m^ 'rrw^ ■>iv ^* ^'dr. V A SOCINIANISM BROUGHT TO THE TEST: OR JESUS CHRIST PROVED TO BE EITHER THE ADORABLE GOD, OR A NOTORIOUS IMPOSTOR. Third Edition, 1805. SOCINIAHISM BROUGHT TO THE TEST: OR JESUS CHRIST PROVED TO BE EITHER THE ADORABLE GOD, OR A NOTORIOUS IMPOSTOR, IN TWENTY LETTERS TO THE REVEREND DOCTOR PRIESTLEY, IN WHICH IT APPEARS, T^af if ^Esus Christ is not a Divine Person the Mohammedan is, in all respects, preferable to the Christian Religion, and the Ko- ran a better Booh than the Bible. If the Lord be God, follow him ; but' if Baal, then follow him. 4 y I Kings xviii. 21. Bxj JOHN MACGOWAN, Jiuthor of Arian and Socinian's Moniti of Devils — Death a Vifion, 8cc ^ V THIRD EDITIO LONDON: PRINTED FOR W. BAYNES, 54, PA" ROW. 1805. Grac'iey Pt inter, Bcrtvkh LETTER I. Reverend Sir, Calling the other day at your Book- feller*s (hop, I lUw a pamphlet lying on the counter, entitled, A Free Address to Protest- €mt Dissenters on the Subject of Church Dis^ cipline, ivith a Preliminary D:scourse concern- ing the Spirit of Christian? ty and the Corrtip- tion of it hy False Notioiis of Religion ^ by Jt sLPu Pkiestley, L L. D. F. R. S. and which the bookfeller recommended to me as a very fenjible pamphlet. Forgetting that it is the buiiiiefs of a dealer to f peak well of the commodity lie fells, I took the book upon his recommendation, fomewhat encouraged by the enligjtis of honour which the author trailed after bim, as L L. D. F". R. S. fuppofing, that little imperfection could lurk under fiich Ipecious titles : but if I live to buy another new book, I (hall pay more regard to my own judgment, than to the bookfeller's recom- mendation ; for to tell you the truth Do6tor your performance does not altogether anfwer the chara6ter with which it was honoured. I had not read far in your Preliminary Dii- courfe, ere I formed a defign of commencing your humble correipondent ; the further I A 3 6 Tead, the more my purpofe was confirmed, which the better to execute, I waited on your booklelier again to procure fbme more of your pamphlets. To him I communicated my defign of commencing hoftiUties againft your writings. He benevolently wiihed me to take care of myfelf, ailedging that I fhould find the Rev. Dr. Prieftley an ableantagonilt. I hke him the better for that,-faid I, for there will be the more honour in contending with him ; beOdes, there is fome chance of his deeming me fo diminutive as to leave me en- tirely polfeffed of the field, and that will be thought by many to be a complete vi6lory on my fide, that is, on the fide of common fenle. As you. Sir, have engroifed the whole of rational religion on your fide of the queilion, you cannot be offended if I lay claim to com- mon fenfe as my companion. And now to clear the way to a fair field for our literary combat, permit me to tell you that I myfelf am not in the highefi: eftimation for orthodoxy ; nor have the Orthodox Dilienters fo much as hinted a defire of my appearing your antago- nifl:; neither have any of them fuch an high opinion of either my learning or abilities, as to fuppofe me capable of difcomfiting the Rev. Dr. Prieftley. On the contrary, I am credibly informed that many of them are exceedingly grieved at my precipitancy and fool-hard inels in daring to attack a gentleman fo very much my fuperior iii all refpecls. Whether thele 7 good people tremble with a pious fear for the ark of the Lord, or indulge a fecret envy againfl me for affuming honour fo eminent, and are afraid that I may appear in a more advantageous point of view than they could wiQi, I have not as yet been able to difcover. But this I can affureyou, that the undertaking is quite voluntary ; therefore if a fhamefui de- feat (hould in the iflue be my lot, let the dif- grace of it be candidly laid at my door, as a brat entirely of my own begetting. As it is not my intention to call any names, to rake up the dull of any of the dead, or in the lead to meddle with your private perfonal cha- ra6ler, or education, which I believe has been much more liberal than that to which I have any pretenfions. I beg we may have no talk of burning our bibles, or hanging, Ihooting, or drowning ourfelves, as in the controverly between the Rev. Mr. Venn and yourlelf*, you politely have advifed him to threaten in future. There will be no occafion for the leaft degree of perfonal abuie between you and me, if we both act up to our profeflTion, of Jiniply feeking out the truth. But as much ftudy is a wearinefs of the flelh, it Ihall be lawful for us, now and then, to accompany our ferious argument with a little ridicule, and to fneer jocofely at each other's folly ; for which I perceive your reverence polVelTeth very * Dr. Prieftley's Letter to the Rev. Mr. Venn. A 4 refpe^lable talents, as appears from your let- ter to the Vicar of Huddersfield. I blame the Proteliant Diifenter for expref- fing his fear of your great abiUties in point of ridicule ; feeing every one who engages in re- ligious controverfy muft expe6l to meet with it, iinlefs there be an happy defect of genius attending his antagonift. Religious contro- verfiesditFer from all others in this, that they roufe up the little wit we are pofTefled of; or, if deftitute of wit, all the anger and ill-nature mixed with our conllitution ; for it is no un- common thing for religious combatants to leave the fpirit of thegofpel behind them, and by wrath to feek the rit^hteoufnefs of God : therefore, no man fliould enter into contro- verfies of this fort without firft fitting down and counting the coft, and trying his own heart whether he has temper enough to bear the poignance of that fatire which he is likely to meet with, without injuring his caufe by an unbecoming anger. Befides, as ferious dif- quifitions are very tirefome to read, how does the Proteftant Diffenter think that the reader can have patience to keep the difputants company, unlefsthe mufcles of his countenance are now and then relaxed into a pleafant grin by a home ftroke of fatirical wit? But ill-na- ture being difcovered, though it (liould be even religious ill-nature, is fure to give dif- guil to every reader of common underlland- ing. 9 I confefs that, of late years, I myftlf alfo am inclined to think that, to load infidels with epithets of reproach, is not the happiell; method of attempting their converfion ; and I hope to convince you, Sir, ere I have done, that, for the very fame reafon. Dr. Prieftly takes the wrong way to lead the Orthodox Diifenters to correct the errors into which he fuppofes them to have fallen. Neither do I as yet fee caufe to be in any wife angry with a man, becaufe God has not given him the fame degree of rational difcernment which I fla-tter myfelf he has conferred on me : nor would 1 fcold at thofe who do not fpeak well of that gofpel which, I beheve in my heart to be hid from their eyes. If people are in cir- cumftances dangerous to their everlalling con- cerns, they are certainly more proper obje6ls of my pity than of my refentment. With as much propriety might I be offended at a poor man who was born blind and continues fo, becaufe he is not a judge of colours, or with a deaf man, becaufe he underilands not the har- mony of founds. But if one will take upon him to prate about colour which are only dif- cernible by the eye, and the other will attempt to difplay the beauties of harmony which can only be perceived by the ear ; — ^you know. Doctor, I may very confiftently laugh at their folly, even whilft I pity them for their want of fight and hearing. However, I forbid all anger between you and me, as sve are pretty a5 10 near upon a par in this refpe^l, each of us firmly believing himfelf to be the furtheft en- lightened. I am perfuaded that two men cannot be found who in general ditfer more widely than Dr. Prieltley and myfelf, and that too in the very fundamentals of the ChrilVsan faith, and yet there are fome things in wh'ch we are perfe(5lly agreed ; and although 1 confider your fyilem, in general, as utterly inconfiftent with that gofpel in which lies all my hope, I difcern fomething in your writing that is worthy of imitation. The opennels and free- dom with which you exprefs your ientiments, though frequently, as I think, crude and indi- gefted, undoubtedly prove the uprightnefs of your intentions, and effe6lually exculpate you from the charge of difingenuity and wilful perverlion of truth ; which is further apparent iVom your readinefs to corre6t what appears to you upon convincing evidence to have been wrong in former publications, as in your ad- ditions to the aeldrefs on the Lord's fu pper. Tliis fymptoni of genuine uprightnefs is fo lingular, and fo rarely found in controverfial writers, that I thought I could not do you juflice, without takuig particular notice of it, notwithlianding I profefs myfelfan avowed enemy to what you call Rational Chriltianity. And I aifure you. Sir, 1 hold myfelf obliged to follow Dr. Priefilei/, in this part of his con- duct, whenever my circumftances fliall call 11 me to it, which perhaps may be fooner than I at prelent expe<5t. But, as it is quite un- fafhionable for polemic writers to (land long in bertowing panegyrics upon their antagonifts, like counfeilors at the bar, I proceed to inforn^l you, that my prefent bufinefs is not to com- pUment much farther, but to point out more miftakes for your corre(!^ion and amendment. Having got in a great meafure free, as I think, from the trammels of tradition myfelf, fo as to regard no authority di(tin6t from that of Chrift in the fcripture, and to follow no man, or fet of men, knowingly, one hairs- breadth farther than he, or they follow the blelled Jefus ; I (hould not have cared to enter the hfts with you if you had not declar- ed your belief of the fcriptures as the only rule of faith and duty. For if fathers and re- formers are admitted as decifive judges in religious controverfy, the authority of the fcriptures , is not only abridged, and the Re- deemer's glory, as prophet and lawgiver in his church eclipfed, but the fubject is more perplexed, and the iilue of the debate great- ly protracted. I heartily concur with you in '* believing the bible to be the only rule ;'* and to adopt your own words, lincerely *' icijlb that all perfons, of all feels and partitas, would Jiudy their bibles more, and booIxS ofcontroverfij lefs*.'' Yet I (hull have no objection to ail people, of all iects, reading wiiat may pals * Confiderations on DifFerences of Opinion, &c. pag. 24. A 19 between you and rae. I am ready to think, indeed that it is uCual for polemic writers to fupjjole that all books of controverfy are hurt- ful, except thofe, of which they thernfelves happen to be the authors. For inflance, there is no man ever exclanned more againfl con- troverfy, as pernicious to the fouls of men and the interells of true religion, than the reverend Mr John Wejley, and yet I do not know one man who has been more frequently dabbliiig in that polluting puddle, than John We/Iey^ A. M, fometime Fellow of Lincoln- College, Oxford. The profeifed principle, Sir, upon which you fet out page 1, of the Preliminary Dif- courfe, is alfo very agreeable to me ; and by it I mean to try the fabric you have built opon it; therefore fhall recite it at large in this place ; then I fhall openly avow what I defign in the following letters. * * Every fet of religious fenthnents imifi have its influence upon the mind, and will produce a pariicidar temper and cafl of thought, which will greatly influence the conduct, Chriflianity is by no means an exception to this general ,ohfervation. Its effeci upon the difpojition of the mind is peculiar to itfelf: and except we i"i;EL as Chriftians, ice cannot act asfuch*,** By this rule, let the religion of the Rev. Dr. Prieftley and that of his humble fervantbe tried, and that which really produceth the * Prel. Difc. pag. 3. 13 word effeiSls, be reje6icd as fpurious, irration- al, and unfcriptural. Dependent upon the bible, a better rule could hardly have been given than this of your own. ** Every fet of religious J entimentSy" rational and irrational, orthodox and heretical, muft have its infiuence upon the mind, and will produce a particular temper and caji of thought, which will greatly injiuence the conduct.''' ** Muft,'* from the nature of things, and the relation between caufe and etre6t; infomuch that from the tem- per and condu6l of any man, you may from Dr. Prieftley's maxim, form an exact idea of the propriety or impropriety of his religious fentiments. You fay, " that Chriftianity is by no means an exception to this general obfer- vat'ion:" I hope not. For my part, lean form no idea offuch a Chriftianity as hath not a proper influence upon thofe who cordi- ally embrace it : of courfe, had 1 been in your place, I fhould have deemed this remark al- together fuperfluoiis and unnecell'ary. But I dare lay, that you and I have very different views of Chriftianity itfelf, whatever agreement there may be between us rel peeling its effe6ls upon the temper and condu6t of its profeflbrs. The gofpel which Paul preached, and the other gofpel which he fuppofed fome others might preach, are, no doubt, each of them produ6tive of effects fuitable to their different natures. Having thus fettled preliminaries, I will 14 now, Sir^ point out the ground I intend to occupy, and the method by which the combat is to be managed ; for I muft affure you I am fomewhat hke the hero, who would light only after his own country fafliion. 1. I (liall give you a little gentle corre6lion for your want of charity for thofe fame ortho- dox gentlemen, and teach you for the future, to ule your betters either with more relpe<5t, or to be more confillent in your cenfure. 2. I defign to prove that much of the Pha- rifee lurks under the fpecious name of Rational Diffenter, which you are pleafed to aflume, to dillinguifh yourfelf from others whom you call Orthodox. • 3. I (hall fhew you how perplexed you have rendered the dodrines of the perfon of Chrift, of the atonement, &c. 4. Gioisalittle upon the vifible, well-attefted fruits of your divinity, as they difcover them- felves among the Rational Diifenters. And, laftly, if any thing belides occur to me-whilft I am difcuiling thefe points, I fhall make no fcruple of fuper-adding it to my plan. Thus, Sir, I have gone as far as I intended in my firlt letter; fo ihall conclude, with af- furingyou that I am. Reverend Sir, Your very humble Servant, 15 LETTER IL To the Rev. Joseph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. Reverend Sir, I AM abundantly the more careful in re- citing the honours ofyour name, that the public may fee the dignity of the company which I cboofe to keep; according to an ancient in- junction laid upon me by my father, who had he lived to fee this day, would have rejoiced that I had got 1'uch an honourable correfpon- dent as yourfelf. I think, indeed, that by this time, we may efteem you as the moil ra- tional advocate of the Rational Dilfenters, if we may judge by the eminent figure you make amongft them. I, for my part am, from the refpectabi^nefs of your talents, very wiUing to believe that you are the fitteft perfon with whom they could truft the management of their caufe agaiiill all that are called Orthodox. But, in the name of common fenfe, and ra- iional re/igiofi, what have the Orthodox Dif- fentersdone to the Rev. Dr. Prieflley, that he ftould fet them forth in fuch a difagreeable point of view, and treat them in a manner fo ievere and unmerciful ? Really, Doctor, you convince me, that. you are but a man of Uke palTioiis with myfeif, and not quite fo free 16 from the prejudice of party as you feem to imagine. To make ufe of your own words** I really think that *' ive Piouidnaturallij ei-peM more fair nej's y more candour^ 'more meeknefs^ and more generofihj from the Chriftian, t'imn from the mere Man of this world. The pajjions of the latter (the man of this world) wouM he apt to run into perfonai animo/ity, envij^jea^- loufy, hatred y and malice ; whereas the utnmfl zeal of the former (the ChriJiianJ loould fmt anly ever appear to be conjiftent ivith, but would be greatly productive of the moft dijisi'^ terefted benevolence, and the mofi affeclionale brotherly love. By this rule, ive may, infotae meafure. Try the Spirits whether they be of God. But let the utmoji diijidence and can- dour accompany every judgment we form ^ re- membering that we muji alljiand before ike judgment feat of Chrift." This is certaio!y a good rule ; and I would obferve upon it, that if we could only govern our I'pirits, as well as we do our pens, and a6t as well as we fpeak, there would be more propriety in our cor- du6l than there ufually is, and our charai^er in life would be more refpectable. This being given as one of Dr. Prielllej's ftanding rules, **for the finding outofjpirits ;'* upon feeing it, one would have thought that even the Orthodox Diifenters fliould have met with nothing from his difiiuguilhed jx.!i but the utmofl candour, meeknefs, generofity, * Diifereijces of Opinion, page 5. ir benevolence and brotherly affe6lion, which he himfelf lays down as the fruits of a Chriftian fpirit ; efpecially when we find him fo folemn- ly and ferioufly deprecating a departure from this rule in the following words *. God for' hid that I fhould take upon me to condemn any of his creatures. Himfelf only knows our hearts, and he will render to every man accord^ ing to his works. But either the Orthodox Diffenters are thought not to be the creatures of God, or the Rev. Dr. Prieftley was of a dif- ferent opinion when he wrote the Preliminary DiJ'courJ'e concerning the Spirit of Chrijiianity. I am not abfblutely fure which of thefe was the cafe ; but this I am certain of, that in the iaid Difcourle, page 16, and 17, having traced the fpring of the ** penances, and tirefome re" petition of Paternofters and Ave Maria s, as a mere bodily exercife, in the Church of Rome ^ and obferved that it is pretty evident that going to church aa/d attending prayers, is conjidered by many meinbers of the Church of England in the fame light. You remark that, this they look upon in the higheji, and moft proper fenfe their duty, and they hardly ever attend to it as the means of cultivating good difpojitions , and fitting them for proper conduft in life.'* But it not being deemed fufficient to point out the abfurdity of the papifts, and of the good peo- ple of the Church of England, you go on to deal the fevereft blows among the poor Ortho- * Diff. of Opinion, page 4. 18 dox Diffenters, as abundantly worfe, and more dangerous than both the others ; ** and, fliy you, the frequent long andfevere exerci/es, by which the Orthodox DilJenters dijlinguifh them/elves, are of the fame nature. They ferve to difcharge their confciences as a pofitive duty ; hut have little influence to improve their difpojition and conduct,'^ From a man of fuch nfioderation as the Rev. Dr. Prieftley gives hhnfelf out to be, this might have been thought fufFicient : but the home blow is yet to come; and thus it follows: '* Upon the whole, I cannot help thinking ^that there is a firiking refemhlance between thefe profefjors of Chrijlianity, and the pharifees in our Saviour's time, thoj'e whojirained at a gnat andfwallowed a camel \ who devoured widows houfesy and for a pretence, made long prayers ; and that, were our Lord again upon the earth, he woidd treat them icith the fame Jeverity. Indeed Do6tor! Is it poflible that the impulfe is fo ftrong, that you cannot refift it, but muft out with it, in oppofition to all your own excellent rules of meeknels, candour, and benevolence. Could not you have recolle6ted that jult re- mark*, *' we are certainly all of us fallible, and liable to adopt opinions without fufficient evidence-,** This rule would have pleaded fomewhat with you in favour of the poor Orthodox Diffenters, had it been obferved ; and I have not, for my part, fkill enough to * See Dr. Prieftley's DifFerence of Opinion, page 31. w account for it, why great men fhould lay Jown the bell of maxims and rules for others to follow, without payins^ a becoming regard to them thenjfelves. I find myfelf juit now un- der an im[>uire alfo, and cannot help faying that the above ferious admonition * feems pretty near as neceifary to the Rev. Dr. Prieftley, as to the Rev. Mr, Venn, A^icar of Huddersfieid ; for his feverity to the Deiiis, &c. is thoroughly matched by yours. Sir, to- wards the '■ )rthodox Dilfenters. What an inconfiitent creature is n-an ! for this fame Dr. Prieftley, who takes upon him to accufe, judge, and condemn the Orthodox Diffenters, teils us plainly f, *' that there are fuch well Inoivn inftances of the force of prejudice, that he had rather afcrihe any opinion, how ahfiird foever, or any drfenre, how weak faever, in a man how J'enji.ble, and intelligent fo' ever, in other refpecis, to wrong judgment, * Tlie admonition referred to is found in Dr. Prieftley** OWervations on Difference of Opinion, page 5, *^ We fhould naturally exped more fairnefs, more candour, more meeknefs, and more generofity from the Chriftian, than from the mere Man of this World. The paffions of the latter -would be apt to run into perfonal animofity, envy, jealoufy, hatred, and malice; whereas the utmoft zeal of the former would, not only ever appear to be confiftent with, but would be greatly pro^ du6tive of the moft difmterefted benevolence, and the molt af- fedlionate brotherly love. By this rule we may, in fome mea- lure, try the fpirits whether they be of God. But let the ntmoft diftidence and candour accompany every judgment we form, remembering that we muft all fland before the judg- ment feat of Clmft." I Differences of Opinion, page 10. 20 than to a had ^ear^ ;". and, after all moft certainly afcribes the condud and principles of thefe fame Orthodox Diilenters to badnefs of heart, rather than wrong judgment ; for there are faid to be a ilriking likenels between them and the pharifees, who undoubtedly were influenced by badnefs of heart rather than mifinformed judgments. *' How Jliould I be affedied at the great day of judgment,** fays your reverence* *' to he convinced of the integrity, and perhaps the right judgment aljb of an adverj'ary^ whom I Jliould have treated in Jo illiberal and infalting a manner?'' This is intended for Mr. Venn's confideration ; and I allure you, Dodor, I think it will not be al- together amifs that you (hould a little ponder upon it yourfelf : for to give good advice to others, and to negled it ourl'elves, is fome- what like the condu<5t of watermen, who look one way whilfl they are rowing another. Neverthelefs, I allure you, that I by no means impute this inconiiftency of yours to any dilhonefi;y of delign, but to '* the force of prejudice, and wrong judgment," which has led you to throw out your cenlure, without fully confidering its weight and propriety; or indeed how grievioufly itclalheth with your own avowed maxims. Now, Do6lor, that you may fee the foil fcope of your cenlure referred to, I Ihail be ii'(^Q enough to animadvert upon it in my own * Page 11, 21 way: and, in the firft place, touching what you fciy of the Pater-nofteis and Ave-Marias of the Church of Rome, and the prayers of many ofthe members of the Church of England being mere bodily exercifes, I have little to iay, having not yet attained to an abfolute certainty whether all that have uled thefe things had no farther views in them than merely to difcharge their conibiences. Be- iides, I have but a very dull facult\% in point of difcerning hearts, any other way than by outward acf ions ; moreover, I think it not amifs to leave it to the parties concerned to defend themfelves againft your attack, feeing neither of them have retained me as their ad- vocate. But, as for the poor Orthodox Dif- fenters; you have ufed them fo unmercifully Do(5lor, that common humanity would induce me to interfere, had I even no fellow-feeling with them in the common caufe. *' The frequent long and fevere exercifes hy which the Orthodox Diffenters dijtinguifli them- felves^ are of the fame nature,** As to the frequency of their exercifes, really you muft needs be miftaken ; for, to my certain know- Jedge, they differ little if any thing at all, from the exercifes of the Rational Diffenters themfelves. Verily, Sir, it is my charitable opinion, that few, of either the one or the other, are in danger of damnation for preach- ing too often and praying too much. But their exercifes are long you fay, and this per- haps may bethought to give them a papiilical turn. Ill this alfo I am of opinion, that the practice of the Rationals themfelves will exculpate the Orthodox. Your ex- ercifes, Do6tor, will meafure pretty near two hours in length ; the exercifes of the Orthodox, generally fpeaking, never exceed, and very rarely extend to that time : fo that I dire6l the jury who are to determine in the cafe, I mean the public, to bring in their verdict. Not Guilty, in favour of the Orthodox. The greateft danger is likely to arife from the third quality of their exercifes, namely, their feverity, which is by far the mofi puzzling point, as the Orthodox and Rational Dil- fenters, I much fear are not very likely at piefent, perfectly to underftand one another. Some oTthem, however will be ready to al- ledge, that they enjoy as much pleafure in preaching the gofpel, as Dr. Prieftley does ia his philofbphical refearches, and that they are apprehenfive of no more feverity in the one than he is of in the other. Nay, they would be apt to go farther, and to afiure you, thaS the moft pleafant part of their lives is that which is employed in the work of the fan6luary. Now, really, Sir, it is not eafy to fay, how that exercife in which a man delights, can be thought by him to be fevere : and I fuppofe you will allow that every man by his ovvri feelings ous^ht to be the mod proper judge for himfelf. Far be it from me, by the way, to 23 take upon me to determine the exa6l meafure of feverity, which thofe gentlemen feel in re- ligious exercifes, who are minifters merely for the fake of a livelihood. In general, it is a flated law, That all ctmymg agawft the grain is H7ipleafant ; but what is this to (hole who, having themfelves felt the terrors of the Lord are ftirred up to warn men to flee from the ■wrath to come? Upon whom necellity is laid, and who are miferable, if they preach not the gofpel? They are conftrained by the love they bear to Jefus and to the fouls of men, to be inflant in preaching the word in feaibn and out of feafon, if by any means they may be ufefulin promoting the falvation of loft perifh- ing fmners. The cafe you know is very differ- ent between thefe two fels of men ; and of courfe, their feelings muft alfo be dilferent. But, ** thefe fevere exercifes of the Orthodox DiJJenters are of the very J'ame nature with popipi penances, and tirefo7ne repetitions of Pater-nojiers, and Ave- Marias. O! Do6lor, where was your candour, your benevolence, and your brotherly aff'e6lion, when you wrote this difcourfe? Indeed Sir, if Rational Reli- gion doth not find out a more happy method of difcovering herfelf, I fhall never be able to join any of her focieties, but muff: even be content to bear the reproach of Orthodoxy. But, you know, and I know too, that popiffi penances, tirefome repetitions of paternoffers, &c. are enjoined hi the church of Rome 24 with a view to procure the favour of God, &c. And you fay that the frequent, long, and fevere exercifes of Orthodox Dilfenters are of the fame nature. Permit me to afk you if you really think that the fame Orthodox Dilfenters perform their fe- vere exercifes with a defign to merit at the hands of God ? Perhaps, Sir, you may recolle6t who it is that blames them for pharifaifm, for confidering themfelves as faved, and fecure in the favour of the Almighty, vvhilft they fup- pofe that multitudes are under his wrath, and mud perifh. Turn, I pray you, good Doc- tor, to page IS of your Differences of Opinion, and there fee the fentiments of the Orthodox, as * * that the grace thatfaves them is irre/ijiihle and irrevocable ^ Jo that they can never lofe the divine favour. ^^ Certainly thefe words, if they contain their fentiments, mud utterly •exclude all pretenfions to merit in their fe- vere exercifes : and how then can one of your profelfed candour fay, that their exercifes : are of the very fame nature with popilh penances and paternofters? I really wiih, that our zeal for party-religion might not in future be in- jurious to common fenfe as well as Chrilliaii charity. I pray you, Sir, how came you fo well to know, that their frequent, long, and levere exercifes have little influence to improve their difpofition and condu6l ? You know well enough that your acquaintance with the gene- 25 rality of them" is comparatively narrow, and your intercourfe with them very fmaM. And perhaps your acquaintance with any of t{)em is too imperfect to authoi"ile fuch a Icandalous lligma as this with which you hrand them. Admitting that you have tailed of the hitter- nels of fome of their I'pirits, and have Ihiarted by lafhes from the pens of one or two indi- viduals among them, will that he a i'uHicient warant for fuch a general and indifcriminating cenfure with you pafs upon them all? When do you think, Doctor, that you and I fliall learn, in our controverlies, to do to others as we would wi(h them to do unto us? That is, to a6t up to our own fUlutary rules. But, as you fay concerning the Deiils, I may fay con- cerning the Orthodox Diffenters ; do, Sir, fit down calmly, and with ferioufuefs confider their objections to your Rational religion, and by no means treat them with that contempt which they cjo not deferve. The anfwer to the heavieit part of the charge you bring againlt them, muft be left till I have the honour of writing to you again ; for I will not trouble you with too long a letter at one time, leall the exercife of reading it fliould be thought fomewhat fevere, hke the religion of the Orthodox. I Ihail therefore conclude, remaining. Reverend Sir, Your humble fervant. 26 LETTER III. . Reverend Sir, I HAVE not yet done with animadverting on the uncharitable cenlbre you have pali'ed againft the Orthodox Diflenters; therefore, to make you fenfible that you are not fuch a competent judge of men, and of the fpirits which influence them, as fome may think, 11)}^ bufincfs in this letter fliall be to point out the real import of the dreadl'ul fentence you have pronounced againft them, fo as that all Jiiay read and underiland it. But, as I would do the ftri(5left juftice to all men living, I pur- pofe to keep up a proper diiiinilion between Dr. Priefiley as a Rational Ciiriilian, and the fame Dr. Prieftley as an honeft man, and whihl I rauller ail my forces to oppofe him under the lormer chara6ter, I (hall give him all due honour and refped under the latter. With thisneceiiliry dirtin6tion therefore in my eye, 1 (hall proceed to (hew that the Rev. Dr. Prieitley, as a Rational Diiienter, has drawn the molt deteiiable picture pf, and brought the heavieft accufations againft the Orthodox Diiienters, that I remember ever to have feen or heard ; and by tlie way. That the fame Rev. Dr. Prieftley, as a inaii of jihilofophic candour and humanity. 27 has boldly acquitted the Paid Orthodox of all the charges brought againft them by the Ra- tional Dillenter, by his pointing out another clafs of people, to whom his cenl'ure is per- fectly applicable. 1. Then, Do6lor, for I love to be method- ical, let us take a view of the charge whicli you, as a Rational Diffenter, bring againfl the Orthodox, and we fliall find it truly alarming ; perfectly unmixed with that amiable charity, lb jullly celebrated in your j)erformances. Upoji the ivliole I cannot help thinking, thai there is aftriking refemblance between thej'e profejfors of Chriftianiti/, and the pharifees in our !Saviour's time, ihoje ichojirained at a gnat and fw allowed a camel, ivho devoured icidows houj'esy and, for a pretence, made long prayers ; and that were our Lord again upon the earth, he would treat them with the fame feverity *." Why the pharifees in our Saviour's time fhould be ciiofen as the original, after which the pi6ture of the Orthodox Diiienters is drawn, I cannot certainly fay; having had but little opportunity of informing myfelf whe- ther there is any real diffimilitude between the ancient and the modern pharifees. However, were a fkilful liiimer to copy the fpirit and condu6l of the pharifees of our own time, he would produce a pi6lure even difagreeable and (hocking enough, without having the trouble and expence of travellin^c back the * Preliminary Difcourfe, page 17. B 2 9S "fpace offevcnteen centuries for a more per- fect patrern. Now that we may the better know whether the Orthodox, or the Rational DKferiters have the cleareil title to the honour of being clalfed with the pharifees in our Sa- viour's time, it may not be amifs for me to take down the original from behind the cur- tain, and a littJe to mark the outlines of that diftinguilhed charader. This may bring the matter to a fair iifue ; and I beheve I fliall not need to put myfelf to much expence or to the trouble of fevere lludy in this affair; for 1 have got what fuits my purpofe in an old fermon of mine : for you'muft know, Sir,^ that I am, like yourfelf, *' paid for haranguing the people once ci week." I think you will agree with me that the Rational Didenter, has difcovered but a very (lender degree of that charity, which doilor Prieftley {q warmly recommends when he fo pofitively declares that, there is fuch a (Iriking relemblance be- tween the Orthodox Diffenters and the pharifees ; for, 1. The pharifees, in general, were hypo- crites ; and, as appears from the teftimony of Jefus, took up a dhfembled religion to cover their avaricious purpofes; which mull be the chara6lerot' the Orthodox Dilfenters, if tlje re- femblance between them and the pharifees i~ fo Arikingas you, Sir, in the perl'on of a Rational Difienier, have been pleafed to affirm ; but, how you could come at this knowledge, vvith- 99 out having attained the wonderful fecret of dif- cerniug hearts, is not lb eafy for me to compre- hend. But the Rev. Dr. Prieilley, in the peribn of an hone(tman,isab(blutelyofa d liferent opi- nion ; for, to tile confufion of this uncharitable Rational Diffenter, he telJs us plainly, that * ** he would at any time rather impute the m?f- taken conduct of the Orthodox Diffenter s to wrong judgment than to hadnefs of Jieart,'* But, if the whole had not been imputed to badnefs of heart, this Rational Diifenter had not been lb exceedingly and irrefiilibiy llruck with the exact refemblance. For my owa part, I moft fincerely agree with Dodor Prieft- ley the honell man, and am lb fenfible ** that we are all fallible^ and liable to adopt opt- nions, without fufjicient evidence f, that I fliould not dare even to retort any thing which appa^ rently carried in it a charge of hypocrify.'