and adopted in this manner by
the whole community of Unitarians (who appear now to be con
solidated and organised in a manner somewhat approaching the
system of the Wesleyan Methodists,) it is, of course, to be viewed
as their own authenticated and deliberate defence of their ver
sion : at least so far as the objections advanced in a late edition
of this work are concerned. We are therefore in no danger of
mistaking the sense in which the Unitarian editors wish to be
understood upon the points at issue : and, with the lights and
explanations now afforded, we can be at no loss, in the revision
of our former arguments, to know how far they apply to what,

Dr. Nares and Dr. Wardlaw be well founded, I know not. I should have
supposed Mr. Belsham to be possessed of more manliness than to skulk
from an opponent : and whatever be the errors, absurdities, and vulgarities
of this little pamphlet conjecturally ascribed to him ; be the deficiencies in
reasoning, in knowledge, and in tasterwhat they may ; I am satisfied, from
convincing proofs, that the author of the Review of Mr. Wilberforce, the
Letters on Arianism, the Calm Inquiry, and the Letters to the Rev. H.
Horsley, has the courage to avow them all, if the production be truly his.
Thus acquitted, then, of all connexion with this miserable little perform
ance, as Mr. Belsham must feel himself to be, he of course will not be
affected by any observations that may be occasionally bestowed upon it in
the course of the ensuing remarks.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 197
on the fullest consideration, the Unitarians themselves admit to
be their meaning.
The charges advanced by me in a former edition were pre
faced by one or two observations on the disingenuousness of the
Editors of the new Version, in their use of the name of Arch
bishop Newcome : professing to ground their Version upon the
basis of his translation, whilst in truth they adopt no part of it
that interfered with their peculiar opinions : and thereby securing
a respectable name for their Unitarian blasphemies, and contriv
ing to circulate their poisons under a false label. Both the
language and the matter of this charge have given great offence.
I cannot depart from either. As to the former, deeming the
opinions held by modern Unitarians to be blasphemous * and
pestilential, I cannot in truth and justice denominate them by
any other terms : and, as to the latter, being satisfied, that the
charge of deception and falsehood in the pretended adherence
to the Archbishop's translation, is founded in fact, I hold myself
bound to make it good ; and shall, for this purpose, more parti
cularly bring before the reader's view the language and the con
duct of the Editors in reference to this subject.
They inform us, (Introd. p. iv.) that they had adopted Arch
bishop Newcome's translation as the basis of their own, " not
only because of its general accuracy, simplicity, and fidelity ;
but principally because he professes to have followed the text of
Griesbach's edition," on the accuracy of which they largely
descant. They state, also, that " they assumed it as a principle,
that no alteration should be made in the Primate's translation
but where it appeared to be necessary to the correction of error
or inaccuracy, in the text, the language, the construction, or the

* Perhaps, indeed, the term "blasphemy," which has been that adopted
by the Laws of the Land in speaking of the Socinian or Unitarian tenets,
it may be thought by the Unitarians that no person has now a right to em
ploy ; as the Laws against blasphemy have been lately repealed by the Le
gislature. On the subject of this Repeal, the Brief Memorial of Bishop
Burgess, that watchful, and able, and learned guardian ofthe interests of
true religion and of the Established Church, deserves the most serious
consideration from all to whom those interests are dear.

198 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
sense." The Calm defender of the Editors adds, that they
"could not without the most flagrant violation of honour and
honesty have published their work without the most open and
explicit acknowledgment of the use which they had thus made
of the translation ofthe learned Primate." (Address, &c. p. 6.)
But if " honour and honesty " demanded so "open an acknow
ledgment of the use which they had made of the Primate's
translation," was there not some little matter of '•' honour and
honesty " concerned likewise in making as open an acknow
ledgment of the use they did not make of that translation?
Was it from a principle of justice to the Primate, that they first
announced his translation as their model, and then departed
from it whenever it suited their convenience : that they abide
by the Primate just so long as he abides by them ; following
him in all matters that are perfectly indifferent, but utterly dis
regarding him in all those in which their peculiar opinions are
concerned ; until at length, even by the confession of their
Vindicator himself, nearly one-tenth* of this new Version is

* Address by a Calm Inquirer, &c. p. 6. " More than nine-tenths of
the Improved Version is the Primate's own." — What this writer exactly
means by these words, it is not very easy to understand. Whether it be,
that nine-tenths of the loords taken numerically axe the same, or that nine-
tenths of the sentences agree, I am at a loss to determine. In the first case,
since the distinct sentences of the N. T. contain, one with another, more
than ten words each, it is manifest, that, by a proper distribution of the
differing words, the two translations might possibly disagree in every sen
tence, and so become repugnant in their sense throughout. — In the second,
it is allowed, that, in one sentence in every ten, the two versions may be at
variance, and consequently that they may differ in every passage affecting
the doctrines of Christianity ; since these would clearly not extend to the
tenth part of the N. T. estimated by its component sentences. How ab
surd, then, and fallacious is it, under either acceptation of the words, to
pretend to speak of the Primate's Version as any basis or standard what
soever ! — It must be observed, too, that the admission of this great extent
of departure from the pretended model was not made, until, after a labori
ous research for the very purpose of the discovery, it had been shown to
the public that nearly one thousand variations from the text of the Primate
have taken place. On this point I refer the reader to Dr. Nare's Remarks
(2d. edit. p. 3.) where it is stated, that even by a Unitarian Reviewer there

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 199
found to differ from that which it professses to follow 1 So that
a translation, which they adopted as their basis, from " its gene
ral accuracy, simplicity, and fidelity? and from its adherence
to the correct text of Griesbach, they find it "necessary" to
depart from, by their own confession, to the amount of the one-
tenth, on account of what they deem " error or inaccuracy, in
the text, the language, the construction, or the sense." And
this they call making one translation the basis of the other :
and this entitles them, nay compels them, under the imperious
demand of "honour and honesty," to spread the name of
Archbishop Newcome* in large characters over the title-

had been reckoned up 750 deviations from Newcome, in addition to those
" from the received text, and from Griesbach's second edition (not duly no
ticed or pointed out to the reader as they ought to be :") and that the same
Unitarian writer regrets, " that no standard text had been adhered to, ' be
cause' (says he) ' it would do away one of the most powerful charges
brought against us, namely, that we alter the scriptures to suit our
own system.' "
* Dr. Nares very justly observes, that, whilst Archbishop Newcomers
name is held out as a model in the title-page, the Editors expressly inform
us, (in a note, however, not quite so prominent as the title-page,) that no
thing but the clear and discriminating light diffused over the obscurities of
the Sacred Scriptures by the venerable Theophilus Lindsey, and his coad
jutors, Jebb, Priestley, Wakefield, and others, could purify the Christian
Religion from those numerous and enormous corruptions, which have so
long disfigured its doctrines and impaired its progress. " This," he adds,
"is speaking out plainly, though it rather surprises me, that none of these
names appear in the title-page to recommend the book, while two Arch
bishops are selected for this purpose : for, besides the learned Primate of
Ireland, a motto is adopted from Archbishop Parker's preface to the Bishops'
Bible, by way, surely, of a second decoy to the unwary members of the
Church." (Remarks, &c. p. 2.) — The Calm Inquirer indeed observes,
(p. 6.) that " the Editor&of the Improved Version are not idolaters of Arch
bishops as such :" and from this he would have it inferred, that the charge
of the intention of " sheltering themselves under the name of Primate
Newcome " is totally unfounded. But this gentleman will please to recol
lect, that it was not to any extraordinary reverence for Archbishops, but to
the gainful use which might be made of their authority, that their fondness
for the name of Primate Newcome had been ascribed. It had been said,
and with how much truth he who examines the work carefully may judge

200 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
page of their book : and to impress the reader with the belief,
that he is, in substance at least, perusing the Primate's New
Testament, when he is perusing one purposely contrived to
empty it of every doctrine which the Primate deemed essential
to Christianity.
Well, but then we are told, that, " wherever they have judged
it expedient to deviate from the Primate's translation, the Edi
tors have, with the most scrupulous fidelity, given notice of
the change, and set down the Primate's words in the mar
gin." So the Calm Inquirer positively asserts. (P. 6.) The
Editors also state the same for themselves ; and affirm that not
only where they have deviated from the Primate's Version,
but also where they have deviated from the Received Text,
they have "in every instance" noticed the alteration at the foot
of the page. (Introd. p. iv.) Now, although this by no means
clears the Editors from imputation, for the reasons already al
leged, yet upon this point I readily join issue with both them
and their Vindicator. The reverse of the affirmation so peremp
torily made by both, is notoriously the fact ; and a fact which
presents itself in such a form, that, although the compilers of
this new version are entitled to take credit for much of precipi
tancy and carelessness on many points, yet they cannot be al
lowed to claim the unqualified benefit of that excuse upon this.
Of the numerous examples which might be cited in support of
the assertion here made, I shall adduce a few, which will abun-

for himself, that the assumption of the name of a respected prelate of the
Church of England for the sanction of a work, in which every doctrine
professed by that Church, and by that respected member of it, is directly
attacked, is something more than an artifice ; that it is a falsehood and a
fraud, and can have no other object than that of procuring a circulation by
drawing in unsuspecting purchasers. — But to return to the title-page : —
There we find, in large characters, Improved Version, Archbishop New-
come's translation, Corrected Text. — Archbishop Parker, and the
Bishops' Bible, are also made to meet the eye : — and all is executed by a
Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. — The advocates of
Materialism and Necessity were too strongly impressed with the power of
association, not to have been aware of the great value of a good primtt
facie adjustment.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 201
dantly suffice to shew what degree of reliance is to be placed on
the accuracy of these Unitarian Editors ; and which, as vitally
affecting some of the great doctrines of Christianity, will clearly
manifest, how far, " honour and honesty "have been followed, in
" making open acknowledgment" of every departure from the
Version professed to be held in constant view.
I. Luke i. 35. — Newcome — " Therefore that holy child, also
who shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."—
Imp. Vers. — " Therefore that holy child also who shall be born
of thee shall be called a Son of God."
II. John i. 1 2. — N. — " But as many as received him, to them
he gave power to become children of God." — I. V. — " But as
many as received him, to them he gave authority to be
the children of God."
III. John iii. 13. — N. — "Now no man goeth up to heaven,
but he who came down from heaven, even the Son of man,
who was in heaven." — I. V. — " Now no man hath ascen
ded up to heaven, but he who came down from heaven, even
the Son of man [who is in heaven.]"
IV. Rom. ix. 5. — N. — " Whose are the fathers, and of whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever, Amen." — I. V. — " Whose are the fa
thers, and of whom, by natural descent, Christ came.
God, who is over all, be blessed for ever."
V. 2 Cor. viii. 9. — N. — " For ye know the gracious goodness
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your
sakes he became poor, that through his poverty ye might be
rich." — I. V. — "For ye know the gracious goodness of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that while he was rich, yet for your sakes
he lived in poverty, that through his poverty ye might be
rich." VI. Hebr. xii. 25, 26. — N. — "See that ye refuse not him
who speaketh. For if those escaped not who refused him that
uttered the oracles of God on earth, much more we shall
not escape, if we reject him who was from heaven : whose
voice then shook the earth : but now he hath promised," «fcc. —
I. V. — " See that ye refuse not God who speaketh. For if
those escaped not who refused him when he uttered oracles
Vol. 2.-26

202 supplementary remarks on the
on earth, much less shall we escape, if we reject him speak
ing from heaven : whose voice then shook the earth : but now
he hath promised," &c.
Now, are these specimens, which are but a very few out of
the number that might be adduced of important unacknow
ledged, departures from Newcome's Version, to be accounted
for from mere accident 7 If so, undoubtedly the Editors, in
this their heedless innocency, have been wonderfully fortunate
in stumbling so opportunely on passages, in which the omission
of acknowledgment turns out so peculiarly favourable to their
predominant opinions ; and on all of which, (excepting the first,
which they are desirous to explode altogether as spurious,) they
employ lengthened observations in the notes, for the very pur
pose of divesting them of all appearance of the meaning, which
Would necessarily result from the Primate's rendering, delibera
tely and unacknowledgedly rejected and altered by them.
Respecting the first of these text, it is obvious to remark, that
the difference between the two forms of expression, " the Son
of God," and " a Son of God," affects immediately the question
respecting the nature of our Lord's sonship : the great object with
the Unitarians being to represent it in such a light as would ad
mit human beings to be described as standing in the like rela
tion to God. " All Christians," Mr. Belsham tells us in his
Calm Inquiry, (p. 262.) " are children of God, being the heirs
and expectants of a resurrection to a happy and immortal life."
The Editors also take care to inform us, in their note on Rom.
i. 4., that "Christ is called the Son of God for two reasons : first,
because this title is equivalent to that of Messiah, and was so un
derstood by the Jews, John i. 50. : " and, "secondly, he is cal
led* a Son of God, as having heen raised from the dead to an
* There is something strikingly characteristic of Unitarian critics in
this note on Rom. i. 4. They tell us, that " Christ is called the ' Son
of God ' for two reasons :" and the second of the two explains to us
why " he is called a Son of God." — Now do these critics really so far
disregard " verbal criticism," as to reject all difference between the
definite and indefinite forms ; or are they willing so to confound them
occasionally in ordinary use, as to prepare an excuse for a similar con
fusion where it may stand them in good stead"; or do they mean that

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 203
immortal life;" that "in this sense Christ is called the first
born, having been the first human being who was put into pos-
in the first of the two senses our Lord is to be called the " Son of
God," and in the second a "Son of God V — But, in truth, to look after
the meaning of such Critics is in most cases an idle pursuit. To
exhibit their want of meaning may not, indeed, be an equally unpro
fitable occupation. And therefore I must detain the reader for a short
while, in tracing out the consistency with which these translators exe
cute their oflice in the application of the definite and indefinite forms ;
especially fo far as the important designation of our Lord, above allud
ed to, is concerned.
In John xix. 7., they tell us, that the reason assigned by the Jews
for demanding our Lord's execution, was, " because he made himself
a Son of God." And when in Luke xxii. 70., they give us our Lord's
own confession, on which the Jews are said to ground this accusation,
it is, that he made himself " the Son of God." So that, having been.
guilty of the crime 'of calling himself '' the Son of God," he is
condemned because he called himself "a Son of God." — But, yet
farther, they represent the Jews as putting our Lord to death, be
cause he confessed himself to be " a Son of God ;" that is, because he
confessed himself to be one of that description of persons represented
under the general appellation of "Sons of God;" one of those who
were "heirs and expectants of a resurrection to a happy immortality,"
as the Author of the Calm Inquiry, (p. 262.) and the Editors, in the
note on Rom. i. 4., explain the appellation. Now, will the Editors,
and their Calm Inquirer, be good enough to point out what " blas
phemy " there was in this declaration ; or what was the law of the
Jewish Code, by which our Lord was doomed to die for this sad trans
gression of professing himself one of those who were believers in and
expectants of a happy immortality? — Oh, no, they answer, it is not
in this sense of the expression, but in that which makes it equivalent
with Messiah, (which they are pleased at another time to tell us is all
that the phrase Son of God implies,) that condemnation is passed
upon our Lord. Well, then, our Lord, in declaring that he was "a
Son of God," declared that he was a Messiah : and it was for this
that he suffered. We must here again apply to the Editors, and to the
Calm Inquirer who defends them, to inform us, how m,any Messiahs
there were to be ; or whether, if but one Messiah be spoken of in Scrip
ture, " a Son of God," as such, and therefore eaeh of those Sons of
God whom the Editors and the Calm Inquirer have described to us,
was to be that one Messiah. If the latter be the meaning ofthese
theologians, (as, from their never having, in their various learned

204 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
session of this glorious inheritance ; " that " all believers, as heirs
of the same inheritance, are also Sons of God :" and that " these

publications, intimated anything of a plurality of Messiahs, it may
not be deemed too unreasonable to conjecture,) then, the only cause,
why they have hitherto objected to the Unity of the Athanasian
Creed, must be, that the persons of the Monad have not been suffi
ciently multiplied for their taste. I beg pardon of my reader. It is
scarcely possible to treat of the arguments of some writers without
being forced to trifle. — But we may now see, in one plain instance, the
degree of improvement which this Improved Version has attained : the
translation first differing from itself, as we have pointed out in the
former of these observations ; and next differing more fatally from the
meaning which it is intended to convey, as we have shown in the latter.
But no: it was the great accuracy of the translators. They were
careful to abide by the corrected Greek Text of Griesbach, with
which they are so delighted. And as the Greek article occurs in one
place, and not in the other, of those to which we have referred, they
have translated in the definite and the indefinite form accordingly.
No, in truth, they abide by no such rule, nor by any rule whatever.
They have, on the contrary, in the use of the definite and indefinite
forms, taken such liberties (just as they do with Griesbach's text
generally, as well as Newcome's) as suited their convenience ; ren
dering the articled noun frequently in the indefinite form, and as
frequently giving the definite form to the anarthrous. Had they,
indeed, adopted such a rule as is above alluded to, they would have
adopted a wrong one ; because, as has been well shown by those who
understand the subject, the Greek article is not in every case neces
sarily to be rendered by the English definite, much less is the English
indefinite to be always employed where the Greek article is wanting.
The researches of the learned render it totally unnecessary to enter
into this subject : and it may perhaps suffice to refer to the first two
sentences of the book of Genesis, to show what effect the unqualified
application of the above rule to the Septuagint Greek would produce
on our English translation : for e»c having the article prefixed in the
first sentence, and the words mfj[*a.retw being each destitute ofthe
article in the second, we must then render thus, " In the beginning
the God created the heaven and the earth" — '-and a spirit of a God
moved upon the face of the waters." In nothing is the difference be
tween "the School-boy and the Scholar more remarkable, than in the
qualification of general rules. To which class the Editors and their
brother critics belong, whoever takes the pains of examining their
criticisms will be at no loss to discover,

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 205
are the only senses in which the title, Son of God, is applied to
Christ in the genuine apostolical writings." — Now, it is quite

I have, however, already said, that they are not to be charged with
an adherence to the rule alluded to. No ; they at the same time admit
the rule, and violate it without cause. They follow no system either
in the conformity, or the departure : but every where, according as it
answers their purpose, or eveii as it hits their fancy, they apply or
reject it altogether at pleasure. That I do not state this too strongly,
one or two instances may suffice to prove. In Luke iv. 9. the words of
the devil addressed to our Lord, ei ° vies el rev euv, they translate, " If
thou be a Son of God ;" whilst the very same words, used by the very
same Being, and under all the circumstances precisely the same, they
translate, when they occur in Matthew iv. 36. ; and even again in the
same Evangelist Luke, (iv. 3.) "If thou be the Son of God." [And
as if they were determined to be in nothing correct, in what they call
a corrected text, they even make a distinction between these latter pas
sages, printing the article in the last one as belonging to the Greek
text, and in the two others as not belonging to it, but introduced by
the Translator. What makes it more extraordinary, also, that they
should have selected the indefinite form for the passage in Luke iv. 9.
is, that in that passage the article is found in the Greek text in a vast
variety of MSS. : insomuch that it has hitherto formed a part of the
received text, and it is doubtful whether, notwithstanding Griesbach's
rejection, it should not do so still.] — Again the same form of expres
sion, with a difference affecting merely the tense and person of the verb,
itodZc @av uiis tl, &\ii()Zt Be™ ulif it, occurring also in one and the same
Evangelist, (Matt. xiv. 33., and xxvii. 54.) they translate differently,
although in both departing from the received translation ; in the former,
" Truly thou art a Son of God ;" and in the latter, " Truly this was a
Son of a God." — [They imagined undoubtedly, that they were making
the expression heathenish enough for the Centurion in this last pas
sage. But had they been a little better acquainted with the writings of
the Classics, they would have known, that, although a God was a
familiar phrase with the ancients. Son of a God was a title to which
they were perfect strangers : and that, consequently, the expression,
being borrowed from the Jews, must have been applied in like manner
as they applied it, and as they had just before applied it in the hearing
of the Centurion (see verse 40., where the Editors themselves translate
" the Son of God," although there is no article in the Greek ;) or, to
speak more correctly, the Centurion being convinced (by what he had
beheld) of the truth of our Lord's assertions, declared his belief in

206 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
clear, that, in the passage of which we at present treat, the title
is applied in a sense very different from either of these. " The

that truth, by ascribing to him the title which he had claimed with his
dying breath, and for claiming which he had been sentenced to die;
and consequently used the phrase in the sense in which our Lord him
self applied it, whatever sense that might be—" Truly this man must
have been that which he called himself, the Son of God." — Besides,
it still remains to be asked, what reason is there to presume, that the
Centurion, who had been a resident in Judea, was not a devout man,
and one who had been taught to look for the kingdom of the Messiah.]
In the last two instances, we have had, under the very same form of
Greek expression, the varieties of " a Son of God," and " a Son of a
God." But we have still another mode of rendering, not only the same
form of expression, but as applied in exactly the same circumstances
with the latter of these two instances ; namely,asuttered by the Centu
rion, who in the parallel passage of St. Mark (xv. 39.) is made to exclaim,
"Truly this was the Son of a God." Here it must be admitted is suffi
cient variety. The same Greek words, uttered, by persons similarly
.conditioned, and under circumstances, in one pair of instances exactly
alike, and in another sufficiently so, are rendered by the Editors in
three different ways, (in compliment partly to Wakefield, partly to
Campbell, and partly to themselves,) " a Son of God," — " a Son of a
God," — and " the Son of a God ;" — in short, in almost every way
excepting that one in which they should have been rendered in compli
ment to truth.
I have dwelt too long upon the whimsical varieties, in which the
Editors indulge iu reference to the use of the article. But there is one
application of their versatile canon, which I cannot but particularly
notice. The words »^s/>* xpie-ims occur without an article in six passages
ofthe Greek Testament: in Matt. x. 15., xi. 22. 24., xii. 36., 2 Pet. ii. 9.,
iii. 7. : the word inip*. being in the dative case in some, and in the accu
sative in others. These words the Editors have thought it right (dis
regarding their favourite model, Newcome,) to render in the indefinite
form, " a day of judgment," in the first four passages ; and in the defi
nite form, "the day of judgment," in the other two. What they
mean by thus multiplying days of judgment, it is for them to explain.
The Remedial system, perhaps, as (we have seen at pp. 112. 117 — 118.
of this volume) Mr. Belsham chooses to call it; or the system
of purgatory, by which name it is more generally understood, may
tend to throw some light upon this matter ; because the lengthened
process which that system demands, according to the showing of its
advocates, must, in its various stages, demand various adjustments of

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 207
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most
High shall overshadow thee : therefore" (not, observe, not

the degrees of suffering, according to the degree to which the purga
tion has from time to time proceeded : and these may possibly by the
Unitarian supporters of this doctrine be viewed as so many different
sentences passed upon the moral agent, who is the subject of this pur
gative process ; and the respective dates of these may be, consequently,
considered as so many different days of sentence or judgment. " The
day of judgment," as they are pleased to admit it to be in the 2d
Epistle of St. Peter, they may perhaps be abjeto explain, as some one
of these days more distinguished than the rest, and therefore so denom
inated **t' ityxw '• or, possibly, they may altogether disregard the
emphasis given to it here, and also in 1 John iv. 17. (where alone the
article is prefixed to the word i/tip*,) from the general contempt in
which they hold the Epistles ; the writers of which they have so often
shown to be ignorant and uninformed. I know not, whether, upon
the whole, I have explained the matter entirely in the way that the
Editors and their coadjutors will approve. But this I cannot but think
very extraordinary, that those who will not allow in strictness the con
ceivable existence of either day of Judgment, ox Son of God, yet
insist at some times upon multiplying both without limit.
The Editors and their associates complain, that orthodox writers are too
prone to lay a stress upon the use of the article ; and that their endeavours
to build Christian doctrines on so slight a foundation is quite absurd : and
on this account they are not sparing in their raillery against Mr. Granville
Sharpe, Dr. Wordsworth, Bishop Burgess, and Bishop Middleton. It
appears, however, that these Gentlemen, although they do not trouble
themselves much in seeking after any very critical use of the article, yet
contrive to make a very convenient use of it : and they, at least, are not
backward, in building doctrines of the last moment upon the application of
ana, or a the. How they contrive to overturn important doctrines by the
dexterous management of these minute parts of speech, we have already-
seen. I shall now give a specimen of their mode of employing them to
establish the tenets of their own .system. Dr. Carpenter, one of their
latest and most prominent writers, supplies us with a good instance to this
purpose. He observes, upon John v. 27., that the article, which, in every
other part of the Gospels, where the phrase " Son of Man " occurs, is
prefixed to it in the Greek, is here wanting : and therefore he renders the
words " a Son of Man :" and says, that he is satisfied, " that by the re
markable words ert vik itSf^rou h-rt, our Lord is to be understood as de
claring, that he was appointed to his high office of Judge of all mankind,

208 SUPPLEMENTARY remarks on the
because he was the " Messiah," nor because of his being " raised
from the dead to an immortal life," but simply because of the

BECAUSE HE IS A PROPER HUMAN BEING." (Unit, the Doct. &C. p. 109.)
Now, certainly, that a person should be appointed to judge the whole
world at the last day, simply, because that person was a human being, a
human being properly and strictly such, seems as curious in point of rea
son, as that vies fyfySimu must signify a mere man because the article is not
prefixed, appears in point of Grammar. What, upon the whole, does Dr.
Carpenter acquaint us with here ? He opens up two important truths : —
one, that because our Lord in this place denominates himself vii; fatylarev
and not o vies rev itSpJimv, (which by the way, he every where else calls him
self, in not fewer than seventy passages, throughout the Gospels,) he
must be merely and simply man in the common sense of the word : the
other, that, from being simply man, he is properly qualified for the office of
judging all mankind . — and, indeed, this peculiar fitness of a mere man for
this office is viewed, by this writer, as an additional confirmation of his
belief in the proper humanity of Christ.
Mr. Belsham, who likewise contends that this text in John " implies,
that there is a peculiar propriety in delegating this office to a human being,"
(Calm Inquiry, p. 337.) yet seems in some degree to stumble at it ;
although, from the manner in which he recovers himself, it may appear as
if he only wished to show with what a grace he could regain his upright
position. For, after enumerating above twenty passages of the N. T.
from which he admits it to be " concluded, that Jesus is appointed to ap
pear in person to rai.se the dead, to judge the world, and to award to every
individual of the human race his final sentence of reward or punishment ;"
he proceeds to say, " This is an office of such transcendent dignity and
importance, and requires powers so far superior to any thing which we
can conceive to belong to a mere human being, however meritorious and
exalted, that to many it appears utterly incredible that such an office should
be assigned to one who was himself at one time a peccable and falli
ble man, and, as such, liable to appear at the tribunal of eternal
justice-" And he adds, that " this argument has appeared so forcible to
some persons of much learning and reflection, that this consideration alone
has prevented them from acceding to the Unitarian hypothesis, though
they have acknowledged that particular texts might admit of a satisfactory
explanation upon Unitarian principles." Among these persons he spe
cially notices " the late revered and learned Hugh Farmer of Waltham-
stow, who thought that difficulties from particular texts might be over
come," and who had, to the great delight of Mr. Belsham, gone so far as
to consider " Tertullian's testimonies to the Unitarianism of the primitive

unitarian version op the new test. 209
mode of his human generation by the power of God; be
cause of his being incarnate by the Holy Ghost ; because

Christians" unrebutted ; yet even he, and others, who had travelled, it
seems, very far with Unitarians, and were disposed to get rid of the diffi
culties which Scripture threw in their way, could never get rid of this.
Mr. Belsham himself admits it to be a " great difficulty " indeed : but he
adduces some considerations, by which, he says, " it may possibly be
alleviated. " The word " alleviated " naturally suggests the idea of great
distress, under which it cannot be denied Mr. Belsham appears to labour
not a little upon this point. However, after quoting a passage from Dr.
Priestley, in which that writer endeavours to convince Dr. Price of this
grand Unitarian tenet, by telling him that the power to judge the world
might be as easily imparted by God, as the power of raising the dead,
(which very power by the way, Dr. Price had, in a Sermon on the Pre-
existence and Dignity of Christ, that completely overwhelms with confu
tation the Socinian hypothesis of our Lord's humanity, pronounced to be
fully equivalent to the power of creating a world- — Sermons, p. 148.) and
by reminding him that our Lord's qualifications for discharging this office
were not acquired suddenly, for that a long interval was to take place
" between his ascension and his second coming, in which it cannot be
supposed that he is doing and learning nothing :" — Mr. Belsham, I say,
after quoting this passage from Dr. Priestley, and making some other equally
profound observations of his own, concludes at length, in triumph, that the
point is completely made out, that Christ is but " figuratively a judge,
because the final states of all mankind will be. awarded in a future life
agreeably to the solemn, repeated, and explicit declarations of his Gospel. "
Thus we find all, as usual, settled in figure. And, to show how just this
is here, Mr. Belsham reminds us, that the Unitarians have already esta
blished the fact, that the several capacities and offices ascribed to our Lord
in Scripture belonged to him only in figure : that he is but figuratively a
Lawgiver; but figuratively a Priest; but figuratively a King and,
in like manner, but figuratively a Judge : — that is, that being in fact,
neither Lawgiver, nor Priest, nor King, nor Judge, he is called in
Scripture by all these names, and described as doing the acts belonging to
these several offices, merely from the love which the Sacred Writers
have of speaking in figure, even at the risk of misleading almost the whole
Christian world as to the reality.
I beg the reader's attention to all that Mr. Belsham has revealed to us
upon this subject in his Calm Inquiry, from p. 332. to 342. And yet one
great puzzle remains ; for it will be remembered that this same Calm
Inquirer tell us, in the outset of his work, at p. 5., that the whole Inquiry
concerning the person of Christ, " is into a plain matter of fact, which is to
Vol. 2.-27

210 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
in short, in the plain sense of the words, God was his Father;
therefore) " that Holy Child also which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God."

be determined like any other fact by its specific evidence, the evidence of
plain unequivocal testimony" (here are no " great difficulties" that require
to be " alleviated,") " for a judging of which, no other qualifications are requi
site than a sound understanding and an honest mind." The great difficulty,
however, that appears to grow out of this seeming contradiction, will be
easily " alleviated " by Mr. Belsham's assuring us, that a " plain matter of
fact " must mean a puzzling matter of figure ; and that the " plain une
quivocal testimony " of the Evangelists consisted in their figurative and
intricate involutions of language, which hone but Unitarians could develope,
and which even they were not able to develope to some of their own
enlightened friends, such as Dr. Price and Mr. Farmer, who were desirous
of approaching them if they could. — And, as a proof of the great plainness
of this whole matter, this extraordinary writer, who assigns any thing as
a reason for any thing, goes on to say, " Who can believe that the decision
of the great question, whether Jesus of Nazareth is the true God, and the
Creator and Governor of the world, depends upon a critical knowledge of
the niceties of the Greek article V — Nobody, most undoubtedly, ever be
lieved or even dreamt any such thing. At the same time, if real and
profound Greek scholars have found the designative and emphatical force
of the Greek article fall in with the great truth, which stands like a rock
of demonstration on the base of the whole body of the Scriptures, how
can the thing be helped ? It cannot, indeed, but move contempt to see
those, who are not conversant in the Greek language, employing their very
ignorance for the subversion of that great truth ; and endeavouring to de
rive, from an uncritical and unscholar-like application of the Greek article,
an argument, whereby the Great Creator and Governor of the world, the
Son of God, — who had been with his Father" before all worlds, and who
condescended to come into the world as the Son of Man that he might
redeem and judge the world, — should be degraded to the rank of mere man,
fallible and peccable as any of those unhappy, blasphemers of his majesty,
who dare to pronounce him such. For a full and satisfactory explanation
of the force of the phrase Son of Man, and especially in its application in
John v. 27., and for the reason, why the Greek article is here omitted,
which is found to accompany the title wherever else it occurs throughout
the Gospels, — I refer to a Critic, who had well considered, arid had taken
pains thoroughly to understand the subject, before he submitted his opinions
to the public, Dr. Middleton. (Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 351 —
354.) The title, Son of Man, he observes justly, " has every where a
reference to the Incarnation of Christ : — and he adds, that, generally, in

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 211
In verse 32. also, just preceding, we find Newcome use the
definite article, "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son

the use of the appellation by our Lord, "the allusion is either to his present
humiliation, or to his future glory :" and, therefore, he concludes, we have
in this phrase, " though an indirect, yet a strong and perpetual declaration,
that the human nature did not originally belong to him, arid was not properly
his, own."
In truth, the very use of the phrase seems almost inexplicable on the
supposition, that our Lord was merely and properly a human being : for
why call himself by a title emphatically denoting human origin, if no other
origin could be ascribed to him : why, as Mr. John Jones says (in a book
which he pleasantly calls " Illustrations of the Gospels,") and says, I
really believe, with a sincere intention to help the Unitarian cause, why
did our Lord, " appearing as man in the midst of men, and exposed to their
wants and feelings," thus labour to "inculcate, what none needed to
learn, that he was ahuman being V Not exactly for the reason assigned
by this ingenious Gentleman, — that " the Gnostic teachers denied his hu
manity ; and rejected and blasphemed the Son of Man, the Man Jesus'
while they affected to honour and embrace the God within him continually. "
There is one small chronological difficulty in the way of this solution ;
namely, that there were no Gnostic teachers whatever in existence to deny
our Lord's humanity during the whole period of his ministry. But this
writer has stumbled very near the truth. Our Lord, in the repeated and
emphatical use of the title Son of God, had claimed to himself a divine na
ture ; he was understood as doing so by the Jews, Who charged him, on
the repeated assumption of that title, with making himself God, and who
finally sentenced him to death for that great offence against their law. —
Having therefore thus claimed to himself a divine nature, he was also, for
the unfolding the whole truth as to the nature which he possessed, led to
affirm the human nature which was united with the divine by his Incarna
tion. And as the one part had been expressed by the title Son of G od, so
the other was naturally conveyed by the corresponding form of denomina
tion, Son of Man. The Socinians and Unitarians are always willing to
forget, that the establishing of the human nature of our Lord is as neces
sary to our scheme as to theirs ; but, at the same time, they should remem
ber, that our Lord's repeated assertion of it, and in the peculiar form of
phrase in which it is conveyed, is utterly inexplicable on their system :
so that they not only deny to our blessed Lord the appellation, which he
claims, of the Son of God ; but they render him in a great measure unintel
ligible, when he entitles himself the Son of Man. i
To give the reader some relief, by passing from the regions of confidence
and ignorance to those of a far different character, I shall subjoin the con-

212 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
of the most High." And in this likewise the folloxoers of New-
come desert him, rendering " a Son of the most High," and

elusions of a critic and a scholar, derived from' a cautious and elaborate
comparison of the applications ofthe phrases, Son of God, and Son of Man,
throughout the entire range ofthe N. T. in the original language. Schleus-
ner, to whom the Unitarian Editors and their associates profess a willing
ness to appeal on all occasions, (although they have excluded his valuable
Lexicon from their list of those that are useful for the New Testament,)
thus sums up his explanations of those titles as applied to our Lord, under
the article 'riOS. — " K*r' ifaxm vero et longe sublimiori sensu, quam qui
in ullam creaturam cadat, Christus — ° 'Tto; reu Qt-Ji inN. T. Yccatur, ad
rationem ejus erga Deum et sublimiorem, illam naturam, qua ante Jesum
natum jam exstitit significandam. And, again, " K*t' i!;c%>>v, in N. T.
Christus, i'Ttet too dvflaia-ou vocatur, ratione scillicet humante natures, quam
interventu divina virtutis induit." And. under the article "ANQPfiriOS, he
expresses himself still more fully and emphatically on the latter designa-.
tion ; observing, that the word SvSpearet is used as in relation to the female
of our species, in all those passages, in which the title e vios reZ Avfyiisro is
applied to our Lord ; being in strictness, as to his human nature, the Son
of Mary ; which Schleusner thinks, is expressed in the words yaifiiyos ix
yvinixls in Gal. iv. 4. . and, in opposition to the opinion of Less, that this
title was used by our Lord to express an abject and humiliated state, he
adduces the passage in John v. 27., of which we have already spoken, to
show, that on the contrary it was intendedas a title of eminence, and as he
says, " Ut vel hoc nomine edocerentur homines, Jesum esse promissum
ilium in V. T. Messiam et insignem doctorem divinum, (Ezek. i. 26.,
Dan. vii. 13, 14.) qui communi nascendi lege a Maria virgine, interve-
niente diving virtute, initia vitse vere humana; haberet, et corpus indue-
ret vere humanum, ut quod fuit sapientiae divinse decretum, homines per
hominem adjuverentur. Tantum igitur abest, ut hac formula vilissimus
ille, ad quern Jesum descendisse fingunt haud pauci, servorum status des-
cribatur, ut potius, sive decreti divini sapientiam, sive origines Christi,
quos interventu divina virtutis cepit, spectes, nihil hoc nomine sublimius,
illustrius et magis honorificum fingi et cogitari possit." — The sort of use
which the Trinitarians contrive to make of the name of Schleusner, Bishop
Burgesshas, in his publication upon that subject, most admirably exposed.
See The Bible and nothing but the Bible, &c. pp. 59—66. 74—96. Ill—
117. One would hardly think, after reading the passages which have been
here adduced from Schleusner, that any writer could have the hardihood
to mention his name in connexion with the assertion, that our Lord was not
called the Son of God in a sense implying any peculiarity of nature, or in

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 21:3
giving no notice whatever of the departure. This, however,
we shall be told, is all accident : " a mere slip of the pen," or,
perhaps, " an error of the press." But let it be remembered,
that these two passages of St. Luke, in each of which the two
accidents, the change of the Yersion, and the omission of the
acknowledgment, have jumped together, are precisely those to
which the Editors attach uncommon importance, as going di
rectly and explicitly to the personal nature of our Lord. This
is manifest, as well from the reasons, which, as we have seen,
they have been compelled by their system to assign for the appli
cation of the title, Son of God ; as from the great pains taken,

any other than that of the common Jewish idiom, under which the title
was equally applicable to believers at large. And yet this has been ex
pressly done by Dr. Carpenter, who builds the whole of his Unitarian posi
tion touching this phrase, upon Schleusner, " whom" (he adds, to give his
argument the greater effect,) " no man can suspect of being an Unitarian."
Unit, the Doct. &c. p. 174. — Thus is the unsuspecting reader deluded, and
by those who scarcely ever have the words "truth" and " candour" out
of their mouths. The very article 'Ties, too, from which I have adduced
Schleusner's own words, is the very article to which reference is thus
made, for the establishing by Schleusner's name, the direct contrary of
Schleusner's opinions.
On the subject of this note, many excellent observations will be found
in Dr. Nares's Remarks, 2d edit. pp. 54 — 60.. Before I dismiss the sub
ject, it is worth remarking, that, ofthe two titles, Son of God and Son of
Man, applied to our Lord in the New Testament, each of them more than
eighty times, the former is a title used familiarly of our Lord by all ; but
the latter is a name applied only by himself, excepting in Acts vii. 56.,
where he is said to be seen by St. Stephen in the heavens after his ascen
sion ; and in Heb. ii. 6. and Revel, i. 13. xiv. 14., the first of which is a
quotation from the Psalms, and the other two refer, as the vision of St. Ste
phen did, to that exaltation in the heavens, which, with our Lord's dying
words he declared, awaited the Son of Man : so that, in truth, except
when our Lord himself assumes it as an appellation, it is never used con
cerning him in the N. T. , save only to establish the fact of his having
ascended into heaven ; which to mortal eye could have been represented
only in his bodily form, in that form, in reference to which he had desig
nated himself as the Son of Man.

214 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
by one* of them especially, (in a work intended as a Supplement
to the Version, and published for the purpose of glossing over

* Mr. Belsham, who is always rich in matter that, in a research like
the present, it is necessary to bring before the reader, has expressed
himself upon this subject in such a manner, that I cannot avoid quot
ing the entire of his observations. — " It is announced by the Angel,
Luke i. 35., that Jesus should be called ' the Son of God,' on account
of his miraculous conception. But as it does not appear that he ever
received that, appellation from anyone on that account, it being gene
rally allowed that the fact, if true, was unknown during his personal
ministry, this circumstance is rather an additional presumption against
the truth of the narrative." — We see what slender reasons will satisfy
some persons on the point of rejecting part of Holy Writ. Surely
even a writer, who seems not to concern himself much with the pro
ductions of any but Unitarians ; and who, like the rest of the writers
of that description, appears to be for ever going round and round in
the same circle, repeating again and again what has again and again
wearied and disgusted ; even he cannot be ignorant, that the phrase,
to be called, is familiar with the Hebrew writers, as applying to the
nature rather than to the actual appellation ofthe subject. Perhaps,
indeed, he may imagine, that when St. Luke, in the very next verse to
this, informs us, that Elizabeth " was called barren,'' the Evangelist
means to say, that Barren was the actual name by which she was
distinguished: or again, that when, in chap. ii. 23., the same Evange
list tells us, from the Law, that '' every male that opencth the womb,
shall be called Holy to the Lord," he intends to assert, that this
was the true and proper appellation of every first-born male of the
species both of man and of beast. That this may be Mr. Belsham's
idea, is not actually impossible ; for things not less extravagant are to
be found plentifully scattered throughout his pages. But surely whe
ther this be so or not, the criticism just quoted affords no very favour
able specimen of the critic's acquaintance with the sacred writings.
The. instances that establish the existence of this Hebrew idiom (if
indeed, strictly speaking, it can be called a Hebrew idiom, when the
examples of x\»8»'«t« for umu, as every scholar knows, are to be found
abundantly in various writers.) are numerous, and perfectly familiar
to all who have made the writings of the Old and New Testament their
study. But those that I have cited, I have chosen to adduce from the
same writer, (as being within the very portion of Scripture, that even
by Mr. Belsham himself is admitted to come from the same person,)
from whose hand we have the very passage at present under conside
ration. We see, then, that even though our Lord had never once

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 215
and defending its various corruptions and mistakes,) to remove
altogether from the canon of Scripture this portion of St. Luke,

been called "the Son of God," yet the declaration in this passage
would have been nevertheless perfectly true : inasmuch as the mean
ing plainly is, that he was, in his nature, that which this appellation
properly denoted.
However, to satisfy this critic, we will suppose that it was the ap
pellation which was intended in this place by the words of the Angel.
What follows ? Why, then, he says, " It does not appear that he ever
received that appellation from any one on that account," (that is, on
account of the miraculous conception,) and consequently he infers the
narrative to be untrue. Now, if I understand this gentleman rightly,
(which, indeed, I confess it is not always in my power to do,) he in
tends to say, that the declaration, that, for a particular reason, a person
shall be called by a certain name, cannot be verified, unless when he
is called by that name, there be assigned also the reason for which the
appellation had been originally bestowed ; and that, consequently,
unless those by whom our Lord was denominated " the Son of God,"
took care to specify that he was so denominated on account of the
miraculous conception recorded by St. Luke, the declaration in the
35th verse of the first chapter must be given up, as containing a false
hood. Now, in the 2d chap, of Genesis we are told, that the female
of our species should be called woman, because she was taken out of
man : in the 17th chap. Abrarrt is to be called Abraham, because, he
was to be a father of many nations : in the 32d chap, again, Jacob
is to be called Israel, because as a Prince he had power with God
and with men, and had prevailed : — and I should be glad to learn,
where we find in Scripture the reasons for these names assigned by
the speaker, when he employs the names. Are we then to reject these
parts of Genesis, and the various other portions of Scripture in which
the reasons for appellations given are assigned, because we do not find
the statement of these reasons afterwards accompanying the use of
the appellation'? Mr. Belsham, who shows no great reluctance to part
with any portion of Scripture, will most probably answer, Yes. Well,
but, perhaps, we may be able to satisfy him after all, in the case be
fore us, if he will not be too rigorous in demanding from us an in
stance of the repetition of the very words of the reason first assigned
for the appellation. If we can show, that the term, Son of God, is
applied to our Lord directly in reference to a divine nature thereby
attributed, possibly he may admit this to satisfy his demands ; since,
in truth, the real cause of his quarrelling with the miraculous concep-

216 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
as overturning totally the Unitarian solution of the appellation,
Son op God, applied to Jesus Christ. Indeed, so forcibly and

tion is (although he professes it to be otherwise,) because it goes to
establish the superhuman nature of our Lord.
To come, then, to the point. When the Jews assign to Pilate the
reason for which our Lord ought to die, what is the charge % Simply,
that " he made himself the Son of God." What, then, is the sense
in which it is declared by the Jews, that our Lord assumed this appella
tion 1 Plainly, that of jts implying, what the words directly import,
and what upon two former occasions they had expressly pronounced
them to import, the divine nature of our Lord." " We have a law,"
they say, " and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God." (John xix. 7.) Now, what that law was, is evi
dent from the parallel passages in Matth. xxvi. 65. and Mark xiv. 64.
in which it is declared, that the crime which our Lord had committed
and for which he was to suffer death under the Law, was the crime of
blasphemy. In calling himself the Son of God, he had been guilty
of an assumption ofthe divine nature, which being, in the judgment of
the Jews, blasphemyagainst the Most High, and overturning, as they
conceived, the first principle of their religion, the Unity of God, they
of course pronounced, that, according to their law, he ought to die.
For this blasphemy, also, the Jews on two former occasions had sought
to kill him, when he had merely spoken of himself as the Son of
God. John v. 18., x. 33. In the first of these, we find the Jews
declaring, as the reason why he should be put to death, that he had
said, "that God was his Father (^t^'iaion,) making himself equal
with God:" and in the second, we find them assigning as the reason
for the same, that he was guilty of " blasphemy;" for, that " being a
man he made himself God," namely, by calling God his Father.—
Well, have we now got a proof, that the appellation of the Son of
God has been applied to our Lord on account of his divine nature,
on account of God being his proper Father, iiatepa "jaion 1 We
have got more. We have got a proof, that our Lord himself lays down
his life in testimony of the truth of this application of the title. By
his acquiescence at his last moments in the sense which the Jews put
upon those words, he proclaims his own divinity; and by proclaiming
lo the world this great truth as the last solemn declaration for which
he yielded up his life, he has Shown, beyond a doubt, on what founda
tion it is that his religion must be built, and in what the preaching of
Christ crucified must consist. For the most valuable and important
observations on this subject, I gladly refer the reader to the conclusion

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 21?"
emphatically are the sense and reason of the appellation here
pointed out by the Evangelist, that the writer alluded to does not

of the Brief Memorial of Bishop Burgess .* and more particularly
to the admirable Discourse delivered by the same author in the year
1790 before the University of Oxford ; in which it is inconirovertibly
shown, that the Diviniti) of Christ is proved from his own declara
tions, attested and interpreted by his living witnesses, the Jews. I
beg to direct the reader's attention also to the Sequel to this discourse)
lately published by the same author ; in which The Testimony of
Christ's Contemporaries to his own declaration of his Divinity will
be found most fully confirmed by his Discourses, Actions, and Death-
This Sequel is contained in a Sermon preached by the Bishop at
Llanarth and Carmarthen before a general meeting of the Clergy, in
the months of September and October, 1814. — On the whole of the
subject which has been here treated of, I cannot forbear recommend
ing also to particular notice, the observations of Mr. Wilson, from p.
1. to p. 140. of his Illustration of the Method of explaining the New
Testament by the early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning
Christ: a work, on which I am not surprised that the Unitarian writ
ers have uniformly preserved the profoundest silence ; inasmuch as it
triumphantly overturns the whole system of Dr. Priestley's theory of
Early Opinions, on which they profess to place so firm a reliance, and
has erected upon its ruins a complete demonstration of the primitive
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ.
^But to return to Mr. Belsham: he proceeds, in his note, to say, of
the miraculous conception of our Lord, that it is " generally allowed,
that the fact, if true, was unknown during his personal ministry." —
"The fact, if true, was unknown," &c. What means this? Is it
that the fact, if untrue, might have been known ? However, let the
logic of this pass: it is but one specimen of a thousand. But as to its
meaning, (which, after all, may be discovered,) what is it that he would
infer, or what is it that he wishes to pronounce'? By whom is it thus
allowed, that the fact of the miraculous conception was unknown dur
ing our Lord's personal ministry'? Dr. Priestley has allowed it to
Mr. Belsham: and Mr. Belsham has allowed it to Dr. Priestley.
The critics of this School have all allowed it to one another. But what
has been the secret information by which these gentlemen, who have
thus civilly agreed to allow this to each other, have been enabled to
discover, that the fact of our Lord's miraculous conception was unknown
during the period of his personal ministry 1 I must beg to ask, whe
ther, ': if true " (a case which Mr. Belsham kindly allows to me to
Vol. 2.— 28

21S SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
hesitate to pronounce this very circumstance to be a strong argu
ment against the truth of the entire narrative of the miraculous
conception, and an additional reason for its rejection. (Bel
sham's Calm Inquiry, p. 263.)
Such is the Unitaiian mode of interpreting Scripture, on
which we have frequently had occasion to remark. It is first
laid down, on abstract principles of general reason, that a certain
thing cannot be. Then comes Scripture declaring in plain
words, that it is. But then comes forward a dictum of Priest
ley, or Evanson, or Lindsey, or Wakefield, or Cappe, or Bel
sham, or somebody else,* to assert that the words may, by some

suppose in the argument,) this fact was unknown to our Lord's mother
and to Joseph, and to all the parties, to whom, " if true," the whole
transaction was perfectly known ? Was the fact unknown to those
who knew it? What patience can be proof against such monstrous
absurdities, presenting themselves with the confidence of sound rea
soning and plain common sense !
* There is so complete a specimen of this process, in the treatment
of the beginning of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, by the Unitarian
Editors, that I cannot forbear noticing it here ; more particularly as
the words of St. Paul apply so forcibly to the point at present under
consideration. I shall give the passage according to their own version
(though it tends much to reduce the force, of the original,) that the full
value of their remarks upon it maybe appreciated with every advan
tage they can thence derive. — " Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called
to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God (which he had pro
mised before by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) even the gospel
concerning his Son, who was born of the race of David, according to
the flesh, but proved to be the son of God by power, according to the
Holy Spirit, through his resurrection from the dead ;) the gospel, I
say, concerning Jesus Christ our Lord." — [N. B. It is no great mat
ter, if, in such passages particularly as are at open war with the Unita
rian System by teaching the divinity of Christ, there should be, besides
the puzzle of a new translatiou, a little additional confusion from omit
ting the mark of the beginning of a parenthesis, or, from some other
slight matter of this kind, which may easily be thrown upon the press-
compositor. In an Improved Version with a Corrected Text,
it is not to be expected, the object being of course to correct the mean
ing, that any attention will be paid to the trifling task of correcting'
" slips of the pen" or « errors of the press." This, indeed, is the less

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 219
different translation, or punctuation, or some new and ingenious
mode of interpreting, be made to bear some other possible mean-

necessary, where, after all the pains bestowed upon a corrected text, it
is intended, that in the notes only the true sense is to be found.]
Now, what is the note ofthe Editors on the above passage from St.
Paul, in which, if words have any meaning, the Apostle showshimself
most careful to point out the distinction to be observed between the hu
man descent, and the divine sonship, of our Lord? — " The apostle
could not mean, by this phraseology and the antithesis which he
here uses, to assert or countenance the strange and unintelligible notion
of two natures in Christ ; one the human nature, by which he was the
descendant of David ; the other a divine nature, by which he was the
Son of God." That is, the Apostle could not mean what he directly ex*-
presses. The Unitarians have pronounced, upon general principles
that the thing itself cannot be: and therefore St. Paul could not mean
to say what he does say. The peculiar phraseology and antithesis
here used, and which could have been employed only for the very pur
pose of marking that distinction and opposition of natures, which these
critics say the apostle could not mean to assert or countenance, are to
be entirely set aside; and what the Apostle ought to have said, is thus
clearly laid before us, by one who knows the Apostle's meaning belter
than he did himself. — " The sense of the passage is plainly this, that
Christ by naturaldescent was of the posterity of David; but that, in a
figurative sense " (this is the plain meaning of the Apostle,) " by
designation of the Holy Spirit at his baptism," (all this the Apostle
kept to himself, but now we have the -whole of it out plainly,) "he
was the Son of God : or the promised Messiah, which was further
proved by the extraordinary exertion of divine energy in raising him
from the dead." And then, we are referred to one of the grand autho
rities, under which the Unitarians occasionally let us plainly into a
variety of secrets, of which the language of the New Testament would
otherwise not give us the slightest intimation :— "See Mr. Lindsey's
second Address to the Students of the two universities." ¦ — But, if it
were necessary to refer the reader to any authority beyond the very
words of the Apostle, I would refer him, (besides the great body of
learned Commentators, among whom Eisner and Hammond deserve
particular consideration.) to the authority of Primate Newcome ; as
well, because his observations are applied to the very translation
adopted by the Editors; as, because their direct opposition in the
sense of Scripture to him whom they propose as the model of
their translation may lead the reader to a juster sense of the
imposition practised on the public by the use that has been

220 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ing. But should all these fail, should the words be too plain,
and simple, and precise, to admit any sort of distortion, then

made of his name. — " Observe" (the Archbishop remarks) " ihe oppo
sition. According to- ortr Lord's human descent, he was the offspring
of David; but according to the holy spirit he was the Son of God ;
and shown to be such by the display of God's pmver in raising him
from the dead, Eph. i. 1&.20. Acts xiii. 33."— I would refer him, also
to Luke i. 35., where, at the very conception of our Lord, his twofold
nature is opened ap, being of the race of David by the flesh, but the
Son of God by the Holy]Spirit; and in this passage, perhaps, the trne>
force of the word ivta.pu which is used by St. Paul, may be discover
ed. — I would refer him. also, for that Gospel, which Si. Paul tells us
here he was "called "and "separated "to preach, to Acts ix. 20., where
we are informed, that the Gospel preached by him was, "that Christ
was the Son of God :" by which last words is manifestly not
meant the Messiah or Christ, (as the Unitarians would have us under
stand, and are for that reason anxious to introduce the word Jesus
into the text instead of Christ, but without sufficient authority, al
though recommended by Griesbach,) for then his preaching would
merely be, that "Christ was Christ;" but, that "Jesus, who was
Christ, was truly in his nature the the Son of God-," that Son of God,
which he was pronounced to be at his nativity because of his miracu
lous production by the Holy Spirit : which he affirmed himself to be
continually throughout his ministry, even though the Jews accused
him of thereby "making himself equal with God ;" which he finally
persevered in asserting that he was, although death was to be inflicted
for the alleged blasphemy of the assertion ; and which he proved him
self to be, as St. Paul informs ns, by his rising from the dead, show
ing to the world thereby that death could have no dominion over him .
that, although, as to his human nature, he was indeed to be considered
as descended from David ; yet that as to that higher nature which be
longed to him, his Holy Spirit which could not be effected by death,
he was proved to be the Son of God.
I am happy, also, after all the flourish that the Editors have made
about the impossibility of the contrast between the two natures in
Christ being intended in this place by St. Paul, to have both them
selves and their great supporters decidedly with me upon this point.
For cra/>|;, they tell us, in John i. 14. (where they are anxious to estab
lish the proper humanity of our Lord,) "peculiarly stands for man as
mortal." — Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiry, (p, 227-) says, that this
word, applied to our Lord in 1 Tim. iii. 16., means his being "really
and truly a man." The samejsignificatiQn is given to Ihe word by Dr.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 221
they are clearly to be rejected as spurious, because the Unita
rians have already determined that the thing cannot be.

Cirpenler, ( Unit, the Doct. &c. pp. 64. 152. 185. 262.) with ihe inti
mation also of a secondary meaning, marking emphatically " the
frailties of humanity." How then must, these critics consistently ren
der the words of St. Paul, xrrdra/**? Manifestly, by the words, " oc
cur ling to his human nature." And thus, they establish the very
contrast, which they explode as ridiculous : forth™, his Holt? Spirit,
in reference to which he was the Son of God, is put in direct opposi
tion to his human nature, in reference to which he was the Son of
David. Thus these profound critics, in their great anxiety to build up
a sort of proof of the human nature of our Lord in one place, assist
in fortifying the demonstration of his divine nature in another. — The
builders of Babel were visited for their impiety with a confusion of
language, such that they could not " understand one another's speech."
But there may be, it seems, a severer visitation : men may be made
unable to understand their own — " prius dementat."
In truth, this passage of St. Paul's puzzles Unitarian critics extreme
ly : and such of them as have any candour confess it, however they
may be determined not to yield their grand position to the difficulty
that presses upon it. Dr. Carpenter admits, that the Apostle means
to mark a distinction : which distinction he puts thus for the Apostle :
" Jesus was of the race of David as to his natural descent : and if he
had not been so he could not have been the Messiah : but he was
more, he was the Son of God." (Unit. &c. p. 234.) And he adds
"that those persons manifest little regard to truth and candour, who
assert that the Unitarians maintain that Jesns was a mere man." He
then proceeds to make out some sort of distinctions, which Unitarians
may say (hey comprehend, but with which I shall not take up the
reader's time or my own. But this he admits plainly, that a distinc
tion of nature is marked out ; and such as to prove that Jesus was
not a mere man. This is a"great length for a staunch Unitarian to go.
I cannot expect him to travel with me farther. But surely we may
say, Great is the force of truth ! How ridiculous would it be to
assert of our Lord, that he " was of the race of David as to his natural
descent " (I take even Dr. Carpenter's own distorted translation,) if
he were a mere man ! For, how should a mere man come of any
race but by natural descent 1
Before I quit this subject of the acceptation of the word e-hfe, as imply
ing what is strictly man, I must remark, that the Unitarians have shown
much modesty in not rejecting all others from the denomination of Chris
tians. For we are told, 1 John iv, 2., that " every spirit which confesseth

222 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
In the present case, however, Mr. Belsham's fellow-labourer
in support of the Unitarian Version, Dr. Carpenter, might

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," (i. e. say they, as a real man,)
"is of God." — And they, who do not so confess him, are pronounced not
to be of God. The Unitarian might therefore here easily produce his Q.
E. D. for the exclusion of all but the maintainers of Christ's proper human
ity from the pale of Christianity.
I cannot conclude this note without requesting to be informed by the
Unitarian editors, why, — in speaking of " the strange and unintelligible
notion of two natures in Christ, one, the human nature by which he was
the descendant of David ; the other, a divine nature by which he was the
Son of God," — they did not call in the aid of those distinguished names,
which they and their associates so exultingly boast of as auxiliary to their
cause, the names of Grotius and of Locke. Perhaps, however, without
troubling the editors for an answer, a sufficient reason may be found in the
simple fact, that both these commentators hold this very "strange and un
intelligible notion ; " and, wonderful to say, speak of it as familiarly as if it
were the most obvious and unquestionable. — Thus we find Grotius, on the
words o Xfie-Tes to xn-i o-ofx*, pointing out familiarly the opposition between
the human and ihe divine natures, which jointly appertained to our Lord : —
" Non secundum to 3t-?op [divinitatem qua] quod in ipso, sed secundum to
iyBeSa-mr [humanitatem."] Grotius on Rom. ix. 5 : — and in these very
words he is followed by Rosenmiiller, in locum. Locke, in like manner,
inhisComm. on Rom. i. 4., expresses himself: — " According to the Spirit
of holiness, is here manifestly opposed to, according to the flesh, in the
foregoing verse, and so must mean that more pure and spiritual part in
him, which, By divine extkaction, he had immediately from God: unless
this be so understood the antithesis is lost." And this divine extraction
the same writer explains to us in another place thus : — " God, out of his
infinite mercy, willing to bestow eternal life on mortal men, sends Jesus
Christ into the world ; who being conceived in the womb of a virgin (that
had not known man,) by the immediate power of God, was ^properly the
Son of God, according to what the Angel declared to his mother, Luke i.
30 — 35. — So that, being the Son of God, he was, like his Father, immor
tal ; as he tells us, John v. 26.," &c. And this inherent immortal nature
the same writer in another place pronounces to belong to Christ, when,
speaking of our Lord's declaration, John x. 18., that he had power to lay
down his life and power to take it up again, he adds these words, — " which
he could not have had, if he had been a mortal man," &c. See Locke's
Works, vol. iii. pp. 66, 67, 68. — Why these two eminent writers were
not referred to on the present subject, the reader is now probably enabled
to conjecture. But what will be his reflections when he learns, that Mr.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 223
have relieved him from this last necessity. For whilst this
writer, yielding to the force of overbearing evidence, admits, (in
his treatise on Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel, pp.
353. 358.) that the passage in Luke must be received as genuine ;
he denies that it intimates any thing whatever of a miraculous
conception. These two Unitarian writers I must leave to settle
the matter between themselves. I am glad to find that I can
agree in part with both. I agree with Dr. Carpenter, that
the passage is genuine : and I agree with Mr. Belsham, that it
clearly describes the miraculous conception of our Lord, as
the reason, why the appellation, Son of God, should be given
to him.
In short, so marked and era phatical do we find the passage
in St. Luke, that Unitarians could on no account permit it to
hold its ground. One, accordingly, feeling its bearing inevitable,
is for turning it out of the canon of Scripture altogether. Ano
ther, considering this too violent, and, from better acquaintance
with the subject, knowing the rejection of the passage itself to
be utterly destitute of authority, is content if he can turn the
miraculous conception out of it : at the same time that he satis
fies himself, that even without going so far, he could have got
rid of what every resolute Unitarian is determined to get rid of
at any rate ; for that the miraculous conception of itself indicates
nothing of a superiority of nature. ( Unit, the Doct. &c. pp.
21. 25. 174. 352 — 360.) They, however, whaare not disposed,
with Mr. Belsham, to cut out part of St. Luke's Gospel ; or,
with Dr. Carpenter, to nullify the meaning of plain words, and

Belsham, Dr. Carpenter, and all their Unitarian fellow-labourers, claim
these very writers as concurring in their opinions touching the mere human
nature of Christ, and unblushingly assert this in every publication 1 — This
subject has been carefully and effectually discussed by Bishop Burgess in
his Letter to the Lay-Seceder, and the false assumptions ofthe Unitarians
openly exposed. And yet I entertain not the smallest doubt, that these
great names, agreeably to the steady and immoveable effrontery of Unitarian
writers, and their invariable maxim of repeating their refuted assertions
as if they never had been controverted, will be sounded again and again as
of Unitarian authority, just as familiarly, as if no demonstration had ever
been given to the public of the total unfoundedness of such a claim.

224 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
to discharge from the first two chapters of Luke all intimation
of a miraculous conception ; will not hesitate to pronounce with
me, that the Son of God is a title distinctly. assigned in gen
uine Scripture to our blessed Lord, because of his miraculous
conception by the influence of the Holy Ghost ; and having
done so, I have little doubt of their. travelling farther with
me, and pronouncing, also, that the appellation so given, and
specifically on such account, is thereby intended and announced
to designate the divine nature of our Lord. This passage, then,
reaching, as it does, and is confessed to do, to the very vitals of
Unitarianism, I leave the reader to form his own judgment on
the attempt made by the Unitarian Editors to deprive it of its
emphasis and force, by dragging in,* even at the expense of all
intelligible meaning, the indefinite form, to the exclusion of the
definite form of Archbishop Newcome : and this, in two places,
without making any acknowledgment in either, of their de
parture from the model which they profess to follow.
We come next to the instance in Number II. : in which, in
stead of " power to become children of God," which is the ren
dering of the Received Version and of Archbishop Newcome^
we find the words " authority to be the children of God " intro
duced by the Editors of the New Version : and this, in like
manner as in the preceding instance, without the slightest inti
mation of the change. The degree of value which the Editors

* That they violate common sense, no less than their engagements,
by acting thus, is manifest from this consideration, that, whilst they
insist upon the indefinite form, and contend that our Saviour must in
this place be called a Son of God ; that is, one individual of a class so
denominated ; they are unavoidably involved in this absurd conse
quence, — that he was to be ranked in that class, because of his mira-
lous conception ; for that is what the passage is then made to announce.
And therefore a like miraculous conception becomes a requisite cha
racter of that entire class , or, in other words, it follows, that all who
are called Sons of God, are brought into existence by the miraculous
influence ofthe Holy Ghost. And thus these gainsayers of the mira
culous conception would, according to their own showing, multiply
the instances of it to no inconsiderable extent ; as maybe inferred
from what has been quoted from them at pp. 202—205. of this volume.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 225
attach- to the distinction between the words power and au
thority may be inferred from their observations on John x.
18. ; where they make a similar change in the translation of
our Saviour's words concerning the laying down of his life. —
Here, having substituted for the Primate's rendering, " I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again," — the
following, " I have authority to lay it down, and I have author
ity to receive it again," they state, as their reason for the altera
tion, that the former " seems to imply that our Lord's resurrec
tion was the effect of his own power; a sense,"* they add,

* In this passage, there are two assertions, on which I must make a
few observations, for the purpose of showing, that they are, both,
directly opposed to the plain truth of the case. The first of these
assertions is, that the words in the original do not convey the sense
which the Primate's translation implies, namely, that our Lord's
resurrection was the effect of his own power : that is, it is meant to
assert, that the word sfoi/<ri« does not strictly imply "power" in the
ordinary sense of the word : and therefore it is, that the Editors render
it by the word " authority." In this they manifestly found them
selves upon the criticism of Wakefield; who says, in his comment
upon this verse, that " in all the variety of places where igwk is used,
it uniformly means authority, or privilege, or a delegated commis
sion, conferred by some superior." Now I might here at once refer
the Editors, and this their chief oracle in matters of Greek criticism,
to the various Lexicographers, and (as we are concerned with the
Greek of Scripture) more particularly to Trommius, Biel, and Schleus
ner, who directly contradict this dogmatical and most unfounded
assertion of Wakefield, by assigning to the word, besides the species
of power implied by the terms authority, privilege, and delegated
commission, the sense of power generally, in its fullest and strongest
import ; and support this sense of the word by numerous examples.
— " 1. Vis et potestas efficiendi illiquid, facultas." — "2. IAbertzs
agendi." — "3. Auctoritas, &c." — "4. Licentia agendi et faciendi,
jus." — Schleusner. — Trommius and Biel, also, in their researches
into the application of the word by the Seventy and the other Greek
interpreters of the O. T., can discover in their use of it no other mean
ings than Potestas, Dominium, Imperium, Dominatio. But as the
writers with whom we are here concerned spurn at the authority of
names, unless indeed they be names such as those of Priestley, Wake
field, and Lindsey (before which they readily admit that all the world
Vol. 2.-29

226 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
" which the words in the original do not convey, and which is
directly contrary to the most explicit declarations of the Scrip-

should bow,) I will direct their attention to a few passages, which may
show, if not to their satisfaction, at least to that of others, the true
value of the criticism on which they build.
In Luke xii. 5., when bur Lord warns the multitude, that they should
fear him, "who, after he had killed, had power («foi«ri'«v) to cast into
hell;" I would ask, whether this power is here spoken of, as belong
ing to the Father, or to the Son: if to the Father, the Editors will be
pleased to say, by whom it was delegated ; and if, to the Son. I would
recommend it to them to consider, what must be the nature of the
Being to whom so vast a power is ascribed. — Again, in Acts xxvi. 18.,
when Paul is appointed to turn sinners " from the power of Satan
unto God ;" when in Romans ix. 21. it is asked whether " the potter"
hath not " power over the clay;" and when in Revel, xx. 6. we are
told of those, " over Whom the second death had no power ;" are
we, in all these cases, to look to an authority conferred, a commission
delegated ? The word tfrve-U is that which is employed in these, as
well as in numerous other passages, in which to apply the phrase
authority or delegated commission, would only excite laughter at the
expense of the critic. — But to come more decisively to the point : we
have in the Book of Daniel, according to the rendering of it both by
Theodotion, (iii. 33. and iv. 31.) and by the Seventy, (iii. 33. and iv.
34. Chig. MS. Holmes.) the word ifymU attributed to the most High
God, and applied to express that power and dominion which he was
to exercise over all the nations of the earth, and which was to be ever
lasting. Are we still then to consider this but as an authority " con
ferred by some superior 1" Or, if these critics should imagine that
Theodotion and the Seventy supply no authority for the Greek of the
New Testament, what will they do with the passage in Acts i. 7.
where we are told of the " Seasons, which the Father hath put
pi> t» jV/« Efot/Wd] in his own power V Does this settle the point for
Mr. Wakefield and his followers of the Improved N. T. 1 And here
I cannot avoid an observation upon the manner in which Mr. Wake
field has in this last passage smuggled the word (I can use no other
appropriate phrase) upon the English reader, under the disguise of
the term "disposal;" passing over in perfect silence the text which
so completely overturns his peremptory dictum, and taking care not
to disturb his readers by the information, that it was the same original
word, that, in " all" places, "uniformly" signified an authority con
ferred by some superior, that was here employed in speaking of the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 227
ture." Mr. Belsham also, in his laborious gloss upon this New
Version, strains with ah his might, even to the falsifying of the

power of the Father. The Editors, who very much admire Mr.
Wakefield, have followed him throughout. They too use the word
" disposal " in this place ; they annex no note ; and are silent as to the
term 'esqtsia.
Had the Unitarian Editors been really anxious to learn the true
meaning of the word 'eeoksia, instead of seeking out a possible
acceptation, whereby they might exclude an obnoxious sense of Scrip
ture, and obtain support for a pre-determined theory, they might have
found in Bishop Pearce's Commentary on John i. 12. an enumera
tion of its meanings very different indeed from that of Mr Wakefield.
" The word If-eve-io. signifies power in general ; sometimes a natural
porter, sometimes an usurped power, and sometimes a power given
by human or divine laws : and in this last case it is best rendered by
a right or privilege, as it should be in 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5, 6. and perhaps
in Matt. vii. 29. and Mark i. 22."
We have now seen to what the Unitarian criticism on the word i^eve-U
amounts ; and from this we may be enabled to appreciate the credit due
to the first assertion, that the words in the original do not convey the. sense
which is implied in the Primate's translation. There is indeed another
word in the original, which, as the Editors have given it a meaning differ
ent from the Primate's, they may possibly have intended to allude to it in
this position. On this some remarks will be made in the succeeding
note ; and, therefore, I omit it here, and proceed to the second assertion of
the Editors as to the opposition between the sense commonly ascribed to
the passage, and the declarations of other parts of Scripture. The parts
of Scripture to which they refer us, are Acts \i. 24., iii. 15., xvii. 31.,
Rom: vi. 4"., and 1 Cor. xv. 15. The object, for which they refer to these
parts of Scripture, is to show, that our Lord is spoken of as having been
raised from the dead ; a thing, which they conceive to be contradictory to
what is generally supposed to be affirmed in the passage before us, rela
tive to our Lord's resurrection having been the effect x>f his own power.
Now, the first of the texts, to which they have here referred, appeaTS
most inauspiciously in the van of this adverse array. For what does it
announce 1 — that our Lord was raised up, " because it was not possible
(mBiri e'jn m Suyceret) that he should be holden of death." — ", It was not
possible," (says Wolfius, among other reasons,) " because Christ was life
itself, and therefore not to be subdued by the power of death" — " ipsa erat
vita, adeoque a morte nunquam penitus superandus." — Cur. Phil. vol. ii.
p. 1036. — But in this search after texts relating to the resurrection of
Christ, is it not strange, that the industry of the Editors did not conduct

228 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
authority to which he refers, to support the propriety of the above
observations.*

them to the passage in John ii. 19.; in which, our Lord himself particu
larly describes the time of his rising from the grave, and the power by
which he was to rise? " Destroy this temple," he says, (by which, it is
immediately subjoined, he meant the temple of his body,) " and in three
days I will raise it up." — Matth. xxvi. 61. also testifies to the same
declaration. What is the reason that this declaration of our Lord has not
been included in the enumeration of texts collected by the Editors : and
how has it happened, that neither in John nor in Matthew, as it met their
eye, has it drawn from them a single observation ? On some subjects
silence speaks loudly. The reader will draw his own conclusion. Here
then we have two solemn declarations from our Lord himself; one, in the
passage which forms the Subject of this note, that he had the power
to raise himself from the dead ; and the other in the passage just referred
to, that he would exert that power in raising himself on the third day. Are
we then to set aside our Lord's own declarations, made with the greatest
solemnity and precision, in deference to some general expressions of his
Apostles? Unitarians are not commonly in the habit of paying such
deference to the Apostles, whom they do not scruple continually to charge
with blundering and prejudice. However, it is here convenient to believe
them in opposition to our Lord himself. But, in truth, there is after all
no real opposition. No difficulty can arise, on this head, to him who will
embrace the plain language of Scripture, and admit the truth which it every
where inculcates concerning the real nature of our Lord. To those, in
deed, who deny our Lord's divinity, the direct language of Scripture will
appear here, as it must every where, inconsistent with itself; and this very
circumstance supplies ail additional confirmation of the one grand truth
which Unitarians so pertinaciously resist. That the Father and the Son,
both possessed (as the Scriptures inform us) of that infinite power which
alone could raise the dead to life, should both be said to perforin the act of
re-uniting the spirit of Christ to the body which he had assumed, so as to
cause the re-animating of that body and his resurrection from the grave,
has nothing in it irreconcileable to reason, and has every thing in it recon-
cileable to Scripture, and fully satisfies the several declarations ofthe N. T.
upon that subject. Wolfius, in his Cur. Phil. (ii. 1055.)refers to Fessilius,
whose work I have never seen, for an explanatory view of this matter.
But to those who wish for full satisfaction upon this point, I would recom
mend the perusal of the second number of the fifth article of Pearson on

* For thia note see next page.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 229
It is therefore manifest how important a difference the Editors
conceive to exist between the words authority and power :

the Creed, particularly from page . 254. to 258. , in which that learned and
accurate writer lays the whole of the subject clearly open to the meanest
capacity, at the same time that he fully exposes the glosses and cavils with
which Socinians have laboured to perplex the truth.
We have sufficiently considered the value of the two assertions which
the Unitarian Editors have so confidently advanced upon the meaning of
the passage in John x. 18. I shall now close this note wiih the observa
tions made upon it by some foreign Scholars of eminence, to the last
named of whom the Unitarians are occasionally desirous to appeal. —
Wolfius remarks upon this text, " Ex his manifestum est, Christum vitam
propria virtute sibi reslituisse ." — Cur. Phil, ii 911. — Gerdes'^so, in his
Meletemata Sacra : " Christum propria sua virtute resurrecturum prae-
dixerat ipse, Joh. ii. 19. — Hie enim quemadmodum potestatem habebat
(Joh. x. IS.) — Siivm, abjiciendi quasi animam, h. e. vitam suam, ita et
i^ova-Ut potestatem atque auctoritatem habere se profitebatur, vaxit \aGat
avTm, itcrum resumendi earn, ut revocare earn rursumque sibi vendicare
posset. Eum igitur semet ipsum resuscitasse non minus diserte tradunt
Evangelistarum et Apostolorum scripta, qui cum vel ita *-•«' l!-o%iiv sit de-
claratus Fdius Dei h fvm/xit, Rom. i. 4. : qui non alios solum, sed semet
ipsum resuscitaverat, juxta illud Apostoli, quod secundus homo sit spiri-
tus vivificans." He states also, that, by the Scriptures, Christ was to
be raised by God the Father ; and therefore concludes, that he was raised
from the dead by the divine power , belonging both to his Father and to
himself: — "tertia die a mortuis cum cqslestis Patris tum propria vir
tute divina est resuscitatus." — Pp. 68. 73, 74.^And Rosenmiiller, after
thus rendering the clause, " ut vitam sponte depono ita earn sponte recu-
pero," gives a paraphrase of the text in the following words : " Nemo,
ne^Pater quidem, me cogit, ut moriarpro grege^ Sponte in me suscepi ut
vitam deponam. Sed idem ego etiam sponte med in vitam redibo." He
goes on also to observe on the concluding clause, what I could wish those
new -light critics, who pretend to derive aid from this writer on the subject
ofthe Atonement, would take into their consideration. — " Notandus est hie
locus adversus blasphemas eorum calumnias qui Deum injuste egisse cla
mant qaodfilium innocentem morti tradiderit. Quicquid Christus passus
est et fecit, id omne sponte in se suscepit, ex amore erga Patrem et genus
humanum. Pater, inquit Jesus, amat me, quia sponte haec facio et patior ;
et ego hasc ita facio et patior, ut doceam me esse plenum amore erga
Patrem."— Scholia in Nov. Test. ii. 426.
* It is scarcely possible, consistently with truth, to speak in any other
terms than those which I have been here compelled to use, of Mr. Belsham's

230 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
and it seems equally manifest, that the reason why they have
so Carefully avoided the use of the latter term in John i. 12.

treatment of Schleusner's authority on the word *a£ui in the passage of
John x. 17, 18. The reader shall judge for himself. The word \aSfit,
this writer and the Editors had found it convenient (after Mr. Wakefield)
to render " receive," in place ofthe usual rendering " take ;" and to justify
this, Mr: Belsham subjoins a note, assigning the meanings given to- the
Greek word by Schleusner.— " ' xa/uSavai manu aliquid capio, Matt. xiv. 19. :
ali& quacunque ratione accipio, Matt. vii. 3. . rursum accipio, recupero,
Matt. xix. 29. Joh: xiii. 12.' Schleusner."— See Calm Inquiry, p. 173.
Here is the quotation from Schleusner, in the precise form in which Mr.
Belsham has given it, even to the inverted commas.
Now, in the first place, it is surely a gross falsification of his author, to
give, as one continued quotation, from him, (as the established meaning of
the form here employed by Mr. Belsham unequivocally implies,) that,
which is an arbitrary selection of words drawn violently together from va
rious parts of a lengthened context, in the present case amounting to more
than an entire column of close printing. But even this is pardonable, com
pared with what yet remains to be noticed. Will any one believe it pos
sible, that, between the words " recupero " and " Matt; xix. 29." which are
presented as immediately joined in the quotation from Schleusner given to
us by Mr. Belsham,there are found in the original the words that follow —
" resumo, i. q. trihu xapGim. (John x. 17.") — that is, the decidedly active
signification assigned by Schleusner lo the word \a£m in the very passage
now under consideration, is actually cut out by Mr. Belsham, and the parts
on each side adjoining stitched together, so that all now appears one conti
nued texture : and Schleusner's name is made to meet the eye of ihe reader
as an authority for that sense of a passage going directly to the divine
nature of our Lord, the direct contrary of which sense Schleusner had
assigned to it in the part which has been thus purloined ? Now, what shall
be said of such conduct as this 1 Is it too much to charge writers who are
guilty of it with direct and deliberate falsehood ? Yet this is, in fact, the
prevailing practice with Unitarian writers ; and these are the persons, who
are every where loudest in the profession of their attachment to the
truth. But it is not wonderful, that they, who are determined to resist
and subvert that one great truth, which our Lord came into the world to
inculcate, should (however loud their pretensions) set but little value upon
every other.
But let us attend Mr. Belsham somewhat farther upon the subject of this
passage. — From the mutilated extract, which he has given us from
Schleusner, he is, after all, able to infer no more, than that the word
*.xf*€dtu is not " necessarily taken in an active sense." — To find this out he

UNITARIAN version of the new test. 231
is, that the bestowing a power upon the minds of men, whereby
they might be enabled to qualify themselves for that improved

need not have travelled so far. Every school-boy could have told him
that. The last clause of the verse would have told it to him as clearly as
a thousand Lexicons. Well, what then 1 He goes on without ceremony
to pronounce, that here it is " to be taken in a passive sense." [Indeed if
I were to suppose his words used with precision, I should conclude that
•ri&iifii to lay down, is also to be taken in a passive sense ; for he says, that
in this passage, " though active verbs are used, they are to be taken in a
passive sense " —"the verb tiiniit is the only other verb to which this can
apply. Now can he possibly mean, that this too is to be taken in & passive
sense 1 — But some writers must not be taken too strictly — and therefore I
am willing to admit that this is not his meaning.] He' proceeds, " ' I have
authority to receive it again,' q. d. If I voluntarily expose myself to suffer
ing and death, I am assured by my Father that the life so sacrificed shall be
speedily restored." — So' then, because the verb may by possibility be taken
passively, it is to be taken passively : and because the word it-evo-U may by
possibility be rendered authority, it is to be so rendered. And then the
passage is fitted for the gloss, which it was to be moulded to meet, and
which Mr. Belsham has put on it, as above. In this gloss it is stated, that
the life, which our Saviour voluntarily sacrificed, was to be speedily re
stored to him, — by the Father, of course. Now, will Mr.- Belsham be good
enough to inform us, how a person can be said to have an authority to
receive thatf, in the acceptance of which he can take no part, and exercise
no option, being but the passive subject on which an external power freely
exerts itself, without resistance or co-operation from the subject of its ac
tion. The authority to do nothing, seems an odd species of authority.
Yet this is the authority,- with which (if we believe these Improvers of
our Version ofthe N. T.) our Lord, with great solemnity, declares to the
Jews, he had been invested. The authority to be a mere recipient,
such as the authority of the cask to receive the infused liquid, was sure
ly a strange authority for our Lord to assure the Jews he had derived
from his Father. Well might his hearers in- that case have pronounced
him mad indeed. But if, in the exercise ofthe power of God to raise our
Lord to life, who being a mere man, dead and buried, could have no part
whatever in the act, but was simply the passive subject of it, it be still con
tended, that our Lord is properly said to have had authority to receive
his life back again ; is not the same true of all mankind, and must we not
then consistently say of every man, when he is raised from the grave, that
he has been invested with an authority to receive his life back again %
Can any thing be more monstrously absurd 1 Really, it is lamentable, that
they whose time might be better employed than in combating the follies of

232

supplementary remarks on the

condition, in which they should become " Children of God," and
heirs of the promises of the Gospel, would argue such an influ-

Unitarian Expositors, should be detained by such arrant and inexplicable
nonsense. And yet it is unavoidable. Whilst the tares are craftily and
thickly sowing, it is unavoidably necessary to guard the wheat.
We have seen how decidedly Mr. Belsham is of opinion, that the word
\n.Giit is to be taken in a passive sense. But, after having settled this point
quite to his own satisfaction, he immediately turns to an interpretation of
Grotius, which he seems to adopt with great complacency, and in which
it is requisite that this same verb should be taken actively — " vitam eri-
pere."— In short, — active or passive, — it signifies nothing to the critics we
are concerned with, whether it be the one or the other, or a jumble of both
together ; let it but tend to prove the Son of God to be amere man, " falli
ble and peccable " like themselves, and it is instantly embraced. Mr.
Belsham also goes so far, in his complacent acceptance of Grotius' 's inter
pretation, as to admit, not only the active sense of the verb xst-Sttt; but the
obnoxious sense of the noun ij-euriay ; letting in freely the idea of power,
which he had before taken such pains to exclude. So that now, since
Grotius's explanation does not involve the notion of our Lord's resurrec
tion, and consequently does not involve the exercise of a divine power by
our Lord, he is willing, with that writer, to attribute both to the noun and
to the verb the fullest exertion of power in its most complete activity. So
much for Unitarian criticism.
The critics of this school (it should be remembered) are ready enough
to adduce various readings where they suit their purpose, and to lay upon
them full as much stress as is admissible. But they did not think it neces
sary, in discussing the force of the verb, as to its active or passive signifi
cation, in the passage before us, to announce, that, in two MSS., one of
them of such high authority as the Cambridge MS. or Codex Beza, the
reading for \nSm is &f*t, settling the active sense beyond the possibility of
cavil. — Before I quit the consideration of this verse of John, I think it
right to add, that the concluding clause, in which our Lord says, " this
commandment have I received from my Father," Bishop Pearce is of opin
ion is to be understood of the command to say, as our Lord had just said :
— for which he refers to John xii. 49, 50.
I should not deal fairly by Mr. Belsham, if I did not mention, that he has
not given his explanation ofthe passage we have been considering, as one
perfectly insulated ; but has in some degree hinged it upon the interpretion
he had supplied of another passage in the same Evangelist, ii. 19 ; in
which our Savionr has spoken of his raising up the temple of his body in
three days. The former passage, he informs us, is " to be explained upon
the same principles " as this. Now, that the author may not be misunder-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 233
ential operation on the nature of the Moral Agent, as, coupled
with the strong and marked declarations of the divine nature

stood, and that we may the better know what those "principles" are; I
shall lay the entire of his explanation of this passage before the reader. —
" The resurrection of Jesus is uniformly ascribed in the sacred writings to
the power of God, Acts ii. 32., x. 40., xvii. 31., Rom. vi. 4., viii. 11. Our
Lord's expression is therefore to be understood figuratively ; not that he
would raise himself, but that he would be raised by God. Thus, when it is
said, 'the dead shall rise,' 1 Thess; iv. 16. all that is intended is, that they
shall be raised by a divine power. Mark v. 41., John xi. 44., v. 28, 29."
— This is the whole. Now, I beg the reader's most particular attention to
this entire argument : as it supplies an infallible mode of removing the au
thority of every untoward passage throughout the Scripture, one by one,
without the smallest difficulty. — First, it is asserted, that " the resurrection
of Jesus is uniformly ascribed in the sacred writings to the power of God."
— Uniformly — no exception of course. Now, in the first place, there are
to the full as many passages in the N. T. in which our Lord is said simply
to rise fiora the dead as there axe passages in which he is said to be raised
(and even of these last, there is at least a third part, in which it is not ex
pressed, by what power, whether his own or that of God the Father, he
was to be raised.) — On these passages, however, I lay no stress, as, where
our Lord is spoken of simply as rising from the dead, it does not appear
expressly by what power he was to rise.j whether by his own or not. But
it may give the reader some idea, of the accurate regard to truth manifest
ed by a writer, who positively affirms, that in every one of these the re
surrection of Jesus is ascribed to the power of God ; meaning thereby
the Father. But the point to be particularly observed in Mr. Belsham's
application ofthe word " uniformly," in this case, is, that, at the moment he
makes the assertion, he has before his eyes a passage, in which, in lan
guage as significant and unequivocal as language can be, our Lord declares
that he would raise himself by his own power ; and in another passage in
the very same page of Mr. Belsham's book, our Lord again declares dis
tinctly that he had the power of raising himself from the dead. Yet Mr.
Belsham, with both these passages in his view, at once positively affirms
that the contrary is uniformly asserted throughout the Scripture ! is as
serted, of course, in these very passages : and then he proceeds to prove,
ON THE GROUND OF THIS VERY AFFIRMATION, THAT THESE PASSAGES DO AS
SERT it. Now, the reader will please to carry in his recollection, that this
affirmation of Mr. Belsham's is-the whole of his proof. For then he
goes on to state, " that our Lord's expression " (in John ii. 19. viz. the
expression which ascribes to our Lord the power of raising himself,) " is
therefore to be understood figuratively." The argument, then, runs
Vol. 2.— 30

234 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
of Christ throughout the context, threatened destruction to the
Unitarian scheme: whereas, the giving an authority to be

thus : " The thing which this text asserts is never asserted : therefore the
text is to be taken figuratively : for, if taken literally, it expresses that
which I have affirmed it does not mean." Then he goes on, ex abunddnti
(for surely all is long ago proved,) to instance the figurative application of
like forms of expression to those here employed. "Thus, when it is said
the dead shall rise; all that is intended is, that they shall be raised by a
divine power. Now, it is important, that the parrallel expressed so em
phatically by the word thus, and which is to reconcile every mind to the
naturalness of trie figure here employed, should be carefully attended to.
When our Lord speaks of raising himself from the dead, he means that
lie should "be raised by God ; " by the same sort of figure precisely with
that, by which, " when it is said the dead shall ' rise,' it is intended, that
they shall ' be raised ' by a divine power." In like manner, to present a
parallel case, we reason thus : — When a weight ascending: by the action
of a machine is said in common language to rise, it is meant that the weight
is raised by an external power ^ therefore, when a man is said to raise
himself from the ground, it must mean that he is raised from it by some
other power than his own. Some persons indeed might be so scrupulous
as. to expect, that Mr. Belsham, in order to make his conclusion perfectly
satisfactory, should have given some instance of a dead man being said to-
raise himself, or of a person, under any circumstances, being said to
raise himself, when it was clearly meant that he was not to raise him
self, but to be raised by some one else. Mr. Belsham may possibly
consider this as a little too precise. But to extend satisfaction more'
widely, he may perhaps be induced in a new Edition, of his work to supply
a few examples of this kind. — The reader has now seen the whole of Mr.
Belsham's proof.
There are two passages which contain our Saviour's own express
d'eclia-rations of his power to raise himself from the dead : one, as we
have seen, in John ii. 19. ; and the other in John x. 17, I8_— The lat
ter Mr. Belsham says, is to be explained on the same principle as the-
former (helping out the case a little, at the same time, by a false quo
tation from Schleusner ¦) and the former he disposes of in the man
ner I have just described ; namely, by asserting that it does not mean-
what it expresses ; for that what it expresses is never meant any
where in Scripture.
Indeed, it must be remarked, this last is a favourite and never-failing
mode of establishing the sense of Scripture with Mr. Belsham and
his brother critics of the Unitarian School. These words do not imply
a particular meaning, because they never imply such a meaning* —

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 235
ranked in a certain class, might be consistent with a mere de
claration of the capacity, and viewed but as the ministerial an-

'Eyiten in John i. 3. does not signify created ; because the verb yttefuu
is no where used by St. John in the sense of create. — (See Mr. Bel
sham and Dr. Carpenter.) nirr*, in the same verse, does not signify
the Universe, because it " never signifies the Universe in St. John's
writings." — For these and many other instances of such irresistible
argumentation, I refer to the valuable Tract of Bishop Burgess, al
ready spoken of, pp. 74 — 79. And to the same excellent Tract I would
direct the reader for a variety of cases similar to that introduced at the
beginning of this note: in which, by mutilated and falsified quotations
from Schleusner, that writer's name is made to appear in support of
interpretations of Scripture, which he directly condemns : and con
demns in the very places, from which the critics of whom we speak
carve out and extract those quotations. See pp. 75 — 96. of The Bible
and nothing but the Bible, &c. Mr. Belsham does not stand alone
in the pillory, which the author has erected in this portion of his work
for the exposure of such misdemeanors as the above ; but Dr. Car
penter, also, is there presented as involved in the disgrace.
I had hoped, that I might here at least put an end to the disgusting
detail of unfair evasions, uncritical glosses, and unchristian principles,
with which I have been obliged most reluctantly to swell this note ;
but I have this moment cast my eye upon a passage of Mr. Belsham,
in one of the later numbers of the M. Repository, which, both as
exemplifying some ofthe modes of criticism already instanced, and as
evincing the progress which that writer's opinions are rapidly making
towards their natural goal, I feel myself not at liberty to withhold
from the reader. After schooling an old Unitarian pupil, Mr. J.
Jevans, pretty smartly, for giving into any thing approaching so near
to the true sense of Scripture, as admitting the idea of expiation for
moral offences under the Jewish system, (favouring him, in the course
of it, with the appellation of " a very Draco in legislation," and con
descendingly sneering at the gross mistakes of his " good friend,") he
goes on to settle the point in the usual manner,. " Expiation for moral
offences is never required in the Jewish Scriptures, and the very idea
of it is rejected with indignation and abhorrence." He then proceeds
to assert, that " under the Law things unconsecrated were atoned, i. e.
brought into a consecrated state, by being sprinkled with the blood of
an animal victim ;" and that the same applies in the N. T. to believers
in Christ, who are thus said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ ;
"i. e. transformed from an unholy to a holy, from a heathen to a
Christian state :" — that, " in a sense analogous to this, Christ is said

230

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

nouncement of a title, or, at most, as the transmission of a dele
gated privilege. It is to be remembered, that the passage under
consideration is found in that part of Scripture, where Unitarians
always flounder : a part, where every clause (in its fair interprer
to have died for his own Sins as well as those of the people, Heb.
vii. 27." — And why ? because, " being of the tribe of Judah, he was not
qualified to officiate as a priest, till he was consecrated with his own
blood. "—He then winds up the whole with stating, that " this is the
idea which runs through the Epistle to the Hebrews, and by which the
fanciful but eloquent writer endeavours to reconcile his half-believing
countrymen to the offensive doctrine of a crucified Messiah :" but that,
" neither does he, nor do any of the writers of the N. T. ever hint at
the modern doctrine" (a doctrine so modern as to be only of about
1800 years standing,) l;of the blood of Christ being shed as an expia
tion for moral offences .-" and he then establishes the whole by actu
ally declaring, " I am persuaded that the idea of a doctrine so repug
nant to reason and the divine perfections, and to the most explicit
declarations of the prophets of the Old Testament, never once
entered into their minds" Vol. ix. pp. 755, 756.— Here is a rant, that
surely never was equalled before the days of Mr. Belsham: a rant,
that would be to the last degree ludicrous, if it were not to the last
degree shocking. So then, Christ, in all those numberless parts of
Scripture, in which he is said to have died for our Sins, is not meant
tp have died on account of pur moral offences, (what other offences
can we as moral agents commit?) nor is he said to have made expia
tion for our sins, other than as he made expiation for his own sins.
So much for the Theology. Next for the Ecclesiastical history. We
have a positiye declaration, that the idea, that expiation by the sacrifice
of Christ related to the moral offences of mankind, is a matter of
modern invention ; whilst the writings of the Fathers from the
earliest age proclaim the doctrine in almost every page, and with a
strength which has been the subject of severe animadversion from So
cinian critics of former days, who, indeed, knew something of what
the writings of the Fathers did contain.— Last of all, the Reasoning.
Mr. Belsham affirms, " that expiation for moral offences is never
required in the Jewish Scriptures ;" that it is never referred to the
blood of Christ by the writers in the N. T.: and that he is "persuad
ed " that it " never once entered into their minds." What shall we
say to all this J Have such men altogether lost their senses, or do
they imagine that the world have lost theirs ? Yet these are the
expositors, who are to enlighten mankind, by the soundest principles
of reasoning, and the most correct views of Scripture truth !

