YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THREE LETTERS

ADDRESSED TO >

THE VEN. AND REV.
FRANCIS WRANGHAM, M. A.
ARCHDEACON OF CLEVELAND,
IN REPLY TO HIS REMARKS
ON
UNITARIANISM AND UNITARIANS,
it
Contained in his Charge to the Clergy of his Archdeaconry,
DELIVERED IN JULY, 1822.

By C. WELLBELOVED.

Soipov Tt Jiptjfta tou o,i8a|:av7»; /3j>OToi/;
Aoyott; cwcot/ety Tav ei/avhuv icaoa.

Eurip. Anfcom.

" As people in general, for one reason or other? like short objections better
than long answers, in this mode of disputation, (if it can be stiled such,) the
odds must ever be against us,;' and we must be content >with thosejfbr our
friends, who have honesty and erudition, canpTour and patience, to stujpyjboth
sides." — Bp. Home, quplc&Try Arc?id.Wrangham.

Printed by Thomas Wilson and Sons, High-Ousegate.
SOLD BY LONGMAN, HUB.ST, BEES, OBME, AND BROWN, LONDON } AND BY
J. AND a. t5dd, YOEK.

1823.

LETTER I.

" Mea ftiit haec in hac re voluntas et sententia, quem vis ut hoc lnallem de iis
qui essent idonei, suscipere quam me ; me ut mallem, quam neminem."k

Reverend Sir,
When the design, the spirit, and the tendency of your
last Charge, delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry
of Cleveland, are considered, it will hardly be deemed neces
sary for me to offer any apology for the liberty I take in
addressing you. In that Charge, and especially in the
Appendix and Notes which accompany it, you have chosen
to attack not merely the principles, but the character of
Unitarians ; and, adopting the unfounded calumnies of those
who have preceded you in the same inglorious, but not un
profitable labours, you have greatly traduced and misrepre
sented both. Believing most firmly and conscientiously,
that the doctrines of Unitarianism constitute that '¦ faith
which was once delivered to the saints," by the authorized
messengers of God, and that the more widely they are
diffused, the more surely will the interests of true religion
ahd virtue be promoted; feeling also, the most sincere
respect for the illustrious defenders of these doctrines, both
living and dead, whom you have endeavoured to hold
up to the unmerited contempt or indignation of man
kind, I should regard, it as a most blameable derelic-
s

2
tion of duty, were I not, in the absence of some better
advocate, to attempt, at least, to vindicate tlie principles
and the persons that have been so unjustly traduced.
That I have so long delayed to discharge this duty,
must be attributed in part to a very delicate state of health,
which has, till nearly the present moment, rendered me
incapable of any further exertion than the occupations in
which I am necessarily engaged, require :* in part, also, to
a reluctance to undertake a task which cannot but be pain
ful, on various accounts, and which there is too much rea
son to apprehend will prove fruitless. It is painful, Sir, to
appear in opposition to a gentleman, whose station and
talents demand respect, who is far from being a -stranger to
ine, and to whose kindness and hospitality, I have for
merly, more than once, been indebted. It is exceedingly
painful, to be compelled to regard such a one in the light
of an ungenerous adversary ; publicly to accuse, and to
endeavour to convict him of unfairness, illiberality, and
misrepresentation. Had your Charge, and the Notes ap
pended to it, been worthy of your reputation for learning
and talents ; had they contained only sound and temperate
argument, mild expostulation, or reproof ; had they exhi
bited the result of your own investigations of the writings
of Unitarians, stated in a truly Christian spirit, to guard
your clergy from what you deem pernicious errors, I
should have addressed you, had it appeared necessary, with

• These Letters were on the point of being put to press, when a very heavy
domestic calamity interrupted the writer's pursuits, and deprived him both of
the power and the inclination to attend to any thing unconnected with the
awful dispensation of Providence, by which his faith and fortitude have
been most severely exercised.

3
feelings of a very different nature. I should have honoured
you as a Christian pastor, duly watchful over his flock ; I
should have gladly acknowledged for you, a warm ahd
sincere respecl : not a thought, unfavourable to you, would
have arisen in my own mind : not an expression would
have been called for, tending to excite such a thought in
the mind of any other. But, in the place of argument, you
have substituted declamation, as unsuitable to the subject
as it is unworthy of your character : instead of expostula
tion and Christian liberality, we meet with calumny and
sarcasm. The shameless misrepresentations, the vehement
abuse of Horsley, Magee, and others of the same school,
long ago and often refuted and repelled, are repeated,
nearly in their words, as unanswered and unanswerable ;
and where we should expect to find a " servant of the
Lord, not striving, but gentle, apt to teach, patient, in
meekness instructing those who oppose themselves ;" (2 Tim.
ii.~3$, 25.) there we behold " the accuser of his brethren,"
" lording it over God's heritage," and judging and con
demning those who own the same master, even Christ.
My reluctance to undertake, the task of replying to
your Charge, though urged by a sense of duty, has been
increased by the conviction, that it must be in a great mea
sure fruitless. For, let me be ever so successful in the
performance of what I undertake, I can expect little atten
tion from those for whose information it is principally
designed. You may condescend to peruse these pages;
but how few of the clergy, who listened to your Charge, and
on whose minds the large apparatus of Notes has no doubt
produced the effect you desired, will deign to bestow upon
them even a hasty glance ? I well know,, and you undoubt
edly know much better than I, how unwilling the members
b 2

4
of your church are to look into any thing which is the
production of a sectarian,* especially if he be branded with
the name of Socinian. If you, who quote with approbation
a sentence from Bishop Home,, which commends those
" who have honesty and erudition, candour and patience,
to study both sides," and whose station m the church seems
to require that you should have an accurate knowledge, not
only of the arguments of the defenders, but the objections
of the oppugners of the established creed, can yet be content,
as it is evident you have been, with reading the works of
Horsley and Magee, without vouchsafing to look into the
answers of Priestley and Carpenter, can greater industry or
impartiality be expected in those of inferior rank ? Will
they not be disposed to follow the example, and to adopt
the language of their Archdeacon, and to loathe " the nau
seating crambe recoctci? of Unitarian vindications and
replies ? It requires, therefore,, no prophetic foresight to
discern the fate of these pages. By the majority of those
from whose minds it is their object to remove the unfavour
able impression which your Charge cannot fail to have
produced, they will never be known to exist : by those who
may chance to hear of them, they will be judged either
unworthy of notice, or of too pestiferous a quality to be
safely opened ; and having, for a decent space, encumbered
the counter and the warehouse of the booksellers, will follow
many similar productions, more worthy of a better fate— ¦
" In vicum vendentes thus, et odores,
" Et piper, et quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis."
• " I once knew,'' says Bishop Watson, " a divine of the church of Eng.
land, of great eminence in it, and deservedly esteemed a good scholar, who
having accidentally taken up, in a friend's apartment, a book written by a
dissenter, hastily laid ix down again, declaring that " he never read dissenting
divinity.' " Preface to a Collection of Theol. Tracts, p. 10.

But painful and irksome as the task, and discouraging
as these anticipations of its fruitlessness may be, I am
warned by yourself not to shrink from it, since " too many
would be ready to conclude, if nothing was advanced in
answer" to such charges, " that those charges were unan
swerable," ""Assertion, uncombated, though unsupported,
(it is observed) passes with but too many for argument ;
and the truth of the pleading is, not unfrequently, inferred
from the intrepidity of the advocate." (Charge, p. 4.) — " Si
taceamus multi erunt qui male de nobis sentiant, silentium-
que nostrum quasi taciturn confessionem objectorum crimi-
num interpretentur ; quae si diluere possemus, nunquam
verba nostra deessent." * Or, to speak in the plain English
of Prof. Porson — " As the orthodox are never weary of
repeating the same baffled and exploded reasons, we heretics
must never be weary of answering them : for silence, as I
learn from you, Sir, is a proof of conscious impotence." -f-
Your Charge, Appendix, and Notes, embrace so many
topics, and at the same time exhibit so little of arrangement,
that it is by no means easy to reduce the subjects that re
quire attention, into any thing like order. They may,
perhaps, all be brought, in a general view, under two heads.
First, what you allege against Unitarians and their creed, or,
as you are pleased, after Bp. Home, to denominate it, their
No-creed. Secondly, your defence, if such it may be called,
of that part of the creed of the Established Church, which
relates more particularly to the doctrine of the Trinity.
In the remarks which I have to offer, I shall be guided by
this general division ; and shall, therefore, in thefirst place,

* Cleriri Epist. Crit. p. 312. f Porson's Letters to Travis, p. IT.

6
endeavour to repel the accusations you have with no
sparing or lenient hand, brought against us.
Before you advance to your most serious and formidable
attack, you indulge in what you call lighter skirmishings.
Some of these would scarcely call for notice, if they pro
ceeded from any other adversary ; but, coming from you,
they must not be altogether despised and neglected.
Among these, is your attack on the appellations which
we have either assumed, or which have been given to us by
others. " To whom," you exclaim, (page 4,) " am I
summoned to reply ? What title do our adversaries bear
stamped upon their forehead ? Beneath whose standard are
they enrolled ?" That of Socinus, you say, we justly
disclaim ; and yet, with singular inconsistency, you every
where call us Sociniams. The title of Unitarians you will not
allow us to use, because, as you allege, Trinitarians have as
just a claim to it. That of Rational Christians is, I
apprehend, more frequently sneeringly given to us by our
enemies, than assumed by ourselves. Really, Sir, we care
little about the title by which we are designated, provided
it fully and justly distinguishes us from those whose religious
creed differs in important points very widely from our own.
We solemnly protest, indeed, against whatever would repre
sent us as enrolled under any other standard than that of
Christ himself. Call us not, therefore, Socinians, or
Priestleyans, or by any other appellation, which implies
that we embrace the dogmas of any uninspired man— that
we submit to any other, than the teacher who came from
heaven. If the name of Unitarians displease you, find for
us another that shall be more suitable — that shall more
clearly denote the leading principles of our creed, and more

7
effectually distinguish us from other Christian sects, and we
will acknowledge our obligations to you, and adopt it.
A Christian sect, however, you will not allow us to be.
In your first Charge, delivered in 1821, you were willing to
grant, that though " the Socinian stands next to the Deist,"
yet it is at some " width of interval." You have now di
minished, if you have not altogether annihilated this
interval. For having cited, with apparent approba
tion, the maxim of Bp. Beveridge, that " a Christian is
distinguished from another man, yea from a Turk, by be
lieving a Trinity of Persons in the Divine Nature," you add,
" Compare, in short, what Unitarians reject of the Christian
doctrines in omnibus, and Deists in toto, (as contrasted by
Bp. Burgess in his Tracts,) and what is the difference?"
How " thick a drop serene" can prejudice create in the
mental eye ! Is there no difference, Sir, between a system,
which barely acknowledges the existence and the natural
attributes of God, and that which also represents him as
directing the concerns of his creatures by his providence,
as exercising over them a wise moral government, and as ob^
serving all their conduct, that he may hereafter be their
judge ? — Between that which lays no foundation for piety,
and encourages no religious services, and that which leads
the mind to the contemplation of God in every scene and in
every event, and inculcates the duty of fervent and habitual
devotion ? — Between that which denies the reality, if not
the possibility of divine revelation, and that which admits,
. as an undoubted truth, that God spake to the fathers by
the prophets, and to us of later times by his Son ? — Between
that which treats the history of Christ as a cunningly-devised
fable, and that which maintains the Divine authority, the
miraculous works, the resurrection and ascension of this
b 4

great prophet of the Lord ? — Between that which limits the
hopes of man to this short and transitory life, and says
to it's partisans, " Eat and drink, for to-morrow ye die,1
and that which demands an unwavering faith in a future
scene of righteous retribution, and requires those who
maintain it, to Five ever mindful of that day, when
every one '* shall give account of himself to God, and re
ceive according to his deeds ?" Between such systems can
the sound eye discern any resemblance ? In whatever terms
you may speak of the former, of the latter you cannot, with
any truth or justice say, that it is " a system of cold, ineffi
cient, disjointed ethics, introduced into the world with an
empty display of the interposing Divinity." But, say what
you will — say whatever ignorance of Unitarianism, or an
uncharitable zeal against it and those whom you call
" ifs wretched partisans," may prompt, so long as this
memorable test of a Christian disciple, established by the
" inspired citizen of Tarsus," shall remain on record — " If
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and
believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved," — so long as we can boast of such able
advocates in the cause of revelation in general, and of the
Christian revelation in particular, as Lardner and Priestley,
— so long as we can appeal, as thank God we can with con
fidence, to the lives of marry Unitarian professors, who,
under the just influence of their principles, have been truly
pious towards God, and benevolent to man, and have in all
things maintained a conversation becoming the Gospel, —
in every relation of life, obedient to its precepts, and in
every vicissitude of life, supported and cheered by it's
hopes ; we may well disregard the judgment and the con
demnation of fallible and bigotted men, and steadily main
tain our right to a title the most honourable that can be

9
borne. Being reviled as unworthy of that title, we nj,ay be
driven from taking our part in Bible societies, and- other in
stitutions designed to promote the Christian cause, and
separated, in respect of the ordinary intercourse of life,
from those to whom, though we think them in error, we
would cheerfully extend the right-hand of Christian fellow
ship ; but our peace, our satisfaction, our steadfastness,
cannot thus be disturbed or shaken. We withhold from our
blessed and highly-revered Lord no honour which he has
required us to offer to him ; and if we now prove ourselves
his faithful followers, by doing the will of his Father in
heaven, as he hath commanded, we trust we may look for
wards with humble confidence, to our being owned by him
in the great day of our account.
But before I quit this topic, on which we are so often
and always so unfairly assailed, permit me to ask, what
authority you have for asserting, after Bp. Burgess,
that we reject the Christian doctrines in omnibus ?
You assume, as proved, the point in debate between us.
You identify Christianity with your thirty-nine articles, and
then revile us as unbelievers, because we do not admit the
identity . Let it be fully established, that those doctrines
which you esteem the essentials of the Gospel, are not, as
we conscientiously regard them, its corruptions, and you
will have some better ground for the charge you bring
against us. But, while we maintain and endeavour to
prove, that our creed embraces every article in its fullest
extent, taught by Christ and his apostles ; while the records
of Christian antiquity assign, to what are now called the
peculiar and distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel, an origin
posterior, and in some instances, long posterior to their age,
though you may rightly exclude us from the pale of your

10
church, it is as presumptuous as it is illiberal, to pronounce
us unfit to be members of the church of Christ. *
Among your lighter skirmishings, may also be ranked
the contemptuous and abusive terms in which you speak of
Unitarians : as sciolists and schismatics, wretched -partisans,
teachers ill-informed and perverse, writers who betray a
" shallowness as to theological criticism^ and whose works
are " a nauseating crambe recocta."" Pardon me, if I say
that such language accords not either with good sense, good
taste, or good manners, while it exhibits little of a truly
Christian spirit. There is in it nothing of that gentleness
and meekness which the apostle Paul recommended to
Timothy, as becoming in the servant of the Lord. (2 Tim.
ii. 24, 25.) The most contemptuous language carries with it
no refutation of an opponent's principles, and serves only to
excite a suspicion, that the cause in which it is employed is
deficient in strength . Schismatics, according to the scriptural
sense of the term schism, we certainly are not ; and if we be
sciolists — if in erudition we be inferior to the members of
your church, we are so in consequence of the unjust exclusion
we suffer from those seats of learning, which being national
establishments, ought to be open to every member of the
community, and not fenced about, by excluding religious
tests. But if we be indeed sciolists — if we discover a " shal
lowness as to theological criticism," (a charge, however, which
though confidently alleged against us, has not been sub
stantiated,) I know not that we rank far below many of
our neighbours, whose advantages for the attainment of sound

* To those who will condescend to read " Dissenting Divinity," an excel
lent sermon on this subject, by the late Dr. Toulmin, may be recommended,
entitled " The; injustice of classing Unitarians with Deists and Infidels."

11
and extensive learning are far superior to those which we
enjoy. And after all, should it be proved that Unitarian
writers of the present generation are sciolists, it will not
follow that their principles deserve the opprobrious name of
sciolism- Principles which either wholly, or in their most
essential particulars, have been professed, illustrated, and
defended by such men as Crellius, Slichtingius, and other
eminently learned Polish writers ; and in our own country,
by Peirce, Emlyn, Benson, Lardner, Lowman, Tyrwhitt,
Jebb, Lindsey, and Wakefield, to whom many other
equally honourable names might be added, cannot be fairly
characterized as belonging to a school of sciolism,
I may also, perhaps, be allowed to place among these
lighter skirmishings, the charge you advance against us, of
claiming the association of great names upon the slightest
pretexts. You wu^ not jdlow us to rank on our side, such
men as Newton, Locke, Watts, Paley, Bp. Watson, and
others, whose talents, knowledge, and virtues, were such as
to reflect lustre on any sect whose tenets they adopted. It
appears to me, indeed, a matter of comparatively Jittle mo
ment, affecting in no degree whatever the truth of our
opinions, whether in claiming the sanction of these names,
\ye be right or wrong. Nor should I notice, this subject at
aU, had you nqt insinuated that in this, as in other cases, we
are influenced by unworthy motives, and guilty of disinge
nuous conduct. If, indeed, the histpry or the works of
these great men furnish np evidence whatever of their attach
ment to Unitarian principles, we are justly chargeable with
presumption and dishonesty in representing them as with
us. If there be some evidence, which upon a careful exa
mination, proves weak and altogether insufficient, we ought,
in charity, to be held mistaken, till we shew, that in the

12
absence of all proof, we are resolved obstinately to maintain
our claim. You, Sir, who boast of your Bulls, and your
Pearsons, and your Stillingfleets, and your Waterlands, and
your Horsleys, should allow that it is natural, if not laud
able in us, to glory in a Newton, a Locke, a Chilling worth, a
Watts, and a Law, if we can shew cause for our glorying ; and
for any thing you have advanced to the contrary, this glo
rying of ours is still well founded. On this subject it will
be proper to dwell a little ; so far at least, as to prove, that
the pretexts are not slight, on which we claim the association
of these great names.
You ask (page 33) *¦• Why Newton and Locke, because
they never undertook to defend the doctrine of the Trinity,
are therefore to be deemed Unitarians ?" This, Sir, you
must know, is not the ground on which it is asserted that
these illustrious philosophers were Unitarians, or rather,
that they were not Trinitarians. Yet, considering that
they both placed themselves in circumstances, as theological
writers, in which had they believed in the doctrine of the
Trinity, they could scarcely have refrained from avowing
their belief, their silence cannot " be cited as correctly in
favour, as in discredit of the dogma." You have undoubt
edly read the letters of Sir I. Newton to Le Clerc on the
spuriousness of 1 John, v. 7, and on the true reading of
1 Tim. iii. 16. " If we suppose" (it has been well observed*)
" that he considered these passages merely as questions of
sacred criticism, which ought always to be kept entirely
distinct from questions of polemical divinity, yet since the
result of his critical inquiry was the utter subversion of two

* Letters addressed to the Calvinistic Christians of Warwick, &c. by an
Unitarian Christian, p. 103, 104.

13
of the principal arguments in support of the Trinity, it was
surely due to himself and to his readers, if he still believed
the doctrine, to leave an explicit and solemn declaration of
his belief upon record. But no such declaration, though a
just regard to truth and sincerity seemed to demand it, is
any. where to be found." And as to the silence of Mr.
Locke, can it be thought possible, that if he had been a
believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, no intimation of
it would appear in his commentary upon so large a portion
of Paul's Epistles, or in his work on the " Reasonableness of
Christianity ?" Could any professed Trinitarian, in going
over such ground, maintain such silence ? But for with
drawing those truly great men from the ranks of orthodoxy,
we have more substantial reasons than their silence. No
Trinitarian, we are confident, could say of the baptismal
formula, on which you lay such great stress, what Sir I.
Newton has said, — " That it was the place from which they
at first tried to derive ihe Trinity. We have, moreover,
the direct testimony of Mr. Hopton Haynes, Deputy Assay
Master of the Mint, under Sir I. Newton, with whom he
was intimately acquainted. He unequivocally declared that
Sir I. Newton did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ,
that he disapproved of Dr. Clarke's Arianism, and expressed
his firm conviction, that the time will come, when the doc
trine of the incarnation, as commonly received, shall be
exploded as an absurdity equal to transubstantiation. The
testimony of Mr. H. Haynes cannot justly be suspected,
and it can be disproved only by Sir I. Newton's papers, in
possession of a noble family, who might no doubt be per
suaded to lend their aid in supporting the orthodoxy of this
illustrious person, if it were in their power. Dr. Waterland,
whose scent of heresy was exceedingly keen, deemed him an
Anti-Athanasian ; as appears from a letter to Dr. Z. Grey,

14
in which he says, "Iam sorry that no one yet has under
taken a just answer to Sir I. Newton's 14th chapter, re
lating to the prophecies of Daniel, in which he slily abuses
the Athanasians. That prophetical way of managing the
debate, on the side of Arianism, is a very silly' one, and
might easily be retorted." *
In your attempt to prove the orthodoxy of Mr. Locke,
it is difficult to beheve that you are in earnest. " He ex
pressly speaks," you say, " ' of the mysteries of salvation.'"
Of these mysteries, any Unitarian would speak in the same
manner. You proceed — " Now the moral precepts of the
Gospel can be no more deemed ' a mystery,' than the ethics
of Aristotle, or the offices of Cicero. He imist, therefore,
undoubtedly mean those very tenets, which the rationalist
explodes, merely because they are (what in Scripture they
are denominated,) the deep things of God" I will venture

• See Nichols's Illustrations of the Lit. Hist. &c. vol. iv. p. 386.— Dr. Z.
Grey, on this hint from his learned correspondent, undertook in the following
year, (1736,) to answer this ] 4th chapter ; and he had no better opinion of
Sir Isaac's orthodoxy, than Waterland himself. He Observes : " His applying
that part of his book to the Athanasians, as it shows how far a man of his
great parts, learning, and abilities, could stretch his fancy upon occasion, disco
vers, at the same time, no small inclination to disparage the orthodox in a covert
way. It was thought by some, that Sir Isaac might have had an insidious
design against the Athanasians in this whole chapter ; bnt it' was not proper to
take notice of it, till Mr. Whiston, a frank and open adversary, had directly
applied it."— Grey's Examination of the 14ft Chapter, 6[c. p. 4.
And again — "Why is all this1 pains taken to load the memory of Athana
sius ? Not one word is said of Origen, St. Cyprian, or Eusebius, &c. Sir
Isaac, 'tis probable, had his reasons for this piece of partiality, which it may
not be proper for me to inquire into." — Ibid. p. 69. — So that Dr. Grey evi
dently considered this great philosopher as an enemy, though secretly, to the
orthodox faith.

15
to assert, that in all our writings, you will not find a sen?-
tence so illogical, or which savours so much of sciolism as
this. Here is your syllogism — Mr. Locke speaks of the
mysteries of salvation ; the moral precepts are not mysteries
of salvation ; ergo, Mr. Locke speaks of the doctrine of the
Trinity, Atonement, &c. and was a Trinitarian. — Had a
Unitarian argued in this inconsequential manner, he would
have met with little mercy at your hands ; and, in truth, he
would have deserved little. As you have not referred to
the place where Mr. Locke expressly speaks of the mysteries
of salvation, I can only say, in general, that I know of no
other mystery of which Mr. Locke any where speaks, but
of that which is so often and so eloquently described by
Paul, and so satisfactorily explained by this judicious ex
positor : — " The mystery which was kept secret since the
world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures
of the prophets, according to the commandment of the ever
lasting God, made known to all nations, for the obedience
of faith." (Rom. xvi. 25, 26.) Upon which Mr. L. observes in
a note, " That the mystery he (Paul) here speaks of, is the
calling of the Gentiles, and may he seen in the following,
words, which is that which, in many of his epistles, he calls
a mystery. (See Ephes. i. 9. ; iii. 3—9. Col. i. 25-27."
On the second of the passages to which he here refers,
he has the following note : — " It is upon the ac
count of his preaching this doctrine," (the union of
Gentiles and of Jews in one body,) " and displaying to the
world this concealed truth, which he calls every where a
hidden mystery, that he gives to what he preached, the
distinguishing title of mi) Gospel, (Rom. xvi. 25,) which'
he is concerned that God should establish them iii,
that being the chief design of his Epistle to the Romans, as
here to the Ephesians. The insisting so much on this, that

16
it was the special favour and commission of God to him
in particular, to preach this doctrine of God's purpose of
calling the Gentiles to the word, was not out of vanity or
boasting, but was here of great use to his present purpose,
as carrying a strong reason with it, why the Ephesians
should rather believe him, to whom, as their apostle, it was
made manifest, and committed to be preached, than the
Jews, from whom it had been concealed, and was kept as a
mystery, and was in itself av&%via(rw, inscrutable by men,
though of the best natural parts and endowments." That this
mystery constituted the deep things of God, in Mr. Locke's
apprehension, as in that of Unitarians generally, will
be evident to any one who will carefully peruse the para
phrase and notes on the 2d chap, of 1 Cor. where that phrase
is used.* So utterly inefficient is your first proof of the

* It may be useful to cite one of those notes. " But we speak," (says the
apostle, ver. 7.) *' the wisdom of God in a mystery" — which Mr. Locke thus pa
raphrases : " But we speak the wisdom of God, contained in the mysterious and
the obscure prophecies of the Old Testament ;" and subjoins this note: — " What
the spirit of God had revealed ofiihe Gospel, during the times of the Law, was
so little understood by the Jews, in whose sacred writings it was contained,
that it might well be called the Wisdom of God in a Mystery ; i.e. declared
in obscure prophecies, and mysterious expressions and types. Though this be
undoubtedly so, as appears by what the Jews both thought and did, when Jesus
the Messiah, exactly answering what was foretold of him, came amongst them ;
yet, by the wisdom of God in mystery, wherein it was hid, though purposed by
God before the settling of the Jewish economy, St. Paul seems more particularly
to mean what the Gentiles, and consequently the Corinthians, were more parti
cularly concerned in, viz. God's purpose of calling the Gentiles to be his people
under the Messiah ; which though revealed in the Old Testament, yet was not in
the least understood till the times of the Gospel, and the preaching of St. Paul
the apostle to the Gentiles, which therefore he so frequently calls a mystery.
The reading and comparing Rom. xvi. 25, 26; Ephes. iii. 3  9 ; vi. 19, 20. ;
CoL i. 26, 27. ; ii. 1—8. ; iv. 3, 4. ; will give light to this."

17
orthodoxy of this great man, which at the same time betrays
such imperfect conceptions concerning the language of Paul,
that I am almost tempted to ask, to whom is " shallowness
as to theological criticism" justly imputable ?
Still further to disprove the Anti-Trinitarianism of Mr.
Locke, you observe, that " in his synopsis of the Epistle to
the Romans, he lays down, as two of his general and com
prehensive heads of the Christian doctrine,
1. That by Adam's transgression, sin entered into the
world, and death by sin ; and so death reigned over all
men, from Adam to Moses : and,
2. That justification to eternal life is only by grace,
through faith in Jesus Christ."
These; positions, which are in fact expressed as nearly as
possible in Paul's own words, prove nothing respecting the
peculiar views of Mr. Locke. They are such as every
Unitarian willingly adopts. Before we can decide from
these, whether Mr. Locke was a Trinitarian or a Unitarian,
we must ascertain in what sense he understood the principal
terms here employed. In order to do this, we have
only carefully to peruse the paraphrase and notes of the
first eleven chapters of this epistle ; and no fair and compe
tent judge^ I am persuaded, can rise from such a perusal,
Let any one carefully peruse Mr. Locke's notes on these passages in thc
Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians ; and also his important remarks on
Ephes. ii. 8. and he will clearly understand what he means by mysteries cf
salvation, and " the deep things" or counsels " of God ;" and will acknowledge
that this excellent interpreter of Scripture was far removed from what is now
termed orthodoxy. C

18
without being fully convinced that the author cannot be
justly claimed by Trinitarians : and this conviction will be
strengthened, if the nature and tendency of his well-known
work, entitled " The Reasonableness of Christianity, as
delivered in the Scriptures," be duly considered ; a work
which was denounced as " socinianized all over,'? by his
vehement antagonist, Dr. Edwards, in. his "¦ Sociniahism
Unmasked,'" and which it has been justly >¦ observed, is
" exactly such a book as a Unitarian Christian would, and
a Trinitarian zvould not, write."
t
A third proof of Mr. Locke's Trinitarianism, you find
" in one of his Letters to Limborch, (dated Oates, Jan.
6, 1700,") in which "he observes, speaking of Allix's
' Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unita
rians' : — Quidam apud nos valde paradoxum credunt doc-
trinam Trinitatis Judaeis tribuere, et stabilimentum istius
dogmatis e synagogd petere. Atiti e contra dictitani '' hoc
jugulum causae esse, et hoc fundamento stabiliri Ortho-
doxiam, et everti omnia Unitariorum argumenta.' 'Quid ipsa
res doceat aveo videre •; opem enim in hde caus'd & Judans
et Rabbinis dim non expectavi.- Sed lux semper gratissima,
undecunque affulgeaV Is it possible to strain out from this •
passage, any acknowledgement that Allix had really suc
ceeded in his attempt ?^ Because some thought that . the
cause of the Unitarians; was lost, that all tlieir arguments
were overthrwm, and. orthodoxy firmly established, are we
to conclude that Mr. Locke thought so ? He does not give
even a hint to his learned' correspondent of his own opinion
on the subject. How, indeed, could he, when he had
formed no opinion ; not having been able, . as he says,
though he had bought the work of Allix as soon as it ap
peared, to find either health or leisure to read it ? This
important fact, which is stated in the sentence immediately

19
preceding tha^ which you have quoted, you have not noticed.
Permit me to[ supply this defect. ." Allixii librum quam
primum proatit coSmi animo legendi, sed otiose hactenus
praz manibus jacuit, nee dum sive per valetudidem sive per,
alias avocationes legere licuit, spero propediem pinguius et
Jructuosius otium. Quid de eo audias interim mihi dicas.
Quidam apud . nos, fyc. * From this passage* therefore,
your cause derives no aid. .
¦ . ¦ a
Against all the inconclusive evidence of Mr. Locke's
orthodoxy, which you have thus- produced, place the fact
that he was the reputed author of a paper, in one of
the volumes of the Old; Unitarian Tracts ; that : he was
the avowed author of { The Reasonableness of Christianity,''
a work which he himself * acknowledges " does not accord
with the doctrines commonly received ;" -f- and also of a
paraphrase and notes on spme of those epistles of , Paul,
from which are generally derived what are called the peculiar
doctrines of the Gospel,' none of which are there: discovered
by him, whilst, , as it has . been justly remarked, " there is
hardly a Unitarian interpretation of any disputed passage, in
those epistles, which he has not either suggested or adopted ;
and further, that he was attacked as a fayourer of Socinian-

* ' Familiar Letters,' p. 457. , -(¦ Ibid. p. 399.
His correspondent, Mr. Molyneux, relates a curious anecdote "concerning
this work. " As to the Reasonableness of Christianity, I do not find but 'tis
very well approved of here,'! (in Ireland)" amongst candid, unprejudiced men,
that dare speak their thoughts. I'll tell you what a very learned and ingenious
prelate said to me on that occasion :— I asked him whether he had read that
book, and how he liked it ? He told me, very well ; and that if my friend,
Mr. Locke, writ it, 'twas thebest book he ever laboured at : but, says he, if
I should be known to think so, I should have my lawns torn from, my shoulders.
But he knew my opinion before-hand, and was therefore the freer to commit
his secret thoughts in that matter to me," — Familiar Letters, p. 1 63.
c 2

20
ism by your own Edwards and StilKngfleet ; and you will
not surely be disposed to repeat your censure for our claim
ing the sanction and authority of this truly great and good
man. Whatever the accuracy of Unitarians may be, on the
subject of Dr. Watts, it is, I will venture to assert, as per
fect as your own. "Estimated by his works," you say,*
" from which, and not from unauthorized reports, a writer^
sentiments are to he ascertained — ' Watts,' as Dr. Aikin
disinterestedly remarks, ' must certainly rank among the
decided advocates of orthodoxy.' " Dr. Aikin's remark was,
I have no doubt, perfectly disinterested, or, as I suppose
you mean it to be understood, impartial ; and to his judg
ment I am in general disposed to shew great deference :
but from my personal acquaintance with that interesting
writer and most excellent man, I feel some hesitation in
submitting to him, as an umpire, on the question of Dr.
Watts's orthodoxy. He may have been misled by Mr.
Palmer's Tract, as you seem to have been. With Dr. Watts's
theological works, I more than doubt whether he had such
an acquaintance as would qualify him to decide respecting
his religious creed. Such works were not at all according
to his taste, and in compiling the life of Watts, as a general
biographer, he would not feel himself called upon to study
them. Setting aside then, the biographer's opinion, and
every report, whether authorized or unauthorized, let this
amiable divine be judged by his works; and by them he
will stand condemned as unorthodox. Let these works be
the very two to which you appeal, viz. ' Useful and important
Questions, (not Cautions) concerning Jesus, the Son of

* Rather, Dr. Aikin says ; for the whole sentence is borrowed from the
close of his article on Watts, in the General Biographical Dictionary.