* Therefore I fignify it as my opinion, that the exhibiter of this charge againlt the Orthodox be fummoned to the bar of the Rational Dif- fenters, and on his knees receive a fliarp re- buke for having betrayed their want of candour and charity, which ought by all means to have been kept a I'ecret, as they wifh for the profperity of Rational rehgion. Indeed, Sir, it never was my intention to charge your friends with hypocrify ; but if Dr. Prieilley, who is fo much better acquainted with theia than I am, will do it, the biame you know * DifF. of Opin. page 10. t Differences of Opinion, page SI. B 3 30 can, with no propriety, be laid at my door. And, to my certain knowledi^e, what the Doctor fays of them, can with no juftice be faid of many who are called Orthodox. That all may (ee that I do not belie you. Reverend Sir, I {hall lay before the reader your own words, and then leave it to his determination, whether they actually amount to a direct charge of diffimulation and hypocrify. In your effay on Church Difcipline, page 55. I'peaking of the Rational Dilfenting minifters, you lay, that they " entertaining J entiments in religion different from thofe of their people, andfuch as their people loould not have borne with ; they endeavoured to keep them as much as pojjible out of view.'' This is a very fair and honeliconfeilion indeed! In the truth and up- rightnefs of your heart you have difplayed the dilingeiiuous conduct of your learned "brethren, without any regard had to the confequences which might attend fuch a fatal difcovery. I own, however, that it is fomewhat droll that the Rational DiiTenters fhould be the only people who are unacquainted with the real Icntiments of their minitters; and it is every whit as droll that one of themfelves fhould publiOi the tremendous i'ecret, '* that their minillers are lb wrapt in difguife when they come to the pulpit, that it is impoflible for the conoregation to know of a truth that they are entertained with the real lentiments of the preacher.'* This is one of the many advan- tages arifmg from the further reformation of SI religion. And really it is pretty clear that tliefe fame Rational gentlemen ditFer exceed- ingly from Paul the apoftle, who fhunned not to declare the whole counlel of God. For my own part I have not been accuftoraed to entertain (uch a very mean opinion of the Ra- tional minifters, but I dare not reject luch teftimony, as that of the Rev. Dr. Prieftley. Were I a perfon who loved to hear an evil re- port of others, as (bme people do, I (hould be very apt to think that luch men were hypo- crites like the pharifees; but happily for me. Sir, you have faved me that trouble and mortification by bringing home the charge upon them yourfelf. *' If the minijiei^ be a man of integrity, he will alwai/s preachy at leafi conjiftently with his real fentiments * .'* Indeed one would think f b ; and from hence it will be inferred that if thofe, who are men of integrity, will all of them always preach confiftently with their real fentiments it mull follow that thofe who keep their real fen- timents as much as poflTible out of view, can- not be men of integrity ; that is, they mult be difTemblers, for they diffemble their fentiments. This is very much like hypocrify; but I wiil not abiblutely affirm that the genilemen are hypocrites. Now, really Sir, luch is my ex- tenfive charity for you, that I could almoil find in my heart to believe, that y-ou made ufe of the name *' Orthodox D'ffenters,' as * Church Difcipline, page 109. 32 a cover to your real defigns ; and that, wliilfl you fay here is a llriking refemhlauce between the Orthodox and the pharifees, you all the while mean the Rational Diffenting minifters, whom you did notchufe to otiend ; and there- fore cared not to mention them by name. And I think this is the mod favourable point ot view in which I can confider your cenfure, — when I turn it into an honeft, well defigned artifice for correcting the vices of your bre- thren ; between whom and the pharifees there feems to be a very confiderable likenefs in point of hypocrify, provided that your account of them is picSturefque and genuine. 2. The pharifees, in our Saviour's time, gloried fo much in their perfonal attainments, that they could come even to the divine throne, and each of them boaft of his own worthi- nefs, faying, GocI^ I thank thee that I am not as other men^ extortioners y wijuji, adulterers^ or even as this publican. And Do6tor Prielt- ley I hope will give me leave to aliert, that thofe Dilfenters, who may truly be called ex- perimental ; that is, in the better fenfe of the word, Orthodox, are fo far from this fpirit, that they freely confefs themfelves to be the vileil of the vile. You very well know. Sir, who they are that affume the name of Ration- al, by which they would be underftood to be more enlightened than their neighbours. One would really think that this is in fome mea- fure like the fpirit of thofe gentiemen ilmong 33 the Jews, who faid concerning Jefus of Naza- reth, have any of the rulers or of the pharifees beheved in him ? But as for thofe people who know not the law, they are accurfed. The Doctor's writings furnifh inftances enough, how much he is enlightened above his fellows, and efpecially above the Orthodox race, who do not, inhise{leem,underftandthefcriptures, and the religion therein contained. It is really a difficult matter to accoimt for human condu6t in general, or for your's and mine in particular. Sir, for whilft you are pleafed to charge the Orthodox Dilienters with pha- rifaifm, and of faying to others, ** Stand by yourfelves, we are more holy than you," you are alfo pleafed to lead us to behold, in the per- fons of the Rational Diflenters themfelves, the very deicendants of the pharifees in the time of our Saviour. Self-veneration, accord- ing to both Dr. Prieftley and myfelf, is one eflential part of the chara6ler of a pharifee. That this veneration for one's felf and part}^ is, in any peculiar manner, the charaderiftic of the Orthodox Diflenters, remains for the Doctor to prove atliis leifure ; but that it be- longs properly to the Rational Dillenter, I hope his own words will be thought a very futficient evidence; atleaft, with me it weighs mightily. Says the Rational Diflenter, in his Difcourl'e Preliminary to the Elfay on Church Difcipline, pages QS and 29, *' / am dearly of opinion that the dmracler of thofe who may 34 he called the more free livers (i. e. the more loofe and prophane, according to the vulgar diale6l) among the Rational Diffenters, is, ivith refpect to the true j pint of Chrijiianity ^fupenor to that of thofe who are feemingly , the more devout of the other fort,"" (i. e. of the Ortho- dox DilFenters). That this palfage is not quite i^o clear of the fpirit of the pharifee as the author could wirfi to have it believed, I think will appear from our confidering that he hath not been candid enough to admit even the fmcerity of the Orthodox in their devotion, but has reprefented them as only feemingly more devout.'* It is not given us as a rath exprefiion or inadvertent flip of the pen ; for he tells us, that ** he is clearly of this opi^ nion;'* therefore, I proceed to give the true fenfe of the palfage in my way, and it may be thus exprefl'ed. The Rev. Dr. Priellley is clearly of opinion that the mod loofe, and irreligious of thofe who think as he does, alias Rational Diifenters, poflefs more of the true fpirit of Chriftianity, i. e. are better men than the flridteft livers, or the rnoft devout amongll the Orthodox. Whether this is not the depth of felf-adulation, and the very fpirit of the pharifees, a fmall degree of inteligence will enable every reader to determine. By the way, neighbour, I fhould never have con- cerned myfelf with the beam which is in the eye of the Rational Diffenter, had not your 35 reverence fo grevioufly magnified the mote that is in the eye of the Orthodox. 3. Another part of the character of tlie pharifees, is, that being ignorant of God's righteouinefs, they went about to ertabllili their own, which is by the law, making void the righteoufnefs of God, which is by faith in Jefiis Chrift. They had fach a fond opinion of their own perfonal virtue and holinels, that they faw no need of ChriiVs righteoufnefs im- puted to juliify, or his blood to atone, but took it for granted that tliey were very fuf- licient of tliemfelves under the common ojjift' ances of the deity *," to do every tiling necel- fary for procuring the favour of God and the pardon of their fins. What a contlicl is here between your treatife on Church Difciphne, and your Confiderations on Diiferences of Opinion? The common oppofitions to which all Chriftian people are expofed from their un- believing enemies, are thought by fome to be heavy enou^ to bear ; but how much harder inuft it be, when a man becomes his own op- pofer, as in the cafe of the Rev. Dr. Prieftley ? His Treatife on Difciphne very charitably af- firms, that there is a llriking refemblance be- tween the Orthodox Diifenters and the pha- rifees, in our Saviour's time. I have Ihewn, that the pharifees in our Saviour's time, fought falvation, only by the works of the law ; and you, Sir, arefo obliging, in youf confiderations * Dr. Prieftley's words. 36 on Different Opinions, page 18, as to de- monftrate, that the Orthodox Diffenters are Co far from depending on perfonal virtue, or the works of the law, that they helieve, that the V niv erf al parent arhitrarily /elected out of the whole number, a few, whorn he dejignsfor eternal happinefs : and that, according to them, even the elect catuiot hefaved, till the idmojh ejfecis of the divine wrath have been fuffered for thej7i by an innocent perfon. The grace thatfaves them is irrejiftihle and irrevocable, fo that they can never loofe the divine favotir.** Whether this account of the faith of the Orthodox be perfe6lly juft, or in fome mea- fure warped out of the way of truth, is not the object of my prefent enquiry. It is e- nough for me to fiiew thereby that, the lame Doctor who brings the heavy charge againlt the Orthodox Diflenters, does in a very candid manner exculpate them from the guilt infinu- ated ; as the paffage above recited, even in your own fenfe ol'it, (lands oppofed to the tenets and fpirit of the pharifees. In (hort, Do6tor, we fhall be obliged to go (bmewhere elle to look for this fame llriking refemblance of the pharifees ; for we have not as yet been able to find it according to your with, among the Orthodox Dillenters. It is indeed remarkable that Dr. Prieflley fhould reprefent the Orthodox as holding the opinion that men are entirely pajjive in the work of converfion and the ?ieiv birth, entirely 37 mcapahle of them/elves fo much as to tJwik a good thought ; and that faving faith conjijts in an acceptance of, or a dependence upon the merits of Chrlji for J'alvation, or what they are fond of calling, throwing them felves upon Chrifi, or a rejiing upon Chriji for Jalvatiofi *." And yet, in his additional oblervations on the Lord's fupper, page 28, to reprefent them as pleading and proclaiming their own goodnefs,*' How could you, for (hame, Doctor, make your appeal to common fen(e, in your letter to Mr. Venn ? Had you taken her advice, (he would have made your writings as uniform, as they are well defigned. But, becauCe you have affronted her, fhe hath forfaken you ; and you will eafiiy guefs where, I fuppofe that (he hath taken up her dwelling. Now, Sir, as you and I are engaged in the fame purfuit, I mean to find out the real de- fcendants of the pharifees in our Lord's time, and each of us hopes for fuccels in his own way ; will you give me leave to try how the coat will fit the Rational Dilfenters them- felves. The pharifees then could form no idea of the new birth and converfion, as a work of the fpirit of God, in which the fub- je6l himfelf is paflive. This is exactly the cafe with the Rational Dilfenters. And both the parents and children fay, "How can thele things be ?" The pharifees knew and believed that Jefus was a teacher fent from God ; fov ♦ Preliminary Difcourfe, page 14, C they knew that no man could do the works 'x-^i'iich he did, except God were with him. This believing that Jefus was a teacher fent from God, you fay, impHes the whole of Ra- tional Chriliianity. The phanfees held it to be blafphemy in Jefus to make himfelf equal with God, he be- ing, as Dr. Prieftley obferves, and as they af- ferted, but ** a man like ourfelves." The Rational Dilfenters hold it as the greateft abfurdity in us to adore the bleffed Jefus as Jehovah's fellow, feeing as they alfo fay, he is but a man like ourfelves. Indeed, Dodor, here is a wonderful likenefs between their refpedtableneffes the pharifees in our Saviour's time, and yourielves the Rational Dilfenters. How could you then afcribe that honour to the Orthodox Dilfenters, which is fo clearly due to the Rationals? You tell us, m the depth of your candour, *' that the pharifees Jirained at a gnaty and fwoHowed a camel, that they devoured widows hos'fes, and for a pretence made long prayers, and that there is an exaH refemblance between them and the Orthodox Df/enters*. * This inllance of Dr. Prieftley's penetration in finding out the likenefs between the Orthodox Diflenters and the Pharifees who fwallowed camels, devoured widows houfes, and for a pretence trade long prayers, may be of the greateft ufe to the curious, by enabling them to difcover the full contents of every big Orthodox belly they meet with. For inftance, whenever a curious Rational happens to meet with an Orthodox teacher bearing a prominent belly, he will be inflantly ftruft with a so To be ferious, Do6lor, do you really think that the Orthodox Diffenters have fuch a wide fwaJlov7 as that a whole camel will down at once? Are you certainly aflured that they are the very devourers of widows houfes which you reprefent theni to be ? and are you morally certain that all their long prayers are but a mere pretence ? Think not to get off from the charge of uncharitablenefs, by alledg- ing, that you laid not thefe things to the charge of the Orthodox Diffenters ; feeing you aflert that there is a llriking refemblance between the one and the other, and give it as your opinion that Jefus would deal equally fevere with the latter as Vv'ith the former; which mud, in your view, fuppofean equality of demerit. Yea, Do6lor, you are even fo Itruck with the diiagreeable iikenefs, that you cannot help publiihing it, fo that all may dif- cern how much like the ancient pharifees you efteem the Orthodox Diffenters. You tell us that ** if our Saviour was again to come upon the earth, he would treat them with the fame feverity with luhich he treated the pharifees." He denounced every curfe and woe written in the law of God againrt the convI only a man like ourfelves can feel for his taithful difciples in general, and be with them in all- their trials ; feeing he is removed, as fuch * Preliminary Difcourfe, page 25, 64 from them to a diftance immenfe and un*- Ipcakabie? A man like ourfelves, mufl be ca- pable, of being only in one place, at one and the fame period. You and I cannot be, both at Leeds and in London at the fame time ; neither can Jefus, if only like ourfelves, be at once both on earth and in heaven. That he is in heaven, and there mufi: remain as m.an, till his fecond coming, the apoflle Paul bears witnefs ; it will therefore lie upon Dr. Prieft- ley to (hew J how he can be prefent with his people in all their trials, even to the end of the world. If Jefus continues in heaven till the rellitution of all things, as Paul fays, and and yet be with his people in all their trials, as Dr. Prieflley, fays, and according to his own promife, he mufl befomething more than a man like ourfelves. You know. Sir, that the faithful difciples and followers of Jefus may be exceedingly difperfed in the world, and that therefore the perfon who is prefent with them in all places and upon ail occafions muft needs be very ex- traordinary. For inftance, they are fcattered through Britain, and on the continent ; hi the Indies eafl and weft, in every quarter of the globe : therefore, how fhall the man Jefus be prefent with them all, in all places, at one and the fame time, without a prefence univer- fally difFufive? Indeed, Sir, it will never im- peach your wifdom, either as a Chriftian or a Diffenter, to believe, that the being, who 65 is prefent with all the heavenly hofl^, and at the lame time is prefent with all his people upon earth, in what quarter Ibever, muft be truly and properly God. I cannot tell how you will fpeak of the omniprefence of God, when you fpeak thus of the prefenceof Chrill, whom you fay is only a man. Really, Sir, I know no body who can anfwer your writings to better purpofe than yourfelf. I blame both Mr. Venn and the Proteftant Diffenter for not giving you the ho- nour fojuftly merited. 3. It might well be thought an unpardon- able negle6t, if I was to take no further notice of that wonderful palfage, in page 6, of the Preliminary Difcourfe. ** Having got this hypothejis (namely that Chriit was a pre-ex- iftent being) they wereeafily led into a nnjiaken interpretation of fame parages of the Old Tefiament, and j'upp'ifed, that when God is there J aid to have created the world by his word (yox©.), another aoent icas meant ^ and not the mere power and energy of God hirafelf: though the apojlle John Jeems to have intended eor- prefsly to contradi6t and refute that notion by afferting, in the introdudfion to hisgofpei, that witat is called yox^ or the word, icas God him-' felf, and not a being dijiindi Jro?n h7m.'' How far Ibme texts in the Old Teilament have been underltood or mifunderftood, is not the object of my prefent enquiry ; though it is obfervable enough, that the infpired apoiUe; 66 Paul, as well as his brethren, fets forth the exirtence of Jefus antecedent to his incarna- tion. All that I aim to take notice of here is, the affertion of John, that ** what is called the word is God MmfeJf.'* It is what I by no means deny though I cannot help wondering to fee the text cited by one who takes Jefus to be only a man like ourlielves. Surely no man was ever more miftaken as to the mean- ing of a text of fcrijDture, than you are with regard to this, nor lefs apprehenfive of the jult confequences of fuch an injudicious quota- tion. This text you have cited with a view to prove that Jefus Chrift had no exiftence prior to his coming in the flefli ; but, to the entire overthrow of the Rational fcheme, it eftablifhes as a rock, the do6trine of the true and proper deity of Jesus Jehovah. Ad- mitting that there was no fuper-angelic fpirit employed in the work of c.eation and provi- dence, but that God himfelf, by his own pro- per energy, brought all things into being, and by the fame energetic influence fupports all things, and that what is called the word is God himfelf, and not a being diftin6t from him ; whatadvan- tage will this be to the Rational fcheme, feeing the fame who is called the word, and whom you fay from John, is God himfelf, is as exprefsly faid to have been made flefli and to have dwelt amongft; us ? To fet the matter in a clear point of view, it will be proper to recite the paflage, chap. i. ver. 1, 2, 3, 14. > In the beginning 67 was the word, and the icord loas with God^ and the ivord icas God, The fame was in the hc" ginning with God. All things were made hy him, and ivithout him was not any thing made that was made. The word vms madejle/h and dwelt among us, fand we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father] full of grace and truth. I beg leave to prefeiityou with a paraphrafe on the words, according to your fenfe of them ; and then we Ihall fee how far they will lupport your account of Jefus Chriil, as being only a man like your- felf. In the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God teas God himfelf, t lie fame was in the beginning with God. All thing were made by him and without him teas not any thing made that was made. And God ivas made fiefh, and dwelt among fus and ice beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth. Now, Doctor, this is the fair reading of the words according to your notion ; and, had not you told us that you are a Rational Chriftian, any body would have taken you for one of the word kind of Athanafians, if not a downright Tritheiit. But, it is not my purpofe at prelent to bring further proof upon this head ; contenting my- felf with your own authority for my believing in the proper deity of my blelTed Redeemer. The word was God himfelf, fay you, and io fays John the evangelift ; who further fays. 68 that the word was madefleJJi, and dwelt among usy ^c. That is, God hinifeif was made fle(h and dwelt among us. Now, Sir, I (hould like to know when, or how God himfelf was made flefh, and dwelt among us, if he was not manifelted in the adorable perfon of Jefus of Nazareth ? I think indeed that hiftory fur- niflieth not with any account of human nature fince the fall of Adam, fo fit as was his for deity to inhabit. You help me to account for feme paflages of holy writ which Rational Chriftians feldom meddle with, fuch as ** in Jefus diuel/eth all the fullnej's of the Godhead bodily y*' which muft be the cafe you know if the word is God himfelf, and that God him- felf was made flefh. *' His name fhall he called Immanuel, ichich is, God with us.** Literally fulfilled when God himfelf was made flefli, and dwelt among us in our own very nature. This was God manifefi: in the flefh whom the Apoftle Paul fpeaks of, and which he calls the great myfl;ery of godlinefs. In this view of the fubje6t, Jefus is juftified when in the Apocalypfe he alfumes the name of Alpha and Omega, which alfumption could never be juftified on fuppofition thai he had no exifi:ence prior to his being born of the virgin. Indeed, Do6tor, thofe people whom you flile Orthodox are more obliged to you than you were aware of, and henceforward will be m apt to expe6l advantages to their fyftem from your pen, either defignedly or undefignedly. However, I would not have you or any body elfefuppofe that I have entered here into a defence of Chrift's proper divinity ; that was by no means my view. All I aimed at was to point out to my reader how far you yourfelf have defended it, even when you fancied your- felf to be writing againftit; no judgment therefore is to be formed, by what is here written of my feutiments concerning the per- fon of Jefus, any further than, that I am an hearty advocate for his real divinity : an article of faith, which I (hould be glad to dif- cufs with the reverend Do6lor Prieftley, or any of his friends, who may happen to be at leifure. Upon the whole, Sir, I could almoft per- fuade myfelf, if it were poffible, that it is not the do6trine of Chrift's divinity itfelf that vexes you, fo much as the people who main- tain it, and perhaps you may have reafons for your prejudice againlt them, which I am un- acquainted with : but really, it does not be- come a generous mind to retain prejudice againft any of our fellow creatures. I intend not any thing upon this fubje6l at prefent farther than alfuring you that 1 think the ra- tional fcheme will require a much better and more confiftent defence refpe6ling Chrill's 70 being only a man like ourfelves, before it will be likely to gain many profelytes out of the Orthodox tribes. I am. Reverend Sir, Your humble Servant. 71 LETTER VL Reverend Sir, It is far from my defign to mlfreprefent your meaning, or to make ufe of unworthy cavils, in order to render you odious to your fellow Chriftians : neither would I willingly err in the lead, in point of fairneis, as you think your other antagonills have done ; but you muft give me leave to fay that you have written many things without any meaning at all, unlefs indeed you intended to vindicate the do6lrine of atonement fo long exploded by Rational Chriftians. That the latter was the cafe, will not eafily be believed; and therefore, I ihall admit the former, and fhall fhew from good and authentic records, that it is even poOTible for a Rational man to write without any meaning. ** When the mind has been tincliired,'^ fays my author *, icith any falfe notions of God, it is hardly poj/ible that they fJioidd ever be practically rectified ; hecaufe the fame names will continue tofn^geft the fame ideas, and to excite the fame f'eelnigs, whatever reafon may dictate to the contrary,'^ I think it is pretty plain that thole many, who you fay, talk of God like Armiiiius or * Preliminary Difcourfe, page 1 9. 72 Socinus, and think of him much hke Auflin and Calvin, can have no meaning in what they fay, feeing their words are a contradi6tion to the dilates of reafon within them. Dr. Prieftley alfo informs us, that formerly he had his mind tindured with thofe unworthy notions of God, commonly called Orthodoxy ; therefore it is impoflible that they (hould ever be pradtically re6lified. This may ferve as an apology with the Rational Diffenters for the many Orthodox fayings gleanable in the ex- tenfive fields of his productions, of which it may be faid that they fpring up in as little time as muflirooms; whether thofe of them that are upon divine fubjects are likely to be of longer duration, I cannot certainly determine. However, the di6tates of the dodlor's reafon being diametrically oppofite to every fentiment of Orthodoxy ; it follows, reader, that where- ever you meet with an Orthodox fentence in Dr. Prieftley's works, you need not be offend- ed with it, for it is only the influence which the former tin6lure of his mind has upon him, and in reality the author meant nothing by it. It is indeed my opinion that many of your fayings, relpe6ting thefufl'erings of Chrift, are very orthodox, and fome of them even {lri6tly Calviniftic. Surely it will be the wonder of the age if you fliould at laft come over to the Calvinifls. Really, Do<5tor, 1 do not defpair of your converfion; for I think it not im- 73 pofTible, notvvithftanding all that the Rev, Mr. Venn and the Proteftant DilTenter have pleaded to the contrary. Should I prove you aCalvinift, and expole you to the perfecutions of your Rational brethren, what would you fay, Sir? Would not you allow me to have fome pretenfions to reafon myfelf, although numbered even amongft the Orthodox ? But, before I proceed farther upon this head, give me leave to obferve, that I am as great an enemy as you can be, to the burning of bodies for herefy ; that is, putting people to death for the glory of God, and the good of the church ; and have the murder of Servetus in equal abhorrence with yourl'elf, notwith- ftanding Calvin was therein an accomplice. Neverthelefs, when I confider that all the enemies of Calvin's do6lrine, who have written from Bellarmine down to Dr. Prieltley, have carefully recorded this inltance, and in- duftiiouily held him up to public infamy for it, it convinces me that Mr. Calvin mult have been a man of the molt irreproachable condu6t and fpirit in every other part of his life, feeing his avowed enemies have been able to find nothing elfe againlt him but that infamous act, of his confenting to the death of miitakeii Servetus, fo that the very reproaches of his enemies ferve only to embellilh his chara6ter and to advance his reputation. I am not certain whether Dr. Prieftley, would give his confentto the burnini? of Orthodox Dilfenters £ 74 at a flake for their bigotry ; but if we mny give credit to his own telliniony, he is very willing that they fliould burn in hell fire for their orthodoxy ; for he is fully periliaded, that Jefus Chrift will do by them, juil as he did by the pharifees in his time ; the child rert of the kingdom, who were calt out into utter darknefs, where is weeping and wailing and gnafhing of teeth. After fuch an exprelhon of your charity, really, Sir, your cenfure of John Calvin hath not the moil favourable appearance. Moil people will be apt fb con- clude, that your fpirit poi^eifeth a degree of rancour, at leall not inferior to that fpirit which perfecuted Michael Servetus ; but it is well for the Orthodox Difienters that there is a great difference between Calvin's influence and that of the Rev. Doctor Prieftley. I might indeed alk you if thole who are now called Orthodox are the only people who have had the honour of burning heretics, and whether the Arian.^ themielves, in the days of their Orthodoxy, did not lee the fame iiecef* iity of glorifying God by dellroying thole who differed i'rom them. Indeed, Sir, there are; few feds among us who have not a lawful claim to the honour of having murdered their brethren for the orood of the caule : and I am very much miitaken, if even in our own days, we could not be furniflied with divines who would very willingly take this method of re- claiming the refractory, were they but blelfed 7a with a government favourable for fuch a pur- poi'e. But, leaving the (hocking fcenes of pious murder, 1 ihall give due attention to your do(5lrine of atonement, as I find it fcattered in your prolific pages: and I rejoice to fee it forcing its evidence through the labours of the mod Itrenuous oppofition, and making even Dr. Prieflley himlelf a(3L in fubfervience to the great defigns of truth. The firft paffage I Ihall quote relates to the milTion of Jel'us, flievvs to what end he was fent into the world, and is found page 20, of your Coohderations of Dif- ferences of Opinion. * ' A fenfe of our ohliga" tion to our Lord Jefu.'i Chriji, alj'o as a peifon commijjioned from God to redeem^ that is, to deliver, fave, or re/cue us from aftate of fin and inifery.'* Now, Sir, whatever meanirjg you had, or whether you really have any meaning at all m thefe words, you mull not be offended if I take the fentence according to its grammaticiil conftruction, and apply it to the purpofe in view. The phrafeology is truly Calvin ifcic, and Calvin himfelf could not better haveexpreft his own meaning than you do, even when you are labouring to root out Calvinifm from the face of the earth. I am afraid, Doctor, that the R.itional Dififenters will compare you to David Simple's brown- cow, which having given a good pailful of milk, kicked it down with her foot. It is true you have laboured to Ibften that inflexible E 2 76 word f redeem) ; but in fa6l it will appear that your explanation has but very little promoted the intereOs of rational religion. Has really befriended what you call Orthodoxy, and not overturned it as you humbly expelled. ** To redeem us from a fiate of Jm mid tnifery,*' is the text, *' To deliver, fave, or tefcne us from a fiate of Jin and jnjj'ery,** is your commentary upon it. Give me leave to comment on your commentary, before I meddle with the text. And I aflure you, I do not illultrate it by my own authority only, but bring along with me the authority of Samuel Johnfon, A. M. in his almoft un- liftable Dictionary, whole teftimony as a Didionary-maker, is generally held to be good and authentic. He tells me that to deliver, is to lave or relcue, ih that we have here no leJs than three words given in order to make clear the fenfe of one. Would not thele three words, heaped thus together, feem to convey the idea of fome great and imminent danger to which the parties, thus to be de- livered, laved or relcued, Hood expofed ? Alfo, does not the idea of Ibmething very great and hazardous in the undertaking of him who was thus commiOioned to deliver, fave, or refcue, I'uggeft iti'elf from them. In order to deliver, lave or refcue us from a ftate of fin and mifery, muft not what he did who was thus commiffioned, be in fome way or other accounted to us, and rendered available 77 by fomekind of application. But ought we not in explaining a word or fentence to come up as near as poffibly we can to its real fenfe, if we are not able fully to exprefsit? This you avoided in the prefent cafe ; notwithftand- ing your glols upon the word (rtdeem) ex- preifes much more than is favourable to the rational fcheme. Permit me to review the word redeem in its common acceptation, and coniider the Saviour's commiflion accordingly ; that I may thereby teach you either to become Orthodox yourielf, or leave our phrafes to our own proper ufe. 1. To redeem. To ranfom ; to relieve by paying a price. 2. To redeem. To make atonement. 3. To redeem. To lave the world from the curfe due to fin. 4. To redeem. To refcue, to recover. You tell us that Jefus was commiffioned by God to redeem us ; we fee that to redeem, was to ranfom us, by paying the price of our redemption. What that price was, by which he ranibmed us, you are plealed to (hew in thefe precious words: ** W/io loved us and freely gave himj'elf to death for us*.** So that if we admit Dr. Priellley to be his own expofitor, the do6trine will be thus defined. Jeius Chrilt is a perfon commiQioned of God to ranfom us, by giving himfclf to death as the price of our redemption. This is found * Preliminai-y Difcourfe, page 24. 78 flivinity, Sir; good Orthodox Calvinifin. If fv)me certain gentlemen, now dwelling in the houte a()|jointed for all living, were to lift up their heads from under the turf and review your writings, they would undoubtedly blame y >u for betraying the caufeof Rational religi.on, by inadvertently biending your writings with fo many Orthodox phrafes, provided they have not departed from their former fenti- ments. But to the matter in hand; you tell us that Jefus Chriil is a perfon commiflioned by God to redeem us. To redeem us is to make an atonement for us. Paul the Apoftle tells us, that this was made by the iacrifice of himfelf, whereby he for ever per{'e6led all who are fan6liried, which is confirmed by your affertion that he loved us and gave himfelf to death for us. Giving himfelf to death for us was certainly what the apollle meant by the facrifice of himfelf. Sacrifices were ordained to make an atonement for fm ; the Redeemer therefore gave himfelf as a facrifice for us, that he might atone for the fin which we had com- mitted, as you very juftly obferve, by putting the following words into Chrift's mouth, alluding to the legal facrifices, page 2, of your Additional Remarks, &c. ** My blood may he /aid to be flied for the remijjion of fins, ^* which rnuft be, becaufe it is atoning biood, and hath procured this remiflTion or pardon. Good Calvinifm again, Sir. You tell us that Chrifl was commiffioaed of God to redeen^ 79 us, " we find that this redemption is faid to be, to deliver the world from the curie due to fin;" and if we want to know how this was done, the apodle tells us that he delivered us from the curfe of the Jaw bij being made a curfe for us. Here was the innocent becoming a curfe for the guilty ; a do6trine vvhich your reafon ftrongly remonftratesagainll, but which your pen very agreeably eliablilhes. Doctor. It was certainly very unhappy for Rational re- ligion that your mind was lb llrongly tinctured with Orthodoxy in your younger days ; for as you juftly obferve, it is impolhble that ever it fliould be practically r^ctilied. Mortal maa could hardly do more to redify it tlian you have done; and yet, in fpite of yourfelf. Or- thodoxy will break out in your compofitions. To redeem, is to refcue or recover, as you fay, which is very expreffive of the work of the Redeemer upon the redeemed ; by his bringing us out of darknefs into marvellous light, and from the power of Satan to the living God. Well may we then, as you ad vile us, ** entertain in our minds a very high idea of the benefits accruing to us by his life and death* ;*' good experimental divinity in- deed ! divinity worthy your molt ierious con- fideration. This is the very thmg that the Independents require in order to communion with them ; and which you lay there is not a Ihadow of ground for in the JNevv Teitament. * Confiderations on the Lord's Supper, page 57. e4 80 Whether there is the (hadow of ground for it in the New Teftament * or not, 1 have (hewn that there is the fubftance of ground for it in ,Dr. Priellley's own writings. Give me leave to correct a fmall inaccuracy in that otherwiie beautiful palfage of yours, • ^ who loved us and freely gave hmjelfto death for its, to redeem us from Jin and miferij ; that we might become partakers of the fame love of God with him ; and be joint heirs of the fame glory and happinefs t ; notwithftanding you confider the Son of God to be only a man like ' yourfelf ; yet, even as a man like yourfelf, you ought to have treated him with common civility, and not have given him the lie as in the paflage under con fide ration. Chrift him- felf tells us, ** that God so loved the "WORLD that he gave his only begotten So7i that whofoever believeth in himfhould not peri/h, but have everlafting life X- Here the love of God is reprefented as fovereign, and fpon- taneous, the fole caufe of the gift of Chrift. This you deny, and alledge that the gift of Chrifi:is the caufe why we are beloved of God. ** He gave himfelf that ice might become par- takers of the love of God,'* fay you ; fuppofing, that the world of mankind were not partakers of the love of God, till Chrift had given him- felf to redeem us and procure this love for us. * Addrefs on Church Difcipline, page 34. f Preliminary Difcourfe, page 24. ^ John ill. 16. 