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 237
tation) is fatal to their system ; and where it is indispensable
that they should explain away the just sense of almost every
word, in their endeavour to shut out the evidence of our Lord's
divinity : a part of Scripture, which, though tortured by the ad
vocates of the Socinian heresy into a hundred different shapes,
still haunts them with the re-assumption of that one hated form
on which they are terrified to look, still presents to them the
blessed Jesus, the Eternal Son of God, whom they cannot bear
to behold, as he is, " the only-begotten of the Father, full of
grace and truth."
The word 'ehotsia, which the Editors have frequently trans
lated power in other parts of the New Testament, they- could
not afford to render in that dangerous sense here. And whilst,
again, in some other places, in which they have departed from
their model in using the word authority, they have not scru
pled to confess that they had done so, yet here it was not deemed
prudent to draw attention to the difference : and the translation
of the Primate is, accordingly, quietly slid away from, in pro
found silence as to the variation. What renders this still the
more remarkable is, that two explanatory notes are attached to
this 12th verse, one of them to the clause containing the very
word in question : and whilst the Editors entertain us in these
notes with some sage and profound remarks of Mr. Cappe,
they forget altogether once to mention the name of Dr. New-
come. In one of these notes, indeed, they treat us from Mr.
Cappe with a sort of compensation for their omissions elsewhere.
For, in describing to us those who are called " Children of God,"
as the " partakers of a divine nature," they seem anxious to be
stow upon men that divine nature which they refuse to our
Lord. This is not ill-contrived for their objects. It tends to
familiarize the reader to the idea, that these words may be used
in such a sense as is perfectly compatible with a merely human
condition ; and, therefore, if, after all possible prunings, interpo
lations, and glosses, they should at any time be compelled to ad
mit that Scripture attributes a* divine nature to our Lord ; it is

* The reader must before this be fully aware, that the grand secret
pf Unitarianism, throughout, is to retain names, and to reject things.

238 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
then to be recollected, that this may be done in a sense which
wiE not interfere with his proper humanity, (as they call it ;)

By this alone it is contrived to keep up any appearance of a distinction
between it and open Deism ; to which, from the days of Socinus, it
had continued for a long time to approximate by a gradual progress;
but which it now approaches by such rapid accelerations, under the
quickening impulses it has received in later days from Priestley,
Lindsey, and Belsham, that it has become at length a matter of some
difficulty to discover a deficiency of actual contact. Instances estab
lishing the truth of the above position have been plentifully offered in
the pages of this work. But there are some very recent evidences on
this head, to which I cannot forbear soliciting the farther attention of
the reader. In the Monthly Repository, (at present the grand Store
house of Unitarian Deism,) we meet with a proposal (Vol. viii. p. 111.)
to admit the use of the phrase, Divinity of Christ, affixing to it
the sense merely of a.. divine commission ; in other words, admitting
it in the sense in which it would be equally applicable to Moses or
Elijah. The writer, who proposes this, recommends it on the ground
of the denial ofthe Divinity of our Lord having proved a Stumbling-
block, in the way of those whom it had been endeavoured to proselyte
to the Unitarian doctrine : and for this reason he laments, that Dr.
Priestley had, in a Tract of his, professed to direct his arguments
against the Divinity of Christ ; and he adds, (what deserves particu
lar attention,) — " Were I a member of the Committee of the London
Book Society, I should be strongly tempted to move, that the word
'Deity' should be substituted for 'Divinity' in the title-page of the
next edition." That is, I beg it may be observed, Dr. Priestley, who
is already become rather old-style from the rapid progress of Unitari
anism, is to be presented to the public in the modern taste of Hackney ;
.and a false title to be given to the treatise of their deceased Champion,
¦the hotter to delude and entrap the unwary. This suggestion too, we
shall see, has not been lost upon the party. For again in the ixth vol,
of the same Repository (p. 428.) we find that one of their most active
controversialists has published an Essay, to establish the propriety of
distinguishing between the Deity of Christ and his Divinity;
in order that Unitarians may be enabled, consistently with their
favourite notions as to the former, openly to assert their admission of
the latter. But I submit it to Unitarian ingenuity, whether the matter
of appearance might not be carried yet farther; and a tolerable sense
discovered, in which the Deity of Christ might be admitted in words,
no less than his Divinity. Dr. Priestley's remark on William

UNITARIAN version of THE NEW TEST. 239
— exactly parallel to then mode of management in another
place, where they endeavour to level God to the nature of man,

Penn's vindicatory declaration, " that he did not deny the Eternal
Deity of Christ," supplies a hint towards effecting this point. For,
in showing how this declaration was reconcileable with Penn's belief of
the perfect humanity of Christ, Dr. Priestley observes, " he only
appears to have meant, that the Deity of the Father resided in the
man Christ Jesus, which is" (he adds) " what every Socinian acknow
ledges." — See Triumph of Truth, p. 4. — Indeed it must be farther
observed, that this idea of the admission of Christ's Divinity has
already proved productive in the hands of Unitarians; for they assert,
in the page of the Repository before referred to, that they can now
speak of him as '' more than man." Quere, may they not soon
find some means of devising a sense for the word Trinity itself;
through which they may also profess a belief in that ; so that at
length, as far as mere words go, (Dare verba should surely be the
motto of Unitarians.) the Christian may find nothing to startle him on
entering the Vestibule of their Anti- Christian mansion'? — They had
long ago secured to themselves the free use of the term Atonement :
they have now gained to their vocabulary, the Super-human nature,
and even the Divinity of Christ.
But, much as has been said in the course of these Volumes on their
mode of treating the subject of the Atonement in their discussions of that
doctrine, I have something of recent occurrence to lay before the reader
upon this' point, which cannot but convince him, (if he be not already con
vinced,) that their real object in admitting in terms a doctrine of Atonement,
is, the more effectually to overturn its nature and to annihilate its substance.
The Editors of the Unitarian Journal already spoken of, having, in their
Number for December 1814, notified their intention of making the doctrine
of the Atonement the subject of their special examination in a series of
ensuing publications, and having for this purpose invited the free commu
nications of their several correspondents ; their first Number for the year
1815, accordingly, opened the promised discussion : and in the outset I
find the following cautionary letter, which I deem too important not to
transcribe entire. — "I perceive, that your thoughts" (addressing the Editor)
" have been, and will, for a time, be much turned to the Scripture doctrine
of Atonement. It appears to me very desirable, that some person should
give us a simple view of that subject, devoid of all manner of controversy.
All persons who read their Bible must see that much is said about it both
in the Old Testament and the New. The question then is, What is it ?
If we attempt to explain it all away, or make what is said of our
Lord's death, in relation to it, a mere shadow and the shadow op

240 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
because our Saviour had reminded the Jews of the language in
the Old Testament addressed to men, " Ye are Gods."

A shade, and do not give the public something determinate and sub
stantial, THAT THEY CAN FIX AND REST THEIR THOUGHTS UPON, I AM VERY
MUCH INCLINED TO THINK THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO VIEW THE SUB
JECT IN THE MANNER THEY NOW DO AND LONG HAVE DONE. Nothing, not
a word of a controversial nature should be said in it, concerning the per
son of our Lord, &c. that the reader's mind may not, on that account, be
prejudiced against it. Some writers, by attempting too much, effect little
or nothing. They forget, hasten slowly." — To this is subscribed the name
of J; Jevdns, a staunch and zealous Unitarian, who had been a pupil of
Mr. Belsham ; but who, as may be collected from the preceding note,
holds notions on the subject of expiation of a much higher order than his
Tutor. Now, on this letter of a sincere friend to Unitarianism, and well
acquainted with its esoteric, I make no comment. — Nothing can be here
wanting to assist the reader's digestion. — As to the writer of this letter, it
is probable, that he felt it necesswy to suggest the cautions which it con
tains from the extravagant manner in which Mr. Belsham had, just be
fore, in the controversy with him on the subject of the Jewish Sin-offer
ings, represented the nature of the Atonement by the blood of Christ :•
pronouncing, as we have seen in the foregoing note, that " the blood of
Christ was not shed as an expiation for moral offences," and consequently
not shed in expiation of offences at all : from which it follows, that, when
our Lord himself declares that his blood was shed for the remission of sins,
he can mean nothing that relates in any degree to human offences of any
kind at the present day : or that, in other words, Atonement (so far as men
are now concerned,) means, precisely, nothing. Remission of Sins
might, indeed, be considered applicable to the Candlesticks of the Temple,
or to our Lord himself; their sins and his might, it seems, be remitted:
(see Mr. Belsham in the paper before quoted : also Imp. Vers. pp. 514.
518.) but as to the entire race of human beings now existing, there is no
sense of the words, in which, (according to our Improved Expositors,)
the shedding of blood can be conceived to have any connexion with the
remission of their sins. Well indeed might Mr. Jevans take alarm, lest
even " the shadow of a shade " might not be left.
I had nearly forgotten to mention, what certainly ought not to be omitted,
that in the paper of Mr. Belsham already alluded to, that writer has made
a discovery of the true character of sin-offerings, which he represents to
be nothing more than "fines to the crown." (M Rep. vol. ix. p. 754.)
So that to the several theories of sacrifice which have been broughtunder
review in the second of the two Discourses in this work and the corres
ponding Illustrations, must now be added, at least so far as the Mosaic

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 241
But to return. We have now considered a second case, in
which the Editors have departed from the translation of Pri
mate Newcome ; in which they have made no acknowledgment
of the departure ; and in which the departure is calculated to
promote their peculiar opinions. — To proceed to a third instance
of the same description. —
In Number III. we find the words, " hath ascended," used
by the Unitarian Version in place of the Primate's rendering,
"goeth," This, however, is acknowledged- But we also
find instead of the clause " who was in heaven," the following
substituted, ["who is in heaven."] — Now here the reader should
be apprized, that, in addition to the obvious and important dif
ference ofthe words "is" and "was" in this passage, there is
another most material one contained in the notation of the
brackets. The Primate had stated in his preface (p. iv.) that
he " places between brackets, those words, to which Griesbach
has prefixed a mark, denoting, that they should probably,
though not certainly, be expunged." The Editors, who pro
fess to follow Newcome throughout, agree with him in this no
tation likewise, stating the same thing that he has done, pre
cisely. (Introd. p. xxxiii.) The brackets then appearing in the
text before us, it is to be concluded, that they appear in New-
come's; and also, that, in the Greek text of Griesbach, there
is found that particular mark,"the existence of which the brackets
were to indicate. But, the truth is, the Editors here differ di
rectly from both the models which they profess to follow. The
brackets are not in Newcome. And the mark is not in Gries
bach. There is, on the contrary, another sort of mark found
in Griesbach, indicating a very different character of the read
ing — "omissio minus probabilis:" {Prolegom. p. xc.) — a
circumstance, which might in itself naturally have guarded even
a heedless transcriber against the notation that has been used.
We have here, then, in the body of the text, a declaration, that
the clause in question is, to a high degree of probability,

institution of sacrifice is concerned, this new one of itfr. Belsham: that,
namely, of the sacrifice being a fine ; or as he expresses it, in relation to
the Theocracy, " a fine to the crown."
Vol. 2.— 31

242 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
spurious : whilst Griesbach and Newcome ascribe to it no
such character, and the latter presents it in a form carrying
with it no mark of suspicion whatsoever. Are we then to sup
pose this careful and significant demarcation by the brackets, to
which nothing corresponding occurs in either Griesbach or
Newcome, as well as the substitution of " is " for " was," — to
have been, both of them, " slips of the pen, or errors of the
press ; " both occurring without the slightest notice of the varia
tion ; and both occurring together, in a clause of considerable
moment in the Unitarian question, and one also to which a note
is annexed relating both to the authenticity of the clause and to
its meaning ; — the attention of the Editors of course specially
directed to both the points of difference, and yet neither of them
glanced at by a single observation 1
With the note itself, I have, strictly speaking, no concern.
But, as tending to evince the great anxiety of the Editors to
get rid of the words in the text altogether, and, consequently, as
marking the importance they attach to them, the considera
tion of it becomes of value : inasmuch as the silent desertion of
their professed models is thereby rendered the more obviously
significant. — First, as a reason for affixing the mark of highly
probable spuriousness, the note states, that " the clause is
wanting in some of the best copies." Now, to come to direct
matter of fact ; how many, and what are these copies ? The
Editors have not chosen to put us in possession of this know
ledge. — Upon the whole, three : and of these, one being so late
as the 11th or 12th century, the testimony reduces nearly to the
two remaining MSS. or perhaps, more properly speaking, (one
of these being not earlier than the 8th, or probably the 9th, cen
tury,) to the single authority of the Vatican, a Manuscript un
doubtedly of high antiquity. But the omission of the clause in
these three MSS.,* whilst it is found in every other unmutilated
MS. of the great number referred to by Griesbach, can be of

* The clause is wanting also in one Version, the Ethiopic; and in
one of the Fathers, Greg. Naz. in a part of his works, whose genuine
ness has been questioned. Every other Version, however, and Every
other Father, who cites the passage, has the clause.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 243
little weight in the mind of any real critic, and would have
been met with derision by the Editors themselves, and set down
as a proof of the weakness of the cause it was advanced to sup
port, had it been adduced as a reason for impeaching the authen
ticity of any passage of Scripture, that appeared to the Unita
rians to sanction their notion* of the proper humanity of
Christ.— However, labouring under misgivings, that this " some
of the best copies," when examined into, might be found to
tally wanting in weight, the note, in the second place, proceeds
to say of the clause in question, — "if its authenticity is allowed,
it is to be understood of the knowledge, which Christ possessed
of his Father's will.t See John i. 18." — that is, the idea of

* Though in John i. 18, the very same authorities which have been here
given, (excepting that of the Vatican}) joined with two Syriac Versions,
(the Peschito and the Philoxenian,) and also the Ethiqpic, and followed
by a host of the Fathers from Ignatius downwards, support the reading of
&ies instead of vies, the Editors do not feel it necessary, upon the strength
of these authorities, to give the name of God to the only begotten of the
Father. — Such is the consistency and impartiality of these inquirers after
revealed truth !
t We find a reference here made to John i. 18. Now it is whimsical
enough, that on John i. 18. (where the participle occurs exactly as it dons
here, oil',) the Editors state in their note, that "who was" is preferable to
" who is :" although they here depart from Newcome, in changing " was"
to "is." Thus even their own references support each other. They
change the past into the present ; and then refer to a passage where they
say the present ought to be changed into the past. — But, let this go with
the rest. — As to the departure from Newcome in this particular, they will
probably tell us, that although they have here departed from him, yet they
have only given us the rendering of the Received Version. True — but
they pledged themselves in all cases, either to abide by Newcome, or to
give notice of the departure. Again, they may pretend, that, in their
change of the past into the present, they could not at all events be supposed
to have sought any advantage to their cause ; as, by this, they but coincide
with the Received Version. But when they have themselves told us, in a
passage which they admit to be precisely parallel, that the past is the true
interpretation, they compel us to look for some special reason for their
abandoning it, when it was presented to them by their own model. This
reason it will not be difficult to discover, when it is recollected that the
object with the Editors of this new version is, not merely to defeat the

244

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

our Lord's being, or having been, actually in heaven, is to be
got rid of at all events. — The passage is spurious : — or, if that
point cannot be carried, then comes the gloss — the words, " who
is in heaven," — " are to be understood ofthe knowledge which
Christ possessed of his Father's will ; " — or, as it is given in
due form by Mr- Belsham, (who is employed throughout his
Calm Inquiry, in giving full and fair shape and proportion to
the crude conceptions of the Editors,) — " who is instructed
IN THE GRACIOUS PURPOSES OP GOD TO MAN." (P. 53.) Thus,

doctrines of Trinitarians, but also those of all denominations of Christians
that lie in the graduations of the scale between the station of Trinitarians
and that part (below the freezing point,) where these new-light Unitari
ans choose to place themselves ; — all, in short, that attribute to our blessed
Lord any quality that would raise him above that meagre skeleton, which
these writers present to us in his stead. Now, it is obvious, that, in the
literal sense of the word " heaven," the past time is necessarily connected
with the opinions of all these ; and even to the unreflecting mass of Trini
tarian believers it might be supposed to appear rather startling, to speak of
our Lord, at the same time that he was addressing the Jews in a human
form, as being at that very time actually in heaven. And, accordingly,
Unitarians have not failed to press this as a difficulty quite insuperable.
The present tense is therefore preferred by the Editors, manifestly with
good policy, as leading so many classes of Christians to relinquish the
literal sense of the passage for that figurative one, which they propose, and
which is essential to their system. Thus Mr. Lindsey says, on the words
" who is in heaven," — " these cannot be taken literally : for the Son of
Man could not be in heaven at the same lime that he was upon earth : it is
therefore (he adds) to be considered (like John i. 18.) as Metaphorical
language," signifying "the being admitted into the secret councils of
God." (Second Address, p. 60. Sequel, p. 218.) Thus the present
tense was indispensable to the Unitarian designs upon this verse of John.
But it is only in the minds of such as do not clearly discern the real
doctrines of Scripture, that any difficulty can be raised from reading the
words in the present tense. For, whether we take the words in the sense
in which Campbell uses them, as representing our Lord as saying, that
heaven is the place of his abode ; or as stating (with Doddridge) that even
then, whilst he was speaking, he was actually present in heaven by his divine
nature whichfills both heaven and earth ; — the whole comes but to the plain
declaration of that which is asserted in almost every page of the N. T.;
namely, that pur Lord Jesus Christ was at the same time both God and
Man.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 245
they who tell us, that the entire investigation of Scripture truth
requires only " a sound understanding and an honest mind,"
and that learning and subtlety are " by no means necessary to
settle the important question concerning the person of Christ,
the inquiry being into a plain matter of fact," ( Calm Inq. p. 5.)
— contend, that the plain and obvious meaning (of course) of
the words, " who is in heaven," is, who is instructed in
THE GRACIOUS PURPOSES OF GoD TO MAN.
What degree of value the Editors attach to the due manag
ing of the passage, it will not be difficult to infer from what
has been said. But we are not left to inference upon this sub
ject. The truth is, that this passage, and those* that speak a

* I subjoin here a few of the passages connected with this particular
subject, together with the glosses ofthe Unitarian Editors.
John i- 18. ©eoy ebffis Iwexxs VwTrorv o petoyivlis vies, o wV t\s rey xewret rev
fT£tT/)3C, valves, ity-yHo-cvTe.
Common Version. Unitarian Gloss.
No man hath seen God at any " No one knows the purposes of
time: the only begotten Son, which God, but his faithful servant and
is in the bosom of the Father, he messenger, Jesus Christ, who is in-
hath declared him. structed in his counsels, and has re
vealed his will." — Calm Inq. -p. 53.
John iii. 13. K*l ouSiis cLva.GeGnxfv us rev evesLtot, t\ ,«« o 'ex rev eve±tav KX.ret.Gas,
o vtos rev &vQpJrfrou, e JSy h r$ oventy.
Common Version. Unitarian Gloss.
And no man hath ascended up to " No one has ever been admitted
Heaven, but he that came down from to a participation ofthe divine coun-
Heaven, [even] the Son of Man, sels, except the Son of Man, Jesus
which is in Heaven, of Nazareth, who has been commis
sioned to reveal the will of God to
men, and who is perfectly instructed
and qualifiedfor this office." — Calm
Inq. p. 53.
John iii. 31. "O avaiSev e^fy/aw, iiriw nitron ie-rh. 'O ut ix rns yis, s* tȣ
yis tsrt, xu « ris yis *¦*«?• » « ¦">« eupxtev Ipjfiftmt, itrivu wavrm ta-ri.
Common Version. Jlpitarian Gloss.
He that cometh from above is " He who cometh with a divine
above all : he that is of the earth is commission is superior to all : he,
earthly, and speaketh ofthe earth, he who is of the earth, manifests the

246

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

similar language in the sixth chapter of John, have always
puzzled Unitarian writers more than almost any other' in the

that cometh from heaven is above origin of his teaching, and his words
all. have not their requisite authority.
He, who cometh with a divine com
mission, is superior to all." — Cahrit^
Inq. p. 55. Unit, the Doct. &c. :
p. 261.
John vi. 38. Y.v.*tj.Ci£iik.z at rev eve-viev.
Common Version. Unitarian Gloss.
I came down from heaven. " My doctrines and mission are
of divine authority." — Calm Inq.
p. 60. Imp. Vers. p. 219.
John vi. 62. 'Ectv evt Stwemi rey viot rev e\y&eut7rov avaGzivovra., eTtev itv re 7rpo-
reeey ; Common Version. Unitarian Gloss.
What if ye shall see the Son of " What if ye shall see the Son of
Man ascend up where he was before 1 Man displaying a still more intimate
acquaintance with the purposes of
God, and revealing truths which
would be still more remote from
your apprehensions, and offensive to
your prejudices f ( Unit, the Doct.
&c. p. 254.)" — or, as Mr. Belsham
has it, — " go farther out of your
reach, and become still more per
plexing and mysterious V — Calm
Inq. p. 67.
On the last text Mr. Belsham remarks, that our Lord had purposely em
ployed "enigmatical discourse" in this place, that he might offend and
repel his selfish hearers : and that, in the 63d verse, he desires them to
look to the " hidden meaning " contained in it as the only thing useful.
Thus we see, that the " inquiry into a plain matter of fact " (Calm Inq. p.
5.) turns out, when Mr. Belsham pleases, the investigation of the hidden
meanings of the enigmatical discourses of our Lord, which at times he
purposely rendered still more perplexing and mysterious : and this, it must
be observed, not merely for the purpose of misleading those whom he im
mediately addressed, but with the certain effect of misleading thousands and
tens of thousands of sincere and' humble followers. For even down to the
present day, under the supposition that our Lord's words meant what they
plainly express, do we not find that the Christian world has remained alto
gether unacquainted with the hidden meaning of the last important text ;

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 247
New Testament. Of the text before us Mr. Belsham con
fesses, that it "is a text, the right under standing of which is of

and might indeed remain for ages yet to come unacquainted with it, were it
not, that Mr. Belsham has, as he informs us himself, for the first time made
the discovery? And, unfortunately, even now that he has made it, the in
terpretation, he tells us is so " different from the plain meaning of the
words," that it will be "called a forced" one, and will, therefore, most
probably, after all be rejected by the unmanageable common sense of the
world. Le Clerc, it is true, he admits, " seems to have hinted at some
thing similar ; " but the actual full discovery of it has been reserved for
himself At the same time he proposes it, (as he avers}) with great " diffi
dence : " and his respect for St. John is such, that he seems glad that
" there is no occasion to have recourse " (like Dr. Priestley,) " to the sup
position of a lapse of memory in the Evangelist." (Calm Inq. p. 65.)
His hidden meaning has enabled him to get rid of the inference of our
Lord's pre-existence, without that supposition. One thing undoubtedly
must be admitted, that, whatever be the mystery here, Mr. Belsham is the
best entitled to explain it : for it has been, all of it, his own creation. The
powers of language cannot give greater plainness : nor can any powers of
confounding language that this writer may call to his aid, (and scarcely any
can be greater than those he has here employed,) involve our Lord's words
in the slightest perplexity. Mr. Lindsey, from whom Mr. Belsham has
copied most of his expositions of Scripture, had been rather unfortunate in
his experiments on this passage : for, having admitted that our Lord spoke
here of his actual ascension into heaven which was to take place after his
death, he was obviously bound to explain the words " where he was before "
in reference to the same place, and so to admit our Lord's previous exist
ence in heaven. But as this was by no means to be conceded, he was
obliged to make the relative, (whose force the word where possesses,)
mean something different from its own antecedent. " When you shall see
me go up to heaven, to God (alluding to his future ascension,) where Iioas
before ; i. e. from whom I have received my instructions and authority."
(Sequel, &c. p. 221.) This was too monstrous. It was too open a sub
version of the principles of language. Mr. Belsham, therefore, seeing no
way for him in this direction, was driven upon the wonderful discovery
which he has made.
I do not mean to enter into a formal exposure of the Unitarian glosses
that have been cited. They sufficiently expose themselves. I have ad
duced them merely to show to what sad straits Unitarians are reduced, in
their endeavours to escape from the force of. plain Scripture language ;
and what consequence they attach to every circumstance, however minute,
that may enable them to fritter away the evidence of our Lord's pre.

248 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
great importance in settling the controversy concerning the
pre-existence of Christ." (Calm Inq. p. 40.) The correspond-

existence, Bishop Burgess, in his excellent Tract, to which I have already
frequently referred, has exhibited various other such glosses, and observed
upon them with the ability and learning which belong to him. (The Bible,
&c. p. 68.-96. Dr. Nares, also in his Remarks, (2d Ed. p. 102—109,)
has judiciously exhibited the weakness and inconsistency of the principle,
on which these glosses are attempted to be sustained. With respect to
the true and undoubted meaning ofthe passages themselves, that has been
so firmly established, and placed upon such an immoveable foundation by
all the great commentators who have treated of them, that as for the idle
attempt ofthe unlearned and sophistical critics ofthe Unitarian School to
disturb it by their expositions, (and by such expositions,) they might as
well indulge in the hope of shaking St. Paul's with a breath. I shall
therefore detain the reader with but a few remarks : and these, not for the
useless purpose of defending texts that do not require defence against such
criticisms, but for one which I conceive to be more important, — that of
making him a little better acquainted with the absurdity of the criticisms,
and the incompetency of the Critics.
On John iii. 13. it is observed by the Editors ofthe Unitarian Version,
and enforced with much emphasis by Mr. Belsham and Dr. Carpenter,
that to "ascend into heaven," signifies "to become acquainted with the
truths of God : " — and that, consequently, the " correlative " to this, (the
opposite, they should have said,) to " descend from heaven," must mean
" to bring and to discover those truths to the world." Imp. Vers. p. 253.
Calm Inq. p. 48. Unit, the Doct. &c. p. 253. Now, allowing these
gentlemen all they wish to establish as to the first clause, — that to go up
into heaven, means to learn and become acquainted with the counsels of
God, — what must follow, if they reasoned justly upon their own principles ?
Plainly this, that to come down from heaven, being precisely the opposite
of the former, must mean to unlearn or to lose the knowledge of those
counsels : so that, so far from bringing and discovering those counsels to
mankind, our Lord must have disqualified himself for bringing any. Had,
indeed, " ascending into heaven " meant " bringing the truth (any where)
from men," then " descending from heaven" might justly be said to
mean "bringing it back to men." Whatever, in short, ascending may
be supposed to signify in any figure ; descending must signify the Op
posite if the figure be abided by ; and, therefore, if to ascend be to learn,
to descend must be to unlearn. When JEschines, in the picture of the
Theban calamities, which he presents to the Athenians, speaks of the
misery of their being reduced /uimfinvSitay riv ixivbeeUt, he clearly conveys
the idea of the opposite of learning liberty. Had he been told by a Unita-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 249
ing text in John vi. 62. he also admits, has always been consid
ered as; " the palmary argument for the pre-existence." (P. 64.)

rian Critic, (the hypothetical anachronism will I hope be pardoned,) that
that opposite, instead of being to unlearn, or lose the knowledge of liberty j
was to bring and spread the knowledge of it every where, he would have
found himself sadly mistaken inthe force of that fine expression with which
he meant so powerfully to work upon the feelings of his countrymen;
Mr. Belsham, indeed, contents himself with asserting, that " the figure is
preserved, if the person spoken of ascends to learn heavenly truths, and
descends to communicate them." (Calm Inq. p.- 51.) Now can any con
ceivable meaning be assigned to this'? Asdends, whither? — no where.
Descends, whence ? — from no place. The " figure then is preserved " by
using the words "ascend " and " descend " when there is neither ascend^
ing nor descending. Mr. Belsham and the Editors for the word ascend
read learn, and for descend read communicate ; and yet would retain the
words in the very figure that has dismissed them; Let them admit an
actual ascending and descending, and then, indeed, the opposition is pre
served, but the figure is gone, be the objects of the ascent and descent
what they may. Thus these critics employ the words at the same time
in a literal and in a figurative sense. If we say, you destroy the opposi
tion ; then they present the words ascend and descend literally. If we
say, then you grant an actual ascent and descent ; they immedietely tell
us they use the words but figuratively. — " Quo teneam '' — ? To com
municate is manifestly not the opposite of to learn .' so far from it, that in
the Hebrew language it would be actually considered but as a different
conjugation of the verb : thus Hiphil converts the verb *rfo, from the one
sense to the other, and the verb "jjj^ is every where applied to both in
differently. In the true sense of the word communicate, or teach, which
is to cause others to learn, if "the figure were properly preserved," it
would be said, not that our Lord descended from heaven, but that he made
others to ascend thither, as he had done himself.
Lud. Raphelius, who was, indeed, a scholar and a reasoner, and there
fore knew how to give to all these considerations their proper weight, felt
it impossible, although he had been led to admit the figurative meaning of
the first clause, to allow it to the second. " Facile quisquam in has cogi-
tationes incidere posset, ut putet, si ascendere in coslum idem sit, quod
scire mysteria divina, oppositum descenders id_em fore quod nescire."
(See his Preface to his Father's Annotations, § 17.) And, accordingly,
this writer, whose knowledge enabled him to perceive that the objection
was vital, and could not, consistently with any sound principle either of
criticism or logic, be overturned, did not hesitate to reply to it, that the
second clause was to be taken literally ; nothing being more usual than
Vol. 2.-32

250 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
And, accordingly, he labours with all his might through no less
than eight and twenty pages ofthe most extraordinary quagmire

that two words of opposite import should be taken, in the same sentence,
the one in & figurative and the other in a literal sense. In this he repeats
the opinion of another distinguished critic ; and out of the examples which,
he says, abound in the Sacred Writings, he thinks it necessary to adduce
but one, from 1 Thess. v. 4, 5. 7, 8., in which the words day and night are
manifestly used in this manner. Mr. Belsham, however, directly contra
dicts the position of Raphelius; and asserts, that in the passage before us,
" if the first clause is figurative, the second is figurative : and if the first is
literal, the second is literal." (Calm Inq. p. 50.) So say the Editors (of
whom Mr. Belsham is one) with increased emphasis. (Imp. Vers. pp.
208. 226.) This in truth they deem the great strength of their cause :
and it is on this principle that they confess that they are enabled to explain
away the meaning of the phrase descend from heaven, wherever it oc
curs " throughout the writings of St. John. (Imp. Vers. p. 208.) As
this, then, is a main point, Mr. Belsham is careful not to admit the instance
adduced by Raphelius as sufficient ; and demands more examples, before
he will consent to relinquish this essential canon of Unitarian criticism.
Now, I should certainly not hesitate to cpmply with Mr. Belsham's demand,
by supplying the examples he requires, but that he and his brother editors
have saved me all trouble upon that head, by producing sufficient from their
own stores, bearing, also, upon the very question before us. John xiii. 3.
and xvi. 28. they translate, " He came from God and was going to God: "
and " I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again,
I leave the world, and go to the Father." The note of the Editors on the
former verse, and consequently upon the latter, (on which they refer to the
former with which it corresponds,) thus explains the second clause —
" he was going to God, to give an account of his charge : his public
mission and ministry being ended." That is : the Editors take the words
of the second clause, literally, of our Lord's departure from the world ; and
yet they at the same time insist on the figurative application of the first
elause, as in reference to their sense of the words in John i. 6. — Mr. Lind
sey, also, (the favourite expositor of the Unitarians,) in like manner with
the Editors, takes the two corresponding clauses in these verses, the one in
a figurative and the other in a literal sense : and for the purpose of justify
ing his use of the words " coming into the world " in a figurative sense,
whilst the words "leaving the world" must he taken in a literal one, he
adds, that " it is frequent with the best authors., and the sacred writers in
particular, when the same words are put in opposition to each other, to
take the one in a literal and the other in a figurative sense : " and in sup
port of this he instances, besides the passage in 1 Thess. already adduced

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 251
in which any person pretending to criticism ever plunged, for the
purpose of removing, or overlaying, that obnoxious sense,*

from Raphelius, Matt. viii. 22. (See Comment, and Essays, vol. i. pp.
395, 396.)
Now, I must beg the reader's attention to this assertion of Mr. Lind
sey, as tending to supply us with a direct proof of a degree of unfair
ness in Mr. Belsham's treatment of this subject, to which I should be
unwilling to give the true appellation. He had, as we have seen, pro
nounced the single instance adduced by Raphelius insufficient to esta
blish his position ; and had observed upon Raphelius's assertion that
examples were numerous, — " it is singular, that, if examples are so
numerous, only one should be produced: (p. 51.) clearly intimating
that he knew of no other that could be advanced in behalf of Raphe
lius's opinion. Now, independently of those two very important
examples which the Unitarian Editors (himself included in the num
ber) have supplied, we find him (at p. 104 of his Calm. Inq.) actually
refer to the very example quoted by Mr. Lindsey ; and repeat his
very words, which have been just cited, in support of the admission
of both the figurative and the literal sense in the contrasted clauses.
Mr. Belsham, then, knew of other examples besides that one ad
duced by Raphelius ; and yet speaks and argues as if he did not j
and draws his conclusions, and establishes his canon, on the ground
that none other could be adduced. Is this the love of truth which
belongs to Unitarians ? Long may such truth be the, '' aversion " of
the Clergy of that Church, which he indecently and presumptuously
reviles ! It is no apology for Mr. Belsham, that he is desperately
pushed in this case, and that unless he can establish his canon, all is
over with Unitarianism, and the doctrine of the pre-existence rises
triumphant. He will not content himself with begging quarter, like
Mr. Lindsey, when, after struggling in vain to extricate himself from
the meshes of that net in John vi. 62. in which all Unitarians are
caught, he ends his fruitless endeavours with saying, — " But should
we not have been able to develope its meaning, will any be so injudi
cious as to say, that one obscure passage concerning Christ," (so
obscure as simply to say that our Lord was to ascend where he had
been before,) " is to be set up against the whole stream and tenor of
the Scripture declarations concerning him ?" (Second Address, p. 71.)
This it will be readily admitted, is a decided confession on the part of
Mr. Lindsey, that he is not able to divest this passage of a sense which
establishes the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence. However, as he
* For this note, see p. 256,

252 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
which, until the present day, had been given to these passages
by Christians of all parties and denominations, Socinians

finds it so intractable, he brands it as " obscure," (as well might he speak
of the darkness of a sun-beam,) and then half-supplicates, that it may
not be urged in support of a doctrine which it unequivocally announces ;
threatening at the same time to call any person " injudicious" who
shall give it this obvious application.
Mr. Belsham, however, does not seem to think the terror of this
imputation a sufficient safeguard ; and therefore deems it more prudent
not to make any such confession as Mr. Lindsey has made, lest an
ungenerous use might be made of it. He saw that Mr. Lindsey had
been brought into his difficulties, by allowing, in two antithetical
clauses, a figurative interpretation of the one and a literal interpreta
tion ofthe other; and therefore he was resolved, at all events, per fas
et nefas, to maintain the canon, that requires both to be taken literally,
or both figuratively. So he and the Editors put the canon, pro forma,
with an air of great impartiality : but as they have in truth turned
almost the entire of the N. T. into figure, the latter member of the
canon being what they really held in view, the former they might as
well have omitted. They are undoubtedly somewhat puzzled in the
application of this rule to the passages in John xiii. 3. and xvi. 28. :
and, as I have already mentioned, the Editors actually desert the canon
here, if their words have any meaning. But Mr. Belsham, when he
stands single and detached from his brother Editors, takes a different
ground, and, with a hardihood that falls to the lot of few, (and that
might almost tempt one to exclaim with Horace, ¦" O te Bollane cere
bri felicem ") at once removes the difficulty, by asserting that all is
to be taken figuratively. "As Jesus came into the world, when he
appeared in public as a messenger from God ; so, conversely, he left
the world, and returned to the Father, when his mission closed, and
he ceased to appear any longer as a public teacher." (Calm Inq.
p. 104.) So that, in Mr. Belsham's idea, our Lord left the world only
in a figure ; as a person is said to leave the world, who retires from
from public life. Our Lord then means nothing, in reality, of leaving
the world and going to the Father, when he says he is about to do
so. Mr. Belsham, I believe, stands the single writer in the whole
world (unless, possibly, Dr. Carpenter, whose meaning I do not quite
understand, may agree with him,) that could venture such an assertion.
The thing is too clear for doubt. All commentators of whatever
description, Arian and Socinian, as well as Trinitarian, have hitherto,
however they might endeavour to explain it, uniformly admitted that
our Lord spo&e literally of his leaving the world, and going to the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 253
themselves even not excepted. At the same time, we find, at the
conclusion of his labours, the confession fairly made, that the

Father. But Mr. Belsham says, they are all wrong — it is no such
thing — "it is better to take both clauses figuratively." And this is
precisely his proof: neither more nor less. "It is better." Why?
Simply because it is better to degrade the Son of God, the Saviour of
the world, to the condition of mere man. Mr. Belsham has no where
assigned any other reason, why " it is better." — As the Monthly
Review will not be suspected of any extravagant leaning to orthodoxy,
I will quote here a passage from it upon this subject. — " When, how
ever, the coming from is contrasted with the return of Christ to the
Father, as in John xvi. 28., where the obvious meaning of his words
is, ' I left the Father to come to you : again I leave you to go to the
Father,' it seems impossible to evade the inference, that Christ exist
ed before his appearance amongst men," (vol. lxviii. p. 271.) In con
tending, that all here is figure, Mr. Belsham, it should be observed,
not only flies in the face of the common sense of mankind, but he
directly contradicts the declaration of the Scripture itself upon this
head. " His disciples say unto him, ' So now thou speakest plainly,
and speakest no dark speech;'" no figure of speech, but language in
its plain, obvious, and literal acceptation. So little did the disciples
imagine, that, when our Lord informed them that he was about to
leave the world and go to the Father, he meant to say that he was
not to leave the world and go to the Father, at all ! But Mr. Belsham
is used to set but little value on the judgment of an Apostle. Priest
ley, Lindsey, or Cappe, have more weight with him at all times than
Peter, Paul, or John ; and display infinitely a clearer and more un
prejudiced perception of the truths of revelation.
We have seen that Mr. Belsham strenuously maintains, that " ascend
ing into heaven" merely signifies knowing the divine counsels ; that
when our Lord describes himself as " coming down from heaven,"
and again as " ascending up where he was before," he means only, by
the first, that he had a divine authority ; and by the second, that,
" having spoken what had given offence, he would go on to speak
things still more perplexing and offensive to his hearers;" and
that, when he talks of " leaving the world and going to the Father,"
he intends simply to announce the finishing of his ministry. After
a lengthened review of the various passages in which these and similar
expressions occur, a review extending through more than a hundred
pages, Mr. Belsham is found congratulating himself on his success in
proving, that these, and such phrases, wherever they occur, mean nor
(thing whatever of that which they express ; neither of going into

254

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

interpretation which he had been toiling to establish "will he
called a forced interpretation ; and that it is certainly very dif-

heaven, nor of coming from heaven, nor of going to the Father ;
but that they plainly and solely relate to the learning and revealing
the divine purposes. (See Calm Inq. p. 152.) So extended an exami
nation of texts of Scripture Mr. Belsham had however rendered in a
great measure unnecessary ; for, by his knowledge of Astronomy he
pronounces himself entitled to assert, that no such thing as a local
heaven can possibly exist. This is " a puerile hypothesis," which
the " modern discoveries hi Astronomy" enable him to laugh to scorn.
What these "modern discoveries in Astronomy" are, Mr. Belsham
has not informed us. Not only his Morals and his Theology have
been given to the world, but his Logics and Metaphysics also have
been vouchsafed to us, together with a slight specimen of his Mathe
matics. What a pity that his Astronomical discoveries have not like
wise been made known ! It must, indeed, be observed, that he feels
himself so strong upon the just and natural views of Scripture lan
guage which he has presented to the reader, that he voluntarily forbears
to lay that stress upon this d priori demonstration, which the cogency
of his Astronomical proofs would, it is to be supposed, have justified,
had he produced them. To explain the matter more fully, he adds,
that the whole of the idea of a " local heaven " is an " absurd Jewish
notion," for that " God is at all times equally and every where present :
and heaven is a state, and not a place^ and that to be perfectly virtuous
and perfectly happy is to be in heaven, whatever be the local situation
of the being in question," (p. 55.) It must follow of course, that being
in heaven, or ascending into heaven, considered locally, can be no
other than a gross absurdity, and of course can never be the meaning
of Scripture, under any form of expression however unequivocal.
To direct Mr. BelshawVs attention to the numerous passages, through
out the Old and the New Testament, in which the idea of a local hea
ven is explicitly conveyed, would be vain. To direct his attention to
Bishop Burgess's remarks upon this subject in his Letter to the Bishop
of Gloucester, (pp. 15—17.) would be equally vain. But I should be
glad to learn, in what manner Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors
would dispose ofthe passage in 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. ; and in what sense
they would set about explaining our Lord's descent from heaven as it
is there described, on which they have in their comment taken good
care to preserve a profound silence.
But, having seen that Mr. Belsham has established by his Criticism
that the words "ascending into heaven" do not mean "ascending into
heaven," and by his Astronomy that they cannot mean it, what shall

t UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 255
ferent from the plain literal meaning of the words." (P. 67.)
However, it is an interpretation, which recommends itself most

we say, if we find this very writer contending, on another occasion, for
this very ascension of our Lord in a literal sense; and contending for
it, in a part of Scripture, where there are no words to express it ; and
where, in truth, it is manifest, almost to demonstration, that no such
thing has been intended 1 The passage I allude to is 1 Pet. iii. 19., in
which the simple expression TtoftMis, having gone, Mr. Belsham
asserts, is to be understood of our Lord's ascensioninto heaven, " post-
quam in ccelum ascendit," as he adopts from Grotius. Thus the mere
word which signifies to go, is made to convey that ascent into heaven,
which the same word, when coupled with the Father, (I go to the
Father, mptfofteu Trees ret n-arie*,) and even the very phrase go up into
heaven, are not allowed to signify ; and which, from astronomical
proofs, it is averred, they could not signify. — Dr. Carpenter, whose
criticism and science both coincide with those of Mr. Bqlsham, in
depriving the several passages that speak of our Lord's going up into
heaven, and of his descending from heaven, of any signification, or
the possibility of any signification, at all connected with the actual
ascent and descent which they literally express, ( Unit, the Doct. &c.
pp.256, 257.) coincides with him likewise in attributing to the simple
word mpivSiis, in this passage of 1 Peter, the idea of an actual ascension
into heaven. See Unit, the Doct. &c. p. 227. ; to which page I would
refer the reader for one of the most complete specimens of Unitarian
exposition to be met with in the same narrow compass ; it seldom hap
pening, that it is necessary, even for the Unitarian, to disturb the just
meaning of every word in an entire passage of Scripture; which is
almost literally the case here. The violent departure from all princi
ples of criticism and grammar in the explanation given of it by the
Unitarians is perhaps their best refutation. The remarks of Bishop
Burgess on the passage itself, and on the Unitarian treatment of it, are
well worthy of attention ; and particularly his animadversions on the
unfair use made of Schleusner's name by Dr. Carpenter; by whom
the authority of that writer has been applied to give countenance to
that interpretation of the passage which he directly opposes. ( The
Bible, &c. pp. 87, 88.) With the sense of the text itself, which has
been again and again abundantly established beyond the reach of Uni
tarian cavil, and on which Bishop Burgess and Dr. Nares have
recently referred to the best sources of interpretation, I mean not to
concern myself. My object is merely to show how Unitarian critics
proceed in their treatment of Scripture, asserting and retracting ; rais-

256 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
strongly to Mr. Belsham, by its efficacy in clearing away from
a part of Scripture which had been hitherto supposed to speak
expressly of our Lord's pre-existence, and to contain allusions
to his death, his atonement, and the institution ofthe Eucharist,
every notion connected with these subjects. (P. 68.) What
ever tended to smooth the way to an interpretation productive
of such vast advantages to the Unitarian cause, so vast as to
strike at the foundation of the great essential truths of Christi
anity, must have been acceptable; and, therefore, the (un
noticed) departure from the Primate and Griesbach, in John
iii. 13. was, to say the least of it, not unseasonable. — To go
now to the fourth instance.
In Number IV. we find the passage in Rom. ix. 5. which is
generally admitted to contain one of the most direct and forcible

ing up and throwing down; demonstrating the impossibility of a cer
tain thing at one time, and grounding arguments on the familiar
assumption of this very thing at another: and all simply referred to
the one standard, " it is better ;" that is, it corresponds better with
the Unitarian theory that has been laid down, antecedent and para
mount to Scripture ; and by which, being established by Reason, (so
at least they tell us,) Scripture is in all cases to be judged. Thus our
Lord's Ascension is to be let in here, where it is not spoken of; and
to be rejected in other places, where it is spoken of: and both for the
same reason. Our Lord's pre-existence is evaded in the one place by
the admission, and in the others by the rejection. " It is better,"
therefore, as Mr. Belsham says, to act thus in these several places
respectively. * It must be observed, that the sense I speak of here is the primary
sense of the words, implying a local ascent and descent, and a real
heaven; which the old Socinians (as has been adverted to p. 27. vol.
i. of this work,) applied to the notion of our Lord's being taken up into
heaven after his baptism : so that, whilst they admitted the plain and
obvious meaning of the words, they avoided the inference of the pre-
existence. Socinians, again, of a later day, speak of our Lord's being
in heaven as a matter of vision, (like th^t of St. Paul,) which he had
not been able to distinguish from reality. But, however they might
explain the matter subsequently, none ever attempted to clear away the
meaning of the words altogether in the first instance, as the Unitarians
of the present day have done.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 257
declarations of our Lord's divinity, that can be instanced through
out the entire, of the New Testament. Michaelis does not
hesitate to assert, in terms the most unqualified, that " Paul here
delivers the same doctrine of the divinity of Christ, which is
elsewhere unquestionably maintained in the New Testament."
Dr. Doddridge, in his comment on the place, describes it as " a
memorable text, containing a proof of Christ's proper deity, which
the opposers of that doctrine have never been able, nor will ever
be able to answer." The learned continuators of Poole's Annota
tions affirm this to be " the fullest place to express the two na
tures that are in the person of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was God as well as Man." iStorr says of this pas
sage, that it attributes the divine nature to Christ in terms the most
unequivocal,* "Divinam naturam disertissime tribuit." Both

* Commentationes Theologica, vol, i. p. 224. I the more willingly re
fer to this observation of Storr, because it affords an opportunity for
directing the reader's attention to the valuable essay containing it ; in
which it is satisfactorily shown, that the reading of 'is for @tk in Tim.jiii.
16.., an alteration which the Unitarians are so extremely anxious to accom
plish, would, were it even conceded to them, afford to their cause not the
slightest advantage , inasmuch as the meaning of the passage would re
main perfectly unaffected by it, and the divinity of Christ would stand upon
ground as firm as if the word @eos were the received reading of the text.
See Comm. Theol. vol. i. p. 219 — 240. — Cramer, it should be observed,
has in a different manner arrived at the same result, by making @eev gZvres
the antecendent to 'is, the intervening words being included in a paren
thesis. See Woide's Preface to the Cod. Alex, of the N. T. p. xxxii.
On this text I must notice an observation made by the Editors of the
Unitarian Version, which will show with what disingenuous vagueness they
express themselves on subjects of Scripture criticism, and will prove to
the unlearned reader how little confidence he should place in any of their
positions. Of the two passages, in 1 Tim. iii. 16., and 1 John v. 7., they
affirm, that they have obtained " a full proof that these texts were not
to be found in any manuscripts existing " (before the fifth century,)," and
therefore that they are certainly spurious." Introd. p. xviii. Having
spoken of these two texts here in precisely the same terms, and pronounced
them to be equally spurious, who would not conclude, that, as they have
endeavoured to prove the entire passage in John to have been an interpo
lation, they mean to affirm the same thing of the other, and, that conse?
quently, no part of it had g. place in the genuine text of Scripture : whilst
|- Vol. 2.-33

258 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
Grotius and Rosenmuller, it has been remarked before at p.
223. of this volume, observe, upon the words to x.o.to, e-apx», that

after all, there is nothing more contended for, than the various reading of
a single word ; and that, a reading under which the sense of the passage
may remain perfectly unaltered ? In the more critical part of their work,
they endeavour to show, that the word is should be read for ®ees ; and in the
part where they address themselves to the general reader, they pronounce
the text to be altogether spurious ! How very differently has Dr. Clarke
conducted himself upon this subject ! Having arrived at the same con
clusion with that of the Editors, that the ancient reading was h, not Bus,
he adds, " But it is not in reality of great importance : for the sense is
evident ; that that Person was manifest in the flesh, whom St. John in the
beginning of his Gospel styles [ee°c] God." Clarke's Works, vol. iv. p. 48.
The Editors, who in p. 484. have, to procure the authority of this writer's
name, quoted him, up to the very sentence that has now been cited, found
it convenient to close their quotation at the point where this begins.
It is whimsical enough, that a decided and zealous Unitarian has lately
taken up the defence of the received reading &ek in this passage, on the
ground both of strict criticism and ancient authorities; and that he
does not scruple to charge Griesbach, who proposes the substitution of is,
with a corruption of the text, and a total ignorance of the Greek language.
He goes so far, indeed, as to assert of Griesbach, " that implicit confidence
is to be reposed neither in his judgment as a critic, nor in his fidelity as an
assertor of facts :'' and speaking of his elaborate note in support of the
reading of is, " engages to show that he has proved nothing " (in that)
" but his own incompetence as a critic, and his want of fidelity as a colla
tor of the ancient copies." This writer, accordingly, proceeds to argue,
that neither the genius of the Greek, the sense of the Apostle, nor the
authority of the ancient Fathers, will admit any other reading than ©at.
See Monthly Repository, vol. ix pp. 120 — 123. I have mentioned this
writer's remarks, more especially for the purpose of reminding the Unita
rian Editors, that there are persons who, although not " tied down — to a
system of Theology, the wretched relic of a dark and barbarous age, on
the profession and defence of which all their hopes are built," but even
enjoying the pure light of Unitarian illumination, and free as air in the for
mation of their opinions, are yet of opinion, that, notwithstanding all that
has been so laboriously urged against the received reading of the text, it
and it only is the true one ; and of reminding them, also, that, when this
is the case, it may be deemed a little too bold to pronounce on the proposed
¦ change, as one so clearly and certainly to be admitted, that the existing
text is peremptorily to be rejected as spurious. — To pass from the Unita
rian Editors to inquirers of a more impartial description, I would recom-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 259
St. Paul meant to point out that he here spoke of our Lord,
" not according to the divine but according to the human nature
which existed in him." Whitby, in his comment upon this
verse, expressly asserts,* that "from the beginning these

mend it to such as may be desirous of forming a sound judgment on
Griesbach's critical investigation of the reading of the text, to consult
Dr. Laurence's learned and valuable Remarks upon Griesbach's Classifi
cation, pp. 72 — 84. The observations also in the British Critic (New
Series,) vol. i pp.403 — 422., deserve to be attended to. See Pearson on
the Creed, p. 128., and Whitby in locum. It should be remarked, that
they, who oppose the primitive reading of Bees, are not agreed amongst
themselves, what word should be substituted in its place. Griesbach con
tends for is ; Sir Isaac Newton for i. The persons, who follow either
confidently, must hold themselves entitled to brand the other with the
reading of =•¦ " spurious " text in the very same degree, in which the Uni
tarian Editors aTe justified in charging it against those who prefer the
word Bees to either. Having mentioned this last distinguished name, I
must beg of the reader to attend to the remarks made by Bishop Horsley
upon that writer's celebrated treatise on this text, at pp. 532. 549. vol. v,
of the Bishop's edition of Newton's works : and especially the remark, at
the former of these pages, on Chrysostom's testimony.
* This quotation from Whitby affords an opportunity of remarking
on the danger of placing implicit reliance on the generality of writers
in their reference to authorities. In a book of some degree of note,
Bowyer's Conjectures on the New Testament, we find the assertion
here made by Whitby, contrasted, as presenting a remarkable opposi
tion to one made by Mills on the same subject : vjz. " that no one of
all the Catholic Fathers ever alleged the text before the year 380.
. Gregory Nyssen first of all." This assertion of Mills the writer
quotes from Dr. Clarke, by whom it had been applied, not to this, but
to the text 1 Tim. iii. 16., to which it had been applied by Mills. This
text in Timothy, however, happening to fall in the same page of
Clarke's Works with the observations on Rom. ix. 5. ; and the note in
Clarke, which contains the quotation from Mills, being marked by
the same sort of asterisk that had been introduced for quite another
object into those observations ; the eye of the compiler was wrongly
directed, whilst his judgment and knowledge were not sufficient to cor
rect the mistake ; and, therefore, from a mere visus deceptio, he has
given, as applied by Dr. Clarke to Rom. ix. 5., what that writer had
connected with 1 Tim. iii. 16.— See Bowyer's Conjectures, p. 260., and
Clarke's Works, vol. iv. p. 47.

260 SUPPLEMENTARY remarks on the
words have been used by the Fathers, as an argument of Christ's
Divinity." And, in truth, there is, perhaps, no single text in
the whole of the New Testament in which the divinity and the
two-fold nature of our Lord are laid down more unequivocally,
and more indisputably as to the wording of the original, than
they are in this. It is, therefore, not without good reason that
the opposers of our Lord's divinity have always considered this
text as presenting the most formidable impediment to the ad
mission of their doctrines ; and they have accordingly invented
various strange devices, and conjectural modifications of the
passage, in order if possible to escape from its force. Of all
these our Unitarian Editors,* as usual, have availed themselves :
* The manner in which modern Unitarians abuse the credulity of
their readers, cannot be better exemplified than by the remarks which
I am about to offer upon their treatment of this text. These remarks,
also, at the same time that they will be found to evince the shameful
disingenuousness With which the critics of this school conduct their
inquiries, ealinot but manifest their extreme anxiety to avail themselves
of every means, whereby they may perplex the meaning, and evade
the force, of this important part of Scripture.
The Editors, in the first place, say, " The word ' God ' appears to
have been wanting in Chrysostom's and some other ancient copies : see
Grotius and Griesbach." — Mr. Belsham, again, one of the principal
of these Editors, following up the same observation with somewhat
more of expansion, says, " Erasmus, Grotius, Dr. Clarke, and others
observe, that though the word God is found in all our present copies,
it was wanting in those of Cyprian, Hilary, Chrysostom, and others,
and is therefore of doubtful authority." (Calm Inq. p. 222.) Now,
a little attention to the particulars of the above assertions will, I trust,
abundantly prove, that they are, in all their parts, substantially untrue.
To begin with Mr. Belsham's assertion, that Erasmus, Grotius, and
Dr. Clarke, affirm, that the Word, God, was wanting in the copies of
Cyprian, Hilary, Chrysostom, and others : so as far as Dr. Clarke is
concerned, it is to be observed, that, however he may have counte
nanced the idea that there were copies in which the word was not
found, he has never once mentioned the name of Cyprian, or of Hilary,
or of Chrysostom, in any of his observations upon this text, nor has
he specified the name of any ancient whatever in whose copy the word
was wanting. See Clarke's Works, vol. iv. pp. 46, 47. 274. 280. 369.
418. 569. If Mr. Belsham can discover, in these, or any other parts

unitarian version of the new test. 261
but, as if distrusting their sufficiency, they have taken care to
seek additional strength from the dexterity of a new translation.

of Dr. Clarke's writings, a contradiction to this assertion, he will pro
duce it. — In the next place, as to Grotius ; — neither does he assert that
the copies of Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, wanted the word,
God. He merely refers to Erasmus, as having said this, but in terms
much less explicit than those in which Mr. Belsham has made the
statement for him. Theolog. Works, vol. iii. p 726. He has, indeed,
asserted for himself, that the word is wanting in the Syriac Version,
which is possibly alluded to by Mr. Belsham under the word " others."
But in this Grotius was strangely mistaken, the word being expressly
contained in that Version. The whole, then, of the assertion sustained
by the threefold authority of Erasmus, Grotius, and Dr. Clarke, we
find, subsides into the single authority of Erasmus. But what shall
we say, if even Erasmus himself does not make the assertion which
Mr. Belsham has ascribed to him ?
First, as to Chrysostom, Erasmus does, indeed, in one place, say,
^that this Father, in his Commentary on the passage, supplies no dis
tinct intimation that he read the word God in his copy : but he at the
same time admits, that, in Chrysostom's quotation of the text itself, he
gives it precisely as it stands in our present received reading of the
Greek. Nay, more ; he allows, that, even from the Commentary, it
may be collected, that Chrysostom must have read e»s in the original :
for, after quoting from it at length, he proceeds to express his opinion,
that the mention of" the father" introduced into the exposition,
can only be explained on the supposition of its being conveyed, in the
context of the Apostle, .under the word " God." And, again, he
remarks, that the clause " Benedictus in scecula " is referred by Chry-
sostom to the Son ; which, he observes, "could not be done, unless on
the supposition, that the clause qui est super omnia Deus," was also
referred to the same. As it is of great consequence that these remarks
of Erasmus should be fully understood, I here transcribe his very
words. Speaking of Chrysostom's comment upon the place, he says,
" Quoniam autem subobscure videtur hunc interpretari locum, com-
mentum quod ad hunc atlinet locum, bona fide adscribam, Nam et
adoptio inquit, fuit gratia Dei et gloria, et promissiones, et Lex.
Qua omnia considerans animo, ac reputans quantum Deus cum
Filio suo studium adhibuerit ad servandos Judceos, vehementer
exclamavit, dicens, Qui est benedictus in sozcula, Amen: pro omni
bus his gratiam referens ad unigenitum Dei. Quid enim, inquit,
si cateri maledicunt ! Nos tamen qui novinus illius arcana, et inef-

262 supplementary remarks on the
The words t« *«t« e-upx.ce would, in their usual rendering, have
been too significant in a passage so strongly marked as the one
fabilem sapientiam, multamque pravidentiam, certo scimus ilium
esse dignum, qui glorificetur, non qui convitiis incessatur, &c. Pri
mum, hunc locum conjunctim interpretatur de Patre et Filio, cum
in contextu nulla sit mentio Patris, nisi nomine Dei intelligatur.
Deinde cum ait ' gratiarum actionem pro omnibus' quae commemoravit
' reddi unigenito Dei,' significat haec verba benedictus insacula refe
renda ad Filium, cui Judsei maledicebant, quod aliis promisisset, aliis
exhiberet promissum. Atqui haec particula non potest ad Chris
tum PERTINERE, NISI AD EUNDEM ET ILLA REFERANTUR qui est
super omnia Deus." — Critici Sacri, torn. vii. pp. 2677, 2678.— Now,
after reading these remarks of Erasmus, although he afterwards says
of Chrysostom, "nullam dat significationem se hoc loco legisse
Deus," (by which, consistently with what he had before enforced, he
must mean, that the Greek Father had given in his Commentary no
distinct declaration that he read the word, God, in his copy,) how is
it possible, in fairness, to pronounce, that Erasmus has affirmed that
the word was wanting in Chrysostom's copy of this Epistle? And,
more especially, when Erasmus expressly states that the text itself is
quoted in the copies of Chrysostom, in the very words of the received
text. For, in speaking of the pointing of the verse, as quoted by this
Father, at the same time remarking that the exact distribution of the
parts of a sentence is often disturbed by the transcribers, he thus
expresses himself, " Earn apud Chrysostomum ita distinctam reperi,
tit cu Wayye\iiu, Lv ei iritrieis, k*/ sf tt Xfisrh re **Ta e-afxf hie interposito Colo
sequitur i ivt irayrat Bibs' hinc addita hypostigme sequitur, ev\ey«res its rovs
aiZytts- qua? distinctio reddit hanc sententiam, Mle qui est super omnia,
nempe Deus, sit benedictus in secula." — So much for the good faith pre
served in speaking of Erasmus's report of Chrysostom !
Next, as to Cyprian and Hilary : Erasmus undoubtedly affirms, that
the former, (Adv. Judteos, lib. 2. cap. 5.) and the latter, (on Psalm 122,)
cite this passage, omitting the word, God, in the quotation. But, at the
same time, he adds, that this omission seems to have taken place through
the carelessness of the transcribers : " incuria librariorum esse omissum
videri:" — which, indeed, he might well have added, since, as Beza re
marks, the citation is made in both places for the very purpose of proving
that the name of God strictly and properly belongs to Christ : — " quum
utrobique citetur ob hoc ipsum hie locus, ut probetur Dei nomen Christo
vere et proprie competere." (Beza in locum.)
We now see to what the whole of Erasmus's authority amounts. So
far from having asserted, that the word God was wanting in the copies of

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 263
before us. It was particularly necessary to veil from the view .
every expression that would direct the mind to a contrast so em-

Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom ; he admits the aatual existence ofthe
word in Chrysostom, and its highly probable existence in the writings of
the other two Fathers, notwithstanding that in certain parts of their works,
and in certain copies of them, there might be an appearance of the omis
sion. Thus, then, the whole fabric of testimonies concerning these Fa
thers, which Mr; Belsham has so exultingly erected in the defence of him
self and his brother-editors, almost entirely vanishes upon the touch.
Erasmus, Grotius, and Dr. Clarke. Clarke has never named these Fathers
upon this text. Grotius, in speaking of them, has only referred to the au
thority of Erasmus. And Erasmus does not make the assertion that Mr.
Belsham has ascribed to him in conjunction with Grotius and Clarke.
But, even granting that all these writers had, separately and independ
ently, made the assertion which has been attributed to them, relative to the
copies of these ancient Fathers, yet would it not have been worthy of those:
who profess to have truth only for their object, and whose entire endea
vours are (as we are told) devoted to the acquiring a correced text and an;
improved version of the New Testament, to have examined these Fathers-
for themselves ; and not to have taken, upon second hand evidence, a re
port, which was to shake the authority of the text of Scripture ? Without
going even to the works of the Fathers, — and yet to such profound scho
lars and deep inquirers, as they might naturally be supposed, who have un
dertaken to prove all preceding critics and theologians totally mistaken in
the true reading and sense of the New Testament, there could have been no
great difficulty in doing so, — they might have found in Pearson, or in
Whitby, abundant proof, that the word, God, was not wanting in the co
pies of the Fathers above alluded to : or they might have derived full satis
faction, as to the indisputable genuineness of the word, from the negative
evidence afforded by Wetstein ; whose learning, industry, and good will,
have never been deficient in discovering any circumstance that might cast
a doubt on the genuineness of those parts of Scripture that support the
proper divinity of Christ, and, who, on the present text, has not assigned a
single authority or even conjecture, to disturb its possession of the word
Btis. But, as these gentlemen have not thought proper to go back to the
authorities themselves, to which they have chosen to refer through the
medium of Erasmus, Grotius, and Clarke, (with what success we have
seen,) I have found it necessary to do this for them ; and, having done so,
I must take the liberty of saying, that the Three Fathers, whom they have
chosen to approach by so circuitous a course, openly announce in the most
decisive manner that they did read the word God, in their copies of this
Epistle.

