Itheological seminary,! 
 
 f Princeton, N. J. f 
 
 1) Crf.>y^, Dfvision... 
 
 
 
 N«,.., 
 
 ■| 
 
 ••«« 
 
 
 
 33- 
 Dean 
 
 Priestley, Joseph, 17 
 
 1804. 
 Letters to Dr. Home, 
 
 n-F r;3ntArbi]rv 
 
 
I ' 
 
 ! -y 
 
^ E T T E R % 
 
 TO 
 
 Dr.HORNE,DEAN of CANTERBURY; 
 
 TO THE 
 
 YOUNG MEN, WHO ARE IN A COURSE OF EDUCA#ION 
 
 FOR THE CH-RISTIAN MINISTRY, AT THE 
 
 UNIVERSITIES OF O^FORD-AND CAMBRIDGE; 
 - - X 
 
 T O 
 
 Dr. P R I C E 5 
 
 AND TO 
 
 Mr. PARKHURSTj 
 
 On the Subject of the Person of Christ. 
 
 By JOSEPHi»RIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S. 
 
 AC. IMP. PETROP.R. PARIS. HOLM. TAURIN. AVREL. MED. 
 PARIS. HARLEM. CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAD. SOCIUS. 
 
 Tandem Dudlores, audita csede fuorum, 
 Conveniunt 
 
 ViRGIIi. 
 
 BIRMINGHAM, 
 
 yRlNTEO" FOR THE AUTHOR BY PEARSON AND ROLLASON, 
 
 ANB SOLD BY J. JOHNSON, NO. yZ, ST. PAUl's CHURCH-YARD, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCLXXXVII. 
 
 [PRICE THREE SHILLINGS. J 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 TH E readers of this controverfy con- 
 cerning the per/on of Chriji, will, I 
 doubt not, congratulate themfelves on feeing 
 it in new hands, and in thofe of perfons who 
 promife to condud: it both with better tem- 
 per, and with more knovv^ledge of the fub- 
 jedt, than it was done by Dr. Horfley. 
 
 According to appearance, we muil now 
 defpair of hearing any thing more from the 
 Archdeacon of St. Albans. But this is not 
 to be regretted, while fuch a man as the 
 Dean of Canterbury has announced his en- 
 trance into the fame field of combat, while 
 Mr. Howes (though his motions are more 
 tardy than he gave us reafon to exped: they 
 would be) remains in it ; while Mr. White, 
 the learned profefTor of Arabic at Oxford, dif- 
 covers fo much laudable zeal in the caufe of 
 
 A 2 orthodoxy. 
 
Iv PREFACE. 
 
 orthodoxy ; and while others, of no lefs eru- 
 dition*, I am informed, are preparing to 
 join the corps, now that they fee the danger 
 to be preiling. 
 
 Indeed, in a cafe of fo great emergency, 
 when fo much may be loft, viz. the uninter- 
 rupted polfeffion of ages, and fo much ^o- 
 nour (to fay nothing of emolument) is to be 
 acquired by preferving it, who that has any 
 confidence in his prowefs would not crowd 
 to the flandard, eredled by the Dean of 
 Canterbury, who fo loudly calls upon all 
 the friends of orthodoxy, to contend earnejily 
 for THEIR faith ? Without any difparage- 
 ment to this truly learned and worthy digni- 
 tary, I hope his call will foon be anfwered 
 by numbers, ftill higher in rank, and in 
 fame, than even himfelf. 
 
 To be perfedly ferious ; I muft acknow- 
 ledge that it gives me more pleafure than I 
 
 * In this I alluded more particularly to Mr. Tarkhui'Ji^ 
 whofe work having appeared fince this Preface was writ- 
 ten, I have had an opportunity of replying to it at the clofe 
 of the prefent publication. 
 
 can 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 can exprefs, to fee fuch a profpecS: of this 
 very important queftion, concerning the per^ 
 Jon ofChriftj being thoroughly difcufled, and 
 perhaps finally terminated ; fo that the gene- 
 rality of thofe who give attention t6 thefe 
 fubjed:s, may have reafon to think, that every 
 confideration on which their judgment ought 
 to be formed, will be fairly before them ; 
 that every weak or doubtful argument will 
 appear to be fo, and that nothing will remain 
 in the fcale, but what has unqueftionable 
 weight. 
 
 The learned and fnqui/itive will then no 
 longer halt between two opinions. If Chrifl 
 be truly God, they will receive and honour 
 him as fuch -, but if he be only a man fent 
 by God ; they will honour him as the am- 
 baffador of God, not fo much regarding him- 
 felf, as h'lm that fent him. And whatever 
 fhall be the fettled opinion of the learned^ it ' 
 will, in due time, become that of the un- 
 learned, and of the chriftian world in gene- 
 ral. To be the inftruments in the hands of 
 Divine Providence in bringing about fo great 
 
 A3 an 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 an event, is fo honourable, that I hope it 
 cannot fail to excite the laudable ambition of 
 many. Such an opportunity of diftinguifli- 
 ing themfelves, and of ferving the caufe of 
 truth, may not foon occur again. 
 
 I feel more particular fatisfadlion in that 
 part of this generous conteft which relates 
 to Dr. Price; partly becaufe it is the iirft 
 opportunity that has been afforded me of 
 difcuffmg in this manner the fubjedt of 
 Arianifm j and alfo becaufe it enables me to 
 give another example of the manner in 
 which I moft v^^ifli to condud: a contro- 
 verfy ; to fhew that friends to each other 
 may, at the fame time, be greater friends to 
 truth, and that they can even earneftly con^ 
 tend for this, v^^ithout the leaft hazard of a 
 breach in their friendfliip. 
 
 It is too common for perfons engaged in 
 controverfy to lofe fight of truth, and to 
 contend for vidlory only. And v^^hen that 
 is the obje<5t, thofe paffions which enter into 
 other contefts, which have the fame objed:, 
 
 enter 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 enter into this ; and the effedl is both un- 
 pleafant in itfelf, and in a variety of refpedts, 
 unfavourable to the caufe of truth. But in 
 our former difcuffion of the dodtrines of ma- 
 teria/ijrn, and neceptyy nothing of this kind 
 appeared on either fide, and the door fliall 
 be as religioufly (hut againfl: it in this. 
 
 That difcuffion was brought to its pro- 
 per termination \ each of us having ad- 
 vanced every thing that w^e thought proper 
 in fupport of our refpedive opinions, and 
 then we made a joint pubHcation of the 
 whole. In this cafe, my friend has declared 
 his refolution not to engage in any contro- 
 verfy ; and, as the time is approaching, 
 when I may think proper to make a fimilar 
 refolution, I fliall not urge him on the fub- 
 jed. But I write with his full confent ; and 
 we both of us earneftly wifh that fome other 
 common friend, at leafi: fome other learned 
 Arian, who, like him, fhall be aduated by 
 a pure love of truth, may take his place. 
 Whoever he be, I will engage that he (hall 
 |iave no reafon to complain of me. He 
 
 A 4 fliall 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 fhall have nothing to fear but fair difpaf- 
 fionate argument ^ and if he be worthy to 
 fucceed Dr. Price, it will be a matter of in- 
 difference to him, whether the friendly con- 
 teft end in his favour, or in mine. 
 
 My highly valued friend will himfelf not 
 fail to give due attention to what we write ; 
 and if he fliould fee reafon to change his 
 opinion with refped: to any particular ar- 
 ticle in the difcuflion, I have no doubt but 
 that he will generoufly avow it in the future 
 editions of his Sermons. Should he be in- 
 duced to abandon Arianifm altogether (O 
 that this were not too much to be expected 
 of man) I have as little doubt, that he 
 would take an early opportunity of acknow- 
 ledging it, and with that ingenuous franknefs 
 which marks his charadter. In this cafe, 
 we fhould perhaps alfo have from his hand, 
 a ftriking view of the Socinian, or as he 
 himfelf would then call it, the only proper 
 unitarian dodtrine. There is an energy in 
 what he delivers, as coming diredly from 
 the heart, which few writers have attained. 
 