81 Do not Do6lor be offended at thofe who talk of purchaled pardon, feeing, according to the obvious fenCe of your own words, the very love itfelf which pardons the finner, is pur- chafed or procured by the death of Jefus. But the truth is, the love which God bore to mankind was the caufe of Chrift's being at all given ; the end to which Chrift was given, was, that as many as beheve in him fhould be brought to polfefs the bleffings of this loving kindnefs. In your firft query to the Proteftant Dif- fenter, you twice mention, in the very language of Calvinifm, *' icJiat Chrift has done and faf- fered for us.''^ How could what he did; be done for us if it was not done in our ftead ? Or how could he with any propriety be faid to have fuffered for us, if the pain which he endured was not the proper puni(hmentof our fin and rebellion ? He could neither do nor fuffer for us, without Handing in our place; if he did fo, then he was the (inner'sfubftitute to all intents and purpofes. How can yo\i then. Sir, confiltent with yourfelf, blame thofe who believe that the innocent Jefus died for guilty man ? This Calviniltical Do6trine of vicarious puniQiment you thus fet forth in page 30 oi" Additional Confideration, &c. • ' Wheji ice do any thing in remembrance of Chrift, we do it to take occa/lon to recoiled what Chrift has done and fuffered for us m order to accomplifti the gracious fc heme of our £ 6 Sd^oatioUi or our deliverance from fin an*^ niiferif. Our Lord aljo caJ/s the bread his hodij* and the wine his blood appareutJy with a vieio to our recollecting in a more efpecial manner the laji and 7noft perfect in fiance of his love, m giving his body to be crucijied, arid his blood to be Pied for us.'* Again in page 32, ** this cup is the New Teftament in my bloody appears to me to have been added^ in order to exprefs on ichat account we are to remonberhim^ viz, as having by his death accompli flied thefcheme ofourfalvatiou." Very pretty divinity in- deed ! paffable enough, even with the Or- thodox ; all tending to fet forth the plenary fdtisfa6tion made by Chrift for the fins of thole who {hall believe in him. I am, Reverend Sir, Your humble Servant 83 LETTER VII. Reverend Sir, AS you have been pleafed to fignify the high and good opinion which yon have conceived of your own attainments in your letter to Mr. Venn, pag. 79. where you teli us that *' Having experienced an almofi entire revolutionin your own religious J entiments, you find your heart better, and your head clearer in ^ confequence of it, &c." I fliould have ex- pe6ted that the do6lrine of ele(5Vion and repro- bation would have had no countenance in your performances. It is but jult to beheve that you would not wilhngly promote a do6trine, which your clear realbn ib ftrongly remonflrates againlt, any more than the Rev. Mr. John Wefley, A. M. fometime fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford ; who in the depth of his humility and felf diiTidence is pleated to Itile that fame do6trine ** The hijrrijble de- cree.'* It would feem that this reverend gentleman hi the younger part of life had made an excurlion down to hell, like the heroes of ancient fable, where he had an op- portunity of hearing the cries of the damned and of being informed by them of thehorrible- nefs of this decree ; * which account he thought E() 84 proper to communicate to the world as foon as he got Me upon earth again. This per- formaVice was an unfacred hymn upon the horrible decree. Yet after all the clearnels of his head, he has been unable to rellrain himfelf in his future publications from giving many bold ftrokes in favour of this fame de- cree of election ; for the Rev. Mr. Welley has not yet learned to be p erf eft I j/ cottfiilent with himfelf, any more than Dr. Pricflley and myfelf. Were I to (ludy to put you out of conceit with the goodnefs of your heart. Sir, I fhould very likely have little thanks for my trouble ; but if Solomon were here, he would tell you that the man who trufts in his own heart is a fool. And really, Dodor, you have not given the Orthodox DiiTenters any proof of its fuperlative goodnefs. Give me leave to tell you that, I am of opinion there is a great deal of room for your heart to grow better and your head to grow clearer dill, on fuppofition that any thing can be gathered of the ftate of either, by your lucubrations. Be- tween you and I, it is not thought very advife- able to put too much trull in the heart of man, or to lean much to human underftanding. Some people will not fcruple to al ledge that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and defperately icicked, even beyond the knoic^ ledge of its oioner. This they will affign as a reafon why fome flatter themfelves that thei/ are rich and increafed with goods and have need 85 of nothing, even wheji they are wretched, mife^ Table, blind and naked. Indeed, Sir, as you lay of the Orthodox Diirenters, I may fay to you ; it would have been more eligible, and abundantly more for your honour, to have left it to me to publifh the goodnefs of your heart, and the clearnefs of your head, than to have taken that trouble upon yourfelf, which muft needs have been very mortifying to luch modelty as yoiu's. However it is pretty plain, that the fruits of your ronverfion to the Ra- tional fcheme, have not been lb confpicuous, to others, as to yourfelf ; as nothing: l)ut their want of difcernment could have put you under the difagreeable neceflUy of founding your own praife, in imitation of the pharifees and their defcendants. I hope, Sir, that your goodnefs will pardon the unhappy way that I have got of departing on a fudden from the fubje6t propofed, and bear with my freedom while 1 enquire after the meaning of that paflage, page 4. of your Elfay on Church Difcipline, ** The general promulgation of the go/pel of Chriji, icas in- tended to procure him, from all nations pro- mifcuoiifly , a pecidiar people zealous of good icorks.'' I take it to be the very language of the Orthodox, and what the ftricteft Calvinill will by no means obje6t to. When you alfert that the promulgation of the gofpel was in- tended to anfwer this important purpofe; I would fuppofe you mean that it was intended by God himfelf. Might not I afk you if you do not think an intention in the infinite nnind, in all relpeds equivalent to a decree ? feeing he is of one mind and none can turn him, nor render abortive his grand defigns. It will then appear that God had decreed that Chrill fhould have a peculiar people zealous of good works, to be gathered by the preaching of the gofpel out from all nations promifcuoufly. This you can have no obje6lion to, and for my part I have none, therefore fo far we are agreed. This decree or intention of the molt High being admitted, it follows that the peo- ple to be procured are faid to be a peculiar people ; as fuch it behoves us to enquire into their character. On enquiry we Ihall find that this peculiar people, are fuch whom the Redeemer ap[)ropriates to himfelf as his own fpecial pro[)erty, upon whom no other power whatever has any jull or lawful claim, and with whom he deals as he does not with the world, or the nations from whom you fay they are procured by the gofpel. Thefe I take to be the people whom the apoftle calls the ful- nefs and body of Chrift. So then it is ap- parent from you do6trine that the mod High intended that Chrill fliould have a people appropriated to himfelf, and this people to be procured to him from the nations of the whole world. This procuring of a people for him- felf /ro??2 all nations promifcuouhy, naturally fuppofeth that the nations themlelves from 87 which they are procurer! are not intended to be Chrift's peculiar people, therefore not procured by the promuig-ation of the gofpel. Very good Calvinifni! Good old Orthodox do6trine neighbour ! I am not rightly fatisfied Do6lor with your free manner of talking about what you call experience, while you blame others for the very fame thing. You tell us that you have experienced an almofi; entire revolution of your religious fentiments. Pray, Sir, why may not they have experienced the fame? Have not they an equal right with yourfelf to em- brace the truth upon conviction ? You fay that you have experienced your head to be got clearer and yosir heart better upon this experimental revolution of your religious fenti- ments; and as the Orthodox, efpecially the Independents, have embraced a fet of fenti- ments diametrically oppofite to yours, why fhould you be aflVonted at them becaufe they experience the very reverie of your feelings, and inllead of their heads becoming clearer and their hearts better by the revolution in their religious fentiment, they become daily more acquainted with the deceitfulnefsof their hearts and the infuftkiency of their heads. You know. Sir, that our leading principle is, that every fet of reliijious fentiments muft produce eifects upon the mind fuitable to it- I'elf. You cannot therefore expe6t, Do6tor, that your fet of religious lentiments and mine 88 can produce the very fame effe6ls upon the mind, feeing they are as oppoiite as hght and darknefs. But let my fet of rehgious fenti- rnents produce what effe- lic an hiconteltible proof of the deepelt pene- tration and intelligence. A little to purge them from this fcandal, give me leave to ob- ferve that you tell us, the Independents re- quire an account of the experience ofthe can- didate. This account which the candidate gives is the fubject of their examination, and upon it they determine whether or not it be confiftent with the fcripture ; but as to the fincerity ofthe perfon, and the reality of his experience, they pretend to be no further judges of, than " what appear;^ in the out- ward propriety and regularity ol' his behavi- our." Will you upon cool refiedion call this a taking upon them to determine with abfolute certainty on the future Hate ofthe candidate ? Seeing they do not even take upon them to determine on his prefent ilate, but on the pro- feflion which he makes, and of his conduct confequent upon it. This paffagealfoinjurioufly mfinuates^ tliat J P.5 the Independents expe6l that candidates for communion (hould be able to determine upon their own future ftate, by being delivered from all doubts of their fincerity and fears of final mifcarriage ; which Dr. Prieflleyihimfelf muft needs know to be groundlefs, if he is in the lead acquainted with Independent church dif- cipHne. And one would fuppofe that he is per- fectly informed in its nature, when he can fo pofitively declare that it is better to be without difcipline altogether, than to embrace the dif- cipline of the Independents, pag. 40. The TERMS offa/vation are not Jo determi- imteyoufaijy ^c. What! Do6tor, is falvation to be fold, that we muft talk oUerms ? I fhould have taken the terms to be lufFiciently deter- minate, when the comprehenfive blelling is ex- prelsly faid to be without money and without price : yet if we muft talk of buying and fell- ing of falvation, let us keep to bible language. Bat fuppofing that we mull come up to terms in order to obtain falvation, are not thofe terms as yet determined ? Not fo determinate as to be the ground of a fure and certain hope of a blelfed immortality for thofe who believe in J efus in a fcripture fenfe ? So then Rational re- ligion fuppofeth, that, the terms of falvation are as yet undetermined ; and irrational or fcriptural rehgion fuppofeth that he that be- on the Son hath life, and he that believe th 96 not on the Son (hall not fee life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. Of thefe two com- mend me to the latter. I am. Reverend Sir, Your humble Servant. 97 LETTER VIII. Reverend Sir, I AM entirely of your opinion that '* know* ingly to conceal the truth, is a crime of Jb heinous a nature, that I fhouid be very imwiliing to impute it to any per/on ichatever* ,'* and am ready to believe tliat you mult have been witnefs to a great deal of diOimulation, to the great grief of your own open and ingenious fpirit, before your candour would have fathered you to impute I'uch a grievous crime to the Ra- tional Dilfiuting minillt rs, who you tell us, Elfay on Dilcipline, paer. 55. *' entertaining Jentiments in religion different from thofe of their people, and fuck as their people would 710 1 have borne icith, they endeavoured to keep them fi. e. theirfentimentsj as much as pnjfible out of view.'* This is doubtlels a crime of fo heinous a nature, that your thus publicly charg- ing them with it, naturally fuppoleth your pro- vocation has been great. Moreover your fa- miliar acquaintance with them is attended with peculiar advantages, fuch a^ no Orthodox writer can pretend to ; being;: thereby led to the very fpring of this their diirimulation, . * Differences of Opinion, pag. 9. 98 which we now find to be '' a fear of lofing their fubfcribers *. "In this fitnation of the generality of dijjenting minijiers they will necef- farilyfeel themj elves re/trained from doing their duty by the fear of giving offence, andoflojing the affections and contributions of their more conjiderahle hearers. Are not your minijiers, 7neny and 7nen of like pajjions and interejis with yourfelves?'' A very candid and honetl confeflion indeed : Of the greateft ufe in lead- ing us into the icope and ultimate aim of the Rational Diffentlng minifters, with whom it is apparent that the contribution of a confider- able hearer, is of more weight than the moft Rational fentiment, feeing rather than lole the one they will difguife the other. Do not you think. Sir, that people of lefs penetration than yourfelf may in fome meafure bejuftified in preferring an honell enthufiall, who preach- es to the extent of his knowledge and belief, to a Rational Diifenter, who for fear of lofing the contributions of his hearers, keeps his own fentiments as much as poffible out of View? 1 really wonder thata gentleman of your known integrity and philolbphic turn of mind fhould be perfuaded to aflbciate with fuch an herd of diifemblers; whom you and I have convi6ted of the moft heinous crime of con- ceahngthe truth from their hearers for fear of lofing their fubfcriptions. This leads us to account for that contempt Effay on Difcipline, pag. 47. 99 in which they are held by the people, who as you tell us, pag. 41. Eff. on Difc. have ** in fome fociet'ies exprej sly forbidden the minijiers their hoiifes except they come by fpecial invita- tion. *'' If this be your own particular cafe, indeed I pity you, Do(;:l;or ; and I think your people are very much obliged to your inge- nuity, in (b gently covering their Ihame even when you rebuke their folly. This prohibition laid upon the Rational min liters by their hearers, would naturally lead us to I'uppofe that the converfation of the minilters was too grave and ferious for the taite of their people, if you had not all along ducovered fuch dif- guft at grave and ferious religion; for which they can by no means be blaiiied. We have therefore but one way left to account for it, and that is, by fuppofing that the people re- ceived but very little prolit by the company of their miniilers ; otherwile they never would have forl)idden them their houtes. This feems very like!}'' to be the cafe, as certainly a man who can conceal the truth ui the pulpit, will make but little fcruple of doing it in private. We have quite the advantage of you here, for it would be thought a very ilrange thing among the Orthodox, if a minilter was denied the liberty of eating a bit of pudd ng with any of hi^ hearers whenever he was in the hu- mour ib to do. Yea more, Doclor, one of * The paflage is thus. " I am informed there are fpcieties among us in which the miniilers are exprefsly forbidden to vilit their hearers except by particular invitation." 100 the principal coniplainty that you fiiall hear from the Orthodox agaitiii their minlleri^, is, that they do not v'ljit tliein people often enough ', which at lealt lliews that they are not tired of their company. It would require uncommon talents indeed for a m miller, how cautious foever he may be, fo abiblutely to keep his real fentiments out of view, but that they will peep from be- liind the curtain Ibmetimes; the devil hirn- felf, as fome people fay, is not i'uch an abfo- jute mailer of diffimuiation, but he is found out occafionally. Well, this diffimuiation being detedted, and the caufe of it eafiiy guellbd at, it is no wonder that the Rational minifters are held in fuch contempt. *' that a icord of admonition from than in the pulpit would give unpardonable offence *." Seeing Avhiie the minifter is telling them of their fins, they would be thinking of his diilembling his fentiments ; and as it is natural for us to favour ourfelves moll, they would be apt to conclude that his hypocrily is altogether as heinous as their drunkennels and whoredom. To be fure. Sir, a minilter can never admonifli with a becoming authority either in the pulpit or out of it, whillt it i.^ in the power of the ad- monilhed party to retort upon him, phyjician heal thyjelf; therefore the llridelt integrity is neceliary to that minilier who would ad- mondh profitably, let him be Orthodox or * £fr. on Difc. page. 41, 101 Rational. You tell us that, in many places the congregations of the nioft Rdtional lui- pilters are dwindled away to noihing, not- withftanding the excellency ot' their cornpo- fitions ; and if you would know the realbn of that, Sir, yoti may coufider that one grain of honeli zeal is of more elteem with the gene- rality of hearers, than the gieatell ingenuity that can dilcover itlelf in fermonical com- pofitions. A.11 are not judges of that Rational ingenuity which you lb much applaud, hut molt people are intelligent enough to difcern when the miniller really aims at their everlall- ing welfare and does what he can for its ad- vancement. It is oblervable enouy,h that, this dwindling away has always been moil diliiern- able, in thole congregations where the miniller has been moft remarkable for keeping his Jen- timents out ofvieic, and cautious of admoniPb- ing for fear of lojnig the affecliQUS and contri" buttons of his moji corijiderahle hearers On the other hand it is equally oblervable that among the Orthodox thole minitters are moft loved ajid followed who are moft faithful in reproving and admonifliing finners both when in the pulpit and out of it, without any re- gard had to what may, or may not be the confequences of fuch admonition. And thole places of worlliip are belt filled where the miniller warmly and zealoully declareth the whole counfei ot God lb far as he himfeif has learned it. How can thofe congreg.vtions F 3 109 profper where they are entertained with a dif- guiCed and deceitful miniltry ? For my own part I would raiher chooie to fit under fuch a miniltry as that of tinker Bunyan or cob- ]er Howe, where 1 (hould be lure to be lincerely dealt with, thc\n that of a learned, ingenious. Rational DiHenting Miniiler, who llrives as much as polTible to keep his fen- timents out of vievv. It mull indeed be very mortifying to gentlemen who have engroiled the whole of Rationality to them- felves to fee the Orthodox minillers loved eli«'emed, and followed whilft they with all their pretenfions, '* are cmijidered as per Jons fcho are paid by their hearers for haranguing them once a iceek*.'' Contemptible, how- ever, as this eftimation of their minifters is, it is certainly very juft; and what they have brought upon thetr>felves by their filent con- nivances at fin, and their concealment of truth from their hearers for fear of lofing their fub- Icriptious. * In fhort a Diffenting minlfter among thofe who are ufu- ally called the Rational Diflenters begins now to be conildered as a perfun wlio is paid by his hearers for haranguing them once a week ; and the people attend the place of divine wor- ihip if not from mere unthinking habit, with the fame views •Vv'ith which tb.ey would attend the ledlures of any other per- fon from whom they expedled inftrudion or entertainment. EiT. on Difc. pag. 41. If I underftand this palTage aright, the Do(flor means that the people Jittend the v.eekly harangues of Rational miniflers ■with the fame views wiih thofe who attend the ledtures on philofophy by Mr. Fergufon and other gentlemen for inilruc- tion ; and the giddy multitude who gape at the entertaining ledures on lieads by George Alexander Stevens. 103 Ycung SamueVs meffage from God to Eli the priell, concludes with a pairage very ap- plicable to the prefent cale of the Rational Dilfenting minilters, and which may he very inltru6live if attended to with ferioulnefs, *' for them that honour me I will honour ; and them that defpij'e me fJia/l be Ughtlij ejteemed.'* That the Rational Dilienting minilters are lightly efteenied you and I have lulficiently ihewn ; it is therefore not unworthy of them- i'elves to enquire into the reafons why they are fo lightly elleetned even by their own peo- ple ? To aQilt in this enquiry, be it obfeived, that here is an exprefs promife, that all who aim at the honour and £ilory of God fhall be honoured by him, among his people; but they (the Rational Dilienting minilter.s) are defpifed among their people and are even for- bidden their houfes, infiead ul' being beloved, honoured and obeyed ; which fupjiofeth that they have been too much like the Ions of Eli, who fought their own gratitication iud not the glory of God ; for God who has promifed is faithlul and will not deny himfelf Do not 5'ou think now, that if, inllead ot concealing their fentiments, and fhamet'ully conniving at the fins of their people without darmg to ad- moniih them, the Rational Diilinting uuniiiers had ftudied to maintain conlcienres void of otfence towards God and man, by being faith- ful in reproving lin wherever it Wdb found, and honelfly declaring the whole counlel of 104 God as far as they knew it, that they would in all probability have been more relpedlable in the eyes of the very people, who, as things are, have forbidden them their houfes ? But having diflionoured God he hath brought them into that contempt which you complain of. God hath faid, ** he that hath my ivord, let him /peak my word faithf idly ; foj- what is the chaff to the wheat faith the Lord .?" Jer. xxiii. 28. But inftead of obeying, having got the word of the Lord, as they think, more per- fedtly than their neighbours, they conceal it in their hearts, and keep it as much as pollible out of view for fear of lofing their moft con- siderable fubfcribers. This is a difhonouring of God by preferring their own temporal emo- lument to the fuccefs of that which they take to be the truth, and (hews them to be lovers of the world more than of the word of God. The word of God chargeth exprelsly that we Ihall not futfer fin to reii upon a brother, but that we fliall in any wife reprove hiiii for it; but they admoniih not, becaufe as you fay, ** the leaft hint of an admonition from the pul^ pit would give unpardonable offence." How is it poffible, Do6i;or, that fuch men ihould be otherwife than lightly elleemed ? I allure you. Sir, if this account of the Rational miniflers had not come from one who cannot he ful- pe6led of doing them injuitice, I could not have believed that fuch a contemptible race of mere Scholars exilled among iiy. If a mini- id5 fter is faithful to the light he hath received, God will make him as a brazen wall and as an iron pillar among the people, who if they fight againft him fliall not prevail; but if he is afraid of lofing their contributions, the lame God will confound him before them, and bring him into contempt. I really vvifh that you, Sir, and your brethren, might lerioufly and attentively confider thel'e things without prejudice: for if it fhould in the end ap[)ear that you are now fighting againft God, a re- trolpe6iive view of your prelent conduct will then yield neither profit nor pleafure. I hope you will bear with me, if I exprels it as my opinion that you have not weighed the great and important truths of Chriftianily with that impartiality, and attention which the nature of the fubjec^l required ; but upon detecting fome things which you took to be abfurd among the people called Orthodox, you have too [)recipitately fled ablblutely to the utmolt limits of the oppofite extreme. But remem- ber this, Sir, that the middle path of judgment will be always found to lie between the two extremes ; therefore to avoid what we take ti) be an error on one hand, we ought to be very careful lelt we plunge into a greater ou the other, and fo the remedy prove worie than the difeafe. Being informed, ** that with the generalitij of thofe icho are noiv called Prejhyterians in England, the wkole government of tliefoceitij. 106 with refpecl to morals^ is in the hands of the minijier*,'' that the Rational Pivfbyterian min liters '■^ found it necejjary to diffemhle their fenliments hy keeping them as muck as poj/ible out of view becaiife their people would not have home with them f," that they *^ Jind themjelves rejirained from doing their duty for fear of (ofing the affecliotis and contri" hutions of their moji confiderahle hearers +," io that they dare, not give a icord of admonition from the pulpit §.'* It is* not at all marvel- lous that *' the very idea ofancie^it church dff- cipline fhould he loji among you, and your fyftem he found fo very imperfedt \\,'* that if it were poj/ihle for a primitive Chriftian to fee the order of your churches^ he would hardly think there was the appearance of your pro- fe£ing yourf elves Chrijiians^ ," eipecially ** as thoj'e who do not believe in ('hrijiianity do al- moJi every thing that ye do*.*' After fuch an humbling view ot" the effe6ts of Rational religion in the entire lols of church diicipline among!' your friends, one would hardly have expected to hear ^ou declare that ** in your opinion it is better to have no church dijcipline at all, than that of the Independents f." Yet even here it is much if you are perfe6lly agreed with yourfelf feeing you give it, elfe where, as your opinion that ** it is better to have the * Pag. 40. f Pag. 55. t Pag. 47. § Pag. i^' g Pag. 45. ^ Pag. 41. * Pag. 43. t Pag. 39. 107 power of difcipUne in the hands of the mini ft er or any other body than to have no difc'ipUne at all.'' To this I llioukl however object unlefs it ftiould appear that the miniiler is a inun of integrity, who dares openly avow tlie truth, and who will rather choofe to loofe the affec- tions and contributions even of his richeft hearers than keep out of view any truth the knowledge of which may be ufeful to the Ibuls of men. To do evil with a defign to promote the caufe of truth, and to pull down the church of God with a view to build up the ijolpel in its fimplicity, is a conduct lb abiurd that from your account of the Orthodox it could only be expected to be found in their tabernacles. But to hear the Rev Dr. Priedley reprefent it as the condu6l of Rational Dillenting mi- nilters, is indeed artonilhing! I think, Sir, that thefe fame gentlemen muit be Aniino- mians, feeing their condu6t, according to your account of it (ays, " let us do evil, and good fiall folloiL\ pag. 5.3. Finding themftlves more particularly incommoded and embarraJJ'rd with the extra duties of their office, t/iey laid hold of every opportunity of aho^ifhing them." Of all men, furely none lb unfit to llir up others to the practice of Chriltianity as thofe gentle- men who laid hold on every opportunity of abolifhing the duties of their own office, find- ing themfelves incommoded and embarraffed by them : it is thereiore natural to fuppofe 108 that admonition from them muft give unpar- donable otjience to every intelligent hearer, who had opportunity of feeing their own enr deavours to abolilh the extra duties of the paltoral office. Tlie abolition of the duties of their own office was not thought fufficient for the promulgation of Rational religion, but every other office power within the Rational churches mult be abolilhed alfo, for we are told that as the minillers found ** the hulk of the people J and ejpecially the church officers, who were generally the moreferious and zealous of their me?nbers, continuing Jirongly attached to the opinions in which they had been educated, (i. e. Orthodox opinions) the minijtcrs found them/elves greatly incommoded A^ them. — In this dij agreeable /ituation the miriifiers purpofe- ly neglected to Jill up vacancies in church of- JiceSf and were tn general heartily glad when they became entirely extinct*.** If this was not pra6lical Antinomianifm, certainly there is no iuch thing in exiilence. However, it does not feem to reflect the higheft honour on thefe gentlemen, that they were oppoied by the more ferious and zealous of their congre- gation ; nor difhonour upon the Orthodox that the more ferious and zealous ffiould be of that perfuahon. If your authority is to be depended upon, Sir, as I think it may, it is very apparent that Rational religion obtained only, the younger and more irreligious part * Page 54, *^ 109 of the people for her votaries, whilft the aged, the more zealous and lerious continued ftrong- ly attached to the Orthodox doctrine; iffo, 1 cannot think that your new religion has any reafon to boaft of her fuperior excellence ; unlefs it could indeed be proved that incon- fiderate youth is more capable of the right ufe of reafon, and forming a true judgment of di- vine things than mature age and manhood. Befides it does not feeni to argue much in fa- vour of Rational niiniiters, that they fliould be fo heartily glad of the extinction of office- power by the death, or departure of the mod ferious and zealous of their members, feeing it gives but too much reafon to fulpect that they poifelfed but little zeal, and had but a very faint relifh for ferioufnefs ihemielves. What if the ferious officers in churches were of dif- ferent fentiments from the minifters, and thereby a little incommoded them? Seeing they profefs themfelves to be gentlemen of fuch univerfal charity and unimpeachable candour, ought not they to have borne with the luppofed weakntfs of the Ortliodox ferious officers rather than to have dellroyed the order and dilcipline of the churches? I am, Sir, Your very humble fervaat. G no LETTER IX. Reverend Sir, It is fomething unaccountable to me that the lamentable Hate of what you call the Ra- tional churches with refpedl to church dil^ cipline, does not caufe fome doubt concern- ing the foundation upon which they build, and the religious fentiments which they really hold, feeing you give it as your opinion, •* That every fet of religious fentiments muji produce correfponding effe6ls on the tempers and conduct ofmen.^^ That the condu6l of the Rational minillers in their office chara6ter deferveth but little praife you have very fuf- ficientiy (hewn, and therefore from your own axiom it will be inferred that a certain ma- lignant influence is infeparably conne6led with their fentiments, which hath indeed been the opinion of fome grave and intelligent perfons long before you or I was born. The change of conduct amongft your churches is altoge- ther as obvious as the revolution of their fenti- ments from Orihodox to Rational is remark- able, the caufe of which you have ingenioufly accounted for in the condu6l of their minifters. It is indeed aftoniihing that, in the days of Orthodoxy when all the Dilfenters were as Ill you think abfurd and irrational, j^ea even idolaters * that their churches (hould have been on a regular ^ofpel plan, and that their more Rational defcendants in thefe days of fuch enlightened reafon (hould confeffedly ** he dejtitute of the common requjfite of growth, or even the continuance of any fociety whatever f." This being evidently the cafe with them, j^our cenfure, ** that with all their f up erior knoW" ledge they are dejiitute of what they call com* monfenfeX,'^ leenis to be extremely pertinent and judicious. That a goodly meafure of com- mon fenfe fell to the lot of my old friends the puritanical Diffenters, notwithllanding their idolatry, in worfhipping the Son according to the divine command §, even as they worlhip- ped the Father, and other abfurdities of which they were guilty as you clearly demonftrate, pag. 50. In your very friendly debate witii your Rev. brother Entield you have in great modefty laid the charge of idolatry again ft all Athanafians, and exprelfed your wonder that he (hould endeavour to vindicate them from your charge, as he is laid to have done in his trnnming bujinefs of a Diffenters &c. You know the Puritans in general were Athanafians, and therefore according to you, * Dr. Prieftley's Letter to Mr. Enfield. t Page 13. \ Page 133. § John V. 23. " That all men fliould honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath fent hini. g2 119 Idolaters. Moreover you are pleafed frequent- ly to give us an hint of the abfurdity and iu- coufiltency of tlie Culviniltical do6trines, whicli being confidered as the oppohte of Rational do6trines muil hy you be underflood as irra- tional ; ofcourfe the cafe Hands thus, ** the old Puritans were both irrational and idolatrous, yet after all had common fenl'e enough to form their churches upon a regular gofpel plan, as you tell us, and to maintain a Itridtnefs of dillcipline fui)fervient to the belt of purpofes. Nor was this the cafe in one or two com- munities as a wonder of order amidft their abfurdities; but on your ovvn teflimony it wasfo univerfally, *' for all the Puritans and Prefbyterians formed their churches upon this plan*." It is very flrange. Doctor, tliat with all your Rationality, ** this regular form of a church and the diicipline to which it is fublervient Oiould be now almolt univerfally grown into dilute with you." According to the eafy rules of common fenfe, it mull be * " The EngliHi Puritans however, fo early as Q. Elizabeth's reign, propofed to change the church-wardens and overfeers of the poor into elders and deacons, Neale, vol. 1. page 232. They held that the elders joined with the minifters fhould be overleers of the manners and converflxtion of all the congre- gation ; that they lliould be chofen out of the graved and moft difcreet members, that they fhouJd alfo be of fome note in the world, and able if poflibk to maintain tht mfelves. As far, fays Dr. Prieftley, as their circumftances would permit, all the old Puritans and Prefbyterians formed their cJiurches Upon this plan; but this regular form of a church, znd tlie difcipline to which it was fubfervient, are now almoll uni- verfally grown into difufe among us." 113 very difTicuIt to account for it, how men who are inconfiftent and irrational Ihould maintain regularity and order, whillt the Rational and intelligent, or as you more emphatically ftile them, peribnsof fuperior knovvled2:e, have not even the remotelt idea of church order; in- fumuch that as you fay, '* there is hardly the face of any thing that may he called difcipline among you." You cannot think, Sir, how it pleafes me to find fuch a gentleman asyourielf, touching lb frequently on the liiiarvellous : of which we have yet another inliance in page 37, *' the icJLole fyftem of difcipline among the Indepen- dents has no countenance in our oidy rule of Jiiith and duty, and no example for rnanij ceu" turies in the Chrijiian church." That this fhould be the cafe, is not fo Itrange, as to have It alierted by Dr. Prieftley ; who m the laft paifage I had the honour of quoting from him, hiohly applauds the fame tyftem of church difcipline. Had you read, Dr. Owen on Church Difcipline for the old Puritans, and Mr. Maurice's Social religion exemplitied, on the part of modern Independents you mult have feen that there is in fa6t no material dif- ference between them. Therefore how that of the old Puritans was fo regular and orderly, and this of the Independents lb univerfally un- icriptural, abfurd, and dangerous, are mutters of no fmali importance, and will require a genius not inferior to your own to determine. G 3 114 Neverthelefs were I to give my own fentiments upon the ibbject, 1 Ihould think that, ** an aim oft perfect unformitii of faith, and aifo the religion of the heart with refpeft to God*,** are far from being proper objects of ridicule, and fhould fiippoie that this may have at leaft a remote likenefs to what the apollle means by ** being of one mind," and furely an al- moft perfect uniformity of faith is better than to have no faith all ; which if I underlland you aright, you fuppofe may be the cafe with not only Rational Diffen^rs, but even with their very officers. * ' In this maniTi>?itruth might be propagated more jilently ; and if once the elders or the majority of them were convinced, there would be lefs difficulty in bringing over therejif.