21
CrW;' and ' The Glory of Christ, as God-man! '-^-In these, it
is true, " he strongly maintains the intimate union of the
Saviour with the God-head :" he also speaks frequently ef
the Trinity, he vindicates the worship of Jesus Christ ; and
with some hesitation indeed, that of the Holy Spirit He
even " freely and delightfully confesses some articles bor
rowed from the Athanasian Creed ;" and hopes 4i effectually
to preclude all the objections and cavils of Arian and Soci-
niari writers:" yet, after all, he is nearly as far from
orthodoxy as the person who now addresses you. For what
is the doctrine of these Tracts ? So far as I am able to
understand them, it is this: — There is one God — the
Father, the Almighty, self-existent, and eternal ; the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; known and worshiped by
the ancient Jews — the God who alone is acknowledged and
adored by Unitarians. The human soul of Christ was pre-
«xistent— -the first-born of every creature— the beginning of
the creation of God, existing by some peculiar and imme
diate manner of creation, formation, or derivation from the
Father, before other creatures were formed; yet still a
proper human spirit, but with intellectual capacities and
powers vastly superior to any other human soul, or to any
angel in heaven. This human soul, from the time of its
-creation, lay in the bosom of the Father, surveyed and
approved his works of creation, and was perhaps also em
ployed by him in adorning and disposing various parts of
the new-created world, so far as any thing below pure God
head was capable of being employed in that work. To this
human soul — to this angelic spirit, the God-head of the
Father, which is one infinite and eternal spirit, was, in some
particular principle or power of its own nature, or under
some peculiar distinction and relation, intimately united;
so intimately, as to warrant the application of the names,
c 3

22
character, and actions of the Father to this complex being.
This human soul — this angel intimately and immediately
united to the Godhead of the Father, appeared as the Lord
Jehovah to the patriarchs and others under the Old Testa
ment dispensation, and was thus God-angel. This glorious
human spirit, the only-begotten Son of God, united person
ally to the divine nature, left the bosom of the Father,
descended from his angelic state, took human flesh into a
constant partnership of his person, and became man. This
human flesh was united into one person with the angel, and
became the human or bodily shekinah, or constant habitation
of God, or God-man ; having then, in his complex person,
the name of Deity and humanity given to him. In conse
quence of the in-dwelling of the one God in this one human
soul and this one human body, the choice of whom for this
purpose was the effect of the sovereign goodness of the
great and blessed God, the human nature of Christ enjoys
peculiar and extensive powers in its present glorified state,
and is to be assumed into the complex object of worship ;
but in such a manner, as that the one eternal God may
abide still the only object of worship; whether he be
considered as absolute in himself \ under the character of
Father of all, or as united to the man Jesus Christ, and
dwelling in him by a personal union. Thus the Father and
the Son are both worshipped ; but, when the Son is , wor
shiped, it is as one with the Father, and to the glory of
the Father.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, Dr. Watts says little in
these two treatises. , In his other writings on the subject of
the Trinity, he maintains that both the Word and the
Spirit are two divine faculties or powers in the essence of
God. And, in the ' Glory of Christ, #c.' we meet with

23
the following passage : — " Though I think true God-head
is ascribed to him, and personal actions are sometimes attri
buted to him in Scripture ; yet, as we are not -expressly,
plainly, and particularly informed, whether he be a really
distinct principle or power in God, or has a proper distinct
personality of himself, so neither are we expressly required
to worship him, in any text of the Bible that I can find." —
Works, vol. v. p. 294.- — Now, Sir, I may safely leave any
one who knows what orthodoxy is, (a knowledge, I confess,
not easily to be obtained* so variable and Proteus-like is its'
nature,) to judge from this brief, but I am confident, just
summary of Dr. Watts's views, whether he is to be ranked
afn6ngst its decided advocates. * By those who were well
acquainted with him, he was charged with heresy -above
twenty years before his death. In a letter, written in the
year 1725, the famous Mr. T. Bradbury reproved him for
making "the Divinity of Christ evaporate into a mere
attribute. It is a pity," he adds, " after you have been more
than, thirty years a teacher of others, you are yet to learn the
first principles of the -oracles of God. Was Dr. Owen's church
to be taught another Jesus ? That the Son and Spirit were
only two powers in -the divine nature ? &c." And, thus alsq,
Dr. Doddridge speaks of his friend, not in the language of re
proach, for their opinions very nearly coincided : — " Dr.
Watts maintained one Supreme God, dwelling in the human
nature of Christ, which he supposes to have existed the
first of all creatures; and speaks of the divine logos, the

* If Dr. Watts was a decided advocate of orthodoxy, Mr. Stephens, of
Exeter, to whose " admirable sermons" we are referred, (p. 39,) was a heretic ;
50 also were the other learned writers, who are joined with him.
JC 4

24
wisdpm of God, and of the Holy Spirit, as the divine power,
or the influence and effect of it, which he says is a scriptural
person, i. e. spoken of figuratively in Scripture, under per
sonal characters."
From the works to which you have appealed, as well as
from others, particularly one entitled ' The Arian invited
to the Orthodox Faith.'' and which I would beg leave to
recommend to your attention, it appears that this amiable,
but not very sound divine, maintained what is usually de
nominated the in-dweUing scheme ; which you, Sirs " a
teacher in Israel," cannot but know is little else than a
cautious and disguised Unitarianism. " For, in fact," as Dr.
Priestley justly observes, " this scheme only enables persons
to use the language, and to enjoy the reputation of ortho
doxy, when they have no just title to either. For the
divinity of the Father, dwelling in, or even so intimately
united to, what is confessed to be a creature, is still no other
than the divinity of the Father in that creature, and by no
means any proper divinity of its own." If this scheme
coincide with the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, language
has no meaning ; if it do not, I know not how a clergyman
of the church of England can call it orthodoxy. The case
of Dr. Watts was not singular, but it was to be pitied. He
could not be satisfied with the doctrine of the Trinity, as it
was generally maintained : his mind was greatly perplexed
by the language of Scripture, by the dictates of which alone
he was desirous of being guided ; he had a reputation for
orthodoxy, which he wished to preserve ; and " his mild
and gentle spirit shrunk from the rude assaults, the fierce
clamours, and the bitter censures, to whjich suspicions of
heretical pravity would have been sure to expose him, from

25
the fiery and furious zealots of that day :" * therefore,
though he discarded the prevailing notions respecting the
Trinity, he retained as much as he could of the prevailing
language ; and to one who is content with looking at titles
of books, or chapters, or who satisfies himself with a super
ficial glance at his works, he may appear to be a decided
advocate for orthodoxy ; but to no one else.
That he never was -a Socinian I readily admit; but
that before he died, he was completely Unitarian, was not,
as you represent it, a " baseless assertion" (p. 34,) of Mr.
Lindsey or of Mr. Belsham ; nor was it " merely the
opinion of Dr. Lardner, formed partly on a cursory view
of some of his MSS., and partly on the opinion of a Mr.
Neal, who visited in the family in which Dr. W. lived."
Dr. Lardner, on whose judgment and accuracy the firmest
reliance may be placed, notwithstanding Mr. Palmer's

• • Letters to the Calvinistic Christians of Warwick, &c.' p. 143.
Mr. R. Robinson well knew the temper of such men, and has feelingly
described it. Would to heaven there were none of this day, to whom the
description could be applied ! Writing to Mr. Lucas of Shrewsbury, he says :
 " The knight-errants of orthodoxy are a fierce, calumniating generation ;
and this I extremely dislike in them. If orthodoxy alone were in them, one
would pity and pardon their nonsense ;" (this from the author of the unanswer
able "Plea !f Sec." J— but when it is accompanied, as it mostly is,, by a spirit of perse
cution, say what they will about faithfulness and zeal, it is, and must be, an
offence to God and good men. The difference between them and us is, they
represent us as enemies to Christ ; and treat us accordingly. We take them to
be babes in Christ's family ; patiently bear their babblings; and only will not
suffer them to govern the family. What they are about you, I know not ; but
here, they are the greatest gossips, the busiest censors, and the most zealous
«alumnia|ors in the country. I had rather believe all the heresies stirring,
than rob one of his character j or injure, in any degree, my fellow-creatures."
LelUrs, #t;. (p. 161.

26
assertion that his "letters discover something like that
imbecility, which he reports of Dr. Watts," speaks of
matters of fact, not of mere opinion. " I think," says he,
in a letter to the Rev. S. Merivale of Exeter, " Dr. Watts
never was an Arian, to his honour be it spoken. When he
first wrote on the Trinity, I reckon, he believed three
equal divine Persons : but in the latter part of his life, he
was a Unitarian. How he became so, I cannot certainly
say ; but I think it was the result of his own meditations
on the Scriptures. He was very desirous to promote that
opinion, and wrote a great deal on the subject." And in
another letter to the same friend, he observes, " I question
whether you have any where in prints Dr. Watts's ' Last
Thoughts on the Trinity.' They were known to very
few. . My nephew Neal, an understanding gentleman, was
intimate with Dr. Watts, and was often with the family
where he lived. Sometimes in an evening when they were
alone, he would talk of his new thoughts concerning the
person of Christ, and their great importance ; and that if
he should be able to recommend them to the world, it
would be the most considerable thing he ever performed.
My nephew therefore came to me, and told me of it ; and
that the family were greatly concerned to hear him talk
so much of the importance of these sentiments. I told my
nephew that Dr. Watts was right in saying they were
important ; but I was of opinion he was unable to recom
mend them to the public, because he had never been used
to a "proper way of reasoning on that subject. So it proved.
My nephew being the executor, had the papers ; and
shewed me some of them. Dr. Watts had written a good
deal, but they were not fit to be published. Dr. Watts's
' Last Thoughts' were completely Unitarian." — Surely, Sir,
you are not warranted in speaking so lightly as you haye

27
Spoken of this direct testimony of a man, " whose exten
sive learning," as it has been well remarked, " qualified
him to try the merits of every evidence, and whose un
biassed integrity and sacred veneration for truth, enabled
him to pass an impartial sentence." * You assert indeed
that "Mr. Palmer, in his tract intitled 'Dr. Watts no
Socinian,' has conclusively shewn that both these opinions
were ill-founded ;" but I must beg leave again to say, that
this was not a matter of mere opinion; and that Mr.
Palmer has not disproved the positive testimony of Dr.
Lardner. This, I am persuaded, would be readily
acknowledged by any impartial person who would read
two excellent papers published in the Monthly Repository,
vol. viii. entitled 'Strictures on a recent publication of
Mr. Palmer's.'1 I cannot but regret that this work, pro
ceeding as it does from the Unitarian school of "schism
and sciolism," will of course be considered by you as
unworthy of your attention.
Dr. Lardner states that Dr, Watts was a Unitarian
several years before his death ; and this statement, as I
have already shewn, is not contradicted by any thing in
the works which he published two years before his death,
and, to two of which, after Mr, Palmer, you particularly
refer as decisive of his orthodoxy at that time. For what
ever the language of these works may be, the substance of
the doctrine is Anti-Trinitarian — it is Unitarian. But Dr.
Lardner further affirms that his Last Thoughts were com
pletely Unitarian. This judgment was formed on, the
perusal of MSS. destroyed by the executors of Dr. Watts ;
• Even Dr. Horsley thus speaks of I^ardner : — " The learned and the candid
Lardner, whose judgment must have been biassed by his opinions in prejudice
of the writings," (trie Epist. of Ignatius) "if any thing could have biassed hit
Judgment in prejudice of the evidence of truth."— Letters, $c. p. 124.

28
no one therefore, in the present day, is warranted to con
tradict the affirmation of Dr. Lardner : and as it is utterly
inconsistent with the acknowledged character of that cool
and judicious writer to speak so strongly and decidedly,
without some substantial reason, it is highly proba
ble, to say the least, that amongst these MSS. there
were some written after the time of the last publication,
and containing a more explicit avowal of Unitarian
opinions.* And that such was the case, we may justly
conclude, from the character and style of one of them
rescued from the flames by Dr. Doddridge, entitled ' A
Solemn Address to the Deity,'' which appears to have been
drawn up by Dr. Watts, on a review of what he had
written on the subject of the Trinity, and therefore subse-
• In the Monthly Review for March, 1782, there is some curious informa
tion relating to these MSS., which it may be well to recite here.
" That the Doctor had altered his opinion with respect to some points of
what is called orthodoxy, is undeniable. This is a subject that some of his
encomiasts shrink from with concealed mortification, and would, if possible,
consign to oblivion, as it cannot be remembered, without bringing some re
flexion either on the Doctor himself, or their own darling cause. But it would
be in vain to deny a fact known to many, who were interested in. making
it public It was known to Dr. Lardner, and by him communicated to the
late excellent Mr. Merivalc of Exeter, from whose mouth the writer of the
present article immediately received it. Dr. Watts's papers (many of which
ontained the most explicit renunciations of some of his former sentiments with
respect to the doctrine of the Trinity) were mutilated, and published in a very
imperfect manner. Some were ¦wholly suppressed t and it was with difficulty
that Dr. Doddridge could rescue from destruction, a certain curious paper
respecting the Trinitarian controversy, published among his posthumous works,
intitled « A Solemn Address to the Deity, S[c.' The conduct of some of Dr.
Watts's friends in this affair, was so disingenuous, that it called forth very loud
complaints from those who were acquainted with the secret : and it was but a
short time before Dr. Doddridge embarked for Lisbon, that he complained to
Mr. Merivale of unfair conduct, both with respect to Dr. Watts and himself,
to whose charge, in conjunction with the late Dr. D, Jennings, his papers were
intrusted for publication."

29
quent to the publication of the ' Important Questions, <$-c.'
Now it is observable that this interesting and affecting
Address is directed to the Father alone, as the only true
God, the Supreme Being. Christ is here spoken oi as a
man in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ;
as an illustrious Person, who possesses divine dignity, not
of himself, but only as united to the true and eternal God ;
but not a word is said of his pre-existence as a human
soul; while the Holy Spirit is mentioned merely as the
power and influence of the Almighty, exerted in the
execution of all his purposes. * " It is clear indeed," as
the! author of the ' Strictures, 4-c.' observes, " that the
writer's sentiments upon the matter in question, were far
from being absolutely settled : his creed was not altogether
fixed ; he had not, as is the case of some men, renounced
inquiry, and closed his understanding against evidence and
conviction :" yet that he was no Trinitarian at that time, is
evident from the general strain of this affecting Address,
and from some remarkable passages occurring in it.
What believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, ever held
such language as the following ? " Hadst thou told me
plainly in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, are three real distinct Persons, in thy divine nature,
I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many
doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of
assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine
doctrine. Or, hadst thou been pleased so to express and
include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy
book, from whence my reason and conscience might with
ease find out, and with certainty iitfer this doctrine, I
should have joyfully employed all my reasoning powers,
" ' Letters to Calvinistic Christians, &c.' p. 143.

30
with their utmost.skill and activity, to have found put this
inference, and ingrafted it into my soul."
In the other MS. to which you have referred, indtled
' A faithful Inquiry, ej-c' I readily grant that " the' senti
ments are as remote from Unitarianism as those: of the
volumes above quoted or referred to;" but not more so —
i. e. they are Unitarian in substance, clothed in something
like the language of orthodoxy.. They are indeed remote
from genuine Trinitarianism.— But on this subject I need
add no more. When the sentiments even of the works
to which you have so confidently appealed, are thoroughly
examined, and it is further considered that we have no
where Dr. Watts's last sentiments in print, every candid
reader, I apprehend, will conclude'with me that you haye
been too hasty in pronouncing the question of Dr. Watts's
orthodoxy to be "set at rest." , v,
I am not aware that Watson, Paley, and Sir Wm.
Jones, have been' generally, or with any degree of confi
dence claimed by us. That their orthodoxy has been
suspected, even by' their friends, is well known ; and what
you have offered in their defence is by no means sufficient
entirely to remove such suspicions. Lcannot believe that
any Unitarian writer has been so unreasonable as to assert,
or to intimate, that because Watson and Paley "' had never
put out any special disquisition upon the Trinity, they of
course disbelieved them :" it is not the usual habit of our
minds to be satisfied with such evidence as this, upon any
subject. Nor yet can we be satisfiied with your proofs of
their orthodoxy. On the three discourses of Paley, to
which you refer as decisive, no one, I am persuaded, who
carefully peruses them, will be disposed to lay any stress ;

and your extract from Watson proves only that he did hot
pretend to explain the doctrine of the Incarnation, not that
he believed it. I do not mean, however, to call in question
his faith in that article. To a certain extent, he and Paley
may' have been orthodox: but whatever their faith may
have been, they had learnt from an apostle. " a more excels
lent way ;" they had that ¦ " charity which vaunteth not
itseW, is not puffed up, doth' not behave itself unseemly,
thihketh' no evil, and rejoieeth in the truth.." -That both
these eminent men should make whatever orthodoxy they
possessed go as far as possible, was nothing else than might
be expected from their habits, station, and connexions:
That the portion which fell to .their share was not very
large, willinevitably be suspected by all who fairly consider
the character of the 'Collection of Theological Tracts,'
with its admirable preface and catalogue of Theological
writers by the one ; and the dedication of ' The Principles
of Moral and Political Philosophy,' by the other, to the
Unitarian Bishop of Carlisle.
If any one have claimed Dr. Wallis as a Socinian, I
agree with you that he. has done so unwarrantably. But I
am not aware of any such claim having been advanced'.
nor. has he been classed, as you assert, by Mr. Belsham,
" among Unitarian expositors"; He takes his place in the
' Calm Inquiry? with: Augustin, Calvin, Hooker, South,
and others,, amongst those Trinitarians who are called
Nominalists ; who «' maintain that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit^ are three. distinctions in the- one self-
existent Deity, analogous to the faculties of understanding,
will, and power in men ; to which three distinctions,
personal > terms may be applied." — Calm Inquiry, 2nd edit.
p. 337. In a note subjoined to this definition^ Mr. Belsham

33
observes, " Dr. Wallis, Savilian Professor of Mathematics
at Oxford, in his ' Considerations on the Trinity,' p. 7,
(1693) speaks of it as ' a silly mistake, that a divine person
is as much as to say, a divinity, or a God, when indeed a
divine person is only a mode, or respect, or relation of God
to his creatures. He bears to his creatures these three
relations, modes, or respects ; that he is their Creator, their
Redeemer, their Sanctifier: this is what we mean, and all
that we mean, when we say God is three Persons. He
hath those three relations to his creatures ; and is thereby
no more three Gods, than he was three Gods to the Jews,
because he calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' " This truly Unitarian
doctrine," Mr. Belsham adds, " received the marked appro
bation of the University of Oxford, while Dr. Sherlock's
hypothesis, 'that the three Persons of the Trinity were
three distinct infinite minds,' underwent a public censure.
With this modal hypothesis Mr. Lindsey satisfied himself to
remain in the church, and to use the liturgy some years
after he became a Unitarian."
That Mr. Belsham is justified in calling this doctrine
Unitarian, will be acknowledged by all who fairly appreciate
the nature and tendency of this modal hypothesis, " which,
in fact, annihilates the proper personality, and thereby the
real existence of the Son and Spirit ; and though the advo
cates of this hypothesis hold the language of proper Trini
tarians, yet, in ideas, they coincide altogether with the
Sabellians, or even with the proper Unitarians."— Calm
Inquiry, p. 338. And with this judgment your favourite
Bp. Bull agrees ; " Adde ergo, Personam sine essentia con-
cipi non posse, nisi statueris Personam in Divinis, nihil aliud
esse quam merum rf oiro» iira^etcc quod plane Sabellianusa.

33
Such, however, was Dr. Wallis's conception of Persona.
" Persona," he observes, " in its true and ancient sense,
before the schoolmen put a forced sense upon it, did not
signify a man simply, but one under such and such circum
stances or qualifications ; so that the same man, if capable
of being qualified thus, and thus, and thus, might sustain
three Persons, and these three Persons be the same man." —
Letters, See. No. 7. Ahd yet you make your boast of Dr.
Wallis as a " firm believer in the orthodox doctrine !" You
of course know what is your own faith on the subject of
the Trinity, but your clergy and your readers can have no
clear conceptions of it : for Trinitarians of every school —
Bull and Wallis— Waterland and Watts — Realists and
Nominalists — Modalisfcs and In-dwellers— * are all cited by
you with equal respect, and treated as equally orthodox.
This reminds me of a passage in one of the Old Socinian
Tracts, in which the writer says^— " Our opposers do indeed
all go under the common name of Trinitarians, but are (in
truth) a great many several arid contrary sects. They all
cast up their caps, and cry Trinity, Trinity : but the ideas
they have of the Trinity, and consequently their faiths
concerning this (pretended) mystery, are so many, and so
contrary, that they are less one party among themselves,
than the far more learned and far greater number of them
(I mean hereby the Nominal Trinitarians) are one party
with us." How, indeed, can very precise and accurate
ideas on this subject be expected in those who subscribe to
such inconsistent creeds as the Pseudo-Athanasian and
the Nicene, and in the same religious service, profess their
faith in one God, the Father Almighty ; and almost in the
same breath, address their prayers to two other Gods— God
the Son, and God the Holy Ghost !

34
I do not wonder that you dislike to be reminded of the
ever-memorable contest at the end of the 17th century, to
which Mr. Belsham alludes, in the note above quoted : yet
the evident irritation under which you exclaim, " Why am I
to be harrassed with the squabbles of South and Sherlock ?"
does not well accord with the dignity of your station and
character. The controversy of which you have spoken thus
contemptuously, was carried on by some of the most
eminent divines of your church ; by whom it was regarded
as of high importance : and by its termination, the character
of your church was deeply affected ; the learned University
of Oxford, under the unholy influence of political party
feeling, having sanctioned what can in strictness be regarded
as nothing else than an heretical exposition of the doctrine
of the Trinity.
While endeavouring to silence " sectarian rumour,
always ready to claim upon the slightest pretexts the
association of great names," (p. 34,) it would have been
well, if you had been more cautious not to retain those
which are well known to have been withdrawn from the
ranks of orthodoxy. You have quoted with approbation,
a passage from Archdeacon Blackbume, in which Mr.
Robert Robinson is spoken of as the author of an unan
swered and unanswerable pamphlet, intitled ' A Plea for
the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ;' and your readers
cannot fail to conclude, that this pamphlet, to which you
more than once refer, still remains unanswered ; and that
the author is to be still classed amongst the advocates of
the Trinitarian doctrine. The fact, however is, that his
work was most completely refuted by Mr. Lindsey ; — that
Mr. Robinson relinquished the faith for which he had

35
pleaded, and died a Unitarian. * Dr. Priestley, io the
sermon which he preached on occasion of his death, says of
him, " Notwithstanding his long attachment to the doctrine
of the Trinity, yet continuing to read and. think on the
subject, he came at length to change his opinion; and
before he died, he was one of the most zealous Unitarians."
His biographer has asserted that his change was occasioned
by a serious perusal of Mr. Lindsey 's Answer to that work,
which Archdeacon Blackburne represents as unanswer
able. But a more serious imputation on this head, arises
from the use you have made of the authority of Dr.
Whitby, — whose words you have cited, (p. 65,) in support
of a doctrine which he afterwards abandoned as unscrip-
tural. It can hardly be deemed candid or honourable,
respectful to the dead, or just to the living, to produce to
the world, as the opinions of any one, what he has publicly
renounced as 'mistakes and errors.' Yet this you have
done in the case of this eminently learned and conscientious
divine ; representing him as the advocate of principles,
which it was amongst the last labours of his life to prove
had no foundation in the word of God. Candour and

• In a letter to a friend, dated May 7, 1788, two years before he died,
Mr. Robinson says, •• As to personality in God, a Trinity of Persons, I think it
the most absurd of all absurdities,.; and in my opinion, a man who hath brought
himself to believe the popular doctrine of the Trinity, hath done all his work ;
for after that there can be nothing hard, nothing inevident ; the more unintel
ligible, the more credible ; and as this serves the purpose of implicit faith in
pretended guides, priests will always try to keep it in credit. The Bible reads
easy, if we consider God one ; Jesus, the Son of God ; and the Holy Ghost, the
influence of God."— Miscellaneous Works, vol. iv. p. 454,
d2

36
truth, seem at least to demand, that when pressing his
Commentary* into your service, you. should have. made
your readers acquainted with his T-«j>«« fyMrofc'p-r-his ' Last
Thoughts ;' in which ' Short Treatise,' as he himself de
clares, " he seriously considered all he had said in his Com
mentary to the contrary" of the Unitarian sentiments he
finally adopted, " and fully answered the most consider
able places he had then produced, for confirmation of the
doctrines he there too hastily endeavoured to establish." If
" sectarian rumour" is to be severely reprehended for being
" ready to claim upon the slightest pretexts, the association
of great names," what shall be said of churchmen,, who
rank amongst the advocates of their principles, those who
avowedly abandoned them as untenable ? If the " silence
of Newton and Locke" is not to pass for consent to these
doctrines, which they might have disavowed, is the open
and strenuous denial of certain dogmas, not to prevent such
a man as Whitby from being cited in support of them ?
What would you, or any other Protestant say of the
Roman Catholic writer, who should quote the immortal
Chillingworth, in defence of the infallibility of the Romish
Chtirch ? Where is the difference between claiming the
authority of those who never did belong to. our party, and
retaining those who openly deserted it ?
Are we to consider it as a compensation for withholding
from us Robinson and Whitby, that you give us Gag-
neius ? (p. 28.) Fond as we are said to be of great names,
and little scrupulous in asserting our claims to them,' I

* Here, as in many other places, there is no specific reference. I there
fore only presume that the Commentary is quoted.

37
assure you, we have too much honesty to make any pre
tences to this learned writer. Gagneius was no " disciple
of the Socinian school," but an orthodox doctor of the
Sorbonne. * You 'have . been misled by the defender of
the Sacred Classics; or, as I suspect, you have misunder
stood him ; and the crimination designed through Gagneius
for luckless Unitarians, falls, in fact, on those to whom he
belonged, and who have been declared, e cathedra, " to be
more near and dear by far," to churchmen, " than
some," (Unitarians) " who affecting to be called their
Protestant brethren, have no other title' tb the name of
Protestants, than a Jew or a Pagan."
Leaving you then in the quiet and unehvied possession of
the "remarkably impudent"*]- Gagneius, I beg leave to sub
scribe myself, Reverend Sir,
Your obedient servant,
;' C. WF.LLBiLOVFD.
* He died when the name of Socinus was scarcely known.
, . .*,- So Blackball speaks of this learned ecclesiastic, Who held the high offices
of preachir and almoner to Francis I. and chancellor of the church of Paris.—
Sacred Classics, $c. p. 255, edit. 1725.-*-J9» Pin has given him a different cha
racter : " Cet auteur a ete de son temps a la cour et parmi les Scavans en reputa
tion de piete, de' sjavoir et d'eloquence. Scs ecrits nous font connoitre qu*il
s^avbit les langues, et qu'il avoit une erudition plus que mediocre, l'esprit net
et le jugemeflt solide."— <-Nottv. Bihlioih. 4'«. torn. xiv. p. 183.

i>3

LETTER II.

A«!?oa.ij xaify y.iv ttrx/Jjau/ epyaZprai toi? anovovo-i ryv vno^iv, X^'V
Sc icearcm/ aaStevcrega yiv'elai.— —Demosthenes-
" By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report .• as deceivers,
and yet true." — Paul.