264

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

phatically exhibiting the two-fold nature of our Lord; and,
therefore, the designation of our Lord's Jewish extraction by
1. St. Cyprian produces this text for the special purpose of proving,
quod Deus Christos ; and reckons it amongst those in which Christ is ex
pressly called God. (Cypr. Opera, Oxon. lib. ii. cap. 5. Adv. Jud. p. 35.)
The text is here given precisely according to the present received read
ing : and, whilst the Editor admits that there were one or two editions in
which the word, Deus, was wanting, yet he pronounces (with good reason)
the reading to be unquestionable. Pearson specifies the MSS. in which
it was known to exist ; and states other circumstances that place it be
yond a doubt. (Expos, ofthe Creed, pp. 132, 133.) — 2. St. Hilary, on
the 122d Psalm, quotes this passage, Ex quibus Christus qui est super
omnia Deus, in conjunction with other passages of Scripture, to prove,
"quod Deus nobis unus non solus." {Hilar. Opera, p. 393.) And, again,
in his book De Trinitate, he introduces it in a most emphatical manner :
" Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum, dicens, quorum sunt patres, et ex
quibus Christus, qui est super omnia Deus :" adding also what rests the
whole force of his argument on the existence of the word, " Deus," —
" Non hie creatura in Deum deputatur, sed creaturarum Deus est, qui super
omnia Deus est." (Opera, p. 970.)- — 3. As to St. Chrysostom, we have
already seen, that, in his quotation of the text of the Apostle, he precisely
agrees with the reading of the present Greek: so that any pretence derived
from his not distinctly pointing out the very word Bees in his Commentary
upon the text is trifling. On the same ground it must be said that ° for)
7rayra>t did not exist in his copy ; because whatever reason there is for say
ing that he passes over the word Bios applies to the whole clause. On the
same ground the words xctra. e-dpx* after e-vyyivZy in the 3d verse, and
eirtyis eie-iv '\e-psMiCtrai, in the beginning ofthe 4th verse, must be pronounced
not to have been in his copy, because he does not distinctly notice them in
his Commentary, (" nullam dat significationem se hoc loco legisse " hsec
verba,) at the same time that, as in the case ofthe word Bils, he places
them in his quotations of the text. The truth is, that the course of this
Father's reasoning in his Commentary did not lead him to advert in this
place to our Lord's divinity, as may be easily seen by attending to the na
ture of his exposition. The part, which immediately precedes what has
been already quoted at p. 102. is as follows, in the Latin translation.
" Nam cum dicjt, Quorum adoptio et gloria et legis constitutio et cullus et
promissiones : aliud erit nihil, quam Deum voluisse illos quidem servare,
atque hoc patere facit per ea quae Christus ex illis extitit, per ea quae patri-
bus promisit. Illi autem a propria ingratitudine atque improbitate bene-
ficentiam repulerunt. Itaque et ilia ponit, non quae illorumlaudes sunt, sed
quae Dei donum solummodo arguunt." Then follows as before given at p.
102. (See Chrys. Comment, vol. ii. p. 229.) If the whole context be

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 265
terms which pointed out a fleshly Origin in opposition to an
origin of a higher nature, was to give place to one of less forci-

considered, it will appear manifestly, that the object of the Tather, in this
part of his exposition, is to mark the great and undeserved goodness of God
to the Jews, in accomplishing for them and through them so many good
things; and that therefore there was no room for any special observation
on the subject of our Lord's divinity. But at the same time, as we have
already seen, even in Erasmus's view ofthe case, the bearing of the word
God, and as applied to Christ, is decidedly marked in the course of the
Father's observations : so much so that there can be no doubt, even from
the Commentary, that he must have read Bees in his copy ; independently of
the consideration of its actual occurrence in his quotation ofthe text, and in
two other parts of his works which shall be presently pointed out.
I have dwelt the longer upon Chrysostom, for the purpose of making a
remark on Griesbach's note upon the Father's reading of the passage. — -
" Chrys. adh. 1. post *=wi o-iixn. prseterit verba p &v ewt rrearm Bees, et statim
progreditur ad : is ee-rtv e^oynres els revs a.lZva.s, addens : rijt v7rep iratrm eu%a.
pta-riity ivaupiptet Avres (s. adiry) t$ /xeteyevei rev Beov. Sed in textu et dlibilegun--
tur ista." Now although Griesbach here falls very short of stating the
case with its due force, (for so far from an immediate transition from the
words xxriureipxu. to is le-rit evheynros, &c. much matter is introduced tendingto
indicate the existence of the word Beos in the original passage of which
Chrysostom was treating, as maybe seen at pp. 571, and575,)yet he suffi
ciently marks by the use of the word "praterit," that he meant to repre
sent Chrysostom, as passing over, in this place, the consideration of the
words i&t Xiii mvrav Bees, not that they were omitted in his copy; for he
immediately subjoins, "jm textu et alibi leguntur ;" announcing that
this Father, although he had not specially noticed the words in his
Comment, had yet, in his reciting of the text of the Apostle, and in
other places, given them exactly as they stand in our received text.
It has been already seen, that, in quoting the text of the Apostle,
Chrysostom agrees exactly with the present reading. We shall now
see, how far Griesbach was justified in asserting the same of other
places of this Father's writings, " alibi." In the fifth Homily, De in*
comprehensib. Dei nalura contra 'Ate/xeievs (Opera, vol. i. p. 382.) we
find the whole passage, exactly as it is now given in the text of Gries
bach, applied to prove the divinity of Christ. And again in the third
Homily in cap. 1. Evang. Joh. (Comm. vol ii. p. 36.) we have the
words, i & \m natrutBees combined with the texts, Tit. ii. 13., Philip.
ii. 6., and Rom. i. 7., to constitute a proof, that the word Bees is fre
quently applied to Christ without the article : and that, consequently,
Vol. 2.-34

266 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ble application ; and the phrase " by natural descent " was sub.
stituted for the received rendering of the words.

no difference in deity, is intended to be marked in Scripture, between
the Father and the Son. Thus, then, Chrysostom becomes a decisive
witness for the existence ofthe word God, in the eopies of this Epistle
Which he used : and so, in truth, Griesbach represents him. Yet the
Editors of the Unitarian N. T. would reject this word on the authority
of Chrysostom, and on Griesbach's representation of that authority !
— "The word 'God' appears to have been wanting in Chrysostom's
and some other ancient copies. See Grotius and Griesbach." Of
Grotius we have already spoken. The reader may now judge of
Griesbach. — Such is the abuse of authorities exercised by Unitarian
writers, without shame or scruple : and this, too, not merely in the
ardour of controversial contest, but with the cool and deliberate pur
pose of falsifying the word of God. Such are the means by which
scanty learning, and dishonest criticism, jointly endeavour, under the
pretence of obtaining a corrected text and an improved version, to
corrupt the original, and to pervert the translation, of all those parts
of the N. T. in which the characteristic doctrines of Christianity are
involved. Now, what will the reader say, when he is informed, that the word,
God, in this text, the authority of which it has been thus attempted to
shake under the sound of the names of Erasmus, Grotius, Dr. Clarke,
Griesbach ("and others,") St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom,
(" and others,") is found in every known Manuscript of this Epistle,
in every ancient Version extant, and (in direct opposition to all that
has been asserted by Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors, and not
withstanding the trifling additional remark in Griesbach of " Leo
semel et Ephr. ap. Jackson") in every father who has had occa
sion to cite the passage 1 so that, in truth, there can scarcely be in
stanced a text in the N. T. in which all the ancient authorities more
satisfactorily agree. So circumstanced is that reading of the text,
which Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors require us to consider as
" of doubtful authority." — For the numerous instances of the citation
of this verse by the Fathers, I refer the reader to Whitby in loe. and
to Bull, Oper. pp. 72, 73., and especially to pp. 249, 250., for the ex
posure of Erasmus's error concerning Origen.
But, to follow these Unitarian critics to another point. Having thus,
as we have seen, flung doubts upon the existence of the word of God
in the original, but feeling, at the same time, (with good reason,) seme
misgivings as to their reception, the next step taken by them, is an en
deavour to prevent the application ofthe word to Christ; whereby the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 267
But the point, with which we are more immediately concern
ed, is, not so much the change of version (totally unjustifiable

end proposed would be equally attained as by its rejection from the
text. Accordingly the propriety of a new punctuation is suggested,
by which the verse may be separated into two distinct sentences : thus
" Of whom by natural descent Christ came. God who is over all be
blessed for ever." In support of this- interpretation, the principal vin
dicator of the Version deals out, as usual, a string of names : and
amongst these he introduces the name of Locke ; a name which, (as
we have already noticed,) the Unitarians are particularly ambitious to
press into the service, in order to give countenance to a pretence, which
is directly contradictory to the known truth, (see pp. 222, 223. of this
volume) that Locke was a Socinian. Now, as we saw Cyprian,
Hilary, and Chrysostom, misrepresented in the last clause, so we shall
find Locke most flagrantly belied in this. For so far is Locke from
placing a full stop after the word e-apx*., and reading (as it is here
asserted,) " God who is over all be blessed for ever," that he separates,
by a point introduced after Tthrm, the clause, " he who is over all,"
from the words that follow, and reads in a distinct member, " God be
blessed for ever." Mr. Belsham's aversion to the trouble of consult
ing the original authorities supplies no apology for his misrepresenta
tion of Locke in this place ; because, even without referring to Locke
himself, he might have met with his division of the verse in most of
the recent publications that treat of this text ; and particularly in the
writings of those whom his Unitarian predilection ¦* most dispose him
to consult. He might have met with it in Wetstein's note, " Vel ut
J. Lockius : Qui Christus est super omnia : Deus sit benedictus .'"
He might have met with it in the Unitarian's Remarks on the Scrip
tural Confutation of Mr. Burgh. Or he might have met with it in
his friend Dr. Carpenter's Book. Indeed it is a point so notorious,
that it is scarcely possible to give Mr. Belsham credit for ignorance
upon the subject.
Now, the reader will easily perceive the great difference that exists
between the reading adopted by Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors,
and that proposed by Mr. Locke, which, though it agrees with the
former, in concluding the sentence with a doxology in praise of the
Father, yet admits the exalted dignity and extended dominion of our
Lord expressed by the words, " who is pver all;" and which, in the
opinion of Erasmus, treating of this very distribution of the sentence,
attributes divinity to Christ as forcibly as the word, God, could. " Ex
quibus Christus juxla carneui, qui Christus est super omnia : sive,
qui erat super omnia. Ne quis enim suspicaretur, dignitatem immi-

26$ SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
as that is,) as that the change should have been made without
notice : a change, to which the Editors attach so high a value ;

nutam per assumptam hominis naturam, fespiciens ad Divinitatem
adjecit, qui est super omnia. Haec distinctio tribuit Divinitatem
Christo, quod nihil est super omnia, praeter unum Deum." (Crit. Sac.
pp. 2676,2677.) It will not now be difficult to appreciate the dependence
which is to be placed on the assertions of a writer, who claims Locke
¦Us a supporter ofthe former reading, and thereby associates him as an
..auxiliary in the Unitarian interpretation of the sentence throughout.
In truth, Mr. Locke not only differs from the Unitarian Editors, in his
distribution of the sentence, which is (as far as they are concerned) a
vital variation ; but he completely overturns their Whole system, by
the sense which he gives to the sentence at large ; rendering ri *»™
rtra,pxa., " as tO his FLESHLY EXTRACTION ;" which " FLESHLY EXTRAC
TION " he contrasts ^as we have, already seen at p. 222., in his observa
tions on Rom. i. 3.) with the " divine extraction immediately from
God " and which (as we have also seen) he more fully explains by
paraphrasing the words as to the flesh thus : — " i. e. as to the body
tWhich he took in the womb of the blessed virgin his mother." Such
is the support which Mr. Locke contributes to these writers, who are
, perpetually sounding his name as one eXthe most decided advocates
of their, system ; and such, is the mode in which these writers fabricate
-to support their cause !
Mr. Locke's interpretation, however, and every other which converts
the concluding clause into a doxology to the Father, is, as has been un
answerably shown, especially by Dr. Middleton, altogether inadmissi
ble. Dr. Carpenter, upon the whole of this subject, has acted with
more fairness than Mr. Belsham. He has not only not confounded Mr.
Locke's interpretation of the passage with that of the Unitarian Ver
sion ; but he has admitted Dr. Middlefon's arguments into considera
tion, and has even acknowledged them to " have some weight" so faras
they apply to Mr. Locke's view of the passage, at the same time that
he denies that they possess any force as opposed to the interpretation
of it by the Unitarians. But let Dr. Carpenter labour to varnish the
matter as he may, the objections urged by Dr. Middleton, and since en
forced by Mr. Veysie and Dr. Nares, against both the modes of inter
pretation, that of the Unitarians and that of Mr. Locke, against all in
short, that would break the concluding part of the verse into a sepa
rate sentence in the form of a doxology, are, and must be allowed by
every Greek scholar to.be, incontrovertible. .Dr. Whitby had before
abundantly shown, that such a distribution and punctuation of the sen
tence as these interpretations demanded could not be defended on any

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 269
and which, with the Archbishop's Version lying before them,
which they professed to follow, could not have been made with-

just principles of criticism. That the reasoning of Whitby or Middle-
ton should be noticed by Mr. Belsham, was not, indeed, to be expect
ed. It would have been a departure from the established usage of
that writer, and most of his associates, to bestow consideration upon
the arguments of any who oppose the tenets and dogmas of their par
ty. But surely the observations of Mr. Wakefield might have been
taken into account. Mr. Wakefield, who is so favourite an authority
with Unitarians on almost all occasions ; whose Version of the N. T.
the Editors of the present one bad for some time anxiously in contem
plation for the basis of their own ;— his judgment upon this subject
cannot surely be suspected of any orthodox bias. And, if even this
writer, (the only Greek scholar, whatever may have been the degree
of his pretensions, that the English Unitarians have to boast of,) if even
he, with all his earnest desire to embrace whatever might favour the
Unitarian cause, was not able to digest the harsh and unnatural con
struction adopted by the Editors in this place, what judgment ought (I will
not say a critic and a scholar, because such a man would and ought to
judge for himself, but) even Mr. Belsham's favourite arbiter in Scripture
criticism, the man of merely " sound understanding and honest mind,"
what judgment ought he to form upon the subject ? Mr. Wakefield's ob
servations I shall give in his own words. " Some critics have proposed
to distinguish the verse in the following manner : Of whom were the Fa
rthers, of whom was the Christ according to the flesh. God, who is over all,
be blessed for evermore ! Amen. Or thus : Of whom were the Fathers,
of whom was the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God be
blessed for evermore ! Amen. — Both these constructions, though the ori
ginal will certainly admit them, appear so awkward, so abrupt, so incohe
rent, that, it must be confessed, I never yet could bring myself to relish
them in the least degree. There seems to be no reason, from the spirit
of the context, for such an instantaneous and solemn conversion from the
main subject to the Deity ; nor do I believe, that a parallel instance of so
disjointed an address can be produced from the whole Bible." See Wake
field's Inquiry into the Opinions, &c. vol. i. pp. 162, 163.) — Rosenmiiller
also the Unitarians are disposed to regard as a respectable and unbiassed
Commentator. What does he say on this point \ — Interpretatio ea, qua
haec verba ad Pat6em -referuntur, nee contextui nee regulis Grammaticis
est conveniens. Quod si enim vera esset, Paulus non e !>y Wt vatrw ©sit,
sed potius e @iis i &t tmiritrm scripturus fuisset, ut 2 Cor. xi. 31. Istud
veTO o iv, quod h. 1. legimus, positum est pro is ie-n, ut Jo. i. 18., et iii.
13., ideoque ad. Christum pertinet, de quo antea dixerat, eumKaro e-ipna. e

270 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
out the fullest deliberation and design. This must be evident to
every one who considers not merely the wideness of the depaiv

Judaeis, ortum esse ; jam vero, ne hie subsistant Christiani ex Judaeis,
divinam Messia majest.atem addita doxologia celebrat." (Schol. in Nov.
Test. torn. iii. p. 482.) — But what says the Father of Socinianism him
self? Whilst labouring with all his might to prevent this passage from
establishing the proper deity of Christ, he is not only obliged to confess,
that the ancient authorities are in favour of the commonly received distri
bution and construction of the sentence ; but he is also forced to admit,
that the position of el/Keygris is inconsistent with that punctuation which
the Unitarian rendering requires. (Socin. Opera, Respons. ad Vujek,
torn. ii. pp. 582. 600.) This, which is one of the chief arguments em
ployed by Whitby and Middleton, seems also not to have been pressed upon
Socinus by his opponents, but rather to have originated with himself, as
naturally growing out of the genius of the Greek and the phraseology of
the N. T. ; and so overbearing did he feel the force of its application, that
he was compelled by it to concede, that the concluding words of the verse
related to Christ: although, to prevent the conclusion which hence result
ed in favour of our Lord's divinity, he was driven to the extravagant as
sertion, that as Christ was not simply called God, but God over all, this
could not interfere with his proper humanity, but on the contrary admitted
with regard to him the most appropriate application : — an assertion so ex
travagant, that Mr. Belsham exclaims against it with the greatest vehe
mence, in his note, p. 224., where he ascribes it to Slichlingius only.
He was not perhaps aware, that this is a position maintained hy all the old
Socinian writers, who have treated of this verse. But it should be recol
lected, that it has been maintained by them, because they could not embrace
that other extravagance which the modern Socinians so strongly recom
mend. They studied and knew the original somewhat better than those
who have followed them : and between the violation ofthe principles of the
language required by the modern interpretation of the text, and the extra
vagance of the gloss upon the true translation demanded by their own,
they felt there was no difficulty of choice. They were, in short, incapable
of such criticism as is familiar with modern Unitarians ; and therefore
they found it impossible to deny, (however they might endeavour to ex
plain it,) that Christ is here pronounced to be God over all, and blessed for
evermore. Crellius and Slichtingius are fully as decided upon this point
as Socinus : and the latter specially adds, that from this passage of St.
Paul we learn, that praises, and benedictions, and divine worship, are to be
offered to Christ. See Crell. Opera, torn. i. (Resp. ad Grot.) p. 230,
(Ethic. Christ.) p. 348. torn. ii. p. 224. in locum, also Slichting. Com
ment. Poslh. torn. i. p. 254.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 271
ture from the Archbishop's translation, " as concerning the
flesh;" but also the constraining force which the Archbishop

I have noticed two attempts of the Calm Inquirer, and his brother
Editors, to disturb the obvious and commonly received reading and inter
pretation of the passage in question. We come now to a third view of the
case which they seem to consider preferable to every other ; and which,
strange to say, requires the dereliction of the very points which it had be
fore been deemed necessary to maintain ; demanding for its admissibility
the retaining of Bios in the text ; and rejecting all idea of the doxology,
which had been so eagerly contended for, and of the peculiar punctuation
on which that doxology was founded. This " most happy and plausible
conjecture, which is taken from the old Socinian writer Slichtingius, con
sists, Mr. Belsham informs us, in " the transposition of a single letter,
£v o, for o iv, which gives a new and beautiful turn to the whole sentence,
viz. 'Of whom is the adoption, — of whom are the fathers, — of whom is
the Messiah, — of whom is God over all blessed for ever.' Thus the
climax rises gradually and finishes where it ought." (Calm Inq. p. 223.)
Now, in the first place, it is to be observed, that Mr. Belsham has here
produced, as from Slichtingius, a piece of criticism, which, in the exact
form in which he has presented it, neither Slichtingius, nor any critic ac
quainted with the Greek language, has, or could have given. Mr. Bels
ham has put iv i instead of i iv, and thinks, that, in doing so, he has substi
tuted the genitive plural of the relative for the participle present of the
verb substantive ; whereas, in truth, no participle appears in his reading of
the passage at all. The old Socinian understood the language too well to
have been guilty of such a blunder. His was not a. mere change of the
position of letters, but a transposition of the words, modified of course with
their due accompaniments ; a change of i iv into iv i ; giving, as was in
tended, a real change ofthe participle into the genitive plural of the relative.
It cannot be here pretended, that the error is a mere mistake of the printer
in the breathings attached to the words ; for Mr. Belsham himself takes
care to inform us, that the only change to be made, is the " transposition
of a single letter," expressly excluding the idea of any other alteration
whatsoever, and agreeably to this exhibiting none other in his page. Other
writers, indeed, may have spoken generally of transposing the two words ;
that of course implying the entire modification of the words, and conse
quently including all their attendant characters : but, I will venture to say,
that Mr. Belsham has the sole credit of discovering that " the transpo
sition of a single letter " is the only change requisite to give that " new
and beautiful turn to the whole sentence," of which he speaks. If it be
saidj that, although we, at this day, employ accents and breathings in our
notation of the Greek, yet, the ancient Greek MSS. being written without

272 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
exerts upon the reader's attention, by the still more emphatical
language of the note upon these words — " of whom as to his

them, the transposition of a single letter would, in them, produce the
change which Mr. Belsham describes , — let it be remembered, that this
makes no difference in the case, so far as Mr. Belsham is concerned ; in
asmuch as it is not upon them he builds his remark : it is to the Greek
character in its present state, he applies his observation ; pronouncing upon
that the sufficiency of the transposition of a single letter for the change
which it requires ; and exemplifying his assertion by an adjustment of the
aspirate marks, such as to cause no change but " the transposition of a
single letter ; " and, consequently, proving to the world how very imper
fectly he is acquainted with even the lowest rudiments of the language on
which he ventures to comment. — But, to pass from these modern blunders
to the ancient MSS, it should be recollected, that, as no one Manuscript,
nor any single Version nor Father, gives ihe sentence at this day with the
reading that has been here suggested ; the transposition, if it took place at
all, must have been of a very early date, of a date almost as early as that
ofthe Epistle itself. Now, will any person conversant with the history of
the Greek language, undertake to affirm that, at so remote a period, the
change, which has been here spoken of, could have been effected by " the
transposition of a single letter 1" Can any one acquainted with the ancient
Greek inscriptions venture to assert that the Greek aspirate h had ceased
to be employed in the age in which St. Paul's Epistle was written ? And
if, on the contrary, there be good reason to think that it had not, will he
deem that change so likely, which, so far from consisting in the mere
transposition of a letter, would demand the alteration of the word
HCJONHO into HOCJUH?
But, not only have we to urge against the proposed reading the admitted
fact that no vestige of such a reading has been discovered in any one of all
the MSS., Versions, and quotations, that have come down to our times ;
but we have also to urge against it, as has been clearly and ably shown by
Dr. Middleton, that it would both give a false Greek and a direct contra
diction to St, Paul's own reasoning. (See Middleton on the Greek Ar
ticle, p. 456.) But for the Critics with whom I am concerned, reasonings
of this description are not requisite. Their own showing generally suf.
fices to overturn their argument. The single reason, advanced by Mr.
Belsham and his brother Editors, in favour of the proposed conjectural
reading, is, that the climax is by this regularly carried on and fully com
pleted, "'av ivhflie-iti, 'ny el Trarripes, 'Q.t Xpte-res, 'fly e Bees, of whom was the
adoption, of whom were the fathers, of whom was Christ, of whom
was God who is over all." (Imp. Vers, in loe. and Calm Inq. p. 223.)
Now it happens, unfortunately for the smoothness and continuity of the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 273
human lineage Christ is descended," &c. It is also to be ob
served, that, not only 'have the Editors made this remarkable

climax, that the form of expression is not carried on as it is here given ;
the words not being iv Xpta-res, hut 'EH iv Xpte-ris, which at once breaks the
continuity, as marking the extraction of Christ, and therefore requiring in
the English the force of the derivative ; not, as in the other clauses, that of
the possessive. Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors have availed them
selves of the ambiguity of the phrase '' of whom," to give an appearance
of sameness to the several clauses ; whilst in reality they differ ; and thus
they make out their climax by giving first a false text, and then an equivo
cating translation. So much for this " new and beautiful turn," bestowed
upon the sentence before us, by a conjecture which has not a single Manu
script, or Version, or authority of any kind, to sustain it ; which makes
St. Paul contradict himself : which utters false Greek ; and which does
not accomplish the only point that is brought forward to recommend it, —
the continuing and completing of a climax.
That Socinians, whose minds are antecedently satisfied as to what
Scripture ought to mean, should eagerly catch at this, or any other, con
jecture, that promises the semblance of support to their system, is not to
be wondered at : but it certainly is just matter of surprise and concern,
that Griesbach should have condescended to mix with the grave authorities
that are to substantiate the true text of Scripture, a conjecture so trifling,
so contemptible, so objectionable, and so unauthorized. It has been al
ready observed that this Critic, although not intending himself to shake
the authenticity of the word Bees in this text, had yet, by an injudicious and
perplexed mode of displaying authorities which do not in reality make
against the word, afforded to those who only sought some pretext for its
rejection, a colour for using the authority of his name. But I have farther
to add concerning the same distinguished Critic, in this place, in point of
accuracy, that he has been guilty of an inadvertency, here, in omitting to
observe, that the Cod. Alex, wants all that follows in the fourth verse,
after the word "i-e-pcuiurm, or, as this MS. reads the word, 'Je-pxuxeirat.
Enough has been offered in this note to show, that the Unitarian Editors
have strained every nerve for the withdrawing of this important text from
the list of those that go to support the divinity, and to establish the two
distinct natures, of Christ. Enough also has been offered to make it evi
dent that all the objections and difficulties which they have laboured to throw
in the way of its just application only tend to prove the degree to which
they are deficient in the candour, and the learning, requisite for a sound ex
position of Scriptur e. And enough, surely, has been offered to satisfy the
reader, that upon the accuracy of their quotations, and their reports of
ancient authorities, no reliance whatever is to be placed. — Indeed, to make
Vol. 2.-35

274 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
change, without the slightest notice of the Archbishop's render
ing either in the text or note of his Version, but that they have

the true nature and value of the criticisms of these writers fully understood,
it might have been sufficient to observe, that the construction and sense of
the passage which they have adopted depends entirely upon the genuine
ness of the very word Bees, which they have taken so much pains to prove
to be " of dubious authority ;" and that the conjectural interpretation,
which they seem (at least Mr. Belsham does) to admire above every other,
requires, not only that the word God, should be received as indisputably
genuine, but that the punctuation which they reject should be retained as
the true one. Thus, truth, in the hands of these critics, is made to war
with itself. The same word is both spurious and genuine, the same punctua
tion correct and erroneous, according as each supposition ministers to a
Socinian interpretation of the Scriptures ; according as each is found con
formable to that paramount Unitarian test, hy Which the modern Socinians
determine without hesitation upon every question affecting the sense ofthe
Sacred Text.
As to the direct arguments in favour of the commonly-received con
struction and application of the passage in question ; these have been so
satisfactorily stated by Whitby, and various other distinguished Commen
tators, and have recently been so fully and ably vindicated by Dr. Middle-
ton and Dr. Nares against all the modern attempts to subvert them, that
it is altogether unnecessary (did it even fall within my plan) to present
them to the reader.— In addition to the well known treatises of Dr.
Middleton, and Dr. Nares, I would recommend to the reader's attention,
on the subject of this note, Mr. Veysie's Defence of the Preservative
(p. 107—112.) Burgh's Inquiry (p. 23—32.) Simpson's Plea (pp. 241—
243. 255.) and Wardlaw's Discourses on the Socinian Controversy (pp.
69 — 72. 419. 420.) This last writer, who has treated many important
points of this controversy with great ability, has made an observation
particularly deserving of notice on the conjectural alteration of i iv, into iv i
already treated of at p. 271, &c. — The conjunction **), he says, in the
enumeration of the series of particulars, must connect itself with the last ;
and therefore were there no other argument against the proposed alteration
than this, that xn.) must become thereby connected, not with the last, but
with an intermediate, article of the series, he thinks, and justly, it would
be decisive. The alteration, therefore, if it were admitted, must be not
merely of i iv into iv i but into km iv i, the x») being transferred from the
preceding clause, **) sf iv i Xpte-ris- Indeed the Editors themselves were
so sensible that the copulative could not stand where it does, on admitting
the proposed transposition, that they have taken care to strike it out ofthe
passage altogether ; as may be seen in their mode of adjusting the clauses

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 275
done go, although they have themselves introduced a long note
upon the passage, and in this note remark upon their variation
from the Archbishop in the remaining part of the text : — " the
Common Version here adopted by Dr. Newcome is, Wfio is
over all, God blessed for ever.'\ And here they stop as to the
matter of variation, giving the reader to understand that they
have laid before him the whole of their departure from the Pri
mate ; whilst they have touched only on that part for which
they think they have some show of authority, and on which
accordingly they dwell at length ; but on the part which is pure
ly and exclusively their own, for which they can produce nq

of the sentence, as it has been stated at page 273. Thus, to the violence
ef the transposition, and the exclusion of the preposition if, we have now
to add their exclusion of the conjunction xu : so that before we can allow
to the Editors the benefit of the " new and beautiful turn" that they con
ceive to be given to the sentence by the transposition of the words, they
must not only transpose the words, but they must strike the two words
»*< and sf entirely out of the text.
In this note, we have seen several distinguished names referred to by
the Unitarians : some of whom, especially Grotius and Locke, they are
willing on many occasions to claim as auxiliaries to their cause. How
unfounded this claim is with respect to Locke, has been already noticed;
and occasion may be taken again to advert to it. As for Grotius, although
his exposition of many passages of Scripture is (as I have already re
marked elsewhere) so favourable to the general principles of Socinianism,
that some have thought the title of Socinian not altogether inapplicable
to him ; yet, the various instances of his direct assertion of the divinity
of Christ throughout his Commentary, together with his celebrated de
fence of the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction against the attacks qf
Socinus, must surely place him beyond the range of those whom the
Unitarians have any reasonable pretence for pressing within their ranks.
So many of the instances alluded to have been detailed by Bishop Burgess
in his Treatise on The Bible, &c. (see especially pp. 79. 85 — 87.) that I
shall only add to what is there advanced, a single quotation from the con
clusion of the work De Satisfactione Christi. Speaking of the Socinian
endeavours to degrade the nature of Christ he uses the following language :
— " Sed profecto minime mirum est, si qui Christo gloriam naturalem hoc
est veri nominis deitatem, sustulerunt, iidem et officia ipsius immihuunt et
beneficia ipsius praecipua recusant agnoscere. Tibi Domine Jesu ct
vero Deo, ut vero Redemptori, ut vero Sacerdoti, ut vera pro peccatis
victims, cum Patke et Spiritu, uno tecum deo, sit honos et gloria."

276 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
authority whatever, and which goes to the very essence of the
Socinian controversy, they preserve a perfect silence. — On this
it must be unnecessary to addvany farther observations. Whe
ther the Editors have, on this important part of Scripture, acted
with good faith by their professed model, I leave to the reader
to judge for himself. I have not noticed here their unacknow
ledged departure from the Primate, (and also from Griesbach)
in suppressing the concluding word " Amen," as being a matter
of inferior consideratibn, farther than as it tends to give an ad
ditional instance of their failure in that faithful adherence to
the Primate's Version, (and also to Griesbach's text,) of which
they so much boast.
In the instance of Number V. (see page 201.) we find, in a
passage directly and forcibly expressing the pre-existence of
our Lord, not only a departure from the Primate, in the very
terms which convey that important doctrine : but a substitution
of others, that completely divest the passage of any such signifi
cation. We find, also, a note of some length, enlarging upon
and confirming the rendering adopted by the Imp. Vers. : and
yet, throughout the entire of it, not the most remote hint con
veyed of any variance from the Primate's translation : and this
too, whilst the Primate himself has introduced a note enforcing
more strongly the application of the text to the pre-existence.
The Primate renders, " though he was rich, yet for our sakes
he became poor ;" and he subjoins in a Note, " rich — in the
glories of his divine nature " — " poor — by taking on him hu
man nature, and appearing even in an humble state of life :"
quoting, at the same time, as a parallel explanation, the Celebra
ted text of Philipp. ii. 6, &c. The Imp. Vers., on the other
hand, renders the passage "while he was rich, yet for your sakes
he lived in poverty ;" and then in the note affirms, that " the
construction requires it to be understood, not of a passage from a
preceding state of wealth to a succeeding state of poverty, but of
two contemporary states : — he was rich and poor at the same
time : " and, from this view of the subject, proceeds to establish
the impossibility of any reference to the pre-existence of
Christ. In other words, the I. V. translates in a sense directly
opposite to that of the Primate : labours to enforce the necessi-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 277"
ty of this sense in a note which is carried to considerable extent,
and in which Wakefield, Grotius, and other authorities, are
introduced ; does this, in contradiction, not only to the Primate's
rendering, but to his illustration and support of that rendering
in strong and emphatical terms in his note, which directly chal
lenged their attention ; all this, too, on a point of vital import *
* Mr. Belsham, indeed, in his Calm Inquiry, pleasantly enough
wishes to persuade us, that if our heads were not already stuffed with
the notion of the pre-existence of Christ, we never could " dream of
finding it in this text." He is so candid as to admit, that it might fur
nish perhaps " a graceful allusion ;" but he can never allow it to be
alleged as " a proof." And why ? Because " when it is said of any
man, that tliough he is richhe spends nothing," no one " in his senses
infers from it, that he existed before he was born. Upon this princi
ple," he adds, "every miser would have a claim to pre-ex
istence." — This is the remark of a Calm Inquirer. He tells us, that,
unless we are dreaming, we must admit that the text means nothing
more than to inform us of "a man who, though he was rich,
spent nothing," of a mere, " miser :" and then, when we have by
this admission, proved ourselves to be wide awake, he will satisfy us,
that it has no relation to pre-existence. But, in the mean time, what
has become ofthe •' graceful allusion?" The elegance and good
taste of the Calm Inquirer's representation of the "Miser" may,
indeed, have conferred upon the subject a grace : but the allusion to
pre-existence, even with our eyes perfectly open, we are no longer able
to discover. Yet, strange to say, there are persons who have not been
looked upon as actual dreamers, although their ."judgment" is (of
course) held comparatively cheap by the Calm Inquirer, who have
notwithstanding, as he himself informs us, " held up this text as a deci
sive proof of this ".doctrine " of pre-existence. " He was rich — ' rich '
says Dr. Doddridge, ' in the glories of the heavenly world, and in
supreme dominion and authority there, yet for your sakes he became
poor,' — ' Rich,' says Archbishop Newcome, ' in the glories of the divine
nature, he became poor by taking on him human nature, and appear
ing even in an humble state of life.' — ' Rich,' says Dr. Harwood ' in
his pre-existent state, in glory, honour, and happiness, with a greatness
of soul which can never be sufficiently extolled, he abdicated all this
and became poor.' The apostle's argument upon this scheme only is
cogent, apposite, and very elegant and persuasive. To interpret this
of our Lord being rich in miracles, and becoming poor in them at his
crucifixion, is such a jejune and forced criticism, as I imagine was

278 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
in the Unitarian scheme ; and yet in no place is there the
slightest glance at this gross departure, nor is the name of the

never used to explain any author." (Calm. Inq. pp. 122, 123.) All
this, however, in the view of the Calm Inquirer, is downright nonsense,
mere dreaming : since " every miser would have a claim to pre-
existence," on the principle that would infer pre-existence from this
text. It may seem odd that Dr. Carpenter should carry himself more
calmly upon this subject than the Calm Inquirer. Yet so it is. For,
although the friend and coadjutor of Mr. Belsham., and equally anxious
with him to withdraw this text from the support of the doctrine of our
Lord's pre-existence, he yet admits, without casting any imputation of
dreaming, &c. " that It may be translated as in the public version, and
that it may be interpreted in reference to a pre-existent stale ,•" and
all he contends for is, that his own translations (which, by the bye, do
not go to the length of that in the Imp. Vers.) " equally well suit the
original." ( Unit, the Doct. p. 231.) Dr. Carpenter, it is plain, saw
a little more in this text, than the allusion to a person who, " though he
was rich, spent nothing ;" or in other words, to one who was a mere
,( miser." — But, in truth, it must in justice be said of this last men
tioned writer, that although an equally staunch friend to the cause of
Unitarianism with Mr. Belsham, he does not appear to be exactly of
the same class, in the characters of temper, discretion, and decorum.
We need not be suprised that Mr. Belsliam makes so light of the pas-'
sage before us, as affecting the argument for our Lord's pre-existence.
It is a rule with this writer, to treat in like manner the several passages
that are adduced in support of that doctrine. Texts of Scripture, which
do not merely announce, but proclaim the doctrine, in words so plain, and
strong, that language can supply none more unequivocal and forcible, are
at once dismissed, (with the appearance of perfect composure and gravity,)
either as having no bearing upon the question, or as giving support to the
Unitarian scheme of the proper humanity of Christ. Thus, for example,
when, in John xvii. 5. our Lord, addressing himself to the Father, prays
to be glorified with him with that glory which he had with the Father be
fore the world was ; Mr. Belsham calmly informs us, that this, when well
considered, " contains no proof of Christ's pre-existence, but is perfectly
compatible with his proper humanity.'' (Calm Inq. p. 114.) — Again,
when in Coloss. i. 17., St. Paul informs us concerning Christ, that "He
is before all things ; " Mr. Belsham very composedly tells us, that " no
argument for the pre-existence of Christ can be drawn from this ambigu
ous text." (Calm. Inq. p. 148.) Again, when in Philipp. ii. 6., &c.
we are assured by the Apostle, that Christ, being in the form of God, had
made himself of no reputation, and was made in the likeness of men ; the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 279
Archbishop once* alluded to ; notwithstanding the most solemn
assurances to the public, first given by the Editors collectively,

Calm Inquirer, without the slightest discomposure of his gravity, (risum
teneatis ? may, however, not be an inexpedient hint to the reader,) assures
lis, in return, that if this text " be not decisive in favour of the doctrine "
(of "the proper humanity of Jesus Christ,") it " may at least be regard
ed as neutral: " that, in short, "it is one of those passages, of which no
use can be made in deciding the controversy." ( Calm Inq. p. 145.) — Mr.
Belsham had, however, nearly settled the whole question already. For,
having disposed ofthe celebrated passage, (John viii. 58.) ayiv 'ACpsa/* yiyttr-
8xt tyJ, eifil, by asserting, that the words, / am, must mean I was ; and by
adducing in his support the authority of a number of " able and learned
critics and divines," (he might with equal truth have added, most impar
tial and unprejudiced on the Unitarian question,) Dr. Lardner, Mr. Car-
dale, Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestley, Mr. Wakefield, and Mr. Simpson, he
calmly adds, (p. 102.) that this nearly decides the whole controversy, "for
if this declaration does not establish the pre-existence of Christ, no other
passage can." Undoubtedly: or, rather, he might have said, no language
can. For with this, of course, he sweeps away at once every passage in
which Christ is represented as existing previously to his appearance upon
earth ; since, like this, all these can only relate to an existence in the divine
purpose (p. 103. ;) arid therefore the pre-existence of our Lord, in the usual
sense ofthe word, is a matter that language cannot express. (See p. 78
— 84. vol. i. of this work.) I need not go farther. It is manifest, that,
be the force of expression in the sacred writers what it may, there is a
strength of front which far exceeds it.
But, again, in matter even of taste and illustration, no less than in that
of reasoning and argument, there is a spirit of paradox, that seems to ex
ercise a perverse ascendancy over the mind of the Unitarian. Otherwise,
surely, it never could have occurred to Mr. Belsham, in his endeavour to
enforce the position, that the texts supporting the pre-existence and divi
nity of our Lord are "few in number," to compare them to " the stars
in the firmament." They are, indeed, it must be confessed, " like the
Stars in the firmament," numerous and bright. They are as Stars set in
the firmament of the Heaven, to declare the Majesty of him who dwells
there, and the glory of that Great Being whose handiwork those stars are
proclaimed to be. Mr. Belsham, it is true, intends this comparison, as he
informs us, for a very different purpose ; and refers to the Stars, merely
as dazzling the eyes of the spectator, and exciting " the ideas of number
and magnitude far beyond the reality." (Calm Inq. p. 20.) Surely, it
was enough for this gentleman to have blundered as a Rhetorician, and
not to have blundered also as an Astronomer. What " reality " does the

280 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
and since peremptorily repeated by their Calm Inquirer, and
others of them, individually, that, in every instance of deviation
from the Archbishop's rendering, acknowledgment is openly
made in the notes.
Well but, perhaps, this is another instance of mere accidental
error " of the pen," or " of the press." If so, it clearly ranks
with those lucky accidents, which we have had already to no
tice : for, undoubtedly, it happens most commodiously for the
Unitarian. The Editors, it must be allowed, have not neglect-

Calm Inquirer mean ? Does he mean by it the actual state of the Stars !
It is strange, indeed, if so learned an Astronomer does not know that their
real magnitudes are millions of times greater than those which they pre-.
sent to our view ; and that their actual number also, as we have good
reason to believe, is vastly greater than what the eye is able to discern.
Or, does he mean by " the reality," the appearances which they offer, to
the corrected vision of the Astronomer aided by the telescope ? This
seems an odd application of the word "reality." But, here again,
he ought to know, that, whilst the apparent magnitudes are diminished,.
by the removal of the irradiation, the number of the visible stars is
prodigiously increased; the telescope calling into apparent, existence
what was undiscoverable to the naked eye. So that when this scientific
critic speaks of " the eye of reason aided by philosophy " reducing both the
number and magnitude of those heavenly bodies to their juster standard,
he is every way unfortunate. The eye of the Astronomer enables him lo
add to their number ; and his philosophy, to increase their magnitude ;
and both to a degree which the uninformed cannot readily believe. — And
here, also, the parallel holds good. For, to the eye of a well-informed
understanding, aided by just principles of criticism and a sound know
ledge of the original language of the N. T., the texts which bespeak the
pre-existence and divinity of our Lord increase upon the view in number,
and in strength, to a prodigious amount. Their individual force, and
collective bearings, become infinitely more striking and demonstrative.
And, when duly grouped together, like the constellations into which the
Astronomer forms his classes, they spread a brightness and illumination
over the face of the Scriptures, like that which these luminaries shed over
the firmament of the heavens. I agree then with Mr. Belsham as to his
parallel. The texts, which support the pre-existence and the divinity of
our Lord, do indeed resemble " the stars in the firmament." But I differ
from him in his Astronomy. The stars are, in " the reality," more nume
rous and greater, than they appear ; and they are presented to the telescope
in greater numbers than to the naked eye.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 281
ed the Primate, on other points, throughout this verse. The
words " gracious goodness" immediately preceding those to which
we have adverted, he had otherwise rendered in the margin,
"grace:' and such is the "scrupulous fidelity," (as Mr. Bel
sham calls it,) with which the Editors, in all cases, either follow
the Primate or give notice of their departure from him, that
they apprize us of this momentous change, in a special note
upon the subject. Possibly, the great importance of this so
occupied then attention, that it was altogether diverted from the
variation in the remaining part of the sentence ; which, indeed,
merely affected the matter of our Lord's pre-existence ; a
thing in its own nature so absurd and inconceivable, that, be
it expressed in what terms it may, it is well known that no ra
tional christian can admit even its possibility.
I have, on former occasions, been tempted to travel beyond
my immediate and proper subject, — the mere fact of unacknow
ledged departure from the Primate's Version, — into the nature
of the criticism, by which the Editors support their peculiar
translation ; and I am not able to resist the desire of doing so
on the present occasion. I shall follow the very words and order
of the Editors in their note. " While he was rich — see Wake
field — a-Wo-ios m Ivraxtve-t. The construction * requires it to
* Mr. Belsham's profound acquaintance with the Greek language has
enabled him to pronounce, in still stronger terms, on the necessity of admit
ting the existence of two contemporary states to have been here intended.
"That this is the proper primary meaning ofthe Apostle's words," he
affirms that " no person acquainted with the original can doubt" And he
questions " whether the genius ofthe Greek language will even admit of
the sense commonly annexed to the words." (Calm Inq. p. 125.) It is
whimsical enough, however, thaj, all this extraordinary knowledge of the
Greek language, which has enabled Mr. Belsham to pronounce thus deci
sively on what " the construction" so peremptorily " requires," has been,
as he informs us, the result of a valuable hint from-a friend, who, it seems,
understands English remarkably well, as he has proved " by the accuracy
of his remarks upon the English verb." This gentleman, who has written
upon the English verb, has, we are told, actually assured Mr. Belsham that
"the aorist expresses a perfect action in past definite time ; which time is
ascertained by the connexion;" and has thus at once proved every thingto
his wish, and completely satisfied him that the genius of the Greek lan-
Vol. 2.-36

282 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
be understood, not of a passage from a preceding state of wealth
to a succeeding state of poverty, but of two contemporary states.

guage " requires that the two states should be simultaneous." And then
the whole follows smoothly. — " Christ -lir<T£%iun, ' was poor.' When 1 —
¦xxeve-us it, ' at the time he was rich.' " (Ibid. p. 124). — Now, with all due
deference, I would recommend Mr. Belsham to turn from this gentlemani
notwithstanding the knowledge ofthe English language which he may pos
sess, to' those who maybe somewhat more conversant with the Greek ; and
who possibly may tell him, that, so far is the Greek aorist from " express
ing a perfect action in past definite time," the very essence ofthe aorist is
(as its name denotes) its indefiniteness : and that, instead of referring
always to a "past definite time," it is in frequent and common use for a
time not past; being familiarly employed for present time, and not unusual
ly for future time also. The force of the Greek aorist, in short, under
goes as many variations as can well be superinduced upon a verb : indi
cating not only the future and the present, as well &sthe past ; but the past
also under Various modifications, including those of the common preterite
and even ofthe plusquam perfectum, according as the connection may re
quire. It may imply besides, in some cases, frequency { in some, the con
tinuance of an action : and it is capable of admitting yet farther varieties,
from the mood or voice in whichitmay be used, and also from its participated
application. In a word, this tense, which is said to look to " past definite
time," may look to past, present, or future, and has its very essence in the
indefiniteness of the time and mode in which it can be applied. It has
been said, that there is no royal road to Mathematics. This saying may
be equally applied to other branches of knowledge. They, I apprehend,
can admit no short path either. Mr. Belsham may rest assured, that, to
know the Greek language, it must be learnt ; and that a few general rules,
which schoolboys commit to memory, will not convey an acquaintance with
the genius of the language.
The Greek, however, which Mr. Belsham has derived from this excel
lent English scholar of his acquaintance, may answer very well for those
for whom it is intended. And as Mr. B&lsham has, in the outset of his
wbrk, declared against "grammatical subtilties," and has entered his pro
test against admitting into consideration the "niceties" ofthe Greek lan
guage, (under which head the aorists, of course, are to be included, no less
than the article,) he ought not to be pressed closely upon this point. But,
although the persons for whom alone he professes to write may not be
much acquainted with the Greek language, and the account of the aorist,
which he has picked up for their use, may be just as satisfactory to them
as any other, yet it is to be supposed they have some knowledge of their

UNITARIAN VERSION Off THE NEW TEST. 283
He was rich and poor at the same time." — Now, here the Editors
haye fortunately directed our attention to a few simple points, on

own language : and if so, surely the man of " sound understanding*" will,
at all events, be able to see, that whatever may be said of Mr. Belsham's
Greek, he has manifestly blundered in plain English. For, after telling us
that the verb, of which he speaks, must, in virtue of the tense in which he
finds it, express a perfect action in past definite time, he proceeds to say
that the verb must be rendered, " was poor. " Now, how being poor can be
called an action; and how the words, was poor, render this a, perfect ac
tion, Mr.. Belsham will, if he can, explain to his reader. — Again, when was
it that this perfect action, ' he was poor,' took place 1 We are answered,
" at the time that he was rich-" Surely Mr. Belsham must have forgot?
ten ; and has been all this while arguing for the transition ; not for the conr
tinuance. We can understand the perfect action of a person's having be
come poor, or having made himself poor, at a particular time :' but it will
require a degree of subtilty, of which Mr. Belsham's man of " sound un
derstanding" may possibly not find himself possessed, to discover ^.perfect
action, and an implied continuance, in the words " he was poor at the
time that he was rich."
But there is some more Greek of Mr. Belsham's, in the same note,
which contains a vein of ihe richest criticism. He says, " it may be
objected that ntofoies s,y may refer to past time." And this application/
of the participle present, ix, to past time, he strenuously rejects ; al
though he has both here, and elsewhere when it suited his purpose,
admitted the reference to past time in the words rvBxos <>, in John ix.
25. Under this admission, however, I will take the liberty of consider
ing the sentence somewhat after the model, which he has proposed.
" Christ arrl-xe"*1 ' beeame poor.' When 1 nxeve-tes Zt, ' at the time that
he was rich.' " I ask no more than the benefit of the canon which Mr,
Belsham has laid down for his own use, and which, as it is found not
ta suit his purpose, may, since it has been brought forward, be applied
to mine. Mr. Belsham, however, produces some more Greek, to
prove, that Jobn ix, 25. supplies no authority for referring the parti
ciple &v to past time. He contends, that, as the words <rw$\es &v are there
followed by the adverb Spri, to ' shew that the participle which pre
cedes is to be understood in a preterite sense ;" so here, " had the
Apostle intended to express, that the state of poverty was subsequent
,o that of affluence, he would probably have introduced the word
tint., or Oo-nper, before the verb enr^x«"^t." Whether the Apostle, in
tending to express an immediate transition from one state to the other,
would have thought it necessary to introduce either of these words, I
leave it to Mr. Belsham, (Who, it seems, after all, has been, in his own

284 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
which it is not difficult to form a decided judgment. " The con
struction requires," that the Words, irXevrtee at i7rra>%tvTt, should

way, investigating the " niceties " of the Greek language,) to deter
mine. But, I fear much, that if the criticism respecting these words
be no sounder than that which relates to the word Spri, the Apostle
would not have availed himself of the suggestion which it contains,
had it been proposed to him. The adverb apn, we are informed, shows,
that the participle is to be understood in a preterite sense. In other
words, it expresses the present time so emphatically, as to mark an
opposition to past time : — "now I see." If this discovery of Mr. Bel
sham's be just, it will help ns to various new and important views of
Scriptural language. When our Saviour says to the Jews, (Matth,
xxvi. 53.) " Thinkest thou that I cannot now" (Spri, now, in opposi
tion to past time,) "pray to my Father," &c. our Lord must be sup
posed to mean, that before this time he could not have done so. Again,
when (John xiii. 7.) he says to Peter, " What I do, thou knowest not
now," (Spri,) he must mean, that Peter had now lost the knowledge
which at a former time he possessed. It immediately follows, to be
sure, " but thou shalt know hereafter," as if the opposition here were
to future time. This, however, is a trifling difficulty in the way of a
Unitarian critic, and would soon be in some mode or other disposed
of. Again, when Peter says, (John xiii. 37.) "Lord, why, cannot I
follow thee now," (Spri,) he must mean this in comparison with past
time : although hitherto it has been imagined that he alluded to our
Saviour's words, " thou shalt follow me hereafter." In like manner,
when our Lord tells his disciples, that he has still many things to say
to them, and adds, " ye cannot bear them now," (Uprt,) he must be un?
derstood to imply, that they could have borne them before that time,
although it has been commonly supposed that the expression looked
to the future. It will be found also in 1 Cor. xiii. 12., xvi. 7., 1 Thess.
ii. 7., and in other places, that this lately discovered and significant
use of the word Spri, will throw a novel light upon the words of Scrip
ture. — But, (to treat this matter with a seriousness to which, perhaps,
it is not entitled,) the truth is, that tyri, of itself, simply and properly,
though emphatically, signifies the present time; and is only so far
opposed to either the past time or the future, as present time is opposed
to the one or the other ; and derives its reference solely from the words
with which it is connected in the context ; so that, instead of bestow
ing such reference on, it borrows it from the sentence in which it
stands. If, then, Mr. Belsham can find no other reason for rendering
the participle in rv<pKes it, in a preterite sense, than the declaration of
the present possession of sight implied in the word fyT', he will find

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 285
be understood of " two contemporary states. — He was rich and
poor at- the same time." — The construction requires no such

himself at perfect liberty to render the passage, in a form similar to
that which he proposes for this of 2 Corinthians, I now see whilst /
am blind. Whoever has considered these matters must be well aware,
that it is the nature of the subject and the force of the context, and not
the mere use of the word Spri, that leads the mind to the immediate
admission, that it must be to a past time, that the blind man refers the
participle, when he uses the words, i-u^os iv, Spri-^kbm. This will be
manifest at once, if we change the word w^kes for another. For
example, the Jews had demanded of the blind man's parents, whether
it really was their son, (who was well known to have been blind,) that
now professed to be restored to sight. Suppose they had put the ques
tion to the man himself in this form. " Art thou the son of these
persons, and dost thou now see"?" Spn fikforets; suppose, also, that he,
wishing to answer the question precisely, by declaring that he was
their son, and that he then actually saw, used the words ui/rZv ph i vies
&v, Spri jZ)&7r«, — must he be thought necessarily to mean, that he had been
at a former time the son of these persons ; or would not, in this case,
the participle be taken in the present time, unaffected by the use of the
word Spri 1 — Or, again, if the question had related to his conviction
that his sight was permanently restored ; and that he meant to reply,
that, though he possessed the power of seeing perfectly at the present,
he yet had fears as to its continuance for the future ; and, in order to
convey this, expressed himself in these words, <pe£ovpms pet (viz. nimn
rrufxes yetwf/M , Spri 0*hr& — must the mere use of the word Spn push back
his fears lest he might ultimately lose his sight, to a time previous to
his having recovered it ; although, in reality, the present time is here
put in opposition to that future time to which his fears relate ? In
these two instances we see, that, according to Mr. Belsham's criticism,
both that which is declared to exist at the present, and that which is
meant to refer to the future, must be thrown back to a preceding
period, by the operation of the adverb Spn.
Had our Lord said of himself, rW«oc iv, Spn nre>xeie>, Mr. Bel
sham would of course admit, that he spoke of two successive states :
whilst, by omitting the word Spn here, two concurrent states must,
according to him, be intended. This is precisely equivalent to what he
has advanced ; viz. that there being no particle corresponding to the
word Spn, to determine the participle & to the sense of the preterite, it
must consequently be considered in the present tense. It should be
observed, that the peculiar meaning, which this writer would force

286 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
thing. The plain and unavoidable construction of the words
b-AobVioj at, all the world, except the Unitarian Editors, must ad-

upon the word erra^tinc has nothing to do with the application of his cri
ticism here respecting the word Spn. This criticism, as well as that con
cerning the force of the aorist, stands by itself, on grounds independ
ent of the peculiar force of the verb employed. But, allowing to Mr.
Belsham, (for the sake of argument,) the full benefit of the force which
he assigns to the verb w.™^™; namely, that of a continued state, let
us see to what this will lead us. If, in consequence of this, the phrase
vxeva-tes iv, Wr^xeve-e, must signify, that he continued rich whilst
he lived poor; it must of course follow, that St. Paul has represented
both to the Ephesians and the Colossians, that, whilst continuing
dead in their sins, they w^re permitted to live with Christ, yexpovs
''ONTA2 h rols ircupctwr^fjute-i — e-vytgmemine-e. Ephesians, ii. 5. ; Col.
ii. 13. — and, again, that St. John, at the very time that he was
writing the 8th verse of the 22d chapter of the Book of Revelation,
was actually engaged in hearing and seeing all those various com
munications and visions, which he has related to us — "E^ 'Wwns i fiki-
irm ntvra. xx) ixiim. — Of so little value, indeed, did Grotius (the
great authority to which the Unitarians are on all occasions anxious to
resort,) consider such critical " niceties," as Mr. Belsham has here
laid down as principles; so little, especially, did he conceive the word
Spn to be requisite to give a past sense to the present participle, that
he pronounces the very phrase in John ix. 25., which Spn has, accord
ing to Mr. Belsham, given the whole force, to be exactly similar to
that in Eph. ii. 5., in which the participle present simply occurs, with
out any word whatever corresponding to Spn, such as Mr. Belsham
peremptorily insists upon. — '< [TvfKis iv] "ay, qui eram, ut hie Syrus.
Simile loquendi genus, vide Ephes. ii. 5."— And again, on the passage
in the Apocalypse, he says—" Subauditur sum, ut saepe apud Hebraeos ;
et praesens pro praterito proximo." This, indeed, St. John has him
self put entirely beyond question, by subjoining to the words already
quoted, x.%t ere Sxevtra xsu i£\e^.a.. And, what crowns the whole, and
leaves nothing more to be desired upon the subject, — those great
Greek critics, who have given us what they are pleased to call the
Improved Version, have not pronounced St. John to havelieen igno
rant of the genius of the Greek language in doing so ; but have actually
bestowed their own decisive imprimatur, and have given it to us in
plain English, " I John saw these things and heakd them " — .Wav

Now that I have obtained so high a sanction for the application of

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 287
mit to be, Being rich. Well then, how does the being rich
render it impossible for a man to become poor ? On the contra-

the participle present in a preterite sense, without the assistance of the
word apn, or any other particle whatever, I will venture to tell Mr.
Belsham that nothing is more common ; that, to those who are well
acquainted with the language, this usage is perfectly familiar; and that
the reason of the thing, and the circumstances under which it occurs,
are fully explained and defined by various well known writers. Among
these writers I would particularly specify, Dr. Middleton, (Dr. of the
Gr. Art. p. 39 — 44.) and Glassius, (Philol. Sacr. tom.i. p. 353 — 355.)
the latter of whom has accompanied his grammatical remarks upon the
participle with some most valuable observations on important passages
of the N. T. in which the participle occurs. I confess, at the same
time, that I am disposed to agree with Mr. Belsham, in conceding to
the participle iv, under certain circumstances, an emphatical force
which may imply continuance. It is manifest that it may be rendered
being, in such a sense as shall reach to the nature and essence of the
subject. Thus, he who had been born blind, being (from nature)
blind, (that is, such being the state and condition which belonged to
him,) declares, that he now sees. But, then, Mr. Belsham will be
pleased to recollect, that this use of the participle involves unavoidably
the reference to an antecedent condition, and is, although it implies a
continued state and appears in a present form, as little to be con
founded in point of time with the new state affirmed of the subject,
as the word blind is to be confounded with it in the 17th verse, where
the Pharisees are described as interrogating the blind man, (xiyeve-t
Ti rv?*.$) as to the manner in which his sight had been restored.
By his being here called a blind man, at the very time when the mode
of the acquisition of his sight was the subject of inquiry, what could
be meantrbut his natural state, and of course his previous condition;
the same which may be conceived to be conveyed by rv<p\es "on 1 In
like manner, when our Saviour expressses himself to the disciples of
John in these words, — " the blind see " — " the lame walk " — ( <nf\ei
6\ta£h&irevTt — ;t«M>< Tnpnrimeio-i — ) he means, that those, whose na
ture it had been to be blind and lame, now saw and walked. He did
not think it necessary to introduce any particle, (such as Spri) to mark
the opposition of the two conditions : and yet there does not appear
much danger, that any person, from the excessive knowledge of Greek
that governs Mr. Belsham's criticisms, should suppose that these must
be two concurring states; and that our Lord had carried the miracle
so far, as to enable them to see, whilst they remained blind ; or to

288 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ry, must not a man be rich, in order to admit the propriety of
saying that he became poor ? Is it impossible that a man; who

walk, while they continued lame ; — the species of construct/on which
Mr. Belsham insists upon in the passage before us. The pre-existence
of our Lord is, it is to be presumed, a thing so incredible, that any
monstru-m cogitationis is to be received before it : and, therefore, if
the above passage happened to bear such relation to that doctrine, as to
give it support according to the received mode of its translation, Mr.
Belsham would, of course, on the principle) of interpretation which he
wishes to apply to 2 Cor. viii. 9., contend for the seeing blindness, and
the walking lameness, to which we have alluded.
Tlheve-Ks iv, then, we may, with strict propriety, render " being rich " —
being, in his true nature, rich indeed— -it ftepipn Beov virap^ut. — "ilN and
"MTAPxnN here correspond exactly as they ought,— -the essence and true
nature of the Great Being emphatically expressed in both. All this, it
must be confessed, carries with , it a reference to past time, — to an ante
cedent condition. But that cannot be helped, if truth will have at so.
Being (in his true nature and essence) rich, he became poor. — " Being
rich, he became poor." — It is manifest, that here is. the plain, literal, and
consistent interpretation of the passage, without the slightest force ex
ercised on any one part of it, and in exact agreement with all the ordinary,
received principles of Scripture interpretation. Whether this be recon
cileable with the common translation, " Though he was rich, he became
poor," the reader will judge ; and " whether the genius of the Greek
language will admit of this sense," he may now determine for himself.
Whether, on the other hand the principles of " the construction," which
"requires, that the two states should be simultaneous," can be received by
any " person acquainted with the original," he will probably more than
" doubt." That the participle iv must, in the first place, express simple
continuance, of the state expressed by vkevo-ios; that, in the second place
mrl>%imi must express simple continuance of its state likewise ; and that
in the third place, the one state must commence, and be exactly concurrent
with the other. He could not have been rich one moment before he was
poor : — his riches commenced with his poverty. It was precisely "• whilst
he was rich" that " he was poor." Surely, all this is too much to require
us to concede. Independently of all consideration of the original language
I would desire no more for a fair judgment upon the case, than the " sound
understanding and honest mind," to which Mr. Belsham professes himself
so willingto appeal.
It is curious, and may not be uninstructive, to observe the whimsical
varieties of Socinian criticism, and the capricious changes of shape which

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 289
is rich at one time, should become poor at another ? or is it
necessary, that a person, described as being rich and becoming

it assumes. In former days a grand support ofthe system which rejected
the divinity of Christ rested upon the past sense of the participle iv. So
cinus, conceiving that this participle has no adsignification of present time,
was for confining it to the past ; that he might get rid of the overbearing
force ofthe words, i iv ev tJ evpsuy, in John iii. 13., which he was thus en
abled to render, qui erat in cozlo ; and, under this interpretation, to afford
an explanation, according to his own principles, by which he might avoid
the admission of our Lord's pre-existence ; as may be seen at p. 256. of
this volume. The present Socinians having discovered, (see pp. 245,
246. 254.) that " being in heaven " can mean no such thing as it expresses ;
because there is no heaven : and that the words merely signify the being
acquainted with the divine counsels, or no matter what, but certainly not
being in heaven, (for that could not be ; besides that '' the natural signifi
cation of words" is, as we have seen at page 192. of this volume, above all
things to be guarded against,) — have felt themselves altogether relieved
from the difficulties of old Socinus. They have no longer any occasion for
the past sense of the participle : and, seeing that the admission of this
sense would let in the pre-existence upon them elsewhere, (as for example,
in this very passage of 2 Corinthians,) they, accordingly, contend strenu
ously for the present signification, and will have nothing to do with the
past, which threatens little less than ruin to their scheme. However,
these modern critics, who go by no rule but that of shutting out the Divinity
of Christ, do themselves, at certain times, when off their guard, admit the
very interpretation of the participle which they are here so anxious to re
ject. Thus, (as we have already noticed at p. 243. of this volume,) on
John i. 18. , i iv els rey xoMrey rev irctrpes, the Editors observe, in their note,
that it is better rendered, "who was in the beginning with God — to de
rive instruction," &c. (that is, by the by, as they tell us again, /. V. p. 199.,
" was in the wiluerness, or elsewhere, to be instructed and disci
plined."! — Here, then, after all, the grand point so long laboured for
every where else is given up. The participle iv may, even according to
these great authorities, be taken in the past sense : and this, too, it is to
be observed, where the past time is not superinduced by any connected
verb. For it is to be remarked, that, in this passage, the participle is not
placed as the nominative to the verb ; and therefore it stands independently
of the time of that verb. In truth, if, in any part of the N. T. the par
ticiple of existence is to be considered as peculiarly expressive of essence ;
if there be any, in which no good reason appears for referring the participle
to a limited adsignification of time, it is perhaps this very passage. And
yet it is almost here alone, that these extraordinary critics would ascribe
Vol. 2.-37

290 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
poor, should be both rich and poor at the same time 7 Yes,
say the Editors, the construction requires :that the two states

to it a past sense. However, in justice it must be confessed, they make
ample and speedy retribution. In return for what they have thus taken
from the present time, they immediately after, (that is, after in their trans
lation, for they find it convenient, in this first chapter of St. John's Gospel,
to turn every thing upside down ; and therefore they have, without any
authority but their own sole will and pleasure, placed the 15th after the
18th verse,) — they immediately after, I say, in the 15th verse, convert
the past into the present, by construing »v, is ; rendering irpZres p-ev
m, " he is my principal" in opposition to the obvious and just
translation, "he was before me," which has been adopted by every
commentator that has hitherto appeared ; not excepting even their own
great oracles, Erasmus and Grotius, to whom they affect to appeal on all
occasions, but whom they desert, as they do all others, whenever they fail
to assist in the main point, — that of reducing our blessed Lord to the ordi
nary condition of man. Great allowances, undoubtedly, should be made
for these Unitarian Critics, in their comments upon this first chapter of
St. John. In contemplating this part of Scripture they seem bewildered
to the last degree. They scarcely know what to say : and hardly can any
two be found to agree in the same result. The distraction, in truth, which
appears to agitate them can scarcely be represented to the imagination by
any thing short of the picture which Hogarth has given of the enraged
musician. Their incoherencies here, then, should perhaps, in some de
gree, be overlooked. But in other places, where they are not driven to it
by the same terrific necessity, we find them without scruple rendering the
present by the past. Mr. Belsham labours hard, (by a number of exam
ples, some applicable, and some not,) to establish the admissibility of this
in the case of the verb substantive, for the purpose of supporting the So
cinian sense of \yi> ely-i, " I was he," in the celebrated passage (John viii.
58.) in which our Lord declares that he existed before Abraham, and
which has been already adverted to in the preceding note, pp. 279, 280.
(See Calm Inq. pp. 74, 75. 86. 87. 96, 98. ) The Imp. Vers, also, in all
those places where it might tend to advance the main point, has adopted
the same principle of interpretation. Thus we see that the construction
which, at one time, these critics reject as inadmissible, at others they adopt
with perfect freedom : at all times, however, it must be admitted, in refer
ence to the one grand object, — that of robbing Christ of the divinity of his
nature. In any case, whatever mode of interpretation favours this object,
must be right ; although it is to be relinquished, and the opposite mode
adopted for the same object, in the succeeding page. Rules of grammar
are of no value. One rule only is to be attended to. All tenses are to be

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 291
should be contemporary. To common sense this seems some
what odd. But it appears evident, they say, from the words,

intermixed, all times to be confounded; provided only that that exalted
Being, the Son of God, who fills all time, shall be confined to such a
portion of it as falls to the lot of mere, miserable, mortal man.
Of these contradictory and mutually subversive positions, respecting
the force of Greek tenses, abundant instances have been already derived
from Mr. Belsham and his brother editors. But one still remains,
which I have purposely reserved for the conclusion of this note. We
have seen that the great stress of Mr. Belsham's grammatical argument
in support of the Unitarian rendering of 2 Cor. viii. 9., depends upon
the construction of the aorist under that peculiar reference to past
time, which we have quoted from him at page 255 of his book, and
which, as we have noticed, he exults in having derived from a learned
friend, inasmuch as by it he considers himself enabled to decide the
question of the sense of the disputed passage. Now what shall we say,
if we find this same writer asserting of the aorist of a particular verb,
that it " occurs thirty-eight times in the New Testament ; and in five
passages only signifies past time 1" Yet this he does of the verb
yivee-ini -. because the applying to it a future sense furnishes one of the
Unitarian modes of escaping the inference of our Lord's pre-existence
from John viii. 58. It is not, indeed the particular mode of escape,
which this writer has selected as the best ; but it is one which he
mentions with respect, and something like commendation ; and so far
as the criticism on the verb ytirtai is concerned, manifestly with ap
probation. So that at the beginning of this note we find this writer, at
the suggestion of one friend, maintaining the necessity of the past
sense for the Greek aorist ; and at the conclusion of it we leave him in
the full possession of an opposite suggestion from another friend, which
completely overturns the former. How the critic is to act between
two descriptions of learned friends, — how to choose between the two
bundles — I know not.
Before I quit the subject of lenses, on which this note has been princi
pally employed, I shall add this one remark on the text last alluded to ; —
that the only contrivances, by which Unitarians are able to evade its force,
are the changes of the past into the future, or of the present into the past.
nph'AGpxapyetee-Dii iy&el/A! — Before Abram shall become (Abraham,) I
am (he:) — or, Before Abraham was born, I was (he.) In the former,
yttee-Beu is made future : in the latter, el^i is made to 'signify the past. The
plain and simple translation is by all means to be avoided by Unitarian
critics. But may not expositors, of inferior lights, avail themselves of
both the great contending authorities ; and with the one be permitted to

292 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
vMve-iee at, which they choose to render, while he was rich.
The word while establishes the whole for them ; proves that
the two states must be concurrent ; and settles the entire ques
tion of construction at once. This word, however, unfortunate
ly, is altogether of their own manufacture, or rather that of Mr.
Wakefield ; and has been forced in here, against all just prin
ciples of criticism, to help out that very construction, which, they
say, requires it. The original, as we have seen, simply expresses,
Being rich. That the word while has no place in it, is
manifest : and that there can be no pretence for its introduction,
shall be shown hereafter. But, for the present, let it be observed
that, even admitting the translation of the Editors, while he
was rich, it will not follow, that the sentence must be understood
of two contemporary states, so long as the word eTrra^eve-i signi
fies he became poor, and thereby marks a transition from one
state to the other. They seem to think, indeed, that the word
while precludes this rendering of the verb inraxtve-e ¦ and, for
this reason, they have caught eagerly at the authority of Mr.
Wakefield, for the introduction of that particle. Now it for
tunately happens, that Mr. Wakefield himself, their favourite
critic, is the very authority I have to adduce upon this subject.
What is his rendering of the clause ? " While he was rich,*

render -yev'ee-Sxi in the past sense, and eifu in the present sense with the
other 1 And thus even Unitarian criticism may be made to minister to
the truth, and to give support to that great fundamental truth, the
pre-existence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. — On this text
in John viii. 58. see what has been already said, at p. 78 — 81. vol. i. of
this work.
* The Editors have made their quotation from this writer with no small
degree of judgment. It stands thus, as we have seen at page 281. —
" While he was rich — see Wakefield — v\eve-tos iv, Itrri^suo-s." — The part of
the sentence, which is broken off, and by which the last of these three
Greek words is rendered, would have spoiled all : — " he became poor,"
would have let in orthodoxy again, whereas the part quoted bade fair to
thrust it out. Now, this is a specimen of Unitarian quotation : and this
too, on a subject, on which the departure from truth is the stifling of God's
revelation. Mr. Wakefield's criticisms may be of but little value : and, for
my own part, I have not. been in the habit of rating them at much. But
not so with the Editors. With them he is oracular. Or, be it that I state

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 293
he became poor." See his Translation of the New Testa
ment. Mr. W. must be supposed, if we would acquit him of
a gross blunder in language and a gross confusion of ideas, to
have here employed the word while, in the sense of when, at a
time when : for, to conceive it as implying a lengthened space,
would be to make the point of time, at which he became poor,
commensurate with a portion of time, during which he con'
tinned rich. I do not say, that I should approve of such a form
of expression. But it is the one adopted by him, whom the
Unitarians look up to ' as then greatest scholar ; and whatever
objection can be brought against it, is to be applied to the word
while, which he and they have unjustifiably forced upon the
sentence ; the use of which, however, could not prevent Mr. W.
from giving to the verb xr»j;fi!» * the sense of becoming poor :

this too strongly, yet, at all events, to quote his words as bearing on the
sacred text, and to quote them falsely, is dealing treacherously with the
word of God and is but too well worthy of the cause, in which they are
engaged, who would blaspheme the Majesty of the Son of God.
* It may be said that, in his Inquiry, Mr. Wakefield has rendered
vra%evei in the sense of being, not of becoming poor, and has there consider
ed the whole passage as treating of simultaneous, not successive, states.
To this I answer, it signifies nothing to the present point in what manner
he has translated the word, or understood the passage, there ; although,
even there, he has only ventured to say afmte%tva, after reciting the usual
rendering to become poor, that it " rather means to be in the condition and
capacity of a poor man." (P. 179.) We are at present concerned not
with that work, but with his Translation of the New Testament; the
second edition of which (the only one in my possession) was published
eleven years later than the Inquiry ; and in which, of course, we have the
final result of his best judgment upon the subject. To this latter work the
Editors have referred, by their quotation, for the support of his authority
in rendering the words irKevs-tes iv, " while he wasrich." So that, on every
account, to this work our attention must be necessarily confined. — The
Editors, indeed, must have been much puzzled, as to which ofthe two pro
ductions of this great Unitarian authority they should abide by. They
would naturally prefer the former, as rendering a-raj^a in the sense of
being poor : but then, the first clause of the translation did not furnish
them with the governing emphasis of the particle while, as irxeve-ios iv was
there rendered, Being poor. On the other hand, in the later production
of this author, the word while was employed ; but then the orthodox

294 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
a sense which at once overturns the whole fabric of their con
struction. — Well then, thus far, the Editors do not appear to be
particularly fortunate, in the observations, with which they com
mence. The translation, "while he was rich," does not appear
to be the just rendering of the words KMus-ie; m : — the construc
tion does not require to be understood of two contemporary
states :— and Mr. Wakefield, whom they appeal to in the very
frontispiece of their note, and whose name stands in the place,
that, according, to their engagements, should have been occupied
by that of Newcome, turns out to be an authority decisively
against them.
But, in truth, the grand hinge of the question is the meaning
of the verb imax™™- It is useless to talk of two contempo
rary states, until it be determined whether there be, in strict
ness, two states spoken of at all. The Editors, not being able
to rid themselves of a lurking feeling on this head, although
they profess to have settled the point already by the force of the
word while, proceed to fix the sense of the verb irruxtvei,

sense of the verb \irr&%tun (became poor) was retained. The Editors, in
this difficulty, adopted the most prudent plan. They followed the latter, in
the first clause : and totally sunk the remainder, as we have seen in the
preceding note. At the same time, that the Unitarian sense of the word
9rra>xevoi, advanced in the Inquiry, should not be lost, it was deemed right
that in a separate work, which is, in truth, but a supplement, or body of
notes, to the Unitarian Version, the translation as given in the Inquiry
should be exclusively enforced. Whilst, therefore, the Editors refer only
to Mr. Wakefield's New Testament, and select from thai just what answers
their immediate purpose; Mr. Belsham refers only to that writer's
Inquiry, and secures to the cause the additional aid that was to be thence
derived. Calm Inq. p. 125. — Let not the mean opinion that the reader
may entertain of Mr. Wakefield as a critic and a theologian induce him to
discreditthe idea, that so much machinery should be employed for such a
purpose as that of obtaining the apparent sanction of his name. It should
be remembered that there is a class of men, by whom an author with any
pretensions to the distinction of a scholar, and at the same time lending his
authority to the support of their opinions, may reasonably be deemed a pa
ragon : and it is known, that there are writers, and translators, with whom
such machinery is no novelty, and who can lose no character by resorting
to it.

unitarian version of the new TEST. 295
agreeably to the interpretation of the passage, which they have
already resolved on : and having cited the Lexicons* of Stepha-

* The quotations from these Lexicons are, like most of the Unitarian
quotations, ad captum merely. Advantage is taken of a partial and seem
ing correspondence, whilst every expression that marks a departure is care
fully suppressed. The object with the Lexicons here quoted has been
more to convey the full force of the word ara^r carried into act by the
verb, than to distinguish (if I may so say) the precise verbal! modification,
as to the point of continuance or change. The Editors have omitted
to mention, among the interpretations assigned in each of these Lexi
cons, the word mendico r which, as it implies simply an act, and does
not in itself necessarily include the idea of a continued state, or course
of action, — (any more than the word Wn, or stipem peto, to which
both the Lexicons, after Hesychius, make ara^* sometimes equiva
lent,) — it would not have suited the purpose of the Editors to have
particularly noticed. The Latin terms, it must be observed, by which
the Greek verb is explained, are equivocal in their application. In
deed, if it were not so, the argument ofthe Editors would go to the
length of proving that the word vraxtvu, in the judgment of the com
pilers of these Lexicons, could never be applied in the sense of be
coming poor. Now, this would be to brand their own authorities with
gross ignorance : an ignorance, however, of which the learned authors
would soon be acquitted by those who would take the trouble to
examine what they say for themselves. For we find in the former of
the two Lexicons, the passage of Nazianzen, vrai%evei riit g^w e-dpx*.,
rendered by the words, " obNueam carnem pauper fit ;" and in the
latter we have the same translation acknowledged as assigned to this
Greek sentence. Again, with respect to the very text in question
(2 Cor. viii. 9.,) we find, that, although the word eguit has been used
byboth for sVTi^»«, yet Stephanus, who has adopted the translation
of Constantine, but in a form more copious and explanatory, imme
diately subjoins what manifestly shows that he understood the word
to imply a change of condition, — " Usus autem eo verba est Aposto
lus, ut ostenderef eum (Christum scil.) usque ad extremam etiam pau-
pertatem nostra caus& sese demisisse .'¦ — had humbled himself, had
reduced himself. See Thes. vol. iii. p. 587. And this same Stephanus,
in his Concordance, (which, it should be remembered too, was not
published for more than twenty years after his Thesaurus,) assigns to
the verb irru%evu, as its single and sole signification, the words "pauper
fio," to become poor. It seems rather odd, that the Editors, whose
object was the translation of the Greek of the New Testament, should
have altogether forgotten to look into the Concordance, in which

296 supplementary remarks on the
nus, and Constantine, for the use of the verb in the senses of
" mendicus sum," " mendicus vivo," "inops dego," and Eras
mus, for the sense of " pauper fuit sive potius mendicavit ; " *

Stephanus professes to give the meaning of the Greek of the New
Testament ; and in which he gives the latest result of his judgment, —
a book, too, which they themselves recommend, in the Introduction to
their Version, for the interpretation of the New Testament : and, also,
that they should have forgotten even to glance at the observations
which we have quoted both from Stephanus and Constantine, in those
very parts of their Lexicons from which they have favoured us with
extracts. In truth, it is perfectly manifest, that, so far as the Editors'
assertion, that the word ^ra>xe<lai cannot properly signify a change of
state, is concerned, the authority of these writers is decidedly against
them. As to the Lexicons, generally, it should be remarked, that they represent
the word Kneels, as in itself implying a change of condition. Schleusner
explains the word "pauper, ad mendicitatem redactus, &c." Suidas
defines wm%es, — "i ex^nrreex'^s rev %%w" — " qui ex bonorum possessione ex-
cidit :" and " fl-Ta^a'*, — irxtnxiis r«s xrie-eus ex7rr»rts." Suicer in like manner,
" Urates proprie est i fare v\eirav xzrihflwv its eyfactt, qui ex divitiis ad ino-
jtn'am devolutus est." (Thes. Excles. p. 887.) Amongst other deriva
tions assigned to the word, that of vreen (cado) an obsolete for mirrei, and
from which mvm takes its preterite wsWa**, is the most prevalent and
the most probable. And, in this view, the primary sense of the word
irru>xes and consequently of vre>ytm, ought to imply a change of state, a
fall from wealth. The great attention bestowed by the Lexicons gene
rally, upon the extreme degree of poverty expressed by the word mu^fta,
and upon the distinction to be observed between ¦truces and ¦terns, seems
to be the reason why the primary sense has been in most cases especially
dwelt upon, and the peculiar force of the verb, as relating to an existing or
a commencing state, (a continuance or a change of condition,) has not been
more fully taken into consideration ; but left, as it naturally ought, to be
determined by the particular bearing of the context. So far as the verb
merely is concerned, vra^es sum et fio (in the form given by Schleusner,)
seems to be its just representation. And it is worthy of remark, that if
7rrw%es itself implies a change of condition, ad mendicitatem redactus, then
even the acceptation of the verb in the form of irru%os sum, must imply
the same.
* Erasmus has been extremely brief upon this, having simply stated
his rendering of the Greek to be, as quoted above, "pauper fuit, sive
potius mendicavit." Mendicavit, then, is the sense which he prefers

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 297
they then at once peremptorily conclude,—" the word properly
signifies an**actual state, not a change of state. Literally he

for the word tsmijpuM : and he even follows it up by saying, "ut hinc
possent argumentum sumere qui gaudent mendicitatem suam ad
Christum autorem referre :" alluding to the model, to which the Mendi
cant orders of the Romish clergy might refer, as their example. Now,
I would ask the Editors, why they have not abided by their own autho
rity here, and rendered the Greek word in the strict sense mendicavit,
instead of adopting the translation agreeable to that sense which Eras
mus holds to be inferior. They may say, perhaps, that they, quote
Erasmus, merely to show, that he understood the word to imply an
actual state, and not a change of state. At all events, then, they do
not deem his judgment such as should he implicitly relied upon, in his
criticism upon this verse. But are they sure that Erasmus meant, by
the word mendico, to exclude a change of state? Are they sure that
Erasmus did not prefer the word mendico, because it might, like the
Greek word, apply to the commencement, as well as to the continu
ance, of the course of action which it expressed 1 The verb mendico,
Facciolati, in his excellent Lexicon, renders by pitoccare, from
pitocco, which words are manifestly the transfusion of the Greek words
7rro%tiu and vreoxes and the word pitoccare is known to be employed
not only in the sense, to beg, but also to go a begging, to become a
beggar. So that the word mendico, according to this authority, by
no means excludes the idea of a change of condition. But, even
though the Latin of Erasmus were unequivocally in their favour, yet,
against the stream of authorities, which oppose him upon this subject,
his simple dictum could be but of little force. Erasmus, it is to be
remembered, lived but at the revival of letters, and was destitute of
those many important aids to Greek literature, which have been fur
nished since his time. He was a scholar, propria Marte ; and although,
undoubtedly, a man of vast genius and extensive learning, and of infi
nitely attractive wit, yet, in his Greek criticisms especially, he has been
esteemed by many extremely fallible. Even Jortin, with all the par
tiality of a biographer who imagined that the historian bore some
resemblance to his subject, admits the general suffrage of " his defici
ency in the Greek tongue." (Life of Erasmus, vol. ii.p. 160.) Eras
mus himself, indeed, in his note on Mark ii. 9. makes plain confession
of his inferiority in Greek literature. Marianus Victorius, in the
preface to his Edition of Jerome, goes too far, when he charges him
roundly with a total ignorance of the language. John Hales speaks
not quite so strongly when he says, in his on notes Chrysost. Homil. in
Vol. 2.-38

398 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
was poor, or he was a beggar. See Odyss, o. 1. 308." — Thus
the point is completely settled. The sense, which the construc
tion, under the influence 6f the particle while, would have
given to the verb, is now proved to belong to it from an independ
ent source. And so the question is set at rest.
Yet a word or two remains to be said. We cannot allow
these critics to travel off so rapidly. We are here informed,
that the word 7m»xtv*> " properly signifies an actual state, not a
change of state:" — that is, that it means the actual state of
being poor, and that it cannot, properly, signify to become
poor. We cannot avoid remarking, here, how strangely igno
rant Schleusner must be upon this subject ; notwithstanding
the high estimation in which he is held by the Editors, and their

Hebr. " Acumen Erasmianae censurse et certitudinem, quam in Lati-
nis praestat, in Grcecis prorsus desidero." — Whatever justice there
may be in this observation, as it relates to his Greek criticisms gene
rally ; there can be no question, as to its application, in those cases, in
which a knowledge of the Hebrew was also necessary ; that is, as to
its application to the Greek language in use among the Jew ish writers.
Drusius, in the preface to his Prceterita in Nov. Test, expressly
informs us, that he has thus entitled his criticisms on the New Testa
ment, as having special reference to what had been passed over, or
not sufficiently illustrated,- by others ; among whom he names Eras
mus as the principal. This commentator possessed that which Eras
mus wanted. His perfect acquaintance with the Hebrew, the Jewish
writers, the ancient Greek translators; and the productions of the
Fathers, afforded him such eminent qualifications for commenting
upon the sacred text, that P. Simon does not scruple to pronounce him
the most learned and judicious critic in the whole assemblage of those
distinguished Commentators on the Old Testament, whose labours are
preserved to us in the collection entitled Critici Sacri. See Hist.
Crit. du V. T. liv. 3. ch. 15. The Editors have not informed us in
What sense this writer, who has had Erasmus specially in his view
throughout his comment on the N. T., has interpreted the word in
question. They were not anxious to state, that the reviser of the Cri
ticisms of Erasmus, whilst he dwells at some length upon the compa
rison of egenus and pauper, in his comment on the verse before us,
lays it down as a matter which does not come at all into question, that
factus est is connected with both. Egenus factus est. — Pauper
factus est.

unitarian version of the new test. 299
great readiness to quote his authority whenever they can con
trive to pick out any thing from him that will afford the colour
of a sanction to their opinions. How does he explain the word ?
-^" 1. proprie : pauper sum et pio, ad mendicitatem redac
tus sum, mendico, a icraxes, quod vide : " and then he adduces
a number of references, the first of which is " Odyss. o. v,
308," the very one which the Editors have put forward,* and

* It, is to be observed that the passage in Homer has been adduced by
Schleusner, as an instance of the propriety ofthe sense of, ad mendicitatem
redactus sum, mendico; having in view simply the force of the word
irruxes mendicus, and not any modification of the act expressed by the
verb, in reference to a change or continuance of state. This, as has been
before observed, has been the main object with the Lexicographers and
Commentators in general upon this word : the extreme poverty, which the
word implies, being the idea principally held in view. That Schleusner,
then, has cited the passage from the Odyssey, as equally applicable to the
sense of ad mendicitatem redactus sum, and to that of mendico ; and there
fore (were it even granted, that mendico must necessarily imply the
continuance of a state, and can never be attributed to the first act or com
mencement,) that he has connected the sense of becoming a beggar,
equally as that of being one, with the example which he has quoted from
Homer, is manifest on a moment's inspection. The Editors, on the other
hand, have cited the very same example from Homer, for the purpose of
showing the direct contrary ; namely, that the word »t4>%sm» cannot properly
signify a change of state. Now, although I have above acquitted these
critics of having derived this reference from Schleusner, upon the ground,
that they could scarcely be supposed to have overlooked or suppressed the
notice of the matter supplied by that learned writer in direct opposition to
their assertions ; yet, on second thoughts, I see much stronger reasons for
believing, that from his Lexicon they did actually transcribe this reference.
The mere circumstance of overlooking or suppressing may easily be ad
mitted, where practices of a much higher order of disingenuousness are
found to be familiar. And, although it must be admitted, that other Lexi
cons, as well as that of Schleusner, contain the allusion to Homer, yet the
precise form of the quotation here supplies an internal evidence of the
source. One thing is certain, that if these Critics had been searching
through the Odyssey, for the purpose of discovering an application of the
verb 9rrei%evu, which would least serve their purpose, they would have
cited the very one that has been adduced, inasmuch as its actual applica
tion here implies decidedly a change pf state ; Ulysses declaring his in
tention to assume the appearance of a new condition, and being now for

300 supplementary remarks on the
which, in their lighter reading, they must have discovered in the
Odyssey for themselves; as it is not to be supposed, that they
would have selected this single note from Schleusner, and have
passed over in perfect silence the various remaining matter,
which contradicts their assertion-' as to the import of the verb in
question. Some of th& authorities, to which Schleusner refers,
show the like ignorance with himself ; since, like him, they
employ the word vraxeva in a sense implying a change of
state. The LXX,, he says,* make use of it in different places

the first time to become a beggar, — vro>^evo-m . In four other passages of
the Odyssey, they might have discovered the word, in an aspect not equally
unfavourable to their position; at the same time, it is certain, that neither
there, nor elsewhere, can they possibly discover any thing, that would
justify their assertion, that " the word properly signifies an actual state,
and not a change of state." Thus it appears, that the Editors did not
search out this example for themselves ; and that, in truth, they did not
know to what precise point of explanation it was adduced in the Lexicon
from which they took it. The sound of Homer's name would convey a
grace ; and might intimate something like an acquaintance with the Clas
sics. Whether Homer or any of the ancient Classics have usually formed
a part of the early studies of Hackney, or those other seminaries in which
the Editors and their brethren have received their education, I know not.
But they seem generally unfortunate, when they venture upon Classic
ground. And, indeed, it may be said, that whenever they wander beyond
the range of such names as Priestley, Evanson, Lindsey, Cappe, and
Wakefield, who may be called the Unitarian Classics, they are almost al
ways sure to meet with some mishap. Ne sutor ultra crepidam, is, in
many cases a wholesome suggestion.
* Alexandrini adhibent hanc vocem pro tfinft, pawperem factum esse,
indigere — "l2)"n5 idem"^"et ^^ ad inopiam redactus est."~-
Schleusner refers to but four passages, in which the word occurs in the
LXX: but there are six instances, including one in the Apocrypha:
and, in every one of these, the word occurs, in the sense of a transition
from opulence to poverty, or from a state of possession to one of pri
vation. In no other passages, except the one before us, is the word
fl-To^R/ai to be found, throughout the whole of the sacred writings. —
The passages are Judges vi, 6., xiv. 15. Ps, xxxiv. 10., lxxix. 8. Prov.
xxiii. 21., and Tobit iv. 21. In the first and fourth of these, the corres
ponding Hebrew word is ^*j, rendered attenuor by both Trommius
and Biel, " entirely exhausted " by Parkhurst, and in the same sense