 3 h 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 It is not mere mental ability that can en- 
 able a man to write like him. It requires 
 perfed: integrity, as well as a found under- 
 ftanding. Better were it to be in any error 
 with fuch a heart, than have the befl head, 
 and hold all truth, without it. 
 
 Writing to the Dean of Canterbury, who 
 is at the head of a college in Oxford, I was 
 infeiifibly led to addrefs myfelf to the youno- 
 men who are in a courfe of education for the 
 chriftian fninijiry at the two univerjities. For 
 this, I hope, to obtain their pardon, if not 
 their thanks. What I have done proceeds 
 from an earneft defirc to awaken their atten- 
 tion to a fubjed: that mod nearly concerns 
 them, and through them the public^ whom 
 they are deflined to ferve. 
 
 To have gone on, as many have done, from 
 generation to generation, fubfcribing what 
 they have not coniidered, and then main- 
 taining it becaufe they have fubfcribed it, 
 and becaufe they would be diftrelTed if they 
 
 iliould 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 fhoald abandon at once the fruits of their 
 fubfcription, can only have arifen from a 
 want of attention to fo ferious a fubjedl. 
 The mofl important and the plainefl: of all 
 truths may not be perceived, till it be dif- 
 tindlly pointed out. But when attention is 
 excited, the ingenuous youth, who would 
 otherwife have gone heedlefsly on, as thou- 
 fands have done before him, will ftart at 
 the apprehenlion of a wrong ftep in his 
 condud:, as at the light of a precipice before 
 him J and then, whatever be the inconve- 
 nience of retreating, he will fee that it muil 
 be better than to proceed. 
 
 May the God of truth open all our minds, 
 and lead us into all truth ; and efpecially may 
 he give us the courage to acknowledge it, 
 when it is difcovered. The confequences 
 of this may, in certain circumftances, be 
 painful, but they are temporary ; whereas 
 the confequence of perfi fling in error, and 
 pf living in the perpetual violation of in- 
 tegrity, v/hile it fills the ingenuous mind 
 
 with 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 with anguifh here, muft be followed by 
 much greater anguifh hereafter. Such con- 
 dudt requires only to be fairly exhibited. 
 It mu'ft at once be. feen to be unworthy of 
 a man, and much more fo of a chriflian, 
 and i chriflian minifter. 
 
 As I wl{h not to trouble my readers with 
 more publications in this controverfy than 
 may be necelTary ; and I exped:, at lead 
 hope, to have many more antagonifls than 
 have yet appeared, I here inform them, 
 that I fhall not make an immediate reply to 
 every particular publication, but (hall gene- 
 rally wait a proper time, in order to take 
 into confideration what may be advanced by 
 feveral of them, as J have done on this oc- 
 cafion. 
 
 It is my earnefl wifh that this important 
 controverfy with trinitarians, and efpecially 
 with Arians, may come to a proper termina- 
 tion. 
 
xli PREFACE. 
 
 tion. Nothing, as I have more than once de« 
 clared, fliall be wanting on my part to bring 
 it to this delirable iffue 3 and I pledge myfelf 
 to the public, not to pafs without notice any 
 objedionto which I may be unable to make 
 a iatisfatflory reply. If it relate to a fub- 
 jedl of much confequence, I fliall not only 
 make a frank acknowledgment of my mif- 
 take, but take the moil early opportunity 
 of doing it ; but if it only affed: an article 
 of fmall confequence, I may content my- 
 felf with correcting my works, if they 
 Ihould ever come to another edition. If 
 any perfon think me fuperior to my adver- 
 faries with refpedl to force of argument 
 (which can only arife from the goodnefs 
 of the caufe which I have efpoufed) I am 
 determined to give them proofs of a ftili 
 greater fuperiority with refpedt to ingenu- 
 oiifiiefs. 
 
 Let it be underftood, however, that this 
 engagement relates only to the hijiory that 
 I have given of the rife and progrefs of the 
 
 trini'. 
 
PREFACE. ,iii 
 
 trinltarlan dodlrlne, of Arianlfm, and of 
 unitarianifm, in the early ages, which is a 
 proper field for the learned in ecdejiajiical 
 htjlory^ and not to that branch of the con- 
 troverfy which has been fo long canvalTed, 
 that very little that is new can be expelled 
 to be advanced on any lide, I mean the doc^ 
 trine of the fcriptures on the fubjetl, any 
 farther than it may be introduced inciden- 
 tally, and in connexion with the hiftorical 
 difcuflion. 
 
 But this hiflorlcal difcufiion, when the 
 nature of it is well conlidered, cannot, as I 
 have frequently obferved, but be thought 
 to decide concerning the whole controverfy. 
 For, if it be true, as I have endeavoured to 
 prove by copious hiftorical evidence, not 
 only that proper unitarians were in commu- 
 nion with the catholic church, and were 
 not clalTed with heretics ; but that the great 
 mafs of unlearned chriftians continued to be 
 limply unitarians till the fecond and third 
 century, it will hardly be doubted but that 
 
 their 
 
xiv PREFACE. 
 
 their inftrudlors, viz. the apoftles, and firfl 
 difciples of Chrift, were unitarians alfo, and 
 therefore that no other interpretation of the 
 fcriptures than that of the unitarians, as op- 
 pofed to that of the trinitarians, or Arians, 
 can be the true one. » 
 
 N. B. I am juil: informed that it was not 
 Mr. Prettyman, but Dr. Prettyman him- 
 fclf, the prefent bifhop of Lincoln, who 
 preached the Sermon mentioned p. 6. I 
 fhould be forry to fix a charge of illiberality 
 on any wrong perfon ; and I fhall now 
 with more confidence exped, from the high 
 rank of his Lordihip, that he will do me 
 the juflice I require. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Letters to the Dean of Canterbury 
 
 Letter I. IntroduBion ; and of the Charge of Ignor- 
 ance or Infincerity in the Defenders of the Doc- 
 trine of the 1'rinity - - - Page i 
 
 Letter II. Of the Argument from /Antiquity, and 
 of' Dr. Horfley's Services with rejpe5t to it 7 
 
 Letter III. Of the Interference of Civil Power in 
 Matters of Religion - -18 
 
 Letter IV. Of fome particular Arguments for the 
 DoSfrine of the 'Trinity - - 25 
 
 Letter V. Mifcellanecus Articles^ andConclufion 36 
 
 Letters 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENT S» 
 
 Letters to the Young Men, who are in a 
 Courfe of Education for the chriftian 
 Miniftry at the Univerfities of Oxford 
 and Cambridge - - 41 
 
 Letter I. Of Suhfcripiion to Articles of Faith 43 
 
 Letter II. Of the Study of the TioSlrine of the 
 Trinity - _ - ^q 
 
 Letter III. Of the Difficulties attending an open 
 Acknowledgment of 'Truth - - 56 
 
 Letter IV. Animadverjions on Dr. Purkis^s Ser- 
 mon - - - - - ^3 
 
 1. Of the Influence ofFhilo/ophy on Religion 64 
 
 2. Of Myjieries in Religion - - 6y 
 
 3. Of Toleration - - - 68 
 
 4. Of perverting the Language of the Scrip- 
 
 tures - - - 70 
 
 5. Of Materialijm and the Do Brine of Phi- 
 lofophical Neceffity - - 71 
 
 Letter V. Of Mr. Jones's Catholic DoBrine of the 
 Trinity - * - 74 
 
 Letters 
 
CONTENTS, xvi; 
 
 LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Kev. Dr. P R I C E. 
 