** 'Tis very true Sir, that when gentlemen of the Rational order are pleafed to take the pro- pogation oi truth into their own hands, they have need to ufe all their cunning, and go as filently about it as poflible ; though to be fure the Icriptural method of propogating the go(- pel was Ibmevvhat more noify, and its firft preachers lifted up their voices like a trumpet, and (hunned not to declare the whole council of God : but I fuppofe that two fchemes fo very different as the gofpel preached by the apodles, and Rational religion as defined by Dr. Prieltley, mull needs require methods of propogation equally different. I have always ♦Page 34. f Page 112. 115 been of opinion that truth could hold up her countenance in the face of the fun, but you feem to be of a contrary opinion ; and as 1 am not yet fdtisfied in my own intalhbility, I (hall not be too ftrenuous in this point, but (hall referve my anathema till a fitter occafion. I really wonder whether or not you are ferious Do6lor, in advifing your people to choofe elders whether they are convinced of the truth, or enemies to it ? I have been lb accuilomed to confider Paul's epiltles to Timothy and Titus, as containing good and authentic rules, for forming a juil idea of the qualities of church officers, that with mean elder who is not as yet convinced of the truth, appears to be an odd kind of an animal ; but no matter for that, feeing I have not the ho- nour of being counted a Rationaliil. Yet in our way of judging of things by common fenfe without any pretence to fuperior knowledge, we fhould think a man who is yet unconvinced of the truth, however rich, far from being the fitted man in the world for watching over the converfation of a religious focieiy . Moreover, we fhould be apt to conclude that a confiftory formed of one Rational minifler, and twelve unbelieving elders, is fuch a convention, as the wifdom of all the apoftles could not have devifed. There is yet another thing in which the firft preachers of the gofpel and you are by no means agreed as to the choice of church of- g4 116 ficers ; and what is very obfervable, Sir, is, that what you take to be a neceflary quality for office power was never once thought on by them, any more than you have thought of what they accounted neceflary. In page 86, you dire6l *' that one of the icealthiejt he clwfen for an eider.^* But they never once thought of riches or poverty in the cafe of choofing deacons, but fimply dire6led to choofe ^* 7n€7i full of faith and of the Holy Ghoji,'* as very fufticient through divine aflillance for fuftaining offices in a gofpel church. After ail it muft needs be confelTed that churches which are eilablifhed upon a different foundation, will require officers pofieft of different qualifications : how far this may be the cafe with the Rational Diffenters, I hope you do not expert me to determine. One thing I mufl take the liberty of cautioning you againfi:, Do6lor, and that is to beware of flattering yourfelf that you are the firft who found out that riches are a neceffary qualifica- tion for a church officer ; for I can aflure you that the Orthodox Diffenters themfelves, abfurd as you think them, have been in pof- feffion of this fecret for time immemorial, and in the whole extent of this great metropolis you will not find one poor man a deacon in any church whatever, providing always that, there be any rich men belonging to the coni- rnunify. Ay, Sir ! fo univerfal is this rule, that you cannot give a tradelman a better 117 chara6ter as being a good man in worldly circum (lances, than to lay he is a dew on of fuch a church ; therefore it wiil he unfjenerous ibr you in future to pretend that Rational religion dwells wholly with your people, fee- ing I have proved to a demonftration that in the article of chooii ng their officers, the Or- thodox are as Rational as yourl'elves. Fur- ther, if my informer deceives me not, the Sandemanian church in St. Martin's le Grand, that mirror of gofpel limplicity, is pretty ohfervant of the fame rule, and her elders are thought to ftand upon a par with the deacons of other churches, in refpect to the good things of this life. Indeed it is pretty obvious, that thole fame elders, who receive nothing for preaching, are full as comfortable as the Dil- ienting minifters who live entirely by the gof- pel. I cannot but admire their prudence in choofing to be put into trade, wliereby they may procure hundreds inflead of the few fcores of pounds ufually railed by fublirription. This wife choice -hath tu'o very great advantages attending it; firft, it gives them an authority ecjual to that of rich lay elders, becaufe of their equal independancy ; and iecondly, it gives them authority to treat thole minilters with contempt, whofe fubhftence entirely depends on the fubfcriptions of their people. Indeed, Sir, to be put into an hancilbme way of trade by the generofity of a church is at lealt irquivalent to a very good annual ilipend ; be- c o 118 fides the many other advantages conne6le(l with it. How then can you pretend that rea- fon dwells only with you, ieeing the very Sandemanians themfelvesoutftrip you in mak- ing comfortable provifions for their preachers, even when they give themfelves out to be the mod difintereiied race of human beings? I give it as my opinion, that whenever the Or- thodox ihall take it into their heads to make provifion for their teachers after the example of that only church in St. Martins le grand, they will find but little oppofition from their minifters, who would be every whit as well contented with two hundred pounds per annum, in a way of trade, as with one hundred in a way of fubfcription ; and 1 dare anfvver for it, that the good women their wives will unanimoufly vote for the Sandemanian plan, whenever the aHair is agitated. As you obferve, Sir, with refpe6t to your- felf, fo I may fay that, ** / am far from cen- Juring ihofe perjbns ivho are merely mjjled,** yet I think they are very worthy of cenfure who, pretending io Juperior knowledge them- selves, negie6l the true, the only Ipring of ipiritual intelligence more and more every day, as you tell us, is the cafe with the Ra- tional Diifenters of your acquaintance ; with ■whom, *' it is notorious that the fcriptures are every day more neglected, Jo that it isjyftly to be feared that in a few generations , our pojierity will have but a very imperfeM idea of the con- 119 tents ofthofe facred books*, which with me is by no means an inconteftible proof, either of their fuperior knowledge or piety, and may be thought by fome to be but a very flimiy ground for their boafted Rationality. I am entirely of your opinion that the fcriptures are grown almofl into a total difufe with the Ra- tional Diffenters ; minifiers as well as people ; for fuch of them whom I have heard preach, mod evidently drew more of their matter from Plato, Socrates, and Seneca, than from the difciples of our Lord in their writings of inlpi- ration. That pofterity is likely to have but a very imperfe6t idea of the contents ofthofe fa- cred books muft certainly be admitted, feeing fo many teachers have already attained to that degree of Rationality. When the apoftles of your perfuafion firfl; began to exclaim againft creeds, confeffions, and fyftems in general, it was done under a pretence of adhering more clofely to the infpired writings. Creeds, arti- cles, and confeffions of faith, bodies of divi- nity, and caXechifms, are all gone Dr. Prieftley, and muft the bible itfelf likewife be fuperanu- ated ? What rule do you think thofe gentle- men will next embrace ? Dr. Harwood has done ali that could be expected from fuch a circumfcribed genius to throw the New Tefta- ment into a more polite and gentleman-like form, but alas ! there is this fmall difadvantage attending his (what fhall I call it] verfion. Page 69. g6 190 that even Rational gentlemen, pofTeflTed of the fmalleft degree of either piety or common lenfe, can hardly give him thanks for liis la- bours. But tliat the bible which we make ufe of fhould grow daily into more general difufe is what might reafonabl}^ be expe6ted, feeing it is fo very full of Orthodoxy, and teftifies very folemnly againfi: the leading fentiments of the Rational Difl'enters. When the old faOiioned bible is grown into abfolute difufe with your people, and they are unani- moufly agreed to have a new one, better adapted to their views of things, if they fliould do me the honour to petition my advice on the occafion, I (hall refer them to the Rev. Dr. Harwood who may as well undertake to make a new bible as to mend the old one. If they can but procure a bible of Dr. Harwood's compofing, with annotations by George Williams, gentleman's lervant, his intimate friend, they will be on a fair way of being as Rational as the molt rational of Indians. Now Dr. Prieltley to give you another proof of my freedom with you, wdiich is al- ways a token of friend fhip, give me leave to tell you that the Orthodoxy which I approve, is all fummed up, and lies very obvious in this little old bible of mine ; nor do I hope ever to be able to hold a man to be rational or ir- rational, but as he adheres to or departs from, the lovely beauty of its divine contents. I think I fliaii envy no man his Orthodoxy on 121 the one hand, nor his Rationality on the other, it I may but fee the lovehnefs of Jei'us in the fcriptures and by them be made wife unto falvation. I really think that it is not unworthy of the moft Rational of all the Rational Diifenters to enquire ferioufly into the caufe of this grow- ing negle6t of the fcripture which you ipeak of ; and (hould it be found that it is in the minillry itfelf, fuitable meafures for remedying the evil will, I hope, be thought the next ob- je6l worthy of attention. It does not appear to me, that any thing has a more direct ten- dency to bring the fcriptures into a contemp- tible dilute, than the manner of preaching prac- tifed by fome minillers, whofe orations or harangues teem to have no dependanceupon, or conne6ton with, the facred writings. Lec- tures on natural or indeed moral philofophy, are very far from leading the foul to Jefus as its all fufficient dependance, and however ex- cellent as a fcience, is contemptible, bafe, and fimrious, when it afl'umesthe name of gofpel. Were Jefus Chrift and him crucified more the preacher's theme, and inftead of embellifhing his compofition by the flouriflies of art and fcience, heftudied to recommend the word to every man's confcience. I think the people would be under a neceflity with the Berean.s to fearch the fcriptures, that they might know the truth of the dodrine. Now, Sir, to come to a conclufion, give me 122 leave to obferve to you that, if to defpife and vilify the Orthodox becaufe they differ from me ; if to boaft of my own fuperior know- ledge ; if to hold fentiments in private, which I dare not openly avow ; if to aboli(h church officers, and let go the reins of difcipline ; and if to difufe the fcriptures is what is called Ra- tional rehgion, I muft beg to be excufed from embracing her, notwithftanding. I am. Sir, Your fmcere well-wifher, and humble fervant. 123 To the Rev. JosephPriestky, L. L. JD. F. R. S, LETTER X. Reverend Sir, Many months are now elapfed, fince I did myfelf the honour, of tranfmitting to you nine familiar Epiftles, written according to the humour*, which happened then to be regent in my fancy. But alas, had I been as impatient for your anfwer, as Mr. Enfield is faid to have been, on a fimilar occafion, I might by this time, through a tedious difap- pointment, have been reduced to a ftate of, either death or infanity. But although I have had the mortification to receive no anfwer, I cannot prevail with myfelf to decline the pleafure of writing to you again, how much foever you may be afhamed of your conne6lions with fuch an abfurd writer. Efpecially as you perfift in your refolution to vilify the perfon of my only Lord and Saviour ; to diveft him of * " Humour which then happened to be regent," &c. la the letters referred, the Author was of opinion, that the "weaknefs, abfurdity and contradidion, joined with a fpirit of oftentation, obvious in Dr. Prieftley's religious pamphlets, were more proper fubjedls of ridicule, than of ferious dif- quifition : He therefore refers here to the manner, or form, not to the matter or fubftance of thofc letters. 124 his Godhead, without which nothing can ren- der him amiable and lovely in the eye of an awakened fmner. Befides, I confider myfelf as bound to a fiirtlier correfpondence with you, from a paflage near the end of my fifth letter in the former Packet, intimating my refolution to addrefs you again, whenever you fhould fee meet again openly to write againft the dodrine of Christ's Divinity. You have now, Sir, furniflied the occafion, and virtually called upon me to refume my pen, according to promife, by the publication of your " Appeal to the fermis and candid pro- fejjfors of Ckrijiianity ;" and your ** Familiar illujlration of certain pajjdges of fcripture.'* When the ai3ove pamphlets firil came abroad, I paid little regard to them, feeing they were anonymous; but they being nowafcertained, the produdlions of your intrepid pen, I have thought proper to perufe them with atten- tion, and to animadvert upon them after my own manner; a manner with which, by this time, you are in ibme meafure acquainted. 1 do not mean to give you a regular anfwer, to the pamphlets in quellion ; no. Sir, I leave regular anl'wers to regular, thinking people, who can have patience and leifure to follow you from page to page, and from line to line ; I fn.iU at prefent fatisfy myfelf with attending to one lingle article, *' The Divinity of CHiijsr," concerning which, we differ as widely as pofTible. 125 In perufmg your penny Appeal, I was amazingly ftruck, with the force and propriety of the concluding paragraph, in article fifth, which mihtates againft the divinity of Im- MANUEL ; and wliich I think proper here to tranlcribe ; notwithftanding it will give you I'ome reafon to conclude, that I begin at the wrong end of my work, which you know fome people can do and make nothing of it. * * The great Creed of the Mahometans fay you is, that there is One God, and Mahomet is his Prophet, Now that Mahomet is not the pro- phet of God, it is to be hoped, they may, in time, be made to believe ; but we mult not exped, that they will fo ealily give up their faith in the unity of God.'* Being engaged in the fame great work of Reformation with yourfelf, and wiQiing to fee true and undefiled Religion ditfuling itfelf from fea to fea, from the river even to the ends of the earth; I have thought of a coalition of the Mohammedan and Chriltian Religions, as the moft: feafible fcheme. Therefore I altered the Mohammedan Creed, and read it thus. ** There is but OxVe God, and Jtsus is his Prophet." This, Sir, is admirably adapted to the rational fcheme, and may well be called the Socinian's Creed ; between which, and that of the Mohammedans, there is but barely the ditFerence of one fyllable, and that too not very material, on your (up- pofition, that both Jefus and Mohammed are 126 but men like ourfelves. You know. Sir, it is a matter of vaftly momentous controverfy, which of two perlbns, by nature on an exa6t level with each other, and with ourfelves alfo, fliall be by us, exalted to pre-eminence, ac- cording as they fhall feverally appear to be entitled, by their Doctrines, and their La- bours, to promote the good of mankind . The quellion then will be. Whether the Moham- medans (hall receive the prophet Jesus, who is but a man like themfelves; or Rational Chriftians (hall receive the prophet Moham- med, who is alfo a man like themfelves, and as they allow, a man of the firft attainments? The folution of this important Queftion fhall be the fubje6l matter of the following Epiftles, which I hope will furni(h you with two or three hours precious entertainment. But before I proceed to this folution, you will pleafe to give me leave to lay a fuitable foundation, for the coalition of parties, which I have propofed between Mohammedans and rational Chriftians ; by pointing out their eifential agreement, reipe^ting the perfon and offices of Jesus Christ. For if we can but find, that there is no eifential difference be- tween the Mohammedans and rational Chrif- tians, refpe6ting his perfon ; names, circum- ftantials, and fuch leffer matters, may the fooner be got over. So that if we fucceed , the eaftern world may either become rational Chriftians, or what you call the rational part 127 of the weitern world may become Moham- medans. Which of the two (hall be the event, is not very nviterial ; the diiierence appearing, either very tiiv ai, or the advantage greatly on the fide of the Arabic prophet, as perhaps the fequel may difcover. In your converfion of the Mohammedans, to rational Chrdtianity, it willnotbe neceifary that they Ihould give up iheir faith in the Unity of God ; their faith in this article, be- ing identically the fame wi'h your own, as will appear on the compariion. Were we even to attempt their converfion to re:;l Chrittianity, they needed not to part witi- le-r behefof the Uj^ity of the divine Eiieuce, only to adopt the Trinity, into thv ir taith in the Unity of God; as the oppoiiie of Unity in this lenfe, was never received by real Chril^ tians in any age, not even by the Athanafians themfelves. No, Sir, it is only a flander raifed againft them, by Gentlemen of learn- ing, of natural virtue, and of rational religion ; who, to ferVe a turn, will not fcruple to bely, even their molt confciencious neighbours. Witnefs the reverend Dr. Prieftley*s writings; efpecially his Etfay on Church Difcipline*. To prove my aifertion, that Mohammed's faith, and that of Dr. Prieltley, are identically the fame, refpecling the unity of God, permit me, Sir, to quote your own words, a little defcant upon them, and then quote the words * Page 17. 198 of the great Prophet c/ Arabia. You fay*, •* How is it poflibie that three Perfons, Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft, (hould be I'eparate- ly, each of them, polfeii'ed of all divine per- fe6tions, fo as to be true, very, and eternal God, and yet that there fliould be but one God? a truth which is fo clearly and fully revealed, that it is not pollible for men to re- fufe their alfent to it, or elj'e it would, no doubt, have been long ago ea'punged from our Creed, as utterly irreconcileable with the more favourite doftrine of the Trinity, A term not to be found in Scripture. Things above our rea- fon may, for any thing that we know to the contrary, be true; but things exprefsly con- trary to our reafon, as that three fJiouId be one, and one three, can never appear to us to be fo.'* That the term Tkinity is not Hterally to be found in Scripture is allowed ; but the lame may be faid of the charadters, *' Rational Chriftians," or ** Rational Dilfenters ;" alio of that favourite phrafe of yours, ** Jesus Christ is only a man like ourlelves;*' and many other phrafes, which pafs current enough with you, as well as with your neigh- bours. However, Sir, although it mull be granted, the term Tkimty is not in the Bible, it mult at the fame time be owned, that the thing intended by it, is found therein, whilft that pallage i'o adverfe to yours, and * Appeal, page 16, 17. 199 the Mohammedan fcheme, flands fo firm, after all the laudable efforts of rational religion have, in vain, been exerted for its eradication. I mean — " There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and thefe Theee are One*. That this is above reafon, to me does not very clearly appear ; and that it is contrary to reafon, as you are pleafed to affert, is an affront offered to the foundeit maxims of philofophy. That it is not above reafon to allow, that three different principles may be requifite to conftitute One intelligent Agents I hope Dr. Prieftley himfelf ia a living witnefs. You will permit me to obferve, that, not- w^ithftanding your vaft capacity, you are an animal, formed of the earth like other crea- tures. The word animal you know is com- pound, and fuppofelh two principles, exifting in the fubjecl to which it is applied. For in- ftance, a creature is a creature, whether it be dead or alive ; but it is not an animal unlefs it be alive. Here is therefore one principle, acting upon another, to compofe an animal Being; a principle which quickeneth, and a principle quickened, yet thefe are both re- quifite to conftitute animal exiftence. Be- lides thefe two principles, you have about you an immortal fpirit, which muftlive for ever in a fiate of uTiipeakable blifs, or of infinite mifery. This immortal fpirit, dwelling in * 1 John V. 7. 130 your animal frame, is that third principle which, joined to the other two, conftitutes you afelf-conibious intelligent Agent. Thefe three, thus joined, do not make three men, but one man, fo that it is neither contrary to, nor above reaPon, that One may be three, and three. One ; for although you fubfift Soui, Body and Spirit, you are not three Doctor Priellleys, but one Rational Diffenting Mi- nifter, or one Do6lor Prieflley. The light of the fun which fhines around me, affects only my eyes, and is therefore very diftiniSl from the heat of that fplendid luminary, which warms my whole body. This oblervation led me to examine the (ky, to fee if there were not two funs ; one, con- (ifting only of heat, and the other only of light. But I have not as yet found any, be- lides the old falhioned Sun, compofed of light, and heat. Two principles * , but One natural Luminary, Even that little bit of fire, which falls to the fhare of fome Authors, iu the coldeft days of winter, difcovers three fomethings, which feem eifential to its very- being. There is Light, Heat, and Motion ; * By principle, the Author does not mean that from which the fun derived its exiftence ; but that which is eflential to its exiftence. Principles in phyfic, or of a natural body, is fomething- that contributes to the eflence of a body ; or whereof a na^* tural body is primarily conftituted. Chamber's Didlionary. Which authority, I prefume, will warrant the obfervatioB immediately following upon the fire. 131 without which, I believe, you never favv a fire kindled in your ftudy. The light is very different from the heat, the heat from the light ; and both are diftin6t from that motion difcernible in the fire. And yet there are not on this account three fires, but one. Now, Sir, that an ignoramus, or what is much the lame in your (enfe, an Orthodox Dilfenter, (hould affert, that three dillind princples cannot exifl:, in one intelligent being, is no more than might be expe6led from their abfurdity. But that a Rational Difienter, fuch an adept in philofophy as yourfelf, (hould affert, that the truth contained in that pro- pofition is contrary to reafon, is not fo eafily to be accounted for : efpecially as you are a living proof of it in your own proper perfon. , Indeed Do6lor, whilfi: I fee you and mylelf, confiO-ing of foul, body, and fpirit, you mult permit me to deem it rational to believe, that the Godhead may fubfift in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost*. But if you afk, how thefe THREE are One, and this One is three ? I muit beg to be excufed from giving you a pofitiveanfwer, till you fliall have favoured me with an exa6l account of your own fubfiftence * No more is aimed at here than to fhew, that, among crea- tures, many may be pointed out, whofe very being depends upon the union of diftindl principles : The Author, invaria- bly confidering all attempts to explain the myftery of God, and of the Father, and of Chrifl, as daring and impious. What is feen may be defined in time ; what is unfeen, muft be left to eternity to unfold. 132 in foul, body and fpirit : how far thefe prin- ciples in your own frame are diftin6l from one another, and after what manner they are united together. I verily think we ought to explain our own elfence, before we attempt to explain that of our Maker. But, that yo« may not think I want to evade any ne- ceifary enquiry, I hereby give it you under my hand, that the moment you fhall have ex- plained to me, in a fatisfa6tory manner, the phenomena of the Sun, of the Fire, and of the human Nature, I fhall join you, in (tudy- ing to comprehend the Incomprehenfible, and of finding out the Almighty to perfe6lion ; a tafk, believe me, in which few befides our- felves ever hoped forfuccefs; but what may not the vigilant exertion of our rational powers be able to accomplifh ? However, Sir, although you differ from all the reformed Churches, as well as from Chrifl and all his Apoltles, you have the happinefs of perfectly agreeing with Mohammed the great prophet of the Turkifh Church, and head of all Muiiulmen ; as you will fee hy turn- ing to the Koran, chap. cxii. " God is One God ; the Eternal God ; he hegetteth not^ neither is he begotten ; and there is not any like unto him.'' No man could exprefs the fenfe of Socinians in a more agreeable and mafterly manner, than this fame Arabian prophet as it follows immediately has done, in his anfwer to the Korelh. You and this 133 great prophet are perfedly agreed, ** that God is One in perfon as well as in eilence." The Chriltian Church has indeed in all ages been of a different opinion from Mohammed, be.'ieving in the o>ly begottln of the Fa- TM£K full of grace and truth; and has thought that he could beget only his own image. Mo- hammed is in my opinion, however, rather more confident than yourfelf, as he entirely excludes begetting in God, becaufe, as he fays, there is none like unto hun : but you allow of begetting, and that, what is begotten of him, is the ver}^ image of his perfeiSlions ; and at the lame time, is but a man like ourfelves. Of the two, commend me always to the moft confiltent, as the moil rational, and fit to be followed. It is now time, to (hew your agreement with the fame prophet, refpeding the perfoa of Jefus of Nazareth ; but I beg leave to pofl:- pone it till I have the pleafure, and honour of writing to you a^ain ; v^^hich fhall be as foon as I think you have fairly digeited this. I am. Rev. Sir, Your mofi: humble Servant, J. MACGOWAN". 134 LETTER XL Reverend Si)\ It is beyond a doubt, that people have dif- fered greatly in their opinions, rerpe6ting the perfon of Jefus Chrilt. Some have taken him to be the Chrili, the Son of the Living God, with Peter and the Difciples; to be Imma- nuel, God with us, or God manifeited in the fleih, with Ifaiah, and the apoftle Paul ; even to be the Child born, the Son given, who is the mighty God, the everlalling Father. But on rhe other hand, he was by a different fet of men thought to be, but sl mere man like our^ felves ; one that had no power, nor authority, but what was derived. Of this opinion were the Scribes, Pharifees, Sadducees, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and Mohammed : of this opi- nion are Do61;or Priellley , Mr. Graham, and all their Arian and Socinian brethren. That you, Sir, differ from all the confeffions ever made, by the reformed Churches, whether Lutheran, or Calvinillic, relpe(5fing the per- foTi of J efus of Nazareth, is matter of your con- folation, glorying and boafting. My bufinels in this Letter, fhall be to furnifh you with greater grounds of boafting ; by Ihewing the 135 amazinof affinity between your fentiments, and thofe of the prophetic zVrabicin, after whoi'e doctrine, almollall theealleru world has won- dered for the fpace ot fix hundred years and upwards. After fuch a feather added to the plumage of your cap, Will you ever in future, alfert, " that you aie alhanjed of your con- nections with that abfurd Shaver ?" To have fuch a colleasue, as the great Mo" hammed, mull no doubt yield you tlie highelt fatibfaciion, and moll exquifite delight ; pro- vided we can but -nake clear your tule to fuch a dignity ; a dij^nity which undoubtedly mull add a lultre to the name oi rational (iaienter, already Co honourable with the thinking and wife. Therefore I (hall endeavo'.ir, m this epiitle to point out the oneness of Moham- medanifm, and what is by you, and your friend^ called Rational RtUgion. You know, Sir, tlie leading principle of both religions, on the point berore u>. refpect- ing Jefu ot N".izareth is, ** Tliat he is hit a manlike ourj'e/ves; -' or, as in f)ine places you exprels it more emphatically, '* A man, in all refptcls, like ourielres ;" by wliich fouie would think, that even (iu itfelf is not ex- cepted ; for were that to be excepted, he could not be in ail rofpe^ts like ourfelves ; un- lets, indeed, it could be proved that we are not finners, and this perhaps might be at- tended with fume decree of diificuity. To iiivelligate a fubject of this importance Ji !^ 136 reqwires fome degree of method and perfpi- cuity. We Ihal'l lliereibre begin with that po- fiucn of yours, viz. '* That Jefus Chnll is not God. nor equal to God in any feufe, *' al- ways keeping in our view your entire agree- ment with the prophet Mohammed. That wonderful man exprefsly declares,* that*' they are infidels, wholiiy, verily God is Chrifi: the Son of Mary." And again,! '* The Chiil- tianb fay ainji is the Son of God. May God refill them. How are they infatuated ?■* Sure- ly, Do6lor, no man couid better have expref- fed your fentiments, than M after Mohammed has done. Your whole bulinefs, for years pad, has been to oppofe thofe who believe in ChriO;, as God over all blefi'ed for evermoi-e. With theTurkilh prophet, you havenotonly charged all the Athanafians with infidelity, but even with idolatry. Our Archbifhops and B i (hops are all fworri Athanafians, and therefore according to you Idolaters, and according to Mohammed Infi* dels. This, Sir, is a fpecimen of your charity and candour, and muft greatly tend torecom- njend rational Chriilianity, if opprobrious names are deemed the fitteiiarrows of convic- tion, and abufe the mofl; proper method of manifefi:ing our candour. Mohammed well knew, that the perfon who Ihould be owned the only begotten Son of God, muft be in ail * Kor.ch.vi. 133 f Ch. ix. 244, 137 refpedls the only true and living God ; on which account he confidejs it as inficlelity and biafphemy to call Jefusby that name, Son of God. In ihi:?, therefore, he dilcovers more prudence than yourlelf, for, as I ohferved to- wards the ciofe of rny laft, you own him to be the Son of God, and notwithllanding' will have him to be no more than a man like your- lelf, forgetting the true character of the Child born, the Son given. That Mohanuned then fliould deem the Chrifiians infidels, for calling Jefus the Son of God, is not half fo llrange as your charging us with Idolatry, becaufe we honour the Son, even as we honour the Fa- ther. Making mention of the Son of God, brings to my mind a laying of yours *, where you addrefs the people thus, '* You have been taught to believe that Jefus Chrill, whole proper title is the Son of Man, as well as the Son of God, was not Man, but very and eter- nal God himielf." I freely confefs, that w>e have been tauoht to believe in him as the true GuD and eternal life ; but then, Sir, we have been taught to believe in him as, Man alfo : therefore you have here done great in- juftice to our teachers, and ought to retract youraflertion, if you wifhto fupportyour repu- tation for probity ; unlefs, indeed, you can vin- dicate it, and demonftrate, that we have adu- » Appeal, pa g. 12, h3 138 ally been taught to believe, that Jefus is not a Man of the feed of David after the fle(h. Having had the fehcity to point out the one" nefs of the Mohammedan, with the rational faith of Socinians, refpe^ing the perfon of Jefus of Nazareth, we may now enquire how far you and that celebrated prophet are agreed, refpediufi^ his work and million. The words of the Koran * are very expreflive, and ana- logous to your own abfurd fyftem. *' O Mary ; verily, God fendeth thee good tidings, that thou fhalt bear the word f proceeding from himfelf ; his name (hall be Christ Je- sus the Son of Mary ; honourable in this world, and in the world to come, and one of thofe who approach near to the prefence of God,— and he (hail be righteous , — God (hail teach him the Scriptures and Wifdom, the Law and the Gofpel, and Ihall appoint him his Apoftle to the Children of llrael ; and he fhall lay, verily, I come to you with a (ign from the Lord ; for I will perform miracles by the permijjion of Gub : I will heal him that hath been blind from his birth, and the leper ; and I will raife the dead by the per- mijjion of God. I come to confirm the law which was revealed before me, and to allow unto you as lawful, part of that which hath been forbidden you — Therefore fear God and * Chap. 3. page 63. t Dr. P. fays, Chrift is called the Word of God on account of his being in a more eminent manner commiflioned to de- clare the will of God. 130 obey me. Verily, God is my Lord and your Lord ; therefore ferve him." The pro- phet Mohammed, in all this defcription of Jefus, hath rationally taken care to prevent his followers confiderini^ him as God ; the better to prevent vi^hirh, he afcribes all his miracles to the permilTion of G.>d, as is ob- ferved by his judicious Commentators*. The pharifees and fcribes were alfo of opi- nion, that Jefus was a teacher fent from God ; believing upon good grounds, that no man c^uld do thofe works he did, unlefs God were with him fo give him power to work fuch miracles ; perfe6ily a2:reeing with Moham- med's notion, that Jefus wrought all his miracles by a Divine permilfion. You alfo, and other Socinians, are firmly of opinion, that the whole of rational faith confifts, in believing in Chris i as a teacher fent from God, commiffioned to work mira- cles, and to publiQi the new law called the Gofpel ; that is, fo to moderate the old law, as to render the way of Salvation pra^tica!)le and eafy. You fay f, ** Chriil b^ing ap- pointed the King and Judge of men, has powers given to him adapted to thofe offices, efpecially the knowledge of the human heart, and the prerogative of declaring the forgive- nefs of fin, which always accompiuies regal authority ; but being alTilled by Divine wif- * Koran, pag. 64, Lett. e. t Familiar illufl. pag . 22, 140 dom and difcernment, as well as by Divine power in the exercife of this high office; it iy, in tfTe6t, the fiime tiling, as the judgment and mercy of God difplayed by the inftru- mentahty of Jefus Chtiil." To this agree the words of Mohammed *, ** Jefus is no other than a (ervant, favoured with the gift of prophecy, appointed for an example to the children of Israel ; and he Ihall be a fign of the approach of the laft hour.'