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 301
in the sense of being made poor, and being reduced to in
digence. How ignorant also must Suicer have been, who, in

by all the Lexicons ; and this sense is indispensably requisite, from the
context, in both the passages referred to. In the second, third, and
fifth, we have the corresponding Hebrew word 'ft)1^ ; which, in its
general acceptation, signifies, to reduce, or be reduced to, extreme
poverty: and from the particular form of the verb as it occurs in these
passages, as well as from the force of the context, it manifestly and un
equivocally signifies the being made, or becoming poor.-. — Jerome,
who must be supposed tolerably acquainted with the force both of the
word 7rra>x*vea, and of the original terms which the LXX have rendered
by that word in these several passages, had used for it, in his transla
tion of those passages taken in the order in which they have been ci
ted, the following expressions, " humiliatus est " — " spoliaretis nos " —
' Divites eguerunt" — " pauperes facti sumus" — " consumentur "—
in all of which, it is obvious, that this learned Father and admirable
critic has conveyed the sense of a change of condition.
With respect to the sense, then, in which the verb vra>xeva has been
employed by the LXX, in these several passages, we have the joint tes
timony of the original Hebrew, of Jerome's translation, and of the
unequivocal force of the context. To the remaining passage in the
Apocryphal book of Tobit, we cannot apply the same accumulated evi
dence ; because we are not possessed of the Hebrew or Chaldee origi
nal; and because, from whatever reason, the Vulgate translation of
this book has, in such a variety of respects, so little accordance with
the Greek text. But, yet, it is not less certain from the context, which
relates entirely to the change of condition of the afflicted Tobit and
his family, that the use of the word wnc%eva>, here, is, as we have found
it elsewhere; and that the rendering of the Received Version, made
poor, is the true one. — Agreeably to what has been said of the verb in
question, we find it rendered, in our common translation, in the sense
of being made poor, or becoming poor, in every one of the passages
which have been enumerated, excepting only in that of Psalm xxxiv. :
in which, by following the Hebrew literally, whilst it was viewed as
figurative by the Greek translators, they have rendered the noun in
the original by Lions, instead of ir\eie-m or the Rich ; and have, con
sequently, been led to translate the verb by a word, that does not ne
cessarily imply a change of condition. At the same time, it should
be observed, that Arias Montanus, looking always to the literal sense
of the original, renders the verb here by depauperali sunt ; although
like our English translators," he conceived himself bound to abide by

302 SUPPLEMENTARY remarks on the
his translation of the following passages from Basil and Theo-
phanes, has rendered the word, in like manner, most decisively
in the sense of becoming, or making tine's self poor? " oZrol
t'tvtt el ¦nrrax't ru.7rtKvpt.eiTi, e'iritti ei St' aXkitt rtta, uiriett tTrraxcve-ctt,
x.. r. x. Hi sunt pauperes spiritu , qui non aliam ullam ob cau-
Sam pauperes FACTI SUNT," &C. — " iTTo^ot/s te-ziriet ra Tttzi-
IA.a.ri, revf 71a.fi at rat it x,axiet teovptltat tx.evtriaf 7rrux^v<rcttra(, x.. t. A.
— per pauperes spiritu intelligendi sunt, qui omnibus quee sub ma-
litise intellectum cadunt voluntarie sese privant," &c. ( Thes.
Eccles. vol. ii. pp. 888, 889.) [We have already seen, in the
note at page 296, that this learned writer considers a change of
condition to be implied in the very word irrax°s-] Parkhurst
also has betrayed similar ignorance by explaining the verb as
signifying " to be, or become, poor."
Now, the Editors have recommended to their readers, as the
best guides to the meaning of the Greek of the New Testament,
the Lexicons of Schleusner, Suicer, Parkhurst, and Mintert.
The last named I have not in my possession. But we see how
far "the remaining Lexicons justify the position, that the word
iTTuxiva "properly signifies an actual state, and not a change

the word Lions, with which that meaning of the verb but ill assorts.
The marginal annotators of our Bible, also, by referring Luke L 53.
(" the hungry he hath filled with good things, and the rich he hath sent
empty away," \%a.m<rre as xetebs,) to this very massage of the xxxivth
Psalm, clearly mark their judgment of its true interpretation ; and con
cur in the sense, which is elsewhere uniformly given by our English
translators to the verb TirK^iu. It may not be amiss to notice, that the
only fragment of the later Greek Interpreters of the O. T. (Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus,) that remains to us, in which any in
stance occurs of the use of the verb Trraixeva, is one of Symmaclius, on
Prov. xiii. 7. : and in that, beyond all possibility of question, (both from
the context and the force of the form Hithpahel m the original,) the
change of condition from rich to poor is expressed. The verb is, in
deed, used by Symmachus in the middle voice; but that merely gives
it a reciprocal import ; affecting only the subject of the action, not the
nature of the act. Thus, then, we are provided with proof, as to the
sense, in which the word irrw}$vo> was understood, by the Jewish Greek
translators of the O. T. both before and after the age in which the Gos
pels and Epistles were written, j

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 303
of state." And we see also the reason, why the Editors have
not, on the present occasion, resorted to any one of the Lexi
cons which they have specially prescribed to the Student of the
Greek Testament, but wander off to glean what they can, for
their purpose, from the general Lexicons of Stephanus and
Constantine; — why then turn also to Erasmus, for the very
scanty pittance of his aid upon this subject, and travel (so as to
equal the travellings of Ulysses himself) even into the Odys
sey, for a favourable exposition of this untoward text. It has
been seen, however, that Stephanus and Constantine have
been used, as Unitarian authorities generally are, and as we
have found Mr. Wakefield treated upon the same subject, with
out any very scrupulous regard to what they themselves actu
ally say : and that as to their application of the word Ttrax^va,
so fair from yielding the Editors support, these very names may
actually be marshalled against them. As for the assistance
which, in their dearth of critical aid, they labour to derive from
Erasmus and Homer, the reader, after what has been said,
will not find it difficult to appreciate its amount.
But we have that to appeal to, which, on every question of
this nature, is the most decisive criterion. The use of the Greek
language among the Jews is properly to be learned from them
selves : and, from comparing Scripture Greek with itself, it has
been at all times acknowledged, that we are most likely to arrive
at the true acceptation of any word or phrase, in the Greek of
either the New Testament or the Old. The verb irraxtia oc
curs in no passage of the N. T. but that which is at present
under consideration. In the writings of the Old Testament,
including the Apocrypha, it occurs, as we have seen in a pre
ceding note, in not less than six passages ; in every one of which
it directly expresses, or obviously implies, that, which the Edi
tors affirm it cannot properly signify, — a change of state : it
is applied, also, (as we have seen, p. 302. n.) in the same sense,
by Symmachus, the only one of the later Greek interpreters of
the Old Testament, whose use of it is to be found in the frag
ments of their Versions which remain to us : and Jerome, not
only, (as has been noticed at p. 301. n.) confirms the use ofthe
word throughout the Old Testament, by his concurring inter-

304 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
pretation of the' corresponding Hebrew ; but assigns to it, ex
pressly, this signification, in his rendering of the word in the
very passage with which we are concerned, in the New : so
that the use of the word irrawu*, in Jewish Greek, seems to
be placed beyond question, and might be deemed sufficient, —
even though in the general application of the word by Greek
writers it were employed equally in the sense of being and of
becoming, poor, — to justify us in pronouncing, that in the lat
ter sense exclusively it was understood among the Jews.
Ofthe justice of this remark, Stephanus, one of the principal
authorities to which the Editors have appealed, affords a strik
ing confirmation ; for, although, in his general Lexicon, he had
attributed to the word a sense that might be conceived to imply
an actual state, rather than a change x>f state, yet, when, he af
terwards came to compile his Concordance for the New Testa
ment, he confines the word (as we have seen at pp. 295, 296.)
specially to the signification of becoming poor. This; too, is
the more marked and unequivocal, because, in the preface to his
Concordance, he distinctly states that it had been his particular
care, when any word admits more interpretations than one,
(meaning, of course, in its Scripture application,) to assign them
all: and yet to this he assigns the single interpretation, " pau
per fio." We see, then, how the Scripture use of the word
Trraxiva appeared, even to those who conceived that, in its gen
eral signification, it was not to be confined to a change of state.
As to the Scripture sense ofthe word Trraxeva, we have a still
higher authority than that of Stephanus, Or of any modern
scholar, however distinguished. The Syriac translators ofthe
New Testament must be allowed to be sufficient witnesses as to
the meaning of the Greek in use among then own countrymen
in their day ; which, by the confession of all, could not be far
removed from the age of the Apostles. Now, we have their
authority for asserting, in the most decisive terms, that the word
Ttraxtvei is, in the passage before us, to be rendered in the sense
of being made, or becoming, poor*
* The Syriac translation of the word sirr^a/ira in 2 Cor. viii. 9, is
_2£ai£>Z]> which, being in the conjugation Ethpaal, (corresponding to

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 305
We have, then, for this use of the word Ttruxevu among
Jewish writers, the authority of the LXX, of the Syriac trans
lators of the New Testament, and of Symmachus. We have
also the authority of Jerome. So that it seems to be placed al
most beyond the possibility of doubt, that, with the Jewish wri
ters, for a considerable period of time both preceding and follow
ing the date of St. Paul's Epistle, the word irraxivu was fami
liarly employed in the sense of being made, or becoming, poor.
This is a sense of the word admitted by all Greek writers : the
very derivation afforded by some Lexicons attributing even to
its primitive the force of a change of condition. But, whilst
admissible in the general use of Greek writers, it seems to be
the prevalent {if not exclusive) application of the verb, accord
ing to the usage of the Greek among the Jews. The ablest
Greek scholars have adopted this application of the verb, in
Jewish and Ecclesiastical Greek ; even where they have ex
plained the word generally, so as to admit, upon an equal foot
ing, the sense ascribed to it by the Editors. Of this Suicer,
Stephanus, and Schleusner, afford striking examples. The
authority ofthe first two, as to the scriptural and ecclesiastical use
of the verb, has been noticed before. Schleusner we shall find,
(in addition to what has been already adduced from him,) to be
most explicit and decisive as to St. Paul's application of the verb

the Hebrew Pyhal,) puts the matter out of dispute, as to the meaning of
the word, in the acceptation of the Syriac translators. Accordingly, we
find the various Syriac Lexicons of Schindler, Trostius, Gutbirius, and
Schaaf, interpreting this word in the most emphatical manner, pauper fac
tus est. Indeed, it is to be remarked, that the particular verb, here em
ployed in the Syriac, has no conjugation implying pauper fuit, or the sim
ple state of being poor ; but always carries with it a change of condition;
it being a quadriliteral, and from its nature and import wanting the conjuga
tion Peal, and occurring in its earliest form in that of Pael, or in the sense
of depauperavit : as the Chaldee, which agrees with the Syriac, applies
the word "13,353 in 1 Sam. ii. 7., and other places where the sense of a
change of condition is inevitable. — This last named passage, indeed, fur
nishes perhaps the most decisive instance of the force of the two Syriac
words r3.£2lO and ,5A£>, and their corresponding Chaldee "135)3 an<*
*)fiy 5 which are the words applied here to convey the Greek ara^/fii
and TUvrifn, makes rich, and makes poor. — See p. 312.
Vol. 2.-39

306 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
in the passage before us. — " St' ipZc e#Ta%to<re, vestrum causa
in deteriori conditions in his terris vixit" — "vestrum
causa pauper factus est."
In the same sense, — that of a change of condition, — we
find almost every authority on the use of the verb in this pas
sage uniformly concurring. If we turn to the English trans
lators, whether we take the Rhemish, or the authors of our
own successive Versions, it is still the same. To satisfy the taste
of Unitarians, we can produce the authorities even of Locke and
of Wakefield. Not that I would class these two translators
together ; but as Wakefield is their own, and Locke they pre
tend to claim" as such, it may be well to cite both at once for
their satisfaction. By the former the word is here rendered,
made himself poor; and by the latter, became poor.
But what shall we say, if St. Paul himself expressly informs
us ofthe sense in which he has used the word? And if, in a
passage, which is (and must be) allowed by all,* to be exactly

* That these two passages are exactly parallel, and mutually explana
tory, is admitted by every commentator. That the correspondence must
be forcible indeed, when it is conceded even by the Unitarians, will readily
be granted. For, to put upon the passage in Philippians, such a construc
tion, as will withdraw it from the support of Christ's divinity, is a task, that
puzzles even those critics who make little of the " natural signification of
words :" and, therefore, it must be allowed to be rather a dangerous con
nexion for this text in 2 Corinthians, which they affect to say, when taken
by itself, they can so easily get rid of. Yet Mr. Wakefield, in his Inquiry
(pp. 180, 181. 183.,) insists largely upon " the exact correspondence " of
the two passages ; and contends, that they best " contribute to illustrate
each other." Mr. Belsham, (Calm Inquiry, p. 139. Letters on Arian.
p. 132, &c.) the Editors also (Imp. Vers. p. 455.,) and the other Unita
rian writers connect them in like manner. It is to be observed, however,
that in their mode of managing this, they conceive that they help their
cause : the course, which they pursue, being that of referring the passage
of Philippians to that of 2 Corinthians : and thereby, as they imagine,
reducing the stronger to the standard of the weaker. But they forget
the principle of reaction : and, in their trepidation (which indeed, the texts
in Philipp. ii. 6., &c. may well be supposed to occasion to a Unitarian,)
they altogether overlook the circumstance, that if the passage in Philippi
ans is to be explained by that of 2 Corinthians, the passage of 2 Corinthi
ans is also to be explained by that of Philippians. Well, then, the matter

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 307
parallel to this, he has interpreted the verb for us by its equi
valent, Uvret Uitae-c, [Philipp. ii. 7.] he emptied himself 7

is admitted on all hands, that from Philipp. ii. 5, 6. we have the best illustra
tion of the passage before us ; and, consequently, that by 7r\eva-tes it i7rri>%evtt,
is to be understood the same, as et («»§<?» ©«5 vira^x""1 •*"¦"» 'mtem. And thus
it appears, from St. Paul's self-explanation, that the riches of Christ were
his divine nature and supreme dominion over all things ; and that his po
verty consisted in the divesting himself of that exalted character, and hum
bling himself to the low condition in which he appeared in this world. And
agreeably to this very form of words, in which St. Paul has thus explained
himself in his Epistle to the Philippians, the Corinthians are again ad
dressed by St. Paul's fellow-labourer Clement, in his Epistle to them,
ch. xvi. — To vxhrreet rns peyaxaio-vyiis rev Qeov, o Kvgios YiftZy Xpto-ros'lneovs, evx
*i\6ev 'ev xefxTra &\A%oviicLs, vvSe vjregn^±tia.s, v.±fffep J'vvd/Aevos' &KKa ra.7reivoip£ovw
[agreeing with the mmtvopp ;e-vyn and trreaniteto^i of the Apostle], *. r. \.
" The Sceptre of the Majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in
the pomp of pride and pre-eminence, although he might have done so ; but
in humility," &c. It deserves to be noted that Jerome here reads xximp
Tritra. <Tvvaftms ; which reading Russel (after Burton) maintains to be the
true one : — although possessing all power. See Russel, Patr. Apost. i. 65.
Thus, in every view we can take of the passage in question, we find the
change of condition clearly and distinctly expressed; — the descent of our
Lord fiom a superior to an inferior state : — and thus, every reference by
which the Unitarian hopes to relieve himself from his difficulties, only
tends to make the matter worse.
It should be observed, that even Grotius, whom the Editors conceive to
be an auxiliary to their cause, in their rendering of the text in 2 Co
rinthians, has supplied some criticisms, which are not altogether favourable
to their translation. On Philipp. ii. 7. he says — " ea-vrev ixevae-e. [Plane
idem sensus qui 2 Cor. viii. 9. in it vfta; iirrw%evcre, Trxeve-tes Si>. Nam inopes
dicuntur xhet," &c. — " ircvreitwe-e envrev"] — " sicut ixivue-e, ita ira.mlyeie-1
forma: sunt Hiphil, sed significant talem se exhibere aut ostendere." Here
is an admission, though a reluctant one, that Wr^x^v^ signifies a change of
state ; inasmuch as it is pronounced to be precisely equivalent to ixevae-e
which is admitted to be of the form of Hiphil, which indicates that change.
This indeed he attempts to do away by what follows. But his criticism
stands in opposition to his theology ; and is itself sound, whatever may be
come of the latter. — In truth, it is well known, that Grolius's comment
upon this part of Scripture is condemned by every body. "Ev e^eti,^a.ri
&r?Z&rw yeve/ueves, he understands, as signifying Christ's being made like our
first parents, in a state of innocence : than which, as Dr. Clarke observes
" nothing can be more unnatural."

308 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
Emptied himself of his former riches and glory,— that glory
which he had with the Father before the world began. No two
passages in any writer can be conceived more pointedly to cor
respond, or to be more happily illustrative of each other, than
these two passages of St. Paul. In both, our Saviour is pre
sented as an example, in having voluntarily descended from a
state of greatness to one of humiliation : and the object being to
recommend liberality in the one case, and humility joined with
brotherly love in the other, the Apostle describes the example,
which our Lord had exhibited, in the terms appropriate to the
respective subjects : riches and poverty being spoken of in the
former, as greatness and abasement are in the latter ; and as
again we find the ignominy ofthe cross the topic selected in a
third, where our Lord's example is pointed out as recommend
ing to his followers patience under sufferings. [See Rosenm.
on 2 Cor. viii. 9. "Selegit Apostolus paupertatis specimen,
quoniam hie de pauperibus et liberalitate sermo est. Sic
Hebr. xii. 2. ponitur ignominia, &c.J Thus, then, we have,
at once, the phrase Trfove-tes at, explained to us by the words l»
y.ep<prt &eev vTrupxwt • and eWa^EDo-s by its corresponding lavrbt
hAtae-t ; and St. Paul, in this clear and emphatical manner,
becomes a Commentator upon himself.
But, in truth, St. Paul may be said to have become such,
within the very limits ofthe passage before us ; having pointed
out, by the marked antithesis between its two corresponding
clauses, that the one part may justly be taken as the interpreter
of the other. Now, that the verb in the second clause implies
a change of condition, is placed beyond all question. The force

It should be recollected, that Grotius' s Annotations on the Epistles were
not published till after his death : — so that, even though we could be sure,
that they were fairly published, there is reason to conceive that they con
tain many things undigested, and many that he might have altered had he
lived to send the work to the press himself. See Hammond on the title of
2 Peter, and J. Berriman's Moyer's Lecture, p. 329. Yet the authority
of this unfinished and unauthenticated work, is what the Unitarians prefer
to most others. It might be worth while to inquire, through what hands
this posthumous publication passed to the press.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 309
of the verb irxevrka* as well as the very nature of the subject,
unequivocally evinces the Apostle's meaning to be, that, by the

* The Syriac Interpreters most unequivocally inform us, in what
sense they conceived the word irMvria to be here used by the Apostle.
They have rendered it by <o>A^.Z ditesceretis, "that you might be
come rich:" from the verb jftv» which has no other signification
than ditescere, ditatus, dives factus, locupletatus est, i. e. to be
enriched, or become rich. In this sense only is the Syriac word
used, wherever it occurs throughout the N. T. — And this, it is
to be observed, is the very word employed in the Syriac ren
dering of 1 Cor. i. 5. in which the Greek is mKevr'wdtm ; and in
which St. Paul is distinctly engaged in informing the Corinthians,
in what they had been enrichedby Jesus Christ. — Again, if we go to
the Greek translators of the Old Testament, we shall find the same to
be the almost invariable use of the verb Trxevr'ea, with them. For this I
refer the reader to Gen. xxx. 44., Ps. xlix. 16., Prov. xxviii. 22. (20. in
some copies of the Greek) Jerem. v. 27., Hos. xii. 8., Zech. xi. 5. for
the use of the word by the LXX : — to Prov. xxi. 17. for the use of it
by Symm. and Theod., and to Prov. xxi. 17. xxiii. 4. for the use of it
by Aquila. In all these passages, the verb 7n.ev-iei is used, in a sense
expressive of the acquisition of riches, or becoming rich : and in all
of them, but two, (Gen. xxx. 44., Prov. xxviii. 22.) it is used as the
translation of the Hebrew word -ffly, which is the same with the
Syriac j A.^, employed to render the word irMvrea, in the very passage
before us. There are also two places in the Apocrypha, Judith xv. 7.
and Sirac. xi. 17., in which the verb tr\emia occurs in the same sense :
and there is scarcely a single passage in the Greek of the O. T. in
which it is found in any other. See Schindler, also, for the use of the
Chaldee ^fiJ, (the same as the Syriac jAi.) in the like sense every
where. (See p. 305.) Jerome, likewise, has rendered the original
word corresponding to vxevrea in every one of the above passages,
in the sense of ditari, dives factus sum. We, therefore, can, upon
the whole, entertain no doubt, as to the prevalent meaning of the verb
ir\wr'eo> iii the Greek of the Old Testament. But independently of the
aid derived from this, we can have as little doubt of the use of it in the
New : it being in every passage, besides the one in question, through
out the New Testament, wherever it occurs in its simply verbal state,
employed in the same sense of becoming, or being made rich. See
1 Cor. iv. 8., 1 Tim. vi. 9. 18., Apoc. iii. 17, 18. xviii. 3. 15. 19., in all of
which, not only does the context clearly demand this sense, but we
find it actually assigned in Jerome's translation. See Schleusner on

310 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
poverty of Christ, they, to whom he addressed himself, were en
riched. Two contemporary states cannot here be pretended.
It would be absurd to say, that it is meant, that, while, or
during the time that, our Lord was poor, they continued rich.
It must be, and it is, admitted, that to be enriched, or made
rich, is what is here expressed : and that by that state, in which
our Lord was placed, and which is denominated poverty, they
were placed in that state which is denominated rich. They
were brought, then, into that state, from one that differed from
it : they were brought into a state of riches, from a state of po
verty. The transition, therefore, from poverty to riches, being
distinctly conveyed in the latter clause ; that from riches to
poverty, is as clearly marked in the former. Dr. Wardlaw,
whose services in the cause of Christian truth, are highly valu
able, thus justly represents it. " A transition is expressed on the
part of Jesus ; a voluntary transition, from a state of infinite
glory and riches, to a state of debasement and poverty ; in order
to a transition on the part of his people, from a state of wretched
degradation and poverty, to the possession of true honour and

the word. Stephanus, in translating the «¦<>«» 'ss-mh/tjiWc of Nazian-
zen, renders " dives factus sis." That the Lexicons generally explain
the word by dives sum, as well as by ditesco ; and that the word, in
its general application, signifies to be, as well as to become rich, — there
can be no question. At the same time it should be observed, that the
significations assigned to the word by Constantine, in his Lexicon, are
'• ditari, locupletari, dives evado, dives sum:" so that, in the judg
ment of this writer, it should seem, that the more frequent acceptation
of the word is to become rich. But, whether this be so or not, we
have seen from numerous instances, that the prevalent use of the word
in Scripture Greek, is in this acceptation undoubtedly : and that it
should be so in the New Testament especially, in its figurative appli
cation to Christian acquisitions, is most natural; since the whole lan
guage of the Gospel bespeaks a change of human condition, wrought
by our Lord's appearance amongst men. In the verae before us, this
meaning of the word is decidedly marked, among other considerations
from its connexion through the 7th verse with 1 Cor. i. 5., in which,
as already noticed, the verb Wxevrtc-hrs expresses the change of condi
tion, beyond the possibility of cavil. Indeed on this sense of the verb,
here, all commentators seem agreed.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 311
of excellent and durable riches." (Discourses, &c. pp. 159,
160.) Here, then, is the true, and natural, and satisfactory, view of
the passage before us. The Apostle, being desirous to excite
the liberal feelings of the Corinthians towards their needy breth
ren, and to do this upon principles worthy of the followers of
Christ, naturally places before them the example of the divine
benevolence of their heavenly Master. " If Christ emptied him
self of his heavenly abundance and glory, to supply your spiritual
wants, and make you rich in that which is the true riches ;
will not you part even with some of your worldly wealth, to
supply the temporal wants of your poor and afflicted brethren? —
( For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though
be was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through
his poverty might be made rich.' " I have here adopted that
translation of the English Bible which was superseded by the
Version in present use," as giving more accurately the force of
the original, which, indeed, it will be found upon examination
to do upon many other passages.
Should any objection be made, here, to the use of the word
" though," as not being expressly marked in the original ; at
the same time that this objection must be ascribed to the influence
of theological prepossession, rather than of Greek criticism; yet,
to remove every scruple, be it admitted that the literal transla
tion, Being rich, should be adhered to. What advantage do
Unitarian critics expect to derive from this ? It is manifest, that,
although they commend this simple rendering of the participle,
they conceive it not altogether safe to rest upon it. Laudatur
et alget. Though he was rich, is a wrong rendering, say Mr.
Wakefield, Mr. Belsham, <fec. the words are strictly, being
rich: and therefore we will render them — what? not being

* The old rendering by Wiclif is perhaps not inferior to any — And ye
know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he was made needy for you
when he was rich, that ye should be made rich by his neediness — " and
ghe when the grace of oure Lord Issus Crist, for he was maad nedi for
ghou whanne he was riehe, that ghe schulden be maad riche bi his
nedynesse."

312 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
rich, but, while he was rich. This, however, will not do.
The thrusting out "though," on the pretence, that being
rich is the true translation ; and then slipping in " while" in
place of it, is but a clumsy sort of legerdemain. No, let us abide
by something steadily : and let us suppose with the Unitarians,
that, being rich is the just translation. What follows from
this ? Simply, that at the time when our Lord made himself
poor, he was rich : so that (as we have already remarked at
pp 287. 290. " a passage from a preceding state of wealth to
a succeeding state of poverty " seems to be as strongly expressr
ed, as it is by the form of the present Received Version.
But, if it be attempted still to insist, (in opposition to the well-
known usage of the language) upon the impropriety of apply
ing the word av to past time, and to contend for its necessary
application in the case before us to continued being ; let the
Unitarian take the full advantage of the still closer approxima
tion of this text to that of Philippians, by the more perfect agree
ment of ''on with the force of 'riTAFxnN, and the more empha-
tical designation of the nature and subsistence of Christ ; *
namely, that, being in his nature rich, he became poor, &c.
If these new light expositors will have the matter thus, it can
not be helped. The other parts of the sentence they cannot
possibly shake. They may add strength by this buttress, if
they will.
I shall now lay before the reader a note upon the passage, ex
tracted from one of those Commentators, to whom the Unitari
ans are sometimes desirous to appeal. Rosenmiiller says, on
this 9th verse of 2 Cor. — " Quod quum esset rerum omnium
Dominus ditissimus, i. e. beatitate abundatissimus tamen

* Dr. Middleton says, " I know not, indeed, whether Wfjj« may not be
rendered pre-existing ; for Suidas, edit. Kust. vol. iii. p. 532. observes,
re vTtdpyfiy evx ctv\Zs re eh*t o-afxeiivst dx\a to Trdh&t shell, xzi nPOEIN Al pQdvetv" —
Doct. of the Greek Art. pp. 538, 539. — Diodati, in his admirable transla
tion, uses the same word essendo, both for £v and for frrdp%av. He, like
other commentators, refers 2 Cor. viii. 9. to Phil. ii. 6. &c. for fuller ex
planation : and in his illustration of essendo in forma di Dio, &c. in the
latter, he says, " possedeva quella gloria divina, come sua propria di na-
tura, essendo uguale in ogni cosa al Padre in verity, e di ragione eterna."

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 3l3
propter vos in maxima paupertate visit in his terns, ut ejus
paupertate divites,Jieretis, i, e. etsi poterat esse beatissimusj
quippe filius Dei, tamen multas calamitates pertulit, ut felices
fieretis, et omnibus bonis cumularemini. In verbis wA^e-ies at
jtonitur species felicitatis, intelligitur autem omnis felicitas. Non
enim Christus ullo tempore fuit dives, ut nos divites pecuhiis di-
cimur. — Fuit auteni beatitate dbundantissimus priusquam
in has terras adspectabilis venit. Sic etiam paupertate
Christi omnis ejus humilitas et vita aerumnarum plena est intel-
ligenda. Haec enim, Deo ita volente, salutis nostra causa facta
est." — Schleusner is another authority, to whom these writers
frequently pretend to refer. How does he explain this passage?
— " on Si' vi»mc, iTTTaxive-i, 7T?iou<rio4 m, qui vestrum causa pau
per factus est, cum tamen esset ipsi facultas rebus omnibus
pro arbitrio utendi, rerumque omnium dominium ; seu, cum ta
men esset felicissimus et beatissimus. Intelligitur autem ibi
%'e%* ilia, quam Christus ab ^eterno habuisse apud Deum
DISERTE IN N. T. TRADITUR"  'It* i/tits rf exstvev *Tti%eitc
irMvrrte-trrt, ut vos ejus' paupertate et humili. statu et conditione
redderemini participes felicitatis Christianorum." *
Thus we see, that, as to the passage before us, we have every
circumstance, that can determine a mind capable of forming a
sound judgment, in favour of the sense Which has been ascribed
to it in our common Version : the meaning of the words, the

* Locke has given no explanatory note, but he has rendered the passage
in a manner, that supports the received Version decidedly against the
Unitarian reading — " who being rich, made himself poor for your sake,
that you, by his poverty, might become rich." — It is manifest, that the
Editors receive but little countenance in any quarter, for their novel and
inconsistent interpretation of the text. Perhaps there is no more satisfac
tory explanation given of the several parts of the verse than that which
has been given by Diodati. — " Rich,] in the possession of a perfect hap
piness and glory in his divine nature. He became,] he hath taken upon
him our nature with all the miseries, wants, and obligations, Phil. ii. 7.
to gain for you the treasures of God's grace, righteousness and eternal
fife." And agreeable to this is his accurate translation — " che voi
conosciate la gratia del Signor nostrp Jesu Christo ; cice. ch' egli, essendo
ricco, s' e fatto pouero per voi ; accioche voi arrichiste per la sua pouertS."
Vol. 2.— 40

314 SUPPLEMENTARY remarks on the
force of the context, the turn of. the reasoning, the comment
supplied by a parallel passage of the same writer, the authority
of the Versions, the judgment of the ablest critics. We have
all. But then this sense lets in the pre-existence of Christ:
and, therefore, it cannot be the true one. Make what havoc
you will, of language, and context, and reasoning, and authori
ties, the thing cannot be. Another sense must be devised :
and another translation, though it be such as was never heard
or thought of for near- 1800 years, must be contrived, so as to
exclude the obnoxious meaning ; and to satisfy Mr. Belsham's
man of " sound understanding and honest mind," (who, not in
conveniently, may be destitute of all information upon these
subjects,) that the true interpretation of the Apostle, is such as
would equally prove the pre-existence of every person who
was a miser, as that of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
(See Calm Inq. p. 122.)
But now, the absurd notion of our Lord's pre-existence being
comp!etely,sbut out by this newly-discovered version of the pas
sage, how is the real meaning and application to be rendered in
telligible, to the " sound understanding and honest mind " of
this unbiassed and uninformed arbiter of Scripture truth? — "Ye
know the gracious goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, that while
he was rich, yet for your sakes he lived in poverty,, that through
his poverty ye might be rich." — Rich in what? "Rich in
miraculous powers, which he could employ if he pleased to
his own advantage. But for the benefit of his followers he
chose to lead a life of poverty and indigence," &c. (Imp.
Vers- p. 41(5.) We see then that the riches of our Lord con
sisted in his power of having riches, by which he might have
secured himself against poverty, and have lived a rich man,
richer even than the richest of the Corinthians. And this the
Editors follow up, by remarking, that " this was a very proper
example to the Corinthians, which they might feel and imitate."
Undoubtedly it was. — Our Saviour gave up his riches, (riches,
it appears here, in the literal sense?) and, therefore, the Corin
thians ought to give up theirs. The example goes farther.
Our Lord gave up his riches for the benefit of others : the
Corinthians were now to do the same.

unitarian version op the new test. 315
This is all correct and natural. Riches are literally spoken
of throughout the entire passage, and the example consequently
becomes much "more pertinentand applicable than a supposed
descent from a prior state of existence and felicity, to which
there could be nothing analogous in the case of the Corinthians : "
the Corinthians not having on their part descended from any
such state. Still, however, one difficulty, I fear, must hang
upon the mind of the man of " sound understanding : " for, we
have hitherto entirely forgotten (after the example of the Edi
tors,) one important clause of the sentence : we have forgotten
to explain how it was, that through our Lord's poverty the
Corinthians were to be rich. Were they to gain the riches
which our Lord declined to use? Or how were they to be ren
dered wealthy by his poverty? According to the interpretation
of the Editors, the riches, which they derived from our Lord's
poverty, they were called on to impart to their indigent brethren,
so as to diminish the evils of their poverty. The whole is
quite intelligible, — if, indeed, the Editors would be but kind
enough to add the one trifling circumstance of explanation, to
which we have alluded ; namely, in what manner our Savi
our's want of riches swelled the coffers of the Corinthians.
Here, however, Mr. Belsham supplies the deficiency of his
brother Editors. He informs his man of "sound understand
ing ; " that, although riches were spoken of literally* in the

* This writer has not actually used the word "literal" as applied to
riches in this clause, but the whole train of his reasoning pronounces
the word for him, — Dr. Carpenter speaks of the expression as "al
most literal." Almost literal ! Does he mean by this, something
that is neither figurative nor literal ? Perhaps it may bear explana
tion. The truth is, the matter is rather puzzling to tbe Unitarian
commentator. He knows not well what to make of this clause. He
cannot say, in strictness, that the word " rich" is literally employed
here, and he is unwilling to admit expressly that it is figurative.
The thing is, accordingly, huddled up, in such a way, as'to leave on
the mind of the reader the general impression of a literal application,
although it is not actually asserted. This sort of application is, I sup
pose, what Dr. Carpenter intends, when hp speaks of it as " almost
iferal." (Unit, the Doct. &c. p. 232.), And I have, accordingly,

316 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
first clause, with respect to our Lord ; (and properly so, because
riches and the imparting of them form the entire subject of the
Apostle's address ;) yet they were not intended literally, in the
second clause, with respect to the Corinthians. We are told hv

spoken of the application of the word by the Unitarian writers as lit
er al,bBcause their argument, requires that they should be so understood.
But the truth is, that their real application of the word " rich" in the
first clause, (let them call it almost literal, or what they will,) is de
cidedly figurative. " Rich in miracles " (even though such miracles
ailbne were here intended as might create literal riches,) is still to be
figuratively " rich." And consequently, the Unitarian version of
this passage is fairly exposed to the following judicious animadversion.
"The plain reader — even admitting him to think with the Unitarian
Editor, that onr.Lprd was rich and poor at the same . time, — still
would conclude, that the adjectives rich and poor were applied to our
jSaviour's condition in a sensedirectly andliterally oppositeto each other.
This passage then, taken in this obvious sense, would elearly point
put to him the two-fold character of the person to whom it referred, as
the Son of God, the Creator and great Proprietor of all things ; and the
Son of Man, ' as having no where to lay his head.' For certainly it
would not occur to the plain reader, that the Apostle meant to describe
our Saviour as at the same time rich in miracles, and poor in condi
tion; for this would be to make the Apostle, without any apparent
reason, write figuratively and literally of the same person in the same
sentence ; an incongruous mode of writing, calculated to lead into
error." See page 55. of the Archdeacon of Sarum's Charge, June
1815: — a publication, containing, in addition to much valuable matter
on other subjects, some remarks of distinguished judgment and force
on the Unitarian method of interpreting the Scriptures. — To what
has been here so justly observed in this passage, much need not be
added. At may be sufficient to say, that not only would it never occur
to any plain and unsophisticated understanding, that" rich" and "poor"
were in this clause applied tp our Lord in reference to different sub
jects, or that they were not direptly and literally opposed to each other ;
but it is manifest, that it would never occur to such an understanding
that miracles, which are never once mentioned or alluded to in the
most remote degree, could have been intended here under the word
"rich." In truth, a new revelation would be requisite, to satisfy any
man of " spund understanding," that such was the reference of the ex
pression. And yet, it is to a person of this description, that the Uni
tarian critics profess their willingness here and elsewhere to appeal.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 317
Mr. Belsham, here, of what " the connexion requires." We
now find, that, although hitherto we ought naturally to use the
word rich in a literal sense ; we shall here fall into downright
absurdity, unless we drop that sense of the word immediately.
Mr. Belsham informs us, that in this place the word should
?' be taken in a figurative sense : rich in faith, in holiness, in
benevolence, and in the promises and blessings of the Gospel : "
— in every thing, jn short, but what he and his brother Editors
had hitherto contended must be signified by the word.
But here, Mr. Belsham's man of "sound understanding"
may possible recollect, that he had been assured by the Calm
Inquirer, and his brother Editors, again and again, that literal
and figurative acceptations of the same word are not to be ad
mitted in the same sentence ; that " good writers do not in grave
discourse capriciously change the meaning of words," &c ; and
that, upon this very principle of interpretation, he had been al
ready pressed by Mr. B. and the Editors^ to part with many
texts, in which the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence seemed to
be clearly expressed. (See Calm Inq. p. 50^ &c. also pp 249
— 252. of this volume.) But, then, it is manifest, that, unless
this canon be relinquished in this place, the whole of this new
translation of the sentence would become unintelligible, and
must consequently be given up; and then the doctrine of the
pre-existence necessarily comes in ; which, the man of " sound
understanding" must know, cannot be true. Well, then ; the
word, of course, must be figurative in this clause. How goes
on the explanation now ? How could our Saviour's want of
literal wealth make his followers figuratively rich ? How was
the circumstance of our Lord's being poor, to make them holy?
This again puts the man of "sound understanding" to a
stand. But here, also, there is a ready explanation for him. It was
not the mere poverty, but the voluntary submission to that po
verty ; Jhe example of fortitude and self denial, in relinquishing
the riches which he enjoyed (potentially) in his miraculous
powers. He possessed the power of working miracles at his plea
sure, he had, as Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Belsham express it,
'* all nature at his command, and could supply every want."

O SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
(Calm Inq. p. 126.) How is this ? replies the man of " sound
understanding." You have said elsewhere, (p. 447.) that Christ
'< was a man , constituted in all respects like other men, sub
ject to the same infirmities, the same ignorance, prejudices, and
frailties : " and yet you now say, that he had " all nature at his
command." But so far from having "all nature at his com
mand," has not Dr. Priestley, one of your greatest luminaries,
already satisfied all "rational christians" of "sound un
derstanding," that the power of working miracles was not in
herent in our Lord; that he merely "spoke the word, or used
some indifferent action, (such as anointing the eyes of the blind
man,) and God produced the effect ; " that, in the " supposed
working of the miracle by Christ or any other prophet," all that
was "necessary as a proof of their divine mission," was, that
they " should be able to foretel what God would do, (which, in
fact, is all they pretended to,)" and that, in truth, Christ, no
more than any other of the prophets, had the smallest power,
of himself, to work any miracle ?
In this view of the case, (which, indeed, seems the only con
sistent one for a Unitarian,) it becomes unavoidable to inquire,
how any particular power can be said to have been given to our
Lord, which he did not actually display:: or rather, as Dr.
Priestley would more correctly put it, how he could foretel, that
things would be done through him, which, in fact, it did not
please God should be done ? The " power of feeding the mul
titude — of causing the miraculous draught of fishes," &c. which
God deemed necessary for the proof of his mission, was of course
permitted to him. But, if God did not deem the power of " sup
plying himself and his friends with all the comforts, the conve
niences, and the elegancies of life," (Calm. Inq. p. 126.) neces
sary for the proof of our Lord's mission, and, therefore, did not
bestow upon him this power, of course he could not have had
such a power. It follows, then, that he was not rich ; he had
not the miraculous power of making wealth ; he had not, like
the " miser," his hidden coffers : he was literally poor, and" could
not be otherwise. How, then, did his poverty make his follow
ers holy ? The puzzle still continues. If our Lord had not his
miraculous powers inherent in his nature, but was merely en-

unitarian version op the new test. 319
abled to connect some act of his with the miracle wrought by a
power not his own ; or rather, to declare, beforehand, that such
miracle would be wrought ; we cannot admit the possibility of
any miracle being wrought through his instrumentality, which
was not actually so wrought In this case, we can only know
what could be, from what has been.
The consequences from this view of the subject being fatal to
the exposition of the passage given us by the Editors, the mo
dern race of Unitarians find it necessary to abandon it altogether.
Mr. Belsham and Mr. Lindsey inform us on the contrary, (as
we have already remarked,) that our Lord " had all nature at
his command." (Calm Inq* p. 126.) And Mr. Belsham

* Mr. Belsham has, in this same page, described our Lord as, " rich in
miraculous powers, which it was at his option' to employ for his own bene
fit,"— an assertion, which, we have already seen at pp. 314, 315. has
likewise been made by the Editors. The remarks of a judicious writer,
on this passage, contain so much intrinsic value, that I cannot deny the
reader the satisfaction of perusing them in his own words. — "Miraculous
powers, which it was at his option to employ for his own benefit! What a
strange supposition is this ! A prophet of the Most High , with miraculous,
that is, with almighty power, at his own disposal, to use, as he may incline,
for promoting his own wealth, and honour, and aggrandisement ! Divine
power transferred to a creature ! subjected to the will and pleasure of a
mere man! " — " Such transference of Divine power, I would, in the first
place, remark, is a natural impossibility. The might which effects the
miracle, resides in God alone. It never can belong to the creature. And
residing, as it must, in God alone, it can never be exerted to gratify the
will of a creature, who would pervert it to a selfish purpose, or to any pur
pose different from tha't which he is commissioned to accomplish, and for
the accomplishment and vindication of which alone, the interposition of the
power is pledged. The contrary supposition is pregnant with conse
quences the most serious and fatal. It destroys the certainty of the
evidence of miracles, and thus subverts one of the main pillars on which
the truth of Christianity rests. For, if miraculous power was entirely a
discretionary power, lodged in the hands and placed at the will of its pos
sessor, to be used for any purpose he pleased ; then, what security have
we, that it has, in every instance, been used agreeably to the design for
which it was bestowed 1 — always in support of truth, and never of error ?
— always for the accomplishment of Divine, and never of selfish ends 1
The very expression, that it was ' at his option ' how he should employ

320 supplementary remarks on the
again, (at pp: 174,175, 176.) states, that he "possessed a volun
tary power of working miracles," without " being prompted by

this power — at the option of a man like ourselvas, subject to the pervert
ing influence of human infirmities and human passions, — supposes the
possibility of the one, as well as of the other: aild thus a miracle, however
fully ascertained; ceases to be a conclusive evidence of truth, or a certain
indication of the Divine will." Wardlaw's Discourses, pp. 50, 51.- —
These admirable reflections, of a sound judgment, and a reasoning mind,
present such a view of a discretionary , ox optionar.y power of working
miracles, as must render it impossible for any one, who really possesses
a "sound understanding," to conceive a mere human being invested with
such a power; Mr. Belsham, however, (as we see above) claims such a
power for our Lord : and, as to the danger of its being perverted under
any circumstances in which our Lord could be placed ; that, he thinks,
was completely guarded against by the discipline which our Lord under
went from the temptation. XCalm Inq. p. 174.) From this, it ap
pears, our Lord had acquired an unerring discretion, which secured the
certainty of the exercise of such vast "powers only upon proper oc
casions." ¦
The wilderness, it must be observed, stands, with the modern Socinians,
in the place of the heaven, into which, according to the old Socinians, our
Lord was takeg up after his baptism. If we ask, where our Lord re
ceived those divine communications, the acquisition of which is, (as these
critics inform us) what is intended, by his ascending up to heaven, we are
told, by some of them, it was in the wilderness ; in which our Lord fancied
himself transported into Heaven. (Calm Inq. p. 42.) If, again, we ask,
how our Lord, being supposed a mere-man, coiild be secured against: the
possible misapplication of those vast miraculous powers, which were en
tirely and absolutely at .his own disposal, we are again sent to the wil-
d,erness ; where, we are informed, as we have just seen, that he was duly
disciplined for this purpose by his temptation. (See also Calm Inq. -p.
449.) It happens very fortunately for the Unitarians, that the wilderness
presents a considerable portion of unoccupied space, over which they may
spread as many as they please of those imagined transactions which the
' furnishing out of their scheme may require, without the slightest inter
ference from the Evangelical historians. At the same time, as these
critics have objected, in opposition to the old Socinian notion ofthe ascent
of our Lord into heaven after his baptism, that no such event has been
recorded by the Evangelists,or appears to have been heard of or believed
by early Christians, (see Calm Inq. p. 43.) may we not reasonably inquire
of Mr. Belsham and his associates, in which of the Gospels, or in whit
writings of early Christians we may find related the circumstance of our

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 321
any divine suggestion : " for, that, had it not been so, there could
have been " no room for the exercise either of discretion or be-

Lord's having been disciplined by his temptations in the wilderness, so as
to prevent him from abusing the miraculous powers with which he was
intrusted. But surely, if, after all, Mr. Belsliam can no better sustain the idea
of an absolute and perfectly optionary power of working miracles
possessed by a mere human being, than by the additional consideration
of a certain discipline (in the wilderness) being sufficient to secure
such a being against the possible abuse of such a power, he needed not
to have been at the trouble of fabricating such history to support such
philosophy. For, even admitting gratuitously to Mr. Belsham both
the history and the philosophy ; admitting that a discipline was admin
istered in the wilderness to guard our Lord against a wilful abuse of
his miraculous powers, and admitting that such discipline must suffice
to secure a mere human being, a creature of passions and infirmities,
against the possibility of an intentional misapplication of those powers ;
what was there to guard against their erroneous exercise in abeing la
bouring under the " ignorance and prejudices " of human nature ? —
For how stands the case respecting the knowledge of our Lord 1 Nat
urally (Mr. Belsham informs us,) our Lord was subject to the very
same infirmities, ignorance, and prejudices, as other men, ( Calm Inq.
p. 447. :) and, super naturally, he was instructed only so far " as was
necessary for the execution of his commission, that is, for the revela
tion and proof of the doctrine of eternal life, and that the favour of
God extended to the Gentiles equally with the Jews : " — so that when
he has " delivered opinions upon subjects unconnected with the object
of his mission, such opinions, and his reasonings upon them, are to be
received with the same attention and caution with those of other per
sons in similar circumstances," &c. (pp. 451, 452.) The same writer
again informs us (p. 472.) that " it no more derogates from the author
ity of Christ, than it does from that of Moses, that his inspiration
should not extend beyond the proper objects of his mission, and that
in other cases he should entertain the same opinions, and be liable to
the same misconceptions, as his countrymen, and those amongst
whom he was educated. These also, Mr. Belsham informs us, are
the opinions held and avowed by Unitarians at large. What then fol
lows, on the principles here laid down 1 Our Lord's inspiration was
restricted, whilst his power of working miracles was unlimited. On
all subjects, but those connected with the doctrine of a future life, and
the calling in of the Gentiles jointly with the Jews, he was equally
Vol. 2.— 41

322 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
nevolence." Thus we see, that Dr. Priestley, who for a cer
tain time was looked up to as the infallible of the English
Unitarians, is now given up as having gone too far. He, like
a true " rational christian," had followed his own princi
ples fairly on to their legitimate results. He saw, that,' having
represented Christ as a mere man, like in all respects to any
other man, he could not consistently allow to him the entire do
minion over the works of nature, so as to be able, at his own
will and pleasure, to suspend and alter the laws of the material
creation. He, therefore, made our Lord the mere instrument of
the divine power, and left nothing of miracles to his own volition.
This answered the purpose of Unitarians, so long as they were
content to flourish away upon mere rational principles, as they
called them. But, so soon as their evil genius tempted them to
turn expounders of Scripture, they found that this legitimate
result of their system was no longer tenable. They found it
overwhelmingly contradicted by numerous and decisive texts. —
And not being prepared to eject these texts altogether as spuri
ous ; having discovered no early heretic, in whose copy of the
N. T. they were said to be wanting ; nor any German Theo-
logue, who had expressed a conjecture that possibly they were
not genuine ; — they were obliged to abandon Dr. Priestley,
and their own system, and to contend for a power, possessed by
a mere ordinary human being, not inferior to that which belongs
to the great Author of nature himself— the power of suspending
and altering the laws of nature.
In truth, it seems most unaccountable, how a Unitarian
could be led to so momentous an admission, as that our Lord
liable to error and prejudice with other men. But upon all subjects, it
was in his power to work miracles, in attestation of his truth and
of his knowledge. He had the power then of giving divine attestation
to human error. And against this misapplication of his miraculous
powers even the discipline of the wilderness furnishes no security ;
because that discipline is only contended for as in counteraction to
wilful abuse ; but it is of the nature of error to be unconscious of itself.
Thus the Unitarian philosophy, by its separation of knowledge from
power, would subvert the evidence of miracles, and enlist even Omni
potence itself in the possible support of falsehood.

unitarian version of the new test. 323
"HAD ALL NATURE AT HIS COMMAND." lt Will be difficult
for him, under such an admission, to escape from the monstrous
absurdity, which he charges upon the Arian, of a Greater
God and a Lesser, an absurdity on which he contrives to fasten
others not inferior, of his own manufacture ; one of which is,
that the lesser God was to exercise his universal dominion over
nature, was to possess his omnipotence, but for a limited and
short portion of time ; not much more than the space of one
year, if we are to take Mr. Belsham's account of our Lord's
ministry. (Calm Inq. p. 449.) And, what makes the whole
of this extraordinary admission of the Unitarian the more ex
traordinary, is, that it is intended for the purpose of diminishing
the rank of that Being, to whom such vast and divine power is
ascribed : the admission of this power, being, in some cases, the
only means, whereby the language of Scripture, announcing
the pre-existence of our Lord, can possibly be evaded. And
thus, for the purpose of proving, thai pre-existence is not to be
attributed to our Lord, and for the further purpose of thence in
ferring that he was not more than man, they contend for his
possessing that which makes him not less than God : they
contend, also, for his possessing this, under circumstances, which
might permit him to give the stamp of divine attestation to
human error. Upon the whole, I fear that the man of " sound
understanding " will find himself most sadly bewildered by the
clear and satisfactory explanations of Unitarian critics ; and
that he will ultimately be led to suspect, that they are creating
more mysteries * in the world of reason, than the most deter
mined orthodox had ever contended for in the world of grace.
* Dr. Young has truly pronounced of the Socinians, that they
" have been most unfortunate in the execution of their main design:
for" (he adds) "they have not purged mystery out ofthe Scripture,
they have only changed its place ; they have taken mystery out of the
doctrine of Scripture, where it was venerable, and worthy of the ma
jesty of God, and have placed it in the phrase of Scripture, where it
is opprobrious and repugnant to God's sincerity." (Sermons, vol. ii.
p. 78.) — In truth, the Socinians seem, at all times, to have had a plea
sure in making mysteries, in whatever is in its own nature unmyste-
rious, such as reason and language ; but, in that, which must be

324 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
Although the remarks upon the Unitarian treatment of this
text have aheady run to a length far beyond what to many may
appear requisite ; yet I cannot refuse a word or two to the same
subject, as connected with the Unitarian exposition of the cor
responding passage in Philipp. ii. 6. " Being in the form of
God," is there represented, as " being rich " was here, the " being
invested with miraculous power ; " (7. V. and Calm Inq. p.
143.) and eavriy Ixitae-c in that place is, like sWs^evo-e in this,
the " divesting himself of " that form of God, i. e. of those mi^
raculous powers, in which that form consisted. (Ibid.) That
is, say the I. V. and Mr- Belsham, Christ " did not absolutely
relinquish his miraculous powers, but submitted to indignity and
crucifixion, as though he were destitute of power to help him
self :" or, as Mr. B. states it, " when the purposes of his mission
required it, he conducted himself as though he were totally des
titute of all supernatural gifts." These writers, it is to be ob
served, have been most careful to inform us, that the expression
in this text is extremely strong — he " emptied himself" — " he
exhausted himself, parted with all without retaining any
thing" — "he divested himself of every thing that is
intended by the form and likeness of God." (See Calm
Inq. pp. 138. 139.) But, at the same time, we are taught to
recollect, that our Lord did not absolutely relinquish that, of
which he had thus totally emptied, and exhausted, and
divested himself. The man of "sound understanding" is
informed, that, although the Apostle has declared, that our Lord
had divested himself of certain powers, he only appeared as
though he had done so ; but that, in reality, he had not divest
ed himself of any, but possessed them secretly all the while :
just as before, he seemed as though he was poor, at the very
time when he possessed an unknown hoard of riches. Thus
our Lord most miraculously appears to have been really invest
ed with, and really divested of, the same powers, at one and

mysterious to man, as being placed beyond fys comprehension, namely
the divine nature, they will not allow any mystery, not even on the
testimony of God himself.

unitarian version of the new test. 325
the same moment of time. " While he was poor he was
rich," both I. V. and Mr. Belsham chant forth here again as
clearing up all, (I. V. p. 455. Calm Inq. p. 139.)
Moreover, these critics take prodigious pains to satisfy us, that
this "form of God " had nothing to do with an internal nature
or essence : but simply consisted in an external appearance, a
resemblance. This resemblance, also, they apprize us consist
ed in the exercise of miraculous powers. What then follows ?
Our Lord, in not exercising those miraculous powers, divested
himself of that resemblance ; but at the same time continuing
in the form of God, he still retained that resemblance : so that,
during the time in which he continued to bear a resemblance to
God, he was all along destitute of any such resemblance. Mep-
<pi, the form, signifies only quod in oculos incurrit, an ap
pearance to the sight : — this Mr. Belsham adopts from Gro
tius and others ; and enlarges upon it, (Calm Inq. p. 132.) and,
then, we are told by him and his brother Editors, that the true
construction of the passage in Philippians is, that this appear
ance was to continue, whilst nothing appeared. This, again,
is prepared for the man of " sound understanding " to swallow
as he can. On this text Mr. Belsham has expended seventeen
close and heavy pages : and, after great labour both of Meta
physics and Philology (such Metaphysics and such Philology as
fall to the lot of a certain tribe of writers,) he has brought the
whole matter to this single point.
On the text itself, it will be observed, I have offered no remark
tending to enforce its true interpretation. This, had it even
fallen within my plan, would have been altogether superfluous.
The ample consideration bestowed upon this important passage,
by Commentators of the greatest ability and learning, has long
ago placed it beyond the reach of Socinian criticism ; and has
established, on such grounds as cannot be shaken, its direct an
nouncement of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord :
and, as for the absurd attempts of modern Unitarians to disturb
the true application of the text, these have been so recently and
so ably exposed by Dr. Nares and Bishop Burgess (to whom
no reply has yet been attempted,) that any further observation
upon them must be useless. Simply to state the result of their

326

supplementary remarks on the

own exposition and their own arguments, I have deemed suffi
cient for their refutation. This, indeed, will be found, generally,
to be the case, with respect to these Critics. And, in truth, with
regard to the text before us especially, were it desired to confirm
any one, who had doubts as to its genuine import, a better plan
could not be devised, than to induce him (if he really were a
person of " sound understanding,") to peruse the Unitarian ar
guments against it, especially as they are detailed by Mr. Bel
sham ; who winds up the most incoherent and self-contradic
tory jumble, that ever passed under the name of criticism, with
an assertion, (which, surely, can be viewed in no other light than
as a jocular experiment upon his reader,) — that this "is one of
those passages, of which no use can be made in deciding the
controversy," concerning the divinity of Christ. Literce non
erubescunt, is an old saying. There are things which a man
may write, which he could not easily command countenance to
say. The reader, however, will not fail to recollect, that this is one
of the most important passages, throughout the New Testa-
merit, on the question of our Lord's divinity. He will not fail
to recollect also, that the text in 2 Corinthians, which forms the
subject of the present Number, is, by universal consent, identi
fied with this passage in its import ; and that the fate of each
is, particularly by the Unitarians, conceived to be involved in
that of the other. And he will, above all, not fail to recollect,
that, in a text of such unquestionable moment in the controversy
with Unitarians, the Editors of the Imp. Vers, have departed
from Archbishop Newcome' s translation, in a laboured form of
phrase, which, as they think (and struggle at much length to
prove,) excludes the idea of pre-existence ; and that, of this
departure, they have not thought it necessary to give the slight
est notice.
We come now to Number VI. in which we find not only a
total departure from the Primate's translation, but an actual
fabrication of Scripture. For the comparison of the two ver
sions, I refer the reader to page 201. of this volume. The first
clause in the Imp. Vers, is, as we have there quoted, " See
that ye refuse not God who speaketh ; " whilst the Primate

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 327
renders it, " See that ye refuse not him who speaketh." The
Greek is, BAe5T£Tf, ft* 7rctpetiT!)<rt)Ftf rev \xhevtr». Now, the first
thing to be observed here is, that, neither in Newcome 's transla
tion, nor in the Greek, does the word " god" occur. Griesbach
does not notice a single MS. or Version that contains the word
" god," or that makes the slightest alteration in the Greek text
here given, with the unimportant exception of the addition of
the word iput after xeexeutra. in one or two MSS. and Versions.
Griesbach and Newcome are the two great standards, to which
the Editors profess to adhere. Yet here they depart from
both : and arbitrarily introduce the word " god ; " which is not
only not to be found in either, but which is not even pretended
to have place, in any one of the MSS., Versions, or Fathers,
known to be in existence. Toy a*ao?vt«, (simply him that
speaketh; "loquentem," as the Vulgate has it; or, as old
Wiclif, "the speker,") is the only reading of the passage.
So that, here, there is a direct fabrication of the word " god,"
and a gross imposition upon the reader.
To say, that the word has been introduced because the Uni
tarians conceive God to have been intended as the speaker, is
merely to say, that, whatever Unitarians choose to consider as
the meaning, should be substituted for the language, and intro
duced into the textj of Scripture : in a word, that the comment
of the lowest and most illiterate order of Socinians, shall be taken
as forming a part of the original of the New Testament. This
transcends Popery itself. The Council of Trent only decreed,
that the Comment, imposed by the Church of Rome, should
be received, as giving the meaning of Scripture. But tne
Council of Essex Street ordains that the Comment, imposed
by the Church which denies Christ, shall be received as part
of Scripture itself. — That the word is printed in Italics, is but a
poor evasion. The common and uninformed reader, on whom
alone these writers can hope to produce an effect ; the unlearned
man " of sound understanding," whom they select as the proper
arbiter of their criticisms ; but little attends to, and is for the
most part ignorant of this distinction. And that these Unitarian
Editors designed, by the introduction of this word into the text,
something more than the mere declaration of their opinion^

328 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
that it was God who was intended, is evident ; because the
whole of this purpose would have been completely answered by
the statement of that opinion in the Note. Let it for a moment
be supposed, that the Received Version, instead of reading,
" him who speakethj" had substituted " Christ in his divine
nature" for the word " him ; " would the Unitarians conceive,
that King James's translators had dealt fairly with the public ?
Would they not, on the contrary, clamour loudly against this, as
a dishonest attempt to impose the Trinitarian comments as the
text of Scripture ? Would there be any end to the outcry, which
on this ground would be raised against "interested priests ;"
— against " men engaged to defend an established system' —
" the profession of which is paid for out of the public purse,"
-^and "who are, from that very circumstance, engaged to
discourage inquiry and to oppose truth : " and to whom, as we
are told, "truth must necessarily be the object of
aversion and aehorrence ? " Yet this, which would be
so heinous in a Trinitarian Clergy, is precisely what has been
done by their Socinian opponents and calumniators ; who have
(vainly) endeavoured to exclude the idea of Christ, by the un
warrantable introduction of the word " God " into the text.
When they subjoin in a note, -that it is " evident that God
is the speaker intended ; " it may fairly be asked, why then they
did not trust the passage to this evidence 7 If the reader must
have understood god, by " him that speaketh ; " why not leave
the text in its true state to announce its own indubitable
meaning ? Why fabricate a text, to sustain a truth, that must
of itself manifestly shine forth ? The reader will easily sup
ply the answer. The fact is, they plainly saw, that the text,
as it stands, must unavoidably lead the mind to christ, as
the speaker. They saw more : they saw, that it not only in
troduces christ, as the speaker now; but as the speaker be
fore, both in giving the law and in uttering oracles
through the prophets of the old dispensation.
They saw, in truth, that not only the pre-existence, but the
divinity of christ, was obviously deducible from this passage ;,
and that thus, although god indeed was spoken of, it was in a
sense directly opposite to theirs, being god in christ : and

unitarian version of the new test. 329
therefore, they, very prudently, and with the wisdom belonging
to their generation, have made the requisite alteration in the
text.* Thus it is, that the Unitarian, finding that Scripture, as

* We see how this passage in Hebrews is disposed of. — Christ is not
here specifically named. His being clearly pointed out in the context,
signifies nothing. His being so clearly pointed out, that, if the passage
were left to itself, every reader must at once discern the reference, —
produces on the Editors no other effect, than that of deciding them to
guard against such reference, by introducing the word " God " into
the sentence, and thereby overturning the force of the context. It is
enough for these critics, to have it in their power to say, that Christ is
not actually named ; and therefore Christ cannot be meant ; and
therefore the word " God " may be introduced into the text. Well
then, let us go now to another passage, in which Christ is expressly
named ; and where, as in the passage before us, he is described as
personally employed under the old dispensation, being specially •desig
nated as the Jehovah who was tempted by the Israelites in the wilder
ness. See 1 Cor. x. 9. " Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them
also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents." The Greek in all the
received copies, and as it is admitted also by Griesbach, stands thus :
MnJe ex7rttpd£auLet rey Xpte-rov, xzfas xa) rives edirZv e-7reiezo-&t, x-jli vjre rZv aqeejt dww-
xevro. Here, then, is christ named, and clearly pointed out as exist
ing under the Old Covenant. What is to be done now 1 Why, now
that christ is named, the word should be struck out ; and then the
text gives no support to the idea of our Lord's pre-existence. Cer
tainly ; all this is clear. But why strike it out ? Because there are
some MSS. that read ik/giov, the Lord, and there are one or two that
read ®m, God. Well, admit all th is. What follows ? Shall we take
the report of Griesbach upon the evidence ofthe MSS. and Versions?
That Critic, to whom the Editors affect at all times to appeal, and for
the Close adherence to whose corrected text, they were principally in
duced (as they assure us) to select Archbishop Newcome 's translation
as the basis of their own;— what effect do these variations of the MSS.
produce upon his judgment 1 None whatever to lead him to disturb
the. usual reading of the. text : which, on the, fullest investigation, and
after the interval even between the first and second editions of his
work allowing ample time for farther consideration, he has pronounced
to be the true one. Erasmus, also, the great favourite of the UnitaT
riaus, acknowledges " Christ" as the genuine reading, without dispute.
Locke does the same. Rosenmiiller does the same. Wolf, Mill, and
Whitby, do the same. The last of these, indeed, asserts that thecase
Vol.' 2.-42

230 supplementary remarks on the
it stands, will not sustain his system, imposes his own gloss for
the language of the inspired writer, and substitutes his system

is so clear, that " this reading ought not to be questioned." In truth
there can be no reasonable doubt which way the evidence lies as to
the true reading. And this is not disputed by the Editors themselves ;:
not even by the hottest of their disputants, the calm Inquirer. They
huddle up the matter hastily by naming a couple of MSS. that read
Kwgiov, and one that reads @m, and then at once slielter themselves un
der the arbitrary reading of the word Lord by Primate Newcome ;
who, undoubtedly, in this, as well as in the passage treated of above,
and in some other parts of his translation of the N. T., has not acquit
ted himself in the manner most creditable to him, either as a Critic, or
as a Theologian.
I must not omit to mention here, as it helps on the estimate of his
general accuracy in matters of fact, that Mr. Belsham, hy way of
Strengthening the evidence for the reading of TuApm, quotes " the Syriac
Version " in support of that reading : whereas the Syriac (that is, what
every one who understands the subject calls by that name, the ancient
Syriac, or Peshito,) reads Xpie-nt ; and it is only a later Syr iac that
gives Kvptov ; and this too, it must be observed, merely in the margin :'<
yet Mr. Belsham unqualifiedly asserts as an authority for Kvptev, that
the Syriac Version reads it. — Calwt Inq. pp. 157, 158. So much?
for precision and truth.
Well then, we have here a reading adopted by the Unitarians directly
against evidence; for the express purpose of preventing the application of
a passage te Christ, which must establish his pre-existence. It should be:
remembered, too, that even were we to admit the reading which the Uni
tarians require, nothing would be gained by them, unless they could make
it appear, that, by the- word Lord (his familiar appellation throughout the
N. T.,) Christ could not in this place have been intended. And even
could they make this appear, they would then only have removed one text,'
from the multitude of those that support the doctrine. But, on the other
hand, it is important for them to recollect, that, if the word " Christ " he
(as the MSS. and Versions pronounce) the true reading, then the Unitarian
doctrine is at an end ; for then our Lord's divinity is at once established.
If Christ was the Being, who was tempted by the Israelites in the wilder
ness, then he unavoidably becomes the Jehovah ofthe Old Testament. If
they turn to Erasmus, to whom they so frequently appeal, he will tell
them so ; for he pronounces, that, if the word airet belongs to the text, (a
word, which is not only given to it by some MSS. hut which cannot in
sense be separated from it, as we shall hereafter see,) then the divinity
6f Christ is placed beyond aH question — " decla/tatur Christi divinitas,

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 331
for Scripture. That just cause existed for the charge brought
against the Unitarians, of altering the Scriptures to suit their

quem a Judaeis tentatum dicit priusquam hominem assumeret." And, ac
cordingly, frpm this text, Whitby asserts, that the divinity of Christ was
from old times demonstratively eonfirmed. The Unitarians, then, stake
their denial of the divinity of our Lord, upon the propriety of their rejec
tion of the word " Christ " from this text, in opposition to the authorities
by which alone genuine Scripture can be ascertained : that is, they stake
their very salvation on the adoption of a reading which is against evidence.
They would persuade themselves, indeed, that, even admitting " Christ "
to be the true reading, they can still contrive a way to escape from the
conclusion in favour of his divinity, by supposing the word God introduced
into the sentence, after the clause, "as some of them also tempted." —
"Nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted" — whom? — ano
ther being not yet spoken of — God: — "as some of them also tempted
God." Here, again, we have the word god fabricated, in like manner as
we have seen it above in the passage of Hebrews. No one MS. Version
or Father reads it, or supposes it. Indeed this is not pretended. It is ad
mitted, also, that the original is against it ; inasmuch as the same person
is, agreeably to aH the ordinary principles of construction, to be understood
after the word " tempted," in the two corresponding clauses. And, ac
cordingly, the Imp. Vers, renders the sentence, "Nor let us try the Lord,
as some of them also tried him." To this conclusion we should naturally
be brought, even though the word K*!, also, had no place in the sentence :
but, with this, the meaning seems fixed beyond the reach of doubt. And,
indeed, so long as the word Kvptet or Beet is supposed to be the reading, the
true principle of interpretation receives universal assent : but let Xpie-rot
take their place, and it is £t once abandoned : all the rules of grammar,
and all the canons of construction, are, by this single change, instantly
put to flight. " If we read Xpie-rev, the sense is : nor let us tempt, &c.
Christ now; as some of them did God at that time." Thus say the Edi
tors, and ! Newcome. But let it he observed, that the word " also " has
here been very conveniently forgotten. It would have sounded rather
awkwardly, to speak of the Israelites, of that day, having also provoked
God, as the Corinthians (addressed by the Apostle) did not provoke him.
Besides, it seems Tather an odd way of keeping up the antithesis between
the Corinthian converts and the early Israelites, which is so markedly car
ried on by the writer both before and after. The Corinthians are guarded
against the same offences, (of idolatry, of fornication, and of rebellious
murmuring,) of which their fathers had been guilty in the wilderness;
and, in the midst of this enumeration, they are guarded against the tempt-

332

SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE

own system, seems plainly admitted by one of themselves, as
we have seen at page 199. of this volume ; where (with an in-

ing of a Being, different from that Being, whom their fathers had tempt
ed ; and against an offence, of course, different from that of their fathers !
But, to explain, a little more fully, the principles of translation
adopted by the Editors, let us see how the matter exactly stands, ac
cording to their showing. If the sentence be, MjkTe ixireipdga/uey rev x.6-
puv, xxBi,; x£t nve; alrZy Imipxirxy ; then, they say, the translation is, " Nor
let us try the Lord, as some of them also tried him." Or if, eS5v be sub
stituted for Kvpi.y, they admit it to be, '' Neither let us try God, as some of
them also tried him,." But if xpimoy he substituted, then it is, "Nor
let us try Christ, as some of them also tried [some other being ; for
example] God." — Wherefore god? So far as the original is concern
ed, any other Being might as well be introduced: no one MS. or read
ing of the original introduces this word after mepeie-aii ; nor is God
spoken of in the parts immediately preceding or following, so as to
admit the possibility of implication from the context. Wherefore,
then, the difference in the mode of translation ? Wherefore any other,
than the word "him.," supplied as before? Wherefore the grammar
and the construction, which are admitted (and justly and unavoidably
admitted,) where Kvptev or emv is the reading, immediately abandoned,
when Xpte-rey comes in their place? The answer is plainly and simply
this : and there can be no other : that, unless this be done, the pre-exist
ence and divinity of Christ must inevitably be conceded. Now, this
being what Mr. Belsham. and his brother Editors can never admit; it
being for the very purpose of overturning such absurd and indefensible
notions, that they have taken the trouble of engaging in the Version
which they have given to the public; of course it follows, that no
rules of construction, no principles of language, can be allowed, that
will justify such a result : aild thus this text, like others, is removed
from the support of such incomprehensible doctrines.
So the process goes on, till the Unitarian is enabled to look round
with triumph, and behold all subjected to his system. Having thus
freely applied his theology to model both the text and the sense of
Scripture ; it is strange, if the text and the sense of Scripture do not
yield support to his theology. He may, surely, with much safety de
clare, that he can " find no evidence whatever to prove " the doctrine
of Christ's pre-existence, after he has himself .defaced and purloined
that evidence wherever it existed. He may now travel from Dan to
Beersheba and cry that all is barren, after he has made it so. — For the
views of a scholar, a grammarian, and a critic, upon this verse, and upon
the grammatical necessity that exists of supplying the word «Jtw, him,

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 333
genuousness not exactly characteristic of the Sect,) the writer
confesses, and regrets, that they have followed " no standard

I refer the reader to the joint authority of Glassius and Dathe, Philol.
Sacr. i. pp. 172,173.
I must add yet a few remarks more on the Unitarian management of
the reading of the text in question. It has been seen that they reject
the word xpte-rit against the evidence of the MSS. and Versions and
Fathers : and again, that, apprehensive, that the weight of evidence will
overbear that rejeetion, and that xpte-r'ov will still be received as the
true reading, they, on this supposition, reject x*i against the prepon
derance of MSS. and they add eeiv at the end of the second clause, with
out even pretending any authority for doing so ; but, solely, of their
own arbitrary will and pleasure. But yet more ; they do this in de
fiance of certain MSS. which actually connect the word a-lrey or ahr^
with eirapa.e-a.y, and thereby make the word him a part of the text, to
the necessary exclusion of the word which the Editors would intro
duce. Now, although the authority for the reading of the word him
as part of the text, is actually stronger than that which appears in sup
port of the word @«v in the first clause, (a reading adopted by some,
and spoken of with respect by the Editors,) yet, as its being part of
the text could not make it one iota more certain, than it already ap
pears from the construction, that it must be the same person, who is
said to have been tempted in the second clause, that the Corinthians
are warned not to tempt, in the first, Hay no stress whatever upon this
circumstance : I merely mention it, to show the complication of de
fiance to all authorities, into which the determination to exclude the
divinity of Christ, at every hazard, leads these Unitarian critics.
An assertion of Mr. Belsham, in the endeavour to support the reading
of Kiptev instead of Xpia-rev, should not be passed over. He says, with
out qualification, "Irenmus certainly read Kti/uov, Lord." (Calm Inq.
p. 157.) Now in this Mr. Belsham is peremptorily opposed, not only by
Mill and Whitby, but also by Griesbach. This, it is to be observed, is
the third point on which he has been at variance with Griesbach, on
the single reading of Kvpuy. 1st, as to the resulting support of this reading
by the MSS. and Versions generally : 2dly, as to its being the reading
of the Syriac Version: and 3dly, as to its being the reading of Irenaius.
In all these points the Calm Inquirer is not only egregiously wrong, but at
direct variance with Griesbach. Now, with respect to Griesbach, it is
full time to ask, whether this great Editor, the correctness of whose esti
mate of the readings of the Greek Testament has for many years, been
the subject of overflowing panegyric, and unqualified admiration with
Unitarians, and the appearance of whose volumes is judged by them to

334 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
text" whatever; that is, in other words, that they have modi
fied the text of the N. T. just as they found it answerable to

have formed such an era in Biblical criticism, as to render it the fit time
to produce a Version of the N. T. which might justly be called the " Im
proved Version ;" — Whether, I say, this great Editor is, after all, not to
be relied upon in his report of the readings of the MSS. and Versions and
Fathers ; and this, also, in a text so important as to be, in itself, decisive
of our Lord's Divinity'? — It is not, however, an easy matter to satisfy
Unitarians in the readings of Scripture. It is rather difficult to hit their
taste in this respect. And, in truth, now that they have completed an
Improved Version to their own satisfaction, the only thing wanted is, that
they should supply a Greek text, which shall correspond with their Version.
What they have done is sufficient for the man of. " sound understanding,"
whose knowledge does not extend beyond the language of the translation :
what remains to be done is requisite for those who, to an acquaintance with
the Greek, may, in judging of the translation, associate the strange fancy
to know what is contained in the original. That original, it is manifest
(I mean an original for their translation,) is not supplied by Griesbach.
And indeed it is quite time for them to give him up.
But, it is not merely with Griesbach that the Unitarians are getting out
of humour. Even their fast friend Marcion they have fallen foul of, on
this, and some other texts. Mr. Belsham reports, from Epiphanius, that
Marcion introduced the false reading of Christ, into this text, in place of
Kvpioy, Lord. And this same Marcion, both he and the I. V. likewise
charge (on the authority of Tertullian) with having introduced the false
reading of Kvptev into the text of 1 Cor. xv. 47. : which text will be treated
of in the ensuing note. (See Calm Inq. pp. 158. 120. and /. V. p. 403.)
It would seem as if this purloining heretic was influenced by a spirit of re
tribution ; the word, which he is said to have stolen from one part of the
Epistle, being replaced by him in another. But with respect to this Mar
cion, it must be remembered that this is the very same Marcion, on whose
authority the Calm Inquirer and his brother Editors have peremptorily
rejected the first two chapters of St. Luke, in opposition to all the MSS.,
the Versions, and the Fathers ; the same Marcion, whom the Editors see
no reason not to consider, " as a man of learning and integrity ; " (I. V.
p. 120.) the same Marcion, of whom Mr. Belsham professes himself dis
posed to think very favourably, more especially as being a brother heretic ;
and in the behalf of whom he expresses the strongest indignation against
Tertullian and Epiphanius, for the charges they have brought against
him, of corrupting the Scriptures : alleging, that these Fathers, in this and
the other charges which they have advanced to vilify the character of
Marcion, have but indulged the true spirit of orthodoxy ; which he char-

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 335
their purpose. It is not, however, wonderful, that they have
done so. They have been driven to it by the necessity of the

acterises as a spirit of calumny and malignity, the same in all ages of the
world. (Lett, on Arian. p. 72. and Answer to the Brief Mem. pp. 115,
116.) Yet this very Marcion, whose integrity as a witness of the un
corrupted Gospel of St. Luke is thus rescued from the calumnies of those
Orthodox libellers, Tertullian and Epiphanius, is here charged with adul
terating \he Epistle of St. Paul, in the two passages referred to : and this,
upon the authority of those very libellers, to whom, we have been told, we
ought to yield no credit. Such is the honest consistency of these worthy
Unitarians (to whom "truth" is supposed not to be "the object of
aversion and abhorrence ") on every point, on which it seems prac
ticable to filch away some portion of the evidence for the divinity of
Christ. Were we now to ask these new libellers of Marcion, in what manner
his corruptions of these passages could have passed into the-copies of the
Orthodox ; who must, as we are informed, have viewed him with such
malignity ; and by whom we know that both he and and his followers were
strenuously opposed, and his copies of the N. T. attacked as spurious
(Mill. Proleg. p. 36.)— ' they would not find it very easy to give an an
swer. It is remarkable, that Mr. Lindsey has made a. long quotation from Mill,
for the purpose of supporting, by his authority, the supposition that Mar
tian's corruption of one of these texts, 1 Cor. xv. 47., had crept into the
Greek copies of this Epistle : at the same time that Mill has expressly
retracted his error as to that supposition, and has argued, as above referred
to, in defence of its direct contradiction : and yet more, that even in the
very note from which Mr. Lindsey has taken his quotation, and in a part
immediately following it, this change of opinion is declared, and the desire
that it should be particularly noticed distinctly set forth, — " indicta esse
jubet." — and the very place also pointed out, in which the reasons for the
change are assigned. Yet Mr. Lindsey has abided by the disowned
opinion ; has omitted all notice of the retraction ; and has left upon record,
as the true and deliberate opinion of Mill, that which Mill has declared and
proved to be erroneous. See Lindsey' s Sequel, p. 267. and Mill, p. 398.
Proleg. pp. 36. 140. What are the peculiar qualities of the Socinian
apostasy, that can work such effects upon the mind of suoh a man as we
af" e told Mr. Lindsey was !
Again, to drop all further consideration of this absurd notion of Mar
cion' s corruptions having passed into our present copies, and spread through
the Versions and Fathers, let us examine in what way the word Xpta-riv
(in the passage with which we are immediately concerned) could have

336 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
case. For, not only was there to be found no existing transla
tion, which does not directly war with their system ; but there

slid into the place of YLvpiet, or &eh, in the ancient MSS. What error of
transcribing can we imagine to have produced such an effect 1 Here, in
deed, we have an instance of the length, to which certain Commentators,
who are in the habit of taking liberties with the sacred text, will be car
ried in the support of an hypothesis. On the authority of a single manu
script, (on the reading of which MS. also there is thrown a suspicion by
Wetstein, which is not rejected by Griesbach,) Grotius, and, after him,
Wakefield, (adding his mite of a single Version, and that the Ethiopic,
which the Unitarians themselves have condemned him for rating too
highly,) have adopted the reading of Qeev for Xpte-rev -. and have done so
on the supposition, that, in the abbreviated mode of writing, the one word
was mistaken by the transcriber for the other ; xn for ©N. Now, it is
singular enough, that, when the accidental transition from ©U to OC has
been contended for, as an admissible supposition, in the text in 1 Tim, iii.
16., where also numerous MSS. and other authorities actually exhibit the
former ofthe two words, at this very day ; and where (as far as the MSS.
are concerned) the mere wearing out of the two straight lines would (in
dependently of the errors of transcribing) effect the change, of which
indeed we seem to have satisfactory evidence from the fact itself as to the
Alexandrian; — this supposition is, at once, rejected by a certain class of
critics ; whilst, in the case before us, where the form of X is to pass into
that of 0, the transition is considered as not unlikely. The cases, however,
it must be admitted, differ in one material respect. The one supposition
is in favour of the orthodox doctrine : and the other not. And whatever
favours the Orthodox deserves no quarter. I speak not here, merely in
reference to the insane and vulgar rant, in which such writers as the Calm
Inquirer never fail to indulge, against whatever bears the name of Ortho
dox, (see pp. 200. 210, &c.) but I allude even to one of the grave and
deliberate canons of criticism laid down by Griesbach, in his Prolegomena,
(p. lxvi.) where he pronounces, that, "amongst different readings ofthe
text, that one is to be suspected, which most favours the opinions of the
Orthodox." From which, at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever
readings, in favour of the Orthodox opinion, may have had his sanction,
have not been preferred by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy.
This is a very material observation ; and it serves at the same time to as
sign a cause for the extravagance of Unitarian panegyric which has been
bestowed upon this writer, and to confer a value of no small amount upon
his concessions to Orthodoxy.
To return to the subject of the change pretended to be made in the
reading of the text before us,— I recommend to the reader the follow-

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 337
was no Greek text, to be discovered, from which, by any thing
that could (even by them) be called a translation, they could

ing observations of Mill : — " Quasi vero proclive fuerit librariis x scri-
bere pro ©: aut lectionem qualis ilia Kvptot aut eeev commodam, mutare
in duriorem hanc, et ad quam impegerintlectores, Xpta-ret. Certe, cum
Editis congruant non solum Iren^us," (certainly not, says Mr. Bel
sham,) " Theodotus in Wtrefteiis, ac Scriptores Gr. Lat. complures ; sed
et Exemplaria MSS. universim, et quidem Clar. Gr. Lat. Ger. Gr. Lat.
quique Marcionis tempora pracessisse videtur Interpres Vulgatus;
omnino crediderim ab Apbstolo ipso scriptum Xpte-rat : mutatum autem
hoc in @eet, ab audaculo quodam studioso, cui minus verum, si placet,
quod ex recepta lectione dicitur, Israelitas tentasse christum in
deserto." This last clause very truly expresses the state of the case.
The more than " audaculi studiosi," with whom we are concerned, not
being able to reconcile themselves to the idea, that Christ had been
actually tempted by the Israelites in the wilderness, have therefore
presumed, that " Christ" cannot have been the word used by the
Apostle: and, on the strength of this presumption, insist on substitut
ing for it, even against evidence, Beet or YLvpm. For the former of these
two words very few, indeed, have ventured to contend : and, by the
latter, which the Editors would force upon us, not much (as has been
already observed) is gained to their cause, unless they *can make it
appear, that, by " the Lord," Christ is not here intended. — On the
application of this title K6pns, the Lord, to Christ, by the writers of
the N. T. ; I would particularly recommend to the reader the admira
ble remarks of Pearson, in his Exposition, pp. 145 — 150. I would
request of him, also, to observe the great number of instances in which,
not only throughout the N. T. at large, but specially in this very chap
ter of 1 Corinthians, Christ is emphatically designated by this title.
It is of importance likewise (and particularly on the present occasion)
to recollect, that this title of ktpios, by which Jesus Christ is so con
stantly named in the New Testament, is the Greek word employed by
the Jews as equivalent to Jehovah in the Old ; and that by this very
name of " Jehovah," it is declared by the prophet Jeremiah, (xxiii. 6.)
that Christ was to be called) as, indeed, we find it admitted by the Jew
ish writers themselves, who derive from this text the proof that Jeho
vah was to be the true name of the Messiah. I allude to this passage
of Jeremiah the more willingly, because it gives me an opportunity of
stating that the attempts, which have been recently made by Dr. Car
penter afad Mr. Belsham to escape from the force and application of
the prophet's language, have been counteracted and chastised so com-
Vol. 2.-43

338 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
derive it. They have been, therefore, compelled, not only to
invent (I must term it,) a new translation for the text, but also

pletely by the successive publications of Dr. Nares and Bishop Bur
gess, that scarcely any thing farther can be desired Upon this subject.
See Dr. Nares's Remarks, $c. pp. 46 — 51. 2d ed. and The Bible, §c.
pp. 96. 103. The latter, in particular, seems almost to exhaust the
subject. I am here, however, obliged to protest against the position of a
learned Professor, in one of the English Universities, who has lately
affirmed, in his Lectures, that " in the Septuagint the word Jehovah is
never expressed by eik, but uniformly by Kvptos. That this position
is directly contradicted by the fact, is so notorious, that it is quite
inconceivable how the learned Professor could have been led to make
it : nor, indeed, should I have thought it necessary to observe upon this
mistake, if it were not connected with an argument, whose bearing is
too important to suffer it to pass unnoticed. The word Jehovah, the
Professor says, being considered by the Jews as a word too sacred for
human utterance ; whenever they met with this word in the Bible,
they read for it another word expressive not of God, but of Lord: and
hence he accounts for the peculiarity of the Septuagint translation
alleged in his position. And thus, in truth, whilst the Professor has
stated in words, that " Jehovah " is always expressed in the Septua
gint by Kvpies, he evinces, by his argument, that he means to say, that
the name "Jehovah" is never so expressed; since it is not "Jeho
vah," but another word implying Lord, (hy which he must mean
^l&fc)) that was rendered by the word Kvptes in the LXX. But the
argument of the learned Professor, I cannot avoid saying, has as little
foundation in reason, as the result which he derives from it has in fact-
To give the argument any force, the Seventy must be supposed to have
translated, not from a written copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, but from
hearing them read : or it must be contended, that not only the Tetra-
grammaton itself was deemed a word too sacred for human utterance,
but that its translation into any other language was deemed not merely
too sacred to be uttered, but even to be written ; a degree of sacred-
ness not attached even to the original word itself. Neither of these
suppositions can be maintained. The argument used by the Professor
had been formerly advanced by Crellius against the Divinity of Christ,
and has been most triumphantly confuted by Pearson, who has clearly
shown that the hypothesis which lies at the foundation of the whole is
a mere vulgar error. It is, indeed, a matter of regret, that the autho
rity of the Professor's name should afford any colour for the revival

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 339
to invent a new text for the translation. Their plan, in a word,
has been, first to shape the Scripture according to their theory ;

of this Socinian cavil. But whilst, in truth, no name can sustain it, it
is fortunate, that the principle of its immediate refutation is found in
the very position laid down by the Professor himself. For, had the
LXX been really governed by the rule which has been prescribed to
them, the word jehovah would have been (as the Professor has
alleged it to be) uniformly expressed by Kvpms, and never by eek. But
as the fact is otherwise, and jehovah is not uniformly expressed by
TLvpus, but sometimes by eas, it follows, that the LXX were not governed
by this rule.
It is indeed true, that Kvptes is the word by which jehovah is generally
rendered in the Septuagint ; so generally, that it is not wonderful, that,
from want of proper attention, its universality should be actually inferred.
And, from this results the fair and natural conclusion, which we have
already contended for, that the Jews, when using the Greek language,
would consider the word Kvptes as equivalent to jehovah. And, indeed,
whoever wishes to see how peculiarly this word was, in its primary sense,
adapted to convey the force of the Hebrew term, will receive the fullest
satisfaction from Pearson's observations, at p. 147. of his Exposition.
How differently from that profound thinker and learned writer do the light
and airy critics of the Imp. Vers, treat this word, which was so habitually
employed, in Jewish acceptation, as the name of the great Jehovah ! In
their modern and jaunty phrase, it is, in many cases, disguised under the
unmeaning appellation of Sir, or Master ; and might nearly as well, so
far as the conveyance of its true and original import is concerned, have
been translated Esquire. For the true value of this word, as applied to
Christ by the Fathers, the reader may consult Suicer. Thes. Eccl. ii.
193. &c.
We have seen, in this note, no small variety in the exercises of Unita
rian ingenuity, for the convenient modification of the text in question.
First, the word "christ" must be rejected from the text, and the word
"lord" substituted in its place. Secondly, if "Christ" must be re--
tained, then, to do away the effect of this, the word " also " must be struck
out, and the word " God" must be supplied, from the translator's own
sovereign pleasure. And, lastly, to guard against such an application of
the title lord, either here or elsewhere, as might intimate the divinity of
Christ, they are careful, every where, to break the connexion between this
word and the sacred name of jehovah, and to reduce it, on all occasions,
to the insignificancy of the most ordinary appellative. But a contrivance
not less extravagant than any of these remains to be noticed. It is the
invention of a Mr. Simpson, communicated in a work which he has entitled

340 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
and then to establish their theory, by the Scripture. In truth,
it is scarcely possible for any person who has not submitted to

Essays on the Language of Scripture ; and which, from, the specimen
produced, I rejoice that I have never seen. The contrivance is neither
more nor less than this : — to turn " Christ " into Moses, and, at the same
time, to let the word stand also for the Messiah. " ' Nor let us try the
Anointed,' i. e. the Messiah (Acts x. 38.) ' as some of them also tried the
Anointed,' i. e. Moses." The word" Christ," then, we see, denotes both
Jesus and Moses : and, consequently, the whole difficulty, arising from the
supposition, that it was the same Christ who had been tempted by the
Israelites, that might now be tempted by the Corinthians, is entirely done
away. After this, what is there that words may not mean, in the voca
bulary of a Unitarian Commentator? This, too, it must be noticed, is
mentioned with much approbation by Dr. Carpenter, who quotes it, and
other matter equally precious, from the same writer, at p. 229. of Unit, the
Doct. &c And, as this publication of Dr. Carpenter is (I apprehend)
the latest of the Unitarian productions that treat of this part of Scripture,
we have reason to consider this as their latest and most recognised expo
sition of the text. However, the very extravagance of this, their last
approved interpretation, carries with it the concession of the two points
contended for in this note : namely, that " Christ " is the true reading of
the text, and that the same word " Christ " is to be applied to the verb
" tempted " in the two corresponding clauses. As to this one word de
noting, in these clauses,, two different persons, that is the concern of those
who defend this solution. The more untenable it is, the more manifest
the cogency of the admissions that have compelled it.
To sum up the whole, I shall now subjoin the Greek text, as it stands
with the unanimous consent of the printed copies (Griesbaah of course
included,) and the several translations of the passage, as they are given
in the Received Version and by the Unitarians.
MflcTe \x7reipa^a)[A.ev rev Xpia-roy, xstfiwf xa} rives abrZy e7rilpa.o-a.y.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted. Pec. Vers.
Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them also tried him. Imp. Vers.
Nor let us try Christ now, as some of them tried God at that time.
Imp. Vers. note.
Nor let us try the Anointed (the Messiah,) as some of them also tried
the Anointed (Moses.) Mr. Simpson, as quotedby Dr. Carpenter.
By which of these Versions the reader is honestly treated, with regard
to the original, he may judge for himself. — For the most valuable remarks,
both on the reading and true interpretation of this important text, I refer
the reader to Cameron, whom I have often found strong reasons to re
commend, as a judicious Commentator. (See Crit. Sac. vii. pp. 2992,

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 341
the odious labour of examining for himself (an odious labour /
can truly aver it to be,) to form an adequate idea, of the mode
in which the Sacred Word has been abused and falsified,
throughout the version (or it should rather be entitled perver
sion) of the New Testament by the Unitarians. Examples
abound, of a nature similar to that which has been just adduced :
and many of a quality yet more insidious and dishonest.
But the point with which we are at present more immediately
concerned is not so much the departure from the Primate, or
Griesbach, or from the MSS. Versions and Fathers, nor yet the
imposition of a false text, as the departure from the Primate,
without acknowledgment. It must, indeed, be admitted,
that, with respect to the clause hitherto considered, the Editors
are not chargeable on .this head : for, in their note, they confess,
that, both in the Greek and Newcome, the reading is, " See
that ye refuse not him who speaketh." But they take care to
acknowledge nothing more. They give not the slightest in-

2993.) Wolf also deserves to be consulted. Cur. Phil: in locum.
Diodati's translation is, as usual, correct ; and, on the word " Christ,"
supplies this pointed marginal illustration, "Ilquale e quell' angelo, che
andava col popolo ; ehiamato cosi per lo suo officio ; e signore iddio, per
la sua natura." — Doddridge, also, is well deserving of notice. He adds
to a good explanation of the original, " This is a considerable text in proof
of Christ's residence with the Church in the wilderness, as the angel of
God's presence." — On the " rock that followed " the Israelites, being called
" Christ," in a verse preceding this one and treating on the same general
subject, it may be worth while to remark, that Grotius uses the following
words: — "Deus *n2J in Veteri Test. Christus in Novo." This, with
good reason. The same rock, which Jehovah is called in the O. T., our
Lord Jesus Christ is justly called in the New. But, the remark, it is to be
remembered, is Grotius' s. I mention this for the satisfaction of Unita
rians. — Indeed, considering that they wish much to represent him as a
fellow-labourer, they are obliged very often to quarrel with him. When,
in following on the resemblance between the rock in the Wilderness and
Christ, he is led to make the following observations : — " Christus ad mor
tem percussus spiritum suis obtinuit :" and " Christus per spiritum nobis-
cum est ad finem sasculi :" he is pretty smartly rebuked by Mr. Lindsey,
who professes himself dissatisfied with his too refined and unwarranted
allusions. (Sequel, &c. p. 260.) But it was more than the refinement of
the allusion, that here displeased Mr. Lindsey.