Reverend Sir,
Having noticed, with perhaps more than sufficient
minuteness, your " lighter skirmishings," I now proceed to
meet your more serious attacks.
" Upon what," you ask, (p. 8,) " do Unitarians sustain
themselves? Do they wholly disallow the archives oi
Revelation ?" Such a measure, you apprehend, would be
too hardy even for that spirit of controversy, to which
principally (as productive of a kind of polemical dexterity,)
you suppose we owe our protracted existence. Indeed you
acknowledge, though with a coldness and an apparent
reluctance, not very creditable, when the excellent character,
and the valuable services of that distinguished author are
considered, that " to one of their school, Dr. Lardner, the
Christian world is indebted for laborious illustrations of its
historical truths." " How then," you ask again, " do they
surmount the mass of obstacles every page of Scripture,
explained upon correct principles of interpretation, must
throw in their way ? Alas," you answer, " there are a
thousand arts of evasion." Three or four of the thousand

39
you then go on to specify. With what justice you charge
us with having recourse to these, I will now examine.
" In order," you say, " to retain their scrupulous and
fluctuating adherents, some deny the plenary inspiration of
the sacred oracles ; confining even the partial inspiration,
which they still graciously deign to tolerate, to a particular
class of phrases or modes of speech." Without stopping
to inquire how scrupulous adherents can be retained, by a
measure which you deem so daring and unwarrantable ; or
to what portions of the Scripture, the last curious clause in
this sentence can possibly relate ; or with what propriety
inspiration can be said to be tolerated, I at once admit, that
if, by plenary inspiration, you mean an inspiration extend
ing to every book now deemed canonical, and to every
passage of every book, Unitarians must plead guilty to the
charge of denying it. To such inspiration we do not find
the sacred writers laying any claim ; the subjects of many
of the books of Scripture do not require such a perpetual
miraculous interference ; the hypothesis that the writers
were so inspired, has exposed the oracles of truth to number
less cavils, and encumbered the advocates of revelation with
many needless and perplexing difficulties. On carefully
examining the books of Scripture, we perceive many things
which convince us that the precious " treasure" of divine
revelation, was committed to " earthen vessels ;" and we
do not hold ourselves bound to honour the vessels with all
the esteem, with which we regard the treasure they contain.
We most cordially believe, and most gratefully acknowledge,
that " God at sundry times and in divers manners, spake
in time past to the fathers by the prophets ;" and that " in
these last days, he hath spoken to us by his Son ;" and we
receive with profound reverence, whatever bears the autho-
n 4

40
rity ol His name. We are not so destitute of right reason,
or of common sense, as to confine inspiration to any " c*ass
of phrases or modes of speech :" we extend it to all that
Moses and the Prophets, Jesus and his Apostles, have
delivered as from God. We receive the books of Scripture,
as authentic records of revelation. The historical books,
which form so large a portion of the Bible, we regard as a
faithful representation of facts, on the truth of which we
may confidently rely. The books of Moses, in particular,
we receive as a complete record of the revelations made to
the patriarchs, and of all that God appointed Moses to
speak and to do, in respect of the chosen people. The
books of the Evangelists, in like manner, we receive, and
most highly value, as containing the mind and will of God,
as made known by his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our
Lord. The prophecies both of the Old and New Testa
ment, as to the substance of them,— if not the words-^we
ascribe to immediate inspiration. The devotional and the
didactic parts of the Old Testament, we believe to have
been written under the influence of that spirit of piety and
wisdom, which was the immediate and natural effect of that
knowledge of God and his laws, which had been super
naturally communicated to a succession of holy men and
prophets. And as to the epistolary writings which con
stitute so interesting and important a part of the New
Testament, we reverence them, as exhibiting clear and com
prehensive views of Christian doctrine; imparted to the
writers either by the personal instruction of our Lord,
while on earth, or by occasional intercourse after his ascen
sion, or by that spirit which, being sent from God, guided
the Apostles of our Lord into all truth. " In their repre
sentations of Christian doctrine, and in their directions as
to Christian duty," we hold that " the Apostles are to be

41
regarded as the ambassadors of Christ, and the oracles
of God; and, therefore, as soon as any book is ' as
certained to have been written by an apostle, its divine
authority, as to faith and practice, becomes unquestionable."
(Carpenters Reply to Magee, p. 82,): Such are the 'opi
nions of Unitarians in general, oh the subject of the
inspiration of thef Scriptures, and such the respect, which
is paid by them to the records of divine truth ; and to
these opinions* no reasonable objection, I maintain, can
be urged. It is true, that we do not think the sacred
historians are in every instance perfectly correct ; because
we find discrepancies in their, relations of the same events:
but these do not at all impair, but on the contrary, increase
our confidence in their gene'ral veracity.* It is true, that
we cannot'- always assent to the reasoning of an apostle, or
to his 'application of the ancient prophecies ; but we distin-
guish between the argument and the ' doctrines which it is
designed to recommend and enforce.' The argument we
may sometimes deem " inconclusive," but we never doubt
that the doctrine is from heaven. You say that <fitisidle
to profess respect for the Scriptures, when we refuse them
for the purposes for -which they were avowedly given, as
the rule of both faith and practice1; or; when by partial
exceptions and petty hyper-criticisms, we bring their general
authority into question." True, Sir, it'would be idle, ahd
worse than idle, to act thus": but we deny that such conduct
is justly imputed to us. The general authority of the
Scriptures, we are as anxious as you can be, to establish.
It is only in cases of comparatively little moment, not at all
affecting the great and leading principles of the sacred
writings, that we question their authority: As a complete rule
of faith and practice we desire to take them ; to no other rule
do we ever appeal ; and I will venture to assert, that in no

42
one instance,* does our rejection of their plenary inspiration
lead to the rejection of any Scripture doctrine, or any
Scripture precept.
In our views on the subject of plenary inspiration, we
differ little, if at all from many illustrious writers, whom
you would hardly venture to brand as " schismatics and
sciolists;" ,such as Erasmusj Grotius, Castalio, Le Clerc,
and even your own Paley, Powell, and Burnet. 1 shall
have occasion, in the course of this letter, to cite passages
from two or three of these ; at present, therefore, I shall
only add, that I suppose pvery one is acquainted with the
" Five Letters" on this subject, extracted from the celebrated
work, entitled " Sentimens de quelques Theologiens de
HoUande," rightly attributed to Le Clerc, and not refuted
by the very learned and eminent Prebendary Lowth. *
Another treatise on this subject, unhappily imperfect, is
not sp generally known ; to which, however, you cannot be
a stranger. I mean a fragment of an important work, be
gun by Castalap, entitled " De arte dubitandi et confitendi,
ignorandi et sciendi,1"-^ and published by Wetstein, in his
treatise ' De Inter pretatione Novi Testamenti,"" near the end
of the second volume of his edition qf the Greek Testa
ment. Permit me to recommend to you a re-perusal of this
invaluable piece, under the full persuasion that it will lead
" A Vindication of tlie Divine Autlwity, and Inspiration of the Writings qf
the Old and New Testament, in answer, S[C. 6[C.
-(¦ The ars confitendi is petty generally practised ; but how few know any
thing of the ars dubitandi !' " The title itself," says the excellent Lindsey,
" has more in it to-be learned than you find in many large books ; for it is no
ordinary attainment to know when to doubt, and when to be assured, and
when to be ignorant. The greater part never own their doubting, or being
ignorant of any thing." — Vind. Pricstltianoe, p. 1 33.

you to put a more favourable, and, at the same time, a fairer
construction on the sentiments of Unitarians respecting
inspiration ; and to abstain, in future, from charging them
with practising " arts of evasion," in avowing principles
held by them in common with some of the most illustrious
members of the reformed churches.
You go on to say, (p: 9,) " Should these," (viz. the
phrases or modes of speech to which Unitarians confine
inspiration ; but what these are, I cannot imagine ; ) " unfor
tunately for their flimsy theory, occasionally prove intract-
able, they have the convenient resources of conjectural
criticism at command; they can punctuate, they can
transpose, they can obliterate — in certain cases, avowedly
without the authority of one single manuscript, or one
solitary version ; though by what is, nevertheless, deemed
a most happy and indisputable emendation !" It is
indeed very true, that in common with other critics, we
"" have the resources of conj ectural criticism at command,"
and you will not deny, that in certain circumstances, and
under proper regulations, these resources may be legiti
mately employed. If it were not so, would your own
Seeker, Newcome, and Lowth, have applied to them, as
they have done, in the Old, * or Markland and Michaelis
in the New Testament ? f Conjectural criticism is, I ac-

* It must indeed be granted, that on several accounts, conjectural criti
cism may be more readily tolerated in the Jewish, than in the Christian
Scriptures. •f See Boayer's Conjectures, and Michaelit's Introduction to the New
Testament, chap. jr.. sect. iv.
It is true, that these eminent critics have not ventured to substitute their
conjectures for the readings in the received text ; yet the principles on which

44
knowledge, a desperate remedy, and very liable to be
abused. It is the very ilast resourse to which a judicious
critic will apply, and where jt affects any doctrinal question,
he will cautiously refrain from applying to it at all. Prove
any Unitarian critic to have abused this resource, or to have
availed himself of it, in endeavouring to establish, his doc*
trine, and inflict upon him the punishment he justly de
serves. * — It must also be granted, not only that we Can,
but that we do punctuate ; and you surely cannot, mean to
insinuate that this is an illegitimate aid in the interpretation
of ancient writings. Who has more freely, or with greater
and better effect, changed the common punctuation of. the
Miehaelis has argued in Sect, p, pf hjs 'Oth chap, would naturally lead to this.
He acknowledges, indeed, that ," there are some few passages in the Kew;Tes-
tament, loci affecti, in which we have been hitherto able to derive no assistance,
either frb'm manuscripts, fathers, or versions ; and which demand, therefore,
the aid of critical conjecture.". And he instances Rom. viii. 2, which, he says,
he, cannot read iv^bou^ supuo^'ng, that, (he apostle wrote v? y.o( <rav f»w[iali>(
KAI T>if &m;, assigning precisely such reasons as have been given for read
ing Si '&, instead of 6 m', in Rom. ix. 5. '/But there is, in truth, no necessity
for artertngthe rending1 in either case i 'atrd'ih' both ' cases' ft would be equafty
unwarrantable.. ..i ¦'' ,n,, ¦, ;. .
* This cannot be proved, at least with respect to any Unitarians
of modern times. 'Have' ahjr1'' orthodox critics' ever 'expressed themselves
on this subject more' strongly, than the Edttdrs of the Improved Version1,
against whom all these , charges are leyelled ? " Attempts",:, say they, have
been made to correct the received text by critical conjecture. This is a
remedy which ought never to be-appried but with the utmost caution,
especially as we are furnished with so many helps for correcting the text from
manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers. This caution is doubly neces-
sary, where the proposed emendation affects a text Which is of great importance
in theological controversy, as the judgment of the critic will naturally be biassed
in favour of his own opinions. It ought, perhaps, to be laid down as a general
rule, that the received text is in no case to be altered by critical, or, at least, by
theological conjecture, how iugenjous arid plausibje soever.'V— See Inlrod. t
Imp. Vers. p. xvii. 4th edit.-^-To .this ru}e (he. Editors have scrupulously
adhered.

45
text of the, New Testament, than yauv own Markjand ? *.
Even Horsley, who has censured,the conjectures of 'New-
come, has not disapproved of punctuating, nov abstained
from it. Are the points also to be deemed inspired ? Call
in question, our judgment, if you please ; but do, not deny
us the right, that all other critics and interpreters of Scrip
ture enjoy, -J*—" They can transpose." In this there is no
violation qf any canon of criticism ; nor, any thing contrary
to. the practice of the best; and, most cautious pi-ities. New,
come, and Lowth, and Bjlaney,, and Stg^k, and Michaels*
and Griesbach, with many- ©,thers of the greatest, name,
haye a^l transposed ;, anck by, so doing, have remoyed imany
difficultiesv and . illustrated , s^weral obscure passages of
Scripture. Do npt, make that criminal < in, us,,; which in
others, is at least innqcent, if, pot praiseworthy.-— The charge
of obliterating,, withput any external authority, is, of a; more
serious character. ,. That there .may arise amongst us occa-t

• See Sawyer's Conjectures, ,.$c. passim,.*- 'The learned printer justly ob
serves, in hfe preface : " Qui bene distinguit, bene docet, is no less true in criti
cism than in doctrine." He also cites, among other authorities, Grotius, on
Mark xiv. 69.—" Cum vetefes libros sine distinetionibus seribi ! solitos cbnstet,
sequitur, postea ex dcscribentium judicio additas : quare et nunc de illis judicium
liber urn esse debet."
f In a note,, (p. SS,) ^.are.r^ferred to the, late Bp. Middletpn's work on
the Greek article for some general remarks on punctuation. I cannot here enter
intothe.examinationflf them;, but I do npt, hesitate to say, and I pould , easily
prove, that for the most part, they are very incorrect. He talks of not rashly
disturbing the established punctuation. I would, have nothing done rashly ; but
when and by whom, was the punctuation of the received text established ?
Does it rest on any better authorities, , or is it in a purer state than the received
text itself? And the weight of these authorities, and the true state of that text,
the , Archdeacon of Cleveland has not to learn.. Let those who have, read the.
Prolegomena of Griesbach with the attention they deserve.

46
sionally, some whose temerity appals their friends, while it
provokes the indignation of their adversaries, is unquestion
able. But, for such boldness, Unitarianism itself is not
answerable. I shall hereafter produce a distinguished
member of your own church, who could obliterate, without
the sanction of either MSS. or versions. In page 55, you
particularly refer to the " garbling" of Mr. Evanson, whose
" mangling and mutilation" of the New Testament, was as
offensive to the Unitarians in general, as to more orthodox
believers. It cannot, surely, be unknown to you, that he
was strenuously and successfully opposed by Dr. Priestley
himself, whose work has obtained merited praise from a
Bampton Lecturer. * I will venture to say, that with the
exception of Mr. Evanson and his school, which is by no
means large, Unitarian critics are as adverse to emendations
of the text, and obliteration, altogether unsanctioned by
external authority, as those of any other sect.
You proceed in your work of crimination : " They can
misquote the early fathers and other ancient authorities;
they can mis-represent or garble the statement of their ad
versaries; they can qualify and accommodate, their own
struggling, by all these various processes, to make the un-

* The Rev. T. Falconer, who, at the same time that he acknowledges the
merit of Dr. Priestley's Answer to Evanson, and his own obligations to him,
bears his reluctant testimony to the disgraceful bigotry of the' learned body to
which he belongs. In a note, (p. vii ) he says, "«• Tb guard against misrepre
sentation, I wish to observe, that my discourses Comprise a much smaller extent
of inquiry than ' Dr. Priestley's Letter, which contains a large proportion of
very admirable argument ; and if I should not have my meaning distorted by a
calumnious gang of local inquisitors and familiars, I would sky, that what I
have done may be considered as supplementary to the orthodox parts' of Dr.
Priestley's Reply."

47
wary believe, that in the conventicle alone, the unpolluted
doctrines of Christianity are to be found." Is it uncandid
to suppose, that by using the term conventicle, you intended
to insult us ? or will you plead, after the example of the
Archdeacon of St. Albans, whose spirit, as well as whose
language, you too successfully imitate, that it is a mere
archaism of your style. * Considering the state . in which
Unitarians are now placed by the legislature of their coun
try, I cannot but deem it an offence against both truth and
good manners, to charge them with holding unlawful reli
gious assemblies. This, however, is a light matter, in
comparison of the rest of this opprobrious passage, which
does not merely " involve an apparent incivility," (p. 23,)
.but represents us as persons devoid of integrity ; as writers,
on whose fidelity no reliance is to be placed ; who delibe
rately sacrifice truth and good conscience to serve party
purposes. I fearlessly affirm, that you cannot substantiate
these severe accusations. We plead no exemption from
error. We may, in some instances, have misunderstood
ancient authorities ; and, through inadvertency, have mis
quoted ancient writings ; but we scorn all artful and disin
genuous means, either of opposition or defence. In learning,
we may be inferior to those who unjustly monopolize the
highest advantages for a learned education ; but in vthe love
of truth and candour, we will yield to none. I wish to
appear as the defender, rather than the panegyrist of the
advocates of Unitarianism ; but I cannot refrain, on this
occasion, from declaring, that so far as- 1 am acquainted
with their writings, none evince a higher tone of moral
feeling— none are more fair and ingenuous than they.

* See Hqrsley's Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. ?8S.

48
«« Qui carpit mores labe carere decet." If I were disposed to
recriminate, I should not have to look far for matter of
fecrinunation, I know not of any Unitarian writer who
need to shrink from a comparison on the points of accuracy
and fairness of quotation from an adversary's work, with
Waterland, Horsley, Magee, or even the Archdeacon of
Cleveland. ,;
,,.. ".Finally," you add, .." as a portion of the pure gold
will, stifl remain in spHe of all their efforts, they endeavour
to; huddle it up under strained analogies, and violent or
incongruous metaphors." To huddle up gold under yiolent
and incongruous metaphors, is a metaphor so violent and
incongruous, that it is by no means easy clearly ,to compre-.
hend its meaning. Perhaps, however, you intend to say,
what hasbeenj often more plainly, but yet, not; truly said,
that in .order to .evade, the, force of passages of Scripture
cjitecl against us, we refuse to understand them literally, and
have recourse to a .figurative interpretation. This, at least,
your quotations from Blackburne and Hales , seem to
suggest.,, The judgment of Archdeacon Blackburnej I am
generally disposed to treat with great respect ; but in this
instance, I require a, more particular statement of the ground
on which it was formed;, especially, as the maxim of your
second authority, the ever-memorable John Hales, is no
o^er than that which Dr. Priestley adopted. Dr. Horsley
had saidr that " the Unitarians pretend not that their doc
trine is to be.found in the plain, literal, sense of holy writ:
on the scontrary, they take the greatest pains to explain
away the literal meaning." To which Dr. P. replied, "If
you had really read any Unitarian treatise at all, you must
have known that this representation is the reverse of the
fact. We Unitarians certainly pretend at least, whether

49
we are able to prove it or not, that the general tenor, and
plain literal sense of Scripture is in our favour ; that they
are only particular texts, and those ill understood, that
you avail yourselves of; and we say that there is no diffi
culty in interpreting even those texts in perfect consistency
with the Unitarian doctrine, if the true idiom of the lan
guage be considered." * And surely, Sir, it will be allowed
that there is a peculiar idiom prevailing in the writings of
the Old and New Testament, and that the rules of inter
pretation justify and require a constant attention to this
idiom. And I appeal to every impartial and qualified
judge, as to the* truth of what I assert, when I say, as I
confidently do, that we have recourse to a figurative sense
of passages in no instances, which that idiom does not fully
warrant. It is a singular circumstance that the charge you
advance against Unitarians, is the very reverse of that
which was anciently brought against them. For " the
orthodox, even after the council of Nice, complained of the
advantage which the Unitarians had in appealing to the
literal sense of the Scriptures. ' If,' says Gregory Nyssen,
' a man rests in the bare letter, so far he judaizes' (i. e. is a
Unitarian) 'in opinion, and has not learned that a
Christian is not the disciple of the letter, but of the spirit ;
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveCh life.' " -j* Nor
are the members of the Established Church exempt from
the very charge alleged against Unitarians : it is tri
umphantly advanced by the advocates of the Church of
Rome; and unless they admit its justice, they must abandon
the ground on which they reject the doctrine of Transub
stantiation. J Indeed, Sir, you must know that the
* Letters to Dr. Horsley, part ii. p. 148 ; or, Works, vol. xviii. p. 839.
f Priestley, ibid. p. ISO, or p. 240.— $ Lingard's Tracts, p. 311, &c.
E

50
unqualified accusation you bring against us, of having
recourse td figurative interpretation, is altogether frivolous ;
adapted indeed to excite a prejudice against us in the minds
of those who are not conversant with such subjects, and
who are easily influenced by high-sounding and confident
assertions, but unsupported by just principles of interpre
tation. You require not the authority of Bp. Marsh to
convince you that "the Hebrew language is Uglily
figurative, as well in the prophetical as in the poetical parts
of the Old Testament, &c. ; that the speeches and dis
courses of our Saviour are not less figurative : and, that
numerous mistakes have been made by a literal application
of what was figuratively meant.'1'1 * You will, with him,
commend the Church of England, for having, " with due
attention to that figurative style, so frequently employed
by our Saviour on other occasions, interpreted" his memora
ble words at the last Supper, f( by the rules of analogy, and
by the dictates qf common sense!1'' Do not then hold us up
td the scorn or the indignation of your clergy, for exer,
cising the same attention to the style of the sacred writers,
and interpreting their word$ by the same rules and dic
tates, '
You proceed, (p. 9, 10,) " Even inconclusive argumenT
tatibn, as well as inaccurate language^ is by some of their
apostles, charged upon what they yet, however, vouchsafe to
denominate i the Word of God ;' the opinions of reason are
exalted beyond the affirmations of Scripture, and every one is
invited to be wise above What is written T This latter
accusation you frequently prefer against us. We are said

• Marsh's Lectures, No. xvi.

51
'5to wrest the Scriptures to our own destruction ; to explode
tenets, merely because they are the deep things of God ; to
reject Scriptures, because they preach the doctrine of the
atonement too plainly, to be endured by modern rationalists,
&c. &c." Such general and unsubstantiated charges, can
be met only by a positive denial; and, I hesitate not to.
assert that they are altogether groundless/ I defy any one
to prove that it is our practice to exalt reason above the
affirmations of Scripture. By no one are we, invited, if we
were, I am, persuaded we, should not obey the, invitation to
be, wise above what is written. ,-The;Biblef and the Bible
alone, is the standard to which we[ appeal ; and it is not on
us that your censure (p.10) falls, iof ; making .it "descend
to play the part of a subordinate document,", but, on those
who dare not trust it in the, hands of ithe.- people, unaccom
panied by a Church prayer-book and a Church catechism ;
and who, for the simple confession of faith required
by Jesus Christ and his ' Apostles, substitute thirty-nine
articles, some of them of a most perplexing and incompre
hensible nature, established by. an. Apt of Parliament. I adopt
the, common language of Unitarians when,. I say, Convince
us that any tenet is authorised by the! Bible, from that
moment we receive it. Prove any doptrine to be a doctrine
of Christ, emanating from that wisdom which was from
above, and we take it, for our own, and no power on earth
shall wrest it from us. * They, are not the doctrines of

* " No Unitarian that I know, or have read of,r did ever object to any part
a divine revelation, because it was beyond his comprehension. Let me know
but clearly, that God has signified his mind' and will ; and then let the subject
be ever so unfathomable by me, I will receive and believe it ; because no better
reason can possibly be given for any thing, than that God hath said it."—
Lintyscy's Exam, of Robinson's Plea, Pref. p. xxiv.

52
Scripture that we reject on the ground of their being un
reasonable, but the doctrines which are contained in Anti-
scriptural articles,, creeds, and confessions. It is in these
alone that we perceive any thing that requires " the pros
tration of the understanding:" the words of Christ and his
Apostles appear to us, if "explained upon correct principles
of interpretation," to be perfectly intelligible, and consonant
with the dictates of right reason. Here again you take for
granted, the very matter in debate between us. You
assume that the doctrines which your Church deduces from
the Scriptures, are indeed the doctrines they contain ; and
since we cannot receive these doctrines, both because they
do not appear to us the doctrines of revelation, and are, in
several instances, incomprehensible, you charge us with
being wise above what is written, and with exalting reason
above the word of God. To the Bible we appeal, and by
the Bible we will stand : not attempting to make it " de
scend to play the part of a subordinate document, to be
taken up or thrown aside at pleasure," nor wishing that it
should " assimilate its hues to the arbitrary colourings of
any system" of ours ; but anxious to learn, desirous to re
ceive, and resolved to maintain " through evil as well as
good report," whatever it enjoins us to believe.
" Even inconclusive argumentation," you observe, " as
well as inaccurate language, is, by some of their apostles,
charged upon what they yet, however, vouchsafe to de
nominate ' the word of God.' " The boldest of our
apostles, I am confident, will be found to charge no such
imperfections on what they really consider to be the word^
of God ; but limiting, as I have before remarked, the extent
of inspiration, and that for reasons which will not be easily
disproved, they hold themselves at liberty to judge of the

53
argumentation and the language of the sacred writers,
when not under the immediate influence of inspiration, with
the same freedom that they would use in the case of any
other authors. I will not undertake to defend every ex
pression that " some of our aposdes" may have employed
in reference to this subject ; but the principle on which
they have proceeded, may be fully justified by reason,
and is not without the sanction of what you will, no doubt,
allow to be high authority. Very distinguished writers of
your own church, have admitted the principle, but have
had the prudence to apply it in terms of greater caution.
What says Bp. Burnet in his Exposition of the 6th
Article ? " When divine writers argue upon any point,
we are always bound to believe the conclusions that their
reasonings end in, as parts of divine revelation : But we
are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent
to all the premises made use of by them in their whole
extent; unless it appears plainly that they affirm the
premises as expressly as they do the conclusions proved by
them." What is this but an acknowledgment that the
sacred writers sometimes argue inconclusively ? Dr. Powel,
formerly Master of St. John's College, observes that " the
wisdom contained in the Epistles of Paul, was given him
from above, and very probably the style and composition
were his own." — Again, " of whatever kind the language
be, it probably had no other source than the natural
abilities of the writers. The form and character of St.
Paul's Epistles we shall find to have been derived from
the circumstances of his early life." And again, " It has
been said that, the Holy Spirit suggested not only the
religious wisdom, but every sentence and word which the
sacred writers delivered : this can never be proved. And
could it be proved that the Holy Scriptures were thus dic-
e3

54
tated, it does not appear that any important conclusions
would be deducible from it. That which is important is
also clear : whatever be, thought of the colouring, the sub
stance of these writings was from heaven." — Sermons, No.
xv. The late Dr. Paley, whom you will not allow to have
been of us, states it as a necessary caution, " that in reading
the apostolic writings, we distinguish between their doctrines
and their arguments, i Their doctrines came to them by
revelation, properly so called; yet, in propounding these
doctrines, they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce
them by such analogies, arguments, and considerations, as
their own thoughts suggested. The doctrine itself must be
received ; but is it necessary, in order to defend Christi
anity, to defend the propriety of every comparison, or the
validity of every argument, which the apostle has brought
into the discussion ?" — Eiiid. of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 303. —
We answer, certainly not ;: and these are the principles1,' and
no other, that we avow. -And on these very principles we say,
in the language of one of those whom you sneeringly call "our
apostles," " There is no reason to believe that the apostle
(Paul) was inspired to write a certain number of Epistles, and
no more, or that he was prompted by immediate divine suggest
tioh to write every ; or any one of the Epistles which are now
extant : he puts in no claim to inspiration in his reasonings, in
his illustrations, in ' his narratives of fact, in his typical and
figurative arguments from the Old Testament, inhjs appli
cation of Scripture language, in his interpretation of the
Sacred Writings, anJiis appropriation of. Jewish prophecy.
In all these cases, the apostle speaks and writes as any other
person of similar abilities and- information would in similar
circumstances, with similar habits, and prepossessions : ahd
his writings are to be examined, discussed, and discrimi
nated, like those; of any : other ; author; 'with the same

55
freedom and the same candour." — Belsham '& sEpistlesi-qf
Pauli, Sfc. Prel. Dis. sect. ii. •..'•>
On this, as indeed on almost every other subject con
nected with Unitarianism, we have suffered' much from the
misconception of our adversaries, but more, I fear, fr°m
their misrepresentations. It must be owned and lamented
that some of our most distinguished writers " have occa-,
sionally given to their opinions;, which yet will bear the
most rigid examination, a form that unnecessarily renders
them obnoxious and repulsive ; * but let that form be
diligently, and impartially scrutinized j and it will wear a
more favourable appearance. Let the passages which are
cited from. Unitarian writers, be carefully examined^ not as
they, are cited by their opponents, disjoined from their
context, mutilated, curtailed, misinterpreted, paraphrased.,
and in , every possible way distorted, but in the works to
which, they belong, and in their proper form and connexion ;
and that, which under the management of, a Horsley or, a
Magee, is made to , excite unqualified ; disapprobation, will
be often regarded as free from blame, if not founded in
truth ; as consistent with a profound reverence for what
ever bears the authority of the name of God,, though at
variance with what may be esteemed, by some, the doctrines
of revelation. It is possible, by , the skilful use of an
obnoxious phrase in the writings of an adversary, to expose

* Carpenter's Reply to Magee, p. 286  I must be permitted again to refer
to this able work, which, notwithstanding the contempt in which it is held by
the Archdeacon of Cleveland, as a " nauseating crambe recocta," contains a
full and satisfactory vindication of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Belsham from the
accusations which he has retailed from the calumniating Abp. of Dublin ; and
ef which there is a delectable specimen in p. 41, Note 2.
E 4

56
him to suspicion and to censure, by no means merited.
When Unitarians are represented as charging upon the
sacred writers " inconclusive argumentation," it is generally,
and no doubt, intended to be understood, that they do this,
in order to evade the consequences of that argumentation,
and to get rid of unpalatable doctrines. But this is very
far from being the fact. I am not aware that any doctrine,
usually deemed essential, is rejected by us on this ground.
If we at any time dispute the propriety of the application
of the ancient prophecies, whether by Jesus himself or his
disciples, we yet admit, without hesitation, that he was the
promised Messiah ; the Son of David, and the Son of God.
Though we may not be able to see the legitimacy and the
force of all the arguments adduced by Paul in his Epistles
to the Romans and to the Galatians, we have no doubt as
to the doctrines he labours to establish ; we firmly believe
that it was in the counsels of Divine Providence, from all
eternity, to make the Gentiles partakers in the privileges of
the Messiah's kingdom, and that justification was not to be
obtained by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ.
We receive all the doctrines advanced by the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, although we may think that he
has sometimes endeavoured to establish those doctrines by
overstrained analogies, and uport ' mere Jewish principles.
If we reject many opinions, which others embrace as scrip
tural, it is not because the sacred writers have endeavoured
to prove them by " inconclusive argumentation," but be
cause they do not appear to us to have maintained them
at all. Though the charges which I have thus endeavoured to
repel, appear to be dealt out against Unitarian writers
generally, they were^ for the most part, probably, designed

57
to be levelled at one particular work, which is thought to be,
and certainly is, in good repute amongst us. For, having
gone through them, you observe, (page 10,) " I speak to
those who understand what I say : nor am I aware that I
have advanced a single iota of crimination, which I cannot
specifically maintain by citations from what has been
fantastically entitled the ' Improved Version of the New
Testament,' if the occasion permitted me to go into the
easy detail." I heartily wish the occasion had permitted it ;
as it would have afforded me a better opportunity of vindi
cating that calumniated work : and easy as the detail might
have been, the confutation of any charges that might be
brought against it, would be far easier. In your notes, you
have in part supplied the deficiency in the Charge ; and to
these I will now attend. But first permit me to ask, in
what respect the title is fantastical ? Is the authorized
English version so perfect, that whatever professes to be an
improvement of it, must be pronounced fantastical ? Why
then, did the late Professor Symonds collect with so much
pains, tlie numerous passages in that version which, require
to be amended ? Why did the Venerable Primate of Ire
land devote his great biblical learning, his talents, and
industry, to the accomplishment of a New Translation?
If, instead of 'An Attempt toward revising an English Trans
lation of die Greek Scriptures,' he had entitled his excellent
work, ' An Improved Version, &c.' I cannot think you would
have condemned that title as fantastical. Much less, then,
should this condemnation fall on the work of the Unitarian
Editors, which is, in many respects, an improvement of the
Primate's. I think I may assert, without justly exposing my
self to the charge of presumption, that I am better acquaint
ed with this Improved Version than yourself; who, as far as
I can judge, know little or nothing of it, but what you have

58
collected from the pages of Lawrence, Nates, Magee, and
Rennel ; and I hesitate not to pronounce it a real and a
manifest improvement upon the authorized version. I am
not blind to its faults ; I am not unwilling to acknowledge
that it is capable of emendation ; I regret, that by follow
ing the Archbishop, it has often needlessly departed from
the simplicity of the translation in common use : but, when I
consider that it represents a much purer original text than
King James's translators could have had before them ;
when I perceive in how many instances it has illustrated
what they left in obscurity, how successfully it has endea
voured to remove the ambiguities, the solecisms* and the
obsolete expressions, which every candid critic will own to
be deformities in the authorized version, I boldly maintain^
that the Editors are the just subjects, not of censure, but
of praise. The title they have adopted, may appear to
some not quite so modest as might haye been desired, but no
one has a right to call it fantastical. ,
I now turn to the accusations advanced against this
version in your notes. " It sets out," you say, (p. 57,) " with
a most dishonest title-page, professing to be * on the plan of
the late Abp. Newcome? from whom it yet, in almost every
page, widely deviates, by a Society for promoting Christian
Knowledge ! thus attempting to impose upon the unwary*
the authority at once of a high Dignitary of the Established
Church, and of ihe Venerable Society, which has now, for
¦nearly a century and a half, been exclusively designated by
that particular title." That the improved version deviates in
almost every page from the Archbishop's, will be, allowed ;
but, that it widely deviates from it, is an assertion which you
are not authorized to make : and I am inclined to hope,
that you would not have made it, had .you, instead of

59
trusting to representations of others, compared for your
self the two versions, or even read that Review, by a Unita
rian writer, to the testimony of which you refer. Dr.
Carpenter, whom you rightly name as the author of that
Review, has indeed furnished Dr. Nares with the fact, which
you might otherwise not have known, that in the first edi
tion of the Improved Version,* there werte many deviations
from Newcome's translation ; but he has been far from
warranting you to assert, that these deviations were gene
rally of any importance. When censuring the Editors of
the Improved Version, for using the name of the Archbishop,
in order to mislead the unwary, you ought to have been
particularly careful not to expose yourself to a similar
censure, by a disingenuous use of the name of a Unitarian
reviewer. The note upon the note, in page 57, is certainly
calculated, whatever may have been its design, to mislead
your readers, by making them believe that the whole of
your assertion is supported by the authority of Dr. Car
penter. I will endeavour to disabuse them, by citing his
words on this subject. " We find," says Dr. C. " from the
Introduction, § i." (Month. Rep.iv. p.' 216,) "that the com
mittee assumed 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 sense.' We
do not know whether our readers will' feel any surprise,
•when we inform them, that the number of the alterations
actually made, amounts to about seven hundred and fifty.
Many of these are in cases of frequent occurrence, such as
teacher for master, N. ; Hdsanna for Save now, N, &c.
A large proportion of the alterations arise from employing
Newcome's marginal rendering, or one proposed in his
notes, instead of that in his text; and several from the

60
changes made in Griesbach's second edition. At a random
calculation, these may reduce the number to about four
hundred independent alterations. Our readers will not
expect that we should examine the whole of these separately.
In our estimation, the Editors have, in general, been very
successful in improving upon their basis ; and we cannot
therefore hesitate in saying, that the Improved Version is,
by far, the most faithful and intelligible version of the Chris
tian Scriptures, in at least the English language. In some
very important points, the Editors have made improvements,
which will remove the difficulties unnecessarily felt by the
unlearned reader ; and in numerous other instances, by
apparently small, but, in reality, valuable alterations, they
have decidedly improved tlieir basis, in ' the language,
construction, or sense.' " " The Editors express their
intention of noticing, in every instance, the rendering of
Newcome where they leave it. In almost all cases they
have done so, but in some few cases they have left it uncer
tain what is Newcome's rendering, or even have altogether
omitted to state it." He then specifies those passages,
which amount to about sixty, and adds, " In most of these
instances, the variation is completely unimportant; but in
some, as is obvious to the reader, the change should have
been very carefully noticed. No one can suppose that the
omission arose from any want of fidelity, or of respect to
Newcome's opinion, who observes the minuteness with which
variations are noticed, and the numerous instances in which
a preference is given to his own renderings, where yet an
alteration is made in the text." Such is the testimony of
the Unitarian reviewer, to which you appeal in support of
your charge of dishonesty, on the part of the Editors of the
Improved Version. Let any truly candid reader determine
how far it bears you out in that charge.