 Letter I. lntrodu5fory _ - _ g^ 
 
 Letter II. Of the Nature and antecedent Probd- 
 hility of the Arian HypbthefiSy with the Cattfes of 
 Attachment to it - - 94 
 
 Letter lit. Of the Creation of Matter hy the Fa- 
 ther^ and the Formation of it by the Son, and 
 other Confiderations relating to the Idea of a finite 
 and imperfe^ Creator - - 1 04 
 
 Letter IV. Confiderations relating to the Origin 
 and Hijiory of the Arian Dd^rine. Of Chriji not 
 being the Ohje£f of Prayer, and of the Claim of 
 Arians to the Appellation of Unitarians no 
 
 Letter V. Of the Proof from the Scriptures of the 
 Creation of the H^orld by ChriJI ~ 117 
 
 Letter VI. Of the Argument for thi pre-exifient 
 Dignity of Chriji from his working Miracles 124 
 
 Letter VII. Of the Argument for the pre-exiflent 
 Dignity of ChriJI, from his being fuppofed to have 
 raifed himfelf from the Dead, and from his volun- 
 tarily dijmijfmg his Spirit when he died - 128 
 
 b Letter 
 
xviii 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Letter VIII. Of the Argument for the pre-exijient 
 Dignity of Cbrijl, from particular Pajfages of 
 Scripture fuppofed to ajfert, or to imply it 135 
 
 Letter IX. Of the Argument for the fuperior Na- 
 ture of Chrijl from his raiftng the Deadj and judg- 
 ing the World - - 140 
 
 Letter X. Of the Hypothefjs which makes Chriji 
 to be a mere Man, naturally as fallible, and as 
 peccable, as other Men - 148 
 
 Letter XI • Of the Deftgn of Chrijl* s Mijfion 156 
 
 Letter XII. The Conolufton - 163 
 
 A LET T E R to the Rev. Mr. PARK- 
 HURST- - - 175 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 N, B. [h){i<^\^t& from the bottom of the page. 
 
 Page 16. Note, 1. i. for RuftaJ^ read Rafial. 
 — — 24.1. 4. [b) forrt rejptSt, read refpeB. 
 II » 97. 1. 2. for of, read of nil. 
 
 ■ loi. 1. 2. iox do. read no. 
 
 ■■ . ■ 1, 3. {or fa'vourablc, xcaA favourably. 
 
 103. 1. 6; [b)iorif, read of 
 
 • 119. 1. 1 5. for^fi''^, read was, 
 
 T2c. 1, 3. {or in, read is. 
 
 ■ - 142. 1. II. (b) {or both, re^ibut. 
 
 . 158.1.3. (or puipofcs, vtui purpofe: 
 
 > 163 .■ I. 6. [b] for bimjefi read myjelf 
 
 167. 1. 10. [b] for converted, read concreted, 
 
 • 186. 1. 4. {b) dele or Dr, Kennicttt, 
 
 J87. i.a [b] dele fir it. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 htroduBion, and of the Charge of Ignorance or Infin- 
 cerity in the Defenders of the De^rine of the trinity. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 AFTER being engaged In a controverfy re- 
 lating to the do6lrine of the trinity^ with 
 fome very infolent, and, as I think I have fliewn, 
 infufficient antagonifts, I rejoice that \nyou, I have 
 met with one who is truly candid, learned, and in 
 every view refpeftable. You, Sir, are as fenfible 
 as nryfelf of the importance of this difcuffion, and 
 have the fame willi to conduft it in the moll pro- 
 per, that is, in the moft amicable manner, as lovers 
 of truth, and not contenders for victory. " We 
 " muft not," you fay, p. 9, " knowingly engage 
 " in a bad caufe, nor perfevere, if, in the procefs, 
 " we difcover our caufe to be a bad one. No mif- 
 
 B " chief,'* 
 
2 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " chief," p. 15, " will arife from the difcufTion. 
 *^ Truth always has been, and always will be, a 
 *' gainer by it." 
 
 With refpeft to the fubjeft of this controverfy, 
 you very juflly fay, p. 2, " If the doflrine of the 
 " trinity be not true, the chriftian church has been 
 " guilty of idolatry " and though I do not think 
 it is with equal juftice that you add, " from the 
 " very days of the apoftles," it has certainly been 
 the cafe from a very early period. Againfl an ac- 
 cufation of this magnitude, you, v;ho hold the doc- 
 trine, certainly do well to defend yourfelves, and 
 to exert all your powers to repel the attack that is 
 made upon you. 
 
 You agree with me in having no diflike to con- 
 troverfy in general, faying, p. 1 5, " it is a whole- 
 " fom.e exercife for us. It excites attention, and 
 " prevents indifference, the enemy of all others 
 " the moft to be dreaded." In this, however, you 
 differ very widely from Mr. Howes, who, though 
 he voluntarily engages in this difcuffion, is of opi- 
 nion that no good ever arofe from controverfy. 
 
 As you and I, Sir, agree in fo many particulars, 
 I flatter myfelf thar, in due time, we fhall be able 
 to bring this important controverfy to a proper 
 termination, fo that whatever may be the cafe 
 with refpeit to ourfelves, and others engaged in 
 the difcuffion (for whofe prejudices allowance will 
 
 eafily 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 3 
 
 eafily be made) attentive readers will be able to 
 perceive on which fide the truth lies. 
 
 Before I proceed any farther, I willi to fet you 
 right with fefpe^l to a charge againft me, that 
 I am confident is ill-founded, viz. that I confider 
 all the defenders of the doftrine of the trinity as 
 cither ignorant, or infincere, p. 30. I really cannot 
 imagine on what it is that this fuppofition is 
 founded i fmce, in a variety of places in my 
 writings, I have expreifed the greateft refpedl for 
 fome of thole who have defended the doftrines of 
 the church of Rome, as well as thofe of the church 
 of England ; and I have no doubt of their being 
 equal to any unitarians with refpe(ft to ability, 
 learning, or integrity. 
 
 This cliarge, I fuppofe, you have adopted from 
 Dr. Horlley, who advanced it in his Letters to me, 
 p. 172. But you fhould not have repeated it 
 without having read, and noticed, my reply to him 
 on that fubjeft, in my Second Set of Le iters to him^ 
 in which, among other things, I fay, p. 213, "I 
 " do not pretend to recolleiSt all that I have writ- 
 "ten; but I have fuch a confcioufnefs of never 
 *' having meant, or intended to fay, what Dr. 
 " Horlley here charges me with, that I will ven- 
 " ture to affert that he cannot have any more au- 
 *^ thority for thisy than for the privileges granted 
 " to the Jewilh chriflians of Jerufalem on their 
 " abandoning the ceremonies of their old religion. 
 B 2 —I Ihali 
 
4 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " — I lliall therefore confidcr this charge of Dr. 
 " Horfley as a mere calumny ^ till he fnall produce 
 " feme evidence for it. And if, in any of my 
 ** writings, he can find fufHcient authority for his 
 " accufation, I here retraft what I advanced, and 
 *' afk pardon for it." 
 
 As Dr. Horfley did publifh a Reply to my 
 Letters, without producing any proof of his charge, 
 I am at liberty to confider it not only as a calum- 
 ny, but as an acknowledged one, with the aggravation 
 of his not liaving the grace to afk pardon for it, 
 which cei'tainly a regard to truth, and to the public, 
 called for. Since you, Sir, chufe to take up the 
 matter where he left it, I am under a necefTity of 
 calling upon you., to do what he ought to have 
 done, or to acknowledge your inability to do it, 
 and confequently the injuftice of your a^^cufation. 
 I have the fame right to call upon Dr. Parr, who 
 has likewife recorded this accufation in the notes 
 to his Sermon en Education. 
 
 It is true that I do not think qtilte fo highly of 
 Dr. Horfley's literature as you do, but among 
 other defenders of the doftrine of the trinity, I am 
 far from denying him a competent fliare of it : 
 though he has, upon all occafions, exprefled the 
 greateft contempt for mine, belides charging me 
 repeatedly with the mo^ fraudulent praufices in the 
 conduifl of this controverfy. I wiili his ingenuouf-* 
 nefs had been equal to his ability, or his learning. 
 
 As 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 5 
 
 As to your learning, Sir, no perfon who has feen 
 your verfion of the pfalmsy can call it in queftion. 
 and that you are a real believer in the doctrine of 
 the trinity, as laid down in the Athanafian creed, 
 it is impoilible to entertain a doubt, after your very 
 folemn declaration to that purpofe ; when you 
 fay, p. ^, " I decliire before God, in the fincerity 
 ** of my foul, upon the belt judgment I can forin, 
 " I am verily perfuaded it is the doftrine of the 
 " fcripture, and of the primitive church/' 
 
 I am far from being offended at the compli-, 
 ment you pay Dr. Horfley, p. 22, as "evidently 
 " an over-match for me, in point of literature," 
 and do not wonder that you Ihould think, p. 15, 
 that, " the thanks of the church of England ar€ 
 " due 10 him for his feaibnable, learned, and judi- 
 *^ cious writings in her defence ;" and thereforej 
 that you fliould urge him, "to occupy the depart- 
 " ment he is fo thoroughly qualified to fill, and to 
 " go on, by fruftrating the attempts of your adver- 
 " faries, to deprive you of the argument from tra- 
 ** dition." r am only concerned that, in this, you 
 feem to give up that important province to him, 
 when, in my opinion, it would be much better 
 occupied by yourfelf. 
 