* Here Jefus is a lervant, confequently commiffioned of God ; favoured with the gift of prophecy ; therefore, as you fay, had com- munications from God, appointed as an emi- nent example to Israel, being commif- fioned to declare the will of God. So far, then, there is a perfect agreement between you and the great prophet of the Mufl'ulmen ; as you may fee in the foregoing quotation from At Koran. Orthodox Chriflians in every place, and in every age, have, indeed, embraced the Re- deemer of makind, as the bleffed Immaijel, God maniteit in the flefii. But the refpeCt- able Pharifees, Scribes, and Doctors of old, the Mohammedans, the Sociniansand Arians, are all united in oppolition to his proper and perlbnal Deity, even when they acknowledge him a Teacher lent from God, and performmg works peculiar to himfelf. Once more, reverend Sir, Mohammed and \ Kor. 360. 141 you are perfectly agreed, refp€6ling the ig- norance of Clirilt, as to the day of Judgment, You fay*, *' Notwiihftandmg the Divine communications with which our Lord was favoured, fome things are exprefsly faid to be witheld from him. For he himfelf, fpeaking of his fecond coming, fays, Mark 13. S'-i. ** But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the Angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'* The Ortho- dox, to be fure, have always underliood our blefled Lord, ab fpeaking here of his human na- ture only; and not without ground fuppofe, that, feemg as a Divine perfon, he does what- foever the Father does, he muft as fuch know, whatfoever the Father knoweth. Moreover, that the Father, in many pai- fages of Scripture, intends the Deity in the Unity of its Elience, and the Son, the man Jtfus, or the human nature of the Redeemer, lianding in union with the divine nature. Hence they fuppofe, that whatlbever might be hidden irom him as Man, was not hidden from him as a Divine perfon. Some even think, that although this fecret was hidden from Jefus, as man, during the firft or fecond year of his miniflry, it was certainly revealed to him afterwards. Becaufe he himfeif allerts that all Judgement is committed to the Son, which they think requires an infalliable know- pledge, how, when, and tvhom to judge, which * Appeal, pag. 13. 142 could not be poflefiTed, were the time of judg- ment concealed from him. Yea, he farther declarers, that all power in heaven and earth was given unto him, which furely implies the knowledge of the proper times for the execu- tion ot this power. But Sir, although my idolatrous Brethren, the Orthodox, and mylelf, have the infelicity of thus ditlering from the rational and vir- tuous Socianians ; Mohammed the Great, de- clares himfelf entirely on your fide of the quellion. Hear him, ye Socinian Do6lors *, ** They will afk thee (fays Gabriel) Concern- ing the laft hour, at what time its coming is fixed ? Anfvver, verily, the knowledge thereof is with my Lord; none fhall declare the fixed time thereof except he. The know- ledge thereof is with God alone ; but the greater part of men know it n6t." This prophet goes even fomewhat farther and alledgeth five things, of which he lays, Jefus was ignorant. Thus from the moil perfe6l agreement between rational Chrillians and Mohammedans, in the ellentials of religion, I think we have the faireft profpecl of accom- plifhing an union. Nothing now remaining but a few circum- ftantials, which may eafily be got over by men of genius and relblution. The only difficulty to fettle is, whether Je- fus and rational Chiiftiamty, or Mohammed * Kor. ch. vii. 219. 143 and the Turkifli religion, fiiall be embraced? To determine which, it will be necefTary to enquire after the manner of Dr. Abbadie, which of them, according to your fyftem of ra- tional religion was the beft preacher, and main- tained the fairefl; and moftconfilientcharadter, as a good man, commiffioned of God to be an inllruclor of mankind. The confequence of which will be, that either the Socinians fuheme muft be reprobated, and the doclrines of Orthodoxy be embraced, or we mult all become Mohammedans, in order to preferve a confiftent character. Then, Sir, I prefume, that you and myfelf will bid fair for being two of the firft chara6iers of the new modelled church ; a character furely not unworthy of the utmofb exertion of all our rational powers. In great hope of fuccefs, and the dawnings of that approaching glory. I remain, RvREREND Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN. 144 LETTER XII. Reverend Sir, You will recoil e6t, that in the clofe of my lafl, I prom lied to attend to the refolution of that important point, whether the religion of Jefus, according to the Socinian Hypo- thefis, or that of the prophet Mohammed fhall be univerfally embraced, as you know it muft be a very defireable thing to have only one religion over the whole world ; and efpe- cially, if we could get ourfelves promoted to be leaders in that blelTed fyllem, and plan of operation. The whole matter will, I imagine, reft on this fingle article, which of the two prophets appears to be moft faithful, wife, charitable, and zealous for the glory of God ; or, in other words, whether Chrift or Mohammed is the better man, and I'ullains the moft confiftent chara6ler. This is, indeed, a matter of hazardous enquiry, and what few befides ra- tional Chriftians would dare to attempt ; what I at leaft fhould not be bold enough to under- take, had the fubje6t been entirely new. But the ingenious, judicious Dr. Abbadie has paved my way, in his excellent Treatife on 145 Chrift's Divinity • a Treatife which I earneftl/ recommend to the peruilil of every rational Chriltian, every intelligent Diffenter. The nature of the lubjecl requires a con- liderable degree of ferioulhefs, therefore you will be obliging enough to forgive me, if I ihould difmiis the fmile, vi'hich ufed to play on my countenance when I dealt in contro- verfy heretofore. The prefent difquifition is no lefs ferious, than, to determine for cer- tainty, whether you, Sir, and your rational brethren, be blafphemers; or mylelf, and the reft of the Orthodox be Idolaters, as you have moil candidly reprefented us. There is an infinite dii'tance, you know, be- tween the Creator, and the molt dignified of all his creatures; therefore God cannot be reprefented as a mere creature witliout blaf- phemy , nor can the creature be adored as God, without the moil monibous Idolatry. If then, Jesus Christ be the true God and eternal life, it mult be blafphemy to la}'', *' that he is but a man like ourfelves.'* And if he is but a manlike ourfeives, or but gi raei'e Crea- ture, how dignified foever, we mult be .sjuilty ,of Ihocking Idolatry, in worftiipping him, even as we worfhip the FATiicij., as God over all, blefTed for evermore *. You cannot be offended, S;r, with my bringing the matter to this ifliie, feeing you have ib iliiberaliy charged * Vid. Dr. Abbadie, pag. 6, of Jiis Treatife on Chrifl's Divinity. I 146 the Orthodox with Idolatry, though it (hould even turn out, that, before I have done, I Ihould convict you yourfelf, of blafphemy againft God in the human nature, and the grofFeft rebellion againfl your Judge, of which you are capable. If I worlhip him accord- ing to the Scriptures, you mull be condemnable for reje6ling him ; and 1 mult be condemnable for worfhipping him provided he is that mere Creature you are pleafed to reprefent him. It is an obfervation made by forae, that thofe who doubt the Divinity of Jefus Chrift, mull aifo doubt the Divinity of the Scriptures. Which obfervation feems to be warranted, from the proceedings of rational Chrifiians in our day. One nibbles at this part of the facred volume, another nibbles at that ; for in- flance, the Song of Solomon is very offenfive to fome, the Apocalypfe to others; whilft fome of their brethren are equally otfended with the book of Daniel, part of the Prophecies of Ezekiel and Zechariah, fome of the Pfalms, and many paifages of even the Pentateuch itfeif. Which fpirit of Scepticifm evidently betrays a doubt of the authenticity of the •\^'hole volume of infpiration. This accounts for the new name (not on a white-done) given by fome to rational Diifenters, I mean that of Chrijiian Delfts ; for which diftin6tion they have as yet dilcovered very little thank- fulnefs to their benefactors. The Trinitarians, on their part, think it not confillent to fuppofe. 147 tliat God fhould create a whole race of ra- tional intelligent beings, and leave them with- out any given law, any obligation to walk ac- cording to his will; therefore they conclude, that Ibme revelation of his mind has been given and preferved in the world for the general ufe of mankind ; that wherever it is given, it muft be an entire perfect revelation. They have carefully examined all the writings of the learned and wife, from Moles down to Dr. Prieflley, and find on examination, that no book bids lb fair for being that infpired Code of laws, as this fame blefl'ed, though antiquated book, the Bible ; confequently the carping and cavillings of modern fceptics, againtt this and the other part of revela- tion, cannot to them be very agreeable. You have been plealed to dignify our peo- ple with the name of Idolaters. When this fit of zeal for rational religion was upon you, I hope you confidered maturely the import of the charge, as oppofite to the glory of God and our own falvation, and indeed incom- patible with either. Idolatry introduceth more Gods than one, as Mohammed charges all the Chrillians with doing, and with which you yoi»rfelf are pleated to charg* all the Or- thodox, i. e. the king upon the throne, the biftiops upon the bench, all the conlcientious clergy of the eltablillied church, as \a ell as thofe among Diifenters, who can fubfcrioe the dodrinal articles of the church of England. J 2 148 Indeed to worfhip the Lord Jefus Chrift, n?5 we do, it' he is, as you lay, only a man Hkc omielves, nuiil be more contrary to the glory of God than the grolieft Pr.aanilm. This is to advance a mere creature, yea, a creature not of the highell order in the creation, to all intents and purpoies, to an equality with the infinite Jehovah. Idolatry more fhocking than was ever devifed in nations, the molt barbarous, for they never exalted their fubordinate Deities, to an equality with him whom they accounted fupreme*. Ido- latry then, Sir, being lb very heinous in itfelf, lb dreadful in its conlequences, and the wor- fliipping of Jel'us Chrili as God, equal to the Father, being the very woritfpecies of idolatry, according to you and the prophet Mohammed ; it is high time it were eradicated, and a more confiitent lytlem adopted. You lay, that there are not Three that bear record in heaven, and in elfe6t, that it is * Hear, therefore, and confider, ye Orthodox ; your reli- gion is the rankell of ail Idolatry, if it is true that your Re- deemer is hut a mere Man, in all refpe^ls like yourfelves. Know affuredly, that Chrifdan Idolatry, is the very worft Ido- latry that ever v/as invented. It is as contrary to the true interefts of the immortal foul, as it is to the glory of God. For if you are Idolaters, ac- cording to the Rev. Dr. Priellley's reprefentation, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ; confequently you muft all be damned. Idolaters are fliut out from the Icingdom tof God; this rational gentleman has proved (I mean, afierted) that all Trinitarians are Idolaters, therefore you muft eitlier be flint out, or he muft appear to be a lying prophet, as well as his friend Mohammed. 1-19 a villanioufly interpolated paiTage which alTert.^ there are. The prophet Moliammed aUo has repeatedly declared his implacable enmity againft the Doctrine of the Trijsity, as ir- reconcileable to his fcheme of reformation. According to this, it will, it muft appear, that Chriilianity had, by fome fatality, corrupted the true religion and that Mohammed reftored it to irs priftine purity. That the immediate followers of Jelus worfhipped him as God, let their writings bear witnels : and that in after ages, that corruption was indulged, your own writings fufficiently teftify ; therefore, beyond a doubt, religion was corrupted in the fird ages of Chriftianity, feeing the people were then addicted to w'orfliip the Son, even as they worfhipped the Father. But Mo- hammed arofe, a great prophet and reformer ; he corre6ted the errors of Chriftianity, and taught the people to worlhip Oine God, in one perfon only, juil as you would have us to do; and to obey one prophet, even as you would wilh a teacher lent from God to be obeyed.' The Orthodox, indeed, m an in- variable manner, have to this day continued to worlhip Father, Son, and holy ghost ; believing that there is no medium between Christ's being the true God, the fame in elfence with the Father, or his being an arrant Impojior, influenced by tlie fpirit of Satan. But the rationah having imbibed the fpirit of Mohammed, adopted the doctrines of 1 3 150 the Koran, are concerned every where to deftroy the worfliip of the Tkijnity; and efpecially that of J E8US Christ, fetting lip in its ftead the worfhip of Ojse God in one perfon only, and reducing Jtsus, his pro* phet, to a level with themfelves : a mere man, fuch as Mohammed profelfed himfeiftobe. Thus it is clear to a demonftration, that the fathers have in all ages been corrupters of religion, and that the author of the Koran, and the Socinian Doctors have been, and dill are, the true reformers, who teach us not to receive, nor acknowledge the Mysteuy of God, ajnd of ihe Father, awd of Christ. So (Iriking the harmony between Moham- med and ^ourfelf, and fo very pertinent the language of his Koran, that I haVe often wondered, why you quoted not his authority to authenticate your doctrine and to confound the orthodox. Permit me, Sir, to refer you to the prophet himielf *. ** O ye who have received the 8cri[>tures! Exceed not thejuft bounds in your religion, by raifing Jet us to an equality with God; neither lay of God any other than the truth. Verily, Chk ist jEsui?, the Son of Maky, is the apoftle of God and his Word, which he conveyed into Mary, and d fpirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apoftles, and fay •Kor. Ch,iv. 126. 151 not THERE ARE Three Gods : forbcaf this, it will be better tor you. God is but One God. Far be it from him, that he fhouid have a Son — Chrift doth not proudly dit'uaiii to be a fervant unto God." Again, yet more, if pofiTible, to our pur- pofe t, *• They are fjiely Infidels who fay, verily. Goo is Christ the Son of Maky; fuice Christ fdid, O children of Ifrael! Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever lliall give a companion to God, God lh;Ui exclude him from paradile, and his habitaiion (httii i^e hell fire. They are certainly infidelb who fay, God is the third, of Three-, for there is no God, befide one God. And if they refrain not from u^hat they fay, a painful tornjent fhall furely be mfli6ted on fuch ot them as are unbelievers. -^Chrift, the Son of Mary, is no more than an apollle ; and his mother was a woman of veracity.— Behold how we declare them the figns of God's Unity; and then be- hold, how they turn aiide from the truth ? Say, will ye worlhip any befides God, &c.'* Now from this long quotation from the prophet Mohammed, would not any body take him for a rational DifTenter, educated by fuch a tutor as Dr. Taylor, or Dr. PrielUey > Or, in other words. Would not one, who is well acquainted with the fundamenals of the Turkifh religion, on reading your polemical pamphlets, be apt to miftake you for a Mo. t Ch.v. p.l46. I 4 159 hammedan ? I mean, refpe6ling thofe effential principles of religion, the Do6lrines of the Trinity, and the Divinity of jesus. The worOiipping of Father, Son, and Holy Gholt, as three perj'ons in the union of the di- vine eiTence, you fay, * ' is the grand corruption of Chriftianity, and, indeed, hath changed it into idolatry." The reftoring of it therefore to its purity mull be a great and good work, fuch as could not be eifecfed by any other fpirit, than that of truth. Now Mohammed hath effe6lually reformed this abufe, and has purged all the eallern world from that idolatry, to which their forefathers were addi6led, in worlhipping the Lord Jefus Chrift, as in union with Father and the holy Ghoft. How is it then, that he can be that impoftor he is repre- fented, feeing the firft principles of his religion are founded according to you, in the purelt truth, and he hath been the author of fuch a great reformation, as reftoring religion from the worft kind of Idolatry, to the worfhip of as a God, and the acknowledgment of Jefus, One teacher divinely commiffioned ? With- out doubt, this notable prophet was under the influence of either a good or a bad fpirit, if of a good fpirit, he cannot be an impoftor; if of a bad fpirit, how could he work fuch a reformation? Did the Devil confider it as his intereft to have Chriftian Idolatry aboHflied, if to worfiiip Jefus be idolatry, as youaifert; Surely this would be to have 153 Satan divided againft himfelf; a pra6lice contrary to the iinii'orm tenour of his condu6t. In (hort it nuiti: follow, that either God is to be worfliipped in Trinity in Unity, and Jefus embraced as the adorable God-Man ; or that Mohammed was the true prophet of the living God. That is, in plain terms, fo long as you and your friends reject the Lord Jeius Chrift as Lord and God, you muft own yourfelves to be Mohammedans, inllead of rational Dif- fenters. If God is not to be worfliipped as Trinity in Unity ; if Jesus is not to be received as the adorable God-Man, it follows, that the whole Chriiiian church has been in a ftate of the moil monftrous idolatry for time im- memorial ; confequently that none of the Or- thodox have entered into the kingdom of hea- ven. But if there are Three that bear re- cord in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghust ; and if thefe Three are One, it will follow, that Mohammed and his Socinian brethren are guilty of blafphemy, and mud be turned over to the difpofal of a juft and equitable judge, who is declaredly jealous of his own glory. Having taken up much more time than at firft was intended in the preliminary part of my letter, I fliall have room for little more, than to propofe the plan of our future cor- refpondence ; I mean, in the prefent feries of epillles. The leading defign, you know, is I 5 154 either to have what you call rational religion renounced as a dangerous, enthufiallical, and fanatical delufion ; or, having your rat-ional do6trine fufficiently authenticated, to eftabhfli the pure religion of the Mohammedans upon your foundation. In order to which, I ihall ihew, 1. That if Jefus Chrift be nothing more than a man like ourfelves, Mohammed was a wifer man than him, or all the prophets who went before him, and gave more effedual iii- (lru6lions to his followers. 2. If but a man in all refpe6ls like ourfelves, Mohammed was more truly benevolent, and exerted himfeif more for the benefit of man- kind, than did Jesus of Nazareth. 3. If but a man like ourftlves, Mohammed was a n)ore honed, and a better man, a far greater, and more confident divine preacher. 4. If but a man in all refpeiSts like ourfelves, Mohammed difcovered far more concern than Chrill did for the glory of God and the purity of religion. Thefe (hocking propofitions being properly cleared up, it will appear either, that the Koran of Mohammed contains the true re- ligion ; or what you call rational Chriftianity, is the ranked and moil blafphemous enthufiafra ever yet invented to defile this world. And that according to your do6trines, Mohammed mud, in all refpe(5ls, have the pre-eminence: But according to the principles of the everlafi- 155 ing gofpel, he will appear to be that falfe prophet, alibciated with the beaft of Rome* and Jefus Chrift (hall retain hisglory unfullied, and his dooiinion for ever entire. I am. Reverend Sir, Your mod humble fervant, J. MACGOWAN. J 6 150 LETTER XIII. Reverend Sir, The ful)je(5l of this letter, being an at- tempt uncommonly daring, would require a degree of refolution and intrepidity, tar fu- perior to what I pofTefs ; I muil therefore beg you will candidly cover, with the mantle of charity, what defe6ls foever may fpring from my timidity and ignorance ; when treating on a fubje6l of luch very rare and Angular dif- cuffion, as to prove the following alarming propofition. ** If J ejus Chriji^ the author of the Chriflkin religion, be hut a man like our^ felves, Mohammed was a icifer Man than he, and gave more effectual infiruclions to his fol- lowers.'* The wifdom of a man, as Dr. Abbadie obferves, eii'entialiy confifts in choofing the fittelt means for attaining the end propofed. Therefore, Sir, what lies now before us is, to confider their different ends in the eltablifli- iiient of their different religions, feeing they ieverally fland up as heads of the two greateit feds of religionills in the whole world. Mohammed's defign in theeftablifhment of his religion, as acknowledged and declared 157 by himfelf, was to make known the fupreme God, to he the only living and true God^ far exalted above every other Being whatever : *' To Jliew that he hath no (ffiie, no partaker icitk him of the Divine nature, nor any fimilitude whatever.'* That this was the prophet Mohammed's leading defign, will appear from his own words in a variety of places in the Koran. Where he fets forth the perfections of his heavenly Majelly, in a mag- nificent manner, and frequently infills on his alone right to religious adoration. I might refer you to the various paflages of that un- common book, did I not coniider you as an adept in the MufTuhnen learning. That Mohammed laid his plan of reforma- tion with theutmoft fagacity and wifdom, his fuccefs, and the fruits of his doctrine teilif}^ There is but one way by which we can judge of a preacher ; that is, by the fruits of his do6trine : and he rnuft be a greater reformer, indeed, who actually gains his point in every rerpecl. Mohammed actually gained his pro- j)ored end etFe6tually. He has lb reftored the worfliip of one God, in one per/on only ; that for iix hundred )'^ears and more, not one of all his numerous followers, have ever at- tempted to honour the Son, even as they ho- noured the Father, any more than if they had been bred rational Dijfeniers, or Chriitian Dcills. 7'hi?, you mult allow, demonllrates the unfpeakable propriety of the meaiures. 158 his fagacity pointed out, and the power with which his do6irine was accompanied. And all this was done confidently enough, with the utmoft indulgence of fenfual gratification ; for Mohammed was none of thofe reformers, who deem the crucifixion of the flefh neceflary ; as his eleven wives could have teftified, not to mention his concubines. Here was fuch wifdom, as neither Chrifl nor his apoftles ever pretended to. They had not the lead notion of people getting to heaven, any other way than by that of the Crofs. They con- fidered a coalition between the world and true religion, as a thing impra6ticable, and there- fore never attempted it. But the fagacious Mohammed, both proje6led and executed that defirable fcheme, and he has been fol- lowed by the whole race of rational Chriftians with fuccefs, not a little flattering to their hopes, of an entire extirpation of the religion of the Crofs. To turn now from the prophet of the Turkifh church, let us a little enquire into the meafures taken by Jefus of Nazareth. Com- pare his fuccefs with the former, and we fliall fee, that in reality there is no comparifon. If, as you fiy*, ** It be perfectly clear from the whole tenor of the New Tejtameni, that the pefoji who is d'jiiniJ^snfhedhy the name of the Father, is the only true God, exclu/ive of the Son, or any other Being whatever ^^^ • Fam. Iliuft. p. 12. 159 it mud follow, that the leadina; defign of his coming into the world was to eftablifh the pure worfhip of the Father only, exclufive of every other Being, and that this worlhip muft be the firll principle of genuine Chrillianity. If fo, his luccels has been far inferior to that of the Turkiih prophet, with refpe6l both to the numbers of hi.>5 followers, and the duration of his fyftem in its purity. In point of num- ber, Jefus has had very few followers, rational enough to worfhipOne God, under any other notion befides that of Trinity in Unity ;• and even in our age, enlightened as it is, by your own confelTion, the number of rational Chrif- tians is very fcanty. Whereas the fuccefsful Mohammed, has converted almoft all the oriental world ; fo that, what was faid of lady Diana of Ephefus, ihat all AJia, and the world received her religion, is more true when applied to Mohammed. The Arabian religion has continued in its purity from its firll inftitution, refpeding its grand fundamental CREED; the whole Turkifh church mod ftedfalUy believe, ** there is but One G jd, and that Mohammed is his prophet," and is as orthodox now as in the days of the prophet himfelf. But if the doc- trine of the Trinity be as you fay, the grand corruption of Chrijiianity , it will appear, that Chrill's religious lyftem a6lually began to fall to pieces within the times of the apoftles them- felves. For in thofe times you tell us. 160 *^ That myftery of iniquity began to work." Now, Sir, as we have no other method of forming a right judgment of caufes, befides the effedls naturally produced by them, we are under an unavoidable necelfity of preferring the meafures taken by Mohammed, to thofe adopted by Jefus, the founder of the Chriflian religion. Of confequence, how (hocking Ib- ever of thinking, that he was the wifer man, and taught his difciples with more force of argument. IMohammed delivered hisdo6lrine in language, plain and perfpicuous, no way equivocal or ambiguous, roundly tellifying, that they were infidels who believed in Chrift's Divinity, or in tlie doclrine of the Trinity. But when Jefus inititutes the worfhip of One God, the Father only; what language does he ufe? ** Go ye therefore, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gholl, teaching them to obferveall things whatlbever (I) have commanded you*.'* This, you kiiow, was his laft injundion to his difciples, and what is very properly con- fidercd as the inflitution of the Chriftian re- ligion. And furely, if he hereby inftituted the worfliip of the perfon of the Father only, as you will have it, he was extremely unhappy in his mode of expreflion, and indeed gave occafionto the corruption of his own religion, by the ambiguity of his language. * Matt, xxviii. 19,20. 161 Thewcrrds of an inftitution offuch import- ance fhould be plain and perfpicuous ! But who, upon reading this text, could at firft glance imagine, that the vvor(hip of the Father only was intended ? That although the Son and the Holy Ghost are named along with him in the fame a6t of worfhip, they are not to be worfhipped with him, under pain of dam- nation ? It is certain, that if Jefus, in this paf- fage, inltituted the pure worfliip of the Fa- ther ow/?/, exclufive of the Soj^ and the Holy Ghoft ; he has done it in luch a manner, as to render his injunction totally uielefs to the far greater part of his profeft followers. For now more them one thouland feven hundred years are elapfed, and but a very few to this day are capable of underllanding his real meaning. Indeed, hoAv fhould they? Seeing his im- mediate difciples, on many occafions, fpake in fuch a flile as evidently implies Deity ; vv'hich obfcurity of theirs, undoubtedly arofe from the ambiguity of thofe expreffions, in which their Lord and Malter chofe to deliver his do6trine. But I fliali have occafion to give you a lample of their do6trine in a future letter ; (hall therefore proceed in this to fliew, that if Jefus Chrill is in all refpe(5ls a man, and only a man like our(elves, Mohammed acted more confiftently in fpeaking of himlelf. When ihall we ever find him declaring, that God and himfelf are one ? — Ihat thole who had feen him, had feen the Father aUb — 169 That he came forth from the Father? — Or naming himfelf along with the Father, m one of the mod foleinn a6ts of religious wor- fhip ? On the contrary, he frankly acknow- ledges himfelf not only to be a mere man, but even to be a finner*. But all thefe things are aiferted by Jefus Chriil concerning himfelf, and he afks, who can convince me of fin ? Was it a likely way to perfuade the people, that God and he are tivo dijiindi Beings, to tell them, that he and the Father are One. Could he find no other way of eftablifliing the worftiip of the Fathek only, than by alking Philip, **HaveI been fo long withyou Philip, and yet hafi: thou not known me? He that hath leen me, hath feen the Father : and how fayell thou, (hew us the Father ? Be- lieveft thou not that 1 am in the Father and the Father in me, &c f.'* And pray what could Philip make of all this, on fuppofition, that his Mafter were in all refpeiSits but a mere man like himfelf? Does this bear any likenefs to that clear and nervous ilile in which the Koran is written ? Has not fuch a declaration, an evident tendency to confound Chrift with the Deity, as one obje6l of religious adoration ? One of thefe three things mufl: neceflarily refult from the above declaration made by Chrift to Philip. • Kor. vol. 2. S78. t John xiv. 9, 10. 16S 1. That if he never meant to be confidered as having proper Deity appertaining to him; he certainly was not a mailer ot" his own lan- guage, and did not know ihe intluence his doctrine would produce upon the minds of men, in leading them into idolatry, by wor- fhipping the Son , even as they worlhipped the Father ; conlidering tlie Father and the Son, in his divine nature, as one in elience. Yet the Chriltian idolaters, ot' every age and na- tion, have uniformly produced this text as a divine warrant tor their procedure. 2. if ignorance was not the caufe of fuch ill- judged equivocal expreinons, we muit have recourfe to a caule ftiil more Jhockmg and tremendous to name. 1 mean, an inipioua delign to impofe upon the underltandings of men, by making them believe, he and the Father were One, when, in reality, they were as ditiant from each other, as the dii- tance between the Creator and the creature. Yea, he evidently leads Philip to feek for the Fa 1 HER no where, but as dwelhng in, and being manifelted by himlelf. How (hocking are the confequences of Socinianilm ? For were that doctrine true, Chriit muft be afar greater impoftorthan Mohammed; as all the abomi- nations of the Koran, fall infinitely (hort of Christ himfelf, and by hi? apoliles confound- ing him perpetually with God. The abomi- nations, of the Koran are in a manner lancti- 164 iied by the inviolable regard through the whole of it, uniformly paid to the unity of God. 3. If after ail, it fliould be alledged that Jefus Chrift is no irnpoilor, but the true and faithful witnefs ; fo far from ignorance, that all the treafures of wifdom and knowledge dwell in him; that, therefore, he well knew the effe6ls which his do6lrine would produce upon the hearts of his followers, it muft fol- low, that in union with the Father and Holy Ghost, he is the true God and eternal life: even God over all, bleifed for evermoie. But more of this in a lubfequent letter, this being thrown in now, only as a preparative for ■what I farther intend. I fhall therefore con- clude the prefent with thisobfervation. Name- ly, that if Jefus Chrift beeffentially One with the Father, as with my whole heart and foul I believe he is, it was quite natural for him to declare himfelf to be what he really -is, and to addrefs Philip in the above manner. Quite natural for him to join his own name with thole of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in the adminiftration of bapiilm ; that he fhould perform miracles by his own perfonal authority, and futfer himfeif to be adored as Lord and God. But then, what will be the confequence of all this, lei's than that, Mohammed was a vile impoltor; that all who deny Chrift's proper Deity, are found guilty of the moii abomina- 165 ble blafphemy : And that proud reafon muft be obliged to confefs, it cannot comprehend the Ahnighty to perfection. I am. Reverend Sir, &c. J. MACGOWAN. 