61
The reviewer's attention has been called to this subject
again, by the use, I should rather Say the abuse, of this
same passage by Abp. Magee, whom chiefly, I believe you
have followed. In his calm and masterly answer to that
shameless, mitred calumniator, (mitred in reward of his
calumnies,) Dr. Carpenter thus more decidedly testifies the
honesty of the Editors, so wrongfully denied under the
cover of his name. "That the Improved Version really
has Newcome's translation as its basis, is clear from the
foWomng facts : Upon an average, there are not two varia
tions from it in a page. These, in nineteen cases out of
twenty, consist of alterations in single words, such as Wealth
for Mammon, propose for show, is for fiourisheth, departure
for departing, hardness for blindness, &c. There are not
twenty verses in the whole work, in which the variations
from the Primate's version have any close connection with
peculiarities of theological sentiment. Many of the altera
tions are those proposed by Newcome himself. I go farther,
and say, that the general spirit and character of the transla
tion is decidedly Newcome's. Those who have dwelt
solely on the doctrinal variations from the Primate's ver
sion, till they have magnified them ten-fold to their own
imaginations, will not be disposed to admit this last position ;
but those preceding they cannot deny ; at least they can
not refute them ; and upon them I found it." — Carpenters
Reply to Magee, Sfc. p. 306.
The other act of dishonesty with which the Improved
Version is charged with setting out, is its " professing to be
by a Society for promoting Christian Knowledge." This,
after Magee, you deem " an attempt to impose upon the
unwary the authority of the Venerable Society, &c." Is the
definite article of such mighty efficacy in the Greek language,

62
as by its presence or its absence in, given circumstances, to
provethe Deity of Christ ; and is it of. such insignificance
in English, as not to be distinguishable from the indefinite ?
Are the terms a society and the society equivalent ? If they
be, as your accusation of the Improved Version seems to
suppose, on what ground has Bp. Magee, Dr. Moysey, and
others, so severely censured the Editors of the Improved
Version, as amongst their numerous artifices, '? making free
with the article, substituting a Son for ihe Son of God,
whenever they find it convenient to do so." — Moysey's
Hampton Lectures, p. 174. — Dr. Magee, citing some of the
important, unacknowledged departures from Newcome's
version, instances Luke i. 32 — " In verse 32 also," he ob
serves, " we find Newcome use the definite article, ' He shall
be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High,'
and in this, likewise, the followers of Newcome desert him,
rendering ' a Son of the, Most High,' and giving no notice
whatever of the departure." * Is, then, the difference between
a son and the son, so important and manifest ; and could
any one fail to perceive that , a Society was not ihe Society 1
Had the Editors designed to impose upon the unwary,
why not say at once, the Society ? But they did not mean
to impose ; and they have truly said that the work was pub-

" " Is it not singular," asks Dr. Carpenter, (Reply, Sfc. p. SIS,) " that
while holding up to public view, the errors of others, and attributing to them
an intention which implies criminality of the deepest die, the Bishop should him- ,
self interpolate an article not to be found in the passage he quotes ? Yet so it
is. The Improved Version has it, ' He shall be great, and shall be called Son
of the Most High.' When the Bishop writes a Commentary on 1 Cor. xiii., in
order to justify himself, he must prove, (which he may do in the same way that
he/iroiie« many other things,) that Charity 'hopethall things' and ' believeth
all things,' which are injurious to an obnoxious sect, or an obnoxious individual." '•'

63
lished by a Society for promoting Christian Knowledge ; a
Society formed for that purpose above thirty years ago.
I agree, indeed, with Dr. Carpenter, that the omission of
the word Unitarian, in the title-page of the first edition,
was injudicious. The title " did not say all, but all that it
said was true. As to its leading any to suppose that it had
its origin in the Bartlett's Buildings' Society, that is utterly
out of the question. Let it be proved that it did mislead
any one, and we will then allow that it might : but, even
then, we will not allow that it was intended to do so."
Further, you censure the Improved Version for omitting
passages without any authority. You had unquestionably
this work in view, when, in your Charge, you told your
clergy, (p. 9,) that "Unitarians can obliterate" &c. And, in
page 54, you observe, " As a specimen of no moderate
garbling, I may refer to the expulsion of nearly the first two
chapters both of Matthew and Luke, from the canon of the
New Testament." And you go on to state, what the Editors
of the Improved Version have themselves candidly told their
readers, that these passages are found in all MSS. and in all
ancient vprsions. But these passages, though their au
thenticity is disputed, are not expelled. They are found
in the Improved Version, nearly word for word as they
appear in the version of the Primate. They are indeed
printed in Italics, " as an intimation," say the Editors, " that
they are of doubtful authority." The grounds on which
they call in question their authority, are fairly stated, and
the reader, who is further assisted by copious references to
writers on both sides of the subject, has it in his power to
examine them. Should he deem these grounds invalid, he
has the passages still. His copy of the New Testament is

64
not mutilated. What else than what they have done,
could the Editors, as honourable men, do. They have de
cidedly expressed and marked their opinion of the authenticity
of three long passages ; but they have not garbled or muti
lated the Sacred Volume. If in any case they have ex
punged, it has been in strict conformity with the original
text, which they profess to follow, and which will, no doubt,
be a standard text, notwithstanding the opposition of Nolan,
or even of Lawrence. Although no Unitarian garbling,
supposing the Editors had been guilty of it, could be justi
fied by any garbling on the part of orthodox believers,
yet it might perhaps, certainly it should, abate some of
the asperity with which the former are treated, if their
adversaries would recollect that some of the members
of the Established Church, even learned dignitaries, have
rendered themselves obnoxious to the same charge. It surely
escaped your recollection, when you so severely censured
the " boldness that garbles" Scripture, that Dr. Durell,
Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, &c. was for striking
out from the Canon of the Jewish Scriptures, the whole
book of Canticles ; and that Dr. Stock, the late Bishop of
Killala, condemned a long passage in the book of Job, as
spurious ; both of them without the slightest authority from
MSS., versions, or any other external evidence. Whether
Dr. Durell, had he published an Improved Version of
the Old Testament, would have expunged the book of Can
ticles, or printed it in Italics, I cannot pretend to say ; but
Dr. Stock has, in his version of Job, separated the passage,
the authenticity of which he denies, from the rest of the chap*.
ter in which it occurs ; and very unceremoniously, and, as
must appear to you, very irreverently, stigmatises it " as a
superfetation, that might well have been spared." Not an

65
atom of evidence does either of these learned men attempt
to offer against the canonical authority of these passages :
they ground their rejection of them oh internal evidence
alone. The Editors of the Improved Version, though they
cannot cite any MSS. or Versions, have some historical tes
timony against the first two chapters of Matthew tb produce ;
but they also depend chiefly upon internal marks of spu-
riousness. *
In the note to which I am now referring^ you seem to
hint, that the Editors have not been sparing of conjectural
criticism. From your own examination of the Improved
Version, no suspicion of this could have occurred to you ;
the style of the concluding part of your note betrays your
authority, which is no other than Dr. Laurence himself
Permit me, then, to bring to your notice the replys made
by one of the Editors of that Version, to the charge
advanced by this learned writer : — " Gentlemen," he ob*
serves, " would save themselves and their readers some
trouble, and many mistakes* though perhaps it might not
so well answer their purpose, if they would have the good-i
ness to look into the Improved Version^ before they favour
the world with their animadversions upon it. For want of
attention to this equitable and useful rule, the learned Dr.
Laurence> of the University of Oxford, in his « Critical

* This liberty has indeed been taken by the orthodox both' of ancient and
modern times. Several books of the New Testament, now esteemed canonical,
were, it is well known, not universally received . by the early Christians ; and
one of these, the Epistle of James, has been in later times treated with very
little respect. Luther called it an Epistle of Straw, " Epistola Straminea ;"
and others, as Althamerus, and the Magdeburgh Centuriators have charged the
author with false doctrine.— Vide Wetstenii Test. Gr. torn. ii. p. 658.
F

66
Reflection," upon, what he calls ' The Unitarian Version of
the New Testament,' has fallen into a most egregious error ;
and, in the fervour of his zeal to correct the supposed mis
representations of others, he becomes guilty of the most
gross and palpable misrepresentation himself. Almost ten
pages of Dr. Laurence's Introductory Remarks are occu
pied in severe and unsparing animadversions upon the
Editors of the Improved Version, for having altered the text
by critical conjecture, in two very important passages, John,
i. 1, and Rom. ix. 5, and adapted it to their own theological
opinions, without the authority of any one manuscript or
version, or of any one ancient ecclesiastical writer ; and in
direct contradiction to the judgment of Michaelis, to whose
celebrated work they appeal, and whose rules, of criticism
they profess to adopt- And, after having quoted several
passages from that eminent critic, in which he expresses the
strongest disapprobation of admitting conjectural criticism
into the text of the New Testament, Dr. Laurence con
cludes with the following, sarcastic remark : — ' As it is im
possible to expose their reasoning more strongly than the
critic himself has done, to whom they appeal for support,
and that even in the very chapter which they quote, I shall
add nothing more upon tlie subject, but leave them to enjoy
as they can, the testimony of Michaelisi' Courteous reader !
would you believe it ? The Editors have not, in a
single instance, admitted conjectural criticism into ihe text.
They entered their protest against it in their Introductory
Remarks : (see p. xvii.) they appealed to Michaelis, as them
selves cordially adopting his sentiments upon the subject ;
nor have they even infringed upon their rule and his, even
' where very plausible conjectures, of no inconsiderable im
portance, have been suggested by men of great learning and
sagacity, which, to say the least, merit very attentive consi-

67
deration. See particularly John i. 1 ; vi. 4 ; Rom. ix. 5.'
So it is that the Editors of the Improved Version are treated.
Gentlemen, men of learning and eminence, whose word with
the multitude passes for law, without taking the trouble to
examine, do not scruple to hazard assertions which are erro
neous in the extreme, and allege charges which are utterly
unfounded, but which are too generally believed."-— Bei-
sham! s Reply to Moysey, p. 74, &c. *
" With respect to punctuation," you observe, p. 55,
" the Editors of the ' Improved Version,' by substituting in
Rom. ix. 5, a full point for the comma, after o-aixa, and ex
plaining the sequel as a devout apostrophe, (' God be blessed
for ever,'') endeavour, with Enjedin and other Socjnians, -f
to silence this signal testimony to the Deity of the Messiah."
I would again ask, Do not the canons of legitimate criticism
allow of a change in the punctuation of the received text ?
Even with the aid of Middleton, you cannot deny this. The
question, therefore, is, Whether the Editors have, in this
instance, exercised a sound judgment, and duly attended to
the style of their author, the exigence of the place, and other
just principles of criticism, and interpretation ? The text

" It is not a singular case," says Bp. Marsh, " that when one objector has
made a mistake, others follow hun, without reading the book on which he
animadverts."— Lectures, part vi, p. 49.
f It is worthy of remark, in reference to a subject which occurs in my
first Letter, that this Socinian interpretation, as it is here called, is that adopted
by Mr. Locke, who thus paraphrases the latter part of this verse : " And of
them, as to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be
blessed for ever, Amen." Though Mr. Locke has not introduced a full point,
it is evident that he considered the last clause as a doxology, not to Christ, but
to the Father.
F2

68
of Griesbach, which they profess to follow, shows here a
variety of opinion as to the, punctuation* and leaves them. at
full liberty to adopt the, methpd they most approve. And
jthe lower margin contains the authority qf some MSS. and
ancient fathers for that which they have, chosen. In their
note, the Editors candidly state their departure from
Newcome, and the reasons which induce them to, > point the
passage as they have done. As to the signal testimony
borne by this passage to the Deity of the Messiah, it is cer
tain that no such testimony was originally gathered from it ,
for, as the Editors of the Improved Version incontroverti-
bly assert " the early Christian writers do not apply the
doxology to Christ ; but pronounce it rashness and impiety
to say that Christ was God oyer all."
Misled by one of your oracles (Dr. Nares) on the subject
the Improved Version, you censure the Editors for what
proves to be too close an adherence to the Primate ; for
leaving whom, at other times, they incur your displeasure.
" So again," you observe, (p. 56,) ", as to the decisive com-'
pellation of Thomas to his Saviour, * My, Lord and my
God/ (John, xx. 28, ) we are to conceive it only an irreve*
rent expression of surprize ! Beza more truly says, Verba
sunt non tantum admirantis Thomas, ut hunc locum elude-
bant Nestoriani, sed ipsum ilium Jesum ut verum Deum
ac Dommum compellantis. And yet the Editors of the
' Improved Version' refer to Beza !" It is Abp. Newcome
who refers to Beza ; and the head and front of the offending;
of the Editors, Is their having too implicitly followed their
guide; The remark is not their own. It is wholly and
literally copied from the Archbishop's Version ; and his
name is affixed to it. Not referring either to the Improved
Version, or to that of the Primate, but relying on Dr.
Nares, no wonder that you were deceived ; for he has most:

69
disingenuously and shamefully misrepresented the matter.
Is it fair and honourable thus to repeat serious charges against
authors, without being at the pains to examine their works,
and to ascertain whether they are well founded ? But Uni
tarians seem to be considered as out of the protection of
the usual laws of controversy ; and given over to be silenced
and destroyed by any means, however foul.
There is another censure passed on the Improved Ver
sion, in the last note upon the Charge, (p. 65,) which,,
however trifling it may appear, I cannot suffer to pass
withput notice. Haying cited, at the conclusion of your
Charge, Tit. ii. 13, 14, " Looking for that blessed hope and
the glorious appearing of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ," you observe in the note, " Here, however, the
* Improved Version' inserts a comma after @eov, and repeats
the particle ' of ' before 2«t^o5 ; though, like the translation
which underwent Dr. Twells' reprobating criticism, in Pet.
ii. 20, (where Kvpoc only, not @eo?, ,is concerned,) they omit
both. But the single Various Reading of Griesbach omits
the xai, and thus makes the identity of Person, if possible,
still stronger." In vindication, of the Improved Version, it
may be observed, that in placing the comma after Qeov, it
follows the common English Version ; * and for repeating the
particle ' of,' before ZaTtjj>o?, it has the authority of that
" high Dignitary of the Established Church," whose excel
lent translation it takes for its basis. And, in omitting both
in 2 Pet. ii. 20, it agrees again with the Authorized Version,
and with that of the Archbishop; only, with the latter,
instead of the lord, reading ouk Lord. While aiming a blow
therefore, at the Improved Version, you have smitten both

* In some editions it is so pointed.
F 3

70
that which is held in reverence by your own Church ; and
that which proceeded from one of its most eminent members.
" Pereunt Hypanisque Dy masque
Confixi a sociis."
As to the Various Reading of Griesbach, which has called
forth from you the echo of Nares's remark, " Griesbach's
only various reading is the omission of x«<, which would
make the case stronger,*' * it is supported by no authority ;
for the testimony of Facundus carries little weight, and
every biblical scholar knows, that the iEthiopic translator,
the only other witness, omits the conjunction, whenever he
regards it as exegetical. I grant that he so understood this
passage. I find no other specific charge against the Improved
Version ; but there is a short note somewhat connected with
it, which I cannot suffer to pass unnoticed. It proves that
you do not always treat your own oracles with due respect ;
but that you can misrepresent your friends, while accumu
lating your misrepresentations of those whom you so bitterly
oppose. In page 62, heaping your sarcasms upon the mo
dern Unitarian interpretation of the Logos, in the 1st chap
ter of John, according to which you say, " an attribute"
(wisdom) "was ^vi^tv^c, the only-begotten ; or, to adopt the
Improved Version, the dearly-beloved," &c. you add in a
note on this word, " Used, as Mr. Belsham states, for
aryamiloc, which he vouchsafes to inform us, does not once
occur in the New Testament ! whereas it occurs, at least,
six times ! (Nares.f — But Nares, from whom you profess
to derive this note, is not guilty of the blunder here palmed

* Remarks o» tlte Iinproved Version, p. 55.

71
wpon him. He does not assert that a word occurs in the
New Testament at least six times, when a glance upon the
column of his Schmidius would show him that it occurred
at least sixty. Nares's remark is, " It is not true that the
word or/ovs-nloc does not occur in the writings of St. John.
It occurs in these writings at least six times." But you,
perhaps, served him right to misrepresent him ; for he has in
this very passage, misrepresented Mr. Belsham, and again
misled you. Mr. B, vouchsafes no such information as that
which, on the supposed authority of Dr. Nares, you ascribe to
him.* The passage on which Dr. Nares animadverts, is in the
Calm Inquiry, p. 166, 2d. edit, and is as follows : — " It (the
term iMwyevqc) is often metonymically used to express ' dearly
beloved.' See Heb. xi. 17. And the same word, in the
original Hebrew, whiclj by the LXX. is rendered /Aoxoyevii?,
' only-begotten,' is, in other passages, translated aycm-qlce,
' beloved.1 Jer, vi. 26 ; Amos, viii. 10. Hence, it is proba
ble, that as the word ayaw»)7o?, ' beloved,' does not occur in
John as a title qf Christ, this writer uses the word pwoyeyqc,
' only-begotten,' instead of it, and where the other Evange
lists would use ' beloved.' " Now, Sir, does Mr. Belsham
vouchsafe to inform us, that ayawifloc does not once occur in
the New Testament ; though you have vouchsafed to inform

• It is somewhat remarkable, that the Rev. Heneage Horsley, Prebendary
of St. Asaph, was misled in the very same manner. Trusting to the same
article, in the British Critic, for January, 1812, he told the world that Mr.
Belsham " had boldly affirmed that ayrnnHtc does not occur in St. John.". — See
the last Edition ofBp. Uorsley's Tracts, p. 597 ; and Mr. Belsham's Reply to
the Rev. H. Horsley, $c p. 94, &c. — The Prebendary, however, took care not
to add to the original blunder, by saying that Mr. B. denied that the term
occurred in the New Testament : that was reserved for the Archdeacon of
Cleveland !
F 4

72
us that this word, which occurs there above sixty times,
occurs at least six ? But thus it is that the writings of
Unitarians are misquoted and misrepresented, and then on
the strength of their adversaries' blunders or artifices, they
are "branded as sciolists, and shallow theological critics, and
denied the possession of common sense, common honesty,
or the learning of school-boys ! Such are the disgraceful
methods employed to beat down and silence Unitarians,
adopted and pursued by members of your Church of every
grade, from an Archbishop of Dublin to a Vicar Choral of
York Minster. But this mode of warfare against us, will
not finally succeed: it may injure us for a season, but it
cannot discomfit us. Prejudice may,, by these " arts," not
of " evasion," but of hostility, be kept alive and active ;
but when it is discovered, as it, must be ere long, that such
arts have been practised against us, minds of a liberal and
honourable character, will be the more disposed to do
justice to our principles and ourselves.
Though you have advanced no other specific charge
against the Improved Version, there is one of a general
nature, which, if well founded, would stamp upon it
merited infamy. ". Those," you say, (p. 57,) " who wish
for farther evidence of the accumulated tricks exemplified
in the 'Improved Version^' may find them o\a t» &iA«x<
in Magee's, Laurence's, Nares', and Rennell's admirable
strictures, written expressly on that subject." True, Sir
your readers will find a " sack full" of " accumulated
tricks," in the possession of every one of those to whom you
refer them, but they are all their own ; not one of them ever
was the property of the Editors of the Improved Version,
I will confidently refer our readers (if indeed I should
have the good fortune to reckon among my readers any

73
who have been yours, also) to that Version itself; and,
though they may find some mistakes, and many things in
the text, and more in the notes, of which they may dis
approve, I will venture to say, they will not find a single
trick ; any thing which can justify the suspicion of disin-
genuousness or artifice. I may be allowed again to say,
that I am better acquainted with the Improved Version
than you, to whom I suspect it is known only through the
medium of the authorities you have cited ; and I affirm
without hesitation, that, though I am far from regarding it
as a ^aultjess work, either as to the translation, or the
interpretation of many important passages, it is conducted
throughout, in a fair and honourable manner, under the
manifest and powerful influence of a sincere and supreme
love of truth. * I have the happiness also to be acquainted
with the excellent person who is well known to have been
principally concerned in preparing and publishing it, and
who does not, as he needs not, shrink from the responsibility
of the chief and efficient Editor ; and I have no hesita?
tion in asserting, that nothing ever proceeded from him,

* Next to the Improved Version itself, they who wish to form a true
judgment of the representations which have been made of it by Abp. Magee
and others, will do well to consult the able work of Dr. Carpenter, intitled
" An Examination of the Charges made against Unitarians, Src Sec. by tlie Right
Rev. Dr. Magee, $c." a work, which though almost wholly occupied in de
tecting and refuting the most foul and provoking calumnies that were ever
uttered against the most eminent Unitarian writers and their doctrine, is no less
distinguished for its urbanity, mildness, and truly Christian spirit, than for the
successful accomplishment of its purpose. If our Lord's maxim be still appli
cable to the preachers of his gospel, " By their fruits ye shall know them," no
impartial judge can be at a loss to determine which of the two, the overbearing,
defaming prelate, or the gentle, candid, dissenting pastor, has the be6t claim to
be regarded as a true disciple of Christ.

7*
on which the slightest suspicion of unfairness can, for a mo
ment, rest. Even the first witness to whom you appeal, Abp,
Magee, who, in his treatment of Mr. Belsham, " appears"
as Dr. Carpenter truly observes, " to be influenced by a
spirit of personal revenge, and of intolerant bigotry, which
would have better suited the age, when persecution wielded
different, but not more injurious weapons," even he allows
him the praise of amiable and virtuous feeling, and declares
that he believes him to be incapable of duplicity. But this
praise ought not to be allowed to him, for he deserves it
not, if he can be convicted of "accumulated tricks;"
especially when occupied in presenting to the world, what
he professes to be a faithful version of those Sacred Writings,
which contain the revealed will of God, and denounce the
most awful punishment against all who practise the
" hidden things of dishonesty." If you had not been con
tent with perusing the writers you have here named, but
had fairly and impartially compared the work they censure,
with the allegations they bring against it, I am persuaded
neither your other charges, nor this most severe and sweep
ing censure would have proceeded from your pen,
I come now to the last crimination in your Charge,
that requires particular notice. In page 11, you say,
" Among the principal grounds of the Creed, or No-Creed,
professed by Socinians, may be ranked (as it has been
remarked) the accordance of its dogmas with philosophical
prejudices. By ' philosophical prejudices' are meant the
prejudices of men of taste and science on the subject of
religion. Accustomed to revel in the riches of the intellect,
and the pleasures created by the magic of genius, they feel
a strange and adverse descent, when they are summoned
to receive the peculiar disclosures of theChristian Revelation."