 I do not know, however, how it is, but after the 
 great exertions of this boallful champion of yours 
 (whom all your encomiums and encouragement 
 \vill not, I fear, be able to bring into the field 
 
 B 3 again) 
 
6 LEITERSTOTHE 
 
 again) your church feenis more folicltous than ever 
 to procure more help, and from other quarters. 
 Your o\^n Jermon, the objeft of which is to exhort 
 your friends to contend earnejlly for the faith, is a 
 proof of this; and from many other publications, 
 as well as the language that, as I am informed, is 
 frequently held from many pulpits in different parts 
 of the kingdom * ; it fhould feem that, notwith- 
 ftanding all that had been done by Dr. Horfley, 
 the faith of the church, and confequently the church 
 itfelf, is ftill in danger. Is all this " to flay the 
 Jlain .«"* The leaft that can be inferred from your 
 fermon is, that the controverfy is hardly well be- 
 gun, and by no means that it is ended; and from 
 your engaging in it, I flatter myfelf that it will be 
 condufted in a manner infinitely more pleafmg, 
 both to myfelf, and the public, as well as more 
 fatisfaflory with refpeft to the objed of it, than it 
 is probable that it would have been, if it had con^ 
 tinued in the hands of Dr. Horfley. 
 I am, with real eilcem, 
 Rev. Sir, 
 Your very humble Servant, 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 * I have heard that Mr. Prettyman, brother to Dr. Pretty- 
 inan, fecretary to Mr. Pitt, and now bilhop of Lincoln, 
 preached a very viruleni fermon, in which my name was men- 
 i lioned, before the Corporation of Norwich. I hope he is fo 
 much a man of honour, as to publifh the fermon, and thereby 
 give me an opportunity of knowing, /rc;///^/;;^^//, what he really 
 tiiiil'iy of mc, that, if it appear tu me to be neceflary, I jji^^ 
 vindicate myfelf. 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Of the Argument from Anttquityy and of Br. Horflefs 
 Services with Ref-pe^l to it. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 TT i« evident from yoijr exhortations to Dr. 
 -*- Horfley, and the whole tenor of your difcourfe, 
 that, notwithftanding the ftrefs you very juftly 
 lay upon the dodtrine oi th&fcriptures^ you do not 
 undervalue the opinion of the primitive church. 
 You fay, p. 31, "If the doftrine of our Lord's 
 '" divinity be not the do6lrine of the fcriptures, 
 " and of the primitive church" (as if thefe mud 
 have been the fame) " it matters not hozv^ isjheny 
 " or hy vohomy it was afterwards introduced. It 
 *' fhould not have been received, and ought not 
 ■-^^ to be retained." 
 
 If, therefore, it can be proved by independent 
 evidence, that the great body of primitive chrif- 
 tians were unitarians, one of the flrong liolds 5f 
 your faith is removed, and the other mufl be in 
 great danger. For you could hardly have ex- 
 prcfled yourfelf in the manner you have done, 
 in the above quotation, if you had not thought 
 fome regard due to the fenfe in which the primi- 
 B 4 tivc 
 
8 LETTERS TO THK 
 
 tive chriftians underftood thofe books of fcripture, 
 which were writcen more immediately for their 
 life, and in a language with which they were per- 
 fedly acq'jain ed ; regard enough to render us 
 doubtful of the different interpretations which 
 mav be given at fo g- eat a diliance of t.me as the 
 prefeni, and under the Influence of fuch a mafs of 
 prejudices as may be fuppofed to hav been con- 
 trafced in the courfe of feventecn hundred years. 
 
 It cannot be doubted, but that the primitive 
 chdftians really thought that their opinions, what- 
 ever they v/ere, vjerc contained in the fcriptures, 
 as thefe were the ftandard to which they conftantly 
 appealed. Wiien you fay, therefore, of what I 
 have written, as you chufe to exprefs it, p. jj, 
 •^' in four large volumes, concerning the Jews, 
 " and the Gnoftics, and the Ebionites, and the 
 *' Nazarenes ; concerning Plato, and Philo, and 
 " Juftin Martyr, and TertuUian j concerning 
 " philofophers. Fathers, and heretics, many and 
 •' diverfe, but all unitarians * j concerning the 
 " fuppofed caution of the apoftles, and the meta- 
 
 * There is rather too much of rhetoric in this pafTage to be 
 
 4riftly true. 1 am far from fuppofing that Juftin Martyr, 
 'ertullian, and many others of the Fathers, were unitarian«. 
 I have fhewn that they were trinitarians, but not fuch as the 
 Deanof Canterbury would call fo now, as they did aot believe 
 the perfeft equality of al! the three perfons, but uniformly held 
 the inferiority of the Son to the Father, which Dr. Hcrfley 
 muft alfo do, as he maintains, that the Father is thc/ouaiait of 
 ileity, ami has foipe unknown pre-eminence over the Son. 
 
 " phyfical 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 9 
 
 ^' phyfical and injudicious arguments and dif«- 
 '* quifitions of writers, whether ancient or mo- 
 ^' dern, upon any part of the fubjefti that all 
 '^ this, with the goodly edifice raifed on fuch a 
 **' foundation, will fall dire<5Uy to pieces, vanifh 
 *' into air j and, like the bafelefs fabric of a vi- 
 ** fion, leave not a wreck behind j" your con- 
 clufion is rather too hafty. 
 
 If, Sir, what I have advanced in thofe four vo- 
 lumes be juft: if, from the various evidence that 
 I have produced, it be indifputable, as I think it 
 is, that the primitive chriftian church was unita- 
 rian ; if all the explanations aad defences of the 
 'dodtrine of the trinity by thofe who firfc broached 
 it, and by thofe who have fmce maintained it, be 
 abfurd, and no better explanations or defences 
 can be produced, the do6trine itfelf cannot be 
 true; and no criticifm upon any. texts of fcrip.- 
 ture, if they can poflibly bear an unitarian inter- 
 pretation, can prove it to be fo. 
 
 ; iis> you ftrongjy recommend the ftudy of ec- 
 clefiaftical hiftory, and that of the Fathers, I 
 prefume that, though you wifh Dr. Horfley to 
 occupy this department in the prefent difcuffion, 
 ^ou have not neglefted to give due attention to 
 it yourfelf. Indeed, your deciding fo peremp- 
 -torily as you do, on Dr. Horflcy's fuperioritv 
 to me in that refpeft, fhews that you think your- 
 felf qualified to judge between us. Permit uie 
 then to rcqueff, that you would flate a little more 
 
 particularly. 
 
13 LETTERSTOTHE 
 
 particularly, what the ferviccs of Dr. Horfley in 
 this province, which you commend fo much, 
 have really been. For I cannot fuppofe that you 
 would have given fo general and decided a judg- 
 ment on the whole of the argument, without 
 having examined all the particulars, of which 
 that whole confifts. 
 
 As a lover of truth, then, and a candid fcholar, 
 pleafe, whenever you publifh your large work, 
 to anfwer the following queftionsy^n<s:;/;?7. 
 
 1. Has Dr. Horfley proved that thofe who are 
 called Ebionites, or Nazarenes, had no exiftencc 
 in the age of the apoftles, and that the latter 
 had their name from Nazareth, on their retiring 
 to that place after the deftru6lion of Jerufalem 
 by Adrian ? Has he even proved that any of 
 -them were ever fettled there at all ? 
 