166 LETTER XIV. Reverend Sir, In my laft I fliewed, that, if the Socinian hypothefis be the genuine dodrine of Chrif- tianity, IVlohammed muft have been a far wifer man, and v^as much more fuccefsful in eftablifiiing the true dodrine, and worfhip of the Creator than Jefus ; notwithfianding, ia performing this dreadful tafk, which nothing but real zeal for the honour of my divine Mailer could juftify, my flelh Ihuddered with horror. How much more, when in this and the fub- fequent Letters I clearly prove. That if Jeliis Chrift be no more than a mere man like our- felves, Mohammed was not only a greater preacher, but a better man ? If it is idolatry to worlhip the Son ; which it muil be, if he is a mere creature ; both of which you roundly aflerfc ; and if idolatry is Co criminal in the fight of God, that thole who are guilty of it, (hall not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, it may be truly laid, that Moham- med exerted him (elf more, for the good of mankind than Jefus did ; and that w'e Imve profited more by his endeavours, than by all that Jefus did and futfered. This propohtiou 167 may perhaps at firft make you dare, but yon will be obliged either to aHow it, or what will be as mortifying, to own, that you have grievoufly blafphemed the name of the Lord Jefus my Redeemer. At the time when Mohammed arofe, a great prophet in Arabia, the whole world lay in, either Pagan, or Chriftian Idolatry, Jews and avowed Atheirts, only excepted. All that bore the Chriftian name were either Trinitarians or Arians; the firft you know, you yourtelf have dignified with the name of Idolaters ; the laft, adoring Chrilt as a fub- ordinate Deity, or deputed God, were like- wife guilty of idolatrj^ though lefs grofs than the former in its kind. I fay, lets grofs in its kind ; feeing, of all idolatry, none is fo rank and (hocking, as that which exalts a mere man to a perfe6t equality with the Fa- ther iVlmighty. Confequently, no idolatry fo fatal to the true interefts of immortal fouls. This being the cafe, Mohammed exerted hinjfelf in fuch a manner, as to refcue the peo- ple from this idolatry, as far as he could carry his influence ; and where there was a defedt in his manner of perfuafion, it was amply made up by the weight of his authority. For that prophet was one of the many, who have affumed aright, to compel people to enter the gates of Salvation, precifely in the manner which they dire6i. Now, if delivered from idolatry of the moft damnable nature, is any 168 bleffing, what amazing advantage has the world received from Mohammed. The many nations who have embraced his religion, are all worfliippers of God in Unity, and are all therefore, according to you, delivered from idolatry, and mull of confequence be in a Hate of falvation. On the other hand, what has Jefus done for the benefit of mankind, that may in any wife be compared with this, upon fuppofition, the Socinian fcheme be true ? We allow that he went about healing all manner of difeafes. But what is the perix)rming a few cures, upon individuals, vvhen compared with the redemp- tion of the world from idolatry. As for the Jews, to whom he was primarily fent, tltey had been cured of idolatry, before he was born of the Virgin, and at that momentous period, the bulk of that people moft Itrenuoufly ad- hered to the worfliip of the Father only; a few perlbns excepted, who were waiting for God to be manifefted in the fleOi, which ma- tt ifellation they accounted the confolation of Ifrael, and who worlhipped God as Trinity in Unity* It cannot even be faid, that he faved any part of the Gentile world from idolatry ; fee- ing that, when converted to the Chriftian faith, they only changed their worfhip from bad to worfe. As undoubtedly it was lefs criminal to worfhip Diana, as a defcendant of Jove, than to adore a mere Creature as Jehovah's 169 ^qual in power and glory. The moment the pagems left their native gods they embraced the idol of the Chiillians ; fo that it cannot be fdid, Jefus delivered any body from idolatry, according to your ablurd Icheme of irrational and unlcriptural Divinity. If it be laid, he taught the pureft morality ever known in the world, I am not dilpofed to deny it, but to fay, What avails the belt fyltem of morality, if the firft principles of religion are left cor- rupt. The bell morality founded upon ido- latrous principles, will avail but little with a jealous God. And yet this muii:, according to your notion, be all, that the bell ol Chrit- tians ever enjoyed. In what a deplorable condition then, mull Chi ill have left his peo- ple at his departure? Alas, ye Trinitarians, what mull become of you } Should it be added, '* He gave his life in order to confirm the faith of his people;" It may be replied, '* fo have thoufands of the Chriftiaa idolaters, worihippers of the Trin- ity ;" but what are we the better for thnt, if we are Hill left in a Hate of idolatry ? Belides, what real advantage to his followers, could a mere man like ourl'elves propofe, by laying down his life for them? What virtue could there be in his, more than in our own lutFerings and death ? What a parade is here, about jaying down his life to confirm the laith of hia, people, when ia reality, the far greater part K 170 of thofe, who are called by his name, remain to this day in a Hate of idolatry ? IMoreovcr, if the death of Chrift was defigned to anfwer no higher ends, than to conhrm the faith of his people, in the doctrine he taught, it gives the prophet Mohammed another advantage over him, which I thought not of before, under the head of Wifdom. I have obferved, that Mohammed never difcovered any great inclination to mortify his own flefh , much lefs did he ever think of giving his life; to confirm the truths of Al Koran ; but then, he had wiidom enough to take fuch mealures, us to render perfonal fuffering altogether un- iieceffary. He throughly confirmed the faith of his followers, without putting himfelf to fuch vatl expence, of either labour or blood. It cannot be ditlicult to determine which of two prophets is the greateil, from fuch cir- cumttances as theie : feeing that, although Chriil gave even his very life, in order to obtain his end, he could not accomplifli it by confirming the faith of his people, who run directly into the worlhip of the Trinity, and of himfelf, as a Divine Perlbn : but Moham- med accompli (bed his utmoil wi(h, \\ ithout any fuch futferings, which, undoubtedly, ar- gues the fuperior propriety of the meafureshe adopted ; and this you know implies fuperior wifdom. For although the giving of his life, might in fome fenfe be an evidence of good will towards the children of men, it cannot 171 upon your plan of doctrine, be underftood as any proof ot ChrilVs wildom ; I'eeiog all that has been done thereby, might have been ac- coniplKhed without his dying. It isnotdiiiiculttoflievv, that if JefusChrifl is but a mere man in all refpects like ourfelves, Mohammed was the bell and moft confiilent prophet that ever appeared in the world. The Icripture prophets for the moft part, if not generally, came with the power of working miracles, yet could notreftrain the people from idolatry ; but he reftrained from, nay, rooted out idolatry without pretending to one mira- cle. From Moles down toMalachi, they bare witnefs to Chrill who was to come; but it was in fuch a manner, as to give the people room to think, that the promil'ed Meiiiah, was Ibmething more than a m.ere creature ; molt of them ahiblutely confounded him with the Deity ; and fome of them even alcribes Deity, and all the works of creation to him in perlbn. David, in the fpirit of prophefy, for initance, laith unto the Son, *' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the fcej)ter of thy kingdom, is a right I'cepter *". Qy which addrefs one could not readily conceive, that the pfalmill expected the fingers upon Sho- Jlianim, to intend no more than, " Jefu.-?, thou art but a mere man, in all refpefts like our- felves," and yet, according to your irrational * Pf. xlv. 6. k2 179 fcheme, he muft have intended nothing far- ther. Another iiillance of the abfurdity of this piopheu, we have in Pfal, cii. 25, ^6, 27. Still addrtllins^- the Son oi God, lie lays, '* Of old, hall thou laid ihe founddtions of the earth : and the heuvens, the work of thy hands. Theyfhall peiilh, but thou (halt endure; yea, aii ot"tiu-ni Ihali wax old as a garment; as a veilure IJiait tliou change them, and they (hall be chonged. Br,t thou art the fame, and thy year^ Ihill have no end." This prophet mull be cotilidered, as being either inipired by the Spirit ot' God, or not inl'pired. If infpired, then we expert from him the words of troth and Ibbernels, even the very mind of God, vith reipect to what he delivers; and at the f.iiije time we have a right to luppofe, that he inf aris what he fpeaks, whether it be to God or nian. Of courfe, if he calls Jefus, God, wM)ilij: he knows him to be none other than a mere man, we have reafon to queftion his be- in^- ar all jnipired. If uninfpired, here muft be an in^ pious conibination between him and the apollle to the Hebrews, to fet up Chrift not Dii.y as a pre-exiiient being, but as the G'd arni iViakerof all things, by which means the prole llbrs of religion have been mifled into that monlirous idolatry, of worfhipping Jefus as none o'her than God Manifeiled in the fielh. I fay, mifled them, for what man of fober lenle, could fuppoi'e at firll view, that 173, with all this majeftic parade of fine words, and hyperbolical expreffions, the writer meant no more, than that the perfon, of whom he fpeaks, is a mere man like ourfelves, aad had no exillence at all prior to being born of the Virgin ; confequently, that he had not the leaft hand in laying the foundation of the earth and the heavens? To come at which fen I'e, will require all theetforts of human wifdom, that is, all the fubtilties of Sophiftry, and all the arts of evafion, and perverfion. But — What fliall we think or fay, when we find the apoftle putting David's words into the mouth of the Father Almighty, as he does Heb. i. As if David's teitimony was thought infufFicient, unlefs it proceeded from him who is of one mind, and cannot be turned? This ferves only to embarrafs us the more : for who can hear God the Father thus addrefs his Son, '* Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. and from thence conclude that the Son is but a mere man like ourfelves? Or thus, " Thou, Lord, in the beginning, haft laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands," and itill conclude, that the perfon thus addreifed by the Father, had no being till within thele 1800 years ? This is confident enough, and a glorious defcription of the Son of God, on fuppofition, that, in union with the Father and Holy Ghoil, he be the true God and eternal life; . k3 174 but muft be abfolute nonfenfe, if your doc- trine is true. It is ridiculous, for preachers to make u(e of ambiguous and hyperbolical exp«>'flioos, fach as muft be bolted to the bran, beiore we can come at their real meaning, and thai is the realbn why I prefer Dr. Prieftley to all the Arian and Socinian authors I have ever read. You fpeak ib plainly, that he mull be a blockhead indeed, who does not underliand your meaning; for which rea- fon, I am of opinion, you will do more good to real Chnllianity, than all the preach- ers of the bocinian Icheme, that ever went before you. You have attempted to frame an excufe for the abftruCe, an.biguous, and equivocal itile in which the Icriptures are written, according to your plan of doctrine, from the manners of the Orientals, whole fpeech abounds with bold and Itriking figures. But 1 thii>k there can be no beauty in any figure which tends to obfcure, and lels (till, in that which tends to invert a do6triije. The true beauty of figura- tive language, lies in its explicative quality ; whereas, all thoi'e pafTages of fcripture by you referred to, are darkened by figures ill-chofen and mifapplied. If the fcriptures have fuf- fered fo much through the manner of writing amongft the Orientals, as to embarrafs rational gentlemen in their expofitions of them ; one would really wonder, how the Koran came to be fo perfpicious, as to render it ioipoffible for 175 the reader to be at a lofs about the author's meaning, when fpeaking of the perfon of God, and of Chrift, feeing he was an Eaft country- man, as much an Oriental as any of the pen- men of the facred Scriptures. He fpeaks very refpedfully of Jefus, but then he always obferves a confiftency with himfelf, and with his leading defign, ** of refloring the worfhip of One God, in one per- fon only.'* Never fhall you find him addref- ling a mere man like himfelf after this manner, ** Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a fceptre of righteoufnefs, is the fceptre of thy kingdom : thou haft loved righteoufnefs, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladnefs above thy fellows. Thou Lord haft, in the beginning, laid the foundation of the ea th ; and the heavens are the works of thy hands. They ftiall perifh, but thou remaineft ; they all (hall wax-old, as doth a garment ; and as a vefture fhalt thou fold them up, and they ihall be changed : but thou art the fame, and thy years fhall not fail." From which addrefs it is clear to a demonftration, that David him- felf either worfliipped the Son, as ihe God and iMaker of all things, and fo was an ido- later like the reft of the Trinitarians, or that heimpofed upon mankind, by writing that for their learning, which, in reality, he did not be- lieve himfelf. But Mohammed is clearly on your fide of 176 the queftion ; and as he fully believed Jefus Chrillto be but a man, in all refpeds like him- felf, he judicioufly guarded againll every thing that might induce mankind to think more highly of the prophet of Nazareth. There is not one expreffion in the whole Koran, that in the leaft tends to confound the perfon of Jefus Chrift with the Deity, Wherefore I conclude, that if your do61:rlne be true, Mo- hammed was a more intelligent and confident prophet than David, and therefore the Koran is preferable to the book of Pfalrns, I am, reverend Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN. 177 LETTER XV. Reverend Sir, The prophet next in eminence, as a penman of the fcriptures, is that noble Ifaiah, of whom Co many encomiums have been given by Chriitian writers: but who, in my opinion, fulls exceedingly fhort of the prophet Moham- med, m cjearnels of llile and ftrength of rea- foning; on fuppofition that God never did, nor never could exiftin Trinity, and that Jefus Chriit is no more than a mere man like our- felves. The firft paffage of this prophefy, remarkable for its oblcurity and ambiguity, is that*, Behold a virgin (hall conceive and bear a Son, and fhall call his name Immanuel," quoted by the evangelill Matthew f, and by you explained away as far as could well be done with convenience. As you have brought the art of explaining, away, an adverfe paifage of fcripture almoll to a perfe6l fyltem, 1 ihall do myfelf the plea- fure, for the public benefit, to tranfcribe Ibme of your remarks in all their Itrength and beauty. ** If we confider other inftances of names im- pofed by the divine diredion in the Icriptures, • Chap. vii. 14. f Chap. i. 23. i FaxniL lUuft. p. 28, 178 we [hall find, that they do not always ex* prels any thing charadieriitic of the peribn on whom they are impofed, but that tliey were intended to he a menjorial of Ibme divine pro- mife orallurance, refpe^tiiig things of a public and general concern. — Tlie Divine Being, by appointing Chrift to be called Immanuel, en- gaged to manifeit his own prefence with his people, by prote6ting and bleQlng thenn, and inl]i6ling vengeance on their enemies and op- preirors. For this predidion was given upon the occafion of an invafion by the Ifraelites and Syrians.'* I would not be guilty of denying, that this ing-enious explanation has for ever difabled this predie-tion, from being of any ufe to the Chriltian fyltem, being tied down precilely to a particular occafion and period : but at the fame time it ferves to (hew the obicurity of the prophet, as very far inferior to Moham- med, in point of perfpicuity; efpecially when we take the predi6tion in its conne6tion with the circumilances attending its fulfilment. It is not ealy to conceive, how the terrified Jews could be infpired with courage from being told, that, in about the fpace of 740 years afterwards, a young woman, a Virgin, lliould bearaSon, whofe name fhould fignify God with us ; nor indeed how the future birth of this extraordi- nary Child, fhould prove the prefent deitruc- tion of thole two fmoaking fire-brands, Rezin and Pekah, efpecially feeing this Ciiild pro- 179 mi fed, when he (hould be born into the world, fhould be no more than a man like them- (efves. Should we place this circumftanceon a level with the naming of Shear- J a pmb, as directed by you, and look on it as nothing out of the common way, it would only tend to perplex and bewilder us the more, and therefore de- monftrate the obfcurity of the prophet. '* A Virgin Ihall conceive, and bear a Son whole name iliall be called Immanuel, but who, iiotwithltanding, is not Immanuel, but a mere man like ourfelves." AVhen this pre- didtion came to be fulfilled, and the V^irgin adually brought forth her Son, what wonder- ful phenomena appear? A new Itar, perhaps a new world is di (covered by the eallern Magi, and the hofl;s of heaven delcend to hymn the birth of the Son of Man. The equivocal name given by the prophet to the Virgin's fon, and the feftivity of the hoits of paradife, on his being born into our world, naturally lead us to confider this child, as extraordinary, and fomething more than a man like ourfelves. So that if your notion be true, there was a double fnare laid, for the entanglement of Chrillians ; the unmeaning, or at leall unap- plicablename, impofed upon him in proohecy ; and the augutt manner in which he was intro- duced into the world. Could this latter be coufiitent with the wilUom of God ? Had the former any likenefs to the clear and nervous 180 manner of the prophet Mohammed? Surely not. For as I have before oblerved, he care- fully guarded againfi: every exprelTion, that might produce a belief of Jefus Chrift's being an}' more than a man like himfeif. But the Trinitarians, or what is the fame, Chrifi:ian idolaters, have a very happy way of preferving the dignity of this predi6tion, in a perfect conhflency with the whole volume of Revelation, in reiling fatisfied with that ex- planation given by Paul*, *' God was manifeji in theflefhjiijiifiedm thefpiritJeenofAngels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.*' This does extremely well for the orthodox, but is wholly incompatible with your abfurd fcheme of do(Slrine. We confider this apoftolical declaration, as proclaiming the fulfilment of that prophecy,, and believe that the Virgin's Son was none other, than God incarnated in our own proper nature. And indeed it will be worthy of your fagacity to fhew, how God could be faid to have been manifefted in the flefh of Jefus, ithehdd indeed no perlbnal Union with Deity; and at the fame time how God man i felted in the flefli, could be laid to be received up into glory, if there was not a nature united to a di- vine perlbn, which adually underwent that amazing change; or with what propriety blood could be afcribed to Deity, if flelh and * I. Tim. ill, 15. 181 blood had not ftood, in perfonal relation there- unto? I plainly forefee, that, if we give up the doctrine of the Trinity, and of Chuist's di- vinity, we (hall alfo be obliged to forgo the Bible itfelf, as the mod incoherent, andabfurd of all publications. Notwithllanding if taken in its conne6tion with thefe blefl'ed do6trines, it is perfe6lly beautiful ; it is a glorious dif- covery of the mind and will, of all ihe perfons in Deity, and of all the perfections of Je- hovah. But I have not yet done with the fublime Ifaiah, leeing that paiTage in this prophecy, chap. ix. 6. is dill more obicure, and more ad- verfe to Mohammedanifm, and what you call rational Chriltianity " unto us a child is born, unto us afon is given, and the government (hall (hall be upon his Ihoulders; and his name fhall be called Wonderful, Couuiellor, the mighty God, the everlafting Father, the Prince of Peace." I mull beg leave to ob- ferve upon this palfage, that, if your explana- tion * be the Socinian fenfe of it, and if their * In this, as in the former cafe, thefe titles may not exprefs what Chrift is, but what God will manifeft himfelf to be in him, and by him ; fo that, in the difpenfation of the golpel, God, the wife and benevolent author of it, will appear to be a wonderful counfellor, the everlafting Father, and the Prince of Peace. If this name he fuppofed to chara(5terize Chnfl himfelf, it will by no neaiis favoiir the ccnimon dodrine of the Trinily ; becaufe it will make him to be the Father, or the firil perfon, and not the Son. or the lecond perfcn. Be- fides, whatever powers or dignities are to be pcfTefTed by Chrift, it is fufficiectly intimated in this place that he does L 182 fenfe is the genuine mind of the Holy Ghost, this prophet, who has been fo juftly admired for his elccution and lublimity, mull fink into contempt : nyy, be deemed worthy of the le- vereft cenfuie, as a bhnd leader of the peo-^^ pie, one who has given occalion of the ftum- blinu" oi'millions. It tiiefe titles given to Chrifl are not expref- iive of what he really is in himfelf,but what God will manifell himfelf to be through him ; it muit lollow that the titles themfelves, are not proper to Chriit, but to God only ; and confequently that God himfelf muft, properly fpeaking, be that child born, and that Ion given ; an abiurdity never fo much as thought on by the Trinitarians, idolatrous as you have reprelented them to be. They never fuppofed that the divine nature was changed into fle(h and blood ; but that this promiied feed fnould be conceived in perfonal union with the word of God, who has an indubitable right to all the titles following, and fo become the child born, and the Ibu given, conhdered in this relation. They cannot fee how their con- fidering the Son of God, as the everlafting Fa- ther of his church, can have any unhappy in- fluence on the doctrine of the Trinity as you alledge. But they very jufily conclude, that not hold them independent, aftd underived ; fince he hinifelf, and ali the bkflings that he beftows, are laid to be given, that is, by God ; and at the conckifion of the prophecy, in the next verff, it is faid, that " the zeal of the Lord of hofts will per- iorm this." Famil. lUuft. pages 29 & 30. 183 if to worfliip Jefus Chrill, as the mighty God, is really idolatry, this prophet is very blame- able for his manner of fpeaking, and juftly deferves punilhment, as an inltrument of bringing on their inevitable ruin. Had he been ftudious of the good of man- kind, would he not have guarded themagainll idolatry? how eafily might have he expreffed himfell', inlbmefuch manner as this? *' Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, who is in all refpeds only a man like ourielves. He is not the wonderful Counfellor, nor the mighty God, nor the everlafting Father, hav- ing had no exigence prior to his being born into the world ; but by him, in the diipenfa- tion of the gofpel, God the wife and bene- volent Author of it, will appear to be a won- derful Counfellor, the everlalling Father, and the Prince of Peace, for it is not the child born, but God the Father to whom thefe titles are applicable*." This would have approached near to the clearnefs of llile ufed in the Turkilli Koran. But to tell us that the Child born, the Son given ftiould be called God with us, when in reality he meant no fuch thing, is abfolutejefuitifm; and if your doctrine fhould eventually prove true, I could never forgive Ifaiah, this egregious blunder, lo fatal in its influence, on the concerns of my immortal foul. • This is Dr. Prieftley's expnfition. Fam. lUuft. of the paf- faje. l2 181 Shall we ever find the prophet of Arabia talking in fuch vague, and unmeaning, not to fay ambiguous and equivocal terms ? He fpeaks of a child born, but keeps ciear of every ap- pellation, which might lead men to worihip Chrirt, as the mighty God, or the everlalting Father, or even to think him more than a man like themfelves. From which it is clear to a demonflration, that if your do^lrine be true, Mohammed was a much better prophet than Ifaiah, and of courfe the Mohammedan, is preferable to the Chriilian religion. But Sir, if the Child born, the Son given, has indeed a perfonal right to all the fublime appellations, given him by the prophet, what horrid blafphemy mud it be, to treat him only as a man, in all refpecls like ourfelves; a being, who had no exillence till about feventeen hundred years ago? Think, Sir, how terrible the wrath of a blafphemed Re- deemer mult be, wherever it falls ! Is not this the rock that fhall grind them, upon whom it falls, to powder. To return to my fubje6l, and that, in the mouth of two or three witnedes the truth of my propofition may be ellablilhed : Namely, if your doctrine, that Jefus Chrill is but a man like ourfelves, be true, Mohammed was more clear, more confiftent than the prophet Ifaiah ; you will permit me to point out, the remarkable obfcurity of his fortieth chap- ter. 1S5 Firfl he propbefies in verfe 3, of John the Baptill, ChriiVs forerunner, in theie very re- markable words, ** The voice of him that crieth in the wildernefs, prepare ye the way of the Lord, malce ftraight in the defert a path for our God." Again, addrelling Zion in verfes 10, 11, he fays, ** behold the Lord God will come, with a llrong hand, and his arm (hail rule for him; behold his reward is with him, and his work before him. He fliall feed his flock like a Qiepherd ; he fhall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bofom, (hall gently lead thofe that are with young.'* Here tlie perfon before whom the voice was to cry is exprefsly called Jehovah — Our God — and the Lord God. Yet this advent of the Lord God, is exprefsly applied toJefusChrift, and John his forerunner in Mat. iii. and Luke iii. 4. And Jefus alfumes the office and chara6ter of Shepherd, by the prophet afcribed to the Lord God, whofe coming was promifed, and before whom John was to prepare a way in the wildernefs. The following auguft defcription of this blelfed Shepherd, who was to follow John, ferves ftill to make the matter more difficult ; as nobody could fuppofe the prophet defcrib- ing a mere creature, who has not exifted eighteen hundred years. * * Whohath meafured the waters in the hallow of his hand : and meted out heaven with a fpan, and compre* L 3 186 hended the duft of the earth in a meafure, and weighed the mountains in icales, and the hills in a balance, &c. &c." It would feem that the prophet had iiere exhaufted the funds of eloquence, in order to fet forth the great- nefs and grandeur of that Being who is the fubjed of his prophecy. But, if after all, he is no more than a mere creature, this mud argue an entire want of judgment in the writer, or an impious defign to lead us into idolatry, by worlhipping Jefus Chrill as the God of Z ion. And yet if this was the prophet's defign, the Lord Jefus adually connives at it, and even confirms it by applying his words to himfelf. Rev. xxii. 1^. But what renders the prophecy fiill more ambiguous and obfcure, is the cry which this voice was fent to publilh, *' all flefh is grafs, and all the goodlinefs thereof, as the flower of the field. I'he grafs withereth, the flower fadeth, becaufe the fpirit of the Lord bloweth upon it. The grafs withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our God ftiall ftand for ever." One would fuppofe that his leading defign, in this pafikge, was to caution people againll the folly of trulling in a Saviour, who is but a mere man like ourfelves, feeing that all fltfti is grafs, and the moft; goodly humanity, abilra^ly confidered, is but as the flower of the field — therefore that none may warrantably trull in any, who has not a per- 187 fonal claim to that divine characler, the word of the Lord or our God. Surel}^ no man but a rational Diflenter could fuppofe, that all this magnificence of ftile was uled, merely, to fet forth a n^an in all refpecls like ourfelves ; a man who has not any, the moft diliant title to perfonal Deity. No won- der therefore if Chriltians were lb early fe- duced into idolatry, and that the weil-inliruct- ed Dilciples of Mohammed, have continued fo iledfaft in the faith, that Jeius Clirill is but a man like theralelves, and that there is One God, in One perlbn only, and that Mo- hammed is his prophet. I would thertibre, for my own part when I come to cliange my fentiments, much rather embrace the religion of the Turks refpe6ting its fundamental doc- trine, than that of the rational Dilfenters, or the fentiments of the Socinians. I am, reverend Sir, Your^:, ^c. J. MACGOWAN. L 4 188 LETTER XVL Reverend Sir, What has been faid in the former letters, may ferve as a fpecimen of the confufed lan- guage of prophecy, on fuppofition that your dodrine is true. I might add many more in- ftances of equal ambiguity, but (hall proceed to Qiew, that if Jefus Chrillbe not the adora- ble God — man, he muft have borne the moft lacrilegious character, that ever exifted, and, mult of neceffity have been the greateft of all impoftors ; which is a thought lo tremendous, that I Icarcely know how to exprefs it. But I truft, the character of my only Redeemer Ihall Hand for ever unim peached, whatever jQiouid become of Mohammedans, or Socinians, or even of the Trinitarians therafelves. Yet this Ihocking confequence naturally refults from rational religion, as it is very falfely called. In profecuting this affe^ling fubje6t, I (hall fliew, that, if Jefus Chrift is but a man in all refpeds lil^e ourfelves, he has moil certainly robbed the Almighty of his glory, both in the manner in which he wrought his miracles — and in his application of old tellament oracles 1S9 to himfelf, though they could not pofiTibly be applicable to any perlbn, who is not truly and properly God. The manner of working his miracles fliall be theobjed of my prelent attention, and 1 hope you will honour my remarks upon it with yours in the moft ferious manner. I do not mean to folicit your public notice. No, Sir; per- haps you do not choofe to reply to an ignoble correlpondent. All I mean is to requelt your candid perulal in private, feeing 1 have no pretentions to nobility. The matter will begin with Mat. viii. 3, 4. ** And behold there came a Leper and wor- fliipped him, faying, Lord, if thou wilt thou canft make me clean." I lay no ftrefs at all on the word worfhipped, it might, for any thing I know, intend no more, " than a fine fcrape and bow," but what I principally re- mark is, the manner of this fame Leper's ad- drefs. Lord, if thou wilt, &c. He does not fay *' if God will," thou canft make me dean. — Not; if God will he can give thee power to make me clean. What thoughts ibever the Pharifees might have of Jefus, as but a man like theniftlves, it is very plain, that this poor Leper conhdered him as the Lord of dileafes, who, could fay to this, go and it goeth, and to that, come and it cometh, or he would certainly have addrefled him in a different manner. What is more remarkable flill, our Lord L 5 really encourages his error, and confirms his idolatrous belief, by aniwering- the i'upphcant in his own form of fpeech, *' I will be thou clean. " Who was he, that (hould take upon him to make people clean, if he was but a man like ourfelves ? Of all the men like our- felves, whom God ever raifed upas prophets, we read but of one who attempted a miracle in his own name, and he fevereiy fmarted for his prefumption. * I mean Mofes the man, * If, to blunt, the edge of this reafoning, it be replied, Elilha wrought many miracles without referring to any power higher than that which dwelt in himfelf, notwithftanding all were wrought by the power of the nioft high God; fuch as increafing the widow's oil, giving a child to the Shunamitc, fending a meffenger to Nuaman, direcfting him to go and walh, in Jordan, &c. it will be farther anfwered. To do juftice to a perfonal character, we ought carefully to attend to every part of his particular hiflory, and not pick out detached pieces, to the injury of the whole. If the hiftory of Elifha is clofely examined, and taken in its proper connedlion, it will appear, that God only was glorified in thofe miracles by hiiu performed. His entrar.ce upcn the prophetical office, was evidently a difplay of Divine power, by which alone a double portion of the fpirit of Elijah refted upon his fervant Elilha. He had not power to crols the river Jordan, till he invoked the Lord God of his mailer, by whofe power he divided the mighty watei's. This, w^ere there no more inilances on record, is fuf- iicient to Ihew, that all his fubfequent works were wrought by the fame ineffable power of Deity, and confequently in the fame name by v/hich he began to work his miracles. But he gave a Son to the Shunamite, on which occafion we are not told that he called on the name of the Lord, and therefore this inflance is in fome meafure parallel with Chrifl's working of miracles without calling upon the name of God. He did give the Shunamite, a Son, but it does not appear, that he called not on the name of God on the occauou ; but KOI *he friend of God, who, inftead of farKSlifying the name of the Lord at the waters of Strife, ftruck the rock in his own name, faying, '* ye rebels, Ihall we bring water out of the rock for you ?" The waters indeed followed the ftroke, becaufe God would fuppbrt the honour of his prophet, even when he finned ; and took another method of punifhing his rafhnefs, if he did, the very hiftory of that Cfiild, flieiveth that he wrought not this niiracle without a Divine poTs^er fupernatu- rally made manifeft. Take the hiftory together, and let the letter part explain the former ; as it cannot be fiippofed that Elifha had lefs power to v/ork miracles at the latt-er end, than at the beginning ; and we fhail fee that he did not do even this without an appeal to the 'divine name. Tlie Shunamite vifited him at mount Carmel, 2 Kings, ch. iv. He faw the anguifh of her foul, but he could not guefs at the caufe, becaufe the Lord had hid it from him, till the woman difclofed the fatal event. Which done, he fent Ge- hazi, his fervant, with very pofitive inftrudlions for his pro- cedure, in raifuig the child to life ; but all in vain^ for " there was neither voice nor hearing, and the child did :ot awake." When he himfelf arrived, he went up and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon the child's mouth, his eyas upon the child's eyes, his hands upon the child's hands, and he ftretched himfelf upon the child, and his fieih waxed warm. Now all this was accompanied with prayer to God, that the child's fpirit might return to him again. i-Yom heBce it is plain, the prophet wrought his miracles in fuch a manner as that God fhould have the honour of them all. But Jefus wrought his, fo as the glory arifingfrom them redounded to himfelf, and feldom mentioned the name of the Fatlier in them. How different was the prophet's condud: froin Chrift's when he raifed the widow's fon of Nain, by only fliyitig, " Young man, I fay unto thee, arife.''' Whereas Eiijali, or Elifha, would in fuch a cafe have prayed unto the lord, and faid, O Lord, my God, I pray thee, let this young rjian's foul «ome into him again, i Kings xvii. 12. l6 199 namely, by fhutting him out of the earthly Canaan. Jei'us refers to none greater than himfelf, but exprefsly fays, ** I will," not my Fa- ther willeth, or by the permiflion of God, be thou clean ; and immediately his leprofy de- parted from him. Not only fo, but he goes on in an uninterrupted fucceflion of marvellous cures, without once mentioning the name of the Father, yet is acknowledged by an audible voice from Heaven, faying, ** This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleafed, hear ye him." Does not this lead us to fuppofe, that the Father approved of his working mira- cles in his own name ? Efpecially, when it is conlidered that the Apolllesdid not work any miracles at all in the name of the Father, but in the name of Jefus of Nazareth. Certainly God would not thus have given his glory to another, if indeed he had been another, fee- ing he had lb peremptorily declared the con- trary. And furely the glory of working mi melts iu his own name is proper only to Deity. Therefore, God muft either have given this glory to Christ, who was another; or Christ muit mave ufurped it; otherwife be muft ablblutely be the true and eternal God, I mean in the Unity of the Divine Essence. Now if he was but a man like ourfelves, there was fomething inhumane, as well as impious, ia the manner in which Chrift fent 193 the Leper away, as from what had pafled, he muft needs go away under a delufion ; firmly believing, that, the man Jesus had performed this cure, by his own perfonal power and authority ; which, according to your notions, muft have been doicnright idolatry. So that the very cure he had obtained, might, from the manner of it, have become the occafion of his perdition, by leading him to honour the Son, as much as he honoured the Fa- ther. This is the true condu6l of Jefus according to your plan of do6lrine. But it is as diftant from the Heavenly, and companionate con- duct of the Redeemer whom I adore, as light is from darknefs, or Heaven from hell. Our Jefus being the bleffed Immanuel, had aright to aflume every divine honour, and could not be charged with robbing God, though he actually made himfelf equal with the Father. But your Jefus, being only a man like your- ielves, may very jullly be charged with facrilegious robbery, on applying to himfelf any of the prerogatives of God the Father. The inftance of healing the Centurion's fervant is equally remarkable for the ftrange and unaccountable manner in which it was performed. *' Lord, I am not worthy that thou fhouldil come under my roof;" why not, if he was but a man like himfelf ; * * But fpeak the word only, and my fervant (hall be heal- ed/' what, by the word of one who is but a 1P4 man like ourfelves? '* I am a man under authority, having foldiers under me, and I fay unto this go, and he goeth ; and to another come, and he cometh ; and to my fervant do this, andj he doth it," plainly intimating that he confidered Jefus as having the fame power over difeafes, as he himfelf had over his foldiers. At the word of command to call them, or to fend them away ; and in this, lay the greatnefs of his faith, fojuilly celebrated by the Heavenly prophet. Yfet Jefus was fo far from attempting to convince him of his error, that he even confirms him in it ; by applauding his faith, and then granting his requefi;, without any reference made to an in- fluence fuperior to his own volition. Cer- tainly if Jefus was but a mere man, poffeft only of a delegated power, adling in every refpe6l in a fubordinate capacity, he was culpable in not calling upon that fuperior name, in which he performed all his opera- tions. His difciples, how abfurd foever in other refpe6ls, maintained a con fillency in this part of their chara6ter ; for although they wrought many miracles, tbey did none but in the name of jesus of Nazareth. In this, they did not afcribe to the power of the Fa- ther only, the miracles which they wrought, but to his holy child Jefus : and they did not, like hiin, leave room to fuppofe, that they performed miracles by their own perfonal authority. Mohammed would have told the 195 people in fuch a cafe, that he wrought, only by the permijjlon of God ; as he indeed tells us was the cafe with J efus ; which alfo feems to be the fenfe of the virtuous Socinian doc- tors. The fame chapter furniflieth us with three other inftances of his miraculous power ; in healing Peter's wife's mother of a fever — re- buking the wind and fea, as if he had been their Maker and Governor — cafting legions of devils out of the demoniac, and permitting them to enter into the herd of fwine. We may well fay, what manner of man is this, the touch of whofe hand makes the Leper clean, and banifhes the mofl malignant fever ? Who at pleafure controls the boifterous wind, and calms the tempeftuous ocean. But when we follow the thread of the ftory a little far- ther, we muftbe fhocked with horror, at hear- ing him give permilfion to devils, to drown and deitroy the fwine belonging to the neigh- bouring farmers. Might we not well afl< him, as the Jevvs did on another occafion, *' by what authority doit thou thefe things?" You fay. Sir, that Jefus was commifiioned by God. But have you duly conlidered the propriety of your aflertion ? Can it ever be, that God (hould give a commiffion to him to dellroy the peoples cattle without fome caufe on their own part? Or do you think, that drowning the fwine was the readied way to convince them of the truth of his doctrine ? 