75
These disclosures, in the following declamatory paragraph,
you assume to be the doctrines maintained by the established
church of this country, and other sects usually denominated
orthodox. — " The grounds of a creed," I should imagine,
would be generally understood to denote the foundation
on which it professes to be built ; the principles contained,
or supposed by those who frame the creed, to be contained
in the Scriptures. But if I am not greatly mistaken, you
confound these with the motives by which some at least,
you cannot mean to say all, who maintain that creed, have
been induced to adopt it, after it has been framed. If you
do indeed intend to say that the creed of Unitarians has
been framed on ' philosophical prejudices,' by men of taste
and science, I deny the fact, and without any hesitation
assert, that it was the creed of the illiterate, though inspired
Apostles of our Lord ; and that in all succeeding ages it
has been held, with various modifications and corruptions
indeed, by those who have not generally ranked amongst
the wise and learned. If you mean that the continued
existence of this creed is owing to the countenance it receives
from men of taste and science, I deny that also to be the
fact ; and I would invite you to lay aside all unmeaning
declamation, and to produce some sufficient proof of what
you assert ; and, at the same time, to reconcile this assertion
with your censure of Unitarianism as a school of sciolism.
If you mean to say that ifien of taste and science, in
general, are prejudiced against religion, and betake them
selves to Unitarianism, to shroud themselves from the
imputation of infidelity, permit me to ask, how are you
borne out by experience? Can it be denied that such
persons as those of whom you speak, in general, either
openly disregard all religion, or without troubling them
selves to inquire upon the subject, profess, without indeed

76
paying much, if any, respect to its ordinances, to be
members of the church, established in the country in which
they may happen to live? Besides, how can you con
sistently say that such men would avoid the imputation of
infidelity; or that "under the veil of Socinianism, their
hardihood of speculation and audacity of conjecture, may
mask themselves from universal reprobation ?" Have you
not yourself virtually denied (p. 26) that there is any dif
ference between those whom you call Socinians, and Un
believers ; between those who reject Christian Doctrines in
omnibus, and those who reject them in toto ? And have
you not done all in your power to expose to " universal
reprobation," the creed, or the no-creed of Unitarians and
all who maintain it ? And a great service would you be
rendering to religion and virtue by so doing, if your calum
nious representation of Unitarianism could be substantiated;
if you could prove, as readily as you can assert, that it
" offers a friendly veil to hardihood of speculation and
audacity of conjecture ;" that it either is itself, (for I am not
certain that I clearly comprehend your meaning,) or that
it willingly employs " a menstruum which easily lowers the
terms of Scripture, and readily dissolves every plain, but
obnoxious precept ;" that "it conciliates not only the Pyr-
rhonist, but the profligate, both of whom, with a dethroned
Christ, and a despoiled and degraded Christianity," (i, e.
as you undoubtedly mean fa be understood, professing
Unitarianism) « may affect to be Christians, and find little
or nothing in their religion to condemn them."
It is impossible for any conscientious Unitarian, who
experiences the animating ahd the purifying influences of
his faith, to read this passage without feelings of indig
nation. I hesitate not to avow that such are my feelings ;

77
but they are mingled with sentiments of deep regret, that
one, from whose extensiye learning, correct taste, enlightened
understanding, and general urbanity of manners, every thing
fair, and candid, and honourable, might have been justly
expected, should thus violate truth and charity, in the
seryice of a party, and afford the sanction of his authority
to the revilings and the calumnies of ignorance and
•bigotry. You willj without doubt, contend that in drawing
this truly frightful picture of Unitarianism, you are
warranted by the concessions of some of its most distin
guished advocates. You have, in fact, in the passage on
which I am now animadverting, pressed Dr. Priestley
himself into the unholy and ungrateful service of confirm
ing your misrepresentations, and of passing the sentence of
condemnation on the principles he laboured to establish.
" Here, then," you say (p. 12) i. e. when the disputers of
this world reject the gospel as foolishness, yet are anxious
not to be reputed infidels, " Socinianism steps' in to offer
her friendly veil ; under which, hardihood of speculation
and audacity of conjecture, • may mask themselves from
universal reprobation. So shrouded — to use the language
of One who drew from the life, and whose accuracy in this
instance cannot be suspected — the new proselyte may attain
(if he :does not, already, possess) that ' cool unbiassed temper
of mind, in consequence . of becoming more indifferent to
religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of ,
it, which is necessary in order to judge truly concerning
particular tenets in religion !' "
It is much to be regretted, that while allowing the
praise of accuracy to Dr, Priestley, because it suited your

78
purpose, you should have neglected that virtue yourself.
The words which you mark as a citation from him, and by
which you endeavour to support your severe censure of
Unitarianism, are not his. I will accurately cite the passage
which you have misrepresented. It is this : " Besides, it
cannot be denied, that many of them, who judge so truly
concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that
cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming
more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes
and doctrines of it. Though, therefore, they are in a more
favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and
falsehood, they are not likely to acquire a zeal for what they
conceive to be the truth." (Discourses on Various Subjects,
p. 95. ) — Now, let the reader compare this extract, which I
have accurately given, with the passage which I have as
accurately transcribed from your Charge, and say whether
you have indeed, as you profess to have done, " used the
language of one who drew from the hfe ?" Where are the
words, which, by the distinction of inverted commas, you
designed to be taken as the words of Dr. Priestley ? Where
has he asserted, that indifference to religion in general ¦ is
" necessary, in order to judge truly concerning particular
tenets in religion ?" The term necessary, which is of the
utmost importance in this passage, is not to be found in the
original ; nor is the idea it conveys, expressed there. In the
sentence which you profess to quote, Dr. Priestley barely
states the fact, that many speculative Unitarians have at
tained to a cool and unbiassed temper of mind, in conse
quence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general.
In the next, which you have not quoted, he allows, indeed,
that they are thus placed in a situation more favourable for
distinguishing between truth and falsehood ; but he does
not even hint at this situation as being necessary for this

79
purpose ; nor does he afford you the slightest ground for
the sarcastic exclamation in your note, (p. 61,) "Alas!
what must that religion be, to which the best introduction
is, to have no religion at all !" Dr. Priestley's object, in the
passage from which you have so unfairly cited, was to state
a fact, and to assign what he conceived to be the cause of
it. The fact is, that when he published the Discourse, in
the Preface to which that passage occurs, there were many
who professed Unitarian opinions, but felt little zeal for
their support, and were therefore easily induced to desert
the religious societies to which they nominally belonged.
The cause of this he conceived to be, that their religion was
only speculative ; that their indifference to religion in general,
and to all the modes and doctrines of it, had produced in
them so cool and unbiassed a temper, that they could readily
distinguish between true and false doctrine ; but, at the
same time, prevented the just and desirable effect of truth
on their affections and their lives. " Consequently," as he
goes on to observe, " when they are satisfied with respect to
any controverted question, concerning which they may have
had the curiosity to make some inquiry, they presently dis
miss the subject from their thoughts ; and thus, never read
ing and thinking about it, except when it is casually men
tioned, they are not in the way of being interested in it, and
cannot be expected to make any great sacrifices to it." Very
far indeed is Dr. Priestley from asserting, that such an
indifference is essential to the reception of Unitarianism, or
from approving of it. On the contrary, he laments that it
should, in any instance, be found amongst those who call
themselves Unitarians ; and it is the object of the Discourse,
to which these remarks are prefixed, to recommend the
adoption of such measures in Unitarian societies, as should
excite and cherish a different spirit, and render all the

80
members of such societies, zealous and practical Christians.
He proposes that the ends which the Apostles had in view,
in forming Christian societies, should still be pursued.
" They," he observes, " chiefly respected the ultimate and
proper object of Christianity, which was the forming of
good men, men fearing God, and conscientiously discharging
the moral duties of life, as preparatory to that immortal
state, which it was the great object of Christianity fully to
reveal to us. Without this they considered a man to be as
effectually unqualified for being a member of a Christian
society, as if he had been an unbeliever; because his
nominal belief of Christianity had no proper influence on
his behaviour in life. All Christians ought to be persons
whose light should shine before men, that others may see
their good works. They ought to provoke to love and to
good works, and not suffer sin in each other ; making con
verts to Christianity by their lives, no less than by their
doctrine and arguments." Now, Sir, is this a menstruum
which can readily dissolve every plain but obnoxious pre
cept ? In such a religion, is there little or nothing to
condemn the Pyrrhonist and the profligate ?
It is true that Dr. Priestley does admit, as you observe,
(p. 61,) that the connexion between the belief of the mere
humanity of Christ (or, to use his own words, " between
the simple truth that Christ was hot the supreme God him
self,") and a Christian life, is very slight. Ahd are you
prepared to say that such is not the case with respect to
any other doctrine — that of the Deity of Christ, for instance,
of Original Sin, or of the Atonement ? May not these be
taken up merely as matters of speculation? No doctrine
whatever, so embraced, little attended to, and not carefully
applied to some practical end, however pure and orthodox

81
it may be esteemed, will have any other than a very slight
connexion with a Christian life. I have no doubt Sir,
that your knowledge of mankind will enable you to apply
this maxim of Dr. Priestley, which you appear to cite as
unfavourable to Unitarianism, to the doctrines of your own
Church, and of every other religious sect.
That indifference to religion in general is more favour
able than a zealous attachment to some particular form of
religion to the perception of speculative religious truth,
(which is all that Dr. Priestley means to assert) is a position
which will not be questioned by those who have any know
ledge of the human mind, or any experience of human life.
" There is no person," it has been well observed, " who,
were he to choose one to whom he would convey instruction
on any point, would not choose one who knew nothing of
the point, rather than one whose ideas and opinions lie
against it. Were he, for instance, to choose one whom he
would instruct in the true system of the world, according
to the modern discoveries, he would sooner choose one who
was a stranger to philosophy, than one who had deeply
imbibed a false philosophy, and was skilled in all the
methods of defending it. The former would have nothing
to do but to learn and improve : the latter, on the contrary,
would have a great deal to unlearn, and it would be neces
sary to empty and to alter his whole mind before he could
be made a proper subject for instruction, or a proper recep
tacle for truth." * This remark, the justice of which must
be universally admitted, is equally applicable to subjects
of religious inquiry. No one can feel deeply interested

" Price's Sermons on various Subjects, p. 8.
a

82
about religion, without attaching himself to one of the
numerous parties, into which the religious world is divided :
and partisans are, in general, very ill qualified to distinguish
between truth and error. On the principle of Dr. Priest
ley's maxim, I am fully persuaded you would act. Were
you desirous of making converts from the Roman Catholic
Church, to what class of its members would you direct
your labours? To the zealous or to the indifferent?
Could you hope for success in a college of Jesuits — or
even among the labouring and conscientious parish Priests ?
Would you no"t rather apply yourself to those whose edu
cation you had reason to believe had been such as to create
in them no decided prejudices, to form in them no strong
religious habits ; whose indifference to religion in general,
would insure that cool and unbiassed temper of mind,
which would be favourable to a patient hearing, and an
impartial investigation of the arguments you had to propose ?
Among these, if they were men of good sense, you might
make converts to the Protestant faith; while the pious
devotee, the sole object of whose life was to please God,
and to work out his salvation, in the way prescribed to him
by his spiritual guides, would turn a deaf ear to you,
" charm you never so wisely," — Would you bring any
within the pale of the National Church, from the numerous
sects of Protestants who dissent from it, to whom would
you propose your arguments in favour of episcopacy ? To
those who had the reputation of being rigid Dissenters,
who from education, long-cherished habits, connexions in
life, or station in their respective religious societies, were
strongly attached to the principles and the discipline of
non-conformity ; or to those, who nominally, indeed,
Dissenters discovered little or no acquaintance with the
grounds of dissent, and little attachment to their party •

whose general conduct betrayed a love of the world, and
an indifference to religion ? From such only could you
reasonably expect to gain converts. — Men cannot form a
judgment on points to which they will pay no attention.
And what attention could you expect from a bigoted
Catholic, or a rigid Dissenter? They would most pro
bably treat your arguments, as' High-Churchmen treat
those of Dissenters and Unitarians : they would not listen
to them. They would not read Church of England
divinity, as you will not read Dissenting divinity. But
Catholics and Dissenters, who had little or no attachment
to religion in general, or to any of its forms, might be
persuaded to attend to you, and attending, might be con
vinced ; and from being, nominally, Catholics and Dissenters,
might become, nominally, Churchmen.
This incontrovertible maxim is perfectly consistent with
that which our blessed Lord has sanctioned, in quoting
which, as your manner is, you have widely departed from
his words, which are not " He that doeth my will," — but
" If any man will do His will (i. e. the will of my Father)
he shall know of the doctrine, &c." It is one thing to
judge of the divine origin and authority of a doctrine,
taught by one who lays claim to the character of a prophet,
at the time of its delivery ; and another and a very different
thing, to examine which of many conflicting schemes, all
pretending to be that very doctrine, bears the mqst decisive
resemblance to the original. It is one thing to embrace a
system of religious truth, the open avowal of which leads
to obloquy, persecution, the loss of worldly substance, if
no,t of life itself; another and a very different thing to
decide amidst contending sects, all professing to maintain
that truth, when the decision is attended with no personal
g2

84
danger or inconvenience. In the one case, an ardent love
of God, a sacred devotedness to his will, a perfect indiffer
ence to the world, are qualifications essentially requisite ; m
the other, nothing more is necessary than calm attention,
and a sound, unbiassed, judgment. Yet, even in our Lord's
days, " publicans and harlots entered into the kingdom of
heaven" before the strictest Pharisee : they who violated the
law under which they were living, before those who were
most careful to observe its minutest requisitions. No doubt,
the pious and virtuous man, as such, possesses great advan
tages in the investigation of religious truth, above the irre
ligious and the indifferent ; but if the good man brings
with him to the important investigation, as I apprehend he
most commonly does, a mind strongly biassed by education
and various other circumstances, in favour of a particular
system of religious doctrines, he is not so well qualified to
form an impartial judgment, as one who, though he may
not be so .much under the influence of religious principle, is,.
at the same time, free from the misleading influence of any
preconceived opinions.
The passage which has drawn forth these animadver-l
sions, is not, I am sorry to say, the only instance of the
perversion of Dr. Priestley's words, with which you are
chargeable. In another note on one part of that passage,
you observe, (p. 60,) " By Dr. Priestley we are informed,
that ' the greater part of his philosophical acquaintance^
ridiculed his belief of Christianity.' See the Preface to his

• They do not seem, then, to have acknowledged " the accordance of the
dogmas of his No-Creed with philosophical prejudices ;" or, to have " masked, or
shrouded themselves, under the friendly veil of Socinianism.''

85
Letters to Mr. Bum, and the Note. And yet Dr. P. in a
letter to Mr. Lindsey, (dated Northumberland, April 23,
1800,) says of the President Jefferson, ' If he is an Unbe
liever, he cannot be far from us.1 " The interpretation
which your readers will naturally put upon this last sentence,
(which they will, of course, regard as an accurate quota
tion of Dr. P's words ;) and the interpretation, which,
from the following part of your note, you evidently intend
they should put upon it, is, that Dr. P. himself, acknow-
ledges,- that Unitarianism and infidelity are closely connected ;
that, by being an unbeliever, a man makes the nearest possi
ble approach to Unitarianism. If it were, as you have de
clared it to be, one characteristic of Unitarians, that " they can
misrepresent, or garble, the statements of their adversaries,"
(p. 9>) they might congratulate themselves, should they be
disposed to regard it as a subject for congratulation, that the
Archdeacon of Cleveland is not far from them. Dr. Priest
ley^ words, fairly quoted, and taken in their proper con
nexion, will convey no such sentiment as you wish to be
attributed to them. The letter to Mr. Lindsey, in which
they occur, enclosed a copy of a letter from Mr. Jefferson tb
Dr. Priestley, acknowledging the receipt of a work presented
to him by Dr. P., entitled " Socrates and Jesus Compared,'"
and containing a brief sketch of his view of the Christian
system. In this sketch, Mr. Jefferson pronounces a very
high eulogium on the founder of Christianity, and speaks
of" the unthinking part of mankind as throwing off the
system in disgust, and passing sentence, as an impostor, on
the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent,
and sublime character, that was ever exhibited to mankind."
Dr. Priestley thus writes to his friend, Mr. Lindsey : — " In
my last, I promised to send you a copy of Mr. Jefferson's
letter, on reading my pamphlet, entitled, ' Socrates and
g3

86
Jesus Compared: The above is that copy. He is generally
considered as an unbeliever : if so, however, he cannot be far
from us ; and I hope, in the way to be not only almost, but
altogether, what we are. * He now attends public worship
very regularly, and his moral conduct was never impeached."
Now, I ask, what is the interpretation which every candid
reader would give to the sentence you have quoted ? What, in
deed, is the interpretation which alone it will bear ? Is it not,
that although Mr. Jefferson might possibly be, as it was
generally supposed, an unbeliever, yet the view he had
taken of the Christian doctrine, and of the character of its
Founder, was such as to justify the hope, that he would
soon become avowedly a Christian. Is there no disinge-
nuousness and unfairness, in thus taking a passage out of
its connexion, and perverting its plain and obvious meaning ?
And you, who can make so much of a forsooth, a to be sure,
a vouchsqfe, and even a note qf admiration, could hardly
be unaware of the force of the little word however, which
you carefully suppressed in your quotation. This was pru
dently done, no doubt, whether honestly or not, let the
reader determine.
You have referred your readers to the Preface of Dr.
Priestley's Letters to Mr. Bum. If the friends of Dr. P.
could imagine that you really desired that your readers
should avail themselves of this reference, they might offer
you their thanks ; as a perusal of that Preface, and of the
Letters themselves, would do much to counteract the effect

* A Christian, undoubtedly. Dr. P. had evidently in his mind, the wish
expressed by Paul before Agrippa. (Acts, xxvi. 29.) He was not thinking
of Unitarianism.

87
of your misrepresentations, and to allay the prejudices which
you have laboured to keep alive against this distinguished
writer, and most excellent man. But, no doubt, you know
the temper of those for whom you write, too well, to be
under any apprehension, that they would trouble themselves
to turn to the reference. For such, however, as may conde
scend to notice these pages, I will transcribe a note, con
nected with the passage which you have cited from that
Preface. It contains some facts, which ought to be re
garded as of no little importance. " When I was at Paris*"
observes Dr. Priestley, " after a very free and serious con
versation on the subject of religion, I was told by one of
the company, that I was the only person they had ever met
with, of whose understanding they had any opinion, who
pretended to believe Christianity : when I asked, what there
was in Christianity that appeared to them so very absurd,
as to make it altogether incredible ; they immediately men
tioned the doctrine qf the Trinity. An enemy, as I am
considered, to Christianity, by some, I have saved many
from that infidelity i into which the bigots are forcing them.
While I am writing this Preface, I receive a letter from a
man, (Robert Robinson.) whose abilities are universally
acknowledged to be of the first rate, with whom I had no pre
vious correspondence, who says, { I am indebted to you for
the little I know of rational, defensible, Christianity. But
for your friendly aid, I fear I should have gone on from
enthusiasm to deism ; but a faith, founded upon evidence,
rests on a rock.' — As a contrast to the conduct of many
bigots in this country, I shall further observe, that when I
was abroad, (in 1774,) a very sincere Catholic priest, hear
ing that on all occasions, I avowed my belief of Christianity,
embraced me with tears literally running down his cheeks,
saying, that all who were called philosophers, that he had
g 4

88
met with before, were atheists. I told him, that though I
was a Christian, I was, what he would call, a great heretic.
He replied, speaking English, ' No matter, you are a Chris
tian.' At home, where I ought to be better known, I am
considered as one who is assiduously undermining Chris
tianity."— Prg£ to Letters to Mr. Burn, Works, vol, xix.
p. 310— But Dr. P. might be, and, no doubt was, con
soled, by recollecting who it was that had cause to say,
even of himself, " A prophet is not without honour, save in
his own country, and in his own house." (Matt. xm. 57 ;
Luke iv. 24.)
Having already noticed the most serious of your charges
against Unitarians in general, respecting their alleged want
of reverence for the Scriptures, it will not be necessary to
say much in vindication of Dr. Priestley on this point. If
any one was inconsiderate enough to proclaim him " magna
nimous," for pronouncing the Mosaic history of the Creation
and Fall of Man, a '• lame account," (p. 25,) he did not
so esteem himself; but regretted that such an expression
had escaped from him, and retracted it. As to the other
expressions which you have attributed to him, (nqte 2, p. 41 ,)
since you have given no specific reference, and I do not
recollect to have met with them in any of his works, pardon
me, if I avow a suspicion that they are not accurately cited.
I am not, however, prepared to defend every position on the
subject of the knowledge, the inspiration, or the authority of
the sacred writers, that Dr. Priestley may have advanced ; or
to justify the manner in which he may have sometimes

* See his Defences of Unitarianism, for 1787, p. €5 — Works, vol. xviii.
p. 466.

89
stated opinions, the truth of which I admit. But I would
strenuously protest against the mode of attacking him on
this ground, adopted by Abp. Magee, and those* who like
yourself, are content, in the same warfare, to pick up and to
hurl the fragments of the weapons, (I cannot call them
splendid.) with which that right rev. champion has be
strewed the arena, (p. 3.) It is most illiberal and unjust.
The effect, and I fear, the designed effect, of the citation of
" a few unguarded expressions, arising from the haste and
warmth of controversy, or the ardour of investigation," is
to lead to the conclusion, that Dr. Priestley treated the
Sacred Writings with contempt, as worthy of little credit,
and destitute of all authority, in respect either of faith or
practice. But nothing can be further from the truth, than
such a conclusion. For, though he might occasionally
indulge in speculations, on which a less bold and ardent
mind would not have entered ; or the results of which, a
more cautious lover of free inquiry and of truth, would have
kept to himself; though, as I apprehend, from- mistaking
the meaning of the sacred writers on some points, he
may have erroneously questioned their accuracy; yet,
it is not too much to be said, that few men have more
highly valued the Scriptures, or contributed more to render
them truly valuable and useful to mankind. He strenuously
and successfully defended them from the attacks of unbe
lievers ; he warmly recommended them to the serious and
constant attention of professing Christians. It formed a
regular part of his public services, as a Christian minister,
to read and explain them to his people ; and he has
left for the instruction of other religious societies, and of
private families, a valuable body of notes, composed for
that service, on the whole of the Bible. By the daily study
of the Scriptures, from the beginning to the close of

90
life, * he formed and cherished that spirit of habitual devo
tion, which not only breathes in all his practical writings,
but, as those who knew him will testify, was so distinguish
ed a part of his character. By the Scriptures he professed
to be directed and guided in every scene of active duty ; and
to them he looked, and not in vain, in every season of trial and
suffering, and on the bed of sickness and death, for conso
lation, and hope, and joy. The few strong expressions,
upon which the enemies of this truly good man have
laid so great a stress, and of which they have taken such
an unfair advantage, do not exhibit the general strain of his
writings, in reference to the Scriptures Let any serious,
candid enquirer, read his devotional and practical works, and
even those of a controversial and speculative nature, and he
will feel a very different impression on his mind from that
which these few unguarded, and often misrepresented, ex
pressions are adapted to make. And, surely, the character
of an author should be judged by the general spirit and
tendency of his writings ; not by a few phrases carefully
selected to serve a party purpose. By this test, let Dr.
• In the very interesting and edifying account of his death, written by his
eldest son, fhebiographer says, " On Sunday," (the day before he died,) " He
was much weaker, and only sat up in his armed chair while his bed was made.
He desired me to read to Wm the 11th chapter of John. I was going on to
read to the end of the chapter, but he stopped me at the 45th verse. He dwelt
for some time on the advantage he had derived from reading the Scriptures
daily, and advised me to do the same ; saying, that it would prove to me, as
it had done to him, a source of the purest pleasure."— Memoirs of Dr. Priestley,,
vol. i. p. m. -The whole account of that solemn scene, which, it is acknow
ledged, " conveys but a very inadequate idea of the composure and cheerfulness
of the last moments" of this truly pious man, deserves the attention, not only of
unbelievers, to whom the' biographer recommends it, but of those who have
formed their opinion of him,, from the misrepresentations and calumnies of His
theological adversaries.

91
Priestley's reverence for the Scriptures be tried ; and his
warmest friends and admirers will have no fear as to the
result. But with the writings of this excellent person, whose
memory you have studied to injure, you, Sir, have given
abundant proof, that you have a very limited acquaintance.
Nor have you formed, nor, as I conceive, can you form, a just
estimate of his character. You could not, otherwise, have
supposed, (p. 44,) that "in the loneliness of his trans-atlantic
exile, the fluctuating philosopher, (as you are pleased sneer-
ingly to call him,) on contrasting the merited success of his
physical speculations with his detected failures in religious
controversy, must have bitterly regretted the moment, when
he exchanged the peaceful retirement of his laboratory, for
the virulent bickerings of a schismatical theology." I envy
not the feelings that can move any one to speak with cold
indifference, if not with complacency, of an event which
ought to awaken the sympathy of all, but especially of men
of science and letters ; * and which will ever reflect disho-

• With no such flippancy and apparent want, of feeling, does a celebrated
French philosopher speak, in reference to this occurrence, and of the character
of this excellent person : —
" Extreme ardour in defending his sentiments, rendered him the object of
implacable hatred. He was long exposed to every species of calumny ; he was
frequently the victim of inhuman persecution. A mob, excited by the false
hoods of his enemies, destroyed, in one day, the fruit of all his labours ; and it
was only by quitting his country, that he found it possible to abate the fury of
his persecutors. But, when his own countrymen seemed to abandon him, seve
ral nations came forward to offer him an honourable asylum 5 and even at this
moment, whilst the principal literary institution of a people, at war with his
native country, is rendering him, by my mouth, the last sad tribute which is
paid to all its members, I behold within these walls, many whom he has

92
nour upon thc age and country in which it was allowed to
take place. But, whatever satisfaction it may afford you,
to reflect on the unmerited exile into which the venerable
confessor was driven by the fury of a high-church mob, I
beg leave t0 assure you, that what you have figured to
yourself, as the employment of his mind there, is altogether
delusive and visionary. The theology to which his attention
was devoted, and which you are pleased to call " schis
matical," was of the most important and useful kind : the
evidences of Revelation, the primitive doctrines of the

opposed, who are yet uniting with me, and completing his triumph, by their
generous praise.
" His enemies vented their malice, by publishing the vilest calumnies, in
periodical writings and political pamphlets. We meet with few examples of
such violent hatred; and this inhuman desire to blacken the character of a man,
who did so much honour to his native country, would be inexplicable, if we had
not seen, in the last fifteen years," (this was written in 1 806) " so many in
stances of the effect of parly spirit in poisoning the mind ; and, if fifteen cen
turies had not shewn with what fury those inVectivea are uttered, whose pretext
is of a sacred nature. Nothing in Priestley's disposition, seems calculated to
inspire such enmity. The controversies in which he engaged, had no influence
on his feelings : far from being haughty or turbulent, his conversation displayed
all the modesty apparent in his writings. Nothing was easier to him, than to
say, « I know not:' words which could not be uttered without great pain, by
the generality of men, who are learned by profession.
" His last moments witnessed the effusions of that piety, which had ani
mated his whole life. — He requested to have a part of the New Testament read
to him : afterwards, he thanked God for granting him a life of usefulness and
a peaceful death. ' I am going to sleep, like you,' said he to his grandchildren
who were brought to him ;" (on the night before he died ;) « • but we shall all
awake together,' added he, looking at the persons who were attending him, ' and
I hope, to eternal happiness.' Such was the end of this man, "whom his ene
mies had so long accused of attempting to Overthrow all religion and morality."
-Cuvier', Eulogy of Dr. Priestley, at the Public Silting of tlK National Institute

93
Gospel, the history of the Christian Church, the principles
of religious liberty, the present duties, and the future
expectations of man. The great object, which, as a theolo
gian, he pursued, was to make those who would attend to
him, enlightened, zealous, and practical Christians : to shew
them on what a stable ground their faith was founded; to
persuade them to admit into their creed, no other doctrines
than those which Christ and his apostles had delivered ; and
to urge them to honour their Christian profession by a holy,
a virtuous, and a useful life. If, in the pursuit of this great
object, he was assailed by any who could not acquiesce in
his representations of scriptural truth, he manifested the
utmost readiness to listen to every objection they had to
propose, and to examine it with the most perfect impar
tiality. He had no attachment. to any opinions, but so far
as they appeared to him to be true ; and was as ready to
relinquish what he could not justify, as he was firm in ad
hering to what he thought he could establish by sufficient
proofs. — " Virulent bickerings" is a phrase that cannot be
justly applied even to his warmest controversial writings.
He was no bickerer, no skirmisher. He engaged in what
he felt to be a momentous and an arduous contest, in defence
of genuine Christianity ; and he engaged in it with all his
might, fairly, honourably and, I will add, not without
success, — success as distinguished and as merited as any that
attended his physical speculations. Virulence belonged
not to him. His language may be occasionally strong, but
it is not bitter ; and the severest expressions he ever em
ploys, betray no resentment or malignity, but only a virtuous
indignation against groundless suspicions, misrepresentations,
and calumnies, tending at once to injure his own character,
and to impede the progress of truth. But whatever may
have been the nature of his theological controversies, he

94
could not regret the moment in which he exchanged
for them the peaceful retirement of his laboratory ; for
such an exchange was never made. From an early pe
riod of his life, till the last day of it, theology was his
favourite pursuit, and his laboratory the scene of his re
laxation from severer studies. Even " in the loneliness
of his trans-atlantic exile," he continued, with undimi
nished ardour, his researches, both as an experimental philo
sopher and a divine ; still anxious, as he had ever been, by
his success in the former, to procure the attention of men of
liberal and enlightened minds, to his numerous writings in
favour of revealed religion and genuine Christianity. He
might regret the stain which his country had brought upon
herself, by the obloquy and persecution he had suffered ;
he might regret thc cruel necessity by which he was com
pelled to seek refuge in a foreign land, and in the evening
of his days, far from long-valued friends and associates, and
all those sources of knowledge to which he had been accus
tomed to apply, not for his own gratification, but for the
public good : but it was with no sentiments of regret that
he looked back upon any of his pursuits, and least of all,
upon his theological labours. In these, he had engaged
with a single eye to the glory of God. Their fruits he was
permitted to witness in a more general and increasing atten
tion to the doctrine of the divine Unity, and other doctrines
connected with it, in the land of his exile, as well as in that
which gave him birth ; and, firmly believing that all events
are under the constant and benevolent superintendence of
Providence, he " looked back upon the evils to which he had
been occasionally exposed, without any resentment with
respect to men, and with gratitude to the Supreme Disposer
of all things, for the salutary discipline of which they had
been a part ;" and forwards, with joyful anticipation to a

95
future world, " whei*e all the evils, natural and moral,
incident to the present state, having answered the great
purpose of forming the mind to true excellence, will be done
away." * Such was the admirable state of his mind " in the
loneliness of his trans-atlantic exile !"
" From his contest with Bp. Horsley," you peremptorily
assert, (p. 44,) " he reaped nothing but defeat and ignominy."
How far you are qualified to proclaim the victor in
this memorable contest, will be better seen, when some other
of your assertions shall have been considered : — " He was
convicted," you say, " of reasoning in a circle, (or,
what his illustrious adversary elsewhere calls, ' the cir
culating syllogism,') of misapplying quotations, through
ignorance of the writer's subject; of perverting testi
monies, by artful and forced constructions; of misinter
preting passages in the Greek Fathers, through ignorance
of the Greek language, or through the same ignorance,
driven further out of the way, by an ignorance of the Pia-
tonic philosophy ; and of being unacquainted with the
phraseology of tlie earliest ecclesiastical writers." If, instead
of saying, " he was convicted," you been content with
saying, " he was accused" of these things," you would
have asserted no more than the truth: but, though
his illustrious adversary, with great boldness, and often
with great bitterness, advanced these charges against him,
he was not able to substantiate them. In his Introductory
Letter, in Answer to Dr. Horsley's animadversions on the
Corruptions qf Christianity, Dr. Priestley clearly proved
that he had not been guilty of using the ' circulating syllcv

1 Sec the Preface to his Notes on all the Books of Scripture, pp. xvtf. xviij,

96
gism ;' ahd, as to a knowledge of the Platonic philosophy,
and the phraseology of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, I
am greatly mistaken indeed, if any truly impartial person
ever rose from the perusal of the controversy between these
two illustrious disputants, without feeling persuaded, that
he was « not a whit behind" his boastful and contemptuous
adversary. With the candour which was so striking and
so characteristic a feature of his mind, Dr. Priestley acknow
ledged a few mistakes, into which, through inadvertency,
he had fallen, in his quotations from the Fathers ; but, at
the same time, he shewed that they were of comparatively
little importance, in no degree affecting the main parts of
the controversy, and the consequence of haste, not of
ignorance or artifice. Of wilful perversion of authorities,
of artful constructions of passages, to serve his cause, I
am confident he was altogether incapable. " I am not
conscious," said he to his accuser, * " of any unfairness in
any part of my proceedings, but have a perfect willingness
to bring before the public every thing that may enable them
to form a true judgment on the subject of this controversy.
If I knew of any circumstance favourable to your argument,
I would produce it as readily as I should do any thing in
favour of my own ; and I am as willing to detect my own
mistakes, as you, or any person, can be to do it for me.
For this, I appeal to the tenor of all my writings, and to
my general character, which, I will venture to say, is as fan-
as your's." After such a generous avowal, fully supported
by the whole course of that memorable contest, can it be
deemed candid or honourable to repeat, without any quali
fication, these accusations by Horsley ? The avowal must

• See Letters to Dr. Horsley, part ii. p. 189.— Works, vol. xviii. p. ',

97
undoubtedly, have escaped your recollection: perhaps it
never met your eye.
You proceed in the sarcastic, contemptuous style, which
marks almost every page, to say, " Yet Dr. Priestley
must try his hand at Improved Versions of parts of the New
Testament! e. g. I John iv. 2. Iijo-ow Xptc-w EN o-apyu
thrfavfyTa, which we render, ' Jesus Christ come in the flesh,'
he translates, ' Jesus Christ come of the flesh' ; making
simply the difference of an Incarnation and a mortal extrac
tion ! To be sure, there is no support to be found for this
Version in the, Greek text, scrutinised through all it's
MSS- » but then St- John, like St. Paul, might ' in reason
ing be inconclusive, (Hist, qf Corruptions, ii. 370,) or in
language inaccurate, and therefore require the supervisal of
a corrector never convicted qf either .'" But this sarcasm,
at least, migln) fyave, been spared ; and it ought to haye been
spared ; for it is founded on a misrepresentation. Dr.
Priestley, did not try his hand at an Improved Version of
this passage in John. This charge against him is not your
own : like all the rest which you have advanced, it is bor
rowed ; and it here appears in almost the same words in
which it was originally laid by the Archdeacon of St.
Albans. * But what said Dr. Priestley in reply ? About this

• The following is the passage, as it stands in the Archdeacon of St. Albans
Charge : — " It appears, that to confess that " Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh," and to affirm that Jesus Christ is truly a man, are propositions not per
fectly equivalent. Dr. Priestley, indeed, hath shewn himself very sensible of
the difference. He would not otherwise have found it necessary, for the im
provement of his argument, in reciting the third verse of the fourth chapter of
St. John's First Epistle, to change the expressions which he found in the public
translation, for others which corresppnd far less exactly with the Greek text.
H

98
you either gave yourself no trouble; or judiciously ab
stained from troubling your readers with it. They ought
not, however, to remain uninformed. " I am sorry, Sir,
he observed in his Letters to Dr. Horsley, "• that my
printer, or my own mistake, should have given you all this
trouble in consulting MSS., &c. I do assure you, I had
no knowledge of having made a change of a single word, in
copying that text, nor should I have wished to have made
any change at all in it ; thinking, that as it now stands, it
is quite as much for my purpose as that which you suppose
I have purposely substituted in its place. Had you thought
me capable of an attempt of this kind, you should not have
ascribed to me, as you have done, the greatest purity qf
intention; in all that I have written on this subject." *
As an advocate for Dr. Priestley, I may surely be per
mitted to ask, whether you knew that he had thus vindicated
himself? If you did, was it candid, or indeed, just, to
repeat the accusation, and take no notice of the defence ?
Or, knowing that Dr. Priestley had disclaimed the design

For the words " Jesus Christ is come IN the flesh," Dr. Priestley substitutes
these : " Jesus Christ is come OF the flesh." That he is come IN the flesh,
and that he is come OF the flesh, are two very distinct propositions. The one
affirms an incarnation, the other a mortal extraction. The first is St. John's
assertion ; the second is Dr. Priestley's. Perhaps Dr. Priestley hath discovered
of St. John, as of St. Paul, that his reasoning is sometimes inconclusive, (Mist.
of Corruptions, vol. ii. p. 370,) and his language inaccurate ; and he might think
it no unwarrantable liberty to correct an expression, which, as not perfectly
corresponding with his own system, he could not entirely approve. It would
have been but fair to advertise his readers of so capital an emendation.— an
emendation for which no support is to be found in the Greek text, nor even in
the varieties of any MSS.'' — Tracts in Controv, -with Dr. Priestley, p. 16, 17.
* Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 11.— Works, vol. xviii. p. S3.