 2. Has he proved, as he undertook to do, that 
 the Nazarenes, or Jerom's Hebrews belie^ving in 
 Cbrijly were orthodox with refped: to the do6brine 
 
 of the trinity * ? '• 
 
 3. Has he, after eigliteen months re-confi- 
 deration of the fubjeft, and correfting his former 
 
 * Since I wrote my reply to Dr. Horjley's Remarks, I ob- 
 ferve that Dr. Lardner underftood the pafiage in Jerom ex- 
 aflly as I did, taking it for granted, that by Nazarenes he 
 ineant the fame people whom he called Hebreivs belU'ving in 
 Chrijl, See his Teltimonies, vol. i. p. ig. 
 
 opinion^ 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. n 
 
 opinion, proved (Rennarks, p. 60) that there 
 were, in reality, five lefts of Jewiih chriftians, 
 though Origen and Eufebius exprefsly make 
 them to be no more than twOj fome of them 
 admitting, and others denying, the miraculous 
 conception ; but all of them difbelieving the 
 divinity of Chrift, and adhering to the iaw of 
 Mofes ? If this is to be received as authentic 
 hiftory, let us have, at leaft, the authority of the 
 Dean of Canterbury for it, as well as that of the 
 Archdeacon of St. Albans. 
 
 4. Has he proved that Origen, who exprefsly 
 afferts that no Jewifh chriftians believed the di- 
 vinity of Chrift, was, in that, or in any other re- 
 fpeft, a wilful liar ; and therefore not to be cre- 
 dited in any thing, an article which he has la- 
 boured fo much in his laft publication ? 
 
 5. Has he proved that there was a church of 
 orthodox Jewifh chriftians at Jerufalem after the 
 time of Adrian ?— another article on which he 
 has beftowed much pains in his laft piece. 
 
 6. Has he invalidated any thing that I have 
 advanced to prove that Athanafius, and others 
 of the Fathers, reprefcnted the apoftles as having 
 been obliged to ufe great caution in teaching the 
 doctrine of the divinity of Chrift, and that of the 
 trinity, left it ftiould ftiock the prejudices of the 
 
 firft 
 
12 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 firft converts in favour of the doftrines of the 
 unity of Godj and the humanity of Ciirift ? 
 
 7. Has he proved that the Jews in our Sa- 
 viour's time were believers in the doctrine of the 
 trinity, that they expected the fccond perfon of 
 it in the char.icler of their Mcffiah, and co.nfe- 
 <juently that tlie apoftles confuiered Chrift as 
 God from the time that they confidered him as 
 the Meffiah-?. 
 
 8. Has he proved that the unitarians were 
 jfonfidered^a^h^^tics in early times ? 
 
 * '9. Has he,pi'ov.e4 that prayers for fuccour in ex^ 
 ternal perfecutipn areprpp^^-ly addreffed to Chrift? 
 
 10. Has, he .proved diat by the generation of 
 
 ihe Sotiy all the Fathers mea.it a dijplay of his 
 
 J>GU!ers^ .and not his affuraing a proper perfanality, 
 
 ■from having been a mere attribute of the Father? 
 
 ". 21. Has he proved." that there is no difference 
 between the dO'dtrine of the-peribnification of the 
 logos, and the peculiar opinions of the Arians : 
 than which I have aflerted that no fchemes v.ere 
 ever more directly oppofed to each other? 
 
 12. Has he proved the antiquitvof the do6lrine 
 of the divinity of Chrift from the writings of Bar- 
 "iiabas, and Ignatius ? 
 
 13. Has 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 13 
 
 13. Has he proved the origin of the Sop., 
 the fecond perfon in the trinity, from the Father's 
 contemplating his own perfd61ians? an opinion, 
 I bclicv'^, peculiar to hiinlelf, iinlupported by any 
 authority, ancient or modern. I think 1 per- 
 ceive that, with refpe(ft to this curious particular, 
 he has n-^t given you entire latisfadion ; {ince, 
 with refpe(rt 10 all fchemcs to explain the doctrine 
 of the trinity, you fay, p. 42, " they leave us jutl 
 " where we were, totally in the dark." Indeed, 
 I do not vv'onder that a notion fo fuper-eminently 
 abfurd, fo void of all foundatian in the fcriptures^ 
 in common fenfe, or primitive antiquity, fhouUl 
 not recommend itfelf to thofe who do not with to 
 expofe the doctrine of the trinity, as abfolutely 
 ridiculous. 
 
 Indeed, Sir, to undertake the defence of your 
 applauded champion on thcfe articles (and 1 might 
 have extended the liil: to- many more) is an Her- 
 culean attempt. Greatly moft the execution of 
 it fwell the work you have in hand, andwcll may 
 you crave indulgence, p. 32, as to the article of 
 time. 1 think it muft appear, to all impartial 
 readers, that Dr. HorAey has been completely 
 foiled in his attempts to prove any one of the 
 above-mentioned particulars, and every other 
 that is of any importance to the real merits of 
 the queftion between us. And if this be the 
 -cafe, what fignifics the great fuperiority of his 
 learning. Nay, if all his fuperior ability, and 
 o learning. 
 
14- LETTERS TO THE 
 
 learning, has not enabled him to prove what he 
 fo earneftly contended for, does it not afford an 
 argument, that neither learning, nor ability, can 
 be of any avail in the caufe that he has efpoufed ? 
 
 Utterly unable to make any plaufible defence 
 of himfeif in other articles, after waiting eighteen 
 months, with an air of infolcnce peculiar to him- 
 feif (which you, Sir, tacitly condemn, by recom- 
 mending a mode of conducing controverfy, the 
 very reverfe of his) he challenged me again with 
 refpeft to the veracity of Ong^n, and the exiftence 
 of a church of orthodox Jewifh chriftians at Je- 
 rufalem after the time of Adrian. But in my 
 Reply, which was immediate, I have fhewn that, 
 inftead of relieving himfeif, he has involved him- 
 feif in much greater confufion and difficulty than 
 ever ; having grofsly mifunderllood every one 
 of the five pafTages from the Fathers which hs 
 produced in his defence. In this Reply of mine, 
 which has been publifhed about fix months, I 
 call upon him to defend himfeif, and his argu- 
 ment, in fuch a manner as, I brlieve, there is no 
 example of any perfon being called upon (except 
 Mr. White, of Oxford, by myfelf). In the con- 
 clufion 1 fay, " On this article, at leall, an article 
 " deliberately felcfted by yourfelf, let the con- 
 *' troverfy between us come to a fair iffue. No- 
 " thing has been, or Hiall be, wanting on my part; 
 *' and therefore the public will certainly expedt 
 " your explicit and fpeedy anfwer," 
 
 What, 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 15 
 
 - What, Sir, can you think of a man who can 
 fit down contented without making any reply to 
 fuch a call as this ? Had any perfon called upon 
 me in this manner, he would have had my Reply 
 (either vindicating myfelf, or acknowledging my 
 inability to do it) in a week, or as foon as it had 
 been phylically poffible for it to be dilpatched. 
 
 "When you fpeak of the great lemming of Dr. 
 Horfley, it is to be fuppofed that you fpeak of 
 fo much of it as is hefors the world; and we have 
 not yet feen enough to juftify your very high 
 encomiums. If the world Ihould happen to 
 think lefs highly of it than you do, they may fay 
 that the thanks of the church of England were 
 very lightly bellowed. 
 
 To confine ourfelves to this controverfy (and 
 you do not profefs to look any farther) will you 
 fay that you infer his fuperior learning from his 
 tranllating <3i«7>;; by the Englifh word ideot * ; 
 
 * If any authority could be wanting in fupport of my in- 
 terpretation of the word iJ^te/lt)^, I mighc quote that of the 
 famous Bentley, whofe learning will hardly be called in quef- 
 tion by Dr. Horlley himfelf. In his remarks on a work inti- 
 tied, A Difcourfe on Free-thinkifrg, p. 1 18, he exprefies himfelf in 
 the following manner with refpedl to that very tranllation of this 
 word, which Dr. Horfley adopted, and Mr. Badcock defends. 
 