342 supplementary remarks on the
timation of their studied variations from the Primate, in the suc
ceeding clauses of the verse, devised for the purpose of adjusting
its several parts to that application of the passage, which their
hypothesis requires, and which is precisely contradictory to that
of Newcome. How laboriously and carefully this is done, may
be seen on looking to the two contrasted renderings at page 201.
of this volume. It should also be particularly observed, that,
in their note, the Editors enter into an argument, for the pur
pose of showing that Christ is not the object of reference in this
passage ; and yet they never once let fall the most remote hint,
that the Primate has so translated it, as to lead to a directly op
posite conclusion ; much less, that he has drawn out that conclu
sion in a note, the sole purpose of which is to mark to the reader's
attention, that our Lord is here alluded to by the writer, as " the
Angel of the Covenant, who presided at giving the Law."
The notice which they have taken of the Primate's rendering
of the first clause does not (it should be remembered) neces
sarily convey any idea of a difference between him and them
on the main subject and true sense of the entire passage : since,
under the words, " him who speaketh," the Primate might
possibly have understood god, although he might not think it
right to introduce it into the text. And as the Editors inform
us, that, by these words, god must evidently have been intended,
and, at the same time, acknowledge no other difference than
the mere use of these words in the Primate's translation, they
have, in truth, given the reader to understand that there is no
other ; although, both in the text and notes, he and they are
diametrically opposed : his version of this passage involving in
it a direct declaration ofthe pre-existence of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and of his heavenly origin ; * whilst theirs excludes,

* I had conceived that, in Number III. (pp.241 — 256.) I had noticed the
principal evasions and glosses, by which the Unitarians have struggled
(although with little effect) to escape from- the admission of our Lord's
heavenly origin and pre-existence. These, however, it is not easy to ex
haust. Another, and of very important bearing, is to be found, in their
treatment ofthe passage in 1 Cor. xv. 47. The Greek of this text runs
thus, "O Ttpiires Txthpeares c* yis yeixes' i Sivripes avSpanres e xvpets ȣ evpnyev. But

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 343
not only his pre-existence and heavenly descent, but himself
altogether, from the import of the original. In the treatment,

from the variations of MSS. Griesbachis induced to think it probable, that
the v/ora,Kvpas is not genuine, and that ebpzvev should be followed by e ovpeL
ties. The Received Version, abiding by the Greek, renders the passage,
" The first man is, ofthe earth, earthy : the second man is the Lord from
heaven." The Vulgate reads " Primus homo de terra, terrenus : secundus
homo de ccelo, coelestis:" — to which the old Version of Wiclif adheres,
" The firste man of erthe is ertheli,the secunde man of hevene is hevenli."
Whether we abide by the Greek or the Latin reading of this text, is of lit
tle consequence as to the main point, in which they perfectly agree :
namely, that the words, «* yis, express the origin of the first Adam; and
the words, «f evpxtov, express the origin of the second Adam ; that is, as
Bishop Burgess justly distinguishes, " not the origin of his mortal frame,
but the origin of him who assumed that mortal frame. Whether the word
xiptes be expressed or not, is a matter of little moment (and its application
indeed must follow as a. consequence,) if it be admitted,, that the second
Adam came from heaven, when he first appeared upon this earth. The
Unitarians, accordingly, to avoid a confession so completely ruinous to
their cause, render the passage thus : " The first man was from the ground,
earthy: the second man will be from heaven [heavenly."] Now, here, we
have a change of tense, which not only has no foundation in either the
Greek or the Latin text, but is in direct opposition to both ; since in both
the perfect sameness of the corresponding clauses obviously determines
the sameness ofthe tense. The total inadmissibility of this arbitrary ren
dering of the Unitarians, and the grossness of their endeavour to pervert
the sense of Scripture in this important passage, have been already so
triumphantly exposed by Bishop Burgess, that it is unnecessary for me to
add any thing farther upon these subjects. I shall, therefore, confine my
self, simply, to the mode in which it has been attempted to sustain the Uni
tarian version ofthe passage by Mr. Belsham ; whose special office it is
(as we have already had frequent occasion to observe) to vamp the flimsy
criticisms of the Imp. Vers, with the equally flimsy material of the Calm
Inquiry. The grand point to be established for the Unitarians, is, as we have seen,
the use of the future, in the second clause of the text : — "the second man
will be from heaven :" — for, if we read " was from heaven," actum est !
it is all over with the Unitarians ; inasmuch as, in this passage, the origin
ofthe being, without any possible pretence as to the doctrines, is unequivo
cally the subject. How does Mr. Belsham proceed ? Having made a
good deal of flourish, as the I. V. had also done before him, about the words
xiput and ebpivtet ; having also lumped together some irrelevant matter about

344 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
then, of this passage of Hebrews, we find, at the same time, a
direct fabrication of Scripture, and a gross and deliberate impo-

the Polish Socinians and Dr. Price ; and having observed somewhat upon
the interpretation of Newcome, Whitby, and Alexander ; having, in short,
appeared to say a good deal, whilst he took care to preserve a profound
silence throughout, (as the I. V. also has done,) respecting any arguments
in favour ofthe future tense in the second clause, — the single point on
which the entire question Tests, — he, all of a sudden, very calmly and com
posedly asserts, " The Vulgate renders the text, ' The first man was of the
earth, earthy. The second man will be from heaven, heavenly.' " (Calm
Inq. p. 121.) He then triumphantly concludes ; and all is settled. In
this manner, one text after another, of those that proclaim our Lord's pre-
existence, is extinguished by the Calm Inquirer and his Coadjutors. And
so the cause of Socinian expurgation goes forward.
Perhaps, in the annals of dishonest controversy another instance
like this is not to be found. A discussion of unimportant matter is
busily kept up ; the main point of difference, and in truth^the only one
deserving of attention, the change of tense, is passed over, as if it were
a thing not at all in dispute : the Vulgate is then quoted, in direct op
position to the truth, as reading the words " was," and " will be,"
in the two corresponding clauses : and thus, indirectly, the false ren
dering of the text by the Unitarians is sustained by a false quotation
from the Vulgate ; and by a quotation which the author, if his memory
had lasted from one page to the other, must have known to be false ;
since, in the preceding page, he had himself cited the very words of
the Vulgate : — " Primus homo de terra, terrenus : secundus homo de
ccelo, ccelestis:" — in which words, there is not only no justification of
the change from was to will be : but there is, on the contrary, as in
the original Greek, a declaration, as strong as the analogies of lan
guage will admit, that the tense employed in the first clause must pass
unchanged into the second. In a word, there is given by the Vulgate
itself a direct contradiction to the report Which is made of it by the
Calm Inquirer. The man of " sound understanding," however, whom
he addressed in English on the one page, being possibly not exactly
acquainted with what was contained in the Latin on the other, and
being consequently unaware that his author was imposing on him a
false translation, would of course be fully satisfied on the authority of
the Vulgate, (more especially, as so much had been said to leave the
general impression of uncertainty as to the true reading of the Greek
text, and the consequent opinion, that the Vulgate was the only ancient
authority to be relied on,) that in this passage could be found no proof
of our Lord's pre-existence ! What are we to think of the cause that

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST, 345
eition upon the reader, as to the Primate's translation, — And
this, too, it should he recollected, as in the other instances which

needs such support ; and what of the interests that can attract such
supporters !
As to the passage itself, having been led to notice it, I cannot forbear
recommending to the reader the admirable discussion which it receives
from Bishop Burgess, pp. 87 — 92. of The Bible, &c. The manner
in which this learned Prelate has treated the important subject to
whieh it relates is such, that I do not fear to pronounce, that any can
did reader, who will carefully examine what he has advanced, will find
in it a complete and irrefragable argument for the pre-existence and
divinity of Christ, even had Scripture not spoken elsewhere, so une*
quivocally and repeatedly, upon the subject. To the valuable remarks
which are there to be found I shall add but a few observations. On
the 45th verse of the chapter with which we are concerned,— a verse
which, the bishop justlyobserves, is " a trying passage for a Unita
rian," and on which, accordingly, the Editors of the /. V. and their
brother commentators all cautiously abstain from making any remark,
— we find the following distinction laid down by Cyril, in speaking of
the difference between the. first and second Adam, as to the nature of
that life, whieh, in this verse, is specified to belong respectively to
each. Grotius thus translates the words of that Father : " In Adam
fuit iT«nA»T»s quaedam ad vivendum, in Christo it'epyet*..'' This admira**
bly marks that inherent power of giving life, that vveZfia. gaeiroimt t$ nip
euirvres xeyee of the writer against the doctrine of Apollinarius, which
is also quoted by Grotius on Mark ii. 8. ; and which, in his note on
1 Cor. xv. 45. he describes to be (although he improperly traces its
origin) " potestas etiam aliis dandi vitam, et quidem aeternam, "^-Ex
cellent distinctions, on the subject of these verses, are given by several
of the Fathers, as quoted by Suicer. ( Thes. Eccl. i, 80, 81, 353.) The
observations of that judicious commentator Cameron, both on verse
45. and 47., deserve to be quoted. On verse 45. he says, " Opponit
Apostolus spiritum animm, deinde viventi vivifieantem ; hoc enim
majus est illo : nam qui dicit viventem, denotat actum immanentem
m aliquo ; qui vero dicit vivifieantem, non modo actum in aliquo im
manentem denotat, sed etiam emanantem et promanantem, quique in
alio recipitur." And, on the words, "O Ki/psef elpmi, in verse 47., he
says : "Sic notat Apostolus haud dubie originem Christi hominis, qui
e cozlo dicitur esse, non quod homo e ccelo ad nos descenderit, sed quod
Spiritus Sancti vi humana natura coagmentata fuit et coaptata Divinae
naturae. Sic cum quaesivjt Christus a Pharisaeis, numquid. Baplisma
Johannis esset a cazlo, non hoc voluit, num. Johannis baptisma esset
Vol, 2.-44

346 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
we have adduced, on a subject of vital bearing on the Unitarian
scheme.

e coslo delapsum, sed, an autorem habuerit ccelestem." Dr. Dod
dridge also deserves to be consulted on these two verses : and Dr.
Nares's remarks on the latter of them, in refutation of Dr. Carpenter,
are particularly worthy of observation.
I cannot forbear, also, for the satisfaction of Unitarians, who are so
desirous of claiming Mr. Locke as a favourer of their doctrines, giving
that writer's view of the passage in question. His paraphrase of the
47th, 48th, and 49th verses is as follows : — " The first man was of the
earth, made up of dust, or earthy particles : the second man is ihe
Lord from heaven. Some, who have no higher an extraction, than
barely from the earthy man, they, like him, have barely an animal
life and constitution : but those, who are regenerate, and born of the
heavenly seed, are, as he that is heavenly, spiritual and immortal.
And, as in the animal, corruptible, mortal state we were born in,
we have been like him, that was earthy ; so also shall we, who,
at the resurrection, partake of a spiritual life from Christ, be made
like him, the Lord from heaven, heavenly, i. e. live, as the spirits in
heaven do, without the need of food, or nourishment, to support it, and
without infirmities, deeay, and death, enjoying a fixed, stable, unfleet-
ing life." — Here is the succour, which Mr. Locke gives to those, who
pronounce Jesus Christ to have been a mere man : who deny, that he
can be said, in the obvious sense of the words, to have come from
Heaven ; who, in truth, deny that there is any such place as Heaven :
Who ridicule the notion of separate spirits ; and still more the idea of
their having a local or heavenly residence.
I must yet go farther, and quote from one writer more, even from
Mr. Wakefield himself. He thus renders the 47th and 48th verses :
— " The first, a man from the ground, Mas dust : the second, a man
from heaven, was heavenly. They that are earthy, are like the
Adam of the ground; and they that are heavenly, like him from
heaven." I the more willingly refer to this writer, because it affords
me the opportunity of noticing an additional act of disingenuousness,
in the Editors of the I. V., who, in their note on the 47th verse,
have adduced this author's name in such a manner, as to impress
the reader with the belief that their novel version has the support of
his^authority, whilst his translation is directly the opposite of theirs:
he reading "was" in both clauses of the verse, and admitting the
heavenly origin of Christ : whilst the whole force, or rather trick,
of their version consists in an endeavour to exclude the notion of that
heavenly^ origin, by the arbitrary introduction of the future "wt'M

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 347
The Unitarians, as they are bound to do by their system,
strenuously contend, "that there is no evidence whatever to

be." Thus, as we have before seen the Vulgate turned to dishonest
account, in that supplement to the Version entitled the Calm Inquiry,
we here find Mr. Wakefield turned to the same account, in the Version
itself. And hence it is manifest, that even Wakefield will not answer
the purposes of the modern Socinians.
Were it indeed worth the trouble, abundance of reason might be produc
ed, from a comparison of the two versions, why the Editors of the Imp.
Version did not adopt Wakefield's as the basis of theirs. Some hobbling
reasons, that cannot well he understood, are assigned by them for this de
termination, in the first page of their Introduction. But there was a pru
dence in it, of which they seem not disposed to boast. Departures from a
Bishop of the Established Church were, of course, to be expected. But
if they appeared very frequently to desert Wakefield, as not pushing his
version far enough for their objects, it might furnish too open a disclosure
of what those objects were, and thereby defeat the system of proselylism
in which they have of late years so strenuously engaged ; since all, who
possessed any moderation of judgment, must naturally be put upon their
guard against translators of the New Testament, who were obliged to
abandon even Wakefield, as not heterodox enough. On Mr. Wakefield's
translation of the 47th verse I have one observation more to make ; viz.
that he professes, in this, exactly to follow the Vulgate. I leave his trans
lation, then, to stare at Mr. Belsham's, which, has been given at page 343.
Having hitherto been employed, in this note, in adducing authorities
against the Unitarian version of 1 Cor. xv. 47., I should not deal fairly, if
I did not also bring forward one or two authorities, which I have happened
to light upon, in its behalf. The well known P. Harduin, in his Com
mentary upon this place, is of opinion, that the e k^toc 'AJfyc ofthe 45th
verse, means any man indifferently, but such as he will be after his resur
rection. — Jehnio goes yet farther. He is of opinion that even the phrase,
Kvptes l|? evpuvev, is designed to be applied to every man, after his resurrec
tion (in which state he denominates him Je-Srepes,) because he then triumphs
over death, and is immortal! — Here, surely, are flights of interpretation,
worthy even of Unitarian -wing. Here, too, not only is the future let in,
to the perfect satisfaction of the Unitarians ; but, to their equal satisfac
tion, our Lord Jesus Christ is altogether thrust out. There is a freedom,
likewise, from all ancient prejudices, which might recommend particularly
to their notice the former of these writers, who has discovered that our
Saviour and his apostles preached in Latin ; and that almost all the clas
sical productions, ascribed to the great writers of antiquity, are monkish
forgeries of the middle ages. He possesses, in a word, that towering

348 supplementary remarks on the;
prove that Christ was personally concerned in any ofthe former
dispensations of God to mankind, either to the patriarchs or to

quality of "thinking for himself," the grand characteristic by which Uni
tarians seek to' be distinguished, and which manifestly must belong to all
such as can find no others to think with them. Whether the latter has
distinguished himself by equally free exercises of his genius, I know not :
but both seem worthy to assist Unitarians in their critical researches after
truth.

In ,the preceding page, some conjectural reasons were assigned for the
phange of the original intention, formed by the Unitarians, of making
Wakefield's translation of the N. T. the basis of theirs. Many parts of
his Version, as was there hinted, it would have puzzled them much to
accommodate to their favourite scheme : and then, it being necessary to
speak in unqualified terms of the superior learning of the only scholar they
had got amongst them, and, besides, he being of that description of Critic,
who can never be wrong, but with whom all is certain and undeniable that
he affirms, it would have defeated their purpose to have employed him as
a constant fellow-labourer ; since, in that case, they could not have upheld
both him and their system. One must, necessarily, have been sacrificed to
the other. But) by their present plan, both are judiciouslypreserved. He
is called in, wherever he happens to coincide with the Editors; and theft
he comes forward, as if he bore the very Urim and Thummim on his
breast,— learned, profound, and incontrovertible, — and he is prudently for
gotten on those more numerous occasions where his appearance would be
unseasonable. One instance may be sufficient, to give an idea of the diffi
culties which the Editors would have frequently to experience, not only
in their contests with Mr. Wakefield's certainties, but in the contests
among those certainties themselves. I the more willingly advert to it,
because it brings to view another important testimony from the words of
Scripture, in support of the general doctrine maintained throughout this and
the foregoing notes, and the number to which they are annexed.
On John xii. 41., "These things said Isaiah, when he saw his Glory,"
&c. Mr. Wakefield observes, — "The proper antecedent to avred most
certainly is Jesus, he being the Predicate of the context." (Enquiry,
&c. p. 135.) — Again, " avrev must be interpreted of God, and not of Jesus"
— " the Lord — the King — Jehovah of hosts" — " is the only antecedent
to airev :' and he adds, "This appears to me undeniable." (New Test.
i. 398.) Now as that which is certain cannot well be supposed, in the
mind which perceives that certainty, to differ from that which appears to

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 349
the Jews, but that the contrary is explicitly and repeatedly as
serted in the Scriptures." (See Calm Inq. p. 458.) Agreeably

the same mind to be undeniable, it should follow, that Mr. Wakefield has
here established the identity of christ with the jehovah ofthe O. T.,
which is exactly what the orthodox maintain to be the true import of the
passage before us. This, however, cannot, for a moment, be admitted by
the Unitarian Editors ; who strain every nerve to prove, that this cannot
possibly be the meaning of the text ; and who must consequently contend,
that what Mr. Wakefield saw to be certainly true, directly denied that
which he also saw to be undeniable. It was at different times, it must,
indeed, be confessed. But then, what he saw at each time, was (in the
usual Unitarian style) " certain ;" was "undeniable." He is, indeed,
entirely their own in every thing, but as possessing some little matter of
learning; or, I should rather say, — of scholarship — On the passage just
alluded to, our Unitarian Editors have, according to custom, falsified their
authorities by a partial quotation. They have quoted Dr. Clarke upon it,
as if he exactly agreed with them ; while in the rest of his observations
upon this text (on which they are discreetly silent) he is employed in prov
ing, that Christ is here and elsewhere described in the 0. T. as appearing
and speaking in the name and person of the Father. (Script. Doct. 3d ed.
pp. 16. 109 — 112.) Mr. Belsham, indeed, goes more directly to work
than the Editors ; for he makes Dr. Clarke maintain the direct contrary
of this doctrine, which in express terms and repeatedly that writer labours
to establish. (Calm Inq. p. 223.) Mr. Lindsey had before done the same.
(Sequel, &c. pp. 353, 354.) It is of great importance, in ascertaining the
true character of these writers, to show how grossly they have misrepre
sented Dr. Clarke. I shall, therefore, beg the reader's particular attention
to a few remarks on this head ; especially, as they bear directly upon the
present subject.
They quote Dr. Clarke, for the purpose of showing that they have his
authority in saying that, from this passage of Isaiah, no argument can be
drawn in favour of Christ's personal appearance in the time of the Pro
phets ; for, that Dr. Clarke, like the Unitarians, but, " understands the
Evangelist as affirming, That the prophet saw, that is, pre&w, the
glory of Christ, as Abraham saw, i. e. presaw his day. Joh. viii. 56."
(See Calm Inq. p. 213.) — Now, to begin with the illustration,
»nd to prove how far the foreseeing of Christ's day by Abraham,
proves it to be Dr. Clarke's opinion that Christ was not seen by Abra
ham, in the plain sense of the words, take Dr. Clarke's own expressions.
" Acts vii. 2. The God of glory appeared unto our Father Abraham. —
Not that any man hath seen the Father, &c. But God appeared to Abra
ham by Christ, or Christ appeared to him in the name and person, in the

350 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
to their usual mode of proceeding, then, it becomes necessary
to disturb the true and natural meaning of each individual text

authority and representation of the Father." (Sacr. Doct. p. 47. 3d ed.)
— Thus we may be satisfied how far Dr. Clarke's use of the phr,ase, of
Abraham's foreseeing Christ's day, interfered with his belief that Christ
was- personally seen by Abraham. Whether the same writer, then, meant,
in speaking of Isaiah's foreseeing the glory of Christ's coming, to inti
mate, that Christ did not visibly appear, and exhibit his personal glory, to
the prophet, we may now reasonably judge. — But Dr. Clarke has not left
the matter depending upon any inference however obvious. He follows
up the very passage, which the Unitarians have quoted, with these words,
on which those writers have taken care to be rigidly silent. " Further ; "
(that is, in confirmation of the main point, "which he had before meant to
impress, in the very passage quoted by the Editors ; namely, that Isaiah
did, " when he saw the glory of God the Father," actually " then see the
Glory of Him, who was to come in the Glory of his Father," i. e. that he
then saw the Glory of Christ, himself: in confirmation of this, I repeat, he
sayS;) — " Further ; it is the constant doctrine of all ihe primitive writers
ofthe Church, that every appearance of God the Father in the Old Testa
ment, was Christ appearing in the name or person of the Father [ev popw
©sou] in the Form of God, as being the image of the invisible God, Col. i.
15. ; of Him whom no man hath seen at any time, Joh. i. 18.," &c. We
can now judge, whether Dr. Clarke's sentence has so happily conveyed the
sense of the Unitarians, as they have assured us it has. Or, rather, we
may now see, that they have totally and knowingly perverted its meaning,
in order that they might impose on the unsuspecting reader their own cor
ruptions of Scripture under a respectable name. The truth is, that Dr.
Clarke conceived, and very justly, that his meaning could not be mistaken
in the passage which the Editors have quoted. He had, before, on a
variety of texts, so fully explained every appearance of the glory of God,
as a real appearance of Christ, that he could not imagine that the second
sentence, in which he speaks of the prophet's being made to foresee the
glory of Christ's future coming, could overturn what (according to that
explanation so frequently repeated) he had distinctly laid down, in
the first, concerning the vision which the prophet actually had of Christ's
then present glory. And well, indeed, he might have imagined this.
His meaning could not be, and it has not been, mistaken. That is not
the charge to be brought against the Unitarian application of it. How
ever, as justice must be done to all parties, I am compelled here to state,
that, in the Animadversions by a Student, (p. S4.) the accusation, ad
vanced against the Editors, of having fabricated the second of the two
sentences which they have quoted from Dr. Clarke, is entirely unfounded.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 351
that offers this evidence ; that so it may be pronounced, that no
such evidence exists. And, in this view, the text before us un-

They have quoted the passage fairly : but they have undoubtedly turned
it to a most dishonest account,
I cannot avoid travelling a little farther with Dr. Clarke, since the Uni»
tarians have brought us upon this ground. He quotes the following
passage from Bishop Bull. " Wherever " (throughout the 0. T.) " it
was not a mere angel, but God himself, that appeared : there, according
to the unanimous opinion of all primitive antiquity, we constantly affirm,
that it was not the father, but the son." This position Dr. Clarke
adopts, and proceeds to confirm. "Thus " (he adds,) " when it is said of
Moses and the seventy Elders, Ex.xxiv. 10., that they saw the God of Is
rael, and that there was under his feet as it were a paved work, &c. it must be
understood that they saw, not the Invisible Father, but the son,
appearing in the name and person of the Father. All which is
much confirmed by St. Stephen's expression. Acts vii. 30. 32., that
the Angel of the Lord [viz. the Angel of the Covenant, the Angel of
his presence, in whom the name of God was, and by whom God
always speaks, upon which account he is styled, i Aiyes rev Biev, the
Word of God,~\ appeared to Moses in the Wilderness in a flame of fire
in a bush ; — saying, I AM the God of thy Fathers, the God of Abra
ham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," &c, (Ibid. pp. Ill,
112.) In agreement with what is here affirmed by Bishop Bull, and
Dr. Clarke, we have, accordingly, the multiplied testimonies of tlie
Fathers. We have Theophilus of Antioch, saying, that it was the
word of god, that talked with Adam in Paradise, in the person of
God. We have Irenceus, saying, that the word of god did, in his
divine and glorious character, converse with the patriarchs before
Moses, and with those under the Law, &c, ; and again, that the Scrip
ture is full of the son of god appearing— to talk with Abraham— to
instruct Noah— to seek Adam— to bring judgment on Sodom — to direct
Jacob in the way— to converse with Moses in the Bush, &c. We have
Tertullian, saying, that the word of god, which is called his son,
appeared in divers manners to the Patriarchs in the name of god(
and always spake to the prophets. And, finally, not to tire the reader
with a multitude of instances, we have Cyril of Jerusalem, saying, of
the very passage in Isaiah, of which we have been treating, " The
Father hath no man seen at any time; but He, which then ap
peared to the Prophet, was the Son." (Catech. 14.)— Now, when
I tell the reader that this is one of the passages from the Fathers,
which Dr. Clarke has cited for the purpose of confirming the justice

352 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
avoidably became a prominent object of their attention. Christ
is, here, plainly spoken of, as existing, and exercising the func-

of his own opinion, upon the text of Isaiah, he will surely be com
pletely satisfied as to the fairness of the Unitarian critics, who have
alleged Dr. Clarke's opinions and comment on this text, in support
of their views of it, whereby they endeavour to overturn every thing
which he has asserted and maintained. In examining this point, we
have seen what is the unanimous opinion of all primitive antiquity
(as Bishop Bull and Dr. Clarke express it) upon the subject of
Christ's appearance in the times of the Old Testament. The Bishop,
indeed, goes so far (and with Dr. Clarke's concurrence) as to affirm,
that "all those appearances under the Old Testament, wherein the
name Jehovah and divine honours are given to the person that appeared
(notwithstanding that perhaps he be only called an Angel,) are under
stood, by the fathers of the first ages, as belonging to the son
of god; and that "he that knows not this, is a stranger in
the writings of the fathers." (Scrip. Doctr. pp. 121. 125.)
To put Bishop Bull, and Dr. Clarke, and all antiquity, to the blush,
I shall here repeat what the Calm Inquirer, and his Unitarian fellow-
labourers of the present day, pronounce, and of course from real
knowledge of the subject : — " that there is no evidence whatever to
prove, that Christ was personally concerned in any of the former dis
pensations of God to mankind, either to the patriarchs or to the Jews ;
but that the contrary is explicitly and repeatedly asserted in ihe
Scriptures." Here is the whole of the case. Thus say the Fathers,
and the whole Christian world on the one hand. And thus say the
persons calling themselves Unitarians, on the other. — Utrum, horum
mavis. — One thing seems obviously to be inferred, that the latter do
not use the same Scriptures with the former. That is precisely what
the greater part of these volumes is intended to prove. The course
which Unitarians have pursued is whimsical enough. The Received
Scriptures, such as they have been transmitted from the Apostolic
times, not giving support to their system, it was thought right, at one
time, to try what could be collected from the Fathers, in favour of
their object ; and the writings of the Fathers were, accordingly, re
sorted to in place of Scripture, for the purpose of ascertaining certain
doctrines to be the doctrines of Scripture, although they could not be
found in the Scripture itself. Mr. Lindsey's attempts in this way
were soon baffled by Mr. Burgh and others. An able disputant suc
ceeded Mr. Lindsey, in the person of Dr. Priestley; who modelled
the argument from the Fathers into what he conceived a less vulner-

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 353
tions of Deity, in the Jewish dispensation ; and, therefore, the
sense of this passage must be undermined, and at the same
time Newcome must be forgotten. In addition to the reasons
arising from the general subject of the passage, there is one part
of the Primate's translation, that the Editors could not in con
sistency but reject — "Him who was from heaven:" this
declaration of Christ's descent from heaven, being directly
subversive of all that they and their coadjutors have most
anxiously laboured to establish. See pp. 2U1. 241 — 256. and
especially 245 — 254. of this volume : in which we have par
ticularly noticed the extraordinary efforts of these Unitarian
critics to escape * from the clear declarations of Scripture, — that

able shape. Bishop Horsley, however, proved, by the total discomfi
ture of Dr. Priestley, that this new mode of travelling to the doc
trines of Scripture through the Fathers (if new, indeed, that can be
called, which is but an old Popish contrivance,) was as unfavourable
to Unitarianism as the Scriptures themselves. A recent, but feeble
attempt has, indeed, been made to re-combine and replace some of the
shattered arguments, which Bishop Bull had beaten down. But, by
the learned Bishop Burgess, they have been again overwhelmed in
their former confusion. The writings of the Fathers have, of course,
fallen in the estimation of their Unitarian admirers; who now feel it
rather a dangerous matter to appeal to their authority. But that they
may not be thrown back again upon the Scripture, which had before
proved ruinous to their cause, they have fashioned to their own pur
pose a manual which they call Scripture : and now they are fully pre
pared to set Fathers, and Apostles, and Evangelists, and Pro
phets, all, fairly at defiance.
* Their mode of escape here is, as we have seen, by rendering the
words rev &.w evea.t»t, " him [God] speaking from heaven." Now, as we
have found it quite a hopeless case to discuss with these critics the pro
priety of their translations, we have only to attend to the instruction
which they are pleased to give us respecting their true import and ap
plication. In endeavouring, however, to discover the meaning which
the Editors attach to their rendering of this clause, the reader, I ap
prehend, will find himself a little puzzled. For, as they inform us,
¦ God is heresaid to " speak from heaven by the gifts of the Holy Spirit :"
—or, as Mr. Belsham (the principal Editor) expresses it, "by his"
(God's) "Spirit:" (Calm Inq. p. 162.) or as it is in 1 Pet. i. 12. (to
which the Editors refer us in their note,) " through the Holy Spirit
Vol. 2.-45

354 supplementary remarks on the
our Lord came down from heaven, and that he descended from
a divine state, to fulfil the objects of his heavenly mission. It

sent down from heaven." As to Mr. Lindsey, to whom the note also
directs us for the explanation of these words, he says not one word
about the matter, but simply recites the quotation from Peirce, to
show, that it is not Christ, but God, that is the subject. But, as I have
already said, this explanation of the Editors only puzzles the question.
For, we are told in the very same page, that u, the spirits of men are
men themselves ; " and in page 541., that the souls of men, are the men
themselves. The Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, must therefore in
like manner be God himself. And so indeed we are distinctly in
formed at p. 447. and still more distinctly at p. 505. " The word spirit
is a Hebraism to express a person's self: — the spirit of a man is a man
himself: the Spirit of God is God himself." — There is, however, it
must be noted, one exception to this established rule of interpretation,
this well-known Hebraism ! namely, the case of Christ. At the use
of this word, all rules and idioms vanish. The spirit of a man is a
man himself: thefSpirit of God is God himself: but beware, here
stops the Hebraism ; the spirit of Christ is not Christ himself; for
then, as Mr. Lindsey admits, we should have a plain proof of Christ's
pre-existence, from 1 Pet. i. 10. : and, therefore, the Editors inform
us, on this passage, that the spirit of Christ, is the spirit which pro
phesied concerning Christ ! Well, then, God speaking from heaven by
his Spirit, or by His Holy Spirit, is — God himself speaking from hea
ven ; so that his speaking from heaven, actually means his speaking from
heaven. This is plain enough, at all events. But again, a great diffi
culty arises, as to the auxiliary passage, which speaks of this " Holy
Spirit sent down from heaven ; '' because, then, it remains to be ex
plained how God himself has been sent down from heaven, and by
whom he had been so sent down. Whether this be the precise point
that is said to have remained a difficulty to the " Angels," I know not ;
but certain it is, that to those " messengers " of whom the Editors speak
in this verse, and who, they say, are meant by the word " Angels," it
must indeed remain a difficulty. (/. V. p. 541.)
The jumble of Angels, Spirits, and Heaven, which is tossed about
through the pages of the Unitarian Version, and of its principal annotator,
the Calm Inquirer, is a thing altogether without example. There are
angels, and there are not angels. Disembodied Spirits are admitted
and denied. There is no actual heaven, and yet there is a heaven spoken
of as familiarly, as if its existence were believed in. Mr. Belsham, in
deed, after having protested against the existence of Angels with all his
might, has been brought by Bishop Burgess to confess, that he does not

unitarian version of the new test. 355
will also, from what has been laid down in the passages there
alluded to, not appear supposing that the Editors, having here

altogether give them up. What, as he now says, ho means to deny, is
merely a hierarchy among them. Hierarchies ! (odious word, the very
sound of it provokes hostility !) — Hierarchies! are what he cannot admit,
even among Angels. Allow him but a good bustling democracy among
the angelic tribes, and he is at once satisfied to concede the existence of as
many of that order of Beings, as the most orthodox can desire. Review
ofthe Brief Memorial, pp. 105 — 107. 111.) However, after all, he
cannot very easily discover the existence, any more than the hierarchy, of
ano-els in Scripture ; but he is led to the admission, not only of the possi
bility, but of the fact, from philosophy.— -There is, indeed, it must be ob
served, an excellent reason why Mr. B. as well as his brother Editors,
should admit the existence of Angels, as "Beings of an order superior to
mankind :" viz. that our Lord is pronounced in Hebr. ii. 7. 9. to have been
made lower than the angels. This single consideration has, I have no
doubt, with Unitarians, preserved this order of beings from total extermi
nation. But then, unfortunately, this same sacred Writer has, also, pro
nounced of our Lord, that he was greater than the angels, and that even the
angels of God were to worship him. This matter, however, is thus easily
explained to us by the Editors : — " This writer, having already proved,
that Christ was superior to angels, viz. to all preceding prophets and
messengers from God, now proceeds to prove, that he is in his nature
inferior to angels, considered as Beings of an order superior to mankind,
for that the nature of his commission required that he should be a proper
human being. It is no objection, that he uses the word Angel in a differ
ent sense without giving notice of the change. ' Such inaccuracies of style
are not uncommon in the sacredwriters !" (I. V. p. 505. and Calm. Inq.
p. 396.) Now, there is a comical hardihood in this last sentence, that puts
every thing like gravity or seriousness to flight. The Apostle has used
one and the same word *Ayye\es, angel, uniformly throughout. In honest
simplicity the writer meant nothing different from what he said ; and as
he never dreamt of any change in the use of the expression, so conse
quently he could give no notice of any. Oh ! but, says the Unitarian
Editor, according to my hypothesis, I must, by the " angel," understand
prophet, wherever Christ is said to be superior to angels : and, by the word
" angel " again, I must understand angel, wherever he is said to be infe
rior to angels: and, as to this change in the meaning of the word " angel,"
the reader must not be at all surprised ; for, this change, in which /have
indulged, and with which the writer is in no way concerned, is but an
incorrectness of style not uncommon in the sacred writers ! Does the
person who peruses this believe his eyes ? and will he credit me, when I

356 supplementary remarks on the
again departed from the Primate upon this vital subject, should
here again be profoundly silent upon this departure. The

assure him, that the writers of this note exhibit no symptoms of openly
laughing at their readers ?
In truth, to show the monstrous and overwhelming absurdities into
which the system of these writers unavoidably drags them, I would
desire no more, than that the reader should carefully examine the first
two chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Imp. Vers., toge
ther with the notes ; and the auxiliary remarks, in the 6th sect, of part
first of the Calm Inquiry. If there be produced, in any other work
now extant, an equal range of downright and irremediable nonsense, I
am ready to admit the /. V. to be a fair version, and the Calm Inquiry
to be a candid; sensible, and learned performance. In a word, what
the Calm Inquirer and his brother Editors have given us upon this
part of the N. T. is altogether too ludicrous for sober animadversion.
What has been already bestowed upon their extravagances by Bishop
Burgess and Dr. Nares might be deemed so much of good criticism
thrown away, if it were not, that there is no folly which there are not
fools to embrace, if it be not contradicted! I shall notice but one single
point, because it will help forward the due estimate to be formed of
the knowledge possessed by the Calm Inquirer, and his brother Edi
tors, of ihe original language of the book which they have ventured
to translate. 'E\*nria> they render (as they ought) to 'make lower.'
"Hkarrie-ct; dvniv, thou madest him lower. Then the passive of this
verb, e\u.rr'oo^a.i, they pronounce, is not properly to ' be made lower,'
but to '6e lower;' and still more, to be so by nature, so as to exclude
all idea, of any change wrought, or any act exerted. Tw A HcnrA/am,
him who was lower ; " not who was made, who was, i. e. by nature,"
lower. Thus, of the same person it is asserted, thou madest him lower,
and yet that he was not made lower, but was lower by nature. An
action is exerted upon a person, and yet this person is not the subject
on which the action is exerted ; but is naturally that, which he is said
to be made to be. i (See /. V. Hebr. ii. 7. 9. and Calm Inq. p. 397.)
These transcendentals of grammar, which soar so far above the ordi
nary rules, will be better understood, when it is recollected, that they
assist in overturning the doctrine of our Lord's pre-existence. But is
it not disgusting to see such persons imposing on the unlearned, what
they pretend to be an Improved Version ofthe New Testament ?
As to the notions entertained by the Editors concerning spirits, it
is not quite easy to determine : for, whilst they speak of the spirit of
a man, as the man himself; and, where spirits in a separate state are
manifestly intended, (as in Hebr. xii. 24., carefully guard us against

unitarian version of the new test. 357
snppressioh noticed under the head of Number III. has exactly
the same bearing with that which has taken place here. Thus

thinking of "disembodied spirits;" yet, in several parts ofthe N. T.,
in which spirits in a separate state are undoubtedly meant, they fami
liarly use the word spirit, as if they conformed to the usual accepta
tion. The Calm Inquirer, also, is similarly cautious upon this subject ;
and, indeed, he affirms in his answer to the Brief Memorial, (p. 107.)
that he has given no opinion of the nature of spirits. Whether he
has formally done so, I shall not waste time to inquire : but, undoubt
edly, his language at page 209. of his Calm Inquiry seems to convey
something like an opinion against their separate existence. His known
sentiments on materialism, also, may justify the supposition, that,
when he affirms that " the word Spirit does not necessarily signify an
incorporeal being," he only wishes to prepare the reader for the ad
mission of the idea, that the word never can carry such a meaning.
However, it seems but justice to this writer to make known the recan
tation which he has lately read on the subject of materialism itself.
So far from being an avowed materialist, as he had been by all
the world conceived to be, and as a friend of forty years' acquaintance
and social intercourse has, within these few months, pronounced him
to be, he now solemnly declares — what? that he does not himself
know whether he is, or not. He cannot make out exactly, whether
he is to rank with Dr. Price or Dr. Priestley. At length, however,
he begins to apprehend that he should be placed somewhere between
the two. That he should so easily give up Dr. Priestley, whose prin
ciple of materialism supplies, as he himself exults (in his Introductory
Letter to Dr. Horsley,) " a short and plain argument, conclusive against
the doctrine of a soul,. and consequently against the whole system of
pre-existence," seems indeed surprising. Yet so it is. He cannot
now concur with Dr. Priestley, nor yet with Dr. Price. He is neither
materialist nor immaterialist; but finds himself at an interme
diate point removed from both. He confesses, indeed, that he is " not
metaphysician enough, to determine," where this point lies : and there
fore he resorts to Mathematics, that he may avail himself of its clear
ness ; and, by the aid of this science, he discovers his true position to
be, in the centre of oscillation ! This must, surely, satisfy the
reader at once. His true position is hereby accurately ascertained.
It only remains to solve the problem of finding this centre. But as
the figure of the swinging body is necessary to determine this point
scientifically, and the time of the swing to determine it mechanically,
quaere, has Mr. Belsham supplied sufficient data for the solution?
But, in truth, there is abundant reason to pronounce that the Calm

358 supplementary remarks on the
the accidental departures from Newcome, which are of course
unacknowledged, fall wonderfully together, on the same im
portant topic ; and would certainly form a curious subject of cal
culation for a person competent to such inquiries, and disposed
to exercise his skill in the Doctrine of Chances.
. I have now, I trust, made good the charge, which, in a former
edition, had been advanced against the Unitarian Editors,
respecting their disingenuous use of the name* of Archbishop
Inquirer is perfectly innocent of all knowledge of what this same centre of
oscillation actually is. It is manifest that he has some confused notion of
its being some fixed point between the extremes of oscillation ; and not the
least idea, that it occupies successively every point in the curve through
which the body oscillates, including the extremes themselves. That the
family of the Botherims in Morals and Metaphysics, (see p. 122. of this
volume,) should be connected with that of the Malaprops in Mathema
tics, is not surprising. But to be serious, which, where this writer is
concerned, is not always an easy matter, why will Mr. Belsham so often
meddle with what he does not understand ! — As an apology to such of my
readers, as may impute to me a blameable levity, in some ofthe allusions in
this note, I entreat their perusal of Mr. Belsham's letter, in the Number
of the1 Monthly Repository for Dec. 1815 ; (Vol. x. p. 746.) by which, if
I mistake not very much, the ffeect produced upon the muscles of the
gravest will supply an excuse for that which, it is unnecessary for me to
confess, has been produced on mine. The reader will there find, also, an
attempt, on the part of Mr. Belsham, to run away from his avowed opinions
on the observance of the Lord's day, as well as from those on the subject
of Materialism. What he has said upon this subject he may, to be sure,
formally retract : but, whilst he merely contends, that what he has said is
consistent with the Christian observance of the day, the opinions generally
attributed to him, and which are unavoidably deducible from his own state
ments referred to at pp. 123, 124. of this volume, will stick, like
the poisoned shirt — It would, indeed, be a matter of much satisfaction to
observe the Unitarians thus anxiously disclaiming the irreligious and pro
fane consequences of their system, which they formerly maintained with
open triumph ; were it not, as appears from this letter, and their other
late publications, that this is done solely, ad captum, and to remove the
impediments which such revolting avowals have thrown in the way of the
proselyting system in which they have lately engaged.
* The views with which the Unitarians have selected the Primate's
Version as the basis of theirs have, I apprehend, by this time been made
sufficiently apparent. They indeed profess to have selected it on account

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 359
Newcome. For the charge, as it originally stood, I refer the
reader to p. 162. of this volume ; for the manner in which the

of its general accuracy, simplicity, and fidelity, as well as its conformity
to Griesbach's Greek text : their object being (as they tell us) to present
to the public an Improved Version, and a Corrected Text. How far these
were their real views, will easily be collected, when it is considered, that
in almost every passage of the N. T. in which the Unitarian theory is
affected, these qualities of " accuracy, simplicity, and fidelity," are found
to be wanting in the Primate, whilst they adhere to him in every other.
In these parts, of course, he is deserted by the Editors : but in all nthers
he is followed, indeed, with a "scrupulous fidelity," as the Calm In
quirer expresses it : a fidelity, by which they evince their true object, as
manifestly, as by their desertion; inasmuch as it equally tends to prove
that, to render the version of the N. T. more correct, was not the end at
which they aimed, but merely to convert the Primate's Translation to
Unitarian purposes. This inference we are unavoidably compelled to
make, unless we can be brought to believe that the Primate is always cor
rect, save only where the Unitarian question is involved. The Editors,
it is true, might lead us to suppose that they are impressed with this belief;
for, in all but the places here excepted, we find them following him to the
utmost exactness, even in his errors; or, indeed, we may say, copying
him right forward, without once pausing to see whether the Version agreed
with the original or not. So that, in truth, one might be tempted to
imagine that all that portion of the Primate's Version, which did not touch
on the one important subject, was left to the mere printer's compositor, to
set the type to as it stood ; whilst the remaining part was reserved, only
to undergo that revision cf these learned Editors, which was necessary to
correct it into Unitarianism. Whether this be an unlikely supposition,
may be judged, when it is known, that even the errors in the printing of
the Primate's book are exactly copied into the improved Version ; and
the very mistakes, which the Primate has noticed, in his list of Errata,
axe carefully retained. Of the degree to which this negligence is carried,
one example may be a sufficient proof. In Hebr. vii. 3., where it is said
of Melchisedec, that he, " resembling the Son of God, continueth a
priest perpetually," /uetu iepibs eis ri Jinvexis, the Primate (or his printer,)
omitting, by mistake, the words marked in capitals, has it, " continueth
perpetually ; " and, accordingly, these Editors, who are looking only, as
they tell us, after an improved Version, have it the same. , Did they here
follow the Primate implicitly, neglecting the original? Or, did they,
after a careful attention to the original, fall, by mere- mistake, into the
same error with the Primate ? Or did their printer make the same slip
that his made? Here, again, the doctrine of chances puzzles us as much,

360 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
Unitarians endeavour to repel it, I refer him to pp. 197 — 201.:
whilst, in the pages from 201 to this, he will find examples and

about the "agreement, as before we have found it frequently to do, about the
departure. This, together with numerous other errors and alterations,
the Primate has, indeed, noticed in a list at the end of his Book., But,
as the "Editors of the improved Version had not even taken the trouble
to look to the end, until they came to it in the course of printing, the thing
could not be remedied. The Primate's list could not, with any decency,
be supplied at the conclusion ; as this would be too barefaced an avowal of
the total disregard of accuracy, and of the entire dependence upon New-
come to the neglect of the original, which accompanied them throughout
those parts of the work in which they felt no peculiar interest. And,
therefore, we really have, at this moment, independently of the perver
sions of Scripture in certain parts, a less correct translation of the N. T.
in this improved Version, than we had before in that of Newcome, on
which it professes to improve.
But, yet more, we have a part of that grand display of their learning
and of their acquaintance with the sources of Biblical knowledge, which
is exhibited by the Editors in their Introduction, copied almost verbatim
from Newcome. This was more than they had proihised. They had en
gaged, only, to follow his translation. But they had not engaged to deal
out matter of Biblical instruction to their readers from the Primate.
Yet they execute this, for which they did not contract, even more faithfully
than the former for which they did. And, it must be said, they are as little
ostentatious of their transcribing from the Primate, here, as they were, of
their occasionally departing from him, there. They have/here, given all
in their own name : and given honestly, as they found it, with all its errors
and deficiencies, exactly as it stood in the Primate's Book, The effect,
indeed, of this facsimile procedure, is, in some respects, comical enough.
By it, the introduction has been actually converted into appendix, from
the accident of the word "appendix" being prefixed to that part, at the'
end ofthe Primate's book, which has been copied by the Editors into the
beginning of theirs.
But, yet farther, they have by the same means arrived at the discovery
of a new heresy in early times ; of which neither Irenmus nor Epipha
nius among the ancients, nor Ittigius nor Lardner among the moderns,
seem to have had the smallest idea : the corinthian heresy ! They tell
us, that St. John's Gospel was written, " to confute the Corinthian and
other- heresies." This, it will be apprehended, is a mere mistake for
cerinthian. And originally it was so undoubtedly. But, let it not be
imagined, that the Editors of the improved Version could have fallen into
any such mistake. They were too careful for that. They have copied it

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 36J.
proofs in support of the allegation, selected from an ample and
disgusting abundance. And if, whilst I have been employed in

steadily from Newcome ; in whose book, the word Cerinthian, used by Dr.
Owen, has been so misprinted.
They have, likewise, in the list of lexicons useful for the New Testar
ment, paid Newcome the compliment of adopting' his list exactly : leaving
out the very lexicon, to which they and their coadjutors constantly refer,
as being decidedly jjf the highest authority, -r- the lexicon of Schleusner.
It is true, it is of the value they have ascribed to it. But, then, it had not
been named by Newcome : and altheugh they make no boast of following
the Primate in this part of their work, yet they could net prevail upon
themselves to depart from him here in a single iota.
Again, as they have followed Newcome in a defective list of Lexicons
for the N. T. so they have been led by him into an erroneous list of Con
cordances for the same. They are so very particular, as to mention the
Concordance of " Robert Stephens. 1599." There is no such Concorr
dance. Robert Stephens died forty years before that date. The Concor-
cordance was by Henry Stephens. These being both authors of great
celebrity, ought not to be confounded. The mistake, it is true indeed, is
not great. But, coupled with the affectation of precise knowledge (even to
the use of the Christian name,) for the purpose of accurate instruction to
•the less learned; and being, after all, the plagiarism of a -blunder, where
originality is professed, and the airs of commanding acquaintance with the
sources of Biblical information familiarly assumed, -the thing is ridiculous
in itself, and becomes just of so much consequence, as it is symptomatic of
the nature of the work, and of the character of its authors. For the part
to which these latter observations apply, see their Introduction, pp. xxxi.
xxxii. and the greater part of p. xxxhU-, to which I beg to direct the
reader's particular attention.
Thus, we see, that the conduct of the Editors, with respect to their pro
fessed model Newcome, has, upon the whole, been either that of slavish
adherence, or of treacherous desertion. We find the former, wherever
there was no interest in the latter. But as to concern for the truth, or
fidelity to the original, — of these we can find no trace. Correctness and
improvement form no part of the object. Adaptation to the purpose ; of a
party, (it can scarcely be called a sect,) is the only thing held in view.
Newcome, where these purposes cannot be served by deserting him, is ser
vilely copied, (with all his errors,) to obtain his name, or to appropriate the
fruits of his industry, and the credit of his learning. We have, in short,
Newcome's Testament moulded into Unitarianism; that is, emptied of
Christianity : and .this is the improve? version, whereby the Editors
Vol. 2.-46

362 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
establishing this charge, evidence has arisen of artifice and dis
honesty, not only in their application of the Primate's name,
but in their treatment of other authorities, bearing on those parts
of Scripture which vitally affect the Unitarian question : if, in
their exposition of those parts of Scripture, numerous instances
have appeared of falsehoods in quotation, of fallacies and blun-

promise us a new era in Biblical knowledge. — Magnus ab integro saeclo-
rum nascitur ordo !
Indeed, the reason for adopting Newcome's version has been pretty
plainly confessed, in a recent publication by one of the principal writers
among' the Unitarians, to have been of the description which has been con
tended for in this note, and elsewhere throughout this Appendix. After
stating, of course, that the Unitarians deemed the Primate's translation to
be the best, he adds, as the important point, — " You cannot wound the
Unitarians, but through the sides of an eminent prelate of your own church."
Here, indeed, we have a glimpse of the true state of the case. And to
make the Unitarian Version appear, as much as possible, (consistently with
the real object,) identified with the Primate's, all has been arranged in the
manner which we have just described'. No departures have beenexpend-
ed, but upon some point that would tell. The same writer has informed
us, that " the Improved Version is only a republication of the work of Arch
bishop Newcome, vixth no variation in the text, but such as is sanctioned by
the last corrected Greek text of Griesbach, and explained in the margin.
The paring, garbling, and mutilation, therefore, of which you complain, is
to be laid at the door of the Archbishop and Griesbach, who have ventured
(audacious men!) to prefer truth to prejudice, and to set the interests of
sacred literature above those of any particular church*" (A Plea for Uni
tarian Dissenters, by Robert Aspland, p. 75.) Such is the latest account
given of this matter, and by a writer who takes a distinguished lead in the'
direction of Unitarian concerns. We see; then, thatnow we are to consi
der the Unitarian Version as a mere transcriptjof Newcome, with a few im
provements from the corrected text of griesbach. The improved ver--
sibn, therefore, is but the consolidation of Newcome and Griesbach. Of
this the reader is, by this time, qualified to judge, who has seen that both
are constantly abandoned, when they fail to answer the Unitarian purpose :
and that Newcome, especially, is frequently abandoned dishonestly and in
disguise : contrary to what the same writer asserts of the " unnoticed va
riations between Newcome and the- Imp. Version,'1 (for he admits there
are such,) namely, that they " are accidental, and neither frequent nor im
portant." r— But still the cry is, ' ¥ou wound only an eminent Prelate of
your own chuxoh."

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 363.
ders in reasoning, of rashness and ignorance in criticism, of con
fidence in assumption, of unblushing hardihood in assertion ; in
a word, of all the various means? and contrivances, by which
bad faith, unchecked by learning, and unabashed by shame, is
used to mislead the uninformed, and delude the unsuspecting ;
I trust, also, that I shall stand acquitted of improper severity, in
the terms in which the charge was originally expressed^; and
that what the Editors, in the person of the calm inquirer
(who is acknowledged as their advocate,) have complained of
as coarse language, the reader will admit to be nothing more
than the language of plain truth ; and that he will be disposed
to offer for me the apology, that Philip made for those,' who
are described as being in the habit of " calling a spade a spade."
Should this be the case, the exertions of the calm inquirer,
in vindication of the Editors, will but have served, like every
effort of what is weak in defence of what is wrong, the more to
expose what it was the object to conceal : and the extent of their
obligations for his services, will amount to this, — that, from the
closer inspection of the subject which he has provoked, stronger
proof has appeared of their unfitness for the work which they
had undertaken ; and clearer manifestations have been made
not only that what they profess to give as an Improved Version
of the N. T. is calculated to remove from the mind every just
idea of the original, but also that, in accomplishing this purpose,
they have resorted to such expedients, that, if from them the
religion of Unitarians is to be estimated, it may safely be pro
nounced to be any thing but the religion of truth.
Having gone so fully into the subject of the first ofthe charges
brought against the Editors, and into the important matter
which it naturally drew into consideration, I am now compelled
to touch with more brevity, than I had at first intended ; though
possibly, at the same time, bestowing more attention than is
deserved upon the replies whieh have been made to the remain
ing charges by the advocates of the Unitarian Version.
To the rejection of the first two chapters of St. Matthew and
St. Luke, the former on the authority of the Ebionites, and the
latter on that of Marcion, it had been objected, (see pp. 164,
165. of this volume,) that these early heretics stood con-

§64

supplementary remarks on THE"

victed ofthe mutilation of the sacred canon: that, consequently,"
they were not credible witnesses as to its genuine contents : and
that, therefore, the mere omission, ire their copies, of any portion
of Scripture, otherwise supported by credible testimony, could not
affect its gentttness in the least. On this principle,- it was con
tended^ that, whilst the genuineness of the chapters in question
was attested by all the existing* Manuscripts and Versions, the*
alleged want of them in the respective copies of the Ebionites
and Marcion^ could supply no ground whatever for their rejec
tion; Now, in answer to this reasoning, the arguments offered by
the calm inquirer, in defence of the Editors, possess at least

* I must here take the opportunity of correcting a mistake, commit-
e'd by my learned friend Dr. Hales, at the 675th page of the 2d vol.
Of his New Analysis. He has, there, very truly remarked, that "thef
two introductions of Matlhexv's and Luke's Gospels are found in all
the unmutilated Greek manuscripts extant; and in all the versions
without exception/' But he has also saiJ, that " the oldest Greek ma
nuscripts,- in uncials, or capital letters, the Alexandrian, Cambridge,
Parisian, are imperfect, and want the two introductory chapters of
Matthew." — Now this is not the case. The Cambridge and the Pa
risian both have them ; with the exception; in the former, of the firsf
19 verses and part of the 20th, which however extends only a couple
of verses beyond the geneaology ; and even of this portion, only the
first eleven verges can truly be said not lo exist in the manuscript ;
because the first two folios only being lost, we have the Latin part of
the codex, (it being Graec. Lat.) so far back as the 12th verse. The
truth is, that, of the four manuscripts in uncials, of acknowledged and
distinguished antiquity, the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Parisian,
and iheCambridgp, the only one, In which, (with the exception stated
as to the Camb. MS.) any mutilation extends to the two introductory
chapters of Matthew, is the Alexandrian, which is found imperfect sd
far as to the 6th verse of the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's Gos
pel. — I have thought it right to be thus particular upon this point, lest
the authority of so learned a writer as Dr. Hales should tend, in any
degree, to diminish the strength of evidence supplied by the ancient
MSS. to these introductory chapters of St. Matthew. That learned
writer, the only object of whose incessant labours is the investigation of
truth, is as desirous as I am myself that the above mistake should be
corrected!

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 366
an originality which entitles them to notice. One argument
is, that these persons, against whom this charge of corrupting
the Scriptures has been' brought, have themselves actually
declared their copies to be genuine:* and therefore genuine
they must have been. — A second argument, equally ingenious
and convincing, is, that, the more they mutilated some parts of
Scripture, the more anxious they would be to preserve the rest
uncorrupted : t or, to put this in other words, the less honesty"

* At page 7. ofthe Address, &c. the reader will find that one of the
circumstances on which the calm inquirer principally relies for the
credibility of the copies of the Ebionites, in opposition lo all the exist
ing manuscripts and versions of St. Matthew's Gospel, is, "that these
Christians asserted their copies to be genuine." And again, at
page 10;, he tells us, that Marcion's " enemies accuse him of wilfully
corrupting the sacred text : but he deniks the charge." Thus we
see, that these early heretics had the honest candour to confess their
copies to be genuine ; even although these copies were precisely adapt-
edto their peculiar opinions. — Sdch testimony who can reject, how
ever resisted by the opposing testimony of thousands ! I have here
argued on the supposition, that these heretics made the declarations
which this writer has ascribed to them. On this we shall see more
hereafter. t " The Ebionites, we are told, rejected the three last Gospels, and
all the Epistles of St. Paul. It may be so. then surely they
WOULD BE THE MORE CAREFUL OF THAT GOSPEL WHICH THEY
retained." Address, &c. pp. 7, 8. On the same principle, also,
we find the calm Inquirer contending, at p. 10., that Marcion would
be the more careful of the Gospel of St. Luke, as being the
only one that he retained. But, with respect to the Ebionites, particu
larly, the calm inquirer, with that partiality so natural in behalf of those
to jvhom the Unitarians so fondly look as their prototypes, enlarges, with
luxuriancy, as to the perfect state of their copies of St. Matthew. " This
Gospel," he s"ays, " Which alone they acknowledged as authentic ; this
Gospel which they would on no account presume either to enlarge or to
curtail ; this purest copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew wanted the two
first chapters." (Address, &c. p. 8.) — This purest copy of Matthew's'
Gospel wanted the whole (observe) of the first two chapters. Well
what use do we find the calm inquirer again turning this to ? Why, to
show, that the Editors are perfectly right in not rejecting the whole of
these chapters ; but in retaining a part of them ; which, though wanting
in this purest copy, (on which, of course, implicit reliance is to be placed,)

366 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
they had exercised on certain parts of the sacred canon, the more
they would be sure to expend upon what remained : — a prin
ciple, involving a discovery in the rules of evidence touching the
genuineness of written documents, for which the Courts of Law
must hold themselves entirely indebted to the sagacity of the
calm inquirer. — Before we proceed to any of the remaining
arguments, it may be right to observe in this place, that none
could be more natural for the chosen advocate of the Editors to
employ, than those which we have just noticed. On the same
principle with that of their Ebionite precursors, they are enabled
to prove their English copy of the N. T. to be a sound and
genuine representation of sthe original : for, like those ancient
heretics, they too can produce, both their affirmations and their
mutilations, in their support.
The third argument urged by the calm inquirer has for
its object to prove, that it is perfectly consistent with the principles
of historic evidence, that a witness, convicted of falsehood in one
part of his testimony, is not thereby rendered the less credible in
another. The Editors had proceeded, upon the ground of the
rejection of the first, two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel by the
Ebionites : yet, finding it convenient to retain a part of those
chapters, (which, as they conceived, favoured the notion of the
mere humanity of Christ.) they did not scruple to reject the tes
timony of those very Ebionites, as to this part ; and to admit,
that, in this part of these two chapters, they had been guilty of
mutilation ; whilst, on the authority which had been thus dis
credited, it was still thought right to expunge the remainder of
the chapters. On this, it seems not extraordinary to have ad
verted to the unreasonableness of " pronouncing the Ebionite
witnesses, on one side of a leaf, as not credible, from their
acknowledged mutilation of the sacred text, and, upon the

was undoubtedly apart of genuine Scripture, which these honest Ebion
ites, who '¦ would on no account presume either to enlarge or to curtail "
this Gospel, are confessed to have actually cutout! — I cannot expect the
reader to credit me, in this statement of the reasonings of the Editors, and
their calm inquirer. — Let him compare what the calm inquirer has
said, with the Editors' own words in the first page of their translation.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 367
other side of the same leaf, maintaining them to be witnesses of
such repute, as ought to be relied upon, in opposition to all the
MSS. and all the Versions of the New Testament in the whole
world." (See pp. 164, 165. of this volume.)
To reply to this observation the argument of the calm in
quirer is directed. But, as there is something puzzling in the
matter, it has been deemed safest not to enter upon a direct and
immediate solution, but to turn aside to a lively historical paral
lel, and then travel off briskly from the subject, by giving to the
whole an agreeable and facetious termination. This ingenious
writer, accordingly, after quoting the above passage, (that is,
quoting it after the Unitarian fashion, — cutting out the part
of it, on which the whole argument is made to turn,)* pro
ceeds to observe : — " We should make fine work of ancient
history, if this Dublin Professor's principle is to be admitted^

* The part here alluded to is the clause marked in italics in the last
quotation. This clause, the reader will observe, formed the entire
foundation of my argument. The Editors had contended for the
fidelity of the report of the Ebionites, concerning the two introductory
chapters of Matthew's Gospel ; they had, at the same time, denied the
fidelity of that report, by acknowledging the mutilation of these very
chapters by those same Ebionites. In this view of the case, it was
demanded, whether the Editors would thus reject the Ebionites as not
credible, admitting them to be convicted ofthe mutilation of these
chapters, and yet contend for them, in attestation of these same chap
ters, as credible witnesses, whose authority no counter testimony was-
sufficient to impeach. Yes, says the calm inquirer, I do believe the
Ebionites; and I do rcot believe them : for, (having first imitated the
Ebionites by cutting out the part of the passage which hampered him>
and having thereby shaped, or endeavoured to shape it, to his own pur
pose,) " in the one case I see reason to concur with them, and in the
other to differ from them ;" and then, he passes on to two distinct facts-
of the Battle of Cannae and the speaking of the ox, as an exact repre
sentation of the case of the Ebionites, being supposed at the same
time capable and incapable of mutilating the Gospel of St. Matthew;
at the same timecredible and incredible, respecting the genuineness of
the first two chapters of that Gospel. It is a curious, but not an inex
plicable, fact, that the spirit of mutilation has been in all ages a charac
ter of Unitarianism. Take the old ebionites, or the new ; it is stilt
the same.

368 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
believe all or none* without discrimination. Livy relates that
Hannibal crossed the Alps, and beat the Romans at the battle
(Of Cannae ; and I believe him. The same Livy tells that an
ox spoke; but I believe him not. He asks then, "Is Livy to
be pronounced on one side of the leaf to be credible, and on the
other incredible? " and so goes on, to make himself exceedingly
merry ,t at the expense of the Dublin Professor ; who would.

* The Dublin Professor carries his principle even farther than
" believe all or none." He is so whimsical as to require of those, with
whom he is engaged in discussion, to quote fill or none, of any pas
sage, which they profess to give as his. But here the Unitarians con
tend for unrestrained liberty, as before. They proceed " with discrim
ination" here likewise ; and as they believe and disbelieve just what
4hey think proper, so, ,(as we have seen in the last note, and in other
similar instances without number,) they select and reject from any sen
tence, which they profess to quote, just what they find convenient. It
answers the present turn ; and satisfies the literary fame, that hopes not
to exist beyond the pamphlet.
f There is a certain merriment, which the wise writer of Ecclesias-
tes has compared to " the crackling of thorns.*' It is for the calm
inquirer to consider, whether his laughter be of this description.—
Could it have been imagined, that the Unitarians would have put for
ward the dullest of their tribe in their vindication? Yet so it is. Here
we find not only an utter incapacity to understand a plain argument,
but a merry-making in the display of dulness, which, though ludicrous
enough to lead the mind from the speaking of the ox, its favourite
topic in this place, to the braying of an inferior animal, yet, when
properly considered, can only move compassion. The severities of
this writer, also, are of the same family wjlh his jocularities. The
author of the Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice must, surely,
feel himself deeply wounded, by being reminded, as he is in every
second page of this performance, thai he is a " Dublin professor,"
an " irish theologian ;" and, of course, debarred from breathing
that purer intellectual atmosphere, which has been the happier lot, and
readily accounts for the higher endowments, of the calm inquirer
and his associates. Whatever neatness of invective there may be in
this, is accompanied with a like delicacy of insinuation, equally indi
cative of the refinement of the writer. ' Silly conclusions," "silly
observations," and " nonsense," are some of those remote and gently-
touched forms of expression, which enable the writer to make a deep

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NET TEST. 369
he says, on his principle, be " unable to believe the battle of
Cannae, without believing likewise that the ox spoke : " but, at

incision, whilst he scarcely seems to intend a wound. See pp. 7, 8, 9,
10. 12, 13. 17, 18, 19.24. of the Address, &c. The Author, indeed,
we find, deals in such daintily enfolded satire as the above, notless from
policy than from taste. For he openly expresses himself as habitually
aware, that "coarse and vulgar language is no advantage to any
cause :" and he adds, that " unitarians disdain to descend to it ; and
that if their principles cannot stand without it, they are content that
they should fall." (p. 5.) It is to be presumed that the highly classical
and liberal forms of education, and habits of society, in which Unita
rians are generally trained up in their Academies, have produced this
elevation and urbanity which the author claims for his brethren ; and
which are so abundantly displayed in their writings, even where it
might be supposed that the literae humaniores would have given way
before the ardour of controversy.
Thus Mr. Belsham, who is eminent in this line, beautifully describes,
in his Letters to the Rev. H. Horsley, the " temerity " of that gentle
man, by his " running a muck, at all he meets." (Monthly Repository,
vol. viii. p. 454.) With like elegance, he represents Bishop Horsley,
(ibid. p. 176.) as possessing " a bow-wow manner : " and (p. 244.) de
nominates any person, " who should seriously profess to believe "
that the Bishop had the advantage in the argument with Dr. Priest-
ley, "a solemn ignoramus." This last, indeed, Mr. Belsham con
ceives to be a peculiarly happy flight. He returns to it, after an inter
val of two years ; as may be seen in the Gentleman's Magazine, voi.
viii. N. S. p. 322. ; in which, although, from his benevolence,- he is
harassed with fears, lest this potent phrase should " disturb the rest,
and haunt the dreams" of the learned successor of Dr. Horsley ; yet,
from his good taste, and self-complacency, as the author of so singu
larly-pointed and beautiful an expression, he exults in the thought, that
" this goading remark " " clings to his Lordship's soul ; " and that
" this business of the ' solemn ignoramus' twines about his heart
strings," so that "he cannot get over it," &c. The numberless finely-
turned compliments, which this writer has paid, on many occasions,
to the Clergy of the Established Church, are instances of the same
delicate description. These exercises of refined taste, indeed, this au
thor luxuriates in to such a degree, that they are to be found almost in
every page of his writings. A few other specimens have been already
adduced at pp. 128, 129. of this vol. Nor are these flowers of fragrant
rhetoric reserved for persons : — they are sometimes made to spread
their perfume over things.
Vol. 2.-47.

370 SUPPLEMENTARY. REMARKS ON THE
the same time, he comforts himself with the reflection, that he
lives on that "side of the water," in which, "a little common

Thus in his answer to Bishop Burgess's Brief Memorial, in speaking of
1 John,v. 7. he says, (p. 179.) "the notorious text of the heavenly wit
nesses has been so long dead and buried, that ' by this time it shnketh :'
nor will all the labour and learning of the pious prelate; even though it
should be aided by all the professional skill and experience ofthe Humane
Society, ever be able to bring it back to life." Same have thought, that
the gravity of Scripture language gives a seasoning to wit. It will be re.
membered, that the reference, here, is to the raising of Lazarus to life by
our blessed Saviour. And the joke consists in an allusion to this action of
our Lord ; whilst a diverting picture is held up of the prelate at the head
ofthe whole Humane Society, labouring in vain to restore a dead text to
life : and thepiety of the well intending Bishop is made to bestow an addi
tional pleasantry upon the whole.
Mr. Belsham, Mr. Gilchrist, and other such polished writers ofthe Uni
tarian school, have quite a felicity in this way. Does not the lattei gentle
man, however, affect, occasionally, to depart somewhat from these delica
cies, when he says that, in reasoning with the Trinitarian, he "feels as
if he were brought upon the stage, to fight with wild beasts, or to contend
with madmen ;" and again, that, as to the argument drawn from Christ's
being the only-begotten Son of God, — " the man, who, in the nineteenth
century, can say, that Deity has generated Deity, is fitter to be driven to
the fold, or locked up in a mad house, than reasoned with ;" and again,
when he speaks of " mongrels and monsters," as descriptive ofthe Trinity
and the two-fold nature of Christ; and when he exclaims against the
" mystical monks and feeble-minded, narrow-souled priests," who hold
those doctrines? And does he not offer some degree of violence to the
delicacy and taste, which his habits of association must have produced,
when he pretends to say, " We prefer ' clearness and aptness to neatness
and politeness, and fetch comparisons from the stable or the scullery, when
none occur suitable to our purpose in the parlour or the drawing-room ;' ''
and when he professes to exult " that when our immortal authors wrote,''
(such as " Shakspeare, Bacon, Taylor, and Barrow") "such a thing as
taste, and its principles, laws, and rules (which are ever found to flourish
most in barren ground,) were not even heard of; a century or two after,
come creeping into existence a feeble finical race of dancing masters and
epicures, mawkishly puling about taste, as if they had no receptacle but
their stomach, and no standard of excellence but their palate ?" — Surely this
polished writer has permitted his early acquaintance with Aristotle, Cicero,
Qumtillian, Longinus, and the other great masters of antiquity, to carry him
to a degree of fastidiousness somewhat too severe against rhetoricians of

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 371
sense is exercised in judging of a report, and in discriminating
what is worthy of belief from what appears to be incredible

later times. — N. B. This gentleman is one of the chosen champions of Uni
tarianism, appointed to preach on staled days and subjects (publicly adver
tised) at the Unitarian meeting-house in Finsbury Square. — The finished
composition, from which I have given these few specimens of his
happiest manner, is a Discourse delivered by this Unitarian preacher
at Southampton in 1814. — But I must not allow this attractive subject
to detain me too long. I cannot, however, forbear adding, for the in
formation of all those interested in the progress of just composition
as well as of etymological research, that I learn from a sketch fresh
from the press, which has just now met my eye, that this vigorous and
elegant writer intends lo devote his uncommon powers to the promo
tion of these objects. He professes himself altogether disgusted with
Mr. Dugald Stewart, as " a finical rhetorician, a quibbling metaphy
sician" — who :c is as ignorant of words as-of notions, and of notions
as of words" — and "as purblind in metaphysics as in philology."
And he declares his grand object in engaging in etymological studies
to be, that they may produce an " effect on such misty, vacuous com
positions as those of Professor Stewart, similar to that of electric con
cussions on stagnant vapours." The horizon of language being com
pletely cleared from the fogs of such writers as Professor Stewart, we
are then to have, by the bright reflection of '' words," which this gen
tleman says are the " mirrors of ideas," such luminous views of all
that relates to the science and metaphysics of language, as will give
us the fail benefit of an unclouded meridian sun. Thus, we see, that,
from the splendid orb of Unitarianism, floods of light are now to break
in upon us in all directions. — From the united efforts of these two
great Metaphysicians and finished writers of the Unitarian school, Mr.
Belsham and Mr. Gilchrist, it is plain, that Professor Stewart cannot
be expected any longer to stand his ground. That he should have
been made a special object by these Unitarians, metaphysicians, and
rhetoricians, is not surprising, when it is considered that his writings
possess properties in every respect different from those that belong to
theirs; and, in addition to this, when Mr. Gilchrist has discovered
him to be a " bigoted persecutor." — Now that Mr. Stewart has
been thus convicted as a pitiful composer, an ignorant metaphysician.
and a bigoted persecutor, it is time that real masters, like Mr. Gil
christ and Mr. Belsham, should take his place. — The reader will
receive some amusement from a paper on Philosophical Ety
mology in the Monthly Magazine of Feb. 1. 1816.