99
of altering the common version in this place, did you, with
his ungenerous adversary, deem his word unworthy of cre
dit ? Even in that case, were you not in honour bound, to
assign some reason for refusing to admit his exculpation ?
But I cannot persuade myself to believe that it was known
to you. I cannot suppose, for a moment, that you would
have renewed the charge, if you had been aware of the ex
istence of the vindication. Here, as in most other instances,
you shew yourself to be acquainted with the writings only
on one side. You may be conversant with the works of
Horsley ; — to Priestley's you are a stranger. Does it then
become you to decide upon the respective merits of those
illustrious disputants ? Are you qualified to declare, with
so much confidence, that " from his contest with Bp. Hors
ley, Dr. Priestley reaped nothing but defeat and ignominy ?"
I deny your competency for the office of umpire, and affirm
that the decision is unjust. From a careful attention to the
whole of that interesting controversy — interesting, both from
the subjects discussed, and the talents of the disputants, I have
been long since led to an opposite conclusion ; and I maintain,
and am ready to prove, that the victory was rightly claimed
by Dr. Priestley. On one or two points of minor importance,
I allow that he was foiled : but on every leading question, and
especially on that which formed the chief topic of discussion,
the existence qfa church of Orthodox Hebrew Christians at
JElia, he was decidedly and triumphantly victorious. It
would be obviously improper to extend my Letter, already
perhaps too long, by stating the grounds of this decision ;
and it is unnecessary. The subject has been treated with
his characteristic perspicuity and force of argument, by my
venerable friend, Mr. Belsham ; and if I did not too well
know the power of prejudice, I should say, that no one
h 2

100
could peruse what he has written upon it, without coming
to the same conclusion. *
To what a dearth of matter for crimination must you
have felt yourself reduced, when you condescended to bor
row for this purpose, a portion of a note, added by Dr.
Horsley to his First Letter, in Reply to Dr. Priestley, when
he published the Collection of his Tracts. For such is the
next passage that occurs, in page 44, with only two or three
minute verbal alterations, and the addition of that import
ant auxiliary, a mark of admiration. And what is this ad
ditional charge ? That " Dr. Priestley, in one of his Letters
to Dr. Horsley, attempts to prove that Clement of Alex
andria, though himself no Unitarian, might (for aught any
one now knows to the contrary) have said something in
behalf of the Unitarians, in his lost Work of the * Hypoty-
poses ' !" To notice such a cavil is no agreeable employment ;
as wearisome to me, as I fear it will be to my readers ; yet
I cannot properly forbear. Though an ancient work be
lost, may it not be possible, from remaining testimonies by
ancient authors, as to its nature and design; from the
known character of the author, and of other works of his
still existing ; from the opinions of the times, and various
other circumstances, to form some highly probable conjee?
tures respecting the contents of that work ? and may not a
writer on the side of one party, be compelled to make such
admissions or concessions, as shall, in fact, be favourable to
th^ cause to which he is opposed ? These things, you must

* See Calm Inquiry, 3d Edit. p. 370, &c. ; Letters totheBp. of St. David's,
annexed to a Letter to the Unitarian Christians in South Wales; and the
Claims of Dr, Priestley, &c. in Reply to the Rev. Heneage Horsley, &c.

101
surely allow, may happen ; and Dr. Priestley, therefore,
may not have been guilty of the weakness and absurdity
which, I conceive, you mean to lay to his charge, in argu
ing from a lost work, and in conjecturing that an orthodox
Father gave evidence in favour of a heterodox party. His
own words, indeed, will shew, that he has advanced nothing
but what is perfectly reasonable. " Though Clemens Alex-
andrinus," he observes, " was not an Unitarian, yet he
never calls Unitarians heretics ; and since, in his accounts
of heretics in general, which are pretty frequent in his
works, he evidently means the Gnostics only, and therefore,
virtually excludes Unitarians from that description of men,;
it is by no means improbable, but that in those writings of
his which are lost, * he might have said things directly in
favour of Unitarians." — Letters to Dr. Horsley, part ii. p.
196. — Works, vol. xviii. p. 266. — Surely there is no ground
for caviling in these remarks.
That Dr. Priestley erroneously referred to Bp. Bull's
work, entitled Judicium Ecclesice CaihqUcw, 6ec. as con
taining a Defence of the Damnatory Clause in the Athana-
sian Creed, must be allowed. The whole of the sentence,
in which you allege this against him, (p. 44,) is also copied,
with the exception of a climax of marks of admiration, from
another note in Dr. Horsley's Collection qf Tracts, &c. p.
385, and consequently is a very exaggerated statement of
the fact. Dr. Priestley, without hesitation, acknowledges
that he was not perfectly correct ; but at the same time, shows

• Though the Hypotyposes must be included in those, Dr. Priestley does
not specify that work. The direct reference to it is made by Dr. Horsley
only.
H 3

102
that the error was of no consequence whatever, nor deserv
ing of a moment's consideration. Granting that " he had
become acquainted with that Prelate's works, in consequence
of their having been referred to by ' the ponderous erudi
tion' of his giant antagonist," he was not, on that account,
the less qualified to understand the doctrines of the New
Testament, or to decide concerning the opinions of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers. Admitting, also, that he was misled by
the title of one of Bp. Bull's works, and ascribed to it more
than it in fact contains, it only follows, that in that instance
he was too precipitate, and not sufficiently careful in examin
ing his ground. His inaccuracy did not affect the character
of the right rev. author ; who, though he does not defend the
Damnatory Cause in the Athanasian Creed, in his Judicium
Ecclesio?Catholic03,fyc. yet strenuously vindicates the Anathe
ma in the Nicene. But what shall we say of the ingenuous
ness of the giant antagonist, who, with his ponderous
erudition, not only pretended to an accurate knowledge of
a work, which he became acquainted with only by finding it
referred fo by Bp. Bull, but actually charged Dr. Priestley
with following the ¦" extravagant assertions," and employing
•the arguments it contains ; * and, when Dr. Priestley dis
claimed any knowledge of the work, taunted him with being
" little redde in the principal writers either on his own side
of the question, or the opposite f " Yet, of this work, by
Daniel Zuicker, Dr. Horsley knew no more than he had
found in the Defensio Fidei, dec. of Bp. Bull ; and as it
afterwards appeared, misrepresented it far more than Dr.
Priestley had misrepresented the Judicium Ecclesia? Catho
lics, Sec. f * Horsley's Charge, &c. Tracts, p. 7—9.
-j- " You charged me;" observes Dr. Priestley, " with having • produced few
if any, arguments, but what are to be found in the writings either of Zuicker
or Episcopius.' From this, it might naturally be concluded, that you had com-

103
After these impotent attempts to injure the reputation
wf a man, whose name will be had in grateful remembrance
as a friend of truth, religion, and virtue ; as an ornament
and a benefactor to his species, when no vestige of the exist
ence of many of his most bitter adversaries shall remain,
you wisely determine not " to go on." Yet you cannot
leave the pleasing subject, till you have sneeringly repeated
his memorable declaration to his friend Dr. Price, that " he
could not pretend to say when his creed would be fixed" : a
declaration which has been sarcastically cited a thousand
times ; but which, however it may be received by those who
are bound down to the belief and profession of a system of
articles of faith, to which many, I fear, subscribe their solemn
assent, before they have inquired into their accordance
with the words of revelation, will ever be esteemed by
those who are not held in such bondage, and the object of
whose pursuit is religious truth, as in the highest degree
ingenuous and noble — worthy of a man and a Christian.
You, at length, conclude this long vituperative note, by
impeaching his credit as an Ecclesiastical Historian, because
he has not introduced into his account of the origin of the

pared my arguments with, those of these, two writers, and had found them, to be
the same ; which implies that you had seen and perused their works. I enter
tained no doubt of it myself ; and taking it for granted that your lordship had
the work of Zuicker, or had access to it, (and it being a book that I had never
seen, and could not by any means procure,) I desired a common friend
to apply to you for it. Your answers, which were different at different times,
convinced him that you had never seen the book at all. It has since been sent
to me by a learned foreign correspondent, and I find Zuicker's views of the
•state of opinions in early times, so different from mine, that I am confident, if
you had ever seen his work, you had never read it : for if you had, you could
never have asserted that I had borrowed from him at all." — Letters to the Bishop
of St. David's, Let. iu  Works, vol. xix. pp. 18, ,19.
H 4

104
Christian Church, any notice of certain doctrines, the truth
of which he denied. Upon the very same ground, you
might question the authority of the great Father of Eccle
siastical History ; for I do not recollect that even Eusebius
of C&sarea, has dwelt upon all the topics to which you
refer. You might, indeed, object even to the Gospel by
Mark, for he, as well as Dr. Priestley, is silent respecting
any " extraordinary circumstances of the birth of the
Founder" of Christianity. I can readily allow, that there
are many points of Christian antiquity, on which a greater
depth of research might have been desirable ; and, with
respect to the later volumes, much allowance is required, and
much will be made by every candid reader, for the disadvan
tageous circumstances under which they were compiled,
arising unavoidably out of " the loneliness of his trans-atlan-
tic exile ;" but as a General History of the Church ; as con
taining a more just account of the progress of opinions con
cerning the person of Christ, and of the corruptions of
Christianity, than cah elsewhere be found ; and as "giving
young persons more especially an idea of the great value of
Christianity, by shewing its influence on the minds of those
who first received it, and how nobly it led them to think
and act," it will be acknowledged, by every impartial reader,
to be inestimable. Let the execution of the work be com
pared with the avowed design of the author, and that design
fairly appreciated, and every unprejudiced judge will know
what " to pronounce of the historian."
I cannot close this long Letter, without briefly adverting
to your attack on Mr. Belsham, (p. 41,) for having, as you
say, " in an unguarded burst, which it is painful to trans
cribe, represented the promised Messiah as a man, consti
tuted in all respects like other men, subject to the same

105
frailties, the same ignorance, prejudices, and frailties' ! ap-
pearing even to insinuate, that his ' private life' might pos
sibly have been less ' pure and unimpeachable' than his
public conduct ! !" To judge properly of this • unguarded
burst,' the reader must attend to Mr. Belsham's own words,
which are these : " 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 general declarations of his freedom from sin, esta
blish, or were intended to establish, the fact, that Jesus,
through the whole course of his private life, was 'completely
exempt from all the errors and frailties of human nature, is
a question of no great intrinsic moment, and concerning
which we have no sufficient data to lead to a satisfactory
conclusion." — Calm Inquiry, pt. i. § 5, p. 122, 2d edit. —
With my excellent friend, Dr. Carpenter, (to whose able
remarks, in reply to Magee, who misrepresented this pas
sage before you, I have already referred, (p. 55,) I cordially
agree, that " as Mr. Belsham thinks it is a question of no
great intrinsic moment, and hot to be decided, it might, for
the sake of others, have been left unmoved." And with
him, also, " I am sure that the discriminating, equitable
reader cannot but perceive, (1.) That by private life, Mr.
Belsham does not mean* (as the Bishop and yourself, n6t
Mr. B., seem to insinuate,) " what passed in private, during
our Lord's public ministry ; but in the period before his
baptism : (2.) That the expression, the errors and faiMngs
qf human nature, is clearly put in contra-distinction to sin :
(3.) That, therefore, Mr. Belsham's statement has no refer
ence whatever to sinful acts, but merely to such errors and
failings as cannot be considered as sin. " * To the judgment
• Carpenter's Reply to Magee, p. 278.

106
of the equitable and candid reader, I leave the passage
which it gave you pain to transcribe, because you did not
rightly interpret it ; only begging him to remember, at the
same time, what is the necessary consequence of our blessed
Lord's being, what even the believers in his Deity acknow
ledge him to have been, " perfect man ;" and also the autho
rity on which we are taught, that he " was in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin ;" and that, " though
he were a Son, yet learned ihe obedience by ihe things which
he suffered. *
I think I have now noticed all the serious charges you
have brought against Unitarians. If I have omitted any, I
believe they will not be found of much importance. I have
certainly passed by none from a conviction that they can
not be repelled. I may perhaps be blamed for dwelling
upon some, which might have been disregarded as altogether
frivolous and insignificant ; and I should have disregarded
them, had they proceeded from an inferior adversary. I
may also be thought to have dwelt too largely upon those
which demanded attention ; but this has been unavoidable :
for what Dr. Carpenter has said of the Abp. of Dublin is ap
plicable to yourself, with all who follow him, that " it is
one of the worst features of his controversial system, that
his misrepresentations are frequently so subtile, and his per
versions of our arguments so refined, that what occupies him
perhaps only a few hnes, may require pages to develope."
I regret the necessity of so lengthened a defence ; but if, in
pleading the cause of principles that I deem most sacred,
and of characters that I hold in high and merited honour,

• Heb. iv. IS 5 v. 8.

107
I have not been altogether unsuccessful, nor unmindful
of the spirit which becomes a disciple of Him, " who,
when he was reviled, reviled not again ;" while I trust that
my prolixity will be excused, I shall have no cause to regret,
that painful as the task has been, I have ventured to under
take it I am, Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant,
C. WELLBELOVED.

LETTER III.

" It is no wonder if men can accommodate Scripture expressions to their
own dreams and fancies : for when men's fancies are so possessed with schemes
and ideas of religion, whatever they look on, appears of the same shape and co
lour wherewith their minds are already tinctured. ..All the metaphors, and si
militudes, and allegories of Scripture, are easily applied to their purpose ; and
if any word sound like the tinkling of their own fancies, it is no less than a de
monstration that that is the meaning of the Spirit of God ; and every little
shadow and appearance doth mightily confirm them in their pre-conceived
opinions."— Dean Sherlock.
" To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him; and ONE Lokd Jesus Climax, by whom are all things, and
we by him." — Paul.
" For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man ;
the man Christ Jeisus." — Paul.

Revekend Sir,
I come now, as I proposed, to examine your defence of
the Creed of the Established Church, so far as it relates to
the doctrine of the Trinity. In doing this, I shall pursue
the same method as in my last Letter ; considering, in detail,
that part of your Charge, which you have devoted to this
subject ; and as I go along, adverting to such portions of
the Appendix and Notes, as are connected with that part.
But the examination must necessarily be much more brief
than might be desirable ; since, as you very justly observe,
" the hours required for the full discussion of so arduous a
subject, are matter of no light consideration to the already-

109
occupied student. Many and painful (to adopt, with you,
the words of Bp. Home) are the researches usually necessary
to be made for settling points of this kind. Pertness and
ignorance * may ask a question in three lines, which it will
cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer." (p. 27.)
A volume, and that not a small one, might easily be filled,
by a complete consideration of all the topics which are intro
duced into this part of your Charge. While I notice all,
or the greater part of them, I must be content to dwell only
on the most important. My business must be not so much
to establish Unitarian interpretations and views, as to endea
vour to shew the weakness of those supports on which you
have placed the cause of orthodoxy.
Having, with what truth and justice let the candid reader
decide, described the doctrine of Unitarians, you turn round
and exclaim, (p. 13,) " And shall we yield to such a system,
from a contempt of the unfair modes of warfare used by it's
abettors, an uncontested field ? When, taunting us with the
' mysteries' of orthodoxy, they aim to smite us on one cheek,
shall we offer to them ihe other also ? Or, rather, shall we
not teach them that what they simply regard as their exclu
sive and self-evident tenet, the Unity of the God-head» de
pends for it's certainty, upon the testimony of the Scriptures ;
and that the unity of Design, which pervades the natural
world, proves only — to adopt the definition of our own lumi
nous Paley — a 'unity of Counsel ?' What reason, in fact,
have we for imagining that the Unity of God resembles,
in any respect, that of a mere creature ? To the Scriptures

* Here I willingly and sincerely repeat your words also, '* that I as little
apply these terms to my opponent, as those immediately following to myself."

110
alone can we resort for information." That we simply, or
as I suppose you mean, sillily, foolishly * regard the Unity
of the God-head, as our exclusive tenet, I am not disposed
to allow, till it shall be proved that there is not an essential
difference between a God-head, consisting of three Minds,
Persons, Hypostases, or by whatever other title they may
be designated, and however strict and harmonious then-
union may be supposed to be, and a God-head consisting
of one undivided Mind or Person. This last appears to us,
alone consistent with the true notion of Unity, and it is ex
clusively the tenet of Unitarians. We are ready to acknow
ledge that it does depend for its certainty upon the testi
mony of the Scriptures, and to them, alone, we usually
resort for information. But, notwithstanding the authority of
" your own luminous Paley," whose definition, or concession,
relates rather to the question between Monotheists and Poly-
theists, than to that between Unitarians and Trinitarians,
we think that it may also be very satisfactorily deduced from
the principles "of natural religion : and further, that we are
warranted in arguing concerning the nature of the Unity of
God from analogy ; and in conceiving of it, according to that
notion of Unity, which observation, experience, and reason
lead us to form. In this manner we are satisfied, and in
deed compellecLto reason and to judge respecting other truths
relating to the Divine nature.

• By such terms, and even worse, according to Dr. Horsley, the ancient
Unitarians were described by the orthodox dignitaries of their days ; Simplkes,
imprudentes, idiotte, i. e. Simple, ignorant persons, idiots : for thus that very
learned writer rendered the last term ; thus rivalling Anthony Collins, the Deist,
who translated Victor's Ab Idiotis Evangelistit, by Idiot-Evangelists ; for doing
which he received due castigation from Dr. Bentley, as did the Archdeacon of
St. Albans from Dr. Priestley.

Ill
I am not aware, however, that Unitarians dwell much:
upon proofs drawn from natural religion. Their chief re
liance is on the Bible, " and there," you observe, (p. 14,)
" in the very first page, we meet with terms applied to the
Supreme Being, which inseparably combine the ideas of
Plurality and Unity ; termsj which gratuitous hypotheses of
Orientalism, of the ordinary style of Royal Proclamations,
or of the association of Angels, in the acts and decrees of
Omnipotence, are vainly adduced to explain. To this argu
ment no little strength accrues from the consideration, that
those Scriptures were especially designed to counteract poly
theistic tendencies in the people, to whom they were prima
rily delivered. Why then, it may be inquired, are plural
appellations so frequently employed, in the original Hebrew,
to designate the Godhead?" The answer is obvious,
though, in the first part of this paragraph you refuse to ad
mit it. It is an Orientalism, and such appellations do not
inseparably combine the ideas of Plurality and Unity.
That so much stress should be still laid upon the use of
plural forms of names and phrases, after it has been so fre
quently and satisfactorily explained, not by controversial
writers alone, but also by orthodox Hebrew grammarians ;
and the argument deduced from them rejected by Calvin
himself, and various other Trinitarian commentators, is
perfectly astonishing. * The ancient Christian Fathers, even

" Thus the learned Hebrew grammarian Schraider says, " Observanda est
ilia Hebrrei sermonis proprietas, qua pluralis, tarn masculinus, quam foemininus,
usurpari potest de una re, qua:, in suo genere, magna est et quodam modo ex-
cellens j ut OW maria pro rnari magna ; D^n dracones, pro dracone prcegrandi ;
OWN domini, pro domine magna et potente; 3'nVs numina, pro rmmine
aimedum colendo ; D'ttHp sancti, pro deo sanctissimo ; ni3» plagte, pro plaga

112
those who understood, Hebrew, as Origen and Jerome, never
discovered a proof of the Trinity in these plural appella
tions. It was, I believe, first suggested in the twelfth cen
tury, by Peter Lombard ; and is worthy the subtlety of the
Master qf the Sentences. Your own Dawson has more
justly decided, that " no mystery lies hid in this" idiom ;

gravi; nxynifamina, pro futmine magno," Su:.—Institutiones ad Fund. Ling.
Heir. See also Starr. Obss. ad Anal, et Synt. Hebr. p. 97—99.
" Pluralis forma apud Hehraios de singularibus magnis ct prcestantibus
usurpari solet, unde pluralis mojestaticus vulgo audit, quem jam h. 1. ex Rabbims
Rab. Bechai et Abenesra admiserant, quemque non apud occidentales solum, sed
et apud orientales populos vigere monstratum ad Coccei Lex. Hebr. p. 58.
Plurales ejusmodi ob terminationem nonnunquam ut plurales, tractantur : pie;
rumque tamen ob significationem singularem, cum singularibus construuntur."
—Schulzii Schol. in Gen. i. 1.
The words of Calvin, who " persecuted the way of Unitarianism unto death,"
are these : — " Ex plurali Elohim colligere solcnt, sic in Deo notari plures,
perspnas, sed qiria mihi parum solida videtur tanta? rei probatio, ego in voce non
insistam. Monendi itaque sunt Lectores ut sibi a viplentis ejusmodi glossis
caveant. Putant illi se testimonium habere adversos Arianos, ad probandam
Filii et Spiritus sancti divinitatem, intcrea involvunt se in errorem Sabellii :
quia postea subjicit Moses, Elohim loquutum esse, et Spiritum Elohim incubu-
isse aquis. Si tres personas notari placet, nulla erit earum distinctio. Scquitur
enim et filium a se genitum, et spiritual non esse Patris, sed sui ipsius."— Calvin.
Comment, in toe— .Many learned writers, both Catholics and Protestants, have
indeed declared their full conviction, that these plural terms contain no evidence
of a plurality of Persons in the God-head. Amongst these may be reckoned
Cajetan, Sixtus Senensis, Pererius, Petavius, and Drusins. The remarks of the
latter, who was eminently skilled in Hebrew, are particularly deserving of atten
tion. They may be found, with the exception of those that occur in his Diss:
de nomine QiflVst Crit. Sacr. Tractatt. torn. i. collected together in an excel
lent little Tract, by CingaUus, ( C. Sandiui,) entitled Scriptura Sancto. Trim.
Revelatrix— To the writers already mentioned, I may add Lindsey, Apol. chap.
iii. ; and Yates, Reply to Wardhw, pt. iii. chap. 8.

113
" and they who infer from hence both the Unity of God,
and a plurality of persons in the Godhead, not only shew
themselves to be void of true critical skill, but, by producing
and urging such weak and frivolous arguments in its
defence, do a manifest injury to the cause which they are
so zealous to support and establish." * If these terms in
separably combine the ideas of Plurality and Unity, permit
me to ask you in my turn, why they are applied to false Deities,
(See Ex. xxxii. 3, 4, &c. ; Judg. viii. 33 ; xvi. 23, 24, &c.)
and even to men ? (See Gen. xl. 1, &c. ; Ex. iv. 16 ; Ps.
lxxxii. 6.) Why the term Aleim (or Elohim) is used in
Ps. xiv- 8, according to the common interpretation of that
passage, of the Father only, in contradistinction to the Son :
— what is to be understood by the Spirit of God, or the
Spirit of Aleim, (Gen. i. 1.) if the term Aleim, compre
hends Father, Son, and Spirit : — and how it has happened
that the Jews themselves have never drawn the same in
ference from these terms, but in every age have maintained,
in the strictest sense, the doctrine of the divine Unity ?
If I am not greatly mistaken, you have felt this last diffi
culty ; but you have taken rather a curious method to solve
it. For in this light I consider the note in p. 61, to which
your readers are referred " These terms," you there
observe, " though now perspicuous, were obscure at their
first revelation, lest the communication of the great truth
involved in them should let in too much fight at once on
the unprepared mind." And then, by way of illustration, I
suppose, you cite a sentence from a certain Greek writer,
in which he endeavours to account for the late use of the

• New Eng. Trans), of the 3 first chapters of Gen. Ch, i. I,
I

114
term Trinity (Tpia;.) Yet the Hebrew terms, of which
you are treating in the text, are still as obscure to those
for whose use especially they must have been designed, as
they ever were ; and on the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity,
the minds of the Jews have hitherto received no light. But
who is this Greek writer, to whose authority an appeal is
here made ? Your reference stands thus : Joseph, ap.
Phot. — Joseph, can, of course, be no other than Josephus,
and Josephus ap. Phot, can be no other than the Jewish
historian, from whose works Photius has made some extracts.
The term Tpiac, used by Josephus, struck me immediately
as not a little extraordinary ; and though I knew that some
Christian Fathers had tampered with his works, I felt per
suaded from my recollection of the passages cited by the
author of the Myriobiblon, that the term had not been
foisted into any of them. Not being wholly unacquainted
with the learned Patriarch's work, a little search discovered
to me the real author, — one Jobius, a monk of the sixth
century, distinguished by his fanciful defence of the orthor
dox doctrine. I will allow what, I fear, you would not, in
similar circumstances, grant to a Unitarian writer, .that this
wrong reference was the consequence, not of design, b'lt of
inadvertence ; but there is something so imposing and so
misleading to an unwary reader, in the connexion of
plural Hebrew terms, as names of God, the Trinity, and
Josephus, a Jewish writer, known to be contemporary with
the apostles, that I could not suffer the error, trifling as
it may perhaps be thought by some, to pass unnoticed and
uncorrected. With respect to such phrases as Let us make man,
Let us go down, Sec. it is much easier to call the Unitarian
mode of explaining them " a gratuitous hypothesis," than

115
to prove it so. We have the evidence of the Scriptures
themselves, that this plural form was sometimes Used
instead of the singular ; as in Job xviii. 2, 3; Cant. i. 4 ;
2 Sam. xvi. 20, &c. We also find, that in correspondence
with their own conceptions, or by way of accommodation to
the conceptions of mankind in general, the sacred writers
frequently speak of the council qf God, and represent thc
Governor of the world as surrounded by his ministers or
courtiers, and holding consultations with them. (See 2 Kings
iii. 14, 21 ; Job, xv. 8, xxix. 4 ; Jer. xxiii. 17, 18 ; and
particularly 1 Kings xxii. 19 — 24, and Is. vi.) Such
phrases, therefore, as the above, we think ourselves fully
warranted in understanding as a mere figure of speech, and
not to be taken literally, or as signifying " that God spake
to some Beings included in his own nature and substance."
Several Trinitarian expositors have thought the same ; *

* Every one knows how strictly the doctrine of the divine Unity is main
tained by the followers of Mahommed ; and yet it is very common for God to
speak of himself in the plural number, as We did, We gave, We commanded,
We are nearer than the jugular vein, Surely We created every thing in pro
portion. " Mahommed cannot be supposed to have employed a mode of
expression, which he could have supposed capable of being considered favourable
to the Trinity." For this last remark, and the two passages from the Koran
which preceded it, I am indebted to a most interesting and able work by the
celebrated Brahmin Rammohun Roy, intitled Second Appeal to the Christian
Public, in defence of ' the Precepts of Jesus ;' printed at Calcutta in 1821, and
lately reprinted, with his other tracts, in London: a work which, though
written by a native of India, and a recent convert to Christianity, discovers a
most accurate acquaintance with the English language; and a knowledge of
the sacred Scriptures, and a skill in the interpretation of them, excelled by few
professed theologians ; while, at the same time, it proves that the intelligent
and amiable author has, with the doctrine of the gospel, largely imbibed its
spirit. This extraordinary man seems destined by Divine Providence to be the
instrument of extensive good in the Indian Peninsula, not only by destroying
I %'

116
and amongst them, the great reformer, Luther himself.
How have these phrases been understood by the Jews ?
They never thought of giving to them the Trinitarian
interpretation. And is it probable or possible that the
doctrine of the Trinity should be contained in such expres
sions, and that they to whom the oracles of God were for so
many ages exclusively entrusted, and " who surely well
understood the idioms of their own language," (p. 15,)
should yet be ignorant of it. That surely must be a weak
argument for this doctrine, which several Trinitarians, most
competent to judge of its validity, have rejected ; and which
was never discovered by those to whom the writings on
which it is founded, were given in their own tongue, and
for the express purpose of imparting to them the knowledge
of the true God. *
You go on to inquire, (p. 14,) " Why are the Names,
and Attributes, and Works, and Worship of the Divinity,

the attachment of his countrymen to their idolatrous and pernicious super
stitions, but by preparing them to receive the doctrine, and to hear and obey
the precepts of Jesus. Of the aid of this learned Brahmin, and of the very able
and zealous Baptist Missionary, Mr. Adam, who has lately abandoned the
doctrine of the Trinity, as the first fruits of the Brahmin's labours, as welt as
of the humbler, but most exemplary exertions of Wm. Roberts, Unitarians,
it is hoped, will speedily avail themselves, and thus wipe off the reproach of
listlessness in the cause of the unenlightened heathen, so industriously cast
upon them by their more active orthodox brethren. From Calcutta and Madras
a voice now loudly calls " Come over and help us ;" and the call will, I trust,
be speedily and effectually answered,
* Dicit ergo Faciamus, non tanquam ullius alterius ope ad banc rem
indigeret, sed hominum more* Cum enim hominibus haec scribantur, non potuit
Deus loquens induci nisi hominum more. Nee Deo alioquin sermo prpprie
tribui potest. Pro Trinitate oportet ex locis evidentibus Judseos urgere."—
Mercerus ad Gen. i. 26.