 " Ab Idiotis E^angelijlis, By idiot e'va7?gelijh, fays our author ; 
 ** who, if he is fincere in this verfion, proves himfelf a very 
 ** idiot in the Greek and Latin acceptation of that word. 
 ** Idiujn?, Idiota ; illiteratus, indoSIus, rudis. See Du Frefne 
 ** in his Gloffaries, who takes notice that idiota for an idiot, or 
 ** natural fool, is peculiar to your Englifli law, for which he 
 
 " cites 
 
i6 LETtERS TO THE 
 
 from his arguing from the pronoun «'?©", as ne- 
 ceiTarily referring to a perfon ; f?om his faying 
 that «« <x7i^'-^ rm w cannot be rendered by nothing 
 hut'y from his taking the part of Mr. Badcock in 
 rendering aw^'^i y^f ««'' «?^of T^-rtov^ others on another 
 plan, or from his conflrudlion of Jerom's quid di- 
 cam ? Thefe are ahnoft all the fpecimens that he 
 has exhibited of his profound acquaintance with 
 the learned languages in the courfe of this contro- 
 vcrfy ; and, in the opinion of many, who are not 
 without pretenfions to fcholarlhip, it will not be to 
 the credit of the Dean of Canterbury to praife any 
 man lb very highly on thefe accounts. 
 
 There are many alfo, who do not think ^o 
 highly as you do of Dr. Horfley's merit with re- 
 fpecfl to the church of England, or the doctrine of 
 the trinity, as one of its articles. And there are, I 
 believe, at this moment, many unitatians, who think 
 themfelves under greater obligations to him, than 
 any trinitarians whatever. For to him has been 
 owing, in a great meafure, the prefent difculTion 
 of the fubjecl, which muft now proceed till the 
 great queftion be decided ; and with refpe<5l to 
 the final ifTue, judging from his acknowledged 
 
 "cites Ruftal. Did Viftor therefore mean iMot e'vangelifls in 
 " your Englifti fenfe ? No, but illiterate, unlearned. What 
 ** then muft wt think of our author for his fcandalous tranf- 
 " lation here. Whether imputation will he chufe to lie un- 
 " der, that he knew the meaning of Victor, or that he knew 
 " it not f" Dt. Horiley muft fuppofe the fame queftion put- 
 to hiaifelf. 
 
 ability 
 
DEAl^ OF CANTERBURY. 17 
 
 dbillty to defend the doftrine of the trinity, as far 
 as it i3 defenfible, they entertain no doubt at all ; 
 being confident that fcriptiire, reafon, and anti-^ 
 quity, will be found equally ia their favour* 
 
 It is the earned willi of all unitarians, and df 
 hone more than myfelf, that your high enconniums 
 may bring your champion into the field again. I 
 have done every thing in my power, and in my 
 way, to fecond your wiihes. But as he took 
 eighteen months to make his iaft reply, he may 
 be like a comet, whofe periodical revolution is 
 that period of time, and if fo, it will be in vain 
 that V. e endeavour to accelerate the courfe of na- 
 ture. 
 
 As you are fo lavifli in your praife of one of 
 your champions, I wonder you fhould overlook 
 the merit of others, fuch as Mr. Burgh, who had, 
 the title of LL.D. conferred upon him at Oxford, 
 for his anfwer to Mr. Lindfey ; Mr. White, who 
 has ftepped into the arena with looks of ftoutcr de- 
 fiance than any of you, though his deeds do not 
 f^em to correfpond to them ; and Mr. Howes, 
 who has undertaken the moft difficult department 
 in the whole difcuflion, viz. to prove that the Jews 
 were always trinitarians (which is the counterpart 
 of Moliere's Medecin malgre lui) and that there 
 were no unitarians at all till about the council 
 of Nice* Time will fliew how ingenioufly he will 
 maintain fuch paradoxes as thefe. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 C LETTER 
 
i8. LETTERS TO THE 
 
 LETTER ilL 
 
 Of the Interference of Civil Tower in Matters of 
 
 Religion, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 T^ HERE is one article of confiderable import- 
 a-nce on which you have touched in thefe Ser- 
 mons of yourSj with refpeft to which you feem to 
 be under a miflake yourfelf, and will probably 
 miflead others. I wilh, therefore, to fet you right 
 before the publication of your larger work. 
 
 You more than hint, that the confequence of 
 the general prevalence of unitarianifm, will be the 
 exclufion of trinitarians from the church. You 
 even fuggefl, that it is our wifli, and intention, to 
 apply external force, in order to bring this about, 
 whenever we fhall think the times fufficiently ripe 
 for fuch a meafure. " A zealous anti-trinitarian," 
 you fay, p. lo, "may fancy that thofe idolatrous 
 ** churches and kingdoms require to be quickened 
 " in their progrefs towards deftruftion. He may 
 ** conceive himfelf to be in duty bound to become 
 ** an inftrument in executing the vengeance of 
 ** heaven upon them, for refufing to admit an Arian 
 
 "or 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 19 
 
 ^^ or Socinian reformation^ tendered in a milder 
 ^' way." 
 
 With refpe6t to this infinuation, I can only fay, 
 that nothing has yet been advanced by any^ unita- 
 rian that can give the leaft colour to it. It is not 
 confiftent with your ufual candour, ancf what no 
 appearances v/hatever have made at all probable. 
 Indeed, Sir, we fee no occafion to have recourfe to 
 an arm offlejh, in this conteft. We have a ce' tain 
 profpeft of viftory by the mere force of argument, 
 and without any rifle v/ha^ever. I can appeal to 
 the uniform tenor of all my writings, and efpe- 
 cially my Addrefs to Protejiant Bijfenters as fuchy 
 if I have not always inculcated the m.oll peaceable 
 methods of promoting reformation, and have not 
 even gone farther to recommend the patient fuf- 
 fering of wrong than moil oiher writers. 
 
 I muft produce another paflage from your Ser- 
 mons, relating to the intolerance of unitarians. 
 " Let us only fuppofe," you fay, p. 4, "■ that the di- 
 " redlion of ecclefiaftical matters in this kingdom, 
 *' fliould pafs into the hands of thofe perfons who 
 " regard the dodrine of the trinity as involving in 
 *' it an abfurdity equal to that of tianfubilantiation, 
 " and as being tlie grand obftacle t) the conver- 
 *^ fion of Jews, Mahometans, and Deifts j who 
 " deem the worfliip of Chrift to be grofs idolatry, 
 *^ and high treafon againft the majcily of the one 
 C 2 " fupreme 
 
20 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " fupreme God ; muft not the new unitarian 
 " church, with its confelTion and fervices, be fo 
 " conftituted, as utterly, and for ever, to exclude 
 *« us from becoming mcmbtrs of it ? Mofl un- 
 " doubtedly, and of necelfity it muil. An unita- 
 " rian people, we are told, will net long be fatif- 
 ** fied with a trinitarian eftablifhment. Indeed 
 " I fuppofe they will not. They will endeavour 
 *' to overturn it, and it is our bufinefs to prevent 
 *' them from fo doing." 
 
 Now, Sir, had you given more attention to the 
 nature of the cafe, you could never have appre- 
 hended any danger to yourfelf, or to any trinitarians, 
 from an unitarian liturgy, becaufe it would con- 
 tain nothing ofFenfive to you, nothing in which you 
 could not heartily join : whereas, we are abfolutely 
 excluded from joining in your worfhip, by your tri- 
 nitarian forms. While you acknowledge one God 
 (which you always profefs to do) you may furely 
 addrefs your prayers to thit one God, calling him, 
 as you are authorized to do in the fcriptures, ibe 
 maker of heaven and earthy the God and Father of 
 our Lord Jefus Chrifiy the one true God, as our Sa- 
 viour calls him, the great being v/hofent hiwy who 
 rnijtd him from the dead, and who gave him glory. 
 For it is to this God that all unitarians pray -, and 
 to a being of this defcription you trinitarians may 
 alfo pray, fo long as you can accommodate to your 
 notions this fcripture language, and fuppofe Jefus 
 
 Chrift 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. ai 
 
 Chrlft himfelf, and the Holy Spirit, to be in any 
 manner included in this definition, or defcription, 
 of the one true God. This is a mental procefs of 
 your own, with which yourfelves only are con- 
 cerned, and in which we have nothing to do. If 
 you can, by any means, accommodate fuch Ian-, 
 guage as that above mentioned to your peculiar 
 fentiments, in reading the fcripturcs, in which it 
 perpetually occurs, you may do the fame in our 
 forms of worlhip. 
 