372 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
in the works of the same author."* (Address, &c. pp.
8,90

* Dr. Wardlaw, who treats whatever he handles with singular clear
ness and good sense, observes on this passage, coupled with the distinc
tion just before quoted from this writer respecting what is credible and
incredible in Livy, — " Very well. We have no objection to his saying,
provided he does not insist that our faith shall be regulated by his, ' The
Evangelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of Nazareth died on a cross ; and
I believe him. The same Evangelist Matthew relates, that Jesus of
Nazareth was born of a virgin ; but I believe him not.' — Let this writer,
by all means, ' exercise a little common sense in judging of a report,
and in discriminating'— (&c. as above quoted.) But let him not, where-
ever he finds any thing which he may be pleased to deem incredible,
unwarrantably and presumptuously conclude that il forms no part of
what the author wrote." — (Discourses, &c. p. 433.) The same sensi
ble and serious author properly remarks upon " the levity, and impiety,
of the comparison " devised by the calm inquirer. — That the speak
ing of the ox has been chosen as a parallel to the history of our Lord's
Incarnation, is, undoubtedly, in perfect correspondence with the de
gree of respect which this writer shows, throughout, for sacred sub
jects. His choice of this subject of allusion might lead one to suppose
that from the same pen had lately issued another production upon the
credibility of the Incarnation, in which the ox is likewise made an
object of comparison and a topic of illustration. Shocking as is the
subject-matter of this publication, yet, for reasons sufficiently obvious,
I shall here give a sketch of its general outline, suppressing however
the most disgusting particulars. The writer, having described the
worship of the golden calf at Horeb as an act of blasphemous idolatry,
and having supposed the Israelites to have passed from this species of
worship to that of the fabulous god Apis, under the idea, that the God
of Israel had, in the womb of a cow, taken upon him the bovine na
ture, and thus become incarnate, in the form of an ox, whilst at the
same time still in heaven, — he asks, whether this worship would not
have been at least as blasphemous as the other ? And if so, he con
tends, it must be equally blasphemous to admit the doctrine of the
Incarnation, as contained in the N. T., since the nature of the animal,
through which the Divine Being became incarnate, can make no differ
ence whatever. He then demands whether, if it shall appear that the
Emperor Constantine, and almost all who have succeeded him in the
possession of civil power in Europe, have abused their temporal
authority, to the purpose of enforcing upon their subjects the doctrine
of such an incarnation ofthe Deity, we shall not be forced to confess,

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 373
Most assuredly, if such reasoning were supposed to be charac
teristic of the side or the water to which this calm inquirer
belongs, neither side will be very ambitious to claim him as its
property. The Homeric contest must here be but little to be
apprehended. For, in the same compass of reasoning, so rich
a complication of blundering has seldom been concentred. The
two cases, confounded together as similar, are, manifestly, at
direct variance, in every point of comparison. The testimony
of the Ebionites relates, 1. to one fact; the faithfulness of the
transcript of a certain written record : 2. it is assumed to speak
of this transcript from actual knowledge : and, 3. it pronounces
upon the whole of the transcript with equal positiveness through
out. — The testimony of the Historian, on the contrary, relates,

that they have indeed " opened their mouths in blasphemy against
God V In this strain, the writer continues, at considerable length, to
revile, and brand with the charge of blasphemy, all who receive the
Scripture doctrine of the Incarnation. This publication, let it be
observed, followed close upon the repeal of the Law against Blas
phemy ; and may be considered as some of the first fruits of that
Repeal. Thus, we see, the tables are now completely turned. The
Government is now charged with that blasphemy, which it has ceased
to denounce. And thus, whilst an ideal restraint upon liberty has
been removed ; a restraint, which operated, simply, to prevent such
outrages as this upon decency, and, as it might ultimately prove, upon
the essential peace and well-being of the community, a license has
been given to vilify the religion of the land, to bring its governing
authorities into disrepute, and to give confidence and audacity to those
turbulent spirits, who, through the downfall of religion, would work
the destruction of the state. This is not the only instance in which
this license has been similarly exercised. — But to return. — The bovine
allusion is, here, we find, and on a corresponding subject, as familiar,
as it is to the calm inquirer. So that we might be tempted to pro
nounce the anonymous writer in both cases to be the same, did we not
find the signature B. annexed to the publication in question : which
signature (although Dr. Wardlaw and Dr. Nares pronounce it to be
the initial of the person who has assumed the title of the calm in
quirer, and although a writer of this initial, does assume this title
familiarly in almost all his publications, see particularly his Claims
of Dr. Priestley, — yet) we have no right to affirm, must belong to
the calm inquirer.

374 SUPPLEMENTARV REMARKS ON THE
1. to two facts, distinct and unconnected : 2. it refers but to the
reports of these facts derived from others: and, 3. it speaks of
these facts in terms widely different, as to the credit attached to
them by the Historian. Yet, the advocate of the Unitarians sees
these two cases so completely identified, that, if Livy's report of
the one fact can reasonably be deemed credible, whilst his report
of the other is considered to be incredible, it follows, he thinks,
of necessary consequence, that the Ebionites may, at the same
time, be received as credible, and rejected as incredible, respect
ing different parts of the transcript, the fidelity ©f (he whole of
which they attest.
But the grand parent blunder of all consists in the confound
ing the genuineness of the record with the truth of the facts
recorded. If, indeed, this calm inquirer had, in this happy
comparison between Livy and the Ebionites, pronounced, that,
as he could not believe that the ox spoke, therefore the part of
Livy's history, which contained the report of that fact, could
not be genuine, he would then have said something which bore
upon the question : or, if, instead of relating the two facts of the
battle of Cannai and the speaking of the ox, Livy had pro
fessed to have given both these relations, as a transcript from
Fabius Pictor, or some other ancient historian, and that it
could be proved with respect to the latter of the two, that he
had falsified as to its being a part of the ancient document,
whilst it remained to be inferred from his authority, whether
the former were contained in it or not ; our critic would, indeed,
have a case parallel to the one in question, whatever might be
the fruits of the similitude : but, by an extraordinary confusion
of brain, (instanced very frequently, in writings, bearing the
same signature with this Unitarian pamphlet,) matters totally
dissonant are blended together as one : and as in the example
of the blind man reasoning upon objects of sight, the nature of
scarlet colour is deduced from the sound of a trumpet.
However, had this writer been able to arrive at his own mean
ing, he would have found it to be this, which may be discovered
moving in a confused and muddy stream through all that he
has said : — that the reason why he and the Editors believe
the Ebionites when they reject that part of the first two chap-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 375
ters of St. Matthew which contains the account of the miracu
lous conception, and do not believe them when they reject the
part which contains the genealogy, is, that they cannot admit
the story of the miraculous conception, which wars with their
system, to be credible ; whilst the account of the genealogy,
which they conceive to accord with that system, they have no
objection to helieve. That is, in truth, they determine what is
genuine in Scripture, and what is not, by its accordance and
repugnance to their system ; whilst they profess to derive their
system from what is genuine in Scripture. This is the true logic
of Hackney : * a happy specimen of the circulating syllogism,

* For a complete system of the Logic of Hackney, combined with a
treatise of Metaphysics, worthy of sharing the same fortunes under the
same cover, the reader may recollect that I have already referred him, at
p. 144. of this volume, to a work entitled Elements of the Philosophy
of the Mind, &c. — a work, possessing nothing but the name in com
mon with the production of an elegant and actrte Metaphysician now hving.
Why the Socinian of Hackney should have chosen this title, already appro-
- priated, it is hard to say. It could not be to mark contrast. Could it be
to filch a credit from homonymous association ? But, be it as it may in
this respect, it contains a Logic, and a Metaphysic, for the use of Unita
rians, which is worthy of no other cause. Many specimens of their
application have been exhibited in these sheets ; and, especially, at pp.
144 — 147. of this volume, some of the actual contents have been
drawn out, for the edification of the reader. A late publication, by the
Author of the Elements, in which he adverts to that work, induces me to
direct the reader's attention to it once more.
In his Claims of Dr. Priestley, p. 11., he quotes the following passage
from the Rev. H. Horsley : — " I have been told, by a learned friend of
mine, much conversant in works on the laws of reasoning, that Mr. B.
published, some years ago, a Compendium of Logic, remarkable for such
definitions as the world had never before seen." [Some definitions, to
which such a character would fairly apply, the reader has seen at the pages
which I have above referred to.] — Now, what is Mr. Belsham's observa
tion, in answer to this 1 — " It should seem, that the reverend Prebendary's
learned friend was not very deeply conversant with the works of Locke,
from which the doctrine of definition in the Compendium is taken." Now,
is it too much to say, that the Author, who gave such an answer, is inca
pable of framing a definition, if precision he of its essence 1 What has
the Rev. Prebendary said 1 — That Mr. B's. Compendium contained defini
tions of an extraordinary nature. No such thing; says Mr. B., for my

376 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
with which the writings of Unitarians abound. Part of these
chapters is not genuine, because its contents are not credible,

doctrine of definition (of which the learned Prebendary had said not one
word) is taken from Locke. — Ex pede Herculem. — The reader may easily
judge of the Compendium, and of its definitions.
But, to mend the matter, — taking up even this doctrine of definition,
which Mr. B. deems his palladium, so far is it from being taken from
Locke, that Mr. Locke, were he alive, would not acknowledge one sentence
of it from the beginning to the end. And, what is whimsical enough, in
the unfolding of this very doctrine of definition (which is, in truth, but a
caricature of any intelligible doctrine upon the subject,) this writer has
indulged (by way of example of what definition ought to be) in some defi
nitions, of that very description to which the Rev. Prebendary had alluded.
Will the reader believe, that his definition of " creature," combined with
that of " substance," represents the former to be, " derived being self-
subsisting ;" and that his definition of a square is " a FOUR-sided figure,
having four equal sides and four right angles V The Species of Being,
to which " creature " is synonymous, is here, undoubtedly, more fully
opened up than by any other writer. And the fact of the four-sided
figure called a square having actually four sides and four angles is better
enforced from the repetition, than in the meagre definition given of it by
Euclid; which merely pronounces, of this species of four-sided figure,
that it "has its sides equal, and its angles right:" — lo-mxtvpet rttrt irtti
hpBeyivtev. How the richness and amplification of the modern English
Mathematician shine forth, when contrasted with the parsimony of the
superannuated Greek ! Some, indeed, may affect to complain that
the Laws of Definition (which, by the by, the Author forgot to no
tice in this complete doctrine of definition taken from Locke,) have
not been, here, very minutely observed : and that the first of these
two definitions would have been somewhat improved by attending to-one of
those laws (Definitio debet esse clara,) and the second by attending to the
other (Definitio debet esse adaequata.) But the Author answers all such
cavils, by saying, that his definitions cannot be wrong, because he has
taken the doctrine of definition from Locke, (whom, in truth, he has not
despoiled of an atom of his property on that subject,) — and I answer, that
the reader need not quarrel with him for such trifles. Let him but read
the chapter itself : and then  For my own part I view these Ele
ments, altogether, as a truly wonderful performance. I never return to
them, but with fresh admiration. — When to these Elements of Mr. Bel
sham, the philological lucubrations of his brother Unitarian, and congenial
fellow-labourer, Mr. Gilchrist, have been superadded, then, indeed, the
human understanding will have received such aid, that, not only the Logics

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 377
and the contents of that part are not credible, because it is not
genuine.* To be called upon to establish either the spurious-

and Metaphysies of Mr. Dugald Stewart and other moderns may be safely
dismissed, but the Novum Organum itself (it is to be supposed) will be
superseded. * Of the Hackney Logic, there is another excellent specimen, connected
with this subject. It is one, which opens with the first exercise ofthe
¦critical powers of the Editors, and even with the first line of their first
note in the Imp. Version. It is neither more nor less, than their conclud
ing in necessary Matter, from a probable premise. It is probable, they say,
that the genealogy is genuine, and was found in the copies of Cerinthus
and Carpocrates. But the story of the miraculous conception could not
(they add) have been written by the author ofthe genealogy. Therefore;
they conclude, the story of the miraculous conception must have been
wanting in the copies above named : for if the genealogy be genuine, the
story must be spurious. Thus we see, that, because the genealogy proba
bly is genuine, the story of the miraculous conception necessarily is spu-
riousl and upon reasoning (am I to call it?) such as this, an important
portion of Scripture, supported by every existing manuscript and version,
is at once swept away. Let Unitarians, who have been weak enough
to take these Editors as the guides of their belief in what is true Scripture,
see on what intellects they build their faith : and let them recollect, what
true Scripture has pronounced to be, not the probable but certain issue,
when the blind lead the blind.
But, independently of this jump from the probable to the necessary,
we have a slight difference with these Dialecticians, upon the matter of
the vis consequential also ; which they assume a little too hastily ; and
which a word or two will be sufficient to rescue from their grasp. " If
the genealogy be genuine, this narrative " (viz. ofthe miraculous concep
tion) must be spurious." — Why so \ Because this narrative "could not
have been written by the author of the genealogy ; for it contradicts his
design, which was to prove that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the
descendant of Abraham and David ; whereas the design of this narrative
is to show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real
father." The same argument is repeated by the calm inquirer (page
12. of the Address, &c.) in his defence ofthe Editors. Now, both the
Editors and their vindicator may be perfectly at ease, as to the difficulty
which the author of the genealogy would have to combat in reciting the
narrative of the miraculous conception : for if, as they inform us, this diffi
culty was to be occasioned, only by the circumstance, of the design ofthe
narrative being to show that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, this
could raise no very great impediment in the way of him who asserts this
Tol. 2.-48

378 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ness of the record, or the falsehood of the contents separately,
is deemed to be unreasonable and captious.

very thing in his account of the genealogy . For what does the genealogy
say ? " Abraham begat Isaac," " Isaac begat Jacob,"— and so on, for,
about forty generations, using the word \yevne-e, begat, in each instance ;
until, in the 16th verse, the whole closes, with telling us, that " Jacob be
gat Joseph : " and what next 1— that Joseph begat Jesus 1 No : no such
thing. The uniform course is here at once broken : — " Jacob begat Jo
seph, the husband of Mary : of whom" (Mary) " was born Jesus,
Who is called Christ." — 'IsutwC te eyevvne-e ret 'Iara-Jip, rey avipa. Mag/ac, 'E2 "H2
•fynvtib>i 'Xnvevs e Keyefaves X£wtoj. Now is it possible to declare, in plainer
terms, that, though Jesus was bcm of Mary, who was married to Joseph,
yet that Joseph did not beget him ? [See particularly Rosenmuller on
Matth. i. 17. page 16.] And is not this precisely what the narrative of
the miraculous conception, in the same Evangelist, relates at length 1
We see, then, that a part of " the design of the genealogy " is precisely
that which the Editors say was " the design of the narrative ;" namely,
"jto show that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real
father." * And, in like manner, we are told this exactly in St. Luke's
reference to the same subject; that Evangelist, when he speaks of Jesus
as the son of Joseph, using these remarkable words, " Being, as was
supposed, the son of Joseph: i. e. being his reputed son only, butnot
his son in reality. [N. B. the attempt of the Editors to get rid of
this, by construing i*s ho^tre, " as was allowed by law," is quite pitia
ble. Even if the translation could be justified, it would still be an
admission, that he was but the reputed son, allowed as such by the
law.] "Josephi filius non erat, sed vulgo putabatur," — "He
was not the son of Joseph, but only vulgarly reputed to be so,"
— are the words of Grotius, in explaining this part of St. Luke. This
favourite author the Editors had quoted on the words immediately
preceding it inhere, but thought it not convenient to travel forward
the next step, and quote him upon these. Another favourite author
they have also declined quoting, on the subject of the genealogy as
given in Matthew ; namely, Lardner, who affirms of the Cerinthians,
that, " if they received the genealogy in Matthew," they must allow
that Jesus was born of a virgin." Works, vol. ix. p. 326. This, it will
be remembered, is the opinion of a decided Unitarian. Again, what is
to be said of their greatest favourites of all, the Ebionites ? Is it to
be supposed, that they would have cut out the genealogy from the very
gospel which they used (which is what the Editors afiirm of them) if

* See Whitby's Preface, p. vii.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 379
The same course is pursued with respect to Marcion, which
has been pursued with regard to the Ebionites. The calm
inquirer contends for the right of the Editors to believe and
to disbelieve, of what he attests, just what they may choose,
pronouncing him credible and incredible at pleasure : and, with
the conduct of the Dublin Professor, who is so unreasonable,
as to contend, that this Marcion should either be considered as
a credible witness, or as one not credible, but not both at the
same time, he contrasts his own great candour and that of the
the design of the genealogy included that which the Ebionites were
most anxious to establish ; namely, the proof, that Joseph was the real
father of Jesus 1 May we not rather suspect, that they found the ge
nealogy so unfavourable to this result, that they thought it prudent to
expunge it from their gospel?
To sum up now the substance of this note. — The Editors, and their
Calm Inquirer, have said : " It is probable that the genealogy is gemir
ine ; therefore the narrative of the miraculous conception which con
tradicts its design must be spurious. I answer. The probability of
the former could not induce the necessity of the latter, even if there
were a contradiction. But there being, in place of a contradiction, a
marked conformity, between the genealogy and the narrative, the
genuineness of either tends to confirm that of the other. Thus then,
we see, Scripture is swept away not merely for reasons not sufficient,
but for reasons that should establish it.
That I might not encumber the subject, I made mention, at the
beginning of this note, of but one probability. But, in reality, the
Editors have grounded their argument upon two, the one engrafted
upon the other. The gospel of the Ebionites, they say, was probably
the original gospel of Matthew written in the Hebrew, for the Jewish
believers. This is one probability (or rather an aggregate of probabi
lities.) Then, again, it is probable, that tins' original gospel, &c. con
tained the genealogy. This is a second probability raised upon the •
shoulders of the former : or rather, they should have been reversed,
and the other raised upon the shoulders of this. But it is the same in
the end. From one hypothesis built upon another ; from a probability
growing upon a probability ; a certainty is the result. — This translated
into mathematical language, would make the product of two proper
fractions (which must be a smaller fraction than either), equal to an
integer ; — a mathematical result, equally worthy of Hackney with the
logical one, that would make the chance of a chance amount to cer
tainty.

380 supplementary remarks ON THE
Unitarians ; who, he says, would actually believe Athanasius
himself, "the great Athanasius," if be bore testimony in favour
oftfie Unitarian side ofthe question. (This is * candour.)
He then proceeds, in full triumph, to condemn, as before, the
Dublin Professor for " applying his new principle of believe
all or none to the testimony of Marcion ; or, as he otherwise ex-
presses it, for " not being content, unless all be believed in the
lump ; " unless people " believe or disbelieve in the gross."
.And he conclude? the subject, in the same spirit of candour and
good sense which had governed him throughout, by remarking,
that this is " a very convenient faith, to those, who are to gulp
down the bitter potion of thirty-nine articles, before they can
lay hold of th". golden pr.ize which glitters before them."
These are the words of the t Calm Inquirer. Address, &c.
p. 11.

* This candour must also carry the writer so far, as to induce him, even
though it were acknowledged that Athanasius had mutilated any writing,
to admit the testimony of that Father to its completeness. If it does not
carry him so far, it will answer no purpose on the present occasion. This
however is a degree of candour, in which, although it cannot be supposed
that / have any indisposition towards Athanasius, I certainly should not
be able to imitate this calm inquirer. . :
t This really sounds so very like the language which we are aecustomed
tp hear from another calm inquirer, in his habitual revilings of the
Clergy of the Established Church, that one might be almost tempted, not
withstanding the miserable stupidity of this anonymous writer, to imagine
both calm inquirers to be the same. However, be it known to this
calm inquirer, whoever he may he, that even the one or two articles,
which comprise the Hackney or Essex Street faith, would be found by
any honest, pious, and intelligent Christian, a more difficult swallow, thai*,
jiot merely the thirty-nine, but five hundred articles, conceived in the
same spirit with them, and governed by the same adherence to Scripture :
and for this plain reason ; that, whatever might tempt him to such a swal
low, it could not be the love of truth combined with knowledge. — Beit
known also to this calm inquirer, that with respect tp " the glittering
prize," w(iich, in the honesty of his conscience, he believes to be the induce
ment with the Clergy of the Establishment to subscribe the Articles of
their creed?— the disinterested ministers of the classes with which he
associates obtain, individually, much more of this by their dissent from
those Articles, than nine-tenths of the Established Clergy do by their

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 381
Thus we see how victoriously this Unitarian champion winds
»p his argument. And yet, so great is the force of prejudice,

acquiescence. — It is well known that, viewing the matter as a mere ques
tion of gain, — the light in Which this writer's taste disp&ses him to con
sider it, — the Non-Conformist teachers drive a more gainful trade than
the great majority of our Clergy ; and a much more gainful one, than the
same persons, generally, would have any chance of driving, had they aban
doned the Conventicle foT the Church : and this too, even admitting, that
there were room for so many additional candidates for ecclesiastical emolu
ments. Those, then, Who, with the calm inquirer, would make traffic of their
ministry, have no just cause for the jealousy which he expresses. They
really have no right to complain. They have not only more of actual
gain, but, if the heads of the Church be excepted, they have, from the
usual operation of party spirit, more of distinction and individual sway, than
the members of our Clergy at large. If, then, there be on their side, not
only more of positive profit ; but, if, in addition to this, there be the in
dulgence of vanity, and the gratification of spleen, — qualities, which, time
out of mind, have belonged to the family of Dissent, — why should the
calm inquirer be disturbed from his calmness by the contemplation' of
the advantages, of the National Clergy ?
N. B. I have lately seen, somewhere, a proposal for publishing the
lives of English Unitarian teachers. And, some time back, we had a
splendid account of a portrait to be taken of the Rev. Thomas Belsham,
and an engraving also, by two of the most distinguished artists, in con
sideration of his exertions in editing the Improved Version of the New
Testament. (See Monthly Rep. vol. iv. p. 119., by which we are in
formed, by the by, who has been the Editor, or at least the principal
Editor, of this extraordinary production. ) Thus lives, portraits, biographi
cal notices, literary puffings, andjlistioctions of all sorts, are heaped upo»
persons, merely because they rank as the teachers of certain Non-Con
formist classes ; whilst the parochial clergy of the Established Church are
left to their labours and their obscurity.
In a calculation, such as that which the calm inquirer has forced upon
us here, it is also fair to advert to the previous institution for the clerical
office ; both as a matter of qualification, and of expense. I cannot pro
nounce as to the usage in England ; not being acquainted with it ; but I
can positively assert, that, in this country, no person can be admitted into
Holy Orders,£without a preparatory occupation of eleven years, at the
least (from ihe commencement of classical learning,) in the School and
the University. I speak here of the established rules of Ordination, re
quiring Collegiate testimonials, frpm which I do not know of any departure 1

382 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
opposed to all this powerful reasoning, sharpened, even as it is,
by such keenness of wit, that, unless it can be made to appear
a little more clearly, 1. that a witness's own declaration is deci
sive of his truth ; or, 2. that his deliberate mutilation of one part
of a written document which he attests renders him more credible
as to the remainder ; or, 3. that he may be at the same time a
credible and not a credible witness to the same point,: — I must,
after all, and, I apprehend, so will a great majority of my read
ers, continue under the impression, (for the reasons, already
assigned, at pp. 163 — 167. 173 — 190. of this volume,) that the
first two chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are to be
received as genuine Scripture, notwithststanding the alleged
want of these chapters in the respective copies of the Ebionites
and Marcion.
But what shall we say if the entire foundation of the argument,
with which the Editors and their calm inq.uirer have been
amusing us, be itself a fiction; and if it shall appear, not only
that the Ebionite Gospel was not a copy of the Gospel of St.
Matthew, nor the Marcionite Gospel a copy of that of St. Luke,
but that neither of them professed to be such 1 What, in this
case, becomes of the fact, of the want of the first chapters of
Matthew and Luke, or of any parts of these Gospels, in the
books of these ancient heretics ? Now, upon a full investigation
ofthe testimonies ofthe Fathers, from whom alone we can derive
information as to what the books of these heretics actually con
tained, this case seems to be satisfactorily established. To enter
into the proof, here, would occupy too much room. It is, for
tunately, however, altogether unnecessary ; as the subject has
been already fully discussed, and the results of the above testi-

What then the outfit is, even in point of expenditure, it is not difficult to
judge. The Unitarians, and most other classes of Non-Conformists, can
say how the matter stands as to their academies, and systems of educa
tion. In some cases, it is well known, the individual is his own Uni
versity ; confers his own degrees and orders ; and has little more difficulty
in the way of his vocation, than to find a new hat, a stout pony, and a pair
of saddle bags. — Now, if the calm inquirer will have it to be a mere
matter of lucre, where lies the better bargain I

unitarian version of the new test. 383
monies carefully ascertained, by the most competent judges, to
whom reference can easily be had. To bring the matter within
the smallest compass, I am satisfied to appeal to those very judges
whom the Unitarians pronounce to be the most to be relied upon
on subjects such as this. To assist in determining on all points
relating to the genuineness of the books of the New Testament,
the Editors inform us, in their Introduction,^, vii ) that " the
learned Jeremiah Jones on the Canon, and Dr. Lardner's la-
laborious work upon the credibility of the Gospel History, con
tain the most accurate and copious information." They
might have referred to other distinguished authorities on the
same subject, who would have thrown much light on the pre
sent question. But I am willing to abide by the decision of
those arbiters whom the Unitarians have themselves selected,
and who, undoubtedly, are well entitled to the praise bestowed
on them, for the industry and learning which they have dis
played in their inquiries into the authenticity of the writings
of the New Testament. — Now what is the report of these
writers 1
And, first, as to the Ebionites, what says " the learned Jere
miah Jones 7 " He tells us, that these Ebionites (whom he
pronounces to be " a most ridiculous set of heretics, who scarcely
deserved the name of Christians," vol. ii. p. 270.) possessed a
Hebrew Gospel,, which he proves at length to have been " a
spurious and apocryphal piece ; " " not mentioned in any of the
ancient catalogues ; " " not cited by any of the ancient writers ; "
" not read in any of the assemblies of the primitive Christians ; "
" containing several things * contrary to certainly known and

* Among the instances of this nature, which have been adduced, it may
be sufficient to mention one, as illustrative of the degree of corruption to
which this Ebionite Gospel had been carried. — " The mother and brethren
of Christ spake to him and said ; John the Baptist baptizes for the remission
of sins ; let us go and be baptized by him : He said to them, In what have
I sinned, that I have need to go to be baptized by him, unless my saying
this proceeds from ignorance V And, after thus describing our Lord's
unwillingness to submit to John's Baptism, this Gospel goes on to put into
our Lord's mouth reasons for denying baptism to John, who had fallen down
before our Lord to entreat it of him. Other instances of such strange fabri-

384 supplementary remarks on the
undoubted truths ; " also " things trifling and * silly ; " " things
later than the time in which it pretends to have been written ; "
and that, so far frorn professing to be a copy of the Gospel of
St. Matthew, it; though principally compiled from that Gospel,
" pretended to be made by the Twelve Apostles." (New and
Full Method^ &c. vol. i. pp. 219—223. 272. 330-387.)
Again, what says Dr. Lardner? Substantially the same
things that Jeremiah Jones had said : admitting both the fact
of the compilation, and the introduction of foreign and spurious
matter. " The Gospel according to the Hebrews," by which he
understands the Gospel used by the Ebionites, this writer pro
nounces to have been a compilation later in time than " our
genuine Gospels;" having indeed, as its groundwork, "St.
Matthew's Gospel," but with " additions of things taken out of
St. Luke's (and perhaps other gospels) and other matters that
had been delivered by oral tradition." ( Works, vol. ii. p. 84.)
He has gone very fully into this subject of the Gospel used by
the Ebionites, as well as their opinions, and their fabrication of
Apocryphal writings, in various other parts of his works. — See
vol. ji. pp. 127. 143. 358. ; vii. pp. 19—24. ; ix. pp. 255.
322* 329.
Thus, then, after the most ample and accurate examination
of the various accounts of the Ebionites and their Gospel, trans
mitted to us by the ancient Fathers, Irenaius, Origen, Euse-
bius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Sec, the result which we arrive at,
through the laborious researches of Jones and Lardner, is, that
the Gospel in question was no more than a compilation from the
genuine Gospels, founded upon Matthew as its principal ground
work, and including matter not contained in any part of canon-

cation will be found in Jones, vol. i. pp. 376 — 379. 541. See also Lard
ner's Works, vol. ii. pp. 127, 128. Mill. Proleg. pp. 6. 31, 32. Grot.
(Crit. Sac. vol vi. pp. 40. 572.) — Voss. Dissert, de Gen.Jes. Chr. pp. 16,
17. Ittig. de Hceresiarch. pp. 76 — 82. Mich. Introd. vol iii. pp. 176 — 180.
Dr. Laurence's Crit. Refl. pp. 34 — 37. 44, 45.
* Such as our Lord's saying, that " his mother, the Holy Ghost, laid
hold of him by one of his hairs, and carried him into the great mountain
Tabor, &c. &c. For similar instances, see Jones, vol. i. 379. ; also the
Authors referred to in the preceding note.

unitarian version of the new test. 385
ical Scripture : in other words, a garbled selection from the
Gospels, with spurious additions : so that it neither was nor pre*
tended to be a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, however it might
have been framed upon that Gospel as its foundation. The
same result has been abundantly established by numerous*

* Grotius, whose authority Unitarians so much affect to value, concurs
in the general charges of corruption against the Ebionite Gospel, (Crit.
Sacr. vol. vi. pp. 40, 41. 572.) but conceives the groundwork to be the
Gospel of St. Matthew, mutilated by the Ebionites to accommodate it to
their peculiar Opinions. Casaubon (adv. Baron. Annal. exerc. xvi. pp.
279. 485.) pronounces this Gospel, so far from being an authentic copy of
St. Matthew, to have been a Work fall of fables and corruptions of every
sort. — Dr. Grdbe (Spicil. Patr. vol. i. pj 15, &c.) goes so far as to affirm,
that it was not even formed on the groundwork of Matthew's Gospel, but
a distinct work altogether, composed by the Jewish converts, and after
wards spoken of erroneously under the title of Matthew's Gospel. Mill
(in his Proleg. pp. 31, 32.) contends for the idea of a mutilated copy of
St. Matthew having formed the groundwork ; and that Upon this was su
perinduced matter from the other gospels* so as to compose a fuvr'ee-e-agot,
but a, corrupted one. — Vossius (Diss de. Gen. Jes. Chr. pp. 15 — 18.)
describes this Gospel as a mutilated ind interpolated copy of a Gospel,
formed on the groundwork of St. Matthew by the Naxarenes. — Dr.
Mangey, in his Remarks upon the Nazarenus of Toland, [who preceded
the Unitarians, in the use attempted to be made of this fictitious Ebionite
copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, but whose inconsistencies upon the subject,
great as they were, Mr. Wilson has shown in his Illustrations, p. 274-^=
305., to be much less extravagant than those of Dr. Priestley and his
followers,] contends, that this Gospel, so far from being a copy of St.
Matthew's, was altogether a chimerical and forged production. (Chap. vi.
p. 35. Chap. viii. pp. 58, 59.) — Dr. Whitby's conclusion concerning this
Gospel is, that " it was not a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, free from
additions and interpolations," but a translation of the Greek Gospel of
Matthew into Hebrew, " with the same liberty of making additions to it
from tradition, which we find in the Chaldee paraphrast : which Version
the primitive Christians among the Gentiles, who were ignorant of that
language, fiading in their hands — might think an original written for their
use." (Pref. Disc, to the Gospels, pp. xlvi., xlvii.) — Michaelis (Introd.
vol. iii. pp. 174 — 180.) having adduced numerous instances of gross
fabrication, ascribed to the Gospel of the Ebionites, concludes with saying,
that it appears from those instances, that this " was not the original Gos
pel of St. Matthew : but, on the contrary, that it was a composition put
Vol. 2.-49

386 supplementary remarks on the
other writers of distinguished note ; but I have been desirous to
present here, unmixed with any other, the decisions of Jones

together, partly from St. Matthew's and partly from the other Gospels :"
at pp. 179, 180. particularly, he adduces examples of selections from
other Gospels besides that of Matthew ; and, at p. 176., he observes, that
there is reason to " doubt, whether the Ebionites themselves ascribed to it
the name of St. Matthew's Gospel." He might indeed have gone farther,
and pronounced positively, that they did not ascribe to it that name ; when,
in the preceding page, he has noticed the declaration of Epiphanius, that
the Ebionites " themselves called it the Hebrew Gospel ;" and when he
has shown, also, from Epiphanius's declaration, that, from the great cor
ruptions and mutilations of this Gospel, it could not with any colour of
probability be considered as the Gospel of St. Matthew. But, still further,
it appears from another part of Epiphanius, that this Gospel actually
claimed to be the production of the twelve Apostles. See Jer. Jones, vol. i.
pp. 380, 381. And that the names which were attributed to this Gospel
by those to whom it belonged were the Gospel according to the Apostles,
and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is manifest from the writings of
the Fathers, although they themselves occasionally allude to it, as if it
were supposed to be a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel. Why they have
done so, may be easily explained, from their having generally conceived it
to have been founded upon that Gospel, and for a reason which shall be
adverted to hereafter.
Were I now, after the judgments of so many learned critics, to hazard
an opinion of my own upon this subject, I would say, that I conceive the
Ebionite Gospel to have been a mutilated and corrupted copy of that of
the Nazarenes; which was itself formed by additions to the Gospel of St.
Matthew from the other Gospels as well as from tradition : this Gospel
being, of course, later than our canonical Gospels ; and the Ebionite
much later still than this ; for, it is to be observed, we find no mention of
an Ebionite Gospel until near the close ofthe second century. This, as
it appears to me, goes a great way to reconcile the apparent differences in
the testimony of the Fathers. The Ebionite Gospel might thus be gener
ally spoken of as the Nazarene Gospel, being but a modification of it, at a
later period; and the Nazarene Gospel might, in like manner, (and
through it, the Ebionite,) be described, in loose phrase, as the Hebrew
Gospel of St. Matthew : the difference between the Ebionite and the
Nazarene copies might then justly be pointed out ; and, whilst the former
was described as a mutilated representation of St. Matthew's Gospel,
(Hire |Uifiouf, jm) ev%t e\v,) the latter might be spoken of as vrMptrrarey ; that
is, as Michaelis explains this word, as a lectio plenior, which might contain
more than the original text. See Michaelis, especially, at vol. iii. pp. 175,

UNITARIAN version of the new test. 387
and Lardner, as being the favourite authorities chosen by the
Unitarians themselves. — Having seen the true nature of " this
purest copy of the Gospel of Matthew ; which was possessed
by the Ebionites : " " this Gospel which they would on no ac
count presume either to enlarge or to curtail ; " we may, now,
proceed to the equally immaculate copy of Luke's Gospel by
Marcion. As before, we shall here appeal to the two selected judges,
Jones and Lardner. And, first, Jones tells us, that " the Gos
pel of Marcion was really no other than one of our present
Gospels, wretchedly corrupted and altered by that silly
heretic." He quotes Tertullian, also, as saying, that " Mar
cion has prefixed no Author's name to his Gospel, as if he
might not as justly have forged a title as have corrupted the
whole book." The Gospel, which Mar cion thus, "changed
and corrupted, was " (he adds) " the Gospel of St. Luke : the
nature of these corruptions he collects from Irenaus, Tertul
lian, and Epiphanius ; and he charges Marcion not only
with " taking away entirely the two first chapters of Luke and
many other parts," but also with " inserting a great many things
of his own ; all designed for the propagating his silly princi
ples." (Vol. i. pp. 326, 327.) — What, again, is the report of
Lardner ? — That the Evangelium of Marcion " contained
only one of the four Gospels, viz. that of St. Luke ; and this
mutilated and altered, and even interpolated in a great vari-

1 76. 'rsregs!-A»£«! Le Clerc calls it. — Besides, Jerome's report of the two
descriptions of Ebionites (one being probably the Nazarene) would be
thus sufficiently accounted for. In this view of the subject, I feel myself
nearer to Vossius, Grotius, and Mill, (particularly the first,) than to any
other of the writers whom I have here quoted. But whether this solu
tion prove satisfactory or not, has nothing to do with the question now
before us. That the Ebionite Gospel cannot be considered as a true copy
of St. Matthew's Gospel; and that it was not pretended to be such ; and
did not even assume the name ; — is all that it is requisite at present to
establish : and whether this be established, it is for the reader to judge. —
On the Ebionites, their opinions, and the Gospel used by them, Ittigius de
Hatresiarchis deserves particularly to be referred to, in addition to the
writers already named. See pp. 59—83.

388 supplementary remarks on the
ety of places ; " that " he would not allow it to be called the
Gospel of St. Luke : that some of his followers considered it
as written partly by Christ himself, and partly by the Apostle
Paul : that Marcion retrenched the first and second chapters
entirely, and began his Gospel at the first verse ofthe third chap
ter, and even read this different from our copies, viz.* that in
the fifteenth year of Tiberius Ccesar, God descended into
Capernaum, a city of Galilee." (See Lardner's Works,
vol. ix. p. 394.) This writer then proceeds (through pp. 394—
402.) to exhibit numerous instances of the mutilations t and

* This sentence, if indeed it can be supposed to have been derived
from St. Luke at all, may be considered as a corrupted combination of
part of the first verse of the third chapter with part of the thirty^
first verse of the fourth chapter of that Gospel t at which latter verse
this copy of Marcion may, of course, be considered to begin, See
Mill. Proleg. pp. 34, 35.
f Of these mutilations noticed by Lardner, as in reference to the
contents of St. Luke's Gospel, I here subjoin a list ; that the reader
may the better judge of the consistency of the respect which the Edu
tors show for the authority of Marcion, as to his omissions of matter
contained in that Gospel.
Chap. i. ii. iii. 2., iv., 31., part of viii. 19., part of x. 21., xi. part of
29. and all of 30, 31, 32. 49, 50, 51., xii. 6. 28. part of 30. and 32., xiii,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5- part of 28. and all of 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35., xv. 10—
32., xvii. part of 10. and 12, 13, and part of 14., xviii. 31, 32, 33., xix,
27—47., xx. 8—18. 37, 38., xxi. 18, 21, 22., xxii. 16. 35, 36, 37. 51., xxiii,
43., xxiv. 26, 27. — These it must be remembered, also, are only such
omissions as can be, at this day, verified from the writings of the
Fathers, especially Epiphanius. How much more of what is con
tained iij St, Luke was not in this Evangelium of Marcion, it is im
possible to pronounce ; none of the Fathers having proposed to enu?
merate the differences ; as Losffler has properly remarked, with respect
to Epiphanius especially, who might, above all, be conceived to have
had this object in view, (See Cpmm. Theol. vol, i. p. 214.) But,
besides these instances of matter omitted, we have many supplied to us
by Lardner, of passages different from the corresponding ones in
Luke's Gospel ; of matter also not contained in Luke ; and of subjects
placed in a different order. (Vol. ix, pp. 394—402.) The general
account of this Gospel in relation to St. Luke's, as it has been given
by an ancient Father, may satisfy us (if any thing more can be

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 389
corruptions charged against the Evangelium of Marcion ;
and concludes with saying, that " on an impartial review of the
alterations" made by him, although some are trifling, yet
" many of them are undoubtedly designed perversions, in
tended to countenance, or at least not directly contradict, those
absurd principles, which he and his followers espoused." — He,
next, brings under review the gross corruptions of Marcion' s
Apastolicon, with which we have no immediate concern ; and
at page 448. pronounces, as a general result, of this heretic, that,
of the Scriptures at large, he rejected whatever did not suit
his purpose. In another part of his works, this writer declares
his opinion to be, that Marcion had made Luke's Gospel the
groundwork of a compilation, omitting what he pleased of this
Gospel, and taking -from the others such things as suited his
purpose ; and that this was probably the reason, why his Gos
pel bore the title of no author whatever. As for Marcion him*
self, he pronounces him to have been " the most arbitrary and
most licentious of all the ancient heretics, in his judgment con
cerning the Scripture that should be received, and in his man
ner Of treating such as were received by him : so that his opin
ion can be no prejudice to the genuineness, or the notoriety
of any of those hooks of the New Testament, which were
received by the Catholics, and indeed by most heretics like-

wanted,) how slight the resemblance was altogether between the two.
"O fievyb^%ap*%rrip revizra Aevnay (n/xilvti re li.vayyif.iey, is te fxpcernphcraj, )J.ir%
&PX>it exm! i""'rf f*i<r*-i ft»ri reKes, &.C xm ev %*& tip/xev nihtv im/nivei iwli ri phi
its irpveitret, ?ra.pxit.iirru, ra ft Trpoo-riQuo-tv atea ltira, ovit epBZs @.±tef^w, <5*V \pp&$ievpy»
fiiyeis iruvr*. irtpivoreiuv. Epiph. Hares. 42 page 311.
This is that pure copy of the Gospel of Luke, which, being " the
only Gospel which Marcion believed to be authentic," he would, of
course (like the Ebionites with regard to Matthew's Gospel,) " on no
account presume either to enlarge or to curtail," Yet the Editors of
the /. V. have, it is to be observed, not followed this purest copy of
Luke, either in its omissions or alterations; save, only, in leaving out
the first two chapters, and, even of these, they have retained tbe first
four verses ; thus every way discrediting their own unblemished model.
There seems a treachery in their praise. They commend, but to
desert. Witness Newcome, Griesbach, and, now, even Marcion and
the J$bionites,

390 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
wise : " and, having established this by abundant authority, he
closes with the expression of Tertullian concerning this heretic,
that he used a knife, and not a style. ( Works, vol. vi. pp.
657—660.) Such are the sentiments of Jones and Lardner respecting
Marcion and his Gospel : that very Marcion, upon whose
" learning and integrity " the Unitarian Editors rely
in their adjustment of an important part of the canon of the
N. T. : and that very Gospel, upon the authority of which
they pronounce the two first chapters of St. Luke to be spurious,
in opposition to every Manuscript, every Version, and every an
cient document, relating to the subject, which is known to be in
existence throughout the world !
Having now followed the Editors to that tribunal, to which
they are most willing to appeal, it is unnecessary for me to refer
them to the numerous other distinguished critics, who * concur
* On the subject of Marcion and his Gospel, there seems, now in
deed, to be scarcely more than one opinion amongst all well-informed
writers, who have lately treated of it. From a more accurate exami
nation of the ancient authorities relating to this Gospel (Irenaus,
Tertullian, and Epiphanius,) it has become the general opinion, that
it was not intended as a copy of St. Luke's Gospel, but as an Evange-
lium compiled by Marcion for his own purposes, from various sources
(the Gospel of Luke among others,) and opposed by him and his fol
lowers, to all the four Gospels, which the Catholics held to be canoni
cal. This is the decided opinion of Semlcr (Proleg. in Ep. ad Gal.
i} 2, 3.) and of Griesbach {Hist. Text. Grcec. Epist. Paul Spec. I.
Sect. iii. ^ 8.) We have an essay also in Velth. Comm. Theol. (vol. i.
pp. 180 — 218.,) in which this point is established, at length, by a full
display of the great dissimilitude between the two Gospels, and of
the other circumstances which evince this Evangelium to have been
but a compilation, without the slightest pretence to be a copy of St.
Luke's Gospel. Why it came, under these circumstances, to have
been spoken of as such, the learned writer also explains, from a prin
ciple held particularly by Irenmus, that from some of the four gos
pels, all others, that claimed the name, must necessarily, have been
derived: from which principle, he observes, it followed, that instead
of being described as separate Gospels, they were considered as cor
ruptions of that canonical Gospel, to which they seemed most nearly
to approach : and, that hence, as the Ebionites were charged with

unitarian version of the new test. 391
with the learned writers just named, in pronouncing that the
Gospel of Marcion cannot be considered as a copy of St. Luke's
Gospel, nor as intended to be proposed as such. Yet there is,
after all, one authority, which the Editors (or one Editor, at
least, surely,) must deem of such paramount importance, that I
cannot avoid calling it to my aid (even though it be ex abun-
danti,) upon the present subject. This authority is no other
than that of Mr. Thomas Belsham, who, in his Answer to
Bishop Burgess's Brief Memorial, has favoured the public
with a lengthened view of the true state of the case respecting
Marcion ; informing us of that, with which all persons conver
sant with ecclesiastical history were already familiar ; but which,
being a recent discovery with Mr. Belsham, is naturally dwelt
upon with all the interest which novelty excites. This writer
informs us (I give the substance for the sake of brevity,) that
one of the apocryphal narratives which were in circulation be
fore the Canon was formed, was selected by Marcion, under the
bias, no doubt, of a prejudice in favour of his own system: and
that, in this, he probably added or omitted upon the authority of
other copies, what he thought would render it more perfect ; and
"thus formed what he called an Evangelium, or an epitome of
the Evangelical history." This, Mr. Belsham thinks the more
probable, because " Marcion does not attribute his copy

having used a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, but greatly adulterated,
the same thing was urged against the Marcionites, with respect to the
Gospel of St. Luke ; whereas, neither the one class of heretics, nor the
other, pretended to exhibit the Gospels of these Evangelists, (Ibid.
p. 215.) Dr. Marsh, also, concurs with the writers already named,
conceiving it probable that Marcion used some apocryphal Gospel,
which had much in common with St. Luke. (Marsh's Mich. vol. iii.
part 2. pp. 159, 160.) And Dr. Laurence^ in the third chapter of his
Critical Reflections, &c. has clearly and fully summed up the strong
points of the case, coinciding in the same conclusion. [Indeed both
the 2d and 3d chapters of this work of Dr. Laurence, deserve to be
particularly attended to by all who would wish to see a full exposure
of the absurd attempts of the Unitarian Editors to set up the idle
story of Ebionite and Marcionite copi-ks of Matthew and Luke against
the genuine Gospels of these Evangelists.]

392 supplementary remarks on the
to any particular author." The history, of which Mar
cion made the principal Use, our critic collects to be that of Luke;
in which he made such additions and alterations as he deemed
expedient; but "he did not* pretend to pass off his

* On this point Mr. Belsham expresses himself with indignant warmth
at the unfair treatment which the' worthy and learned Marcion has met
with at the hands ofthe Orthodox. Whilst this honest heretic, " did not
pretend to pass off his Evangelium as the Gospel of Luke, yet his Orthodox
reviewers, finding that Luke was his principal authority, rate him most un
mercifully for every passage in which he deviates from what they choose to
represent as his original / as if he was a voltmtary falsifier and corrupter of
Luke's text."' (Append to Disc. p. 123.) What makes this conduct of
the Orthodox the more unjustifiable is, that, as Mr. Belsham assures us in
the same page, " Marcion maintains, not that his was a genuine copy of
Luke, but a genuine Evangelium." Now, undoubtedly, if Marcion's Gos
pel was not pretended, by him or his follower's, to be a copy of St. Luke's
Gospel, nothing could be more unfair, than1 to allege its deviations from
that Gospel, as proofs of its falsification of St. Luke. But then the whole'
of this hard treatment of Mdrcion turns upon the assertion, that his Gospel
was meant to be received as a copy of St. Luke's : for, this being once
admitted, no language of accusation* on the ground of corruption, could be'
too strong. Now, by whom has this assertion been made 1 — I have often,-
in the course of these sheets, been compelled to make my reader stare, by
stating plain facts; and I have no doubt I shall do so now. The persons
by whom this assertion has been made, and repeated again and again, and
dwelt upon as the great foundation of their arguments against the begin
ning of St. Luke's Gospel, are, — Mr. Belsham, the Editors 01? the I. V. .
and their associates. That the Orthodox, indeed, have, upon the position,-
that Marcion's Gospel was a copy of St. Luke's, been so unreasonable as
to found the assertion that it must in that case be condemned as a false and
corrupt copy, cannot be denied. But that the position itself is a fundamen
tal one with the Unitarian critics, the reader shall have the means of satis
fying himself.
First, we shall see what Mr. Belsham says. In describing the degree of
weight which Marcion's testimony had in determining his judgment in the
rejection ofthe first two chapters of St. Luke, he says, — " He " (Marcion)
" like some learned Christians of modern times, rejected, but, as I think,
without sufficient reason, all the evangelical histories excepting that of
Luke." [It must be a great satisfaction to the Orthodox to find that Mr
Belsham really thinks there is not quite sufficient reason for rejecting the
Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although some learned Christians^

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 393
evangelium as the gospel of lUKe." The liberties which
Marcion, exercised in forming this eclectic gospel," Mr.
meaning Mr. Evanson of course, are of a different opinipn. Buttoreturn
to St. Luke.] " Of this Gospel,"' (St Luke's) " we know, that he "
' {Marcion) " professed ,to believe, that the copy which he used was ge
nuine and authentic, and that other copies had been interpolated and cor
rupted." — " His copy did not contain the history of ihe miraculous
conception, this narrative he therefore rejected," &c. (Letters t on
Arianism, p. 71.) — [We may note here, as we pass, how exactly
Mr. Belsham and his brother Editors have followed the example
of Marcion. -"Their copy" (which they have made for themselves1)
*-' does not contain the history of the miraculous conception : this narrative
they- therefore (!) reject." &cJ| Again, as an argument against the
narrative of the miraculous conception both in St. Matthew and St. Luke,
this Writer thus expresses himself in the very beginning -of his Calm In
quiry, (p. 12.) " The Ebionite Gospel of Matthew, and the Marcionite
Gospel of Luke, did not eontain these accounts ; and both those sects
maintained ther own to be the uncorrupted, unmutilated copies op
these evangelical histories." — Again, what say the Editors; that is,
what says Mr. Belsham in another form I Just the same that he has said
before. " The two first chapters of this Gospel were wanting in the copies
used by Marcion." — " He, like some moderns,, rejected all the evangelical
histories excepting Luke, of which he contended that his own was a cor
rect and authentic copy." (Imp. Vers. p. 120.-) The very same language
used here by Mr. Belsham, both in his individual and in his aggregate
capacity, is echoed by Mr. B. in bis attack upon the Quarterly Reviewers,
(Month. Repos. vol. iv.) and by the Calm inquirer, in his Address, &c.
So that, in every shape in which Mr. Belsham had, or can be siispeeted; to
have appeared before the date of his answer to Bishop Burgess, whether
open or covertj whether by himself or through his vicarius, his note is
found to be uniformly the same, that Marcion. maintained his gospel
to be a copy of st. luke's ; and also maintained it to be a cor
rect and authentic copy. Now, he tells us, a;s we have seen above in
his answer to Bishop Burgess, that the assertion, that Marcion's Gospel
was a copy of St. Luke's, was merely an invention of the wicked Ortho-
doxt for-the purpose of fastening upon the unoffending Marcion thecharge
of falsifying Scripture, on the ground of the great dissimilarity between his
copy and St. Luke's Gospel ; whereas Mr. Belsham assures us, that Mar
cion's evangelium was a Gospel of his own composition, never intended to
pass for a copy of St. Luke's, nor even asserted by him to be a copy of
that Gospel. — Thus- we see it is never too late to learn. And that, which
had been repeatedly pressed upon Mr. Belsham, and the Unitarians, (but
Vol. 2.— 50

394 supplementary remarks on the
B. admits " would not indeed be tolerated in modern times."
He allows, also, the errors of this heretic to have been extremely

ift vain,) as a reason, why nothing could be inferred, as to the genuineness
of any part of the Gospel of St. Luke, from what was or was not in the
Gospel of Marcion, is now brought forward by Mr. Belsham, as an im
portant discovery, to the irreparable disgrace of the Orthodox; who, it
seems, have hitherto been contending that Marcion's was designed to be
a copy of St. Luke's Gospel ! I sincerely wish Mr. Belsham joy of this
discovery : and, at the same time, of its-unavoidable result ; namely, that
we can draw no conclusion affecting the; genuineness of the narrative of
the miraculous conception in St. Luke's Gospel, from the non-existence
of this narrative in a Gospel, which did not affect to be a copy of the Gos--
pel of St. Luke.
However, on looking again into Mr. Belsham, I find we orthodox are
not to have the pleasure of his company throughout the entire of the argu*
ment. He has travelled with us through the premises, but he stops short,
and is absolutely restive, at the conclusion. Indeed, he seems to think, that
the conclusion against the genuineness of the first two chapters of St.
Luke's Gosjiel is as fairly to be derived from the supposition that Mar
cion's Evangelium was not a copy of that Gospel, as from the supposition
that it was. Perhaps he may be right upon this head.- But we must let his
reasons speak for themselves. Here, I apprehend, I shall again surprise my
readers not less than before. After having made the various concessions1,
quoted in this note, and in the text above, together with many others, as to
the arbitrary nature of the formation of Marcion's Gospel, especially as to his '
expunging whatever did not correspond with his theories, which are
admitted to have been extravagant and absurd, and with which, by the
bye, the human birth of Christ under any circumstances was totally
incompatible^our author proceeds to say, — And, though it is rea
sonable to admit, that Marcion left out of his Evangelium some
passages, which were unfavourable to his system, there is no proof
that he inserted any thing, which he did not believe to be authentic."
And thus, having endeavoured to clear this Gospel of the charge of the
interpolation of false matter, he concludes that, " upon the whole, there
i.s no reason to believe,' that the account ofthe miraculous conception
was found in that copy of Luke's Gospel which Marcion used." S
Here now is the consummation of this most wonderful of all the argu
ments, that either the author ofthe Elements, or even' his critical and
logical compeer Mr. Gilchrist, has accomplished* Marcion, who was
in the habit of " leaving out " what he did not approve in the Gospels
from which he selected, could not have left out the account of the
miraculous conception,; if it was in that copy of St. Luke's Gospel

unitarian version op the new test. 395
gross ; and that « he took the liberty of leaving out, from his
copy of the Gospel," (as well as from his Apostolicon,) " those

which he used. Very well : why not } He could not have left this
outt, — because, " there is no proof, that he inserted any thing which
Tie did not believe tp be authentic." ! — He took away many things it
is true ; but he did not take away this : because, he made np unau
thorized additions. Or, to put it in a still shorter way : He did not
take away this ; because, although he took away whatever he chose,
he added nothing ! Learners, undoubtedly, in the elements of num
bering, are in the habit of looking to addition as the proof of subtrac
tion. — Really these things can only be laughed at. And, yet, such
are the arguments which, in the nineteenth century, the advocate of
Revelation is doomed to combat in defence of the integrity of the
sacred text!
I did think, that I had done with Mr. Belsham, on "the subject of
this note. But he furnishes matter almost inexhaustible. There is a
variety in his views of any one subject, that renders it impossible tp
do him justice, by any thing short of the actual perusal of his produc
tions. And, in truth, in less from direct inspection, the reader cannot
easily be brought to credit the perpetual self-contradiction, and direct
violations of known truth, which openly and glaringly accompany the
movements of his pen, on all subjects connected with the Unitarian
question. We have seen him, both in the course of this note, and in
the quotations from him in the text, earnest to vindicate Marcion from
the charge of corrupting St. Luke's Gospel, on the ground of his not
having designed or pretended his Gospel to be a copy of St. Luke's:
and we have seen him ascribe to the invention of the malevolent
Orthodox this unfounded imputation of Marcion's having professed
to copy Luke's Gospel ; whilst, as he is eager to prove, Marcion
had really compiled a Gospel of his own, which had not Luke's for its
model. We have, undoubtedly, at the same time, seen that Mr. Bel
sham himself and his associates have been the persons, in modern
times, the most anxious, and the most interested, to support the opi
nion that Marcion's Gospel was a copy of St. Lube's. This, how
ever, was maintained by Mr. Belsham, on other occasions, at a
distance of time which might permit him to forget what, as it had
not truth or knowledge for its foundation, might easily be forgotten.
But, will it be credited, that, in this very publication, in which he
maintains Marcion's Gospel not to have been a copy of St. Luke's
nor pretended to be such, and charges the contrary supposition
against the Orthodox as a gross calumny, he himself supports this
very supposition with all his might } I piusf. quote him, for I can-

396 supplementary remarks on the
passages from which it might be inferred*, that Jesus was a
missionary from the Creator of the world, and the God of

not expect otherwise to be believed. " Since" Dr. Priestley, and
others after him, have appealed to marcion's copy of the gospel
of st. luke," (we see who the ill-minded orthodox are, that have
viewed Marcion's Gospel as a supposed copy of St. Luke's) " as an
authority for the omission of the account of the miraculous concep
tion of Jesus Christ, it is astonishing to observe," (a very astonishing
thing, indeed,) " with what incredible pains learned men have col
lected together the virulent abuse which the ancient orthodox writers
have heaped upon that famous heretic," (all heretics are famous,}
" for corrupting, as they call it," (certainly a very uncivil name to give
it,) " the genuine Scriptures ; that is, in other words, for using' a dif
ferent, and, in some'respects, as impartial and well-informed critics
acknowledge, a more correct copy than themselves." (Discourse,
&c. p. 117.) Here, then, we find ourselves back again on the old
ground. Marcion's was a copy of St. Luke's Gospel. Dr. Priestley
said so, and has turned this to account against St. Luke's canonicaj
Gospel. His followers said the same. Mr. Belsham said, and now re-
says, the same. The Orthodox, so far from affirming this, say .that it
differs so widely from St. Luke's Gospel, that it cannot reasonably be
believed to be a copy ; and have actually had the baseness to proceed
upon the ground of ecclesiastical history, and have quoted the reports
of the ancient historians, who alone report any thing upon the subject>
Mr. Belsham also concurs ; he says that Marcion and St. Luke are
so unlike, that nothing but the calumnies of the Orthodox could ever
have given rise to the notion that the Gospel of the one was meant to
be given as a copy of the other; for that it was quite a distinct Gos
pel. Yet, at the same time, (with a rapidity of counter movement
that leaves Breslaw oi; the Indian jugglers at immeasurable dis
tance,) this Gospel of Marcion's was not only, as Dr. Priestley says,
" a copy of the Gospel of St. Luke," but, Mr. Belsham assures us,
" as impartial and well-informed critics acknowledge, a more correct
copy " than any of those early Fathers, who have given us an account
of Marcion, possessed themselves. [Indeed, if I mistake not, Mr-
Belsham has somewhere gone nearly the length of saying, that it was
a more correct copy of Luke than Luke himself ever wrote. His
habits of controversy with Irish professors possibly led him to this
view of the subject.] But, extraordinary as all this is, when taken to
gether, the whole that is extraordinary has not yet appeared. Who
are the " impartial and well-informed critics," that " acknowledge" the

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 397
the Jews," &c. — " passages" (in a word) "which were unfavour
able to his system." (Appendix to Mr. Belsham's Discourse,
March 31. 1814, p. 121—128.)

superior correctness of Marcion's copy to that which the orthodox
Fathers possessed 1 He tells us, that they are Michaelis and his Anno-
tator : and refers us, at the foot of the page, to the exact passages, viz.
" Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part i. p. 271 ; part ii. p. 159." Now, what
do these writers say? Precisely, and unqualifiedly, the opposite, word
for word, of that, for which Mr.Belsham has claimed their support.
TKe words of Michaelis are these. " St. Luke's Gospel alone was
admitted by Marcion, who made, however, many alterations in it, so
as to render it more suitable to his own system. But not all the alte
rations in Marcion's copy are to be considered as wilful corruptions,
for several of them are nothing more than what modern critics call
various readings." This is the whole of what Michaelis has said
upon Marcion's Gospel, in the place referred to. The entire of the
observations by Michaelis's Annotator, is too long to quote. But the
reader, on referring to it, will find, that Dr. Marsh, after speaking of
the vast difference between Marcion's Gospel and that of St. Luke,
proceeds, in refutation of the opinion that the one was a wilfully corrupt
copy of the other, to observe ; — " That Marcion used St. Luke's Gos
pel at all, is a position, which has been taken for granted, without the
least proof., Marcion himself never pretended, that it was the Gospel
of St. Luke, as Tertullian acknowledges," &c. " It is probable, there
fore, that he used some apocryphal Gospel, which had much matter
in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same." In
support of this he refers to Griesbach, and to Lozffier both of whom main
tain that, Marcion's was not, nor was pretended to be, a copy of St. Luke's
Gospel. — Thus, then, to show, that Michaelis and. Dr. Marsh affirm, that
Marcion used a more correct copy of St. Luke than the orthodox Fathers,
he produces the former, as saying, that Marcion wilfully corrupted Luke,
although all the alterations he made in Luke's Gospel ought not to be
pronounced wilful corruptions : and the latter as saying, that the difference
is so immense, that Marcion could not have intended to give a copy of St.
Luke, but must have used some apocryphal Gospel.
Thus are unlearned Unitarians abused by this writer, whom they refer
to as their oracle. And, unfortunately, as Unitarians, in general, read
none but the writings of Unitarians, he is enabled to abuse them in this
manner, without the danger of detection. The truth is, the more I have
been obliged to examine of this writer's productions, the more I am satis
fied that he is not to be trusted to in a single quotation. I have often been
obliged to feel the force of the position, that the religion of modern Um-

-398 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
Thus, then, we have, from an authority which must be de
cisive in our argument with the Editors of the I. V. being the
authority of the principal Editor himself, under whose forming
hand this Unitarian Version has been fashioned, the full admis
sion of all that can be required upon this subject. It is of httle
consequence, that what is here admitted, is the most direct possi
ble contradiction to all that this head Editor and his subalterns
have hitherto maintained ; and maintained, as the essential
ground of their rejection of the first two chapters of Luke :
nor is it of the smallest consequence, that, by the application of
that miraculous logic, by which the author of the Elements
has already wrought such wonders, he has contrived to arrive
at the very conclusion, which his premises directly overturn.—
The grand point stands admitted, — that the Evangelium of
Marcion was not a copy of the Gospel of St. Luke, nor in
tended as such. We shall, therefore, I trust, now that so much
hght has broken in upon the Editors, and that the facts of
Ecclesiastical history are coming by degrees somewhat within
their view, hear no more of .the want of the first two chapters in
Marcion's copy of St. Luke's Gospel, there having been no
such copy. And, as little, I trust, shah we hear of the want of
the first two chapters in the Ebionite copy of St. Matthew's
Gospel, there being as little reason to pronounce that any such
copy of that Gospel ever existed. Those, who may have been
weak enough to reject the history ofthe incarnation of our blessed
Lord from the Gospels, on the assurances of these critics, may
now see what guides they have followed : yet, to such as by false
lights have been led to make shipwreck of their faith, it will be
hut a poor compensation to discover, that it is to the ignorance of
those who promised a safe steerage, they owe their misfortune.
To bring this subject to a close, I shall here lay before the
reader the one grand sweeping argument ,of .the prime champion^
and leading Editor cf the Unitarian Version, whereby the his

torians is not the religion of truth. No writer impresses this sentiment
more strongly upon my mind, than that one who styles himself a Calm
Inquirer. — The thing is shameful and disgusting.

UNITARIAN VERSION OP THE NEW TEST. 399
tories of the miraculous conception are at once banished from
the genuine gospels of St. Matthew and St.. Luke. It has been
already quoted in the last note, (see page 386.,) but it deserves
to take a station here also, "The Ebionite gospel of Matthew
and the Marcionite gospel of Luke did not contain these ac
counts : and both those sects maintained their own to be the un-
conupted, unmutilated copies of these evangelical histories." —
Now, after what has been said, the reader will, I apprehend, be
prepared to follow me in saying, that in this whole sentence,
whose object is at once to expunge four chapters from the gospels,
in the hope of excluding the doctrine of the Incarnation from
the New Testament, there is not a single clause, that has the
slightest foundation in fact. That there was a Marcionite
Gospel of Luke, and, still more, that the Marcionites main
tained their gospel to be an uncorrupted unmutilated copy of
Luke's history, are statements, now admitted by their very pro-
pounders to be utterly false, No less false have we shown the
corresponding statements * respecting the Ebionite copies, whe-

* We" may here defy the Calm Inquirer, and his brother Editors, to
gether with all the Unitarian Missionaries, (north, south, east, and west,)1
to adduce a single passage from any ancient writer, in which the truth of
Mr. Belsham's statement above given, respecting the Ebionites, receives
support ; namely, that this sect maintained its Gospel to be an uncorrupted
and unmutilated copy of St. Matthew. He has already admitted that he'
had averred the like untruly of the Marcionites. He has not dealt less
untruly by the one than by the other. The fact is, that, of the t\vo, there
is even more colour for making the assertion, in the case of the Marcio
nites, than in that of the Ebionites. A passage of Tertullian, (Adv.
Marcion, lib. iv. cap. v.) misunderstood or misrepresented, might be drawn'
in to furnish some pretence, (as indeed it has been so used,) for the posi
tion, that the Marcionites averred their Gospel to be a copy of St. Luke's;
But, they will find it difficult to discover any passage in the1 writings of the
ancients, from which it can fairly be inferred, that the Ebionites affirmed
their Gospel to' be' a copy of St. Matthew's. ( Epiphanius's assertion,
(Hares. 30. § 13.) that the "imperfect, spurious, and mutilated" copy of
the G6spel, which the Ebionites had, was spoken of as tekra Ma.r6a.7ev, would
not of itself prove that the Ebionitis .called their Gospel- a copy of St.
Matthew's "but when coupled with the words, "RCpeuxm te revre nnkevvi it
loses all its force, since the testimony goes to show, that the Ebionites

400 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
ther these gentlemen admit them to be so or not. And, i there
fore, with these heretics and their absurd admirers of modern
times, we need for the present take no further trouble, on the sub
ject of the genuineness of the Evangelical narratives of the mi
raculous conception : and shall now take our leave of them on
this head, simply premising this one observation ; that, if all,
that this extravagant and unfounded sentence contended for,
were true, it would avajl nothing for the purpose for which it is
designed, so long as it is notorious, that the Very earMest proof
we have, of the non-existence of the miraculous conception in
the respective gospels of these heretics, is much later, in point
of time, than the * date to which we can carry up, beyond ques-

themselves called it the Gospel of the Hebrews, however it might in com
mon use have received the former appellation. And we have already seen,
that the Gospel, from which the Ebionites formed theirs, bore on the face
of it, the declaration, that it was composed by the Apostles at large.
* Campbell has well remarked, (Four Gospels, &c. vol. iv. p. 21.) that
" the old Italic translation and the Syriac were probably made before the
name Ebionite was known in the church." He might, of course, have
made the like assertion of the name Marcionite also. At all events,, it
may be made, without much hazard, with respect to those Ebionite and
Marcionite gospels, which are brought forward in opposition to the re
ceived Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The great antiquity of
those versions the Editors themselves, (as, indeed, there can be but one
opinion upon the subject,) have freely and fully admitted in their Intro
duction, pp. xv. xvi. And they have truly added, that the value of these
very ancient versions is immense, as being made, of course, from manu
scripts of the highest antiquity. All this however is forgotten by the
Editors and their Calm Inquirers, when they come to compare the Ebion
ite and Marcionite copies (as they call them, copies of what ?) with the
Manuscripts of the Gospels which now exist. The Ebionite and Marcion
ite copies, " are much older than any of these," they say. Well, but,
how much older were they than the manuscripts from which the Syriac
and old Italic versions were made ? They do not tell us that. Or how
much^ older were they than the manuscripts from which our present
Alexandrian, Vatican, Parisian, and Cambridge, or, generally speaking,
from which our present oldest manuscripts were made ? They do not tell
us that neither. But again, how old are these Ebionite and Marcionite
copies'! And where are these copies? The answer is — They do not
exist : and we know nothing either of their existence or their contents, but

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 401
t ion, the existence of the narratives in the genuine gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Luke. So that, in every possible way, in

what we learn from the writings ofthe Fathers. Well then, it is plain,
we can argue about their existence and their contents, only from what the
fathers tell us.
Now, as to the Ebionites, who is the first that informs us that they had
a Gospel, which wanted the history of the miraculous conception % Epi
phanius is, by the confession of the Editors, the earliest writer who has
said so, or, rather, he is the only early writer who has said so ; as Dr
Laurence has proved, in refutation ofthe Editors, who seem resolved
to have an Ecclesiastical history of their own, as well as a New Tes
tament, and have in defiance of fact produced Jerome as a joint autho
rity with Epiphanius. Well, then, about the middle of the fourth
century, we have an account of the existence, at that time, of an
Ebionite Gospel, called by some the Gospel of Matthew, and in this
the first two chapters of Matthew were not found. Is this Gospel, so
wanting these chapters, traced back by this or any other writer to an
earlier period? No. Well, this is to supplant the genuine copies
of St. Matthew's Gospel established by decisive proofs for more than
two centuries before. (See pp. 173—185. and especially p.179. of this
vol.) It is to supplant the Gospel which every existing unmutilated
Manuscript, and every ancient Version, whatsoever, attests to have been
the Gospel received in the Christian church from the beginning, and to
which the writings of the Fathers uniformly bear the like attestation.
Again, respecting Marcion's evangelium, or supposed copy of St.
Luke, from whom have we the earlest account of this Gospel, as
being defective in the account of our Lord's nativity"? From
Irerutus, very near the conclusion of the second century which
Lardner justly fixes for the time of that Father's writing his Five
Books against heresies, in which he notices this fact concerning Mar
cion's Gospel. Here then, about the conclusion of the second century,
and not to any earlier period that we know of, can we fix, as an ascer
tained fact, the existence of a copy of the Marcionite Gospel, wanting the
account of the Nativity. Indeed, Marcion himself by the best ac
counts, flourished not until near the middle of this century. So that,
even supposing Marcion's copy, as described by Irenmus, to have
remained unaltered from its first composition by that heretic, we see
that we cannot in any way presume on the existence of it at a period
earlier than about the middle of the second century ; and even this,
gratuitous, as to its being, in the time of Marcion, what it was found
to be when Irenaus wrote against it.
Yol. 2.— 51

402 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
which we can view the matter, the proof, which the Unitarians
labour to advance against the chapters in question, is simply a

What, then, has become of the antiquity of Marcion's copv of
luke, wanting the first two chapters of that Gospel ? And still more,
as we have seen, what has become of the antiquity of the Ebionite
copies of matthew, wanting likewise the first two chapters of this
Evangelist ? We cannot, with certainty, speak ofthe one, as earlier
than the latter part of the second century ; nor ofthe other, as earlier
than the middle of the fourth century. And is this, after all, the
boasted antiquity of the documents, before which, even admitting
them to be designed as copies of the Gospels whose names have been
ascribed to them, all the copies and proofs of the genuine Canonical
Gospels which are to be found in the existing Manuscripts, Versions,
and Fathers, and which the Manuscripts, Versions, and Fathers,
unanimously sustain, are at once to vanish ! Productions, which are
not copies, even if they had antiquity; which have not antiquity, even
if they were copies ; and which, even if they both were copies and
had antiquity, the very persons who produce them discredit, by
rejecting in every part but that for which they adduce them ; seem
not exactly the authorities on which sober and well-intending Chris
tians would rely, in settling the canon of true Scripture ; and of course
mark, pretty plainly, the character of those persons who would thus
employ them.
As to the unquestionable antiquity of the canonical Gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Luke, containing as they do at present the chapters
relating to the miraculous conception, it must be unnecessary, after
the writings of Lardner, Michaelis, and Less, to make any observa
tions. To this last writer, being now placed within the reach of the
English reader by Mr. Kingdon's translation, I would refer particu
larly at page 89., of the Authenticity, <$c. of the Neu> Testament. —
Having mentioned this writer, I cannot, although it is not necessarily
connected with the present subject, omit to direct the reader's attention
to his able and important observations upon the value of Irenceus's tes
timony to the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, to be
found at page 115. of the work just cited. — I am the more desirous to
do this, because especial pains have been taken (as may be seen at
p. 121. of the Answer to Bishop Burgess, already noticed,) to dispa
rage the authority of this early and venerable Father, on account of
the illustration, which he has fancifully applied to the fact of the
existence of but four Gospels. The reflections of a serious and im
partial inquirer after truth will hereby become contrasted with the
light and presumptuous petulance of modern unbelievers, whose great

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 403
proof of their desire to get rid of them, at all hazards, and
against all evidence, because they are resolved not to believe the
facts which these chapters contain. — Why will not the Unitarian
critics learn to distinguish between the authenticity and the
credibility of the writings of the New Testament 1 Or, rather,
I should say of some of them,* why will they purposely con
found them 1

pleasure it is to make a mock of serious things and serious persons ;
and to whom one of the smallest objects of regard manifestly appears
to be, the truth as it is in Christ.
* The strong language, which, here, and in many other places, I
have been forced to employ, in my observations Upon Unitarian writers,
I wish to be considered as designed to apply only to Unitarians of a
certain class : sueh Unitarians as correspond to the description given
of unitarians by Mr. Belsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce,
and in his Calm Inquiry ; such, in short, as may be considered proper
and perfect specimens of what the unqualified culture of Unitarian
principles can effect. There are writers bearing the same denomina
tion, who are of a very different order indeed ; and who have not so
devoted themselves to the objects of a party, as to have turned their
backs upon every thing like sober and conscientious investigation, and,
indeed, upon all the decencies usually observed in the treatment of
serious subjects, but particularly in the discussion of religious truths.
Such writers as Dr. Estlin, Mr. Frend, and Dr. Carpenter, staunch
as they are in the support of the fundamental Unitarian principle, I
should feel concerned, indeed, to be supposed to confound with writers
in whom the love of truth seems to have completely yielded to the
pride of party. I should be sorry to be supposed to mix such men
with Mr. Gilchrist or the Calm Inquirer. Dr. Carpenter (Unit, the
Doc. &c. pp. 353, 354,) has made the distinction in treating ofthe in
troductory chapters of St. Luke, which I have pointed to above. And
he very fairly observes; "As to the external evidence against the
genuineness of the Introduction, it appears to me very slight. We
have only the judgment of Marcion who lived, however, in the early
part of the second century, without knowing the grounds of his judg
ment, to enable us to ascertain its value." Again, as to the internal
difficulties in this part of St. Luke, he admits, that " there is only one of
them which can weigh much against the great body of external evi
dence." This difficulty he endeavours to shew may be removed by a
particular explanation, conformed to his own Unitarian views; but, \he

404 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
The next point, which I am called upon to defend, in the
Remarks upon the Unitarian Version, is the observation (to
be found at pages 165. and 167. of this volume,) on the
inconsistency of the Editors, in rejecting the first chapters of
St. Matthew, as spurious, because they represent Herod
as still living, at the time when Christ was born ; and
at the same time admitting, as unquestionable, the Gospel
of the ebionites, which pronounces Herod to be living so
late as thirty years after our Lord's nativity. This, the
Editors pronounce, through the Calm Inquirer, to be a mere
"cavil unworthy of a man of sense," &c. {Address, p. 11.)
My observation concerning the Ebionite gospel was grounded
upon that, which the Editors not only concede, but contend
for ; viz. that the Ebionite gospel began with these * words,

difficulty itself existed only in reference to the Unitarian hypothesis.
Here, however, although he reasons as might be expected from a per.
son holding his opinions concerning the nature of Christ, he does not
deny plain facts ; he does not scoff at the weight of evidence, in its own
nature irresistible to a fair mind; nordoes he exalt the heretic Marcion
upon the ruins of the mass of MSS. Versions, and Fathers, that sustain
the introductory chapters of Luke, merely because this heretic may be
turned (dishonestly) to account in favour ofthe Unitarian cause.
* "H cfi <3g5£» rev 7r±p abreis ehayytxiov e^er ert 'Eyevero et rats Zifxipats 'HPfiAOY
TOT BASlAEnS TH2 IOTAAIA2, i\6ev Maia'vvnc @a.n-rigut ^iirriv/xa. pxtratoias it
t£ "lo/JcfavH irerapiy, es txiyere etvxi ix yeyevs ''Aap^y rod 'lepeees, Travis Za%apiov not
'E\t£dCer, xx.) l^Mp^ovro irpos avrov irdyres. Epiphan. Hares. 30. § ]3. —
" The beginning of their Gospel was this : ' It came to pass in the days of
herod the king of judea, that John came baptizing with the baptism of
repentance in the river Jordan ; who was said to be one of the family of
Aaron the High-Priest, the Son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all people
went out after him.' " — The learned Michaelis says, of " this strange his
torical blunder, which makes John Baptist peach in the time of Herod
King of Judea, who had been dead nearly thirty years, when John began to
preach ;" that the passage appears to have been fabricated, by an absurd
composition of two different passages in St. Luke's Gospel, namely, chap:
i. 5., and iii. 1, 2, 3." — And, "in like manner," he says, " the words.
finerrl^eiv @airricr/ua. /jierayeias iv r$ 'lepiiivif mra.[*$, appear to have been put to
gether from Mark i. 4. and Matth. iii. 6." (Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii.
parti, p. 179.) The objections made to these observations of this acute
inquirer are destitute of weight. The magnitude of the blunder is a weak

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 405
"In the days of herod kino of judea, John came baptizing,"
&c, But, they say, this is easily explained ; for that " some
early transcriber had erroneously written judea " for galilee ;
and so the cavil is disposed of.
Now, similar as these two words are, {so similar, indeed,
that the very persons, who cannot admit that @c could have
passed into oc by any error of transcribing or otherwise, are quite
satisfied, that the similarity of these must have led to the substL-
tution of the one for the other,) yet, one thing has been forgotten,
which very much weakens the force of this argument from re
semblance ; namely, that the word king, also, must have been
by the early transcriber erroneously written for tetrarch. — »
The matter, we see, is accounted for by " a slip of the pen," — the
way in which whatever plain and palpable errors arise {i. e. on
the side of Unitarianism,) is properly to be explained. (See
Address, &c. p. 14.) All this, perhaps, may be very well, so
long as we consider the case of a single slip. If the transcrib
er had, by " a slip," either written judea for galilee, or
king for tetrarch, however the striking similitude in each

ground indeed ; it only affords privilege to ignorance. And the selection
from various Gospels can create no difficulty, where the document itself is,
as we have already seen, (and as is contended for by Michaelis ,) formed by
compilation. Indeed, the very passage before us is, in itself, a decisive
proof of this : unless it can be said, that John's being the son of Zacharias
and Elizabeth, &c. is to be found in St. Matthew's Gospel, and therefore
need not.be supposed to be derived from that of St. Luke. A favourite
hypothesis is a great enemy to impartial investigation. And the theory of
a common Hebrew document has interfered more than it ought with many
important truths affecting the Gospels. On this subject I am unwilling tq
say more. I could wish not to be compelled to say so much.
The 5th verse of the first chapter of St. Luke begins with the words,
'Eyivtre iv rais tpipajs 'Hp^fev rev ^atrixeas rm 'levfaius. The reader will judge
for himself, whether the framer ofthe Gospel, described at the beginning
of this note, had this passage in view. And he will be the better able to
form his judgment, when he finds this very verse proceed to speak of Za
charias and Elizabeth ofthe family of Aaron, and followed by an account
ofthe birth of John from these parents. St. Luke's is the only Gospel in
which the full title, king of judea, is given to Herod,

406 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
couplet may be supposed to have rendered this admissible ; yet,
it is too much to reckon upon both slips at once ; and still more
to reckon upon such a coincidence of slips, as should bring to
gether just the two ivords that consort; — since, to have stum
bled either upon Herod * king of galilee, or upon Herod
tetrarch of judea, would undoubtedly have appeared some
what awkward, to those used to the language of Jewish history
concerning the kings and governors of those countries. No,
no, there is no t mistake of transcribers. It is the plain direct

* That the general denomination of King, should be sometimes
used for Herod who was the Tetrarch, where no formal designation
was intended, and where no reference was made to the country which
constituted his Tetrarchy, is a matter which may be conceded : the
Tetrarch being the ostensible Sovereign or Prince, to which the term
tZaurtxevs, in a loose sense of the word, might not improperly be applied.
But, in connexion with the country over which he presided, I leave it
for the industrious research of the Editors and all their Calm Inquir
ers to discover a single instance of the application of the title of king
to any one of the Tetrarchs who succeeded in the government of the
divided dominions of Herod the Great. They will, if they can, pro
duce an example of Herod Antipas being entitled King of Galilee,or
of Herod Philip being entitled King of Iturea and Trachonitis ; and
it will be still belter, if they can produce an example of either of them,
entitled king of judea.
f In addition to the great improbability of the two chances, in the
errors of transcribing, just falling together, so as to make a concord
ant whole, we have, also, to consider the great unlikelihood, of the
transcriber having made this double error, or indeed any error, in the
very first sentence of the document. In longo sermone it is true, the
quandoque bonus dormitat may be allowed to the transcriber more
reasonably even than to the poet. But that he should nod, or rather I
should say, dream, in the very first sentence, is not quite so credible.
It might as well be said, that the title itself was given wrong, by an
error of the transcriber ; and that by a mere slip of the pen, the words
" Gospel according to St. Matthew," placed at the head of a docu
ment to be transcribed, were changed into " St. Paul's Epistle to ihe
Romans." It will be remembered that the sentence in question is not
only the first sentence in this Ebionite document, but that it is designed
to mark the exact date of the transaction, with which the history con
tained in this document commences ; to specify the precise time of the

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 407
blunder of a garbled document, which was the production of
an age far removed from the time of which it treats ; and in
which we have seen enough of blundering already at pages 383,
384., to reconcile us to any degree of it, that might be exhibited
in addition.
The Editors, indeed, through their Calm Inquirer, go on
to say, " that no child that was taught to read, ever mistook
Herod the king, or Tetrarch, of Galilee, who beheaded John,
and who was living at the time of our Lord's crucifixion, for
that Herod who died in the reign of Augustus, and who was
the father of Herod the Tetrarch : " and , they conclude with ex
claiming against the attempt " to impose by such miserable
sophistry." The " sophistry " consists in simply stating the
blunder, which, it is confessed, appears on the face of this Ebi
onite document : and the refutation of it lies in asserting the
blunder to be * so great, that it is impossible it ever could have

grand event, to which the whole history relates. So that, if there
were any one sentence in the entire, in which the transcriber might be
supposed completely secured against the danger of mistake, it must be
this. It was the first ; and it was the most important.
The historian says, as Mr. Belsham- informs us, that it was in the
days of Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee, that John began to baptize.
The transcriber, as Mr. Belsham also informs us, has, by an error of
his pen, fixed this event in the days of Herod the King of Judea.
And the same critic, who informs us of these two things, at the same
time assigns what affords a reason for the carelessness, that could have
led to this error. For, he adds (as we see above,) that no child who
was taught to read could mistake Herod the king, or (for he is very
desirous to confound them) Tetrarch of Galilee, who was living at
the time of our Lord's crucifixion, for that Herod, who died in the
reign of Augustus, and who was the father of Herod the Tetrarch.
Here, then, we have an excuse for the transcriber. He must have been
perfectly at ease upon the subject. It must be a matter of indifference,
whether he wrote Tetrarch of Galilee, or King of Judea; because
any child could correct the error. The event would itself determine
the date ; contrary to what we have been weakly supposing in this
note, that the date was intended to determine the event.
* In truth there is a solution of the problem, that reduces somewhat the
extravagance of the blunder ; and although it must still leave the re
sult, fatal to the authority of this Ebionite document, from the gross-

408 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
been made :' arid so, the two slips of the transcriber's pen come
in, aided by the great similitude between the words judea and
galilee and between the words king and tetrarch.
But, what will the Editors and their Calm Inquirer say, if
I produce them an instance, of this impossible blunder having
been actually made, two hundred years before the time, at
which we have' any proof of the existence of the Ebionite gos
pel, in which this passage is found ; and this, not by a child
who had not yet learned to read, but by a great philosopher,
of whose arguments, or rather of whose blasphemous sneers,
against the divinity of our Lord, out Unitarian critics have not
unfrequently availed themselves ', and by a philosopher, who
had called to his aid the most learned Jews of his time, to en
able him to compose his True Word, in opposition to the gospel.
I mean no less a person than the celebrated celsus ; who,
whatever, the illiberal orthodox may think of him, will surely
not rank low in the opinion of sUch Unitarians as the Editors
and the Calm Inquirer ; and who, it is to be presumed, the
modesty of these gentlemen will lead them to admit, possessed
more of knowledge and talents than they can collectively lay
claim to. Now come we to the impossible blunder.
" It was given out by Jesus, that Chaldeans were moved, at
the time of his birth, to come and worship him as a God, when
he was but a little child, and that this was told to herod the
TETRARCH ("HPQAHi TQ; TETPAPXHi touto SeSnXax.i'tat,) who
issued out an order to have all killed," &c. What is Lardner's
remark upon this ? See his Works, vol. viii. p. 21., where the
reader, who may not have Origen's book to refer to, will find
the passage here quoted. This learned writer, and truly Calm
Inquirer, whose errors even can never do away the respect that
is due to the man,- thus observes, "I would here make two re-

ness of the anachronism which cannot be done away ; yet it affords
some slight apology for the lapse, in addition to that which distance from
the date of the event so obviously supplies. But I leave it to the admirers
of these Ebionite compilers, to make the discovery, of what may tend, in
some degree, to repair the credit of their favourites ; although it cannot
set up the authority of their document.