117
ascribed to a certain character, appearing upon different
occasions throughout the Old Testament ; and more par
ticularly appropriated by the Prophets, in almost every
variety of application, to the Messiah." In answer to this
inquiry, I must be permitted to say, Produce the passages ;
prove that such things as "belong to the true God, are
ascribed to any other than to Jehovah, the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the reason shall be given, I
know that -passages, supposed to be of this character, have
been produced; and I also know that they have been
explained by learned Unitarian writers, in strict consistency
with their principles, and according to the legitimate rules
of scriptural interpretation. You may have passages in
view, that have not been before cited and explained ; though,
considering how closely you have, in general, followed
other orthodox writers, I can hardly think it probable :
if you have, let them appear ; and I may, without pre
sumption, assure you they shall be shewn to furnish
no proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. Permit me here,
also, to ask you, how it happened that the Jews had no
expectation of such a Messiah, as you assert was the subject
of ancient prophecy ? Trypho, in the Dialogue between
him and Justin Martyr, certainly spake the sentiment of all
the ancient Jews, w'hen he said, that all his nation expected
the Messiah to be a man born like other men. * Had they
found the Attributes of Divinity appropriated by the
Prophets, in almost every variety of application, to the

' "To yap ?.EyEiV ce, irpovTrap^Etv ®J0V ov''a ^P0 tt(UJVWV Tbulov tov Xgij-ov, wra. %ni
yjy Trivet; avSpuwov ysvojiAevov ^ttoju-eTvow, n&i oh ovx ayJTpwrog e£ ' avS'piuirou, oy /xovov
ttapa$o£ov Sokei jlaoi Eivai, aXXaxat jLiwpov  Kat yag wavlej r\t*.uc tov Xot^-oy avQpwirov
e|; avSpunrwv TTpoo-SoxcOjiAEV yiwaurSat. x. t. \.—Just. Mart. Opp. Edit. Thirlb.
p. 233— 5. l3

118
Messiah, such would not have been their expectation; nor
would they have been offended, as you suppose them to
have been, with Jesus, for making himself God. Your
own Allix and others, have laboured hard to wring out
something hke modem orthodoxy, from the writings of
Targumists, Rabbins, and Cajbalists, but they have " spent
their labour for that which satisfieth not."
Again you ask, " Among, numberless other passages in
the New Testament, involving the same irresistible con
clusion, why do we find united, not only in the Baptismal
Formula prescribed by our Saviour himself, but also in the
Apostolic Benediction addressed by St. Paul to the Corin
thians, the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, without the slightest hint of imparity ; and in the
latter instance, indeed, in a disturbed order, as if in
mockery of the foreseen cavils of coming generations?"
When you talk of numberless passages in the New Testa
ment, involving the irresistible conclusion of the doctrine of
the Trinity, (for this I suppose to be your meaning,) your
language is somewhat hyperbolical, and you display more
of the orator than the divine. Several passages, I know,
are cited to prove the pre-existence and Deity of Christ ; a
few to prove the Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit ;
but I have hitherto always understood that there are very
few from which it is pretended that the doctrine of the
Trinity can be clearly deduced : and since that doctrine has
been disbelieved by some, in every age of the Church,
there can be none which involve the irresistible conclusion,
that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. I ex
ceedingly regret, that out of these numberless passages of
which you speak, you have produced only two : these, of

119
course, you have selected as most decisive ; yet if I am not
greatly mistaken, they are little to the purpose.
I might justly question the propriety of denominating
the first of them the Baptismal Formula, since there is not
an instance, on record* of its having been ever used in the
apostolic" age. Converts appear from the history in the
Acts of the Apostles^ to have been uniformly baptized into
the name of Christ only. * I allow, indeed, that this was
perfectly equivalent ; but if the words used by our Lord,
were indeed a form prescribed by himself, would the
Apostles and Evangelists have ventured to depart from it ?
This fact shews that the first preachers of the Gospel did
not consider these words in the light in which you place
them ; nor attach to them the same degree of importance.
To baptize into or concerning (««) the name of Christy im
plied, as I understand thfe nature and design of the rite,
the baptizing into or concerning " the name of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ;" but this did by no
means lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Godhead
comprehended three Persons. Had it done so, as all who

• A former Archdeacon of Cleveland, who was not easily led away by the mere
sound of words, nor accustomed to take slight and superficial views of any subject
that engaged his attention, felt it a great difficulty to account for this deviation.
His method of solving it was ingenious, but may not be generally thought satis
factory. ¦" Suppose then," he observes, ««, we should read the passage thus,
TlofsiMntte mi fnaBiritUcrcSt m'aila -ttt, e6V« (j:W)*§w1cc av%u;) tig to ovojm! tou
n«Vj. x. t. x. Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations (baptizing them,) into
the name of the Father, &c."—Archd. Blackburne's Works, vol. i. p. Ixxxvii.
They who know any thing of the writings and character of the Author of the
Confessional, Will be somewhat surprised to learh that the most which one Of
his successors can say ef him, is, that he believes him " to have been individually,
a well-intentioned, though greatly mistaken man." ! !
i 4

120
Were converted were baptized, the Christian church would,
from the first, have consisted of those only who beheved
the doctrine of the Trinity ; especially, if we are to under
stand this formula (p. 46) as at the same time a creed.
But was this the case ? Were all the ancient Christians
Trinitarians ? If you assert that they were, I affirm, and
am ready to prove, that it is in contradiction to the whole
tenour of the most ancient writings of the Church. If you
allow that they were not, then what is the irresistible con
clusion involved in the formula, or how can we imagine
that it teaches a doctrine which the majority of Christians
(major pars credentiwm *) could not, till many ages had
past, be persuaded to embrace ?
Baptism was, I apprehend, an initiatory rite, arising
out of opinions and practices generally prevalent in ancient
times, and in eastern countries, and out of Jewish principles
and practices in particular; uniformly implying and de
noting that the persons who submitted to the rite, were
considered as fit to be received either by the baptizer, or by
persons authorized by him, to further instruction in the doc
trine he had to teach. They who believed the word of the
apostles, were to be baptized, in order that they might be
instructed ; and the subjects of instruction are distinctly
marked out by our Lord, when he delivers to the Apostles
the commission under which they were to act. These sub
jects were " the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ;"
in other words, God, in the character of the Father of
Jesus, as the Being by whom he was instructed for his
mission and sent into the world : Jesus, in the character of
the Son of God, the expected Messiah, and one duly taught
and commissioned by the Father: and the Holy Spirit,
• Tert.adv. Prax.

121
Ihose supernatural powers first bestowed upon Jesus, as an
evidence that God had sent him ; then promised by him to
his disciples, and since poured forth upon them, to prove
the reality of his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation,
and the means of confirming their word to that and . every
future generation. *
I know of no other sense that the words of our Lord
will bear ; and thus interpreted, they harmonize with the
whole strain of the preaching of the Apostles, and of their
Epistles, Thus interpreted, we can easily understand how
the baptizing into the name of Christ, instead of into
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
was from the first adopted in the Christian Church ;
since every convert received to instruction, on the subject of
Jesus, must necessarily be taught the relation which God
held to Jesus, as his Father ; the relation which Jesus held

* "Is it not worth noticing," you ask in a note, (p. 62) " that the Unity of the
Three Persons here mentioned, may be indicated by the use of the Singular ovof«s,
7«ime— not ovofiaTa, names" ? I should say it is not worth noticing. Supposing
Three Persons to be denoted by the following terms, the ellipsis of ovofxa
before the two last, might be easily supplied : but the truth is, that ovo^a here,
as in many other places, is merely idiomatic, adding nothing to the sense of its
adjuncts, and may be wholly disregarded. So Schleusner understands it in this
place. " In N. T. hand raw abundate solet, v. c. Matth. xxviii. 19, jW!i§>y7s{
h; to ovofia tou malfic. x. T. Ju pro hc tov nalsoa, xai tov vlw, mi to ayiov mwfj.co.
Coll. Horn. vi. 3, et Galat. iii. 17. Adde 1 Cor. i. 13, et IS."— It is worth
noticing, for the consideration of those who lay so much stress on this baptismal
formula, as it is called, that the Jews are said by Paul to have been baptized
into Moses; si; tov Mui'trnv. 1 Cor, x. 2. And that the Jews themselves say
of the Samaritans, that they were circumcised, in or upon the name of Mount
Gerizim. CWU "in Off1? Schcetgen. Hor. Hebr: torn. i. p. 239. This last
fact may serve to shew that the being baptized into the name of an Attribute, is
not so absurd a supposition, as to be met by a sneer. (Charge, p. 62.)

122
to God, as his Son ; and also concerning the supernatural
powers, by which the divine mission of Jesus had been con
firmed, and the Apostles, in the fulfilment of his promise,
afterwards endowed. You may dispute the interpretation
which removes one stay of Trinitarianism ; but I am confi
dent you cannot disprove it. ~7*~
The apostolic benediction to which you refer, is, I
suppose, that which we meet with 2 Cor. xiii. 14 : — " The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" If
we are to infer, from the union of these names in this bene
diction, and in the baptismal formula, the Unity of three
Persons in one God-head, what are we to infer from 1 Sam.
xii. 18, where we are told, that " all the people greatly feared
die Lord and Samuel ;" or from 1 Chron. xxix. 20, where
it is said, that " all the congregation bowed down their
heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king ;" or from
Acts, xv. 5£8, where the Apostles say, " It seemed good to
the Holy Spirit and to us ;" or from Rev. i. 4, where the
writer thus salutes the seven Churches : " Grace be unto
you, and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is
to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his
throne ;" or lastly, which is still more to our purpose, from
1 Tim. v. 21, where Paul charges his son in the Gospel,
" before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect
angels" ?
Or, again ; if the union of the three names 'involves the
irresistible conclusion, that they are three Persons in one
Godhead, what does the union of only two of them, the
form we most commonly meet with, involve ? Is it possible
that the Holy Spirit should have been so frequently

12S
emitted, had it been conceived of as a Divine Person, co
equal with the Father and the Son ? And again, permit me
to ask you, what are we to understand by the term God, in
the benediction to which you appeal so triumphantly ?
When that term, God, occurs, without any other, such as
Father, to limit its signification, is it not understood by you,
to signify a Being consisting of the three Persons, — Father,
.Son, and Holy Spirit ? There may be some faint show of
plausibility in the argument, when the terms Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are united ; but Jesus, and God, and the
Holy Spirit, seem brought together by the Apostle,, to apply
your own language.. " as if in mockery of the foreseen"
errors " of coming, generations." It is not the order merely,
but the sense that is disturbed ; for if, according to your
system, God is a term equivalent to Trinity, the apostolic
benediction may be read thus :— The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of tlie Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with
you all. But is it possible to conceive, that this is a just
representation of the Apostle's meaning ? Irresistible, in
deed, must be the conclusion, when such passages are fully
examined, that- they contain no proof whatever of the doc
trine which they are cited to support.
You next ask, (p. 15,) " Why, with more especial re
ference to the Second Person of the Trinity, do we read
that the Word, which was madefiesh, and dwelt among us,
was God, even God over all, blessed for ever?"" Where,
let me also ask, do we read, that e the Word was God over
al blessed for ever ?' Paul, from whom this last phrase is
cited, (Rom. ix. 4,) never once speaks of the Word ; and we
Unitarians maintain, that it is not even of Jesus, the Preacher
of the. Word, that he here speaks.; but of that Great Being,

124
whom he elsewhere calls Hie God and Father of our Lord Je
sus Christ, who is blessed Jor evermore, (2 Cor. xi.31,) and to
whom he ascribes praise for the benefits conferred first in
the Jewish, and afterwards in the Christian, dispensation.
We assert, and not without the support of some eminent
Trinitarians, as Erasmus, Bucer, and Le Clerc, that the
clause ought to be considered as a doxology, and rendered,
' He who is God over aU, be blessedfor ever .'" And we are
further justified in not referring this clause to Christ, by the
language of Christian antiquity ; since it is well known that
it was anciently represented as a branch of the Gnostic he
resy, to affirm Christ to be " the God over all ;" * since
" Origen ¦}¦ calls it rashness (which he would not have done,
had he thought it to be the doctrine of St. Paul,) to sup
pose Christ to be the God over all, as inconsistent with his
words, ' my Father is greater than I;' and even Eusebius,
in all his books against Marcellus, lays it down as the con
stant, known doctrine of the Church, that Christ himself is
not o em ¦na.vlav ©eo;, and o errexeiva. tuv i\uv ©eo;, ' the God
over all ;' but that these are the peculiar titles of the Father;
and he particularly affirms, that whoever applies these titles
to the Son, cannot be a pious person." % When John says,
as it is acknowledged he does, that the Word was God, or,
rather, that God was the Word, we cannot admit, without
better proof than has yet been given, that it is with any " re-
* Apost. Const, lib. 6, c. 26. Ignat. Epist. ad Tars. §. 5.
¦f Efw Se, Ttvac wf iv 7cX»i8ei Triftuwlurtf «at o^oiaevwv $iafu>yiav, 5*a tiiv irpoTTE-
7e(»v L7ioT»-3rEG"3'ai tov SwTtjpa Etvat tov eni Tract ©eov" aXX' out* y£ ^jtAEtf TOifli/Joy, of
-TTEiflo^ivoi aulw XtyovT*, (0 7raT>ig, o irE^af f*E, aaei£1uv fAoy Eft,— Contr. Cels. lib.
viii. p. 387. edit. Cant. 1677.
X Letters to a Protestant Divine, &c. by another Barrister, 2d edit. p. 173.
A Work which contains an unanswered, and I will venture to say, an unanswer
able defence of Unitarianism.

125
ference to the Second Person of the Trinity." It is true,
that Unitarian expositors are not agreed in their method of
interpreting this passage ; and it may also be true, that none
of the methods adopted by them, are free frdm serious ob
jections ; yet, I maintain, that the most objectionable is, to
say the least, as plausible, and as free from absurdities and
contradictions, and as conformable with the general usage of
Scripture language, as any proposed by orthodox interpre
ters. The sneers in which you have so freely indulged,
(p. 62, 63,) are little becoming in one who, if I may use
the term, explains this passage in such a manner, as to
make the Evangelist declare, ' that God was with God ;
that a pure, eternal, omnipresent Spirit was made a man ;
that He, whom no man hath seen, was seen, and looked
' upon, and handled ; (comp. 1 John, i. 1.) ; that God was
his own Son, and was in the bosom of the Father ; and that he
who was in the beginning, i. e. from all eternity, was begot
ten.' I am not prepared to defend the modern Unitarian
interpretation, which makes the Logos an attribute, for I
disapprove it ; but it certainly does not involve such palpa
ble absurdities as that which you call the " more intelligi
ble commentary, and the brief and obvious interpretation of
the Church of England." But I might, perhaps, ask, Is
this the interpretation of the Church of England ? for I do
not find that all her sons agree in their comments. Are we
to judge of her views respecting this passage, as she declared
them by the mouth of Dr, Daniel Waterland, in the year
1719, at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London; or as
she afterwards declared them, in the years 1764-5, at the
very same place, by Dr. Benjamin Dawson? If we listen to
her first oracle, we shall be told, that " In ihe beginning, be
fore there was any creature, (consequently from all eternity,)
the Word existed ; and the Word was no distant, separate

126
Power, estranged from God, or unacquainted with Him ;
but He was with God, and Himself also, very God : not
another God, but another Person only, of the same nature,
substance, and God-head." But if we attend to the other,
we shall learn, that such is not the meaning of the Evange
list, but that the Word is the Gospel. " This was, John
tells us, from God himself; for that in the beginning, be
fore it was published to the world, it was with God ; God
was the Word, the original Author and Giver of it." *
Which of these are we to regard as the dictate of the Church
of England ? As you refer to some intelligiblexommentary,
it cannot be the first; I understand you, therefore, to
mean the latter; and I am happy to find that this commen
tary, proceeding from the Metropolitan Church, is nearly

* Others then can jar (p. 62,) in their interpretations of this, besides the
adversaries of the Church of England; and I think I might say, but that I
greatly dislike such language, that others can employ verbiage in their comments.
Nor is the crime of being diffuse confined to Unitarian critics. '< Upon these
first fourteen verses of St, John, in the author alluded to," (the late Mr. Cappe,)
you tauntingly observe, " is founded a paraphrase of nearly six, and notes exceed
ing ninety full octavo pages !" But to what extent would Dr. Daniel Waterland
have proceeded, had he continued his discourses through all these fourteen verses,
when the consideration of the three first extends to one hundred and twelve pages ?
His labours, according to this proportion, would have been diffused through up
wards of five hundred. Such ametbod of depreciating the work of a learned, labo
rious, and patient critic, is utterly unworthy of a scholar, who can be no stranger to
lengthened disquisitions on passages of comparative insignificance, in the
writings of ancient Greece and Rome. But the reputation of Mr. Cappe, though
a. Sectarian, is. not tp be blasted by a sneer, or destroyed by an Ohejam satis est 1
We do not brag, though we confidently assert, that we can give our creed in
the very language of the Scriptures ; and our " huge tomes" would have no ex
istence, were we not under the painful necessity of continually repelling objec
tions '« that have been /over and over again refuted ;'' and of preparing against
attacks, that we know will be renewed, though a thousand times repulsed.

127
the same that I have long been accustomed^as a Unitarian,
to maintain. If I do not enter further into the explanation of this
important passage, with which the Gospel of John is intro
duced, it is not because I find any difficulty in proving that
it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity ; but because
the just interpretation certainly depends upon an accurate
knowledge of the design of the evangelist, in the subsequent
part of his Gospel, and of the peculiarities of his style ; and
these things cannot be stated, without extending too" far the
limits of this publication.
" Why do we read," you further ask, " that in Him
dwelt all the fulness qfthe God-head bodily ?" I might an
swer by another question, — Why did the Apostle pray,
(Eph. iii. 19>) that the disciples at Ephesus might be filed
with all the fulness of God f Or, why, immediately after the
words you have cited, does he tell the Colossians, (ch. ii. 10,)
that they are filled (vevh/izqpw) in him, as his disciples, or by.
him, from his fulness ? It neither suits the connexion, nor is. it
agreeable to the general usage of the terms here used by the
Apostle, to understand him as speaking of the Divine essence.
By the fulness qfthe, God-head dwelling in Christy he evL
dentiy means ' the knowledge of the Divine will, and all the
spiritual blessings he had received of the Father, and which
he was empowered by him to communicate to the members
of his spiritual body, the Church.' And when he says, that
' this fulness dwelt in Him bodily? he meant that it dwelt
in him truly and really, or substantially. In other words,
the Christian dispensation is complete and substantial,
whereas the Mosaic dispensation (with which the Apostle is
here contrasting it) was imperfect and shadowy, (Comp.

128
ver. 17.*) — Let it be further observed, that whatever this
fulness of the God-head may have been, it pleased the Fa
ther that it should dwell in Christ, who must therefore be
considered as an inferior and dependent Being, and not
the true God.  Again, you inquire, Why do we read,
that He had power to forgive sins, (and who can forgive
sins but God only ?) But do we not find Aaron thus en
treating Moses, on behalf of himself and his sister : ' Alas,
my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein
we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned'?
(Num. xii. 11.) And Saul, thus addressing Samuel, "I
have sinned ; for I have transgressed the commandment of
the Lord, and thy words : now therefore, I pray thee, par
don my sin' ? (1 Sam. xv. 24.) Did not Jesus authorize
his apostles to forgive sin, when he said to them, ' Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them' ? (John xx.
23,) And do not you imagine that you possess the same
power, when you solemnly declare to the dying penitent,
' By the authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all
thy sins, in the name of the Father,' &c. ? But you appear to
me, to have mistaken the import of our Lord's words, in
the transaction to which the passage you have cited, belongs,
and to have been led astray by the malicious cavils of the
Jewish Scribes. Nothing, surely, can be better known,
than that the Jews considered disease to be the consequence

• Rosenmuller, an orthodox interpreter, thus renders the text : — " Nam ipsi
insunt omnes thesauri sapientice dkiince revera. And he remarks, Genitivus
Seothtoj h. 1. non intelligitur de ipsa natura Dei, tanquam de eo quod habitet
in aliquo, sed de illo quod sit a Deo profectum, ab eoque originem ducat.
Xuij*a1ixu>; vere, re ipsa." In a similar manner, this text, now regarded as one of
the strong holds of orthodoxy, was understood by Chrysostom and Augustin,
amongst the ancients ; by Erasmus and others, amongst the moderns.

129
of sin ; and the curing of the disease, an indication that the
sin was forgiven; agreeable to the parallelism in Ps. ciii. 3,
" Who forgiveth all thine iniquities ; who healeth all thy
diseases." Our Lord's own words, in ver. 5, 6, afford a suf
ficient answer to your inquiry, as they did to the malicious
question of his enemies ; and shew that he assumed the
power of forgiving sins, no further than by removing dis
eases, the temporal punishment of them. Permit me to re
mind you ofBp. Pearce's Commentary on Matt, ix. 2, 6. 
,The next passage to which you refer, is John v. 21 : As
the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even
so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Whatever may be the
power of the exercise of which our Lord here speaks, (for
no one, I think, who attentively considers the whole chap
ter, can hesitate to say, that it is very doubtful,) it is not
an independent power : for he declares, more than once, as
if foreseeing the wrong notions that might prevail concern
ing him, that of himself he can do nothing. And even in
the very words you have quoted, I conceive that he owns
his subordination : for I feel very well persuaded, that &?
&eX« signifies ' whom the Father wills.'  Again you ask,
Why do we read that 'as the Father knew Him, even so knew
He the Father. If you mean, as I suppose you do, to insinu
ate that the nature of Christ is as incomprehensible as the na
ture of the Father, and that therefore he is God, it is evident
that you have paid no attention to the context, or to the
scriptural meaning of the word to know, on which your in
quiry depends. ' I am the good shepherd,' says our Lord,
' and know my slieep, and am known by mine ; even as the
Father knoweth me, and as I know the Father : and I lay
down my life for the sheep." * But to know signifies to
• See Abp. Newcome's Translation of John x. 14, 1 5, who has followed the
punctuation of some of the most judicious critics.
K

130
love. * Our Lord therefore means, ' I love my sheep, and am
loved by them, even as the Father loveth me, and I love the
Father.' (See Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, &c. &c.)-  ¦
Then you ask, Why we read that all men should honour
Him (the Son) even as they honour the Father. We have
it on your own authority, " that the word translated ' even
as,' -f- frequently denotes, not equality, but such an analogy
(in many cases far from complete) as the character of the
things spoken of admits." \ This may be one of the cases,
if, by honouring, we are to understand ' paying religious
service and reverence.' But I apprehend that is not the
meaning of the term in this place. All that our Lord in
tends to say, is, ' That all men should receive his doctrine
as the word of God, and honour him as the holy Prophet
of the Most High.' The words that he spake were not his
own, but the Father's who sent him : they were bound,
therefore, to listen as reverently to those words, as they
would to the voice of God addressing them from heaven.
To disregard him was no other than to disregard and dis
honour God.' § Why, finally you ask, do we read, that
He is the true God, and eternal life ? I deny that we do read
this, as predicated of Jesus Christ. Our common version

• rtvuwxuj, agnosco aliquem meum esse, etadme pertinere, et ex adjuncto : rnag-
nifacio, revereor, amo, beneftdis officio.— John x. 14.— Amo meos sectatores, &c.
15, 17.— Schleusner. Lex. in verb.
T The remark is certainly as applicable to xaSm;, as to w<rinp.
X Archd. Wrangham's Sermon, preached in the Cathedral Church of St.
Peter's, &c. March 16, 1823, p. S.
§ A similar interpretation is more briefly given by Schleusner : " Ut omnes
doctrinam, a filio traditam, eadem religione amplectantur et habeant, qua divi-
nam illam eniin qui reepuit, impius est in Deum, auctorem ejus.''— £or, i» v.
TtjWaw,

181
(1 John v. 20) is, " This is the true God and eternal life." *
And the pronoun " This," refers not to the nearest, but to a
remoter antecedent, " Him that is true :" just as in Epist.
2, 7. " This is a deceiver," refers not to Jesus Christ, the
last antecedent, but to one of the " many deceivers," at the
beginning of the verse. The true God, is not Jesus Christ,
but that Beingwhom he hath givenhisdisciples understanding
to know. The declaration of the Evangelist is the same as
that of his divine Master — ". This is life eternal, that they
might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent." See John xvii. 3.
You proceed to ask, " Why is he charged by his Jewish
enemies, who surely well understood the idioms of their
own language, with having made himself God, when he
pronounced that He and his Father were one?'' If by
being one with the Father, be meant, having an hypostatical
union with him, so as with him, to constitute one God, the
Apostles, by whom, I imagine, the idioms of their own lan
guage were well known, must have been greatly astonished,
i when they heard their Master pray that ' they might be one, as
he and the Father were.' (John xvii. 11.) And much more,
when he added, " Neither pray I for these alone, but for
them also, who shall believe in me through their word ; That
they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us : And the glory
which thou gavest me, I have given them ; that they may

* The common version of this passage is by no means correct. The fol
lowing is Abp. Newcome's : " And we know that the Son of God is come, and
hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true ; and we
are in Him that is true, through his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,
and everlasting life." His notes on this passage are excellent and convincing.
K 2

132
be one, even as we are one : I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one." * But they ex
pressed no astonishment; and probably they felt none.
Nothing, indeed, can be more evident, if we are to make
Scripture its own interpreter, than that our Lord means no
more by this union of the Father and himself, than unity
of purpose and operation, in promoting the scheme of the
Gospel. Granting that the Jews did charge our Lord with
making himself God, because he said that He and his
Father were one, what have we to do with their opinions,
or their cavils ? In several other cases, we see, that under
the influence of prejudice and malice, they perverted the
plainest words, and acted contrary to the manifest convic
tion of their own minds. But the truth is, that it was not
that saying of our Lord which, in this instance, occasioned
their cavil, but his having called God, as they may have
thought, or as they pretended to think, in some peculiar
way, his Father. And he accordingly, with more conde
scension than they deserved, argued the case with them ;
and on the ground of the idiom of tbeir own language,
according to which, magistrates are called Gods, maintains

* Archdeacon Blackburne seems to have understood this language better
than his present successor. For he observes, " This Unity of the Father and
the Son, must either be an Unity of agreement, concord, or communion ; or the
Unity of the Apostles, must be a Unity qf Godfiead." — Notes on a Paper, $c. by
Dr. Sharpe. — Works, vol. 1. p. 353, These Notes, written, perhaps, when he
" wavered on points of doctrine," contain several remarks, well worthy the
attention of orthodox Churchmen. — The most orthodox of the ancient Fathers,
as TertuUian, Novatian, and even Basil, explain the words in the same manner.
And Calvin himself says, " Abusi sunt hoc loco veteres, ut probarent Christum
esse Fatri oftoouo-tov : neque enim Christus de Unitate substantia; disputat, sed de
consensu quem cum Patre habet, quicquid scilicet geritur, a Christo, Patris
virtute coniirmatuin iri."— See Calm Inquiry, p. 150, 3d edit.