196 But every difficulty vanifheth, when we con- fider hiai as the blefled God-man, vvhofe are the cattle on a thoufand hills ? and refle6l, that thofe Gergefenes carried on an illicit traffic with the Gentile nations. Breeding fvvine for the ufe of the Heathens, though forbidden their own ufe by the national law; wherein fwine's flefh was held an abomination. I fay, when thefe things are conlidered, every part of the Redeemer*s condu6l is not only jultifi- able, but perfectly conhftent with his legifla- tive re6litude and authority : but he could never be juftified, on fuppolition, that he was but a mere man, in all relpedts like ourfelves. Neither would it give us a favourable idea of the benevolence of his difpolition, nor even of his moral re6litude and virtue. The account we have Mat. ix. Mark v. and Luke viii. of his healing the woman with the bloody ilfue, exhibits fom.ething very dark and perplexing ; as it manifelily appears u[jou the face of the text, that Jefus confidered himfelf, and the evangelift alio con pRlered him as the fource of the miracle, exclufive of all fuperior influence. Mark fays, that Jefus knowing in himfelf that virtue wds gone oui of him, turned about, &c. whereas he ought to have faid, that virtue was gone out from God, by him as the inilrument, according to you. But what mufl aftonilh every rational Chriftian, is, Jefus himfelf confirms the evangelift's teftiniony, Luke viii. 45. Jefus 197 faidfomehody hatli touched me: for virtue IS GOME OUT OF ME." Now if lie Wrought no miracles, but by the permiflion of the Fa- ther, as Mohammed fays, or periormed all his works by the power of the Father, as you would have us to believe, was he not fhame- fully wanting in zeal for God, to talk in this drain, ** virtue is gone out of me?" What virtue, I pray you, fhould go out of one, who is in all refpe^ts but a man like ourfelves ? If there is but One God, in One Perfon, the Fa- ther only, and if Jefus Chrift was a teacher fent from him : was it not his bufinefs, to lead the people to the Father only, inftead of leading them to himfelf? But inftead of that, he works miracles, and does not fo much as mention the name of the Father in them ; yea even tells the people, that the virtue by which thofe miracles were etlecSted, came en- tirely out of himfelf, as its fource. Indeed, Sir, it will be very difficult to clear the chara6ter of Jel'us from the charge, of robbing the Deity, on fuppofition, that he is no more than a man like ourfelves. To keep clear of every dead flie which might fpoil our ointment, I would obferve that, I am aware, you will alledge in Chrift's defence, that he made a general profeffion upon more occafion than one, of fubordinacy to the Fa- ther, and of his lliewing good works from the Father, as John x. 32. But then it will be anfwered, why did he not upon alloccafions. 198 on which he exerted a miraculous power bear this teftimoiiy, that the people might not be milled into a wrong notion of his perfon and authority? The Leper, the Centurion, the woman with the bloody iilue, were fent away without any fuch information, or any caution againd beheving in him as the fource of heal- ing. Confequently this very profeffion ferves, only to embarrafs his character the more ; Leads us to confider hiscondu6lin the follow- ing light. He knew all along, that he wrought no works but by the power of the Father ; and on particular occafions openly confeffes it : yet the far greater part of his works were performed without any vifible reference had to the Father : and the fubje6ls upon whom he exerciled his miraculous power, were, for the mod part left to conclude, that they were cured merely by the perfonal authority of the immediate operator; whereas a few words fitly fpoken by him would have convinced them of the contrary. So that this, inilead of clearing him from the charge of robbing the Deity, only ferves to confirm it. But every cloud difperfeth, every difficulty vanilheth, when we confider him as, accord- ing to the fcriptures, a«5ling in a twofold capacity becoming his name Immanuel. As Man, and Mediator, a6ting in i'ubordinacy to, and by the authority of the Father : and as a divine perfon dwelling in the flefli, as one with the Father, acting in his own name, and by 199 his own perfonal authority. And I think, without confidering him in this light, it is morally impoffible to clear him from the charge of duplicity, and of prophanely robbing the Deity, I am. Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN". 200 LETTER XVII. Reverend Sir, It is now time to come to Chrift's appli- cation of Old Teftameiit prophefies to himlelf, and to treat of his ulual maniter, of confounding hinjfeif with Deity, in which, it (hall be left to you to determine, whe her fuch condu^ can he juftified by the laws of piety, or evea by thole of fober intelligence, on fuppofition always, that your plan of doctrine be genuine goipei. You feem to be apprehenfive of Ibnie difficulty, arifingfrom tbisconfideration, from the great panisyou have taken in your familiar illuiiralion, to explain away feme of thofe pai4ages of fcripture, which bear hardeft upon your irrational (theme. This, Sir, demon- ftrates the oblbunty of the fcriptures, and may in Ibme meal'ureaihlt me, in my detern>ination, whether the religion of Jeius, according to your plan of docu jae, or the Moharnmedaa religion Ihall be adopted. Searching the hearts of the children of men is claimed by the moft high as his own pre- rogative, Jer. xvii. iO. *' I theLord fearch the heart, I try the reins." This has been aicribed to him by his church in all ages, as might be 201 fliewn in numberlefs inftances. And would we not from hence be led to fuppofe, that none befides the moft high God, could pre- tend to I'earch the heart, and try the reins of the fonsof men. Indeed the fcriptures of the Old Teftament give all poflible encourage- ment to this notion ; for Solomon, in his prayer at the confecration of the temple, g. Chron. vi. 30. fays, *' thou only knoweft the hearts of the children of men." If I am not millaken, that which is peculiar to God only, as fearching the heart, is here laid to be, muft in its own nature be incommunicable : for were it communicable to a creature, it could not be peculiar to God himfelf. Were it pof- fible that God fhould communicate the power and prerogative of fearching the heart, and trying the reins of the fonsof men, to a mere creature, even to a man like ourfelves, as you alledge, it could with no propriety be faid of him, that he only fearcheth the heart ; feeing, another befides him, actually knoweth the heart, and fearcheth the reins of the children men. A teacher fent from God, mufl neceffarily be confidered, as one that knows the Divine mind, efpecially in every thing relative to his own perfonal miffion ; one that will, on all occafions, preferve the moft awful diftance be- tween himfelf and his Maker; for this feems to be elfential to true piety, which, you know, cannot be feparated from the charader of a 202 good man. We cannot therefore fuppofe, that Jefus was ignorant of Solomon's confef- iion of the moil high God, as the only fearcher of hearts. His profeffed defign in coming into the world was to fulfil the law and the pro- phets, not to deftroy their teftimony. We cannot therefore but wonder, he fliould fuffer his evangelifts to afcribe that perfe6lion to him- lelf, in flat contradiction to the teftimony borne by Solomon. I fay contradiction, on fuppo- fition that your dodrine were true. They tell us, that Jel'us faw the thoughts of the Jewiih cavillers : that he needed not that any (hould tellify of man, becaufe he knew what was in man. Surely this was to all intents and pur- pofes confounding- him with that God, who only knoweth the hearts of the children of men. But what muft we think, when we find Jefus Chrifi; applying Solomon's confeilion to himfelf in perfon ? He gives us all poITible reafon to believe, that he is elientialiy that very being whom Solomon addrefi; on that occafion. Devout Solomon fays, '* thou only knowefi> the hearts of the children of men." Jefus replies. Rev. ii. 93. ** I am he which fearcheth the reins and hearts,'* He even feems to wiih this declaration to be publilhed abroad by his heralds as the true do6lirne of the gofpel ; for he fays, '* and all the churches fhall know, that I am he that fearcheth the reins and hearts.'* If therefore but a mere 203 man like ourfelves, he was guilty of the high- eft prelum ption, and took the moft likely way poilible to lead us into idolatry. For Co long as we believe him to be the fearcher of hearts, and trier of the reins of men, we are under an unavoidable necefTity of worfhipping him, with the fame divine honours which we afcribe to the Father. And (hould we be damned forfo doing, muft not our ruin be laid to his charge, who, by afcribing divine honours to himlelf, inllead of maintaining that lowly dif- tauce becoming a creature, has been theocca- fion of it ? I do not wonder, that people of your per- fuahon are lb much otfended with the revela- tion of John the divine, as to wifli it cutoff from the facred Canon, it is fo extremely ad- verfe to your f'cheme of irrational religion ; which, if the fcriptures be true, mufl be the abfurdeft fyftern of enthufiafm, to be met with amongft modern Fanatics. One caution , how- ever, 1 would beg leave to give thofe Enthu- fialts, who arefo zealous to get rid of this part of hoiy icripture ; and that is, well to confider a certain paifage in it, Rev. xxii. 18, 19. *' For I teftify unto every man, thatheareth the prophefy of this book, if any man fhall add unto thefe things, God fliall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man fliall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God fhall takeav/ay his part out of the book of life, and out of the 204 holy city, and the things which are written in this book.** If there is but a bare poffibility of the Revelation being divinely given, and if itsfacred contents are guarded in fuch a man- ner, that even to add to, or diminiQi from them fhali be puniihed with the fevereft penalty, will it not be very dangerous to attempt ex- punging of the whole ? After aii, if it (liould appear at his fecond coming, that our Jefus is none other than the ancient of days, God over all^bleifed for ever- more incarnated in the fle(h, what a plight muft they be in, who are now mad with enthufiaitic zeal, againft the do6lrine of his proper Deity, as One with the Father and the Holy Ghoft? Thefe things certainly merit our moft fenous confideration, as our God is not to be trfled with. Whs this the only inftance of his applying to bimfelf tlioi'e pares of Qld Teflament pro- phecy, wnich undoubtedly have the fupreme God for their obje6V,, it might be paiied over as a peculiar inilance, in which it is fuppofed, the facred penman was miftaken. But we find it to be his conitant practice, as well as that of his apoftles, and muft therefore con- clude, that either your vlo^triue is blalphemous enthuhafm, or he hn ^felf au arrant impoltor : as there does not to me appear to be any medium. That in Ifaiah Ixi. is ^^videndy referable only to the fupreme God, from what is faid in verfe 205 8. ** For I the Lord love judgment, I hatq robbery for burnt offerings and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an ever- lajiing covenant with them.'' If the Ipeaker can at all be known by hisltile, furely Jehovah is the fpeaker here ; yet the fame augult per- fon condelcends to an lianibler, even a 1u!j- ordinate capacity, and in the beguining of the chapter fpeaks of himfeif in the Hat ion of a fervant, and fets forth the divinity of his miflion as fuch. * ' The fpirit of the Lord God is upon me, becaufe he haUi anointed me," &c. Here then is a fervant, vvlio calls him- feif Jehovah, and fpeaks, as if he were the fupreme God, and Lawgiver to his people. Yet Jesus, who, you fay, is but a man like ourfelves, in Luke iv. applies the whole of this to himfeif: for, after quoting this paifage from Ilaiah, he faid, ** This day is the icrip- tiire fulfilled in your eye^." By which he mull mean to perfuade his audience, that he himfeif was the identical perfon there I'peak- ing in the fpirit of propheiy. The perfon whom the prophet reprefented, affuuies the name and character of the Lord, pr Jehovah; by wdiich name God only is known in Jacob : but Jellis in etfed tells the people that he was that perion, ** this day js this fcripture fulfilled in your eyes." I hate robbery, fays he in the prophecy, but the con- trary appears in the application of it to hini- feif, cu fuppofilion that he is but a mere man 206 jikeourfelves. *' Hove judgment ;'* buthow does this appear, if he aliumes divine titles, and prerogatives, when in reality he is not a divine perfon ? '* And 1 will make an ever- laiting covenant with them ;'* from whence one would, at firft view, be apt to conceive him to be an everlafling Being ; or how fliould his covenant Hand ? Moreover that he had an effential perfonal right to make a covenant with his people. What ihould we think is the defign of a mere man, if we heard him afcribing to him- felf the titles of the fupreme Gun, and, at the fame time, avowing himfelf to be the faithful and true v^itnefs? Mud we not confider him as an impoftor, and his do6trine worthy to be treated with the greateft contempt? It will be in vain to alledge in his excufe, that the divinity of his mffiion warranted his affumption of thofe appellations, feeing fuch warrants, and fuch pra6tices vefulting from them, are wholly miknown among men. The com- miffion of a prince will authorife his ambaf- fddor, to fpeak in the name of his mailer, but will never warrant his affuming his mailer's name, and titles of honour. How would their high mightineifes, the States of Holland look upon Sir Jofepli Yorky were he to fay to them, •* I am King George HI. defender of the faith, &c." Would they not conclude, that he was either a traitor, or a madman ? If he Ipeaks only in the name of his mailer^ they 207 may uiiderftand his addrefs ; but if he fhould fay, I and King George are one : or he that hath Teen me hath i^een King George, they \vould certainly be at a lols to guel's his mean- ing. Evenlb, if Jefus had ba-;e!y Uiid, *' the Lord loveth judgment, &c." the people might have known his meaning. But when he fays, *' I Jehovah love judgment, and hate robbery, &c." No man can think that he means to reprefent himl'tlf, as no more than a meie creature. So that at aii events, if to worfhip him as God in our nature be idolatry, he hi«nfelf has given occalion to our error, therefore deferves the whole blame of our dellru6lion, if we fhould indeed be danuied for believing in him as fuch. Thefe con- fiderations make greatly for the prophet Mo- hammed, who never confounded hm]lelf with De:ty ; never profelfed himf^ if to be mure than a mere man, infpired iiot by the Holy Gliolt, but by tiie angel Gabriel ; confequently that his religion is rather to be cholen, than the enthufiHihi of Socinians and rational Dif- lienters. But the anfvver which Jefus gave to John's difciples, when fent to him wi.h a Very per- emptory meli'ige, demanding a categorical anfsver, will turthertend to prove our poiition, and to give the afcendency to Mohammed the prophet, as in all reipe6fs more tendt-r of the divine character and perfections. Mat. xi. 3, 4, 5, 0. Art thou he that Jhould come, M 2 208 or do we look for another ? Jefus anfwered and J ad mito them, go and fhew John again thoje things which ye do hear and fee ; the blind receive their fight ^ the lame walk, the lepers are cleanfed, and the deaf hear ^ the dead are raifed iip^ and the poor have the gof pel preached unto them. And hlejj'ed is he, whofoever Jhall not be offended in me. This aniwer was, in efle6l the fame, as if he had faid, " go your way and tell John, that you have feen the xxxvth chap, of Ifaiah fuliilled in my njuiillry;" for this anfwer is nothing fliovt of a clear declaration, of the fulfilment of that prediction, verfes 4, 5, (5. Behold your Goo will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence, he will come and fave you. Then the eyes of the blind fliall be opened,, and the ears of the deaf (hall be un flopped. Then (hall the lame leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb (hail ling, &c. So fays the prophet. And Jeius fays, go ye and tell John, that all thefe things are come to pafs. Now as it was never ex- pe(5ted, that thefe things fliould come to pafs, till God came with vengeance, and our God with a recompence to lave us : muft not the anfwer given by Jefus, naturally lead John and his Difciples to conclude, that their God was actually thus come, feeing every fign of his coming was made manifell ? Here is no care taken either by the prophet, or by Jefus himfelf, to guard the people againlt 209 paying fupreme honour to that perfon, in whom fuch mighty works did fhew forlh tliem- felves. But on the contrary, they both con- cur, in giving us room to believe, that he was none other than God manifefted in the flefti. Wherefore if it be idolatry to vvoifhip Jefus Chrift, with the lame v/orfhip which we pay to the Father, the blame lies not with u&, but with himfelf, and the penmen of the fcriptures. That he even intended to be con- fidered as God in the human nature, is apparent from the conclufion of his anfwer, " and bleffed is he whofoever fliall not be olTended in me." It was not opening of blind eyes, unflopping of deaf ears, &c. which were a {tumbling to the Jews : but the grand otJence was, ** he being a man made himfelf God." And furely they were in the right, feeing no man could polfibly have underltood him, to intend other- wife, without plainly inverting his language, Hdd he bid John's dilciples to tell their matter what they law, and at the fame time to caution him againft confidering him as a Divine Per- fon, there would have- been a propriety in his conduct, and he had not been acceifar}^ to the idolatry of his difciples, which idolatry fnali be the fubje(5t of my next. Mean while I would obfeiTe, that if there really are three, that bear record in heiiven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and if Jefus Chrift is none oiher thaa M 3 210 the divine Word made flefh, and who dwelt a?nong us ; then his conduct is perfe6tly con- lifteut ; he ftands acquitted of facrilegioufly rohbing the Almighty, which he never can be, if your do6trine be true. I do not pretend to fay, whether John's teftimony be an inter- polation or nqt, as I never faw the identical copy, that may be called the original, I mean that which was in the apoftles hand- writing. And this I deem neceiiary, before I fliall be- lieve thofe enthufialls who affirm, its not hav- ing been in the original. I verily think none but an enthufiaft, will be daring enough to iTjakethis aflertion, without having previoufly examined that identical original copy. There- fore from your bold affirmation of its being interpolated, 1 fliould fuppole, that you have been favoured with that privilege. Once more we muft repeat our obfervation, in favour of Mohammed, that in no place of bis Koran, does he affume any divine title, or make ufe of language calculated to make his followers confuier him, as any other than a man, whom God had honoured as a reformer of religion. Never once in any fenfe confounds himfelf with God, having the moll perfe(5t abhorrence of that idolatry, which exalts a creature to an equality with God the Father. i conclude therefore, thatif Jeius Chriit be but a mere man like ourfelves ; one who has no perfbnal title to divine worfliip, we had better at once rejed the Bible, as an abftrufe book. 211 ftufted with incoherence, ambiguity, and equivocation ; and receive the K^oran, as the mind of God, a book which fets the do6l;rine of God and Chrift in a more confiftent, clear, and intelUgible point of view, if j'our religion be indeed the truly Chriftian fyftem. I am, reverend Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN. 219 LETTER XVIII. Heverend Sir, Having in my laft (hewn, that if your c!o6lrine be true, Jef'us Chrift muft have been one of the mod unintelligible, not to fay the moll: dangerous, of all preachers; I fhall attempt inthih, farther to demonilrate the propofition, by (hewing the unhappy influence which his do6lrine produced upon his immediate follow- ers, who were to all intents and purpofes as erroneous as the refl of the Trinitarians. I am the more encouraged to this, from the vifible difhculty which even your adventrous pen la- boured under, in endeavouring to tind out their meaning, which neverthelefy, to this hour, lies as deeply concealed as ever. Although I am like yourielf, one of thofe diftinguifhed geniufes who love to ftrike out from the beaten path, as we have both abun- dantly (hewn in former lucubrations ; I (hall find myfelf now under a neceflTity of following you from page to page, and from fentence to fentence, after the manner of polemic writers, or as Achilles followed the Trojan hero rouad the walls of the city. ^13 You, Sir, with all your high intelligence, feeai to be aware of the ditFiculty of explain- ing many palfages of the apoftolic writings, and are therefore obliged to fubftitute a bold affertion, in place of a rational interpretation, a method generally adopted by all enthufiafts. The author of the Epiitle to the Hebrews, ililes him(Chriit) fay you, *' the author and fmilher of faith. Which title is attributed to Jel'us, with relpe<5l to the ftate of glory and univerfal dominion, to which he is exalted by the Father*/* It maybe fo, Dodor. But certainly, it is in thehighefl degree improper. Either Jefus is not, or he is the author and finifher of faith. If he is not, we Ihonld not expe6t to hear him declared fuch, by thefpirit of truth. If he is the author of faith, it will follow, that he is God as well as Man : feeing faith is in every (enfe, not only the gift of God, but of his operation. Now if faith is the gift of God, and of his operation, how abfurd is it to allert, that Jefus Chrill is the Author and Fi- nilher of faith : feeing he is but ** a man in all refpects hke ourfelves?*' Or, to gratify curio- fiity a little, take the argument in the following order ; if faith is only by the gift and opera- tion of God, and if Jefus Chriit be really its author and finiiher, how, in the name of com?- mon fenfe, is it poffible, that he (hould be no more than a man like our/elves ? It is not clear to every rational reader, that if the apoftles, in one pailage of their writ- 214 ings, tell us, that faith is the gift of God ; of the operation of God, &c. and in another, afcribe faith to Jefus as its author and finifher ; thtir intent is, if they knew their own mean- ing, to make us believe, that Jefus Chrift ac- tually is God over all, blefled for evermore. But enthufiaftsand bigots to party opinions, will fwallow any abfuvdity without attempt- ing to digefi: it. If the apoftles were then divinely infpired, and really knew their own meaning, will not this inllance, from their writings, in fome meafure jullify our worfhip of Jefus, in union with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, as the true God and eternal life ? If they knew not their own meaning, they were very unfit perfons for being the founders of th« Chriilian Religion. Take a view of the matter according to your notions, Sir, and then judge of its pro- priety. Faith is the gift of God, and of the operation of God ; Jefus is the author and finiflier of faith, and yet he is no more God than we ourfelves are. Or thus, ** Jefus is the author and finiflier of faith; yet is not faith either of his operation or his g H." What man of found underftanding, would not wilhto keep Clear of a fyllem of enthufiafm fo big with abfurdity, even when it impofeth itfelf upon mankind, as rational religion ? It puts me in mind of the Ass in malquerade in the fable. The lion's Ikin could not conceal the impofition. But to dilinifs this paflage I 215 mufl fay, that if the apoftles knew Jefus Chrifl to be no more than a man like ourfelves, they were exceedingly blameable for expreffing themfelves in language fo obfcure and equivo- cal, no fuch int^ance of ambiguity being found with the prophet of Arabia, when fpeaking of God, or of Chrift Jefus. Your long quotation from the book of the Revelation, will very little mend the matter, feeing it implies an unjuft inhnuation, as if the Trinitarians denied Jefus to fuftain any fub- ordinate chara6ler. On the contrary, it has been their conftant practice to let him forth as Man and Mediator, as acting in all refpecls in fubordination to the Father. But they dif- tinguiOi between his divine perfon, abftracled from his humanity, as exifting in the Unity of the Godhead ; and his human nature as exilting in Union with that Divine perfon. They can therefore perfectly, and in the mod rational manner, reconcile his fupremacy as God-man with his fubordinacy, as man and Mediator : whilft enthufiafts of every name confound themfelves, by denying the one or the other of thefe characters, fo elfential to the perfon of our Redeemer. I fincerely wiOi, that our modern pretenders tofuperior reafon, were favoured with a larger meafure of com- mon fenfe. But notwithftanding this fubordinacy, as you obferve, he fays (and the faying mult be very (trange indeed) lamthe^l/ia/iaand Omega, £16 the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Al- mighty. You iay, indeed, *' that thefe high titles are attributed to Jefus." But nothing can be plainer. Sir, than that he attri- butes them tohimfelf, which flill muftadd to the difficulty. That Jefus is a teacher fent from God, to teach the worfliip of the Father only, and yet declares of himielf, that he is the Alpha and Ojnega, the beginning and the ending, which was, and which is to come, the Almighty ; is a confideration that muft puzzle every perfon of common underftanding, who has not attained the addrefs of leaping over the plained teftimony. Confequently, Sir, it makes greatly for the point I iiave in view, namely, to fhew the obfcurenefs and ambiguity of flcripture language, on fuppofi- tion, that the Socinian fchemeis the true gof- pel of God our Saviour. To (often that ftubborn word. Almighty, you have critically obferved, that it fignihes Ruler over all. A notable difcovery, indeed! a difcovery becoming a comprehenfive genius ; efpecially when it is conlidered, that to be ruler over all, requires a perfon to be might}/ over all. For if he is not mighty over all, how fhould he be ruler overall? How can it be fuppoled, that he can rule thofe beings over whom he has no power ? And if he is mighty over all; after all this circumlocution, the word reverts to it ufually accepted ferife. S17 • where I fhall for the prefent leave it, and obferve, that if he is mighty over all in any fenfe, in that fame {"enley there is none mighty over him ; or to ul'e your own phrafe. If he is ruler over all, it would Teem, that there is none who rules over him, in that fenfe in which he is laid to be Ruler. After all, I think, in your exculpation of Jefus from the charge of ambition, and of robbing the Deit}^, you might have found a more happy interpretation of the word Almighty, than that of ruler overall, That, you know, is proper only to the gree^t God ; and your afcribing it to the little Go(^ Jefus Chriji *, tends to conhrm us in our ido- latry. But fuppofing we could, by the depth of reafon, make it appear, that the word Al- mighty means no more, than the founding word candour does with rational Dilfenters, that is, nothing at all ; we Ihall ftill find our- felves woefully perplexed by the other parts of the Redeemer's claim. Admitting that you could take his omnipo- tence from him, what will you make of his being the beginning and the ending, which was, and which is to come } Which was* How long? Since the beginning of the Gof- pel. — Who told you lb? VV^hy are not the * Great God — A phrafe familiar to the lips of Arians and Socinians, \vho, if they mean any thing at all by it, and allow Jefus Chrifc in any fenfe nominally, or by vocation, or other- wife to be God, muft necelTarily account him to be but the little God. N 218 words *' of the Gofpel," inferted in the text? If the beginning is mentioned without any- expletive, are we not under a necefiity of un- derllanding thereby, the beginning of Being or Exiftence ; or, as it is otherwife exprelfed, the beginning of the creation of God ? Whicii was hnce his Being fet up. This was from everlafting. Therefore I cannot fay, though you can, when Jefus began to exill; becaule, in my view, he either exilled from everlalting, or he does not now exift as the Saviour of linners. There was, indeed, a man called Jefus, appeared about 1740 years ago, who made great pretenfions to a divine miifion. But what is that to me? I am not obliged to believe every one who comes with fuch pretenfions. Befides, if he is not truly and properly God, I have much better reafon to believe in Mohammed than in him ; feeing IVlohammed never encroached upon the pro- vince of the Almighty, never aflumed names which might not be given to a mere man like ourfelves. I never can, therefore, commit the keeping of my foul, and its everlafting con- cerns, into the hands of one, the beginning of whole exiflence is uncertain ; confequently the Jefus you talk of can be no Saviour for me. This leads me to take notice of the wif- dom of the rationals, who knowing that they liave only a poor impotent man for their Sa- viour, take care not to overload him, therefore take it upon themlelves to finilh tranfgreflion. 219 and make an end of fin ; to propitiate the Deity, and work out their own falvation, under his common influences or affiftance. But, Sir, if jelus be what I with my whole heart beUeve he is ; he had a jult, a perfonal H-ight, to every part of this aflbmption. And to tell you the truth, if he is not the bleffed Immanuel God manifefted in our nature, I would as foon believe in Dr. Prieflley, or the .pope of Rome, or Mohammed as the faviour of mankind, as in him. This, Sir, I give you leave to publifn at large, as the fentiments of the abfurd Sh — r, and if you pleafe, for this you may write me down Heretic. To return now to my fubjeft after fo long a wander, a thing which, you know from for- mer correfpondence, I am in fome meafure fubje6l unto ; give me leave to note that quo- tation of yours from Heb. i. 6*. ** When God Iringet/i in the firji begotten info the u'orld, he faith let all the angels of God icor- (hip him. The «fe of the word worlhip in other pafiages, and on other occafions, is not the object of my prefent enquiry, but the certainty of its ambiguity, according to your fenfe of it. As to the Jews having no expecta- tion of any other perfon thcin a man for their Meffiah, as you fay they had, will admit of a doubt, fieeing Dr. Watts, in his glory of Chrift as God-man, has clearly (hewed the contrary. Nor is the remark concerning Abraham's * Famil. Illuft. 27, js 2 220 tvorOiipping^ of the angels altogether to th^, purpofe, feeing whatever he might think o^ Two of them, it is clear, that to the 'I'hird, he paid fupreme adoration, and intreated him as the moil high God. If Paul had faid, let all the angels of Goo then. Doctor, you will go on to deal in * Fam. Illuft. 22. 1^ 3 922 iTiyfteries, after all the falutary inftru6tioTis you have received from lb many different quarters. *' Avery proper expredion ; itrict- ly and literally true," you fay. 1 am abfo- lutejy of the contrary opinion, and contider it as a very abfurd and improper expreffion ? Ilri6lly and literally talfe, on fuppofition that he is but a mere man like ourfelves. Pray, Sir, who is that Jelus you talk about fo much, as upon a level with yourleif, and who notwitiiitanding is the only perfon of whom it was ever laid, *' In him dwelleih all the fulnefs of the Godhead bodily?" Some people would think, that here you pay a very imcommon compliment to yourfelf. From which, indeed, it may be inferred, that you fuppofe the whole fulnefs of the Godhead to dwell bodily in you ? As we mull be under a kind of neceflity of coming to this concluiion upon the premiles. ** In Chrill," iays Paul, . dwelleth the whole fulnefs of the Godhead bodily." *' Chrilt is in all refpe^fs but a man like ourfelves," fays Dr. Prieftley. Then mull it not be concluded, that the fulnefs of the Godhead does actually dwell bodily in us as well as in him ? O James Nailor ! I lament the hole which the burning iron made in thy tongue, for thy fuppoled blafphemy, leeing the moit rational gentleman of this enlightened age, talk in llrains iar iuperior to thine in point of myllicifm, impenetrable to the eye of com- mon ienle. 293 . Again I afk ; is this Jefus, the only peifoH in whom the wifdom and power of the One true God the Father were manifefted? Proba- hly we (hall hnd as great works performed in the name, and by the power of God, through the inftrumentahty of others : works even of a more pubhc nature, than any you allow to have been performed by Jefus of Nazareth. Did Jefus heal the lepers that came to him ? So did Eli/Tia, Did he raiie the dead ; So did that prophet. Did he ihew the glory of God to his diiciples on mount Tabor ? So did the other to his fervant on the hill of Samaria. Did he turn water into wine? ]\Jofes turned the rock into water. Mofes and Aaron wrought all the wonders of God in Egypt — Divided the Red Sea — Made the ferpent that healed the plague in Ilrael, &:c. lb ihat if the wifdoni and power of God, manitelling themfelves by a man as their intlrument, entitle him to be thus reprefented, witli much more propriety may it be faid of Mofes or of Aaron, than of Jefus, " In him dwelleth all the fulnefs of the Godhead bodily;" and yet no infpired penman ever afcribed this dignity to thofe Old Teftament prophets. It is certainly true. Sir, that in all your fludies, the doctrine of confequences has had but a very flender (hare. Permit me a fecond time, to recommend it to your ferious con- fid erat ion. Truly rational Chriftians, I mean thofe who N 4 224 worfliip the One God in Trinity, as Fa*^ THER, Son and Holy Ghost, avoid tbisdif- iiciilty, which abl'urd enthufiafts pkinge them- felves into. They clearly fee, that how great Ibever were the works of Old I'eftameiit pro- phets, they were all yjerformed in the name, and by the power of another; but their Chrift performed his miracles by his own power, and received the glory of them himfelf. Moreover, is it not language dark and unin- telligible, becoming none but a frantic enthu- fiall, to talk of Jelus being but a mere man, and yet the relidence of the Godhead or the Divine EfiV nee ? To have the whole fulnefs of the Godhead dwelling bodily in him, and yet have no perlbnal claim to proper Deity, or perfonal Union with that fame Godhead that is to dwell in him ? Surely this manner of fpeaking, is far from that plain and fimple ftile which even the runner may read, and in \vhich the wayfaring man, though a fool, (hall not err ? It is every whit as difficult to conceive, how all the fulnefs of the Godhead fliould dwell bodily in a man, and yet that lame ineffable Deity, never to have been in any fenfe incar- nated fo as to dwell amongft us. Can any man therefore l)e blamed for giving the pre- ference to Mohammed' s Koran, a book that is clear Worn every fentence, that fo much as tends to confound either Chriil or Mohammed with pure and efl'ential Deity? Although iu 225 fo doing- we are obliged to rcjecl the Bible, as the moll unintellitiible and ambiguous of all writings whatever; as undoubtedly it is, if your fcheme of doctrine be true. I am. Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN. N 3 290 LETTER XIX. Reverend Sir, Ae I could not poflibly do inyfelf the ho- nour of fufficiently explaining our fubje<5l by the lad poll, I hope you will have the good- nefs to bear with me, if by this I fend you a few additional remarks upon the abfurdity of the penmen of the New Teftament, and the vifible embarralfmentinto which they have in- volved you, and the reft of your reverend bre- thren ; the preachers of a Jefus Chrift have in all refpe6tslikeyourfeIves, and not yet ISOO years exiftent. It mif^ht have been expected, that a gentle- man of your comprehenfive genius, woukl have a little attended to the paradoxical paraphrafe on John 1. which I tranfmitted to you in my Familiar Epiftles, before you had again adduced it in favour of your fcheme. The paraphrafe was juft, upon your applica- tion of the text; and your (ilence has been underftood to refult iioni aconfcious incapacity to refute. But as that fame paflage has been preifed into the (ervice of the Socinian enthu- iiafm, a fecond time, diredly contrary to its ge- nuine intention, I fhall take the liberty to anim- advert upon it, and on your application of it. 227 ** In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the Word icas God, Sec. &c.'* Thele words, you think, interpreted in the moft literal manner, only imply, that the Word, or Chrilt, had a being before the creation of the world, although he had, in reality, no exigence prior to his beins: born of the Virgin : that he had the title of God, but by no meansis tobeconfideredasGod, &c*." So then God called him what he really was not ; and thus became accelFary to our idola- try. Was this actino^ the part of a wile and faithful Creator ; or of a deligning adverfary ? This cannot be the God in wlioiu I truft, and whom I adore. You have allowed, that the above-mentioned paiFage, if literally interpreted, does imply, that Christ Jesu.-j did exift before the crea- tion of the world, and yet, in other produc- tionscof your prolific pen, you boUHy atFert, that he had no being prior to his birth of the Virgin. Even the liibfequent paragraph, gives it as your opinion, that the apoftles in- tention was to overthrow the doctrine of his pre-exiftence. I fhali, for the prefent, admit that to be the apoftles intention, as it will fuit my purpoie, as well as if I was to fuppote the contrary, and will (erve to manifeit the grand objeCl I have in view, namely the obfcurity of the penmen of holy writ, on fuppofition, that your doc- » Fam. Illuft. 30. 228 trine be the Gofpel of Jefus. I ftiall there- fore confider it in both views, as applicable either to Chrift or to the power and energy of God. *' In the beginning was the word ; the AVord whatever it was, was with God, and the Word was God, and yet was not properly God. The fame was in the beginning with God, and yet was not in the beginning, nor for a great while afterwards. All things were made by him, yet he himielf was a made Be- ing. Without him was not any thing made that is made ; and yet every thing that is, was made, and the whole of creation fmiHied 40CX) years before he was born — In him was life, fuch life as we ourfelves polfefs ; find the life was the lii^ht of men, by a virtuous converfa- tion ; and although he wa^ but a man likeour- felves, his light lliined in darknels, and the darknefs comprehended it not. — He was in the world, and the world was made bjohim, though he did not exiil i'or 4000 years after the world was made. He was in the world, and the world knew him not, although they believed in him as a man like themfelves. This fame Word was made flefli, and yet God was in no lenfe incarnated ; he dwelt among us, and yet the man in whoni he dwelt was no more than a man like onrj'elves. We beheld his glory, but it was not liis glory, but that of the Father upon him; as the only be- gotten of the Father ; and yet the Father iiath 299 many Tons and daughters, begotten even as he was: full of grace and truth, and yet he is as much dependant on the Father as we are." Such, Sir, is the true fenfe of the palfage, according to your plan of doc- trine, if applied to jefus Chrift, and how full of confuhon and abfurdity it is, the above may ferve as a fpecimen. I Ihall now take it exprefsly in your fenfe, as by the word, the wifdom, power, and energy of God himfelf, being intended without any reference whatever had to Jefus Chrift, as a divine perfon exifting in Deity, and then we Ihall have an opportunity of feeing how much more it looks like the ravings of entlwfiaj'm, than the cool fobernefs of infinite wifdom. ** In the beginning was God, and God was God himfelf; the fame was in the beginning with God — And God was made flelh, and dwelt among us; yet that fleih which God aiiumed, had no manner of perfbnal Union with God. And we beheld the glory of God, as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." Or you may take it thus, according to your amended explanation*; *' In the beginning of creation, weve icifdom and power -, ivifdom a7id poicer were with God ; and wiidom and power were God. Wifdom and poicer were made rleth, and dwelt among us, and we beheld their glory, the glory as of the only * Fam. Illuft. pag, 31. 230 begotten of the Father full of grace and truth." So that at all events, we nnuft have one that begets another, that is begotten, even upon your pretendedly rationalplan. But according to either of the above fenfes, I pray you, how much does the apollles ftile riie above the level oi'nonfenfe? Whether we underiland by the Wokd Jksus Christ, or the power, wifdom, and energy of God, it is obfcure, ambiguous, and equivocal. It has a dire6l tendency to lead us to believe, that there was a Being called the Word, long- enough before the Virgin brought forth her Son ; one who was a diilincl; perfon from the Father, and who of himfelf had a proper claim to Deity. Confequently, if Jefus is in reality none other than a mere man like our- felves, and if the worfliipping of him as God incarnate be idolatry, os you fay it is, we have juft caule to with that John's golpel had never been written : or that it had been burnt, lather than to have fallen into our hands. And you know that this paifage, becaufe of its great obicurity, has very much tended to miflead the idolatrous Trinitarians. They think it perfedly confident with their own views of tlie Redeen^er's perlon, and find no difficulty of accommodating it to their plan of doctrine; whereas nothing lels than all the wifdom of the crooked ferpent, will be fuf- ficientto^accommodateitto your fchcme of ra- tional religion, other wife irralioual enthufiafni. S3 1 I aflure you, Dodor, that in reading your Familiar lUuftration, I very often ttiink of the mountain in the fable, which, after fuch a noife and outcry in labour, brought forth only a — moufe. I might give you numerous in- ftances of it if I was in the humour ; but Ihall as ufual quote juft as many as I think necef- fary. The firft of which is that Rom. ix. 5. from pag. 32. of your Iliuftrations. *' Whofe are the Father's, and of whom, as concerning the flefh, Chrift came, who is over all, God bleffed for ever. This may with equal pro- priety and truth be rendered, God, who is over all, be bleifed for ever. The former fentence ending with the word came." It might have been obferved, however, that the word came is not in the text, but fupplied by the tranllators with great propriety. You feem to confef^, that our tranflation of the palTage, is juft, fuppofing, indeed, that your own tranflation is only equally proper. It was certainly very inaccurate, however if according to you, the writer has left this paffage in fuch a confufed ftate, as to miflead the church for thefe feventeen hundred years. There have been men of learning in all the ages of the gofpel difpenfation, and yet they could never fee into this miftaken notion, but have gone on worQiipping the Son even as they worshipped the Father. So that, at all events, it ferves to fiievv the obfcurity of the 239 apoftolic writings, wbicli is the point I coxxr tend for, in i'dvouv of Al Koran and the Moham- med cm religion. To be lure, the Trinitarians believing iti Christ's Divinity, find no manner of dif- ficulty in this palfage. They think that the apolile could not have delivered the mind of the Spirit, if he had written otherwile. They rejoice that they have a Iriend, who can, without robbery of the Deity, claim an equality with the Father. They think that no greater happinefs could accrue to the human-race, than to have one who is the friend of hnners, and at the fame time, is God over all blelfed for e^er more. But they frankiy allow a right to depend upon their own rightcoufnels, and to believe in a Sa- viour who is but a man like themfelves, to gentlemen who are not (inners, but men of virtue ? men of clear heads and found hearts, who are capable of conjprehending ail that they will believe. if Jefus Chriil be not God over all, we hav« an undoubted right to cenfure the apoftle for the obfciirity of his llile ; but if he Ihould prove at laft none other than God incarnate, I tremble for the fate of thofe enthufiaits who deny his proper Deity. For if he that del- piled Mofes* law died without mercy under two or three witneffes : of how much lorer punilfiment, fuppofe ye, (hall he be ihoiight worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son 233 of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant by which the Son of God was fanc- tified, an unholy thing, and done deipite to the JSpirit of grace ? Seeing vengeance belong- eth to him, and he will repay it. Like unto this is that of 1 John v. 20. quoted by you*, and attempted to be ex- plained away. But how ridiculoufly we ihail lee by and by. ** And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an undeiitanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jefus Chriil. This is llie true God and eternal life." The latter claufe is un- doubtedly explanatory of the title, him that is true, or the true One, as you obferve. But I muft beg your patience, whilil I remark (I.) 'i'hat not God, abftractly conlidered, is repre- fented in Scripture, as the life of his people, but Jefus Chrift, as appears from Col. iii. 4. compared with John i. 4. Is it not therefore evident confufion to tell us in one place, ** Chrift is our life," and in another, to dired; us to a ditTerent perfon, and fay, ** This is eternal life." (2. ) Who is faid to be the true One, befides him that declares himfelf to be the true and faithful witnefs, the truth ilfelf? Is it not very jflrange to hear John pointing to an abiblute God, faying, ** This is him that is true," and at the fame time, to hear a man like ourfelves * Fam. Illuft 32. 234 reply, ^' I am the true and faithful witnefs : I am the truth itfelf.'* What can we think is eiiher Chrift's or the apoftle's defign? Which of them fliali we beheve, feeing both^ cannot be right? (3.) Where are behevers ever faid to be in God, exclufive of a Mediator? But we are in him that is true, fays the apollle. You fay, him that is true, intends the One God the Fa- ther only. Ought we not to have fome fcriptural warrant for fuppoling^ ourfelves to be in God the Father only ? Would not this be fomething like afcribing perfonal Union with Deity to ourfelves, whilit we deny it to his only begotten Son Jefus? Nothing can, I think, be plainer, than, that the apoftle intended us to confider Jefus Chrift the Son of the Father, as hwi that is true^ the Truth, or the true One ; and that of him he fays, ** This is the true God and eternal life, in the Union of the divine Eiience.'* If he had any other intent, he might furely have hit upon a more happy and intelligible method of expreffing himfelf, efpc-cially if infpired by the Holy Ghoil, as is generally believed. That paffage, John xx. 28*. ** Thomas anfvvered and faid unto him, my Lord, and my God," mult by no means be omitted, though I troubled you with my thoughts upon it, on a former occafion. Since then I have feen a very ingenious and uncommon * Fam.muft.33. 235 explanation, written by one of your warm Kentifh Votaries, which in fubltance is as follows, ** Thomas meeting Jefiis very ivn- expe6ted!y, in a furprize, cried, my Lord, I did not expe<5t to have I'een you now — My God ! is it you ?" Thus this fanatical writer, whojumblesboth houfes of parliament, Doctor Dawfon, and the (haver together, in the fame in- coherent performance, ill ppofes, that Thomas the apoftle, in order to teftit'y his joy at feeing his mailer, took the Almighty's name in vain : and that Jefus, out of zeai for the Father's glory, fuffers that prophanenefs to go unre- proved, and even encourages it. Your explanation is much more genteel, but very little more to the purpofe. Seeing, with all your addrefs, you have not exculpated the apoftle Thomas from the charge of idolatry, in worfhippmg Jefus the bon as his Lord and God. If another, elientially diitind from Chrifl, is intended by Lord and God in the text, whyure we nottoid of it in the context? If we are not told ot it, how can we be juftly damned for not knowing it? How can we believe without a preacher? 1 John V. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven y the Father, the Wordy and the Holy Ghoji ; and thej e Three are One. J f you , Sir, or Sir Ifaac Newton, really have i^i^en John's original copy of thisepiltie, and carefully pe- rufed it, I mult believe your aiiertion, ** Tliat this verfe was not in it.** But then it only 536 ferves to fliew, that our Bible is, by the viliaiiw of Trinitarians, got inlofuch acorrupt iiate, that it is high time to reje6t it, and embrace the Koran. 1 know divers others, have as clearly proved, that it was in the original copies, hut what then'; ftill I (hall carry niy point, feeing that not one lentence of the Koraii has been ever quellioned in point of originaHty. Indeed, nsnch is due to the tefiimooy of Sir Ifaac Neivton, provided he could reciU the booi< of Scripture with as much propriety as he could the l)ook of Nature, but of this there are (bme doubters, who intend no difrefpe6l to that altonifliing genius. But the more his teftiuiony avails, the iboner we fhall get rid of the Bible, and have theTuikii'h Koran eilabliOied as the pure word of th« living God ; reje6t Jefus, and embrace the prophet Mohammed as by far the Qiolt con- fiftent. That in 1 Tim. iii. 16. God was mawfeft in the Jtefh, you tell us, i> alfo in a corrupt flate*. But why all this labour, in turning over mufty manuicripts, enough to give one the peltilence? Seeing you own, that even our tranflation is literally true? You fay, that the Father, who was in him, did the works. This is what perplexes us, that the Father fhould live and a6l in the tlelli of Jefus, as a * lUuft. 38. Note, referring to the great pains Dr. Pn'eftlcy tells us he has taken in examining ntiuiy rare manuicript copies of the New 1 cflament. 237 foul lives and a6ls in the hnnnan body, and that after all, this flelh in which God was manifell- ed, had no manner of perlbnal Union with the Deity, any nnore than we ourfelves have, according to your aifertion. One quotation more from the apoftolic writings, and then I fhall conclude, for really I begiji to tire of the fubjed, it is fo full of con fu (ion ; therefore I beg to be excufed from following you any farther upon it, than juft to note the impropriety of that, Col. i. 15. on fuppofition, that Jefus Chrift had no exiftence prior to his being born of the Virgin. *' Who is the imaoe of theinvifhle God, the firji born of every creature. For by him ivere all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, vifible and invtfble, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things conjifiy What could the apoflle mean, by calling him the tlrll-born of every creature when fome creatures were actually born more than four thoufand years before him, according to your reckoning? To lay, that all things in heaven and earth, vifible and invifible, were created by him, when the truth is, he created none of them, but was even a created Being himfelf? That all things fubfift by him, feeing he is but a mere man like ourfelves? That he is before all things, notvvithilanding the heavens 238 and earth, angels, men, devils, and brutes and vegetables, were before him for many ages? I enter into no difpute with you, except, whether the apoflle expreffes him- felf in a manner in which people of com- mon fenfe are likely to underftand him, as in- tending a mere man, who had no being but a very few months or years before himftif? Yet I have heard this fame Paul, by fome of your people, highly applauded as a great man, a wonderful man, a prodigy of genius, &c. notvvithllanding all his ablurdities and clalhings with your fcheme of dodrine. I am. Reverend Sir, Yours, &c. J. MACGOWAN. 239 LETTER XX. Reverend Sir, Having in my two lad, given a fniall fpecimen of the obfcurity and ambiguity of the apoftolic writings, on fuppofition, that your doctrine is true ; I (hall in this venture to enquire, whether the condu6t of the Jews, in putting Chrift to death, ought to be jufli- fied orcenfured, fuppoiing Hill that he was but a mere man like ourfelves. Awful as it is, it may be inferted, that if he was only fuch, they had good reafon for rejeding him as an impoftor, and for treating him as a blaf- phenier : and this, if true, will make the idola- try of Trinitarians appear more grols and (hocking. To afcertain this point, it will be necelfary to enquire, whether they had a law againfl blafphemy, and whether they went ac- cording to that law in their proceedings againlt him. The Jewifh law infl idled death upon every blafphemer, as appears John xix. 7. Lev. xxiv. 16. And he that blafphemeth the name of the Lord, he fhall furely be put to death, all the congregation fhall certainly Itone hitn * ; and agreeat)ly to this law, they took * Exod. xxii. Lev. xix. 240 up Rones to have ftoned Jefus, when they ap- prehended him to be guilty of blafphemy, in making himfelf equal with God. Seeing they had a law which doomed blaf- phemers to death, it cannot be doubted, that the Sanhedrim, with the content of the Ro- man governor, had a power of judging and condemning blafphemers, according to that Jaw : feeing the law had been given in vain, if the executive power had not been lodged fomewhere ; and where fo likely as in the great council of the nation, at a time when there was no king in Ifrael. The main difficulty is to determine, whe- ther or not Jefus Chriil was guilty of blaf- phemy ; and if but a man in all relpe6ts like ourfelves, there is fomething fo hke it in his conduct and doclrine, that it is no wonder they underilood him as blafpheming their God. Modern Jews may very well juftify the '-onductof their fathers, from the writings of his immediate diiciples, whom they mull necelTiiiiy conhderas having been trained up in biafpiieiny, the blame of which they fail not to lay upo.> the mafter himfelf, as their teacher. One difci:>le aicribes all the works of crea- tion to him, whether of things vilible or in- vifible, in hpaven or on earth, which is down- rigiii fUllhood and blalphemy ; a robbery com- mitred .i^ainHGod the Father, on fuppofition, that Chrili; bimfeif is but a mere creature, who had no exiitence for tlioufands of years after 241 creation was finifhed. Another difciple ad- drefled him thus, ** Lord, thou knoweft all things." It is in vain to alledge, that all things here ought to be underllood in a Hmited fente, and xioLh not imply an afcription of omnifcience. If that is the lenl'e, why are we not told fo? Why did not Jefus corredt the apoftles words, left they Ihould prove a ilumbling to others ? Would not any body take Peter to intend nothing lefs than omnifci- ence in its utmoll latitude, feeing the know- ledge of the heart is one thing evidently refer- red to. Thou knoweft all things, thou knoweft that I love thee. Which he could not do without fearching the heart. But I have (hewn, that he was lb far fronj reproving Peter for this confelTion, that he even alfumes this divine prerogative of learching the heart to himfelf. No lefs than five times does Jefus in the revelation alfume the name firft and the laft, expreffive of the eternity of the most high, which a mere man could not do without ihocking blafphemy, feeing God will not give his glory to another. Office and ftation will never warrant his affumption of titles peculiar to fupremacy, if he himfeif be in every fenfe fubordinate, as you would have himfuppofed, and as the Jews confidered him. This title, the FifisT and the last, being held facred to the fupreme Being, throughout the whole of the Jewifh difpeufation, and now affumed by o 242 Christ, without any reference had to any greater and higher than himielf, convinceth me, that if He is but a mere man hke ouifelves, he mull have been the moll notorious blaf- phemer that ever exiiled, and that the Jews are in the right, to deny him with a fcornful rejection. But although the manner in which the apoftles (peak of their Mafler, and what he fays of bimlelf in the book of Revelation, may fully juftify the moderns in their rejecting of him, it cannot be urged as a plea for the ancient Jews, who crucified Chrilt before any ofthofe books were written. It may there- fore be proper to enquire into the grounds of their judgment, and the propriety of their conduCl, from the miniilry of Chrilt himfelf*. To enter upon a formal procefs againft Jesus uf Nazareth, the idol of the Or- thodox, to fpeak in the language of feme ra- tional divines ; be it obferved, that the 1. Charge againft him is, ** That he being not above thirty-three years of age, made the j^eople believe that he exifted before Abra- ham.'* The witnefs againft him is, John viii. 56. ** Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to fee my day, and he law it, and was glad. Then laid the Jews unto him, thou art not * I beg my reader never to lofe fight of our leading fup- pofition, " That Jefus Chriil is no more than a man like our- felves ; one who had no manner of exiftence prior to his be- ing born of the Virgin ;" for if you lofe fight of this, you will take the writer to be either a Jew or a Mohammedan. 243 yet fifty years old, and haft thou feen Abra* ham ? Jel'us laid unto them, verily, verily, I fay unto you, before Abraham was, I am." Your turced expofition of this paliiige, avails nothing in his defence. That he inhnuatecl his own exillence being prior to that of Abra- ham, is clear to a demonftration. And the Jews underllood him according to the plain and obvious meaning of his words, therefore took up tlones to have puni(hed him for his arrogance in making himlelf older, and con- fequently greater than lhe\i\father Abraham. If they millook him, why did he not ftay and clear up the miftake, inftead oi" hiding him- felf, and getting privately away ? This would have been charity becoming his pretenfions to benevolence. But he nevtr attempted in any future difcourfe to fet them right in this mat- ter, confequently we conclude his intent was, that people fhould believe in him as older than Abraham ; this is the leail of whac is implied in his declaration, efpecially if compared with his behaviour immediately upon it. 2. Altliough he had no exilteiice prior to his being born of the Virgin, he endeavoured to make the people believe, tliat he had been in heaven, that he came down from heaven, and was made fle(h ; all of which tended to ma\e him be thouglit fomewiiat, at leaft, more than a man like ourfelves. For proof of this chariie, lee John iii. 13. ** No man hath afcended up to heaven, but he that came o 2 244 down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." That nothing- fhort of a dei- cending from heaven was intended, appears from V. 31. ** He that corneth from above, is above all : he that cometh from heaven, is above all." Efpecially when compared with chap. xvi. 28. *' 1 came forth from the Fa- ther, and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go unto the Father." If words have any meaning at all, Jefus could detign no lels than to perl'uade the people, that heaven was his refidence prior to hi> in- carnation ; and in this light the apoiUes un- derllood him, for they faid, *' now fpeakeil; thou plainly, and not in parables." And Chrift himfelf lutiers them to continue in that fame belief, without attempting to convince them that they had miitaken his meaning. And fuch has been the et]e6lof thefe and fuch ]ike exprefllons of his, relative to his anti-in- carnate liate, that all who believe the New Teftament to be the word of God, a few Arians and Socinians excepted, have uniformly be- lieved in him as having exiited from everlafl- ing. But, 3; He gave his difciples room to confider him as omniprefent, and what is this but robbing the Deity of one of his efiential perfections. Mat. xviii. 90. For where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the niidftofthem. It will require great addrefs 245 to twift this pafla^e into any other form, than that ofa declaration of perfonal omniprefence. Believers may be met in his name, 'at one and .4;he fame time, in every parilh church and dil- fenting meeting-houfe, in Britain and Ireland, or even in Europe, &c. and what lefs than a prel'ence univerfaliy ditfufive, can be adequate to this engagement. Did it not therefore tend to miflead his followers into a norion, that he could be prefent in many places at one and the fame time. Or in other words, that he was poflefl; of a nature infinitely fiiperior to mere humanity? Were we to hear the head of any party, encouraging his diCciples to hope for his prelence wherever they (hould alfembie, would we not inliantiy conclude, either that he is a madman, or a deiigning villian ? By parity of reaibn, the Jews had equal ground to be of- fended witli Jefus Chritt for fuch a manner of fpeaking, on fuppofition, that he hath no per- fonr^l title to divine prerogatives. Yet he is.fo far from reliiiquifhing his pre'en- fions, that even after they had punithed his biaf- phemy with death, and he was rifen from the dead, he repeats the promife with very conii- derab'e addition. '* Lo lam with you always, even to the end of the world." So that there vi'as promifed not only the univerfal extent, but the perpetuity of his prelence. It is net my province to enquire, what pollible feofe may be impofed upon the words ; the bulinefs of the law, iu cafes of high treaibn, being only o 3 246 with the obvious meaning of what is fpoken, and with the intent ot the ipeaker. And furely it will require great art, fo exculpate Jefus from the charge of making his difciples believe him to be every where prelent. There- fore, though fliocking to fpeak ic, the Jews did well in putting him to death for robbing the Deity. Yet the 4. Charge is ftill more grofs, more highly aggravated than the former, for not content with dillant allufions, he openly avows an equahty with the Father, '* I and the Father are One.*' This 1 noted before, as an inftance of the ambiguity of his flile in preaching ; now I confidered itas a chargeof blalphemy which the Jews had againlthim,and which undoubt- edly was fuch in the highefl degree. My Fa- ther is greater than all, he fays, and then adds, ** I and the Father are One. *'* If he meant no more than, that he and the Father were One in will and defign, might not the exple- tive eallly have been added ? How can he be juftified in provoking the Jews, byufing terms capable of being received in the molt abfblute fenfe, without attempting to explain his mean- ing? He even urges the propriety of his afler- tion,and for proof, adduces his unparalleled works. So that, confiftently with found rea- foning, they could not have underllood him otherwife than as making himfelf God. If it is replied in a way of excufe for him, " that * The word my is a fupplement. 247 in other places he exprefsly fays, my Father is greater than I." The Jew may very jullly retort upon us, ** Albrry confeffion, indeed I for a man who is but of yefterday, to coufefs barely, than God is greater than him." Might you or I ufe even this exprelhon, think you, confidently with a fenfe of the dilhmce be- tween the creature and the infinite Creator. But Jefus feems even to have perfuaded his^ difciples to believe in him, as identically the fame with the Father, in refped to EHence. What lefs can be underftood by what he fays toPhiHp? John xiv. S, p, 10. Lord (hew us the Father, and it fufticeth us? Jefus faith unto him, have I been fo long with you, and yet haji thou not known me Philip. He that hath i'een me, hath feen the Father : and how fayeft thou, fhew us the Father? Surely no man could underftand him as defigning other- wife, than to reprefent himfelt" a- eifentiaily One with the Father ; which, for a mere man to do, is the moll fliocking of all blafphemy ; and he that would do fo, was uidoubtediy worthy of death, the law of the Lord having denounced the fentence. But that is not all, for he even fafFered him- felf to be worlhipped, and never reproved any worfiiipper, for fhewing him too much r-jfoect, which may ferve as a 5. Charge againft him in the eye of a .lew. You, indeed, have laboured to exculpaiehim from this charge ; and have reduced tuis vvor- 248 fliip to ftich a Hate, as to meaiii no moi'e than a fine bow or a curtfie means with us. But, Sir, it is written, thou fhalt worfliip the Lord thy God, and him only (halt thou ferve. Is worfliip here the fame with what was paid to Jefus ? IfdilFerent, from whence do you gather your evidence? From thedif-r ference ot'exprelTion, orotherwife? Not from the difference of expreffion. Therefore pro- duce your warrant? Otherwife we fliali flill tiiink, that futferinghimfelf tobe worOiipped, was a crime worthy of death. Surely no man can eaiily mifunderftand Thomas the apoftle in his addrefs to Jefus, " My Lord, and My God ;" which addrefs was no way offeniive, confequenty Chrill never reproves him, much left attempts to redlify liis niiliake. How different was Mohammed's behaviour on a fimilar occafion, accordinsf to the tefli- mony oiAl Beidowi. Two Jewifli Chriftians, named Abii Rafe al Koradhi, and Al Seyid at Najrani^ came to Mohammed, and oflered to u'oilhip him, and acknowledge him for their Lord : to which that zealous prophet anfwered, " God forbid, that we Hiould worfhip any be- fides God." So far, indeed, was he from re- ceiving worfhip, that he is faid to have cori- feffed himfelf a finner, and to have afked par- don an hundred times a day, if his cooiment;^- tors deft rve any credit. Tliefe charges being fummoned up in one, after the manner of Britifli judges in their 219 charge to the jury, would not any twelve men have brought hull in guilty ; coulequently ihe Jews and Pontius Pilate, did nothing but an act of jultice in putting him to death, in that open Ignominious manner recorded in the fa- cred Scriptures. From ail that has been faid, it is clear, that the advantage is greatly on the fide of tlie Mo- hammedan religion, and that itsabettor^ have fewer diihcultiesto furmount, than thofe who glory in the name of rational Chriilians. But who may, at the fame time, be treated as the moftablurd ofailenthuhalls : whiHlthe Trini- tarians have the felicity of acling in a confift- ency with themleives as men of faith and re- hgion, as well as with the dictates of revela- tion. As it is a matter of no moment at all, whe- ther Socinianifm, or the rehgion of Mohammed prevail, neither ot them having the ieaft con- nection with real Chriftianity, which is the only religion taught in the word of God ; I fliall fuin up, in one pointof view, the reafon- ing of this and the former letters. I have Ihewn, and perhaps with as much force of argument, as you may heartily ap- prove, that there is the moil perfect agreement between the prophet Mohammed and your- felf, relpe6ting the do6trine of the One God, and that of the Trinity, and it will be very difficult to determine, whether you, or that Arabian, exprefies moft abliorrence of the 250 Trinity* So that whether there be Three that bear record in heaven ornot, it is certain ttiereare Two Men who bear the lame telVi- mony againtt that record. Further, that there is the moil perfe<5l har- mony between Mohammed and you, refpe6l- \ng the perfon of Jefus, as but a man hke yourfelves — alio in regard to liis mifTion, as a prophet or a teacher lent from God. So that how irrational Ibever you may deem the ortho- dox, that prophet was at lealt as intelhgentas your fell". I have Ihevvn, that if your doctrine be true, Mohammed was a more conlillent prophet than David, Ilaiah, and the reft of the Old Teltament prophets— 'That he was even a bet- ter preacher than Chritl and all his apollles — That he was more tender of the Divine character, and more zealous for the glory of God, than all the pro]ihets ; than Chrill and all his apollles, confequentjy, that he gave better proof of the divinity of his miffion, than Jefus gave of his. I have even Oiewn, that were your dodrine that of the Gofpel, the world has received more extenfive and more lafting advantages from Mohammed ^^ than from ail that Jei'usChrifthathdoneandfutfered. And to cloii:! the whole, I have demonllrated, that if the Lord Jefus be but a mere man like our- felves, he was an arrant im potior, a notorious blafphemer, and as fuch, molt jultly con- 251 demned by the Jewifh Sanliednm, and fiill rejet'^ed by their offspring. Thefe conclufions. Sir, dreadful as they are, naturally relult from your fcheme of doctrine. And is this what is obtruded upon us, under the charader of rational religion? Boaft no more, Sir, ofyourfuperiorreafon, till you have reje6ted a fcheme laden with fuch abfurdity. To become Mohammedans at once, would be acting with propriety, for then you woald have a confiftent lyllem, as to the point before us ; but your prefent motley, heterogeneous, per- plexed lyltem, has, it is to be hoped a natural, a neceflary tendency to dilfolution. Remem- ber, however, that thefe things are not to be trifled with. And permit me to llibfcribe m y- felf. Reverend Sir, Your humble Servant, J. MACGOWAN. 252 P. S. I am not at all folicitoiis about the time or manner of your anl'wer, but Ihall con- fider myfelfat liberty torefumemy pen, when any freOi attack is made on the doarine oi Chrift's proper Divinity, becaufe if that falls, my hope muft perilb for ever. N. B. Thole who have time and inclination to confider the other articles treated of in your appeal, will find every one of them equally big with abfurdity. Note, All the quotations from the Koran are from the oaavo edit, printed in I7(i4. The quotations from the Appeal, from edit o, with improvements, 1771, withoutabook feller's name. FINIS. I t- j,^ ^ mim^t It