unitarian version of the new test. 409
marks upon Celsus mistaking (Herod) king of all judea,
in whose time Jesus was burn, for his son Herod, the te
trarch of galilee. First, we see the great difficulty, of
any writer's taking upon himself the character of a more early
age than that in which he lives, without committing some great
mistakes." — " Secondly j since so learned a man as celsus,
about the middle of the second century, has made such a
blunder in history; the Christian writers of the same age or
later ought not to be too severely treated for any mistakes of the
like kind."
I will now leave the Editors, and their Calm Inquirer, to
settle the remainder of this subject with Dr. Lardner : on
whom, of course, the charge of " miserable sophistry " must
fall, if they be right. They say, that even a child, provided
he had learnt to read, could not have made this blunder ; and
that it is an attempt to " impose upon " the reader by " misera
ble sophistry," to pretend that he could. Dr. Lardner says,
that even a learned philosopher, not far removed from the
time of Christ's birth, could make such a blunder, and assigns
for the assertion no other reason, than that such a person has
made it.
It must be confessed, indeed, that Celsus has made some
other blunders ; which may, to the Unitarian critics, with whom
we are concerned, appear to the full as objectionable, as that
which we have just noticed ; so that, from the repetition of his
blunders, they may be led to object to him as a fair example on
the present question. The blunders, to which I allude, are his
references to the accounts of the miraculous conception, con
tained in the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke;
which would, of themselves, be sufficient to establish the early
and unquestioned existence of those chapters. This is a species
of blunder, which these Unitarian critics cannot easily forgive.
We have already at pp. 173—175. of this volume, observed
upon the evidence, derived from Celsus, to St. Matthew's nar
rative of the miraculous conception. The confirmation, which
he affords to that contained, in St. Luke's Gospel, may be seen
in Lardner; to whose Works (voL viii pp. 6—68.) I refer the
Vol. 2.-52

410 supplementary remarks on the
reader for full satisfaction concerning the value and extent of
the hostile testimony of Celsus.
Two or three points, of those adverted to in the remarks
on the unitarian version, yet remain to be noticed, together
with the observations, which have been made upon these, by
the Editors through their Calm Inquirer. The points alluded
to are to be found at pp. 168 — -174 of this volume. These sheets,
however, have already so far exceeded the intended bounds, as
necessarily to preclude the further prosecution of this subject at
present. But I am induced to regret this the less, because I
conceive it to be desirable to present the whole of the animad
versions upon the Unitarians, and their New Version, in one
collective form, and in a separate tract, in which I shall have it
in my power to enter more largely into the subject, than was
practicable in the present work. For that tract I shall reserve
what remains to be offered on the points to which I have alluded.
Of these, the principal relates to the objection, raised by the
Editors, on the ground of St. Luke's report of our Lord's age
in the 15lh of Tiberius, against the genuineness of the evange
lical narratives of the miraculous conception. The examina
tion of this topic is now the more important, as the chronological
contradiction, which is here contended for, has, in truth, become
the forlorn hope of the Editors. From the arguments against
the introductory chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, derived
from the pretended Ebionite and Marcionite copies of these
Gospels, they appear to have been for some time gradually re
ceding, if we may judge from Mr. Belsham's answer to Bishop
Burgess's Brief Memorial and other of their recent publica
tions. In these, they seem to be preparing for themselves a re
treat from the old favourite ground of the Ebionites and Mar
cion : and I cannot avoid indulging in the hope, that what has
been offered in these pages will not tend in any degree to retard
this retrograde movement. Now, as to the fastness to which
they seem resolved to retire, for the purpose of making their last
stand, I do not mean to take to myself much credit, and I trust
it will hereafter appear that I make no boast, when I say, that
I shall not find much trouble in dispossessing them of that. In
truth, I must confess, that these critics have themselves sup-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 411
plied me with some aid towards the accomplishment of this ob
ject : insomuch that I am sanguine enough to expect, not only
that I shall satisfy my reader of the truth of my positions, at
pages 168. and 169. of thi3 volume, — that the Editors have in
their reference to Lardner confounded the true with the vulgar
era of the nativity ; and that they " have adduced the authority
of Lardner's name in behalf of a position which Lardner has
most triumphantly overthrown," — but, that I shall also con
vince him, that even the very showing of the Editors and their
Calm Inquirer supplies sufficient data to evince, that St. Luke
does not contradict the alleged date of our Lord's birth, as given
in either of the narratives of the miraculous conception. And
thus, by the arithmetical aid of the Unitarians themselves, I
hope to be enabled to prove, even to their own satisfaction, that
the contradiction of dates, which (as they tell us) has compelled
them to reject four chapters out of the received canon of the gos
pels, does not exist ; and that, therefore, they may, without the
smallest offence to that delicacy of conscience which led them
to reject these chapters, now replace them, fairly printed and
stripped of their Italic stigma, in their new translation. — I trust,
also, that, in return for the aid thus bestowed by the Unitarian
Editors, in clearing the character of the gospels from the alleged
appearance of chronological inconsistency respecting the birth
of Christ, I shall have it in my power to render them some com
pensation, on another head, already remarked upon at pages
169. and 170. of this volume', by showing, that when they
spoke of Ephrem Syrus, as " a writer of some note in the
sixth century," they had better ground for the assertion than
has been generally supposed : so that, if they did fall into any
confusion respecting this ancient writer, it was a confusion aris
ing (at all events) out of a certain degree of knowledge ; and
the mistake is, therefore, not to be charged to that utter care
lessness, which the Calm Inquirer would impute to the Edi
tors, when he attributes it (as he has done in his Address, at p.
14.) to a mere " slip of the pen, or error of the press," The
Editors, it will appear, have not been quite so thoughtless and
negligent, as their own vindicator would represent them to have
been, in preparing their great work for the public eye. The

412 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
discussion of these, and other points, connected with the subject*
matter of the Remarks, I expect soon to commit to the press,
In the mean time, I comfort myself with the hope, that whai
has been already submitted, in this volume, will tend to throw
some further light upon the nature of the Unitarian Version of
the New Testament ; upon the true character of modern Uni
tarians ; and upon that of their system, and of the plans adopted
for its promotion. And here, as I have done before, I must beg
to be understood by my reader, as speaking of the Unitarians
and their system, in reference to the description given of those
who bear that name, by their chief advocate, Mr. Belsham.
On all occasions, he professes to represent their sentiments ; and,
in that representation, the Body seem generally to acquiesce.
To those who correspond not to Mr. Belsham's description,
my observations are, of course, not intended to apply ; and all
such, who, individually, may feel cause to complain of the just-;
ness of those observations, as directed against Unitarians ge
nerally, must cast the blame upon him who has given them ap?
plication, not upon him by whom they have been but condi
tionally pronounced. Opinions, shocking to every pious mind,
revolting to every well-informed understanding, essentially re
pugnant to Christian doctrines, and essentially subversive of
Christian principles, have been promulgated by Mr. Bel
sham, and a few other individuals. These opinions I have
laboured to expose; and have not scrupled, in strong terms
(though in terms very inadequate indeed,) to condemn. Mr.
Belsham pronounces such to be the opinion? of those whom he
entitles Unitarians. It is for all, who do not maintain such
opinions, to disclaim this title. Some, whom Mr. Belsham
and his associates have so denominated, have already declined
the honour intended for them in ranking them of this class.
And I rejoice to have it in my power to announce, with respect
to this island, that the imputation of Unitarianism has been dis
claimed for the whole : and this, by an authority unquestionable
on such a subject ; the authority of a gentleman of distinguished
respectability, who ranks high amongst the dissenting ministry
of Ireland, and whose perfect acquaintance with the state of the
Dissenters throughout this country gives tp his testimony in

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 413
matters connected with the concerns of that body a decisive
weight. From the testimony of this gentleman we learn, that
there is not one Unitarian congregation in Ireland. I sub
join the letter * of pr. Bruce, which announces a fact that must

* The letter of Dr. Bruce, above referred to, was addressed to the
Editor of the Monthly Repository, in consequence of an article which
had previously appeared in that Unitarian Journal on the subject of
" irish unitarians." This article had exultingly announced the flourishing
state of Unitarianism in Ireland ; and had enumerated several ministers
and congregations, decidedly Unitarian, throughout the island. The letter
dated from Belfast, June 10, 1813, is as follows :— r" Sir, — -When looking
into your Repository for Dec. 1812, [vii. 753.] I find my name introduced
in a manner liable to misconception. It is one of those instances in which
your readers are often misled hy the usurpation ofthe title of Unitarians on
ihe part of the Socinians. This is a continual source of confusion in your
publication, and sometimes exposes it to the suspicion of disingenuity.
As I accept of the denomination of Arian without subscribing to the creed
of Arius, I shall take the liberty of adressing you as a Socinian, without
insinuating that you adopt any opinions of Socinus which you disavow,
The confusion arising from this equivocal use of the word Unitarian
appeared of late very remarkable in your American correspondence:
find, as you candidly corrected that misrepresentation with respect to
America, I hope you will not refuse a speedy insertion of what I have
to say concerning Ireland. I have a very general knowledge of the
Dissenters of this country; and can venture to assert, that there is not
one Socinian congregation in Ireland. In the Southern Association,
one or two ministers and about a dozen of the laity may entertain such
sentiments. In the Northern counties, which contain between 400,000,
and 500,000 Presbyterians, including Seceders, I do not know of one
minister who denies the pre-existence of our Lord, though I am inti
mately acquainted and connected with the most liberal divines of that
body. The Methodists, Covenanters, Moravians, and Evangelical
Societies, cannot be suspected of Socinianism : and the Quakers have
of late been anxious to disclaim that doctrine."
Dr. Bruce, after noticing by name certain dissenting ministers, for the
purpose of vindicating them from the imputation of Unitarianism, cast upon
them in the article on which he animadverts, thus proceeds: — " The exz
cessive spirit of proselytism, which actuates so many of your correspond
ents, is not always confined to the living. It is a favourite opinion among
them, that Newton and- Locke were Socinians. The evidence for this is
^brought forward in your Number for July, 1810, though, I think, little to

414 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
be so gratifying to every Christian mind : and this I do, not
merely for the purpose of showing that this country, happily,
the satisfaction of the writer himself. Sir Isaac Newton is claimed on the
strength of verbal expressions, which he is said to have used to a Mr.
Haynes. For the truth of this we are referred to a Mr. Baron, himself a
Socinian, who says, that Mr. Haynes, from whom he had it, was the most
zealous Socinian he ever knew ; and therefore surely not an unexception
able witness. For this quotation from Mr. Baron's tract, we are again re
ferred to Mr. Lindsey's apology. This is a slight ground for forming an
opinion of the sentiments of so great a man, who wrote so largely on reli
gion. As to the quotation from .Sir Isaac's own writings, it might as well
come from an Arian, or indeed from any Protestant, as from a Socinian."
Dr. Bruce then proceeds, in considerable detail, and with unanswerable
force of argument and evidence, to rescue the name of Locke from the
stigma of Socinianism. He shows, not only that his explications of
Scripture are inconsistent with the charge, but that he has himself in the
strongest terms denied and repelled it : and he concludes his observations
upon this subject, by pointing out Locke's manifest opposition to " modern
Socinians on almost every article of their creed." For example, "He did
not believe Christ to have been a mortal man of the seed of Adam ; he was
neither anecessarian nor a materialist : he believed in the incarnation and
miraculous conception, and in the separate nature and existence of the soul
and body of Christ, and did not scruple to use the phrase, ' for the sake of
Jesus Christ.' " (Monthly Rep. vol. viii. pp. 515 — 517.)
I regret, that space does not permit me to lay before the reader the
whole of Dr. Bruce' s excellent observations upon this head. Joined with
those of Bishop Burgess, and the remarks on the same point to be found in
other parts of these pages, they supply what to every candid mind must ap
pear demonstration, that Locke's opinions were as far removed from those
ofthe Unitarians, as the East is from the West. Before I advert to other
points connected with the subject of this letter, it may be expedient to ap
prize the reader, that Dr. Priestley, the great patriarch of modern Soci
nianism, maintained that there was " no more reason why a man should be
supposed to have an immaterial principle within him, than a dog:" and
therefore from his total rejection of " the doctrine of a soul," he inferred
" the divinity and the pre-existence ofChrist" to be "contrary to reason."
(See Tracts in controv. with Horsley, pp. 18, 19.) This will explain the
force of Dr. Bruce' s observation in the clause preceding the conclusion of
the passage last quoted from his letter.
I must subjoin a few words, here, to what Dr. Bruce has said upon this
plan of posthumous proselytism (I may call it) lately adopted by the Uni-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 415
still remains uninfected by theppoison of the Socinian or Uni
tarian heresy, ar±d still enjoys that freedom from a pernicious
tarians. In addition to the names of Locke and Newton, they have been ex-
' tremely anxious to claim that of Clarke, under various pretences. Bishop
Burgesshas abundantly shown (in his Postscript to the Bible, &c. how little
reason there is for ascribing to Dr. Clarke the Socinianised Liturgy, on which
the Unitarians ground their right to associate him with the favourers of Uni
tarian principles. — I have just seen a publication of Dr. Mant's, in which ad
ditional light is thrown upon this subject. See the preface to his Academical
Sermons. — It is, fortunately, not necessary, to adduce, from Dr. Clarke's
writings, proofs of his anti- Socinianism, with which they abound. Dr.
Lardner has saved us that trouble. In his Letter on the Logos, in which
he exerts himself to the utmost in the cause of Unitarianism, he asserts of
Dr. Clarke, that he " cannot forbear saying, that, his interpretations of
texts are generally false, arising, as from other causes, so particularly
from an aversion to Sabellian or Socinian senses." (Works, vol. xi. p.
112.) So much for Dr. Clarke's Socinian tendencies and Socinian Lit
urgy. The attempt on the memory of Dr. Watts is, if possible, still more
flagrant than any other instance of the Socinian exhumation of distin
guished persons, who had lived and died in a Christian faith. In defiance
of every existing production of Dr. Watls's pen, in defiance of the most
established notoriety as to his religious opinions, and in defiance of the
testimony of those with whom he lived in daily and hourly intercourse, the
Unitarians are now labouring to associate with their cause the name of
that excellent and exalted Christian. It is in vain that proof is heaped
upon proof; and that Mr. Palmer has lately adduced evidence, rationally
irresistible, to show that Dr. Watts's opinions remained through life op
posed to every doctrine of a Socinian bearing ; still it is contended, that,
though not Socinian, and although, as Mr. Belsham admits, "he would,
to the latest day of his life,fiave started from the imputation with horror ; "
that is, although he would have started with horror from the idea of ad
mitting, or being supposed to admit, the mere human nature of Christ, —
yet he might be a unitarian (which shows the very convenient use of this
title,) and that although no written expressions of his can be produced,
which favour Unitarianism, yet his last thoughts were undoubtedly
Unitarian. And thus is rudely, violently, and falsely, pressed into the
service of the worst form of the Socinian heresy, the name of a man, who,
it is admitted, would have started with horror from the imputation of a
Socinian belief. In Mr. Belsham's Memoirs of Lindsey, the reader will
find all that can be urged on the Unitarian side of the question respecting
Dr. Watts's opinions : and, in Mr. Palmer's Tract, entitled, Dr. Watts

0 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
itagion, on which, fifteen years ago, I offered my cofcgratu-
ions to the public, in the first impression of this work ; — but,
Socinian, he will find the complete refutation of Mr. Belsham's argu-
nts : and he will be the more confirmed in the admission of the com-
teness of that refutation, by the attempts which are made to answer it
he viiith vol. ofthe Monthly Repository; in which it appears, that,, as
the case of Sir Isaac Newton, it is on the report made by a Socinian
ness, of matter which cannot be produced, that the whole charge of
Watts's Socinianism exclusively rests. A Mr. Baron was told, by a
. Haynes, ( both zealous Unitarians,) that he (Mr. Haynes) had heard
n Sir Isaac Newton (what it does not appear that any other human be-
had ever heard from him) expressions indicating a disbelief of pur
d's pre-existence. And Dr. Lardner was told by a Mr. Neal (both
lous Unitarians likewise,) that he (Mr. Neal) had heard from Dn
its, expressions indicative of certain Unitarian (though admitted
be anti-socinian) sentiments : and, yet farther, that he had heard
se expressions from Dr. Watts, in the presence of his friends of the
ily in which he resided, who " were greatly concerned to heat him
: " thus, (Belsh. Mem. of Lindsey, p. 220.) and who yet, at the same
3, it appears, never heard these conversations, as we find it admitted in
nth. Rep. vol. viii. pp. 716. 721. More proofs, we are assuredf also,
should have, but that the above named Unitarians burned the papers of
Watts, which would have established the evidence of his Unitarianism.
i paper has, fortunately, remained, of which Mr. Belsham quotes a
;, omitting that part of it which proves Dr. Watts to be the direct op-
te of that which he labours to represent him.
ut, there is something still more indefensible in the treatment of
Watts, which remains to be noticed. It is well known, that a
ection of hymns, by Dr. Watts, for the use of children, had obtain-
he most widely-extended circulation in all schools and places of
ruction for the young. These hymns, it is also well known, are
mlated to convey to the young mind the strictest notions of Ortho-
¦ Christianity. They who had dived into Dr. Watts's last thoughts,
had discovered the secret, which Dr. Watts had so carefully con
ed frflm all the world beside, (and indeed, as Mr. Belsham seems
:ay, even from himself,) namely, that he was a Socinian, have
jght it right, as he had not himself made any corresponding altfera-
. in his hymns, to make such an alteration for him ; and have
srdingly Socinianised throughout those beautiful divine songs,
ch, until tainted by this foul contact, had breathed the purest spi-
of Christian piety, regulated by Christian doctrine, Thus, Dr.
Us is now made to speak, from the mouths of children, in language,

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 417
also for the purpose of affording a decisive proof, that it requires
not the feelings which belong to f he Clergy of the Establishment,

which takes from our blessed Saviour all those attributes, the habitual
clothing him with which, in tho young imagination, was the great
object that he had laboured to effect. But this dishonest use of Watts's
name, for the corruption of the infant mind, is not the only thing to
be complained of. That alterations had been made in those hymns
was, I believe, generally announced, in the published collections that
had undergone this change: at the same time, that, from the intima
tion that the variations were but slight, and from the ignorance of the
greater number of purchasers, (who, finding Dr. Watts's name annex
ed, would still receive them under the authority of that name,) the
notice ofthe change was not likely to oppose any very material impe
diment to the influential operation of the name of Watts appearing on
the title-page of the collection. Still, however, it might be said, that
notice was given that the hymns were altered : and again, it might be
pretended, as in the case of Archbishop Newcome, that justice de
manded, that acknowledgment should be made, openly, in the title-
page, of the author of the original work, from which this altered pub
lication was principally derived. Let all this weigh, as so many words,
to those, whom mere words content. They, who seek something be-
yoncf sounds, may not feel perfect satisfaction. At all events, it must
be admitted, that common honesty demanded that it should be an
nounced, not only that alterations were made, but by whom they were
made, by what denomination of sect; in order that the public might
be fairly apprized of the character of those alterations. This, how
ever, it is manifest would have defeated the object. But, to pass this
over, what will be said to the following fact ? I have this moment
lying before me a printed copy of a collection of the hymns with this
title-page:— "Dr. Watts's Divine and Moral Songs for Children:
revised and altered so as lo render them of general use : To which are
added, a short Catechism and Prayers. By Mrs. Trimmer," Now,
that Mrs. Trimmer was a decided Trinitarian, in the strictest sense
of the word, and that her opinions were in complete unison with the
doctrines of the Established Church, is known to all who have the least
acquaintance with her history and writings. The general notoriety
on this head will be found to be fully verified by authentic details at
pp.91. 120. 152. 241. of the first volume of the Account of her Life, &c.
lately published. The page last specified, indeed, evinces her habitual
horror of the Socinian or Unitarian opinions. " I am grieved to see,
by the Reviews, that Unitarian books multiply continually. / am
afraid that poison spreads itself. Oh! that I could furnish an
YoL. 2.-53

418 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
to be, disgusted with the disingenuous proceedings of Unitarians,
with their false pretences as to the extent of their numbers, their
antidote to it. Lord Jesus, convinced as I am of Thy Divinity, I am
zealous to maintain it," &c. This is the writer, to whom the adapta
tion of Dr. Watts's Hymns to general use is ascribed, together with a
short Catechism and Prayers ; all these, at the same time, executed
by a Socinian pen ; every sentiment, which savoured of those great
Christian doctrines, which both Dr. Watts and Mrs. Trimmer deemed
essential to Christianity, carefully expunged ; and every artful insinua
tion of what both these writers Would have Viewed with abhorrence,
as tending to supplant those doctrines, fraudulently introduced. I
shall give a single specimen in one of the doxologies : —
" To God the Father, God the Son,
And God the Spirit, Three in One ;
Be honour, praise, and glory, given,
By all on earth, and all in heaven." Dr. Watts.
The Socinian equivalent of this doxology, ascribed to Mrs. Trimmer,
is as follows : — " Praise to our gracious God be given,
By all on earth and all in heaven ;
Here would we celebrate his love,
Until we join the host above."
With the like fidelity the hymns at large are presented to the public.
A Socinian oatechism of a most extraordinary structure is annexed. And
all given as the joint production of Dr. Watts and Mrs. Trimmer, for
the use of children. It is obvious, that the whole range of names, which
the last century presents, could have furnished none by which free access
to the nursery and the school-room could have been so readily and so ex
tensively procured, as the very two names which have been here falsely
assumed. That of Mrs. Trimmer, especially, (whatever special pleading
there may be about the former, on the ground of a pretended change of
opinions,) must be admitted to be a base and deliberate fraud : — a fraud
practised upon the parent, to gain admission within his doors, under a false
name, in order to corrupt the mind and heart of his child : kidnapping of
the most atrocious description, by which is stolen away, not the person,
but the immortal soul of the infant. Such are Unitarian practices ! Such
are the fruits of a system, founded in the adulteration of Scripture truth !
They who have falsified the word of God, cannot be expected to deal truly
by the' word of man. Deceptive titles, unfounded assertions, and false

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 419
unfounded association of distinguished names, and their dis
honest use of an equivocal appellation. The Unitarian boast

quotations, we have been familiarized with, as we have advanced in our
acquaintance with Unitarians and their writings. But the reader could
scarcely have been prepared for a fabrication, so unprincipled, and trea
cherous, as this. I shall dwell upon it no longer. Dr. Clarke's Book
of Common Prayer: Dr. Watt's Divine and Moral Songs: the same
revised and altered by Mrs. Trimmer : and Archbishop Newcome's
Version of the Neui Testament, — are all standing monuments ofthe truth
and fair dealing of modern Unitarianism '; and the names of Newton,
Locke, Clarke, and Watts, illustrious remembrancers of the respect which
its professors manifest for the true characters of the dead.
The bearing of the observation, in Dr. Bruce's letter, relative to the
" American Correspondence," deserves to be understood, as it tends to
give still farther insight into the management of Unitarian concerns. A
splendid account had been sent abroad, through Unitarian publica
tions in these countries, of the rapid and extensive progress of Unita
rianism in America. The Rev. Francis Parkman, a congregational
minister of Boston, in a well written communication to the principal
publisher of this account, gave it a direct and unqualified contra
diction, disclaiming Unitarianism for America, as decisively as Dr.
Bruce has done for Ireland ; and in terms still more emphatical. This
gentleman, though in friendly intercourse with the leading Unitarians
of England, and, equally with them, removed from all connexion
with the Episcopal Church, concludes his letter on the above sub
ject with these words : — "I only wished to show, as I trust I have done
without offence, that in Boston, in New England, and in America at large,
we are not, and, permit me to add, as long as we study the Scriptures, I
believe we shall not, become converts to your new doctrine." (Monthly
Rep. vol. vii. p. 265.) The reply made to this was, that the writer mis
took altogether the meaning of the word unitarian : that it did not mean
the same as humanitarian, (such as Dr. Priestley, Mr. Belsham, &c.)
but that it extended to all who were not Trinitarians; and therefore in
cluded (with this exception) those who opposed the doctrine of the simple
humanity of Christ, as well as those who maintained it : and, to wind up
all, comically enough assured this reverend gentleman, that he was him
self an unitarian without knowing it. The American Correspondent had
declared, for himself, and those of his brethren who might be supposed to
approach nearest to unitarians, that they, "holding high and exalted
views of the personal mediation of Christ, resting on the merits of his
etonement, his cross and passion, and zealous to pay the honour due to
his name, would, consequently, be very unwilling to be confounded with

420 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
of the progress of their cause in Ireland is, as we have seen,
completely put down by the plain fact, that not a single Uni-

the followers of Dr. Priestley. (Ibid. p. 201.) But, being now assured,
that none of these things stood in the way of their taking the name which
was proffered to them : that, provided' they were not Trinitarians, they
were Unitarians; found, all of a sudden, that he and several of his bre
thren were, as his English Correspondent had pronounced, unitarians,
without knowing it. They could not travel to the name, but the name
had travelled to them : and, therefore, in a letter sent to the Editor of the
Unitarian Magazine, (with the express condition, by the way, that it
should not be published, and which the Editor accordingly published,
without delay,) he apologizes for having spoken so strongly against Uni
tarians, now that hs finds that Unitarians may hold opinions directly oppo
site to those which characterise the followers of Priestley. And thus,
Unitarianism. is now said to flourish in America ; where, in the true sense
ofthe word, as it is applied by the modern Socinians, it appears, that there
are scarcely any Unitarians to be found. They, who would wish to see
the most curious specimen of a contrivance, whereby may be enlisted into
a class a multitude of persons, by whom that class is directly opposed, will
be not a little amused, by tracing the history of this transaction to which
I have here alluded, through pp. 198—201. 264,265. 498—501. of vol.
vii. and pp. 478 — 480. of vol. viii. ofthe Monthly Repository.
Some very interesting information, concerning the endeavours to in
troduce Unitarianism (that is, modem Socinianism) into America, and the
bad success of those endeavours, will be found in an Extract from the
Panoplist of Dr. Morse, entitled Socinianism Unmasked, which has lately
been published in London. This work was occasioned by Mr. Belsham's
unfounded representation of the progress of Unitarianism in America, and,
besides much valuable matterupon the immediate subject, it contains some
curious facts concerning Dr. Priestley whilst in that country. We learn
from it, that the exercise of Dr. Priestley's ministry, in the United States,
was attended with scarcely any effect ; and we are put in possession of an
extraordinary observation, made by him, in a letter to Mr. Lindsey, con
cerning Mr. Jefferson, of whom he uses these words : " He is generally
considered as an unbeliever : if so, however, he cannot be par from us."
(pp. 41. 47.) It appears, also, from this pamphlet, that our English
Unitarians have been active at least in putting forward their publica
tions in America ; and that, among these, their New Version is in
cluded. It is matter of satisfaction to find that works of another de
scription, and which, it is hoped, will counteract the mischief, have
found their way into that country, without the efforts of a party. The
writings of Dr. Middleton and Dr. Wardlaw are there in extensive

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 421
tarian congregation exists throughout the island. Similar
boasting, as to America, has been sent abroad through Uni
tarian magazines, pamphlets, and sermons: but that this is
nearly as unfounded as the former, there is good reason to think,
from the authenticated contradictions which have reached these
countries from America, a6 well as from the confessions since
made upon this head by the Unitarians themselves. To Great
Britain alone, the success of the Unitarian cause, to whatever
that success may amount, is exclusively confined. And the ap
pearance of progress, which is ostentatiously held out within this
range, may, after all, be more justly considered as an illusion,
growing from the noise and bustle of a few, than as marking a
real extension of the numbers of the sect. The reports of such
extension, with which their monthly magazines are stuffed, are
most of them manifest exaggerations ; and some of them are
absolutely ludicrous. We have not merely clubs, and speeches,
and dinner meetings, and toasts, to promote and celebrate the
spread of the Unitarian cause, and ladies assisting at these
seemly celebrations, but we have, in their monthly enumeration
of Unitarian congregations, accounts of some, composed of a
number of individuals so scanty, that, to call the assemblage a
congregation, is an application of the term altogether ridiculous.
"We have even, on one occasion, the exulting detail of a single
individual* determining to raise a temple to the Unitarian

circulation : and it is nearly three years since I received, from Mr.
Eastburn of New York, a remarkably well-printed copy of the third
edition of this work, which that gentlemen had of his own motion pub
lished in that city. Upon the whole, it is to be hoped, that America
will remain, as Ireland has done, free from the taint of this most un
christian heresy : and, that, however liberal the heads of this heresy
may be, in bestowing the title of Unitarian, like the honorary one of
LL. D. in both countries, it will be long before they find any real gra
duates of the school of Belsham and Gilchrist in either.
* The account of this transaction will be found at p. 518 of vol. ix. of
the Monthly Repository. It is given by the solitary agent, in this
transaction, himself. Southampton, no very small town, is the place,
where, he says, he could not find a single Unitarian beside himself:
notwithstanding which, he resolved upon a Unitarian "temple," and a

422 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
worship, and actually erecting himself into a Unitarian congre
gation ; contriving, at the same time, to satisfy literally the
Scripture phrase of " two or three assembled together," by
borrowing, from a distance, the attendance of two other Unita
rians, for the occasion of the meeting.
The grand object of the Unitarians, at present, is prosely-
tism. The increase of their numbers, whether that increase be
real or apparent, whether it be an extension of the principle, or
only ofthe name, is now the point to which all their exertions
are directed. The apparent, they think, will work the real.
And for this purpose nothing could be better contrived, than the
equivocal application of the title * which they have assumed.

Unitarian congregation. The two Unitarians, whom he drew to him,
one from Southen and another from Rumsey, made him feel comfort
able, however on the latter point; because, " he recollected the en
couragement of our great Master, that 'where two or three are
gathered together ' in support of his cause, he has promised his assist
ance." — This gentleman has, it must be confessed, shown greater ho
nesty, in his quotation from the Gospel, than many Unitarian teachers
are used to do, who are attended by larger congregations. He knew
that, in the true sense of the word, his two or three could not be said
to be gathered together in the name of Christ, (two or three are ga
thered together in my name,) and therefore that part of our Lord's
words he very properly omitted.
* The degree to which the equivocation, in the use of this title, has been
carried, may be best understood from a controversy which has lately arisen
among the Unitarians themselves ; and which is to be found in the tenth
volume of their Monthly Repository, (the volume for the year 1815,) at
pages 226. 278. 354, 355. 416. 475. 479. 483. 552. 554, 555. 5S5.
590. 637, 638, 639. 709, 710. 743, 744, 745. I have been thus par
ticular, in tracing out the whole field of the controversy, because nothing
can more clearly manifest the true character and designs of the sect, than
this domestic discussion which has taken place within its pale. And, I
can assure the reader, who is desirous to ascertain the genuine objects of
modem Unitarians, that, in this. view, he willfindhimself fully compensated
for his trouble in travelling through the entire range, which I have here
marked out for his inspection. Some extracts from the more important
parts of this controvery I shall here subjoin.
Mr. Belsham, at page 34. of his Letters to the Bishop of London, (in
tended as a reply to certain observations upon Unitarianism, Contained in

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 423
To those who are to be, initiated, the term Unitarian is pre
sented,, as merely denoting all who are not Trinitarian ; that

one ofthe most luminous, comprehensive, and dignified pastoral discourses,,
that have at any time issued from the Episcopal chair,) had asserted^/br
the Unitarians, that they " rejectthe doctrine ofthe Trinity, of the crea
tion of the Universe by Jesus Christ, of the incarnation, of the atonement,
of original sin, and other popular doctrines connected with these." — To
this, creed, (of s.pecial disbelief) laid down for Unitarians, by Mr. Bel
sham, it was immediately objected, on the part of that body at large, that,
their fundamental principle being, " that there is only one God, the Father,"
they are grossly misrepresented by Mr. Belsham, in fastening upon them a
creed, expressing a rejection of doctrines, every one of which, except that
ofthe Trinity, is received by some among them : insomuch "that, if, from
the body of Unitarians were to be excluded all those who do not believe
according to Mr. Belsham's negative creed, he would be left in a very in
considerable minority." The advocate, who thus maintained the unre
stricted principle of Unitarianism, and whose education and habits of sci
ence gave him a decided superiority in precision and reasoning over the
opponent with whom he had to, contend, proceeds very justly to demand, —
" why should we, who object to the creeds of our brother Christians, make
ourselves exclusive creeds'!" And, at the same time that he fully admits
Mr. Belsham's absolute right to state his own creed, he totally denies hia
right to state it as the creed of Unitarians : and, finally, in the name ofthe
Unitarian body, he " protests against such an imposition of articles of
faith," as being both unauthorized and unfounded. Mr. -Belsham, in *eply,
condemns the vague use of the word Unitarian in modern practice ; it being
employed (as he says) to express every class of religionists from the
Athanasian down to the Mahometan : and, assuming the high tone of au
thority, and fortifying himself by the sanction of Lardner, Priestley, and
Lindsey, without condescending to reason upon the subject, he declares
his determination to apply the term in no other than in the restricted sense,
which he had already ascribed to it. This authoritative style of Mr. Bels
ham is met by his spirited opponent, as might be expected, with much
indignation. After pointing out, that the consequence of such usurpation
of authority, on the part of Mr. Belsham, must be that others would, in like
manner, from time to time, with equal right, impose new articles of belief,
until, at last, the Unitarian,, instead of having one simple article of belief,
would be lost in the complication of his own creed ; he concludes with de
claring, that, if to be a Unitarian, it is necessary to adopt the creed laid
down by Mr. Belsham, he must give up his pretensions to be called by that
name ; and hints, with much emphasis, that in this act he would be very
far from being singular. Mr. Belsham, in reply, still stands upon the high

424 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
is, as these gentlemen again explain this expression, not Atha-
nttsian. To all, then, who do not receive the doctrine of the

ground of " sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas ; " contends for
the propriety of the restricted sense ; abuses the Arians ; and thinks it
best that there should be a separation of the staunch followers of his opinions
from the other classes of Unitarians ; for* that, otherwise, the conducting
Society may send out missionaries of opposite complexions, who may
defeat each other's views and doctrines. It is again pressed upon Mr.
Belsham, that he has no right to require the adoption of his creed, which
is eminently defective in important points of Christian belief : that the
rejection of certain doctrines, which is required by Mr. Belsham, in a
Unitarian, is not requisite to qualify for that denomination ; but that many,
who hold those doctrines, are as well entitled to the name, as Mr. Belsham
himself. Mr. Belsham, now, calmly rejoins, that he merely meant to give
his definition of Unitarian ; that others were at equal liberty to give theirs :
and so begs leave to withdraw from the contest. His opponent, however,
justly rebukes him for confounding " definition " with " assertion : " and
concludes with stating that, at all events, it is requisite for him to announce,
that he is not of that class of Unitarians to which Mr. Belsham belongs ;
for that he approaches much nearer to the Arians, whom Mr. B. had
abused, than he does to Mr. Belsham himself; with whom he never can
concur in his " opinions of the office and character of our Saviour." —
Indeed, these last words distinguish the writer who uses them, very widely
from Unitarians of Mr. Belsham's class. The very sound of them is
Christian. [But this same writer had, already, most honourably for him
self, drawn a broad line of distillction between himself and such Unitarians
as Mr. Belsham, in what he had stated on the subject of Atonement in the
same volume of the Monthly Repository : and which, there is good reason
to think, had the effect of deterring the conductors of that journal from
carrying forward the discussion on that subject, although, as I have before
had occasion to observe (see page 239. of this volume,) it was announced,
that this important subject was to receive a lengthened and elaborate in
vestigation in the succeeding numbers of the Journal. It was found
prudent very soon to desist. It was discovered to be a dangerous discus
sion.] Whilst this controversy was going forward, another started up, in conse
quence of the apprehension excited, lest Mr. Belsham's attempt to narrow
the meaning of the term Unitarian should injure the good cause. The
term, it was allowed on all hands, had been used as a generic name, in
cluding various classes, Arians, Socinians, Sabellians, and, if not Cal-
vinists, yet such as held even the doctrine of atonement in a qualified
sense; — all in short who were not decided Trinitarians. It was con-

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 425
Trinity, as it is laid down in the Athanasian creed, the title of
Unitarian is, in the first instance, to be applied : and all such,

tended, that it would be wise to continue it in this application, for that,
hereby, those who differed from the believers in the simple humanity,
being brought into contact with them, would, if these latter were not too
hasty in urging matters forward, be drawn into the final adoption of their
opinions. The term unitarian, in short, is recommended to be continued,
as it had been used, as a decoy ; for which, from its general, and simple,
and uninvidious application, it seemed so admirably fitted. It is emphati
cally urged, that it is quite too soon for the Unitarians to split into parties ;
that " they are too much like a rope of sand already ; " and that, however
they may differ in their opinions, they must hold together as if they
agreed in one system, till " they have by union cleared the world of the
Trinitarian doctrine." At the same time, in order to satisfy such as were
desirous of a term to distinguish those who hold the simple humanity of
Christ, various titles are in succession proposed and rejected. — Socinian,
Humanitarian, Priestleyan, have each their advocates. Thus it was sup
posed, that all parties might be satisfied : Unitarian implying the general
association, and the other terms indicating the particular creed.
But, in the desire to reconcile the contending parties, it was forgotten
by the persons who proposed this plan of conciliation, that the whole value
of the name Unitarian would by this means be lost : and, accordingly, a
veteran, who saw his way more clearly than the rest, recommends that no
such distinction of names should be at all admitted ; but that the same
word Unitarian should be applied to the entire aggregate, comprehending
the various classes of dissentients from the doctrine of the Trinity, and
also be used as the distinctive denomination for that particular class which
rests on the simple humanity of Christ. To this the obvious objection was
made, that the name of the entire genus cannot well designate exclusively
any one of those species, to all of which it equally extends. This gentle
man replies, that this is a peculiar case : that the name which designates
this species best is the very name which belongs to it in common with all
the others : and that, therefore, the generic name is here the fittest for the
specific appellation. This must be admitted to be very new logic : but, at
the same time, it is, undoubtedly, very old management. The ambiguity
(which is the primary object) is hereby preserved : since the same term
can now be extended to the many, or appropriated to the few, as occasion
may require. The gentleman, who proposed this novel mode of concilia
tion, saw that the cause was in danger. There was reason to apprehend,
that those links, which now bound together so many different classes
firmly against Athanasius, and which might ultimately draw them to Mr.
Belsham, would by the great eagerness of this gentleman to place him-
Vol. 2.-54

426 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
of course, are hailed as brethren, and admitted within the pale
of this honourable denomination. Then, as, from the spirit of

self at the head ofthe Sect, be prematurely broken. He had, openly, and
rashly, affirmed, that none could be considered as unitarians, who did not
accept his creed. He had, in other words, contended, that the name must
be confined to one specific class ; and he had, therefore, as the other classes
were not yet prepared to allow themselves to be melted down into this one,
and to receive him as their head, thrown off their co-operation, and reduced
the boasted numbers of the Unitarian body to a contemptible few. How
was this to be remedied 1 The name, Mr. Belsham contended, however
generic it might have been hitherto considered, must be appropriated to the
species. The conciliator replies, the generic name may still continue as
such. But, whilst it is the true name for the genus, it is, on the same
principle, best fitted to particularize this one species. And, thus, he both
satisfies Mr. Bels ham, by making it the proper appellation for all who think
with him ; and gives content to those of the general denomination, who
will not accept Mr. Belsham's creed, by continuing it as the generic name
for all who do not think with Athanasius.
The ingenuity by which this professed Moderator of the contending
parties, who had solely the interests of one in view, has contrived to
reconcile two things apparently contradictory, can only be conceived
by reading the letters of Mr. Aspland, in this controversy. The grand
point, however, is now effected. Matters are again settled as before :
and the term Unitarian is, now, for all the purposes of proselytism, at
the same time restrictive and comprehensive, to any degree, that the
managers of the term mayrequire. — In truth, I cannot better represent
the nature of this term, as it is now used, than by an illustration, which
there is undoubtedly one Unitarian who will comprehend: but that, a
Unitarian far removed from the class to which Mr. Belsham would
confine the name ; as he has proved, in the very controversy to which
I have referred. It will be readily understood, and for obvious reasons,
that I mean Mr. Frend. The illustration, to whieh I allude, is derived
from the lunar shadow: which, if the term be restricted to the direct
cone, sends its darkening influence but to a small portion of the earth's
surface: but, if the expression be conceived to extend to the penum-
bral space, spreads its partial obscuration to a comparatively wide
space indeed. In like manner, to a Unitarian in Mr. Belsham's more
contracted use of the appellation, to whom, the whole Sun of righteous
ness is eclipsed, the range is proportionally contracted : but they, to
whom, in a greater latitude of the term, different degrees of increas
ing illumination are transmitted, spread over a wider, extent, and with
:the benefit of a progressively increasing irradiation, until, having passed

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 427
party, the force of association, the influence of flattery, persua
sion, and other co-operating causes, the initiated is led to make
still farther advances, the entire scheme is gradually unfolded,
and embraced ; and the progressive convert is finally introduced
into those interior regions, where Unitarians of full grown sta
ture (such as Mr. Belsham and Mr. Gilchrist) properly re
side ; not, indeed, to what, with the Christian, may be deemed
analogous to the "secretosquepios" of the poet; but to mansions
separated by a wide gulf from all that belongs to Christianity.
Thus we see, that it is not under the influence of the Papacy
only, that the principle of Jesuitism — that of an artful and
elastic accommodation, joined with the careful separation of eso
teric and exoteric — is called into active operation at the present
day. By such means, the judicious application of a name may
be employed to give a real increase to the numbers of the sect.
But, at all events, its apparent dimensions are widely dilated, by
the extent of a signification, which is made to spread over all

the boundaries of partial obscuration, they emerge into bright and open
day. It ought to be observed, that in the course of this controversial dis
cussion, among the various names suggested, for the class of Unitarians
which forms the true nucleus of the body, and which is, in truth, the
class to which the whole apparatus is adapted, I mean the class of suqh
persons as Mr. Belsham and Mr. Gilchrist, the most adequate seems
one which Mr. Aspland has adverted to, at p. 642. of the volume re
ferred to. — viz. Budneians. This class of Socinians seems, in all ge
neral principles, to correspond most exactly with Mr. Belsham's Uni
tarians. Possibly, however, in minuter matters, they had not travelled
sufficiently far. No objection however can possibly lie against the title
of Priestleyan. And for the sake of clearness, I shall, in all future ob
servations which Imay be compelled to bestow upon this.sect, desig
nate them by no other. Unitarian, it is manifest by their own con
fession, no more discriminates the peculiar class which is the subject
of our present remarks, than the word Christian discriminates any of
.the particular description of the believers, who call themselves after
the name of Christ. I have, it will be allowed, sufficiently shown my
desire to comply with their wishes, so far as a name was concerned, in
having used it so long without scruple :— but now, since they have con
fessed the dishonest use they mean to make of it, I can use it no longer.

428 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
that lies between the boundaries of the strictest Trinitarinism,
and of that open and ostentatious Deism, which rejects even the
name of Christianity. With the Deist of this description the
Unitarian prudently disclaims alliance; whilst, to the op
ponents of Revelation, who carry their faculties more discreetly,
he affords a convenient shelter. And thus, by the contrivance
of a name,, a sect, which, in its true and real character, is, by the
confession of its warmest friends.* small and despised, and whose
principles are equally offensive to sober piety and to sound intel
lect, but, above all, diametrically opposed to the Christian Scrip
tures, is made to appear (if we except the Trinitarian worship
per) co-extensive with the Christian name. Indeed, it might
be a question, whether, as the Trinitarian is pronounced to be a

* " We are a sect few in number, unfashionable, unpopular, despised,
hated, calumniated, every where spoken against," &c. Letter to the
Bishop of London, by T. Belsham, p. 48. — This, of course, must be
applied only to the genuine Unitarians, those of Mr. Belsham's own
class, to whom he wishes to appropriate the name, as we have seen in
the preceding note. For we know how magniloquently the same
writer has enlarged upon the numbers, and weight, and consequence,
and increased and increasing respectability of Unitarians, in nume
rous other passages of his writings. It was, however, convenient,
here, to use, in plaintive accents, a language, which, although contra
dicted in terms by the same writer in other places, is undoubtedly the
truth. How great are the advantages of a well-chosen name ! Mr.
Aspland, in his warm recommendation of the continuance of the use
of the word Unitarian, in that ambiguous sense in which it had
already done so much good to the cause, very justly observes, from
Dr. South, that " the generality of mankind is wholly and absolutely
governed by words and names ;" and that " he, who will set up for a
skilful manager of the rabble, so long as they have but ears to hear,
needs never inquire whether they have any understanding whereby to
judge : but with two or three popular empty words, well tuned and
humoured, may whistle them backwards and forwards, upwards and
downwards, till he is weary ; and get upon their backs when he is so."
Month. Rep. vol. x. p. 481. — And what does Mr. Aspland deduce from
all this? Why, neither more nor less than this, — that the name Uni
tarian must never be given up ; but all possible changes rung upon it,
let the opinions of those who bear that name be ever so various and
contradictory.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 429
polytheist, and therefore cannot properly be admitted within the
pale of Christianity, the title christian might not be appro
priated to those, who now call themselves Unitarians ; and
thus, they, who in the true sense of the phrase, deny Christ, be
pronounced the only persons who deserve to be called after his
name.
But, beside the insidious use of a deceptive denomination, the
powerful engines of Societies and Missions are also now
brought into action. The efficacy of these, so abundantly
evinced in the propagation of Methodism, the promoters of this
new system are desirous to employ in the extension of theirs.
At the late establishment of their general association in Scot
land, they have announced the discovery,* that "Union is

* See the account of the General Association of Unitarians in
Scotland, at p. 390. of vol. x. of the Monthly Repository. The con
solidation of force is the grand object. Every man to his post. This
is the grand discovery of modern days for the subversion of Estab
lishments, of whatever aspect, civil or religious. An extended organi
zation, a compacting discipline, a rapid communication, and a com
bined movement : all this is said to be effective for the diffusion of
religious truth. Whether it be effective for this purpose or not, there
are purposes which it is admirably fitted to accomplish. " Union is
strength." Undoubtedly. Acts of Parliament are not wanting to
augment its force. The Unitarians are now labouring to prove, that
they needed not that aid which the Legislature has lately, with so much
magnanimity, bestowed upon them. The uses to be made of this con
solidation of strength are now beginning to unfold themselves. The
Unitarian Magazine for April, 1816, conveys a pretty significant hint
of the value of the argument, to be derived from numbers united in a
common cause. There indeed we find the circle widened. That of
Unitarianism was felt to be too contracted, for the object to be em
braced ; which is neither more nor less, than the Abolition of the
Establishment. For this, it is deemed requisite to combine into one
grand phalanx the whole body of the Dissenters, of whatever deno
mination. Against the assaults of this mighty column, it is confi
dently asserted that the old bulwarks of the Constitution must give
way. The Establishment is declared to be a grievance no longer to be
borne. And the Dissenters are pronounced to have now attained such
strength from their numbers, that it requires but one combined effort
to throw off the antiquated encumbrance. Petition, indeed, is for

430 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
strength." This discovery had been made and acted upon be-
fore, with considerable energy, both in Great Britain and Ire
land, for the purpose of relieving the inhabitants of these free
countries from the pressure ofthe British constitution. Societies are
now, as then, to be formed and combined together, in one general
concert, but for a different object, that of banishing, not the name
indeed, but the reality of Christ's religion, out of a Christian land.
It remains, at the same time, to be submitted to experiment, how
far such an organised system will be employed, in repaying to
the constitution, what it may succeed in taking from the religion
ofthe country. The law has recently bestowed increased powers
upon the Unitarian : it is to be presumed, that he will not em
ploy these increased powers to reduce the strength of the law,
however he may be disposed to employ them for the subversion
of the national religion. At the same time it should always
be carefully remembered by those whom these matters most
concern, that one grand cause of hostility to the Establish
ment arises out of the fact of its forming a part of the consti
tution. But, again, not only is the face of the land to be covered with
societies, bound together in one firm league ; but missionaries
are to be sent forth in all directions, to spread the opinions of this
new sect. Here indeed is an extraordinary state of things.
Missionaries to teach the truths of Christianity, we are well ac
quainted with : but missionaries to unteach them, are of a de
scription rather unusual. Missionaries there have been, who
have encountered much for the love of Christ : but that mis
sionaries, calling themselves Christian, should go abroad to
work the rejection of his name, is a singularity indeed. It is
impossible to behold this portentous retroversion of religious zeal,
without being recalled to the recollection of that first great mis
sion, on which our Lord sent his disciples. We, there, see the

form-sake mentioned ; and the peculiar mode of raising the revenues
of the Church adverted to : but intimidation by force are the means
pointed out ; and the abolition of the Establishment the end proposed.
" Union is strength." And the establishment must fall.
Delenda est Carthago. See Monthly Repository, vol. xi. p. 207.

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 431
devoted followers of Christ commissioned by him to go forth,
and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Here we see the fol
lowers of a different Lord, going forth to inculcate, as the one
great maxim, which alone is worthy to be taught, that there is
no Son and no Holy Ghost. There we see the disciples of
our blessed Master receiving directions from him, to preach that
gospel which he had given them. Here we see the messengers
of another master directed to carry with them a false gospel,
which, whilst it bears the name, shall more effectually subvert
the doctrines of the true gospel of Christ. There, also, we find
an authority conferred, to announce to mankind the gracious
tidings of a Redeemer, through whom every one that believed
shall be saved. But, here we find teachers directed to guard
all against the danger of belief; and to enforce emphatically,
as the most important truth, that he alone shall he saved who
believeth not.

When it is considered that the modern Socinian (who calls himself
Unitarian) is, under the name of Christian, the decided enemy of
Christianity, and, under the guise of a translator of the New Testa
ment, a deliberate falsifier of the Gospel, it may appear hardly neces
sary to offer an excuse for entering at any length, however great, into
controversy with persons who would thus clandestinely steal from the
Christian all that forms his consolation and his hope. But that, in
these volumes, the immediate subject of which is the doctrine of the
Atonement, this controversy should have been carried in the direction
and to the extent to which it has travelled, may not unreasonably ap
pear to demand explanation. It will be recollected by those who are
acquainted with the writings of Dr. Priestley, and his fellow-labourers
of that day, that the doctrine of the Atonement was that which they
conceived to be the vitally distinguishing doctrine of the orthodox
system ; and, on looking back to pages 85—87. of the first volume of
this work, it will be seen, that against this doctrine especially, as the
foundation of all that he was pleased to call the corruptions of Chris
tianity, the Father of modern Socinianism directed his most strenuous
and persevering exertions. In this view of the case, the Author of
these volumes was originally induced to engage in the vindication of
this important doctrine, and in the discussion of the various objections
which, by the united industry of Dr. Priestley and other Socinians,

432 SUPPLEMENTARY REMARKS ON THE
had been collected against it: naturally expecting that if he must be
engaged in farther controversy with the followers of Priestley, it
would be upon that ground which had thus been chosen by them
selves. The matter, however, turns up differently. The question of
Atonement is no longer made the subject of investigation by the
modern Socinians : and now, after a lapse of fifteen years from the
first publication of this work, it is openly (and it may be said, offici
ally,) announced, that the prosecution of the controversy upon this
doctrine is to be relinquished. For this, two reasons are assigned:
one, affecting the nature of the work, by which I had endeavoured to
maintain the doctrine ; and the other affecting the doctrine itself. The
former, as it is stated by Mr. Belsham, the present champion of Soci
nianism, and repeated by his admirers, is, that it must be unnecessary
at this time of day to prove, that the cause of Cain's rejection was not
his having "offered a vegetable instead of an animal" which is, of
course, the whole that this discerning writer could discover, as bearing
upon the question of Atonement, in the volumes of this work that
have been hitherto published ;) and the latter is, that the fact of the
mere humanity of Christ being (as it is modestly assumed) complete
ly established, the received doctrine of the Atonement is thereby at
once virtually overturned. Thus, we see, the doctrine of the Atone
ment, and the arguments which have been urged in its defence, are
fairly run away from ; and the various objections which had been so
laboriously marshalled against that doctrine, by the ingenuity of
former Socinians, are totally abandoned to their fate. The opponent
of the doctrine of the Atonement having found it convenient thus to
retire from the advanced position, and to direct his attacks against the
doctrine from a more distant quarter, taking his stand upon the ground
of the mere humanity of our Lord ; thither, of course, the defender of
the doctrine is obliged to follow, and finds himself compelled to carry
on the combat on the new ground which the adversary has selected.
The contrivance, it has been seen, by which the modern Socinian
deems it most expedient to maintain his extravagant notions concern
ing our Lord's humanity, is the propagation of a false Gospel. To
the exposure of this false Gospel the attention of the Author of these
volumes has been consequently directed. And although the endea
vour to accomplish this object has led to a considerable extension of
the work, yet he trusts, that, in the nature of the case and the great
importance of the subject, the candid and Christian reader will dis
cover his apology. Perhaps, indeed, when well considered, it is not
so much for the extent to which he has pushed his exposure of the
modern Socinians and their Version, that he needs excuse, as for his
not having carried it much farther. He is happy, however, to have
it in his power to say, that, in addition to what has been advanced in

UNITARIAN VERSION OF THE NEW TEST. 433
these sheets, enough (to honest and informed readers perhaps more
than enough) has been done by the several distinguished writers
whom he has occasionally named throughout the preceding Supple
ment, to put down the recent attempts which have been made by the
modern Socinians in support of their system, through the medium of
a falsified New Testament. To those several writers, especially to
Bishop Burgess, Bishop Middleton, Dr. Nares, Dr. Laurence, Mr.
Veysie, and Dr. Wardlaw, he refers the reader for the filling up what
these pages have necessarily left untouched. To these writers there
ought indeed to be added the name of Mr. Nolan, who, although he
has not treated directly of the subject at issue with the Socinians, has
thrown a most valuable light on what they have artfully contrived to
draw into connexion with their object, by bringing Griesbach (whom
they claim, though untruly, as a powerful auxiliary to their cause,)
under strict examination, and subjecting his system of classification to
a critical and searching scrutiny. The work upon the Integrity of
the Vulgate Greek Text of the New Testament, a work marked by
characters of great industry, learning, and sagacity, be the ultimate
decision upon the momentous and difficult subject of which it treats
what it may, has, besides the merit of yielding strong support to cer
tain important texts of the New Testament, the additional merit of
giving a salutary check to the too unqualified (I had almost said the
vulgar) admiration of an eminent critic, which the wily Socinians of
the day have not failed to turn to mischievous account. An accurate
appreciation of the due value of that critic's labours must be of the last
advantage to Biblical literature : such appreciation has not yet been
obtained, and to its attainment Mr. Nolan's work cannot but materially
conduce.

Vol. 2.-55

INDEX

THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

Abarbanel, — his testimony respecting expiatory sacrifices among the Jews,
i. 191—195. 197.
Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac, — a singular resemblance to it in the
Mystical sacrifice of the Phatnicians, i. 270 — 277.
ArNOHMATA, or sins of ignorance, — fully explained, i. 239 — 244  :-Opini-
on ofthe Rabbins concerning sins of this description, i. 195 — 196.
Animal food, — not granted to man before the Flood i. 353 — 362.
Apostolical Fathers, — their references to various passages of the New Testa
ment, ii. 176, 177. 179. 185 — 190  the nature and objects of their writings, ii.
178, 179, 185 — 190  their silence respecting the first two chapters 6f St. Mat
thew falsely urged as an argument against the authenticity of those chapters,
ii. 176—190.
Articles ( Thirty-nine) — reduced in number to Twenty-five, by Mr. Wesley,
and those which are retained by him, materially altered, i. 129  not to be
subscribed, unless by those who believe the doctrines which tliey propound, ii.
96, 98, 100 — 101  the bearing of the Sixth Article on the interpretation of
the rest, ii. 96, 97  Mr. Fellowes's unjustifiable notions of their mean
ing and obligation, ii. 94 — 103  Dr. Paley, Mr. Gisborne, Dr. Powel, and
Bishop Tomline, referred to upon their interpretation, ii. 100 — 101.
Asiatic Researches, — quoted respecting human sacrifices, i. 91  the Lon.
don Edition of this work contains a wicked fabrication calculated to subvert
revelation, ii. 46.
Atonement,  the meaning of the word so translated in the Old Testament, i.
229  236-  the received doctrine of, objected to on the ground that Christ's
death was not a propitiatory sacrifice, i. 45  Objection answered by texts of
Scripture, describing it as such, i. 45, 167  Objected, that the language in
these texts is figurative, i.46, 167, 182, 187  Objection answered, i. 46, 47,
163  191  Leading arguments against the doctrine, urged with their greatest
force by Ben Mordecai, i. 189  .Levitical atonement said by B. Mordecai and
Dr. Priestley to imply only ceremonial purification, i. 231 — 235  the con
trary shewn, i. 231—235  more minutely argued, i. 236—248  Atone
ments in the Old Testament extended to the violations of moral law, and pro.

436 INDEX.
cured a real forgiveness, i. 48, 243 — 248  Objections against the doctrine,
unfairly drawn from the expression, vicarious punishment, i. 248, 249  Ar
guments brought by Sykes and B. Mordecai, against the doctrine, on the sup
position of an implied vicarious substitution, i. 249  shewn to have no weight
against the true notion of atonement, i. 250 — 256  Christian atonement de
scribed by the terms, bearing sins, &c. in such manner, as to convey the propi
tiatory and vicarious import more strongly than is expressed in the Mosaic, i. 250,
251, 274, 276  inconsistency in the arguments urged on this head against the
doctrine, i. 275  language of the New Testament more circumstantial and pre
cise upon the nature of atonement, than that of the Old, i. 65, 66. ii. 31, 32 
contended by Dr. Priestley, that no trace whatever ofthe doctrine is to be found
either in Old or New Testament, i. 322 — —refuted, i. 322—325  the doc
trine, why not as fully explained in the Gospels as in the Epistles, i. 323 — 325.
ii. 89  Doctrine of atonement does not sink our ideas of the divine mercy, i.
331 — 334  opposition to the doctrine arising generally from what cause, i. 51
 see Redemption. B
Bailly — maintains an extravagant antiquity of the Indian astronomy, ii. 48,
49  followed by Professor Playfair, 48  confuted by La Place, ii. 48, 49
and by Mr. Bentley, ii. 49 — 51.
Balguy's excellent argument to prove the natural insufficiency of repentance
to procure forgiveness of sins, i. 85 — 87, 162.
Barbauld, (Mrs.) — her admirable remarks on prayer, i. 115, 116  defender
of public worship against Wakefield, i. 140  represents good works as giving
a. claim of right to divine acceptance, i. 140  a highly accomplished writer, i.
139. ii. 122.
Beattie, (Dr.) — his excellent confutation and exposure of Hume, ii. 66 — 68,
71  pronounces the human invention of language to be impossible, i. 366.
Belsham, (Mr.) — rejects the notion of Christ's pre-existence, i. 73  refers to
others for the proof, i. 73, 74  indulges in impious raillery on the subject of
atonement, i. 135  has no fixed creed, i. 138, 139  explains the difference
between Unitarians and Socinians, i. 123  argues in support of a purgatory,
ii. 112, 117, 118  denies that any religious address should be offered to Christ,
ii. 114  maintains, in opposition to the received notion of the corruption of
human nature, the preponderance of virtue over vice, ii. 113, 115  makes vir-
the mechanism, ii. 115 — 117— —overturns his own scheme of merit, ii. 115 — 117
must, on his own principles, reject the notion of punishment altogether, ii. 118
 adopts the principle of predestination, ii. 118, 119  and the fatalism of
the Stoic, ii. 118, 119  inconsistently recommends gratitude to God, ii. 119,
120  his new mode of reforming a sinner, ii. 120 — 122  objects specially to
remorse in the sinner, as a thing pernicious, ii. 120, 121  inconsistently calls
upon the sinner to reform, whilst the principles which he advances go to prove
the impossibility of reformation, ii. 120  adopts the unintelligible phraseology
of the Illuminati, ii. 122  -rejects the idea of prayer, and necessarily, ii. 122,
123  objects to the Sabbatical observance, as forbidden by the Gospel, i. 83.
ii. 123, 124  considers it injurious to the cause of virtue, ii. 123, 124 
short view of Mr. B.'s Christianity, ii. 124 — 127  .differs little from the deism
of Lepaux, i. 137. ii, 126, 127  Mr. B. a moral teacher, ii. 127, 128  but
not a teacher of Christianity, ii. 127, 128  admits himself to be nearer to In
fidelity than to orthodoxy, ii. 128— — guilty of a total want of eharity in his

INDEX. 437
judgment of the Clergy of the Established Church, ii. 128 — 131  arrogates
exclusively the profession of a pure Christianity, ii. 13 1  complains of perse
cution, ibid  his proof of this persecution, ii. 131—132  sufficiency of this
proof considered, ii. 132 — 135  asserts the Unitarian cause to be progressive,
ii. 135  in what sense this can be allowed to be true, ii. 135, 136  Mr. B.
prevented from advancing to Deism by his early instruction in sounder princi
ples, ii. 138  his assertion ofthe increase of the number of Unitarians borrows
an appearance of truth from one circumstance, ii. 140  One most extraordi
nary and irrefragable proof of Mr. B's assertion, ii. 140  he admits Unitari
anism to be hard to be understood, ii. 142  called on to account for the disso
lution of the Academy of Hackney, i. 84. ii. 136, 142  admits and glories
in the licentiousness of the system at Hackney, ii. 136, 137— —explains how the
Unitarians contrive to retain the Bible, ii. 142, 143  interprets like Lord
Peter, ii. 143-  enjoys an exclusive monopoly of the powers of reasoning, ii.
143 — 145  exhibits singular proofs of this in a Treatise on Logics, Meta
physics, and Morals, by a reference to which treatise his high claims are esti
mated, ii. 143 — 147  classes the Clergy of the Establishment under the heads
of impostors and bigots, ii. 147  charges Doddridge with supporting, from
prejudice, an erroneous and unscriptural system, ii. 147, 148  refers for the
proof of the truth of his tenets to other Commentators, ii. 148  has made a
good selection for his purpose, ii. 149  why could not add Paine, ii. 149, 150
 why not Geddes, ii. 150  exhibits a few specimens of his own criticism,
ii. 150, 151  convicts St. Paul of ignorance, ii. 150, 151  sets him right,
ii. 150  commends Dr. Taylor's Scripture Key, reason why, i. 145., ii. 113
 refers to Dr. Taylor, whose observations make against him, ii. 152  com
pares Bonaparte to Jesus Christ, ii. 153, 154  has lately given a new digest
of the Unitarian creed as touching the person of Christ, ii. 154, 155  shews
that the teaching of our Lord and his Apostles is to be received with great cau
tion and distrust, ii. 155, 156  expresses doubts as to the moral character of
our Saviour, ii. 155, 156  said to be the author of an anonymous pamphlet,
of a contemptible description, ii. 194 — 196  his strange remarks on John,
v. 27, exposed, ii. 210 — 212  his extraordinary reasoning on Luke, i. 35, ex
posed, ii. 214 — 218  his gross falsification of Schleusner exposed, ii. 228—230
 his extraordinary attempts at criticism and reasoning on John, ii. 19, and x.
17 exposed, ii. 228 — 235  his monstrous absurdities on the subject of expiation
for moral offences, ii. 235, 236  ascribes enigmatical meanings to our Lord's
discourses, ii. 246—247  explains Christ's descent from and ascent into hea
ven, as meaning nothing either of coming from or going to heaven, ii. 247 — 256
proves from Astronomy that there is no heaven, ii. 253, 254  at the same time
contends for Christ's going into heaven, ii. 254, 255, 256  exhibits a curious
instance of his want of acquaintance with Greek, ii. 271, 272  contends that
the pre-existence of a miser may as well be deduced from 2 Cor. viii. 9, as that of
Christ, ii. 277, 278  easily disposes, in his own manner, of all the texts that
declare our Lord's pre-existence, ii. 278—280  compares the texts that de.
clare our Lord's pre-existenee, to the stars in the firmament, ii. 279, 280 
gives a curious specimen of his notions of Astronomy, ii. 279, 280  gives a
curious specimen of his knowledge of the Greek language, ii. 281—291  blun.
ders in plain English as well as in Greek, ii. 282, 283  his extraordinary and
self-contradictory notion of a mere man, having miraculous powers at his own
option, ii. 184—193  his singularly dishonest treatment of 1 Cor. xv. 47, ex
posed, ii. 222  224  his monstrous treatment ofthe beginning ofthe Epistle to
the Hebrews, and his strange jumble of all that relates to Angels, Spirits, and
Heaven, ii. 230—234  objects strongly to Hierarchies amongst angels, ii.

438

INDEX.

237, 238  professes himself to be neither a materialist nor an immaterialist,
ii. 241  says that his true position is in the centre of oscillation, ii. 241 
manifestly ignorant of what the centre of oscillation means, ii. 241  pretends
to retract his avowed opinions both on Materialism and the Sabbath, in order to
make proselytes, ii. 242, 243.
Ben Mordecai, (H. Taylor,) — his letters written with acuteness, i. 109  his
just views ofthe principle of mediation, i. 109  his scheme of Atonement, i.
38—39  not free from a tinctureof Socinian principles, i. 39, 141  different
from that of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, i. 144  objects to the received doctrine
of Atonement, its implication of the divine implacability, i. 40  answered on
his own principles, i. 40 — 42, 145—148  objects, without reason, to Grotius,
Stillingfleet, and Clarke, i. 147  objects to the doctrine of Atonement, on the
ground of a want of discoverable connexion between the means and the end, i.
41  answered, i, 41, 42, 153, 154  objects on the ground of the divine im
mutability, and of the texts which speak of man's reconciliation to God, i. 42,
43, 153  answered, i. 43 — 45, 154 — 157  denies that the Paschal lamb is
referred to in calling Jesus the Lamb of God, i. 163  refuted, i. 163 — 165 
endeavours to prove that the word iha.;/uo; does not support the idea of propitia
tion, i. 165  shewn to be mistaken, i. 165, 166, 180, 181  his argument
from the word xxraxKayii shewn to be inconclusive, i. 180, 181  endeavours
to prove that the phrase for us, cannot mean in our stead, i. 183, 184  his ar
gument shewn to be erroneous, i. 184 — 186. ii. 151  attempts to deprive the
Levitical atonement of all propitiatory import, and to represent it but as a cere
monial purification, i. 235  this notion refuted, i. 232 — 235  his arguments
against the doctrine of Atonement, on the supposition of its implying the ab
surdity of a vicarious substitution, stated and answered, i. 249 — 256  his at
tempt to do away the force ofthe expression, bearing sins, examined and refuted,
i. 285 — 322  his theory of Sacrifice, i. 345, 346  shewn to be erroneous, i.
55, 352, 353.
Benson, (Dr.) — admits that bearing sins, signifies suffering the penalty due to
them, i. 315  his criticism on the word av*BLp a> examined and refuted, i. 319, 320.
Blayney, (Dr.) — not consistent, i. 311, 312.
Bolingbroke — supplies, without intending it, a good argument against certain
mistaken views of the Mosaic institution, ii. 41, 42  a short review of his
character and of his attempts to overturn Revelation, ii. 55 — 61.
Brekell, (Mr.) — his able refutation of Socinian sophistries, i. 157.
Bryant, (Jacob) — grounds of his opinion that Philo Judaeus derived his know
ledge from Christian sources, i. 205  his striking observations on the Mystical
Sacrifice of the Phoenicians, i. 267 — 271.
Buchanan, (Dr. Claudius) — his Memoir on the expediency of an Ecclesiastical
Establishment for British India, a work deserving most serious attention, i. 97
— 99  it presents a melancholy view of the neglect of religion in India by the
British, i. 98, 99  exhibits a pleasing picture of the Church of Malabar, i. 99
 represents that Church as possessing the purity of the Protestant profession
of Christianity transmitted to it from the apostolic age, ibid.
Burgess, (Bishop) — has given an excellent account of Unitarian management
of Scripture, ii. 191 — 193  his Brief Memorial deserves serious consideration,
ii. 197  his excellent observations on the proofs of Christ's divinity derived
from his own declarations, ii. 216, 217  has well exposed the dishonest use
of Schleusner's name by the Unitarians, ii. 212  also the dishonest use made
by them of the names of Locke and Grotius, ii. 223, 275  also of that of Dr.

INDEX. . 439
Clarke, ii. 414^  has well exposed several of the Unitarian glosses, ii. 247, 248
 has made good observations on Mr. Belsham's argument against the existence
of a local heaven, ii. 254  has ably exposed the Unitarian rendering of 1 Cor.
xv. 47, ii. 342 — 345  has beaten down the attempt lately made to set up Dr.
Priestley's arguments against Bishop Horsley, ii. 353.
Buxtorf, — his testimony respecting expiatory sacrifices among the Jews, i.
200—201.

Campbell, (Dr. A.) — his undeserved commendation of Bishop Warburton, i.
175, 176.
Celsus — bears testimony to the authenticity of the first two chapters of St.
Matthew's Gospel, ii. 173, 174.
Christian Observer — gives a just character of Dr. J. Taylor's ' Key to the
Apostolic writings,' ii. 113.
Chubb — exhibits curious specimens of deistical arguments against Christianity,
i. 109—113. Cloppenburgh's judicious remarks on the distinction between the sacrifices of
Cain and Abel, i. 468, 469.
Cocceius, — his remarks on ' sins of ignorance,' i. 241.
Condillac, (Abbe de) — his attempt to explain the natural rise and growth of
language, i. 371 — 373  followed by Dr. Adam Smith and Mr. Dugald Stewart
i. 373, 374  his theory untenable, ii. 371—374.
Corruption of human nature, i. 35, 36, 124 — 126  fully examined by Le-
land, i. 124  eloquently described by Mr. Wilberforce, i, 124 — 126  also by
Mrs. Hannah More, i. 126  denied, in a certain sense, by the Wesleyan Me
thodists, as well as by the followers of Prestley, i. 126 — 128, 131 — 133.
Crellius, — his criticism on Isaiah liii. and particularly on the phrase bearing
sins, fully examined, i. 285 — 322.
Cudworth, (Dr.) — his remarks on the nature of the Passover, i. 215, 216.
Cumberland, (Bishop) — opposes the idea of the Phoenician sacrifice being de
rived from the intended sacrifice of Isaac, i. 273  the particular impressions
under which this writer engaged in the Review of Sanchoniatho's History dis- ,
qualified him for the due discharge ofthe task. i. 273, 274.
D
Danzius, — his remarks on ' sins of ignorance,' i. 242.
Deist— rejects totally the idea of a Mediator, i. 29.  his objections apply
equally to Natural as to revealed religion, i. 29—34  not a true philosopher, i.
29, 30  cannot prove from reason the sufficiency of repentance, i. 29—31  '
we'll answered by Balguy, i. 86, 87  refuted by experience, shewing the ne-J
cessity of a revelation on this head, i. 30—32, 88—109  his objections against
a Mediator bear with equal force against repentance and prayer, i. 33  The
error in all such reasonings, i. 33, 34, 113—116.
Dodeon, (Mr.)— his criticisms on Isaiah liii. and his endeavours to do away the
force of the expression bearing sins, carefully examined, i. 279—322  corn-
mended, yet partial in his translation and commentary, i. 280, 281  refers in

440

INDEX.

proof of the justness of his criticisms to writers who have given no proof, i. 289,
290, 302—309.
Druids, — prevalence of human sacrifices amongst them, i. 91.
E
Episcopius, — his accurate distinction between moral and ceremonial impurities,
i. 233, 234.
Erasmus, — not always to be relied upon in his Greek criticisms, ii. 296 — 298.
Ernesti, — his remarks on the style of the New Testament, i. 175.
Evanson, (Mr.) — charges the Evangelists with gross contradictions, i. 136 
retains only the gospel of St. Luke, and but a part of that, i. 136, 137.

Fellowes, (Mr.) attacks most unwarrantably the doctrines and articles of the
established church, ii. 85 — 107  observations upon his writings, ibid.
Female writers of modern times, who have contributed by their publications to
the advancement of virtue and religion, ii. 122.
Figurative language, — nature of it, i. 186, 187.

Geddes, (Dr.) — Specimen of his respect for the writings, and of his qualifica
tions as a translator, of the Old Testament, i. 338 — 342. ii. 149  instance of
his grotesque rendering of certain words, i. 224, 225  his absurd view of the
sacrifices of the Hebrews as borrowed from the Egyptians, i. 337 — 342  oppos
ed and answered by Dr. Priestley, i. 342 — 344  his strange distinction between
those whom he calls the vulgar Papists, and the vulgar Protestants, ii. 21, 22.
Grotius, — his erroneous translation of Hebr. i. 2, i. 74  charged with Soci
nianism, i. 74, 75  his extravagant application of the famous prophecy of
Isaiah liii. to Jeremiah, i. 284  his strange notion concerning the nature of
Abel's sacrifice, examined, and confuted, i. 463 — 466  his excellent remarks
on the relation subsisting between the Mosaic and the Christian sacrifices, ii. 26,
27  his annotations on the Epistles, not published till after his death, ii. 308
 unfoundedly claimed by the modern Socinians as supporting their opinions,
ii. 275. H
Heath, (Mr.) — the objections urged by him and others against the antiquity of
the book of Job, fully examined, i. 401 — 407.
Heidegger's interpretation of the passage in Gen. i, 29, 30, as a grant of ani
mal food to Adam, shewn to be erroneous, ii. 357 — 359.
Herder's Essay to explain the natural acquisition of language, admitted to be
the best in support of that notion, and yet radically defective, i. 376
Horsley, (Bishop)— his able refutation of Dr. Priestley, i. 196.
Houbigant, — his remarks on 'sins of ignorance,' i. 240.
Hume, (David) — a short view of his character, and of his inveterate and impo
tent hostility against Revelation, ii. 61—82  a dangerous gufde in history as

INDEX. 441
well as in philosophhy, ii. 75—82  his calumnies against Luther fully exposed,
Hurd, (Dr.)— his well-known letter to Dr. Jortin, i. 177.

Ignatius, (Saint)— affords strong testimony to the authenticity of the first two
chapters of St. Matthew, ii. 176, 177, 179, 180, 187, 188  nature of his allu.
sions to Scripture, and of his writings generally, ii. 188—190.
Indian records,— falsely asserted to be prior to the Mosaic writings, ii. 45—53
 dishonest attempt in the London Editors of the Asiatic Researches, to ad
vance their extravagant claims to antiquity, ii. 46, 47.

Jehovah, untruly pronounced to have been expressed uniformly by 'Kutus in
the Septuagint, and never by Geoc, ii. 214, 215.
Jews, — their notions concerning the state ofthe dead, unfolded in the explica
tion of their terms Sheol and Rephaim, i. 434— 438  their extraordinary ad
mission of a compact with the Fathek binding the Son to a vicarious suffering
for the sins of men, ii. 106, 107.
Job, — the reality of the history, and the date and author ofthe book carefully
considered,!. 391 — 463  Various opinions on these heads, and their ;principal
supporters, i. 391, 392, 393—395, 404, 405, 417, 418  the book an' inspired
work, i. 414 — 416  erroneous objections to the aatiquity of the Book of Job,
by Bishop Stock, and their confutation, i. 416 — 461  the history of Job hand.
ed down among the Arabians, i. 461 — 463.
Josephus, — his testimony, as far as it goes, favourable to the notion of the propi
tiatory virtue of sacrifice, in opposition to the assertion made by Dr. Priestley
upon that subject, i. 202 — 204, 217  employs expressions which clearly mark
the use of the word Xyjurtifivi among the Jews, in a strict propitiatory sense,
i. 166. Justin Martyr, — quotes from Ezra an extraordinary passage relating to the
Passover, i. 219  affords ample testimony to the authenticity of the first two
chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, ii. 175, 176, 178, 179, 18,1—184.
K
Kennicott, — prefers Coverdale's to our present version of the Bible, i. 296 
his criticisms on Hebr. xi. 4, not admissible, i. 469—475  mistakes the nature
of the Mincha, i. 471—474.
Keschita,— the true meaning of this wprd considered, i. 399. 400.

Language,— its origin from divine institution, i. 362—366  of the New Tes
tament peculiar, i. 175, 176  opinions of Capellus, Ernesti, Michaelis,
Middleton, Warburton, Leland, and Campbell, upon this subject, ibid 
figurative distinguished from analogical, i. 186, 187.
Leland, (Dr.) Thomas of Trinity College, Dublin,— has best refuted the ob.
jeotions against the inspiration ofthe writers ofthe N. T. derived from their
unclassical style, i. 232  an account of his writings, i. 176-179.
Vol. 2.-56

442

INDEX,

Lowtk, (Bishop) — his fanciful notions respecting the Passover, i. 224, 225.
Luther, — the calumnies circulated against him by Hume exposed and refuted",
ii. 77—80. M
Maimonides, — his notion ofthe origin of sacrifie®, i. 192, 197 — —his opinion of
the Book of Job, followed by Le Clerc and Michaelis, i. 392  the origin of his
celebrated work, the Moreh Nevochim, ii. 40  followed by Spencer and Warbur
ton, li. 39, 40.
Matthew (St.)— reconciled with Isaiah, i. 285—300  arguments relating
to the authenticity of the first two chapters of his gospel, ii. 163—169,
174-190. Mede, — his opinion that sacrifices were essentially federal feasts, i. 349,350
 shewn to be ill founded, i. 350, 351  his excellent observation on those
passages of Scripture which seem to depreciate sacrifices, i. 388.
Michaelis, — bis exposition of the word (xas-TiijHoif i. 166  his opinion of the
Apostolical antiquitiy of the old Syriac version of the New Testament, i. 174
 his objections against the reality of the history of Job examined, i. 392 — 396
— — his arguments in support ofthe antiquity ofthe book, ii. 404—405.
MicMe's Enquiry into the Brahmin philosophy, i. 96, 97. note.
Middleton, (Bishop) — his observations on the language of the New Testa,
ment, i. 175  his work on the Greek Article recommended, ii. 173.
Monboddo, (Lord) — his strange theory ofthe origin of language, i. 371.
More, (Mrs. Hannah) — a distinguished and powerful advocate of virtue andj
religion, ii. 122  quoted on the subject of human corruption, i. 126  her
just and beautiful observations on Hume's History, ii. 77—82.
Morgan,— his absurd idea of the origin of Sacrifice, i. 54, 334, 335  of
some use, i. 335. N
Nares, (Dr.) — his Bampton Lecture a valuable work, ii. 51, 52  his Re,
marks on the Uuitorian Version of the New Testament referred to, i. 326 —
328. ii. 152, 172, and in many other places  the cause of Christianity much.
indebted to him, i. 327. ii. 51. O
Outram, — his work, De Sacrificiis, deserves to be particularly consulted on
the Sacrificial doctrine of the Rabbins, i. 192, 251, 256, 258.
Ovid. — his testimony respecting the expiatory nature of Sacrifice among the
Heathens, i. 210.

Parr, (Dr.)— unguardedly commends Mr. .Fellowes's writings, ii. 103—106
 his eloquent eulogium on Dr. Priestley, ii. 132,  his defence of Dr.
Thomas Leland, i. 177, 178.
Passover, — an accurate discussion of the meaning ofthe original word, i. 221
—229  shewn to be a Sacrifice, i. 213—22,1  extraordinary passage relating
to it in Justin Martyr, i. 219, 220.