133
that he is not chargeable with blasphemy, sanctified and
sent into the world as he had been, by the Father, because
he had called himself the Son of God. The whole passage
is, indeed, decidedly in favour of the Unitarian doctrine. —
Again you ask, " Why does the Father address him, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever ?" I do not acknow
ledge the correctness of this version, but maintain that both
in the place from which you have cited the words, Heb. i. 8,
and in the Psalm (xiv.) from which it is taken, the passage
should be rendered " God is thy throne, i. e. the support of thy
throne, for ever and ever."" * But allowing the correctness
of the common version, these words were addressed originally
to Solomon ; and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
applying them to Christ, adds, "therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee." So that if he has given to Jesus
Christ in this passage, the appellation of God, " he has left
no reasonable ground for doubt, that he did not use that
appellation in reference to nature, but merely to dignity,
and office.'1'' Carpenter's View, &c. p. 155. — You next
inquire, " Why does he himself assert, I have power to lay
down my life, and I have power to take it again f You
should, in fairness, have added the next clause, This command-

' In this I am justified by several eminent interpreters, and amongst them,
by a distinguished ornament of the English Church, Dr. A. A. Sykes. See his
Paraphrase on the Hebrews, ch, i. 8. A late Irish Prelate, Dr. M. Young,
Bp. of Clonfert, in his New Translation of the Psalms, has rendered the verse
in Ps. xiv. 6, Thy throne, O Prince, is for etier and ever, &c. For this, and
other freedoms, and in particular for the remarks on those Psalms usually
interpreted as direct prophecies of the Messiah, this valuable work, by one of
the most eminent scholars the University of Dublin has produced, the publi
cation of which he had very much at heart, was, as I am informed, suppressed
as soon as printed.
k3

134
ment I have received of my Father. (John x. 18.) It was,
therefore, no independent power that he exercised ; if,
indeed, he really asserts that he exercised any. For as the
Apostles, whenever they speak of the resurrection of their
Master, which is frequently, never ascribe that event to any
exertion of his own power, but uniformly to the immediate
agency of God, his Father, we seem required to understand
the original word translated power, as signifying authority,
or privilege ; and our Lord's declaration, as comprehending
no more than that having willingly submitted to the death
of the cross, he should have the privilege of being raised
again. He might have preserved his life, but, like a good
shepherd, he contentedly resigned it, for the benefit of his
sheep : therefore his Father loved him, and granted to him
the privilege, which no one else had enjoyed, of being
recovered from the stroke of death, to die no more.
Had our Lord intended, by these words, to say, that
he should raise himself from the dead, his Apostles must
have thus understood them ; and their minds must have
been so deeply impressed by this wonderful exertion of
power, that they could not have suppressed all men
tion of it in their Discourses and Epistles. Yet in
nothing that they either said or wrote, does the
slightest hint of this appear. The uniform tenor of their
language, respecting the resurrection of their Master is,
" This Jesus hath God raised up."" In the words of our
Lord, in this single passage, there may be some obscurity ;
in all the numerous passages in which the Apostles speak of
his resurrection, referring it solely to the power of his God
and Father, there is none. Now it is an admitted rule of
interpretation, that obscure and difficult places are to be
explained by those that are clear and easy. Guided by this
rule, Unitarians can give a reasonable and a scriptural
answer to your inquiry, concerning this much controverted

135
passage. * — " Why, in fine," you. ask,' " did his followers
crave, and bestow from him grace and peace, and all other
spiritual blessings ?" The passages to which I suppose you
refer, when properly examined, will appear to be no more
than devout wishes, expressed by the Apostles on behalf of
their converts, that all the benefits of the gospel of Christ,
and all the comfort and the joy of believing might be
their's. They cannot be regarded as direct prayers to
Jesus, since the Apostles could not fail to observe the solemn
ihj unction he had given them just before his death: — " In
that day," i. e. when I shall have finally left this world,
" ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will
give it you." At the same time, it is evident that during
the apostolical age, our Lord enjoyed extraordinary powers,
or, at least, was often employed as the agent by whom Gdd
dispensed the blessings of the Gospel. He was with the
disciples, either by occasionally appearing to them, or in
the gifts of the Spirit, after his ascension, till " the end of
the age." By this circumstance, the language of the
Apostles was materially influenced ; but as the privilege
which both Jesus and his church thus enjoyed, was by the
will and the appointment of the Father, the Apostles never
ascribe to their Master any independent authority, nor
either " crave or bestow any blessing from him, but as the
Mediator between God and man. -J-

* A very able examination of Abp. Magee's Strictures on the Unitarian
Interpretation of this passage, may be found in Dr. Carpenter's Reply to Magee.
Appx. p. 383. '
T In a Note (p. 29,) we are referred to a " Series, of texts to be drawn from
the Improved Version itself, (though," it is observed, " the Editors make some
K 4

136
And are these the " numerous and decisive texts," by
which the cause of Trinitarianism is to be firmly esta^
Wished ? On the strength of evidence derived from these,
do you exclaim, " Away, then, with the daring dogma, that
strips the Gospel of the deity of its founder ?" I am not
conscious of having used any "artifice to fritter them
away ;" if I have, let me be held up to merited reprobation :
but, on principles of sound criticism, I hope I have shewn
that they are utterly inadequate to the purpose for which
you have cited them. — " As a counterbalance to these,"
you tell your clergy, who, if they were at all acquainted
with the works of Unitarian writers, must have heard you
with some degree of astonishment, that " a few. passages are
brought forward, where Christ is represented as commis
sioned by the Father, as praying to him, and as acknow
ledging his superiority." A few passages ! No, Sir, not a

clumsy efforts, in their Notes to evade the obvious conclusions) powerfully
confirming the doctrines of the Established Church." These texts follow the
readings of Griesbach, and differ from the Common Version. They are, Acts
xvi. 7. Tlie Spirit of Jesus. — Rom. xv. 29. The blessing of Christ.— Eph.' v.
21. The fear of Christ. — Col. iii. IS. The peace of Christ  2 Thess. ii. 8.
Jesus shall consume. And it is asked, " Do not these all concur in ascribing
to our blessed Saviour an exuberance of grace and goodness, a plenitude of
authority, an irresistible universality of influence, which (in the judgement of
unprejudiced reason) are totally incompatible with the powers of any other,
than the Infinite Being ?" To this I answer, No. All these passages, and all
others like them, are capable of being explained, and fairly explained, upon
just principles of interpretation, in perfect consistency with the doctrine, that
Jesus was a finite Being. The efforts of the Editors of the Improved Version,
are confined to two of the live passages, and I can perceive nothing clumsy in
them. The notes are very brief, and coincide with those of Rosenmuller, and
some other learned and judicious critics. Want of room and time, not any
apprehended difficulty, prevents me from attending more particularly to these
texts.

137
few passages : even those to which you immediately refer
are many, and besides those, we produce whole books— the
general strain and tenor of the Scriptures from Genesis to
the Apocalypse. We say, and we think that we can prove
it, and that we do prove it, that it is uniformly and plainly
the language of the Old Testament, that there is but one
God, Jehovah, the same who, in the New Testament, is
called the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and
that the same doctrine is that of every book of the New
Testament ; maintained and taught by Jesus himself, and,
in the most express terms, by his Apostles. * We affirm
that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in any single
passage, that it is inferred only from very few ; and that
the doctrine of the deity of the founder of Christianity,
depends also upon a few scattered texts, separated from
their connexion, and interpreted without a just regard to
idioms of speech, and the circumstances of the primitive
church.-— But you go on to say (p. 16,) of the counter
balancing passages, which you are pleased to reckon so few,
that you find in them no difficulty ; you have " an hypo
thesis, upon which alone the apparent discrepancy of these
texts is perfectly harmonised." You have " a theory,"
which, " in short, (to borrow an expressive metaphor) is a
key, which fits all the wards of this seemingly intricate lock,
turns among them with hardly a touch of interruption,
catches and acts upon every bolt, and lays open to us, in

* A very curious, faithful, and instructive " Summary View of the Evi
dence of each book in the New Testament, in favour of the principal opinions
respecting the Person of Jesus Christ," may be seen in Dr. Carpenter's View of
the Scriptural Grounds of Unitarianism. An inspection of this Table, will
immediately shew which is the opinion that has the sanction of only a few
texts.

138
the easiest manner, the treasures of divine truth." In plain
language, you assume that Jesus Christ possessed two
natures, a human and a divine ; and when any action or
saying of his, inconsistent with the doctrine of his deity, is
urged upon you, its force is evaded, by its being referred
to his human nature. Are we told that he grew in wisdom,
and in favour with God ; that he was exposed to tempta
tion ; that he was subject to sinless infirmities ; that he
prayed in the temple and the synagogues with his disciples,
and in solitude ; that he refused to be called good, because
that title belonged only to God ; and that he declared he
knew not the day nor the hour of the approaching visitation
of Judaea : all these, with whatever else may appear to
indicate that he was a man hke other men, are to be referred
to one portion only of his nature, and to be regarded as
proving no more than that he was man as well as God.
Your hypothesis is gratuitous ; your theory rests upon no
foundation ; your key is no more than a picklock, which
forces the bolts, by bending and breaking the wards. Is
there one passage of Scripture, in which this two-fold nature
is attributed to him ? Did he afford to those with whom
he daily conversed, the slightest hint of this wonderful
union of God and man in one person? Have we any
reason to believe that such a union was so much as sus
pected by any with whom he conversed, even by the twelve ?
When he said to a certain ruler, who had called him
" Good Master," " Why callest thou me good ? None is
good, save one, that is God ;" did the ruler imagine that
this God was then present with him in the person of Jesus ?
When he told his disciples that " No one knew of that day
and hour, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the
Father," did they understand him to say, that though he
knew it not as man, yet he knew it as God ? If it be con-

139
tended that it was prudent for our Lord to conceal this
astonishing fact, that is, to keep those whom he came to
seek and to save, in ignorance of a doctrine, the belief of
which is now deemed essential to salvation, yet surely,
" when the Spirit of truth had come, who was to guide them
into all truth," the Apostles would be instructed in this
great doctrine, and they would have no reason for conceal
ing it from mankind. Yet where have they taught it ? If
any where^ it must be plainly ; it was too momentous to
be shadowed out obscurely, and left to be drawn by in
ference. But they had no such doctrine to teach. They
knew it not. Had they known it, it must have appeared
in every page of the New Testament. The language, both
of Jesus and his Apostles, must have been perpetually
under its influence. No man, as Jesus is allowed to have
been, conscious that he was at the same time God, could
have failed to discover that consciousness ; nor could any
persons relate the actions and discourses, or publish the
doctrine of so wonderful and exalted a Being, and refrain
from dwelling upon this astonishing union. It is a fiction
of later ages, invented to obviate difficulties arising out of
the corruptions of sacred truth. But what a fiction ! How
injurious to the character of Him whom it is designed to
honour ! If he were indeed God as well as man, his whole
conduct was misleading to those about him ; and his words,
even on the most solemn occasions, were no other than
equivocations, and spoken with a disingenuous, mental reser
vation. " Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Sermon on Matt. x. 16,"
observes Mr. Emlyn, " speaking of the equivocations of
Popish Priests, whose common answer, when examined
about what they have known by confession, is, that iliey
know it not, which they think to vindicate from the charge
of lying, by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows

140
matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to
know them, meaning it as man. But," says the Doctor,
" this is absurd ; because to say he does not know, is as
much as to say, he does not any way know, which is false,
if fie does know in any capacity. Now if this be a good
answer," adds Mr. Emlyn, "against the Papists, as no
doubt it is, then surely it is so in the present case. There
fore, when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment,
it is as much as to say he does not any way know it ; and
consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only.
We must beware, lest we bring the holy Jesus under such
a reproach as the Romish Priests lie under." * You, Sir,

" See Emlyn's Works, vol. i. p. 19, where are many other very forcible
observations on this subject. See also an excellent Sermon by Dr. W. E.
Channing, of Boston, N. America, preached at the Ordination of the Rev. J.
Sparks ; a discourse eminently distinguished by its just exposition of Scriptural
truth, and the clearness and the solidity of the reasoning by which it is sup
ported. This truly eloquent preacher is only one of many who are now suc
cessfully labouring to diffuse through thc United States, the knowledge of the
one only true and living God, as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ;
and who in their lives adorn the doctrine they profess. The Trans-Atlantic
regions present an interesting scene to the lover of truth and of mankind ; while
the friend of liberty looks to them with satisfaction, as destined by the powerful
example of a free and equal government to check the despots of the old world,
and to encourage the efforts of enlightened patriotism, the friend of religious
truth contemplates there, with unspeakable delight, the unlimited diffusion of
pure and uncorrupted Christianity. It was indeed in " something of prophetic
strain," that my venerable predecessor, in a Fast Sermon, preached near the
close of the American war, looking to the probable ends of those crimes of his
native country, which he boldly reproved, and piously lamented, observed that,
amongst other things, " it might be in the purposes of divine Providence, on yon
western shores, to raise the bulwark of a purer reformation than ever Britain
patronised, to erect a seminary for the formation of more liberal minds than the
old world ever knew." The prediction is receiving its accomplishment. Unre
strained by prescribed formularies of faith, unimpeded by religious tests,

141
p'rofess to transcribe with pain, a passage in a Unitarian
work, which represents Jesus as subject (*. e. as by nature
liable) to infirmities and frailties, while at the same time,
you boast of a doctrine which necessarily involves, a con
sequence, at which Unitarians shudder, that Jesus was
actually guilty of sin. For what is sinful, if falsehood be
not ; and what is it but falsehood, to conceal the whole
truth, in circumstances which mislead the hearer ; to equivo
cate, to speak with mental reservation. Well may it be
said in your own words, (p. 29,) " what will not the appe
tite for system appear to sanction ?" You, indeed, do not
draw this frightful consequence, or I am persuaded you
would at once abandon the doctrine ; but I see not how
this consequence can be avoided. The Unitarian believer
needs no hypothesis, no theory involving a sentiment so
dishonourable to the memory of his venerated master.
Belying upon his own declaration, that " of himself he
could do nothing," but that " the Father who dwelled in
him did the works ;" and upon that of his inspired Apostle,
that " Jesus of Nazareth was a man, approved of by God,
by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by
him," he can satisfactorily account for all the miracles,
whether of knowledge or of power, by which his divine
commission was proved; and is preserved from the absurdity
of believing that an Almighty Personage, i. e. God himself,
(for who but God is Almighty ?) was conceived, was born,
was ministered to by angels in his necessities, upon Mount

unawed by the frown of power, unseduced by the splendid emoluments of a
wealthy religious establishment, the human mind is there freely expatiating in
the search after divine truth, and in the attainments it has already made,
receiving the reward of its past labours, and encouragement to proceed with
unabating perseverance.

142
Tabor resumed (what he could never lay aside) the glory
of the Godhead, and upon Mount Calvary expired I
(p. 17.) He owns him to have been much more than a
prophet, but at the same time much less than Almighty
God. There is one topic more, which I cannot suffer to pass
without notice, though I cannot enter into it so largely as I
wish; namely, your appeal to the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
In your Charge, (p. 1 0,) in the midst of your crimi
nations of Unitarians, and without much regard to con
nexion, you observe, " I might also, were it necessary,
appeal to the Apostolic and other Ante-Nicene Fathers —
to Clement of Rome, and Barnabas, (or whosoever wrote
the Epistle under his name) and Ignatius, and Polycarp,
and Justin Martyr, and Tatian, and Irenaeus, and Athena-
goras, and Theophilus qf Antioch, and Clement qf Alex
andria, and TertuUian, and Origen, for abundant confirm
ations of the doctrine for which I am contending." And
in your note, (p. 57—60,) you have given a sprinkling of
extracts, in which you assure the unlearned reader, that
there is a most entire concurrence, as to the point referred
to, the Divinity of Christ. " They are meant, however,"
you add, " not to establish that point, for"— -and here I most
cordially agree with you,—" better foundation can no man
lay than what is already laid in Scripture ; but to shew, irt
opposition to vague and illiterate assertions, that the Ante-
Nicene Fathers were not Unitarians." Such assertions you
may indeed well call vague and illiterate, but who has made
them ? So far from considering these Fathers as Uni
tarians, we charge them (with the exception of those deno
minated apostolic) with being the corrupters of the Uni
tarian doctrine. All that we contend for is, that they did

143
not hold the doctrine of the Trinity as it is now professed,,
that they had no notion of three co-eternal and co-equal
Persons, forming one God ; but that, although they spoke
of the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, they
spoke of it uniformly as an inferior and subordinate Divi
nity, derived from the Father, who was the supreme and
only true God, and to whom alone, the highest degree of
worship was to be paid. This is the sum of what Unita
rians maintain, and this they can easily and abundantly
prove. Your unlearned readers are therefore here liable to
be misled by you, as to the sentiments not only of modern
Unitarians, but also of the ancient Christian Fathers. For,
however entire the concurrence of those latter may be, as to
the Divinity of Christ, they do not sanction those views of
that doctrine, which are now maintained by the Established
Church, and to which you will, of course, be supposed to
refer. When I began these Letters, it was my design to enter
fully into this subject; and, by copious extracts from the
ancient writers whom you have named, to prove, that if we
cannot call them our allies, neither can they be justly
claimed as yours. But the topics I have treated have occu
pied so much more space and time than I anticipated, that
I must relinquish that design, and be content to do little
more than offer a few remarks on your extracts. ..The
first you produce, is from the second Epistle qf Clement qf
Rome ; a work which, Eusebius says, was not quoted by
the ancients, and which Abp. Usher, Mr. Jer. Jones, Dr.
Lardner, and many other learned and cautious critics have
rejected as undoubtedly spurious. It was probably forged
in the second century, and may, therefore, represent the
opinions of that age. But to judge of these, we must not take,

144
as you have done, the nine first words of a sentence consisting
of as many lines. The sense of the author cannot thus be
ascertained. Read the whole sentence, in connexion with
the whole fragment, (for it is nothing more,) and compare it
with our Lord's own discourse in John v., to which it refers ;
and it will afford no evidence, diat even the Pseudo-Clemens
was a believer in the Divinity of Christ. — The Epistle of Bar
nabas, I hesitate not to say, is unworthy of a moment's consi
deration. Be the advocates for its genuineness who they
may, internal evidence establishes its spuriousness. Though
bearing the name of Barnabas, (a Levite, ) the author speaks
of himself as having been a heathen ; and if he did not,
" his speech itself would betray him ;" for the style is not
that of a Jew, who lived before the destruction of Jerusa
lem. Mr. Jer. Jones has produced ten instances of " noto
rious falsehoods and gross mistakes ;" and the trifling, silly,
idle conceits, in which the work abounds, are utterly unworv
thy of an apostolic man, the friend and companion of Paul.
Eusebius calls it ygcubq yo0o5 ; Cotelerius doubts its genuine
ness ; Basnage, Fabricius, and many others deny it ; and
Mr. Jer. Jones has proved it to be apocryphal, by argu
ments that cannot be refuted. — You next quote Ignatius.
Any impartial judge will quickly perceive that this witness
has been grossly tampered with, and refuse to admit his
testimony. The tricks that have been played, even with
the smaller edition of the seven Epistles, are too manifest to
allow of any insulated passages being quoted, without un
dergoing the most rigid scrutiny. And I will venture to
say, that the three passages you have cited, belong not to
the age of the reputed author. The genuineness of the
Epistles of Ignatius is a long and intricate subject, not to
be treated in this place, though I should be far from shrink
ing from it, if it were necessary. The interpolations of the

145
larger edition are now, I believe, universally acknowledged.
Many very able critics have admitted that the smaller edi
tion is very far indeed from being pure ; and it is difficult
to imagine how any one, acquainted with the language of
Christian antiquity, can fail to discover, even in these, the
hand of a writer, long posterior to the age of Ignatius -f-
 The doxology of Polycarp, I also question ; and
it is on these grounds : — That it is given differently by Eu
sebius, (Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. c. 15,) and that it is inconsistent
with all the early doxologies, which are always addressed to
the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Nor
is it suitable to the apostolical simplicity of the Epistle writ
ten by the venerable martyr to the church at Smyrna. The
writing from which your extract is taken, comes to us in a
very questionable shape, from one of whom nothing is
known, but that he was a martyr, and who confesses that it
had been long lost, that it was discovered to him almost ob
literated, by a revelation from Polycarp. And it is the
judgment of Mosheim, that whatever may have been its
original authority, it has been corrupted and interpolated
by some weak and superstitious person, who, in his endea
vours to-multiply miracles, descends even to trifling, and
occasionally falls into the absurdity of disagreeing with
himself."— -Comm. de Reb. $c. Cent. i. § 53, n. *

f " To whichever edition,'' says Mosheim, " we may give the preference,
we shall never, under the present circumstances, let us endeavour what we may,
be able to exonerate these Epistles from all suspicion of corruption and interpo
lation.'' — Mosh. Comm. De Reb. ante Const. Cent. i. § 52, n. ***. See also Lard-
ner's Works, vol. ii. p. 68. ; but particularly Dailli de Scriptis sub Dion. Areop.
et Ignat. nominibus, §c — a work which denies the genuineness even of the
smaller edition of these Epistles; and, if I may presume to state my opinion
on such a subject, has not been refuted in the Vindicie Ignat. of the very
learned Bp. Pearson. L

146
To the competency of your other witnesses to give testi
mony to the opinions of the reputed orthodox Fathers of
their day, though I am fully convinced that they are all
corrupted, more or less, * I have nothing specifically to ob
ject ; but I do object most strongly to the manner in which
their testimony is extorted, and to their being allowed to
speak only in broken, unconnected sentences. A skilfuly
patient cross-examination would exhibit them in a very dif
ferent character. I do not mean to assert that their testi
mony would thus be transferred to our side ; but I am
certain that it Would be found to be of no great importance
to yours. Not even in the works of Bull, or of Waterland,
nor yet, on the other hand, in those of Petavius, Episcopius,
Whitby, Clarke, or Whiston, can a satisfactory opinion be
formed of the doctrines of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Let him
who wishes for correct views of the sentiments of their original
authors, read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Ire-
nwus on Heresies, Novatian on ihe Trinity, TertuUian
against Praxeas, Origen against Celsus, and his Treatise
on Prayer, Lactantius"1 Div. Institutiones, Sjc. Sec. ¦(¦ and he,

• See Daille De Usu Patrum, lib. i. c. 3.
T It was my intention to introduce here, several extracts from these and
other writers, prior to the Council of Nice, to prove that they did not maintain
the modern doctrine of the Trinity, and fell very far short of the standard of
the creed of Pseudo-Athanasius ; but, being pressed for time, and not Willing to
give these extracts at second hand ; and also being convinced that my labour
would be thrown away, I have relinquished my design. I shall, therefore, only
take this opportunity of requesting, that if any reader of the Archdeacon of
Cleveland's Charge should be induced, by the references in notes, (12 & 16,) to
read Bp. Bull's Defensio Fidei, $c, and his Judicium Eccles. Cath., they would
not neglect Whitby's Disquisitiones Modestae, or the " audacious author of the
tract, entitled, The Judgment of the Fathers? (p. 62,) which they will find in
the third volume of the Old Socinian Tracts, and well deserving of their notice,

147
and he alone, will be a competent judge on this subject.
And if he will read with an unprejudiced mind, I think I
may venture to predict, that he will be fully convinced, that
the orthodoxy of those days was such as would now bear
the stigma of heterodoxy ; and that amidst all the differ
ences of different writers, and all the inconsistencies which
almost every single writer betrays, neither the doctrine of
the Trinity, as it is now professed, nor any other of what
are called the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, were held
by any of them. They talked of the Divinity of Jesus ;
they called him God ; they paid him some kind of worship ;
they also, in some instances, ascribed Divinity to the Holy
Spirit ; and, in the latter end of the second century, not
before, began to use the word Trinity ; but they univer
sally acknowledged that the Father was the only true God,
and the only object of supreme worship. I do not mean to
say that they were Unitarians — far from it. Though their
aberrations from the truth were not so great as those of their
successors, they departed widely from the form of sound
words delivered by the first preachers of the Gospel, and
invented creeds, the dogmas of which were more " in accord-

though the author's manner may not be free from objection : that if they should
turn to Watcrland's Sermons, they would also attend to the Replies of Wh ifby, and
of others who engaged in the controversy with that learned but not very judicious
writer : or that if they should have recourse to the Inquiry, bXc. of Dr. Burgh,
they would by no means overlook the masterly Remarks, &!c. by the Rev. A.
Temple, of Richmond, and his Letters to Dr, Randolph, in vindication of the
Remarks. I have no hesitation in recommending to the impartial reader, Dr.
Priestley's History of the Corruptions qf Christianity, and his History of Early
Opinions concerning Jesus Christ : works which I acknowledge are not wholly
free from mistakes ; but which contain, I will venture to say, more correct and
comprehensive views of the opinions of the ancient Christian Church, and of the
progress of error, than are elsewhere to be found.

148
ance with the philosophical prejudices," which "they unhap
pily brought with them into the Christian church. These
corrupters of Gospel truth, could not, however, destroy it.
It was retained by the great body of believers, who, though
they could boast of some men of learning and eminence, as
Paul of Samosata, Noetus of Smyrna, Marcellus of Ancyra,
Sabellius, Theodotus, Artemon, and Praxeas, were not
generally " the wise, after the flesh, the mighty, or the
noble." For as in the days of the Apostles, so in succeed
ing times, " God chose the foolish things of the world, to
confound the wise ; the weak things of the world to con
found the things that are mighty ; and base things of the
world, and things which are despised, God chose, and
things which are not, to bring to nought things that
are." We do then presume to " allege antiquity in our
favour." But to this you also put in your claim. " Let
us tell them," you say, (p. 7,) " that we have Creeds ap
proaching nearly in antiquity to the Inspired Records, from
which they are, with critical exactness, deduced. Of these,
the most ancient was comprised in the few words ; " / be
lieve in God the Father, the Son, a?id the Holy Ghost ; a
declaration so comprehensive, as to affirm at once the
Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead ; and so simple,
that not even the humblest convert could mistake its mean
ing." Allow me then to ask, How are we to ^account for
the fact admitted by TertuUian, that the humblest converts
in his days, " dreaded the ceconomy, (i. e. the doctrine of
the Trinity as it was then understood,) and charged those
who maintained it, with being " worshippers of two, and
even of three Gods ; while they held the monarchy," (i. ex
the doctrine of the divine Unity in the strictest sense,) and

149
gloried in being " worshippers of one God only." * This
appears to me perfectly inconsistent with the high antiquity
of your pretended Creed. Yet you say, " By Synopses of
this description, in the very earliest ages of Christianity,
truth was discriminated from error." It would have been
well if you had furnished some proof of these assertions.
Where are these Synopses to be found ? I know of
nothing that bears the form of a Creed, prior to the age of
Irenaeus, A. D. 178 : -f and that professes faith in One God,
the Father Almighty, Maker qf heaven and earth, Sec. and
in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, &c. &c. You will
perhaps allege that the Baptismal Formula, as you call it,
was a Creed ; I assert that it is not a formula, and that it
was never used as a Creed, whatever Episcopius may have
stated, or "the acute Prelate," Bp. Bull, may have re
marked (Charge, &c. p. 46). Neither of them can produce
any evidence in their support.
The words of TertuUian cited by Bp. Bull, in the pas
sage given in your note, p. 46* are not, as you represent
them, a formula ; and if the learned Prelate means by his
" communem fidem exponens ait,'''' to say that the Presbyter
of Carthage designed tiiey should be so understood, he is
far from correct. TertuUian speaks, indeed, more than
once of a rule of faith, (regula fidei) but he means by that
the substance of the faith, not any form of words ; nor is
any such form to be found in his writings, or in any of so
early a date. Little was known of Creeds before the

• Adv. Prax. § 3.
t See Bingham's Antiq. &c. B. x. ch. 3, 1, vol. iv. Suiceri Thesaur. Art.

150
Council of Nice ; after that, not a council was held, what
ever its object, or however small a number of bishops
assembled, but it ended with a new Creed, graced with a
due portion of anathemas. If any very ancient Creed is-
to be found, it is one given by Paul. " If thou shalt con
fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy
heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved." This is - our confession ; thus we beheve ; and
are therefore surely justified when we " allege antiquity in
our favour."
I cannot conclude, without briefly adverting to one
other subject, mentioned in pp. 28, 29, of the Appendix.
You there " venture to assure the Socinians, that if ever a
New Translation of the Scriptures, instead of being enter-
prised by a solitary individual (or even a few individuals)
should be effected, in the only proper mode, as a National
Work ; upon the most impartial canons of interpretation it
will supply far more texts than it will take away, in favour
of the Orthodox Faith." You particularise Eph. v. 5,
which, you say, should be rendered In the kingdom qf
Christ, even God ; 2 Thess. i. 12. According to the grace
qf Jesus Christ, our God and Lord ; and three or four
more of a similar construction : from which it is evident
that the impartial canons of criticism to which you refer,
and on the aid of which to the cause of orthodoxy, you
place such firm reliance, are those relating to the Greek
article, applied by Mr. Granville Sharp, and his learned
supporters, Bp. Burgess, Dr. Wordsworth, Bp. Middleton,
and Mr. Veysie. A New Translation of the Scriptures, as
a National Work, is, I fear, an undertaking rather to be
desired than expected. It will not gladden our eyes : and
that which is now used, will, I feel confident, outlive the

151
credit of your boasted canons. Whoever shall have the
honour of accomplishing this great work, they will, I doubt
not, be too wise to be guided by rules of construction which
cannot stand the test of a rigid examination ; which have been
most satisfactorily demonstrated to be imperfect and fallacious.
That the texts you have quoted, and others similar to them,
should be translated according to these rules, you have as
serted, without any proof. In the same brief manner, I
must be allowed to assert, that they should not ; and the
common translation of them cannot be so materially changed,
without entirely misrepresenting the meaning of the original
authors. To justify this assertion, that is, to shew the fal
lacy of these rules, would require more leisure than I can
now command, and ampler space than these Letters will
allow. Nor is this necessary. The subject has been fully
discussed, and the fallacy of these rules most satisfactorily
proved, by a very acute, though, perhaps, not a sufficiently
grave writer, stiling himself Gregory Blunt, in Six More
Letters to Gr. Sharp; by the Rev. Calvin Winstanley, in
A Vindication of certain Passages in the common English
Version, fyc. ; * and by a critic in the Monthly Review, N.
S. vol. 62 and' 67, who, in his remarks on the publications
of Bp. Middleton and Mr. Veysie, has proved himself a
master in his art. That canons of interpretation, which
render a doctrine of the highest moment, dependent for some

* This admirable work, by an orthodox Clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, containing a learned, brief, yet complete refutation of Mr. G. Sharp's
canons, was suppressed, not very long after its appearance, for reasons which,!
believe, have never been stated. Happily, it had previously reached America,
and its merits being duly appreciated by the liberal theologians of that country,
it has been there reprinted, at the press of the University of Cambridge. It is
not, therefore, lost to the world.

152
of its strongest evidence on a nicety of Greek construction,
that appears to have been either unobserved, or unapplied,
by the ablest translators and critics of all preceding ages,
could not be established by any modern ingenuity or learn
ing, might be fairly presumed, previous to any examination ;
and the scrutiny which they have undergone, in the works
to which I have referred, has confirmed this presumption,
and clearly shewn, that while they would lead to an inter
pretation, exhibiting the sacred penmen in unfavourable
colours, irreconcileable with the uprightness that character
izes their writings, they are themselves devoid of that plain
ness and simplicity, which are amongst the surest marks of
truth. K'ou oroixtXwv 5n T'avSi^' /gfAtivtUfAttlwv,
"E-yjt yap aula xaipov o X'a^ixoj Xoyof,
Noo-wy ev avruj, (pap^utxwV $ElTal cropwv.
But it is time to conclude these Letters, which have ex
tended far beyond what I had anticipated. If I have
passed over any topics of importance, it is because, in the
midst of so many, they have escaped my notice : If I have
busied myself about what may be deemed trifles, it is
because you appeared to lay no little stress upon them ;
and I thought they might unduly impress the minds of
others — " Hee nugae seria ducent In mala." The task which
I have now accomplished, was undertaken from a principle
of duty ; and under the influence of that principle, I trust
it has been performed. I foresaw that it would be irksome
and painful, and so it has proved. I have had to examine
objections which have been repeatedly answered, and to re
pel calumnies which have been a thousand times refuted ;
and I have been under the necessity of speaking of yourself,
in away that has given me much pain, and which, if possible,

153
I would gladly have avoided. If, in vindicating the doc
trines you have so bitter!^ opposed, and the characters you
have so wrongfully aspersed, there has been any thing in
my manner needlessly harsh and offensive ; if I have been
betrayed into any thing unbecoming a scholar and a Chris
tian, I here avow my sincere regret, and tender a willing
apology. And if I have, in any instance, misapprehended
your words, and attributed to them a meaning which they
will not bear, or Which you did not design them to express ;
or if I have fallen into errors of any other kind, I require
only to be convinced, in order publicly to acknowledge and
correct them. In such case, only, am I disposed again
to notice the subjects of these Letters. I have no fondness
for controversy, nor any wish to acquire, by practice, " pole
mical dexterity." The character of a controversialist I have
now sustained for the first time : I willingly lay it down, to
be resumed no more. "Hic caestus artemque repono:"
and I cheerfully return to occupations more congenial with
my spirit, and, as I trust, productive of more certain and
more lasting good.
I am, Reverend Sir, Your obedient servant,
C. WELLBELOVED.

Youk, April 6, 182ft

^«vw.««w«.^vv^^v«v«v«v*.\\

,(Thom8s'Wilson%ndSons, Printers, yigh-Ousegato, York.)

- ¦¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ mm-MMm
v\v..v.;.v .'.¦. ¦ ¦ > >i '