 We can now join in ufing the Lord^s prayer, 
 and in almoll all the fervice of the church of Eng- 
 land, except the litany ; fo that there is very little 
 that is ofFenfive to an unitarian in the whole of 
 your afternoon fervice. Remove, therefcwe, only 
 your fubfcriptions to articles of faith, and reform 
 your morning fervice after the model of that in 
 the afternoon, and I believe you will remove the 
 greateft of our objeftions. We are not, I affure 
 you, fo fond of fchijin as to Hand out for trifles ; 
 but do not compel, or tempt us, to pay fupreme 
 worfhip to a fellow creature, to a man like our- 
 felves ; who, though highly honoured by God for 
 his virtue and obedience, was fo far from confider- 
 ing himfelf as God, that, with the moft genuine 
 humility, he always afcribed every thing that he 
 faid, or did, to his father that fent him, and wor- 
 lliipped him with the fame deep reverence that he 
 inculcated iipo|i all his followers. 
 
 ?3 If. 
 
12 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 If, Sir, you would, without prejudice, look into 
 ik/r, ! i'dfey's nforn.ed liiurgy, you would foon be 
 fatisfied, that there is nothing in it but what you 
 yourfelf could join in, with nauch devoticn and ad- 
 vaf-'.age. Read, ifyoupleafe, vny own Forms of 
 devotion /^^ unit an an Jocieties, and 1 am confi- 
 dent you w 11 find nothing in them offenfive to 
 yourfelf, except the pra^ er for Eafter Sunday •, and 
 to accommodate you, and other trinitarians, I 
 fh 11 have no obje6tion to the omiffion of it. I 
 will go much firther thzn you are difpofed to do, 
 for the fake of a peaceable accommodation. 
 
 But I do not expefl, or hope for, any thing of 
 an intermediate kind. Your fyftem is fo com- 
 plex, and inv^ Ivfs fuch an unnatural connexion of 
 things ecclefiaftical with things civil, that though 
 you might know ^yhere to begin a reformation, 
 you will n-ver b. able to agree am.ong yourfelves 
 where to Hop. It muft, therefore, be done in a 
 manner in which the leading perfons in the church 
 gnd ftj-te will not be the prmary agents. When 
 this will be effefted, or by whom, I do not pretend 
 to form any conjefture. This is not my bufinefs, 
 but a much eafiej- and plainer t:;ll^, viz. to invefti- 
 gate, and to propagate that truth, which in God^s 
 ov.ii V. ay, and his own time, cannot fail to bring 
 about Mi that I willi j when a pure miitarian iiorjhip 
 will be umverfally adopted, and with un'.verfai 
 conftnt. In the mean time, do not you, and your 
 brethren, fear where no fear is, or alarm others 
 
 with 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 23 
 
 with apprehenfions of our intolerance, which if 
 you ferioufly refled:, you cannot really entertain 
 yourfelves. 
 
 I the lefs wonder at your not readily fuppofing 
 that we would content ourfelves with the mere 
 force of truth, when I fee that, notwithftanding 
 your profefTion of univerfal toleration, you cannot 
 help intimating, that you think there is feme rea- 
 fon for that alliance of church and fiat e^ of which, 
 as chriftians, you ought to be alhamed. In thefe 
 very Sermons you more than infinuate the propriety ^ 
 if not the policy j of penal laws in matters of reli- 
 gion J when you fay concerning the dodrine of the 
 trinity, p. 47, that " it requires, and demands, the 
 ** fupport of every ftate wilhing to enjoy the fa- 
 " vour and protection of that God, who for gr»- 
 *^ cious purpofes has revealed it." For how is a 
 ftate, as fuch, to fupport any particular doctrine, 
 but by civil rewards and punilhments ? The civil 
 power has no other method of fupporting any 
 thing. Thefe are its proper arms, which alone it 
 can employ to effedt all its purpofes. The doc- 
 trine of tranfubftantiation is fupported in the fame 
 manner. Like the dodrine of the trinity, it re- 
 quires and demands fuch fupport. Happily, uni- 
 tarianifm neither requires, nor demands it, any 
 more than chriftianity itfelf did for the fpace of 
 three hundred years. Nay, they both are able to 
 make their way in fpite of all the oppofiuon that 
 
 c 4 yo"*" 
 
24 tETTERSTOTHE 
 
 your prcfcnt fupporters and protedlcrs, the powers 
 of this world, can give to them. 
 
 I fhoiild think, Sir, that a man of your good 
 ferife, could not but fee, that any mode of religion 
 is in a vtry unnatural and aukward predicament, 
 which requireSy and demands any civil fupporty be- 
 caufe it throws itfelf under the proteftion, and ij 
 of courfe at the mercy, of a power which may 
 equally promote truth or falfehood, chriftianity^ 
 ftiahometanifm, or paganifm. For if the civil 
 power, as fuch, has a right to eftablifh any one 
 mode of religion, it muft have the fame right ro 
 eftablifh any other. If this great bufinefs be left 
 to the difcretion of our civil governors, it muft 
 alfo be left to their indifcietion. And what judges 
 can you fuppofe fuch perfons as conftitute our two 
 houfes of parliapnent to be of thefe matters ? Yet 
 I am willing to think they may be as able theolo- 
 gians as thofe who have the ordering of thefe 
 diings in other countries. 
 
 f Would you truft the micmbers of our parlia- 
 ir.ent with the choice of your phyfician, cr allow 
 them to prefcribe the mode of treatment of you, 
 if your lifV was in danger; or wculd you think of 
 appealing to them with a refpe6l to the truth of a 
 theory in philofophy ; and yet I think them as 
 likely to decide juftly in a cafe of mediciney or phi- 
 lojophy, as with refped to rdigion. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. aj 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Offome particular Arguments for the Do^irine of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 Rev. Siu, 
 
 I' Wifn not to enter into the difcuffion of anvpar- 
 -*• ticular arguments for the doctrine of the tri- 
 nity at this time, referving myfelf till the publica- 
 tion of your lar^e work ; and for the execution 
 of this I am willing to give you as much time as 
 you requefb, p. 32, fince you fay you wifh (and in 
 this I fincerely join you) "to execute the work 
 " with care and atrendon j" as we fhall then, I 
 doubt not, fee all that can be urged in fupport of 
 your opinions. But tliere are a few things that 
 it may not be irfip roper to apprize you of before 
 hand j and you may take, or negled, t;:e hints I 
 jfhall give, as you fhall fee reafon. 
 
 You fay, Note, p. 42, " A**, difputation con- 
 ** cerningrhe manner of the diftindlion, the man- 
 " nerof the union, the manner of the generation, 
 *^ and xhf manner of the procefFion, is needlels 
 *' and fruitlefs. Needlefs, becaufe, if we have 
 '' divine authority for the/^^?, it fuffice:h. That 
 " is all we are concerned to know. Fruitlefs, 
 *^ becaufe it is a difputation without ideas. Af- 
 
 " tcr 
 
56 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 ^' ter a long, tedious, intricate, and perplexed 
 '* controvcriy, we find ourfelves— juft where we 
 "were — totally in the dark. Such has been the 
 *' cafe refpeding this, and other queftions. God 
 *< is pleafed to reveal the fad, man infills upon 
 " apprehending the mode. In his prefent flate 
 " he cannot apprehend it. He therefore denies 
 *' the fa6t, and commences unbeliever." 
 