INDEX. 443
¦ Percival, (Dr,)— a distinguished writer, ii. 125  his excellent remarks on
Providence and Prayer, ii. 124, 125  valuable observations on the Origin of
Evil, the Evidence of Christianity,, and the Clerical character and conduct,
ii. ]24, 125  Memoir of his Life and Character, by his son Dr. Edward Per.
cival, ii. 125, 126.
Philo Judams, — not accurately versed in Jewish customs, i. 203, 208,217 
his mistake respecting the nature of the Passsover, i. 217  holds a number of
doctrines, and particularly those of a Mediator and propitiation, that closely
resemble the Christian doctrines, i. 204—209  supposed by Bryant to have
derived his knowledge from the first Christians, i. 204  this notion opposed by
Allix, i. 204, 205.
Popish writers, — support the notion of the human invention of sacrifice, and
why, i. 337  those of the present day not entitled to serious consideration, ii.
17, 22.
Porteus, (Bishop) — his Sermons on the Christian Doctrine of Redemption, ex.
cellent, i. 109.
Pre-existence, — texts supporting, i. 72, 73— — Arguments against, by Grotius,
i- 74  by modern Socinians in general, i. 74—81  by Mr. Lindsey, i. 75,
76  by Mr. Tyrwhitt, i. 76  by Mr. Wakefield, i. 77, 78, 80  by Socinus,
i. 79, 80 — — defended against the above objectors, i. 71 — 81.
Price, (Dr.) — his strange opinion concerning Universals, ii. 368.  offers
some excellent observations on the compatibility of the efficacy of prayer with
the divine immutability, i. 113, 114  also on the efficacy of intercession with
the deity, i. 117 — 119  remarks likewise on the beneficial influence of inter-
cessionary prayer on the mind of him who offers it, i. 119, 120  to be lamented
that such a man should in some points have departed so far from Scripture truth,
i. 129. Priestley, (Dr,) his irreverent language concerning the sacred writers, i. 82,
136, 137, 190, 284  pronounces it indispensable to his scheme to overturn the
received doctrine of Atonement, i. 84, 85  his boldness of assertion respecting
historical faets relating to the character of the Deity, i. 103 — 109  his histori
cal incompetency fully established, i. 88 — 109  his incompetency as a reporter
of the Rabbinical opinions and writings, i. 190 — 202  his gross misstatement
of their writings, and of those of Philo and Josephus, i. 202 — 209  his extraor.
-dinary power of modifying and applying the testimonies of ancient writers, i. 192
¦ — 209  seems as little conversant with classical as with historical writers, i.
209 — 211  considers the death of Christ in the same light with that of any
other good man, i. 123  misrepresents the arguments in support of the doctrine
of atonement, i. 135, 325, 326  charges the sacred writers as ignorant and
blundering, i. 136, 137  boasts of having no fixed creed, i. 139  instances
of his mode of evading the force of Scripture authority, i. 150, 151, 167, 182,
183  directly misstates, the book of Job, i. 160, 161  his unjustifiable inac.
curacy in Scripture criticism shewn in his remarks on two important passages,
Isaiah liii. 10, and 2 Cor. v. 21, i. 168 — 179  his strange explication of the
words for and instead, i. 182 — 184  confesses that he forces the language of
Scripture, i. 187, 188  contradicts himself, i. 190 — . — his rejection of the attri.
bute of Justice for the purpose of proving the sufficiency of repentance without
any other, consideration, i. ] 61, 162-  his principles go to exclude all punishment
Whatever, ibid.  denies that thepassover was a sacrifice, i. 213, 214  convict
ed by the direct words of Scripture, and all his arguments on this head shewn to
be plainly contradictory to truth, ibid.  Passover on the contrary proved to be
a sacrifice, i. 214—218  his endeavours to prove that the Levitical atonement

444 INDEX.
contained no idea of propitiation, but merely implied ceremonial purification, i.
231  seems not to have attended to the original word "-igni signifying atone
ment, i. 231, 232  fallacy of his argument, i. 232, 233  confuted, i. 233—
235  his assertion that no trace of the doctrine of atonement is to be found in
either New or Old Testament, shewn to be totally unfounded, i. 322, 323 
his assertion that no trace of the principle of atonement is to be found in Scrip
ture, refuted, i. 325  .his assertion that the doctrine of atonement sinks our
ideas of the divine mercy, refuted, i. 331, 334  maintains, in opposition to
Geddes, that the Mosaic sacrifices were not borrowed from the Heathens, but
had a divine origin, i. 342 — 344  in this he contradicts himself, i. 344 — 346 
his theory of Sacrifice, i. 346  his reason for denying, in opposition to accu
mulated facts, that the notion of expiatory sacrifice had ever obtained amongst
the heathens, i. 381  his private character and talents, ii. 131 — 134  his
public conduct censurable, ii. 133, 134  does not fairly follow up his own
principles, ii. 137, 138  restrained by early habits, ii. 138  his religions
opinions less exceptionable as he advanced in life, i. 468  his uncharitable
animadversions on the established clergy, ii. 140  affirms that Unitarians
riever become Deists, ii. 141  is directly contradicted by fact, ii. 141, 142 
gives such an account of the nature of Academies ofthe Unitarian description,
Ets proves the progress to infidelity to be almost unavoidable, ii. 136, 137  his
theory of Early Opinions entirely overturned by Mr. Wilson's Illustrations, <$¦<;.
ii. 217. " Q
Quarterly Review — an excellent article contained therein on the subject of
the Missions to India, i. 99  its just observations on the nature of Socinian
ism, ii. 139. R
Rabbins, — full account of their opinions on the subject of the sacrificial
atonement, proving that they considered sacrifices not only as generally txpia.
tory, but as strictly vicarous, i. 190— 202.  the notion entertained by some
of them of the human origin of sacrifice accounted for, i. 199.
Randolph, (Dr.) — his just observations on the divine origin of sacrifice i.
264, 265.
Raphelius, — his just remarks on the vicarious nature of the sufferings of
Christ, i. 183.
Rational Christian, — his philosophic lights, ii. 119 — see Unitarians,
Rational Dissenters, — Unitarians so distinguish themselves from the other
classes of non-conformists, i. 120. ii. 147, 148. — see Unitarian.
Redemption, — Scriptural doctrine of, naturally to be rejected by unassisted
reason, i. 27, 28  principle of, combated by Socinians, with peculiar vehe
mence, i. 84, 85  in the highest degree necessary to defend it, i. 28, 84 
Arguments relating to it misrepresented by Dr. Priestley, i, 40, 41, 135, 136,
325, 326  misrepresented by H. Taylor and others, i. 145—147, 149, 150
 scheme of, held by the Unitarians, i. 34, 35— held by B. Mordecai,
i, 38, 39  held by Dr. J. Taylor, of Norwich, i. 141—145  the doctrine ob.
jected to, as implying divine implacability, i. 40  objection answered, i. 40 —
42  objected to, for want of connexion between the means and the end, ii. 42,
43  objection answered, ibid, i. 152 — 154  objected to, on account of the
Scripture phrase of our being reconciled to God, i. 43  objection answered, i.

INDEX. 445
4 . 44, 154—157  objected to, on the ground of the divine benevolence, and
of the stress laid on this attribute every where through Scripture, i. 45, 161
 objection answered, i. 44, 45, 158—163  nature of the Redemption fully
opened up by Isaiah, i. 283—317  advantageous effects of the scheme of Re
demption upon the mind, i. 51, 52  -the full comprehension of the principle on
which it is founded, impeded by the same difficulty which attaches to other .parts
of human knowledge, i. 154  see Atonement.
Richie, (Dr.)— refutes Dr. Sykes's theory of Sacrifice, in his Criticism on
modern notions of Sacrifice, i. 348, 349— ^-furnishes an excellent refutation of
Dr. J. Taylor's scheme of Atonement, i. 144, 145  his remarks on ' sins of
ignorance,' i. 241  particularly recommended on the subject of the origin of
sacrifices, ii. 389, 390.
Rosenmiiller, — his just remarks on the nature of the passover, i. 226,  his
remarks on 'sins of ignorance,' i. 241.

Sacrifice, — human, general, throughout the ancient world, i. 88 — 109 
deemed strictly vicarious by the Heathens, i. 209, 210  Heathen sacrifice a
corruption ofthe rite divinely instituted, i. 264 — 266  a. striking instance of
this in the Mystical sacrifice ofthe Phoenicians, i. 266 — 273  Contended that
the death of Christ was not a propitiatory sacrifice, i. 45  answered, i. 45 — 47,
167  objected that under the Law, there was no propitiatory sacrifice what
ever, i. 46, 47, 189, 190  objection answered, i. 47—49, 229—263  the
sacrifice of Christ, though spoken of in language seemingly figurative, intended
as a real and efficacious sacrifice, i. 186 — 188  inconsistency of those who
hold the death of Christ to have beenbut figuratively called a sacrifice, i. 49, 50,
330. 331 — r—that the only true and real sacrifice, the sacrifices of the Law being
all but figurative of it, i. 56, 57. ii. 175, 176  Passover proved to be a sacri
fice, and the nature and meaning of this sacrifice explained, i. 213 — 221  .
sense in which the notion of vicarious is to be applied to sacrifices in general, i.
48, 248, 249  vicarious import of the sacrifices of the Law, expressed by the
ceremony of the imposition of hands, i. 256, 257  more strongly marked by
the ceremony of the Scape- Goat, i. 257,259  Sacrifice for Sin defined, i.
50  means of reconciliation by Sacrifice explained, i. 50  not inconsistent
with the divine dignity and attributes, i. 50, 51  Sacrifice of Christ differs from
all other sacrifices in one important particular, i. 51  nature of Christ's sacri
fice usually examined in an erroneous method, i. 54  Supporters of the hu
man invention of sacrifice, i. 309, 310  Theories of it — by Spencer, i. 55, 344
— — by the Author of Scripture Account of Sacrifices, i. 345  by Dr. Priestley,
i. 494_ — by B. Mordecai, i. 346  by Sykes, i. 55. 347  by Warburton, i.
55. 351  General heads of Argument against all the theories of human in
vention of sacrifices, i. 55  only true mode of discovering the origin and
nature of the Rite, i. 56  the rite unnatural in the view of unassisted reason,
i. 378  an argument, hence, in favour of divine institution, i: 380, 381 
the rite universally practised, an argument in favour of divine institution, i. 378
— 380  brief view of the Christian sacrifice, i. 56, 57  Objections against
the divine origin of sacrifice examined, i. 381 — 388  rDivine origin inferred
from Abel's and the early Patriarchal sacrifices, i. 57, 58. 388, 391  the sa
crifice of Abel an animal sacrifice,!. 463 — 466  Divine origin and true design
of sacrifice inferred from the sacrifice of Abel, i. 58 — 65  sacrifice of Abel,
why accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected, i. 58— 62. 466 — 474  rite

446 INDEX.
instituted at the fall, i. 59. 60. ii. 9 — 12  the animal sacrifice peculiarly
significant, i. 60  sacrifices before the law, animal and piacular, i. 61 — 64,
265, 266. ii. 24 — 26<  true import of the early animal sacrifices before and
under the law, i. 265, 266  history of Scripture sacrifice shewn to be consistent
throughout, i. 64, 65  the sacrifice of those under the law most particularly
typical, and illustrative of that of Christ, i. 60—67. ii. 82, 83  sacrifice of
Christ, in what sense, and how far, vicarious, i. 67, 68.
Scripture Account of Sacrifices, Author of — his scheme of Redemption, i.
153, 154  his singular notion concerning the pollution of the Scape-Goat,
&.c, i. 260, 261  refuted, i. 246  admits that bearing Sin, means bear
ing its punishment, in the case of one's own sin, but not in that of another's,
i. 311  answered, i. 311 — 315  his scheme of the origin and meaning of
sacrifice, and the objection to it, i. 345, 346.
Septuagint translation of Isaiah, inferior to that of any other part of the Old
Testament, i. 172, 282  the translation of Job also inaccurate, and takes
great liberties with the original, i. 422, 423  collation of the various copies of
the Septuagint by Dr. Holmes, i. 86, 87.
Sharp, (Granville) has, in his letter on certain particularities of the Hebrew
Syntax, made some excellent remarks on the converted future of the Hebrew,
i. 412. Smith, (Dr. Adam) argues from the natural sentiments of mankind, in behalf
of the reasonableness of intercession and atonement, i. 158 — 160  infected by
his connexion with David Hume, i. 159, 160  ii. 67, 68  his opinion of the
process whereby the use of general signs is acquired, i. 373  this opinion con
troverted, ibid.
Smith, (Elizabeth) — her translation of the book of Job, an extraordinary work,
i. 442, 443  extracts from and observations on that Translation, i. 443 — 445,
446, 447  praise of her, by Mrs. Hannah More, ii. 122.
Socinians distinguished from Unitarians, i. 121 — 123  their mode of inter
preting Scripture described, i. 137, 138, 146, 147  their sophistical reasonings
to be most carefully watched, i. 327, 328.
Spencer — his error concerning the nature and origin of sacrifice, i. 335,
336, 345  his wrong interpretation of the IBaiDpimuui of St. Paul, i. 335,
336  his argument derived from the use of the word tZjo. in Heb. xi. 4. re
futed, ibid.  his work built upon the Moreh Nevochim of Maimonides, ii.
38, 39  a dangerous guide in theology, ii. 39, 40  refuted by several
writers, ii. 39, 41 — 44  his reflections upon divine Revelation, ii. 40, 41.
Stock, (Bishop of Killalla) objects to the generally received idea of the antiqui
ty of the book of Job, i. 415—418  his objections shown to be unfounded, i. 4l8
—425  his translation of Job, a hasty, imperfect, and highly objectionable per
formance, i. 415—461  indulges too freely in conjectural emendations ofthe"
sacred text, ii. 458 — 461.
Sykes, objects to the doctrine of atonement on the ground of texts stating
man's reinitiation to God, not that of God to man, i. 155  states the texts un-
candidly, i. 156, 157  his whole objection answered, i. 43—45, 154—157 
his erroneous criticism on the phrase 'for us,' i. 183 -186  contradicts himself
in his endeavours to prove that Christ, when compared to the Paschal Iamb,
was not said to be sacrificed, i. 220, 221  his arguments against the doctrine
of atonement, on the ground of its implying vicarious substitution, stated and
answered, i. 249-256  his affirmation, that the imposition of hands implied
nothing vicarious, considered, i. 256-261  his denial that the Scape-goa

index. 447

was a Sin-offering, examined, i. 259—261. 315—317  refers to a text, as prov
ing decisively that*^} signifies removing or taking away, which makes direct
ly agahjst him, i. 309, 310  his theory of sacrifice, i. 54, 55. 347  shown to
be erroneous, i. 55. 347—351, 353—362  contends for the permission of
animal food before the Flood, i. 354  this notion refuted, i. 353. 362

Taylor, (Henry) — see Ben Mordecai.
Taylor, (Dr. John, of Norwich) — his scheme of atonement, i. 141 — 144-

some of his scheme, i. 144  falls in with some of the principles of the Soci
nian, i. 141, 144, 145  -his whole scheme but an artful accommodation of
Scripture phrases, i. 141, 142, 144  his key a false one, ii. 113, 114  his
works imprudently recommended by Bishops, I 144  the errors of his scheme
fully refuted by the author of the Scripture account of Sacrifices, and Dr.
Richie's Criticisms on modem notions of atonement, i. 144  and well point
ed out in the Christian Observer, ii, 113, 114  difference between his scheme,
and that of H. Taylor, i. 144, 145  his familiar illustration of his scheme, i,
152, 153  his unjustifiable mode of investigation the nature of the Levitical
atonement, i. 229 — 231  his endeavour to do away the force of the phrase,
bearing sins, fully examined, i. 285 — 322  his erroneous criticism on the word
Jj%1255 and the weakness of his endeavour to show that it merely signifies re.
Tnoval, and not sustaining the penal consequences, of sin, i. 300 — 310  is re
ferred to by Mr Belsham, but turns out too orthodox for him, and is afterwards
relinquished by him, ii. 151 — 153.
Texts of Scripture — supporting the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ i. 72,
73  texts proving the plan of atonement to have arisen out of the divine
mercy, i. 4l  texts, wrongly urged by Priestley, Sykes, and Taylor, in proof of
the sufficiency of obedience per se, i. 149  texts representing man as forgiven
freely, how to be understood, i. 149 — 152  texts representing us as reconciled
to God, not God as reconciled to us, misunderstood by Crellius, Sykes, H. and
J. Taylor, and others, i. 43, 44, 154 — 157  texts proving the displeasure of
God against the sinner, i. 43, 44, 158 — 234  texts proving the Death of
Christ to have been a propitiatory sacrifice, i. 45, 168, 276, 277  texts prov
ing the sacrifice of Christ to resemble the paschal sacrifice, i. 213 — 221  texts
proving that atonement, in the Old Testament, included the idea of averting the
divine displeasure, and obtaining forgiveness, i, 234, 235  two- important texts
cleared from the erroneous criticisms of Dr. Priestley, i. 168 — 180  celebrated
one in Isaiah liii. particularly examined, and its application by St. Matthew
vindicated, i. 277—452  texts ascribing the bearing of sins to Christ's sacrifice
and explaining the manner in which this phrase is used in Scripture, i. 276 — 322
 texts in Isaiah liii. fully explanatory of the doctrine of atonement, i. 277-^
284, 315—319  text in 1 Pet. ii. 24. erroneously referred to Isaiah liii. 4., i. 286,
318, 3l9  texts announcing the principle of atonement, i. 317, 318, 322, 323
texts proving the sacrifices of the Law to be typical of that of Christ, i. 56, 57
 texts erroneously supposed to support the idea of the human invention of sa.
orifices, i. 371 — 374  text proving Abel's sacrifice to have had a reference to
that of Christ, i, 58  text in Gen. iv. 7. explained i. 61. ii. 13 — 23  texts
evincing the piacular virtue of the animal sacrifice, i. 62, 63  texts referred to .
by Justin Martyr and the Apostolical Fathers, ii. 181 188  texts instanced,
in which the Unitarian Version of the New Testament has departed from PriT
mate Newcome without notice, and which bear vitally upon the Unitarian quesr

448

INDEX,

tion, ii. 201, 202  these and other texts which are disingenuously treated by
the Unitarians, considered, ii. 202-tj358.
TiUotson's unjustifiable idea ofthe origin of the plan of redemption by the sa
crifice of Christ, ii. 32—34  confuted, ii. -34 — 42  his mistaken supposition
of a Religion of Nature, ii. 34 — 38  his writings recommended by Locke as
supplying a model of perspicuity, ii. 32.
Tindal,— his absurd objection, i. 56, 57, 334  the use to which it may be
applied, i. 335.
Tomline (Bishop) — on Philip, ii. 6, 7. deserves particularly to be consulted, i. 71
 his judicious reflections on the endeavours ofthe Christian after perfection,
i. 130  his excellent observations on subscription to the Articles ofthe Church,
ii. 97—101.
Townson, (Dr.) gives a good account of St. Matthew's peculiar mode of citing
the prophecies, i. 299.
Trimmer, (Mrs) — a book falsely published under her name by the Unitarians,
in order to introduce their heresy into schools, ii. 3. 417, 418.
U
r Unitarians — brief view of their scheme, i. 34, 35.  their notion of the suffi
ciency of the promulgation of forgiveness on repentance, erroneous, i. 35 — 37
 adopt a principle of reasoning in common with the Deist, i. 34  are equal
ly unassailable, on the ground of Scripture, with the Deist, i. 37,  their strange
explication of texts of Scripture, i. 73 — 81, and Appendix with the postscript
vhiquc — mode of reasoning subversive of every possible interpretation of Scripture,
i. 82, 83, 138  called, by Mr. Howes, Humanists ; andJMr. Hobhouse, Humanita
rians, i. 120, 121  favourers of Mahometanism, i. Ill — 113  pretend to be
exclusively worshippers of one God, i. 120. ii. 112  their scheme fully explain
ed by Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham, but most compendiously by the latter, i.
121. ii. 112 — 114, 154 — 156  their scheme difficult to describe, why, ii. 112,
 they disclaim the title of Socinians, i. 122  go far beyond Socinus, i.
122—124  -explainaway the meaning of Scripture, i. 32—38. 82, 83, 136—139
 represent the Sacred Writers as erroneous and unphilosophical, i. 136  differ
little from the Theophilanthrope Deists, i. 137. ii. 127  cannot form any canon
of Scripture, why, i. 138, 1 39  have lately published a version of the New
Testament; nature of that version, ii. 161 — 172 — ' — in that version admit the
substitutive force of the word uVsg, i. 185  reject Humility, i. 38 — 126-  agree
with the Stoics in their proud notions of virtue, i. 140, 141  refer to each other
boldly for proofs which have not been given, i. 290—292. 308, 310. ii. 148 
said to hold a pure Christianity, ii. 131  said to be persecuted, ibid.  said to
be a progressive cause, ii. 135  likely to decrease in number, ii. 135, 136. 139
 do hot all follow up their principles, ii. 137, 138  in one way seem to in
crease in number, ii. 140  naturally pass to Deism, ii. 136 — 142 — —how con
trive to retain the Bible, ii. 142, 143 — they alone sound critics, and why, ii. 143
— 147  disingenuous in their treatment of ancient authorities, ii. 178,
179 — avowedly reject the received use of language, ii. 191, 192  depre
cate the application of critical learning to Scripture, and why, ii. 193", 194
 dishonestly desert Primate Newcome in their version, ii. 201, 202  make
a capricious use of the Greek article to establish their own doctrines, ii. 202 —
210  make a dishonest use of Schleusner's authority, ii. 211, 212  —have
adopted an organization similar to the Wesleyan, ii. 196, 428  their mode of, in
terpreting Scripture, ii. 218 — 221  have contrived an expedient whereby they

IN D E X . 449
can in terms appear to admit those doctrines of Scripture which they reject, ii.
239 — 241  make an unguarded confession of their disnonest artifices for this
purpose, ii. 239—241  quote Erasmus, Grotius, Clarke, Griesbach, Cyprian,
Hilary, Chrysostom, all unfairly, ii. 260—266  cite Locke's authority unfair
ly, u. 267, 268  employ such criticism as the old Socinians would have been
ashamed of, ii. 270, 27 1  put in an unfounded claim to the support of Locke
and Grotius, ii.;275  not very fortunate in their references to the ancient Clas
sics, ii. 300  substitute the ' wilderness ' for the ' heaven ' into which the old
Socinians fancied our Lord to have been carried up after his baptism, ii. 320 
do not follow Griesbach, though they professed to do so, ii. 333  libel Marcion,
whom they profess to admire, ii. 334, 335  have grossly misrepresented Dr.
Clarke, ii. 349 — 35 1  the religion of Unitarians not the religion of truth, ii.
359 — 363  the absurdity of their arguments (especially those of Mr. Belsham)
in opposition to the genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke,
fully exposed, ii. 363 — 403  the indecency of their manner of treating grave
subjects and persons, instanced in Mr. Belsham and Mr. Gilchrist, ii. 369 — 373
 their blasphemous treatment of subjects the most awful, ii. 372, 373  the
credulity of illiterate Unitarians sadly abused by their popular writers, especially
by Mr. Belsham, ii. 336 — 398  to be distinguished into different classes, ii.
403, 412, 423 — 429  their attempt to defend (by the pen of Mr. Belsham) their
blunder concerning Herod, King of Judea, exposed, ii. 404 — 409  not so igno
rant with regard to Ephrem Syrus, of the sixth, century, as they pretend to be, ii.
411  their studiously dishonest use of a title which they admit does not pro
perly belong to them, ii. 412 — 429  their false reports of distinguished indi
viduals, and their fabrications of writings under false names, to gain proselytes,
ii. 413 — 420  have made no progress in Ireland, and but little in America, ii.
413 — 427  the true Priestleyan Unitarians confessed by Mr. Belsham to be
few in number, ii. 428  they call upon all Dissenters to unite and overturn the
Established Church, ii. 429, 430  have adopted the unnatural plan of sending
abroad missionaries to teach unbelief, ii. 430, 431.
Unitarian Version of the New Testament — of a latitude which embraces opinions
subversive of Christian doctrines, ii. 161  insidiously professes to found itself
on Archbishop Newcome's translation, ii. 162  effected by means of the usual
apparatus of Unitarian exposition, ii. 162  avows the design of clearing away
all the leading doctrines of the Gospel, ii. 162  is enabled to take the widest
liberties of translation by its systematic rejection of verbal criticism, ii. 162, 163,
193, 194  gets rid of the doctrine of the Incarnation by rejecting the open
ing chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, ii. 163  futile and contradictory
grounds on which it attempts to maintain this rejection, ii. 163, 168  quotes
Lardner's authority in support of the opposite of that which he maintains, ii. 168,
169  does this from a gross blunder in confounding the true and vulgar eras
of the nativity, ii. 169  falls into another blunder concerning the age and cha.
racter of E],hrem Syrus, ii. 168—171  gives a most extraordinary and absurd
translation of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, ii. 170, 171  gives an
equally extraordinary and absurd explanation of St. Stephen's address to Christ,
ii. 171 172  the whole of this new Version judiciously examined and exposed,
by Dr.' Nares, i. 327, 328. ii. 173, 192—194  also by Dr. Laurence and Mr.
Rennell ii. 193 194  proved to be grossly dishonest in its use of the Arch
bishop's name, ii. 196, 363  its extraordinary use ofthe terms THE Son of God,
and A Sob of God, ii. 202 — 206  its absurd interpretation of Luke i. 35, fully
exposed ii. 202  224  its absurd interpretation and exposition of Rom. i. 1, 2.
exposed ii. 218  223  its unscriptural observations on the two natures in Christ
Yol.' 2.-57

450 INDEX.
opposed to the authorities of Locke and Grotius, ii. 222  its erroneous exposi
tion of John i. 12. exposed, ii. 224 — 240  its erroneous exposition of John x.
18. exposed, ii. 225 — 228  its erroneous exposition of John iii. 13. exposed, ii.
241 — 256  its extraordinary glosses upon John iii. 13, iii. 31, vi. 38, vi. 62, ex
hibited, ii. 245, 246  its erroneous exposition of Rom. ix. 5. exposed, ii. 256
— 274  its disingenuous manner of speaking of the text in 1 Tim. iii. 1 6, no
ticed, ii. 257  its erroneous exposition of 2 Cor. viii. 9. exposed, ii. 276 — 326
 its dishonest quotation of Wakefield, ii. 292 — 294  its extraordinary ex
position of Heb. xii. 25, 26. exposed, ii. 326—356  its extraordinary treatment
of 1 Cor. x. 9. exposed, ii. 329—341  its unjustifiable treatment of 1 Cor. xv.
47. exposed, ii. 342 — 349  its strange jumble of all that relates to angels, spi
rits, and heaven, and especially in the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
ii 352 — 356  a mere travesty of the New Testament, ii. 191, 192  the pro.
bable reason for adopting Primate Newcome's Version for its basis, in preference
to Wakefield's, ii. 347, 348, 353, 358— follows the Primate with servility
where Unitarian tenets are not affected, ii. 358 — 361  copies even his mistakes
in such places faithfully, ibid. The reason for selecting the Primate's Version
openly confessed, ii. 361, 362.
Universals — the various opinions concerning their nature, i. 362 — 370  Aris
totle's views on this subject, just, i. 363, 364  excellent remark upon this sub
ject, by Mr. Dugald Stewart, i. 364, 365.

Veysie, (Mr.) — his judicious remarks on the sense in which God is said to for
give men freely, i. 152  his just distinction on the subject of figurative allu
sion, i. 186, 187.
Villers — gives, in his Essay on the Reformation, a dismal account of the igno.
ranee of Scripture enforced by the Romish Church, ii. 18, 19  contrasts
the characters of the Protestant and Romish Churches, ii. 18, 19  convicts
Hume of falsehood in his charges against Luther, ii. 77, 78.
Vitringa, — his erroneous notions respecting the passover, i. 222, 225 — 227.
W
Walker, (Mr.)— has given, in his Letter to Mr. Belsham, an excellent refuta
tion of his reasoning, ii. 112, 113.
Warburton, — his strange position that repentance must necessarily entitle to
forgiveness, i. 87, 88. ii. 35  his singular theory on the subject of Natural
Religion, ii. 34- 36  his well-founded observations on Wesley, i. 133, 134 
his paradoxical position concerning the language of the New Testament, i. 175
 this well refuted by Dr. Leland, i. 176—177  his idea of the scenical na.
ture of the intended sacrifice of Isaac, i. 274  his theory of Sacrifice, i. 55,
351  his objections against the divine institution of sacrifice considered, i.
381—385  his extravagant notion concerning the book of Job, i. 395 
his unjustifiable adoption of the opinions of Spencer and Maimonides, ii. 38—40
 his severe castigation of Bolingbroke, ii. 56  characters given of him, ii.
40—42. Ward's Errata,- a meagre abstract of Gregory Martin's ancient refuted
work, ii. 19, 20  its recent republication a proof of the low state of Scrip.
ture criticism in the Romish Church, ibid.  specimen of its miserable cavils

INDEX. 451
against the Protestant translations of the Bible, ii. 19, 20  answered by Dr.
Ryan and Mr. Grier, ii. 20  the danger to which these gentlemen are exposed
by their attempt to answer it, ibid.
Warrtlaw, (Dr.) — his just observations on the Unitarian exposition of Rom. ix.
5. ii. 274  his excellent remarks on the Unitarian notion of a mere man pos
sessing divine power, ii. 3ll  his just exposure of Mr. Belsham's absurd rea
soning, ii. 372.
Watson, (Bish. of Landaff) — his judicious observation on the position that the
doctrine of Atonement is inconsistent with the divine attribute of mercy, i. 331
 his just expression of indignation against the presumption of opposing a
fancied philosophy to Apostolical authority, ii. 157.
Watts (Dr.) — his memory traduced by the Unitarians  and publications
falsely issued by them as his, ii. 415 — 419.
Wesley,— his followers hold opinions of perfection inconsistent with Christian
humility, i. 126, 127  speak contemptuously of the clergy of the Established
Church, i. 126  not remarkable for the justness and accuracy of their reason.
ings, i. 128  their numbers rapidly increasing, and the reason why, ibid. 
danger to the Establishment from the injudicious countenance given to them by
some of its members, i. 128, 129  change ofthe Liturgy and Articles, and rejec
tion of the Catechism, two of the Creeds, and many of the Psalms, by Mr. Wesley, i.
129  the Articles rejected by him inconsistent with his favourite doctrine of per
fection, and the rejecton derogatory to the dignity of Christ, i 129,131,1 32  ex.
travagant dogmas maintained by him and his followers, i. 129  proofs of this in
the writings of Mr. Wesley i. 131 — 134  his latitudinarian principles respecting
doctrines, i. 133, 134.  mischievous consequences to true religion, i. 134, 135.
Wilberforce, (Mr.) — his Practical View, a book of high value, i. 83, 124 
defended against Dr. Parr, ii. 104, 105  his eloquent description of the cor
ruption of man's natural state, i. 124 — 126  describes Unitarianism as a half
way house to Infidelity, ii. 128.
Williams, in his Free Enquiry, asserts that there are no certain references to
the first two chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel, I ill the days of Celsus, ii. 175, 
this assertion refuted, ii. 175 — 177  his strange assertion concerning the si
lence of the Apostolical fathers on those chapters fully examined and con
futed, ii. 177 — 190  this writer exhibits a striking specimen of the disin
genuousness of Unitarian critics, ii 178, 179.

INDEX OF TEXTS

EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO.

Genesis.

v. p.

Genesis.

v. p.

i. 3

ii. 107

vii. 21

i. 356

— 2S

i. 376

viii. 20

i. 361, ii. 20

— 29

i. 354, 355,

— 21

i. 389
358, 359,
ix. 3
i. 353, 354,
376
355
— 30
i. 358, 359
— 4
i. 355
ii. 9
i. 376
xiv. 5
i. 436
— 16—18
i. 376
— 22
i. 403
— 19
i. 355, 362,
xv. 2,
7,8
i. 403
376
— 9
i. 350, 361
— 20
i. 362
— 10,
18
i. 350
— 22, 23
i. 376
— 17
i. 350, 390
— 23
ii. 215
xvii. 5
ii. 215
iii. 8
i. 376, 417
 27
i. 272
446, 448
xviii. 20
ii. 13
— 9
i. 376, 426
32
i. 116
— 10
i. 376, 448
xix. 3
i. 354
— 11
i. 376
xx. 7
i. 116
— 12
i. 376, 417,
— 9
ii. 13
446, 448
xxii. 2
i. 270, 271
— 14—20
i. 376
xxiii. 6
i. 271
— 21
i. 376 ii. 11
xxiv. 3
i. 403
— 22
i. 376
xxv. 31-
-34
ii. 463
iv. 3
i. 384, 467
xxvi. 24
i. 116
— 4
i. 336, 390,
xxviii. 13,
16
i. 403
469, 470
xxix. 1
i. 303
— 5
i. 336
xxx. 44
ii. 309
— 6
ii. 14
xxxii. 9
i. 403
— 7
i. 61, 466,
 20
i. 473
ii. 13, 15,
28
ii. 214
16, 20,
xxxiii. 19
i. 399, 400
22, 23
xxxvii. 35
i. 435
— 20
i. 352
xiii. 35
i. 399
vi. 4, 7, 11
i. 417
xliii. 11,
15
i. 473
— 14
i. 231
33
i. 463
vii. 2
i. 360, 361
xiv. 18
i. 427
— 11
i. 428
INDEX OP TEXTS.

453

Exodus.

v. p.

Leviticus.

v. p.

i. 11

i. 295

i. 3

i. 263

iii. 2,4

i. 338

— 4

i. 48, 217,

iv. 24

ii. 13

261
v. 2
i. 343
— 4-
-9
i. 217
vi. 3
i. 33 ', 403
— 5
i. 217
— 9
i. 280
ii. 1
i. 473, 474
x. 17
i. 309
— 6
i. 473
— 25
ii. 24, 25
ii. 13
i. 7, 349,
xii. 5
i. 260
350
— 8,21
i. 216
iii. 2-
-5
i. 217
— 11
i. 222, 223,
iv. 2
i. 240, 244
— 12
i. 222
— 3
i. 254. ii.
— 13
i. 222, 223,
13
226
— 3-
-12
i. 254
— 19
i. 417
— 6
i. 198
— 21
i. 215
— 13,
14
i. 240
— 23
i. 222, 226,
— 13-
-22
i. 254
— 27
i. 214, 216,
— 20
i. 235
227
— 21
ii. 13, 14
— 29
i. 439
— 23
i. 240
xv. 25, 26
i. 387
— 24
i. 217. ii.
xvi. 8
i. 386
13, 14
 13
i. 426
— 26
i. 217, 235
xviii. 11
i. 243
— 28
i. 240
 12
ii. 24, 25
— 29
ii. 13
xx. 7
i. 252
iv. 31
i. 235
xxi. 2 — 6
i. 402
v. 2,
B
i. 240
 14
i. 243
— 4
i. 245,252
xxii. 26
ii. 11
— 5
i. 258
xxiii. 7
i. 282
— 8
i. 182
 18
i. 214, 216
— 9
i. 182. ii. 14
xxiv. 8
i. 349
— 10
i. 235
 10
ii. 351
— 11
i. 1S2
xxviii. 38
i. 236, 237,
— 13,
16
i. 235
301, 302,
— 17
i. 240
303
— 18
i. 235, 340
xxix. 14
i. 182, ii.
vi. ],
2
i. 245
13, 14
— 2-
-7
i. 48
xxx. 9
i. 435
— 3
i. 252
 10
ii. 13
— 7
i. 235
 12, 14, 16
i. 164
— 18
i. 261
xxxii. 21
ii. 14
— 23,
26
i. 306
30
i. 234, ii. 14
— 25
ii. 13
 32
i. 234
vii. 2
i. 182
xxxiv. 6
i. 302
— 8
i. 334, ii. 10
 7
i. 302, 304,
ix. 22
i. 303
308
— 24
i. 390
 9
i. 305
x. 17
i. 301, 302,
25
i. 214, 216
303, 306
 30
ii. 11
— 23
i. 306
454
Leviticus. v.
x. 26 i.
xi. 44 — 46 i.
xii. 7 i.
xiv. 20, 26, )
31, 35 ) u
— 32,34,49 i. i.
i.
ii. i. i. i.
i.
ii. i.

INDEX OP TEXTS.

p-
306
356
196, 239
235

xvi. 5
— 6
— 7,9
— 10
— 11
— 15—28
— 16,20
— 17
— 21
— 22

— 26 i.
xvii. 11 i,
xix. 20 i.
— 22 i.
xx. 19 i.
xxii. 21 i.
xxiv. 14, 15 i.
 16 i.
xxvi. 18,23,28 i.
 39 i.

239 259, ii. S3
259
S3
259, ii. S3
. 259
. 254
. 232, 238
83
257, 25S,
304
25S, 301,
302, 307
258 62, 251,
306
48235
320
260262
252
278
242

Numbers. v. 7
ix. 5, 6, 7
— 13
xi. 31
— 32
— 33
— 34
xiv. 18
— 19
— 33

i. 258
i. 215
i. 215, 216
i. 426
i. 426
i. 417, 424,
426
i. 417, 424
i. 302, 304,
309
i. 302
i. 310, 311,
313, 319,
321
i. 241
i. 240
i. 241
— 25, 26, 28 i. 235
— 27 i. 241, 242

xv. 22
— 24
— 24—28

Numbers. v. p.
xv. 30 i. 241, 242,
243
— 31 i. 243
xvi. 46,47,48 i. 235

xvm. 1
 8
 12
xix. 2
— 7
— 16

17

xxii

22

xxiii.

1

xxiv.

2

XXV.

11, 13

xxxiii. 1

Deuteronomy.

i.

42,43

iii.

11

vii.

7

xi.

2

xii.

5,6,11,

14

xiv.

3

xvi.

2

—

4

—

5, 6

xvii.

12,13

xviii.

10

22

i. 236, 237,
303
i. 305
ii. 466
i. 260
i. 236
i. 239
i. 238
i. 404
i. 398
i. 303
i. 235
i. 398

xxi. IS
xxii. IS
xxiv. 1
xxv. 1
xxvii. 26
xxviii. 21
Joshua. ii. 19
xxiv. 32
Judges. vi. 6
— 18
— 21
xiv. 15

i. 243
i. 435
i. 280
i. 278
}i. 215
i. 361
i. 214, 215
i. 214, 216
i. 214,216
i. 243
i. 266
i. 243
i. 278
i. 278
i. 329
i. 282
i. 245, 252
i. 300

i. 262
i. 399

ii. 300
i. 473
i. 390
ii. 300

INDEX OP TEXTS.

455

1 Samuel.

v. p.

Ezra. v.

P-

ii. 7

ii. 305

vi. 19, 22 i.

219

— 17

i. 473

ix. 4, 5. i

473

xv. 22
xxiii. 26

i. 386
i. 223

Nehemiah. v.

P-

xxix. 4

i. 155

iv. 45 i.

231

2 Samuel.

Esther.

i. 16
i. 262
vii. 8 i
427
xviii. 33
i. 185
viii. 1,7 i
427
xix. 22
i. 404
ix. 25 i
262
xxiv. 16
i. 417, 451
Job.
i. 4 i
1 Kings.
. 161
v. 4
i. 404
i. 5 i
. 62, ii. 24
viii. 29
i. 215
ii. 9 i
423
— 32
i. 282
iii. 19 i
. 401
x. 25
i. 473
iv. 10 i
. 448
xi. 14, 23, 25 i. 404
v. 16 i
. 4C7
xii. 11,14
i. 278
vii. 9 i
. 430
xviii. 29, 36
i. 473
viii. 10 i
. 407
 38
i. 390
x. 11 ii
. 11
xxii. 19—23
i. 393
— 16 i
. 448
xi. 8 i
xii. 12
. 430
i. 395
2 Kings.
iii. 20
i. 473
— 17
. 417
vii. 9
i. 311
xiv. 13
. 430
viii. 8, 9
i. 473
xv. 10
. 394,395
xii. 16
ii. 13
— 30
l. 405
xxiv. 12
i. 417
xvi. 2
i. 289
xxv. 27
i. 417
 6
i. 289
xvii. 13,16
 23
i. 430
i. 433
1 Chronicles.
xxi. 15
i. 417, 451
xviii. 13
i. 463
— 26
i. 390
xix. 4
i. 423
 20,26 i
 23—29
i. 11
i. 415
2 Chronicles.
ii. 2, 18
i. 290
xx. 9
i. 430
vi. 23
i. 282
— 20
i. 417,424
vii. 1
i. 390, 466
— 22
i. 433
— 16
i. 215
xxi. 13
i. 430
ix. 24
i. 473
xxiv. 19
i. 430
x. 11, 14
i. 278
xxvi. 5
i. 417,428
xxix. 23
i. 259
436
xxx. 15, 16
i. 216,
xxviii. 8
i. 448, 449
xxxii. 23
i. 473
xxix. 8
i. 394
xxxiv. 13
i. 290
xxx. 1
i. 394
xxxv. 5, 6,
10 i. 215
 29
i. 449
 11
i. 215,216
xxxi. 28
i. 401
 33
i. 417,446
456

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Job.

v.

P-

Psalms.

v.

P-

xxxi.

34

\m

448

li.

16

i.

385

xxxii.

6,7

i#

394,

395

lxix.

29

i.

28S

xxxiii.

19

i.

2S9

lxx.

7

i.

295

23
i.
417,
451
Ixxi.
13
i.
404
xxxiv.
17—19
i.
442
lxxii.
10
i.
473
17—20
443,
444
lxxix.
s
ii.
300
IS
444
lxxx.
7
i.
295
19
i.
444,
445
lxxxi.
16
i.
465
20
417.
435,
1 xxxii.
3
i.
282
"X J. 1 J
445
lxxxv.
2
i.
231
23,24
444
Ixxxvi.
15
i.
302
26
432
xxxviii.
30
i.
425
37
433
lxxxix.
50
i.
320
xxxvi.
8—12
417
xci.
13
i.
448
18
433
xciv.
17
i.
435
28
i.
423
ciii.
3
i.
292
xxxvii.
13
1.
279
civ.
4
i.
339
xxxviii.
1
414
cv.
40
i.
426
xxxix.
34
423
cix.
20,29
i.
404
xl.
1—14
459
cxviii.
IS
i.
278
xii.
xiii.
14
j-
401 414
cxlvii.
14
i.
465
5
l.

6,7
459
Proverbs.

7,8
44,
161,
iii.
11
i.
278
ii. 24
ix.
18
i.
436

10
i.
116
xiii.
7
ii.
300

11
i.
399,
459

24
i.
278

12
i.
459
XV.
xvii. xix.
8
15
IS
i. i.
i.
3S5 282
Psalms.
278
vi.
1
i.
278
XX.
4
i.
280
vii.
16
i.
262
xxi.
17
ii.
309
xiv.
13
i.
2S9
—
16
i.
436
xvi.
10
i.
435
xxii.
15
i.
278
XX.
3
i.
390
xxiii.
4
ii.
309
XXV.
7
i.
242
21
ii.
300
XXX.
4
i.
435
xxvi.
13
i.
448
xxxii.
1
i.
231
xxvii.
20
i.
437
6
10
i. i.
305288
xxviii. xxx.
22 16
ii. i.
309
437
xxxiii.
3
10
ii.
16
300
—
29
ii.
16
xxxiv.
ii.
xxxviii.
1
i.
278
Ecclesiastes.

17
i.
288
i.
18
i.
288
xxxix.
11
i.
278
ii.
18
i.
2SS
xl.
6
i.
385
7
i.
182
Isaiah.
xlix.
16
ii.
309
i.
8
i.
282
1
5, 16
i
349
i.
11,12
i.
385
8, 9, 13
i
385
v.
14
i.
430, 4B7
INDEX OP TEXTS.

457

Isaiah. v. 23

vii.

14

ix.

6

X.

27

xiv.

9



11, 15

xxiii.

16

xxvi.

14

16

xxviii.

4

7
15, IS

x.xxi.

5

xxxiii.

24

xxxv.

5

csxviii.

10,18

xl.

2

xlvi.

4

xlix.

23

1.

8

Iii.

6

liii.

3

—

4

—

4

5 6
5—8 9,10
67
8
10

— 11

liii. 12

Vol. 2—58

v. p.
i. 282
ii. 181
i. 74
i. 290
i. 429, 430,
433
i. 430
ii. 16
i. 435
i. 278
i. 464
i. 241
i. 430
i. 223,225,226
300 297
430 311291
i. 403 282
i. 429289
i. 254,286 287,293, 296, 298,
317, 318,
321
i. 276,277
i. 313
i. 167
i. 277
i. 276,279 313,403
i. 163,279
i. 280
i. 45, 168,
172, 179,
276, 281
i. 277, 282,
283, 286,
290, 300,
310, 319,
321
i. 276, 277,
283, 286,
800, 310,
319, 321,

Isaiah.

v. p.

lvii. 9

i. 430

lx. 16

i. 403

lxv. 14

i. 288

lxvi. 3

i. 385

Jeremiah.

ii. 19, 30
i. 278
v. 3
i. 278
— 27
ii. 309
vii. 22
i. 386 387
— 23
i. 387
x. 24
i. 278
xxiii. 6
ii. 337
xxiv. 2
i. 464
xxx. 11, 14
i. 278
— 15
i. 288
xxxi. 18
i. 278
 29
i. 311
 30
i. 311
xlvi. 28
i. 278
li. 6
i. 311
— 9
i. 303
Lamentations.
iv. 21
i. 397
v. 7
i. 290, 310,
311,320
Ezekiel.
i. 19,20,
21 i. 303
— 26
ii. 212
iii. 14
i. 303
iv. 4, 5
i. 301
v. 15
i. 278
x. 16
i. 303
xiv. 14
ii. 13
xviii. 2
i. 312, 313
13
i. 313
19,20
i. 310, 311,
320
 19,23
i. 252
xx. 15, 23
i. 303
xxiii. 48
i. 278
xxxii. 30
i. 320
xxxiii. 32
ii. 16
xliv. 29
i. 165
xiv. 23
ii. 13
Daniel.
ii. 35
i. 303
458

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Daniel.

v. p.

Wisdom.

v. p.

ii. 35

i. 303

iii. 5

i. 278

iii. 33

ii. 226

xvii. 8

i. 292

iv. 31

ii. 226

vii. 13, 14
ii. 212
Ecclesiasticus.
xii. 3
i. 282
xi. 17
ii. 309
Hosea.
xvii. 5
i. 377
iv. 8
— 15
i. 182. ii. 13
i. 242
1 Maccabees.
v. 14
i. 448
xiii. 39
i. 242
vi. 6
vii. 12
i. 386
i. 278
Matthew.
ix. 10
i. 464
i. 16
ii. 378
x. 13
i. 311
— 17
ii. 378
xii. 8
ii. 309
— 19
i. 329
xiii. 7
i. 448
— 21
i. 323, ii. 177
— 23
ii. 177
Joel.
ii. 2,11,12,
Hi. 182, 183,
ii. 13
i. 386
6, 18
\ 184
iii. 6
ii. 404
Amos.
— 15
ii. 187
v. 21, 22
i. 386
iv. 36
v. 3, 7,10, j
ii. 205
ii. 188
Micah.
44 <
v. 2
ii. 183, 184
— 23
i. 43
— 24 ,
i 155. 156
Nahum.
157
iii. 11
i. 280
— 28
ii. 187
 42
ii. 186. 187
Habakkulc.
vi. 12—15
ii. 188
ii. 5.
i. 437
— 25
i. 475
vii. 1, 2
— 3
ii. 186, 183
ii. 230
Zechariah.
ii. 13
i. 393
— 12
ii. 186
iii. 1
i. 393
— 29
ii. 227
v. 7
i. 303
viii. 17
i. 284, 285,
xi. 5
ii. 309
287, 292,
xii. 3
i. 295
293, 294,
xiv. 19
i. 311
298, 317
— 22
ix. 2
ii. 251
Malachi.
i. 298, 299,
i. 13
i. 473
300
— 14
i. 260, 473
— 13
ii. 186
ii. 7
ii. 20
— 42
ii. 186
iii. 1
ii. 20
x. 15
ii. 206
— 16
— 32,33
ii.-187 ii. 187
Tobit.
iv. 21
ii. 30
xi. 4
i. 297
— 10
— 22,24
ii. 20
Judith.
ii. 206
v. 19, 20
i. 242
xii. 33
ii. 187
xv. 7
ii. 309
— 36
ii. 206
INDEX OF TEXTS.

459

Matthew.

v. p.

Mark.

v. p.

xii. 41

i. 475

xii. 26

i. 340

xiii. 5 —
7, 20
)
xiv. 13
i. 294
—22, 31
Vii. 187
— 22
i. 216
32
s
— 64
ii. 216
— 15
i. 300
xv. 39
ii. 206
xiv. 33
ii. 205
— 19
ii. 230
Luke.
xv. 9
i. 335
i. 5
ii. 404,
405
xvi. 24
ii. 186
_ 30—35
ii. 207,
212
xviii. 3,
4
ii. 187
— 31
ii. 182
xviii. 6
ii. 186
— 32
ii. 211
 19,
20
ii. 188
_ 35
ii. 201,
214,
 -35
i. 242
215,
220
xix. 12
ii. 188
— 53
ii. 302
23,
24
ii. 459
— 77
i. 298
29
ii. 230
ii. 23
ii. 214
xx. 12
i. 293
iii. 1, 2, 3
ii. 404
— 16
ii. 186
— 23
ii. 165
— 28
i. 167, 179,
— 24
ii. 378
251, 318
iv. 3, 9
ii. 205
323
vi. 30
ii. 186
xxii. 43,
44
ii. 186
— 36, 37, 38 ii. 186
xxiii. 6
ii. 187
vii. 14
i. 294
xxiv. 22
ii. 186
— 27
ii. 20
xxv. 5, 6
,10
ii. 186
xii. 5
ii. 226
xxvi. 18
i. 204
xiii. 24, 25
ii. 187
24
ii. 186
xiv. 27
i. 293.
ii.
26
i. 220
i
188
 28
i. 63, 167,
xvi. 18
ii. 187
318,323
xvii. 2
ii. 186
31
ii. 186
xviii. 12
i. 469
 41
ii. 188
xxii. 70
ii. '203
 53
61
ii. 284
ii.' 228
ii. 216
John. i. 1
65
ii. 91,
432
xxvii. 54
ii. 205
— 1—14
i. 78.
ii.
xxviii. 18
ii. 187
 3
91
ii. 235
Mark.
— 6
ii. 250
i. 4
ii. 404
— 10
i. 77.
ii.
— 22
ii. 227
170
ii. 8
ii. 345
— 12
ii. 201,
227,
— 9
ii. 297
230
iv. 12
i. 299
— 14
i. 146
v. 26
i. 291
— 14
ii. 220
— 41
ii. 233
— 15
ii. 289
vii. 7
i. 388
— 18
ii. 243,
245,
ix. 49
i. 349
289
— 50
ii. 187
— 29
i. 45,
163,
x. 45
i. 167
164,
165,
— 46
i. 251
219,
323
460

INDEX OF TEXTS.

mn.

v. p.

John.

v. p.

i. 50

ii. 202

xvi. 11

ii. 188

ii. 19

ii. 228, 232,
234

— 12

i. 293,295, 324

iii. 8

ii. 188
— 28
i. 72. ii.
— 13
ii. 201, 245,
248, 256
18S, 250,
252
— 13,
31
i. 72
xvii. 5
i. 72, ii. 273
— 16
i. 41
xix. 7
ii. 203,216
— 31
ii. 246
 36
i. 220
v. 14
i. 299, 300
xx. 15
i. 294,296
— 18
ii. 216
ii. 226
— 26
Acts.
— 27
ii. 210, 212
i. 7
ii. 226
— 28,
29
ii. 233
ii. 24
ii. 188,227
— 30
i. 329
— 32
ii. 233
vi. 27
i. 386
iii. 15
ii. 227
— 38
i. 72. ii.
— 17
i. 240
246
iv. 12
ii. 182
— 62
i. 72, 82.
v. 41
ii. 187
ii. 246,249,
vii. 2
ii. 349
251
— 15,16
i. 399
vii. 24
i. 329
— 30, 32
ii. 351
viii. 29
ii. 18S
— 56
ii. 171, 213
— 56
ii. 349
— 60
ii. 171
— 57,
58
i. 79, 81.
viii. 32
i. 163,167
ii, 290, 291,
 33
i. 167
292
— 35
i. 284
ix. 17
ii. 284
ix. 20
ii. 220
— 25
ii. 283, 286
— 34,35
i. 113
x. 9
ii. 188
x. 38
ii. 340
— 17,
18
ii. 222, 225,
— 40
ii. 233
228, 230,
— 41
ii. 188
234
— 42
ii. 186
— 33
ii. 216
— 43
ii. 182
xi. 44
ii. 233
xiii. 22
ii. 186
— 50
i. 323
 32,33
i. 476
— 51,
52
i. 323
 33
ii. 220
xii. 6
i. 294
xv. 10
i. 294
— 41
ii, 348
xvii. 30
i. 240
— 49
ii. 188
— . 31
ii. 227, 233
— 49,
50
ii. 232
xx. 28
ii. 172
xiii. 3
i. 72. ii.
— 35
ii, 186
250, 252
xxv. 24
ii. 153
— 7
ii. 284
xxvi. 18
ii. 226
— 12
ii. 230
ii. 284
xiii. 37
Romans.
xiv, 6
ii. 187
i. 1, 2
ii. 218
xv. 26
ii. 94
— 3
ii. 268
xvi. 7,
3,13
ii. 94
— 4
ii. 202, 229
INDEX OF TEXTS.

461

Romans.

v. p.

1 Corinthians.

v. p.

i. 7

ii. 265

i. 5

ii. 309, 310

— 29—32

i. 36. ii. 186

— 10

ii. 188

ii. 5

i. 329

— 12

ii. 186

— 20

ii. 186

— 18,19,20

ii. 188

iii. 24

i. 166

— 23, 24

i. 27

— 25

i. 166, 326,

iii. 16

ii. 186, 187

329

— 17

ii. 187

— 20

i. 162, 323,

— 19

i. 414

326, 329

iv. 4

ii. 188

iv. 3

ii. 186

— 8

ii. 309

— 25

i. 167, 318,

v. 7

i. 167,213,

ii. 84

220. ii.
v. 6
i. 318
188
— 6, 10
i. 167
— 11
ii. 188
— 8
i. 185
vi. 2
ii. 188
— 9
i. 158
— 9,10
ii. 188
— 10
i. 155, 156,
vii. 11
i. 155, 157.
158, 318
ii. 187
— 11
i. 45
— 15
ii. 187
— 16
i. 242. ii.
ix. 4, 5, 6
ii. 227
186
x. 9
ii. 202
vi. 4
i. 74. ii.
— 24
ii. 186
227, 233.
xi. 20
ii. 186
viii. 3
i. 179
— 26
i. 63
— 11
— 27
ii. 187, 233
ii. 152
xii $ 12' 15> 1
>• I 22, 24 J
ii. 186
— 32
i. 45
xiii. 4
ii. 186
— 33
i. 282
— 7
i. 291
— 34
ii. 152
— 12
ii. 284
— 38, 39
ii. 188
xv. 3
i. 167, 318
ix. 4
ii. 186, 187
— 8
ii. 188
— 5
ii. 186, 201,
— 15
ii. 227
256, 259
— 20
ii. 186
— 10,11,12
ii. 186
— 45
ii. 345, 347
— 21
ii. 226
— 47
i. 72.
x. 3
i. 240
ii. 334,335,
— 17
i. 476
343, 344,
xi. 2
ii. 151
346, 347
— 15
i. 156, 180
— 48,49
ii. 345, 346
— 29
ii. 187
xvi. 7
ii. 284
— 36
xii. 17
ii. 186
ii. 188
2 Corinthians.
xiii. 9, 10
ii. 188
iii. 18
ii. 186
xiv. 1, 3
ii. 186
iv. 14
ii. 188
— 10, 12
ii. 188
v. 14, 15
ii. 188
xv. 1
i. 294. ii.
— 17
ii. 186
186
— 18
i. 156, 180
— 7
ii. 188
— 19
i. 156, 180
— 8
ii. 186
— 20
i. 155, 156
462

INDEX OF TEXTS.

2 Corinthians.

v. p.

Ephesians.

v. p.

v. 21

i. 167, 168,

v. 10

i. 318

182, 318

— 16, 17

ii. 186

vi. 7

ii. 188

— 25,29

ii. 188

vii. 10

ii. 187

vi. 13, 14,

\ ii. 188

viii. 5

ii. 186

16,17

— 9

ii. 201, 288,

295, 304,
Philippians.
307, 808,
i. 10
ii. 186
312, 326
— 21
ii. 188
— 21
ii. 188
ii. 3
ii. 188
x. 17, 18
ii. 186
— 5,6,7
ii. 186, 188
xi. 24, 25
ii. 186
ii. 265,
— 31
ii. 269
276, 306,
xii. 2, 4
i. 393
307, 312,
xiii. 4
ii. 84
324
i. 71, 72
ii. 187
Galatians.
i. 1
ii. 188
— 8
i. 72
— 4
i. 185.
ii. 10, 11,
16 ii. 188
ii. 189
iv. 5
ii. 186
iii. 10
i. 245, 252
— 18
ii. 187
— 13
— 24
i. 318
i. 66
Colossians.
— 27
ii. 187
i. 7
ii. 188
iv. 4
ii. 212
— 10
ii. 186
— 26
ii. 188
— 14
i. 167
v. 4
ii. 188
— 15, 16
i. 73. ii.
— 10
i. 294
153, 187,
vi. 2
i. 294
350
— 7
ii. 188
— 16
i. 74, 76,
77
Ephesians.
— 17
i. 74. ii.
i. 7
i. 167
278
— 19, 20
ii. 220
— 20, 21
i. 156
ii. 2
ii. 186
— 28
ii. 188
— 5
ii. 286
ii. 13
ii. 286
— 8,9
ii. 188
— 22, 23
i. 335
— 16
— 22
i. 156
ii. 188
. Thessalonians.
iii. 9
i. 75, 76. ii.
ii. 7
ii. 284
153
iv. 16
ii. 233
iv. 3
ii. 188
— 16, 17
ii. 254
— 4,5
ii. 186, 187,
v. 4,5,7,
8 ii. 250
188
— 13
ii. 187
— 6
ii. 186
— 17
ii. 188
— 18
i. 240
— 18, 23
ii. 186
— 26
ii. 188
— 22
ii. 188
— 30, 31
v. 2
ii. 187
i. 45, 56,
318. ii. 188
INDEX OP TEXTS.

463

2 Thessalonians.

v.

P-

Hebrews

v.

P-

i. 5

i.

329

iii. 5

ii.

186

iii. 15

ii.

188

iv. 12
— 13

ii.
ii.

186, 188
188

1 Timothy.
vi. 18
ii.
186
i. 13
i.
240
vii. 4
ii.
359
ii. 1, 2
ii.
188
— 13, 14, 17 i.
212
— 6
i.
167,
179,
— 26
ii.
123
251,
318
— 27
i.
155. ii. 236
— 8
ii.
186
ix. 7
i.
241
— 14
i.
388
— 9
i.
247
iii. 13
ii.
186
— 9—14
i.
57. ii. 26
— 16
ii.
220,
257,
— 12,13,14,
259,
336
22,23,
> ii
27
v. 4
ii.
186
24, 26,
vi. 4
i.
293
— 12—28
i.
167
— 7, 10
ii.
188
— )4
i.
247
— 9
ii.
309
— 22
i.
53, 61.
ii. 27
182
2 Timothy.
— 26, 28
i.
i. 9
ii.
186
— 28
i.
318, 322
— 10
ii.
186
x. 1
i.
47, 56,
— 14
ii.
187
247
— 16, 18
ii.
188
— 10, 14, 18 i.
167
ii. 4
ii.
188
— 12
i.
56
— 9
i.
291
— 25
ii.
186
— 11,12
ii.
188
— 26
i.
158, 243
iv. -8
i.
329
— 27,30,31
i.
158
— 10
ii.
188
— 28
ii.
188
— 1.8
ii.
187
.. i
— 29
xi. 3
ii. i.
27,188 74
Titus.
— 4
i.
58, 336,
ii. 3
ii.
188
389, 467,
— 13
ii.
265
474
— 14
i.
318
— 5,7,8
ii.
186
iii. 1
ii.
186
— 13
 16
ii.
ii.
36
38
Philemon.
— 21
ii.
20
20
ii.
188
— 31—89
xii. 1,2,6' 9, 10,
ii.
186
Hebrews.
i
> ii.
186, 187
i. 2
i.
72,
73.
11 <
»
ii.
153
— 2
ii.
308
— 3
i.
72,
167.
— 17
ii.
187
ii.
186
— 24
i.
61, 63,
— 4,5
ii.
186
219.
— 13
ii.
186
ii.
356
ii. 6
ii.
213
— 25, 26
ii.
201, 326
— 7,9
ii.
355,
356
xiii. 9
ii.
188
— 17
i.
167,
181
 11
i.
182
iii. 2
ii.
186
 20, 21
i.
68
464

INDEX OP TEXTS.

James. i. 5
— 6,7,8
— 7
— 10
ii. 21, 23
iii. 13
— 15, 17
iv. 2
— 3,4
iv. 6
— 7, 12

— 15

v. p.
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
i. 252
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
ii. 187
1, 2, 4 ii. 187

300

1 Peter.
i. 6,7
— 8,13
— 10
— 12
— 14
— 17
— 18, 19
— 20
— 21
ii. 5
—11,12,17, 22
— 24

iii. 9, 14
— 15
— 17
— 18
— 19
iv. 5,7
— 8
v. 5
— 7

ii. 187
ii. 188
ii. 354
ii. 353
i. 240
ii. 186
i. 41, 164,
167
i. 41
ii. 188
ii. 186
I ii. 188
i. 284,296,
299,313, 315,318,319. ii.
188
ii. 188
ii. 187
i. 291
i. 318
ii. 255
ii. 188
ii. 187
ii. 187,188
ii. 187

2 Peter. i. 3 i. 73
— 21 i. 136
ii. 4, 5, 7, 8 i. 383
— 5, 6, 7, 9 ii. 187

2 Peter.

v.

P-

ii. 9

ii.

206

— 15, 20

ii.

187

iii. 4

ii.

187

— 7

ii.

206

— 10

ii.

186

1 John.

i. 2

ii.

188

ii. 2

i.

45, 165,
166, 181

— 7

ii.

188

— 27

ii.

187

iv. 2

iii.

221

— 3

ii.

188

— 6

ii.

187

— 10

i.

41, 45,
165, 166,
167, 182

— 17

ii.

207

v. 6

ii.

187

— 7

ii.

257

2 John. 4

ii. 187

3 John. 2 3,4

ii. 188
ii. 187

Jude. 3 ii. 188
6, 14, 15 i. 383
21, 24 ii. 187

Revelation. i. 13
iii. 17, 18
iv. 1, 2
v. 9
— 9—12
xiii. 8

ii. 213
ii. 309
i. 393
i. 165
i. 167
i. 41, 58,
167
ii. 213

xiv. 14
xviii. 3,15, 19 ii. 309
xix. 2 i. 329
xx. 6 ii. 226
xxii. 8 ii. 286
 12 ii. 186

465

The, editions of such books as have been quoted by a reference to pages,
or other appropriate, marks, throughoutthe preceding work, are here
subjoined.
Ab>rba*n, Exord. Coram, in Levit. De Viel, - , - Lond. 1,683
Acosta, History of East and West Indies. - - Do. 1604
Account of the Life arid Writings of .Mrs!, Trimmer. Do. 1814
Alberti Observations Philologies;.' ... - - Lugd. 1725,
AJlix's Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church. Lond. 1690
Archseologia. - ." .".-'". , , p0. 1770, &c.
Asiatic Researches. . - . ><- - - Do. 1806—1811
Augustinus, De Civitate Dei. .'. -- . Francof. 1661
¦  '  De Haeresib'us (ed. Welchmqji) - Oxon. 1721
- Winch. 1785.
Lond. 1739

BalgUy's Essay on Redemption'.
Banier's Mythology, &c of the Ancients,
Barbauld's (Mrs,) Remarks on Mr. Wakefield's Enquiry, Lohd.
Barret's Enquiry into the .Origin ofthe Constellations. ,
Dublin
Barrington's. Miscellanea Sacra. . .
Batt on the-Message from J,., the Bap, - -
Bay le's' Dictionary - - - . , :' -
Beattie's Essay on the Nature of Truth. - ¦'=¦
Beausob. andL'Enf. New Version of St. Matth. :.
Belsham's Calm Inquiry - - . *
-Elements of the Philosophy of the Mind

1792

1800
1770
1789 1734

-Letters upon Arianism, &c.
-Review of Wilberforce's Treatise^

Ben Mordecai's Apology, by H. Taylor.
Berkeley's Works; - - : ,; - ¦
Berriman's; (J.). Mover's Lecture. ,- '
Blair's .Lectures on Rhetoric.
Bocharti Opera Omnia, i
Bolingbroke's Philosophical Works- _
—. — '-^ — "' ' Works - ¦ <,"-,
Boyle Lectures. - - . -/- ' - '"-•'•/"
-Brissonius "de Regio Pers. Principatu, - -
Broughton's Dictionary of att Religions. ' -
Bruckeri His. Crit. Philos. - -
Bryant's Observations relating to Antient Hist.
. Philo Judaeus.

Lugd

IiOnd,.
Do. Do.
Dublin, 1773
Camb. 1790
Londv 1811
Do. 1801
Do.Do. Do.
Dub.
Lond. Do.
, Batav. Lond, Do.
Do,
Argent. 1710
' Lond. .1742
Lips,
Camb Do

1808 1798 1784
1784 17251789 1712
1754 1754
1739

17661.7671797

Buchanan'siMemoir on an Ecclesiastical Establishment in
India. ------- Eond. 1805
,  — - — Christian Researches in Asia. - - - Camb. 1811
Bulli Opera. - ... - - - Lond. 1694
Vol. 2.-59

466

Burgess, Bishop Brief Memorial. -
 , The Bible, and nothing but the Bible,
Burgh's Inquiry. -.----
Burnet's Life of Bedel. - - - -
Butler's, Analogy of Religion, &c. -
Buxtorfii- Dissertations Philol. Theolog.^"-
 Synagoga Judaica -

Caesar. Opera.  -
Calixti Scholee Propheticae, ab Ernesto, -
Campbell's Four Gospels, &c.
Carpenter (Dr. Lant.) Unitarianism the Doctrine of the

Durham,
Carmarth. - York,
- Lond.
Do.
. Basil. Do.
Lond.
Quedlinb.
- Aberd.

Gospel (2d ed.) -
Capelli Critica Sacra. - t .
Chapellow's Commentary on Job.
Cicero. Clarke's Works.
-Paraphrase, &c. (ed, 3)

Lond. Paris.
Camb.
Parisiis, Lond. Do. Do.
Cant.
Lugd. Oxf.
Lond.
Irenop. Lond.

1814 1815
1788
1685 1798 1662
1680 17121713 18031811 1650
1752 1684
17381717 1737 17181637
1750 1753
1656 1743

Clavigero's History of Mexico,
Clemens Romanus (Wotton)
Cloppenburgh, Sacrif. Patriarch. Schola.
Costard's Two Dissert, on Kesitah and Hermes.
Coventry's Philemon to Hydaspes.
Crellius, Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum.
Cudworth's Intellectual System.
 Treatise concerning Eternal and , ImmulabLe
Morality. . - - - ' - ' - Do. 1731
Cumberland's Sanchoniatho. - Lond. 1720
Cyrill, Alexand. contra Julian. - - - - , Lips. 1696
Dathii Opuscula. - -  Do. 1796
Dawson's Doctrine of Ph. Necessity Invalidated. - - Lond. 1803
De Dieu (Ludov.) Animadversiones in Vet. Test. Lugd. Bat. 1648
Delaney's Rev. examined with Candour. - - Dublin, 1732~
De Rossi, Varise Lect. Vet. Test. - - - Parmae, 1784
D'Herbelot, Bibliotheque Orientale. - - - Maestr. 1776
Dodson's New Translation of Isaiah - - - Lond. 1790
 —Letter to Dr. Sturges. - - - - r Do. 1791
Edward's Survey ofthe Methods of Religion. - - Do. 1699
Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things, &c. - - - Do, 1743
Elrington's Donnellan Lecture Sermons. - - - Dub. 1796
Eisner, Observations Sacrse. - - Traj. ad Rhen. 1720
Ennius. ----- - ed. Hess. 1707
Episcopii Opera Theologica. - Lond. 1678
Ernesti Institutio Interpr. N. T. - - Lips. 1792
Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Church History. Edinb. 1790

467

Estlin's (Dr.) Unitarian Christian's Defence - Bristol, 1815
Eusebii Demonstratio Evangelica. - - - Colon. 1688
 Praeparatio Evangelica; . - - Do. 1688
Evanson's Dissonance of the Evangelists. - - Ipswich, 1792
Exposure of the Unwarrantable Liberties taken by Unita
rians, &c. - ' - - - - Glasgow,

Fabrjcii Biblioth. Greec.
 s— Biblioth. Latin.
 Delectus Argumentoruhii &c.
— ¦  Lux Evangelii ...
Farmer's Enquiry into the Temptation.
Fellowes's Guide to Immortality.
 Picture of Christian Philosophy
 Religion without Cant. - -

Hamb.- Do.
. Do. Do.

1813
1705 1708
1725 1731

Fortuita Sacra - - - - -
Gataker de Novi Instrumenti Stylo. -
Geddes's Critical Remarks.
Gillies's Aristotle's Ethics and Politics.
Gisborne',s Principles of Moral Philosophy.
Glassii Philologia Sacra.
GogUet's Origin of Laws, &c.
Grave's Lectures on the Four Last Books
teuch. - - - - -
Gray's Key to the Old Testament.
Griesbachii Nov. Test. -
Gregory's Lowth's Lectures.
Grey, Liber Jobi, a Schult.
Grotii Opera. - - - -
Gussetii Comment. Linguae Ebraicae
Hale's Methodism Inspected,
Halhed's Code of Gen too Laws.
Hallett's Notes and Discourses. -
Harris's Comment, on the 53d Ch. of Isaiah
Harris's Hermes. - ¦ - -
Hayne's (Hopton) Scripture Account, &c. ed. 4.
Heath's Essay towards a Version of Job. -
Heidegger, Hist. Patriarch. Sacr.
Heliodori iEthiopica. -
Hey's Lectures in Divinity. - - -
Hobbes's Leviathan. - - -
Hodge's Elihu. ------
Hodii de Versionibus Graecis, &c.
Holmes' Four Tracts. -
Horsley's Hosea. ...

Lond. 1761
- Do. 1804
Do. 1803
- Do. 1808
. Roterod. 1726
Lond. 1648
- Do. 1800
. Do. 1804
- Do. 1790
¦ a Dathio. Lips. 1776
Edinb. 1775
ofthe- Penta- Dublin, 1807
- Do. 1792
' - Lond. 1809
- Do. 1787
- Do. 1742
Basil. 1732
Amstel. 1702
Dublin, 1803 and 1805
Lond. 1776
- Do, 1729
- Do. 1735
Dublin, 1773
Hackney, 1815
Lond. 1756
Amstel. 1667
Francof. 1631
- Cambr. 1796
- Lond. 1651
. Dublin, 1757
Oxon. 1705
- Do. 1788
-Lond. 1804

468

Hottingeri Smegma Orientale. - - Heidelb. 1658
Howe's Critical Observations — (Number 1.) - - Lond. 1776
N. B. The remaining numbers of the 4 Volumes published at inter vals
through a period of about 14 years.
Huetii Demonstratio Evangel ica.
Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion.
 Essays and Treatises.

Hume's History of England.
Hyde, Hi3toria Relig. Veterum Persarum.
Jablonski, Pantheon Egypt.
Jennings's Jewish Antiquities.
Jones (Jerem.) on the Canon of the N. T.
Jornandes De Reb, Getic. Cassjodori Opera.
Jortin's Remarks on Eccles. History.
 Life of Erasmus.
Josephus, Opera. - - - ed Hudson
 translated by L'Estrange.
Ittigius de Haeresiarchis.
Juliani Opera, Cyrill. -
Justini Martyris Apolog, Duae.
Kennicott's Remarks on Select Passages.
 State of the Hebrew Text.
 Two Dissertations.

Francof.
- Lond. Dub.
Montrose. Oxon,
Francof.. Lond. Do.
Aurel.
. Lond. Do.
, Oxon. Lond.
Lipsiae, Do.
Lond. Oxf. Do.

Do.
Kidder's Commentary on the Five Books of Moses. Lond.
Koecheri Analecta. - . - Altenburg.
Krebsii Observation.es e Flav. Josepho. - Lips.
Laplace, Exposition du Systeme du Monde. - Paris.
.  Traite de Mecanique Celeste. - Do.
Lardner's Works by Kippis. - - Lond.
Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. - Edinb.
Laurence (Dr.) on the Logos. - , - Oxf.
 — Critical Reflections on the Unit. Vers, of
the N. T. . - . Do.

1722 1779 1779
1796 1760
1750
1766
1726 1622 1773
17601720 1702 169016961722 1737
1753
17471694 1766
1575
1798
1798 1788
1793 1808 1811

Remarks upon the Systematic Classifica

tion of Griesbach. - . Do. 1814
Law's Theory of Religion. - - Camb. 1774
Layman's Letters to Mr. Wilberforce . Lond. 1799
Le Clerc, Nov. Test. - . . Francof. 1714
Leland's Christian Revelation. - - Lond.' 1764
Less on the Authenticity of the N. T. (Kingdon.) Do. 1804
Leslie's, Theological Works. . . Francof. 1721
Letters from a late Eminent Prelate. . Lond. 1809
Lightfoot's Works. -- - - Do. 1684
Lindsey's Apology. - . Dublin, 1775
Lindsey 's Sequel to Apology. - - Lond. 1776

469

Lloyd's Christian Theology.
Loccenii Antiq. Suev.-Goth.
¦  Historia Rerum Suecic.
Locke's Works. - .
Loesneri Observ. ad. N. T. e Phil. Alex,>
London (Bishop of) Charge
Lowth. De Sacra Poesi Hebr.
 Letter to Warburton.
 Translation of "Isaiah.
Maimonides De Cultu Divino.
•  '¦ — Moreh Nevochim, Buxtoif.
1  ¦ De Poenitenti Covering.
 De Sacrificiis. De Viel.
Mallet's Northern Antiquities
Maltby's Illustrations ofthe Christ. Religion.
Marsh's Course of Lectures, parts i. ii. iii.
Marshami Canon Chronicus.
Martinii Sinic. Hist.
Mason's Works of Gray.
Maurice's Indian Antiquities.
Mede's Works.
Memoirs of Lord Bolingbroke.
Meuschen, Nov. Testam. ex Talmude.
Michaelis (J. D.) Gramatica Syriaca.
 : — Introduction to the N. T. (Marsh, ed.)
— :  Notse et Epimetra.
Mickle's (Camoens) Lusiad.
Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article.
Millii Nov. Test. (ed. Kuster.)
Mirabaud, Systeme de la Nature.
Montucla, Histoire des Mathematiques.
More's (Hannah) Ccelebs.
,  Hints for a Young Princess.
 (Hannah) Works.
Morgan's Moral Philosopher.
Morini Exercit. de Lingua Primaava.
Mosheim's Eccles. History.
Nares's Bampton Lecture Sermons.
-J  Remarks on the Version of the N. T.
Unitarians. (ed.-2.)

Lond. 1804
Holm. 1647
Francof. 1676
Lond. 1768
Lipsise, 1777
Lond. 18,15
Oxon. Lond.
Perth,
Parisiis, Basil.
Oxon.
Lond. Do. 1770
- Camb. 1803
Do.
1810,
Franeq. Amstel. Lond. Do.
Dor Do.
Lips.
Hal as,
Camb. Oxon.
Dublin, 1791
Lond. 1808
Roterod. Lond. Paris.
Lond. Do.
Dublin. Lond.
Ultraject. Lond, Oxf.
by the Lond. 1810
Do. 1814

1753
17661793 1671 1629
17051683

180918131696
1659 18071794
1672 1752
1736 1784
1793 1763

17101781 175818091805
1803 1737
1694 1765
1795

Newcome's (Archbp.) Historical View of the English

Biblical Translations.

Dublin, 1792

470

Newton's Chronology. . - Lond.
Nichols's Conference with a Theist. - - Do.
Noldii Concordantia? Partie. Ebr. - Jenae.
Nott's Bampton Lecture ... Oxf.
Orford's (Lord) Works . - . Lond.
Origen against Celsus (by Bellamy.) . Do.
Orme's History of Indostan. - Do.
Outram De Sacrificiis. - . Amstel.
Owen on the Hebrews (abridged by Williams'.) Lond.
Owen's Modes of Quotation. - - Do.
Palairet, Observat. Phiologico-Criticae. . Lugd.
Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy. - Dublin,
Parr's Spital Sermon. . Lond.
Patrum Apostolic. Opera, cura Ric. Russell - Do.
Pauw Recherch. Philos. sur les Americ. - Berl.
Pearce's (Bishop) Comm. and other Writings. Lond.
Pearson on the Creed. - - - Do.
 Vindicia? Epist. S. Ignat. - Cantab.
Pearson's Critical Essay on the Sixth Book of the

Div. Leg.
Peirce's Paraphrase.
Percival's Father's Instructions, part iii.
Peters's Critical Dissert, on Job.
Pfochenii Diatribe de Ling. Grasc. N. T.
Phavorini Lexicon.
Philonis Opera.
Photii Bibliotheca.
Pilkington's Remarks, &c.
Platonis Opera.
Plauti Opera (Lambini.)
Plutarchi Opera.
Pocock's Theological Works.
Porphyrius de Abstinentia.
Powell's Discourses on various subjects.
Pretyman's Elements on Christ. Theology.
Price's Four Dissertations.
 Review of Morals.

Camb. Lond. Do. Do.
Amstel. Basil.
Parisiis.
Rothom. Camb.
Francof. Paris.
Francof. Lond.
Lugd.
Lond. Do.Do.
Do.
Binning.
Northumb.

Priestley's History of Corruptions, &c.
 Notes on Scripture.
 Tracts in Controv. with B. Horsley (Belsham.) Lond.
Protestant Apology for the R. C. Church. Dublin,
Randolph's Sermons in Advent. - - Lond.
 — Book of Job translated by Miss Smith. - Bath,

17281723
1735 18031798 1803
168817901789
1752
1793 1804 17461768
1777 1715 1673
1808
17331800 17541633
1538
1640 16531759
16021577
1620 17401623
1776 1800 1768
1769 1782 1802
1815
1809 1801 1810

471

Raphelii (G.) Annot. in Sacr. Script. - Lugd. Batav.
Reid's Essays on the Intellect. Powers. - Dublin,
Remarks on Hume's Essay on the Nat. Hist, of Religion. Do.
Rennel's Discourses on Various Subjects. - Do.
Richardson's Dissert, on the Language of Eastern Nations. Oxf.
Richie's Criticism on Modern Notions of Sacrifice. Lond.

 Peculiar Doctrine of Revelation.
Rosenmuller, (J. G.) Scholia in Nov. Test.
Sale's Koran. - -
Schnurrer. Dissert. Philolog. Critical
Scholar Armed.
Schultens, Liber Jobi.
¦  Origines Hebraeae.
Scripture Account of Sacrifices (Portal.)
Semleri Apparatus ad liberal. N. T. Interpret.
Senecae Opera. ...
Shaw's Travels in Barbary and the Levant.
Sherlock's Use of Prophecy.
Shuckford's Connexion of Sacr. and Prof. History,
Simon, Critique de la Biblioth. et des Proleg. de Depin,
 Critical History ofthe O. T.
Simpson's (Rev. David) Plea for the Deity of Jesus,
Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Socini Opera (Biblioth. Fratr. Polon.)
Socinianism Unmasked.
Spanhemii Historia Jobi. - - -
Speerman's Letters on the Septuagint.
Spencer, De Legibus Hebr.
;  Discourse on Prodigies.

1747
1786
1777 1801 1770 1761
1766

Stebbing's Examination of Warburton.
Stewart's (Dugald) Elem. of the Philos. of the Human
Mind.
Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrae.
Sermons on Several Occasions.
Stock's Isaiah.
 -Job.

- Warringt,
Norimberg. 1792, &c.
Bath, 1795
Gotheae. 1790
Lorid. 1795
Lugd. Batav. 1737
Francof. 1724
Lond. 1755
Halae Magdeb. 1767
Amstel. 1672
Oxf. 1738
Lond. 1749
Do. 1743
Paris, 1790
Lond. 1682
Do. 1812
Do. 1759
Irenop. 1656
Lond. 1815
Lugd. 1672
Edinb. 1759
Cantab. 1727
Lond. 1665
Do. 1747

Strabo.
Stuart's View of Society in Europe.
Suiceri Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus.
Suidae Historica.
Sykes's Essay on Sacrifices.
— :  Essay on the Truth of the Christ. Relig.
— -  Scripture Doctrine of Redemption.

Lond. Do.
Do.
- Bath, Do.
Amstel. Lond.
Amstel. Basil.
Lond. Do.
Lond.

1792 1724
16731803 1805
1707 1782
16821564
1748 1725
1756

472
Taciti Opera, ed. Brotier. - - Paris, 1771
Theological Repository vols. 1, 2, 3. - - Lond. 1795
 vols, 4, 5, '6, Birm. 1784, 1786, 1788
Thesaurus Temp. Jos. Scalig. Animadv. - Amstel. 1658
Tindal's Christ, as Old as the Creation. - Lond, 173^
Tillotson's Works. - - - Do. 1728
Townson's Discourses on the Gospels. - Oxf. 1788
Tyrwhitt's Commentaries and Essays. - Lond. 1732
Van Mildert's Boyle Lecture Sermons. - Do. 1806
[Unitarian] Version of the New Testament. - Do. 1808
Universal History (Ancient) - - Dublin, 1745
Velthusen, &c. Comment. Theologicae - Lips. 1794 — 1798
Venema, Opuscula Inedita. - - Leovardiae. 1778
Veysie's Bampt. Lecture. . . - Oxf. 1795
 Defence of the Preservative. - Exeter. 1810
Villier's on the Reformation (Mills; - Lond. 1803
Vitringae Comment, in Jesaiam. - - Leov, 1714
Volney's Ruins. - - Lond. 1795
Vorstius de Hebraisimis N. T. - " Amstel. 1665
Vossius (Ger. J.) De Theolog. Gentil. et. Idololat. Francof. 1668
— .  r Disputatio Gemina. - Amstel. 1643
Wakefield's Inquiry into the Opinions ofthe Three First
Centuries. - - - Lond. 1784
 Translation ofthe New Test. - Do. 1795
Warburton's Divine Legation. - - . Do. 1738
 Principles of Natural and Rev. Relig. Do. 1753
Wardlaw's Discourses on the Socinian Controversy. Glasg. 1814
Walker's Letter to Belsham. - - Dublin, 1799
Ward's Errata of the Prot. Bible. - - Do. 1807
Watson's (B. of Llandaff) Two Apologies, &c. - Lond. 1806
Wesley, Dissertationes in Librum Jobi. - Do. 1736
Wesley's (John) Sunday Service of the Methodists Do. 1790
Whitaker's Origin of Arianism. - - Do. 1791
White's Commentary on Isaiah. - - Do. 1709
Wilberforce's Practical View. - - Do. 1797
William's Free Enquiry into the 1st and 2d Chapters of
St. Matthew, - - - Do. 1789
Wilson's Illustration of the Method of Explaining the
New Testament. - -
Winder's History of Knowledge. - \
Windet, De Vita Functorum Statu.
Witsii Egyptiaca. - - Herb.
 Miscellanea Sacra.
Wolfii Cures Philolog.
Wollaston's Religion of Nature.
Young's Centaur not Fabulous.

Camb.

1797

Lond.

1745

Do.

1677

Nassav.

17J7

D6.

1712

Hamp.

1733

Lond.

1725

Dublin,

1755

iliijiiiS

un
ami In nHwmffl

IKIill

mwm

SnflMMyfl

¦I

isuni

Wffl

III

IftBifflff
niltSfUlI. hBIhI