 Now, Sir, you mud know, that all this that 
 you fay refpedting the do6lrine of the trinity is 
 continually faid by the catholics, in defence of 
 the dodlrine of tranfubftantiation. As a pro- 
 teftant, you yourfelf muft allege, that every real 
 faEi has fome mode^ or manner^ of being what it 
 is, and every true propofition muft be underftood 
 in fome fenfe or other; and therefore, that if 
 every conceivable mode, or ' manner of a fail, 
 imply an impoflibility, and every fenfe of a pro- 
 pofition imply an abfurdiry, the doftrine itfelf is 
 untrue, and therefore that it cannot be taught 
 in the fcriptures, if they teach nothing but truth. 
 You, confequently, explain thofe paffages of 
 fcripture which are urged in fupport of the doc- 
 trine of tranfubftantiation, in a manner different 
 from the catholics, who hold that doftrine j and 
 if the literal fenfe will not anfwer your purpofe, 
 you very properly, and fenfibly, have recourfe to 
 a figurative one, which is all that, we are charged 
 with doing, with refped to the dodlrine of the 
 trinity. 
 
 We 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 27 
 
 We fay that every poflible definition of that 
 doftrine implies an abfurdityj and that the fa^ 
 of the trinity in unity mull ^xift in fome manner 
 or other, but that every conceivable mode or 
 manner implies an impoflibility, and therefore the 
 exiftence of the thing itfelf muft be impoffiblc 
 alfo ; and confcquently, that if it was neceffary 
 to interpret a few texts which you think teach 
 that do6trine in the fame, or a fimilar manner, 
 to that which you ufe with refpeft to thofe that 
 are fuppofed to teach the dodrine of tranfub- 
 ftantiation, we fhould be authorized to do it. 
 
 We do not wonder that fenfible trinitarians arc 
 averfe to all difcufiion of the mode of fubfiftencc 
 of three perfons in one undivided ejfence j becaufe 
 they have found that every attempt to define this 
 fubjedt has only tended to expofe it to ridicule. 
 But notwithftanding this, no trinitarian who ima- 
 gines that he can explain this myflcrious do6trine, 
 ever fails to propofe his explanation, knowino- 
 the great advantage it would be to his argument, 
 if he could hit upon any thing of this kind that 
 would be unexceptionable. Witnefs the incre- 
 dible number of illuftrations of this do6lrine 
 among the ancients, and alfo among the moderns, 
 and efpecially the laft moft curious one of Dr. 
 Horfley. 'Thcugh lajl not leajl. Nay, in boldnefs of 
 thought, he has gone beyond any of his prede- 
 cefibrs, maintaining that the produ(Stion of the 
 Soui was the neceflary confequence of the Fa- 
 ther's 
 
28 LETTERSTOTHE 
 
 ther*s contemplating his own perfedions. Atha- 
 nafius himfelf would have ftood amazed at the 
 fublimity of the idea. Could you yourfelf, Sir, 
 imagine that you had hit upon any new and 
 happy mode of illuftrating this do6trine, you 
 would, I doubt not, think it no inconfiderable 
 advantage to your argument. And who can tell 
 what may be the refult of the clofe attention that 
 you propofe to give to your great work, in all the 
 time that you may think proper to bellow upon 
 It, 
 
 You f^y, p. 37, that " the authority of all the 
 *' three perfons is the fame, their power equal, 
 *' their perfons undivided, and their glory one." 
 But if you do not ufe words without ideas, and 
 which convey no more meaning than Datiji, 
 Bocardo, Ferijon, in logic, you muft have fome 
 notion in your own mind in whaxfenfe the pro- 
 pofition to which you give your affent may be true. 
 For otherwife you muft think that it may be falfe, 
 fo that difquifitions concerning the mode, or man- 
 ner^ which you reprobate fo ftrongly, are abfor 
 lutely unavoidable for the fatisfaftion pf your 
 own mind. 
 
 All particular propofitions are reducible to ab- 
 ftraft ones, and thofe abftraft ones are predicablc 
 of other particulars. Now if it be true that three 
 divine ferjons may make only one God, it muft be 
 true in general, that three may be one, and alfo 
 
 in 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 39 
 
 irt the fame fenfei if each of the divine perfons 
 want nothing to make them perfe^ God, But is 
 this abftrad propofition true of any thing elle ? 
 
 This reafoning all proteftants urge againfl the 
 doftrine of tranfubftantiation. For if it be true, 
 that the facramencal bread may take the fubftance 
 o^flejh, and yet retain every property of bread, 
 the fubftance of other things may alfo be changed, 
 while the properties remain unchanged. But if 
 no fuch change can be made to appear probable, 
 in any other inftance, you juftly rejedt the fuppo- 
 fition univerfally. In the fame manner, I will 
 undertake to fhew that, on whatever principles 
 you can defend the doctrine of the trinity, I can, 
 mutatis mutandis^ defend that of tranfubftantiation. 
 Take your own choice of arguments from reafon, 
 or from the fcriptures. 
 
 With refpe6l to ftiveral of your arguments from 
 the fcriptures (on which, as you reieft aP* argu- 
 ments from reafon^ you juftly lay fo much ftrefs) 
 inftead of giving us the plain words of fcripture, 
 you give your own arbitrary conftru6tion of it. 
 
 By " being baptized into the name of God," 
 you fay, p. 34, " can be meant no lefs than en- 
 ** tering into a covenant with a perfon as God, 
 " profefTing faith in him as fdch, enlifting one's 
 " felf into his fervice, and vowing all obedience 
 " and fubmifiion to hini. Such is the natural, 
 
 " the 
 
30 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 ^ the obv'ous import of this rite^ bv which WC 
 ' are admitted into the church of Chrift, this 
 
 * foiemn form of baptizing in the name of the 
 ' Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy GhoO:, 
 
 * that is, into the faith, fervice, and worfhip of 
 
 * the Holy Trinity. For let us reflect a little. 
 ' The nations w-re to be baptized in the name 
 ' of three perfons, in the fame manner, and there -• 
 ^ fore fureiy in tlic fame fenfe, as in tlie name of 
 ' one. Whatever honour, reverence, or regard, 
 ' is paid to die Father in this foiemn rite, the 
 ' f ime we cannot but fuppofe paid to all three. 
 ^ Is he acknowledged as the objeft of worfhip, 
 ' fo are the other two perfons likewife. Is he 
 ' the God and Lord over us, fo are they. Are 
 
 * we his fervants, fubjefls, and foldiers, enrolled 
 ' under him, fo are we equally under all, ^c^c." 
 
 You alfo fay, Note, p. 3, that '- baptizing in the 
 ' name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 ' Ghofl, is declaring the facred three to be one 
 ^ God, and that no man who had been baptized 
 
 * according to this form, could be ignorant of 
 ' the doctrine." 
 
 Now all this, as I have faid, is not Jcripture, 
 but your own arbitrary conjirudion of fcripture. 
 Where do you find it laid down as a maxim, that 
 baptizing into the name of any perfon is acknow- 
 ledging that perfon for God ? And how does 
 haftizmg in the name of three perfons imply their 
 equality, any more than doing any thing elfe that 
 
 refpedts 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 31 
 
 refpedis them all ? May not three perfons, of 
 very different ranks, be with propriety named 
 together ? Do we not read, i Chron. xxix. 10. 
 that " the people of Ifrael bowed down their heads, 
 *' eind worjhipped the Lord and the king^'* By an 
 argument therefore exadly, and in all its forms, 
 fimilar to yours, it may be proved that God and 
 the king^ being equally obje<5ls of worlhip, muft 
 be equal. Was not the a5fion of bowing down, 
 and the W7<?;?;z^r of performing it, the fame refpecft- 
 ing both ? Muft it not, then, have been done in 
 the fame Jenje ? 
 
 That the phrafe being baptized unto a per/on, or 
 in the name of a perfon, which muft be the fame 
 thing, does not imply that the perfon in whofe 
 name the baptifm is made is God, may be clearly 
 inferred from Paul's faying, 1 Cor. x. 2. that the 
 Ifraelites were baptized unto Mojes (not by Mofes) 
 in the cloud and in the fea. He meant into the 
 religion that was publilhed by Mofes, Confe- 
 quentiy, being baptized unto Chrijl, or in the name 
 of Chrifit only means into the profeffion of the 
 religion which was publifhed by Chrift. This 
 muft be our inference, if it be allowed that the 
 fcriptures are their own beft interpreters, the fame 
 phrafes being generally ufed in the fame fcnfe. 
 The holy Jpirit is ufed becaufe, according to the 
 phrafeology of fcripture, the gofpel was con- 
 firmed, or proved to be of God, by the gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Had 
 
32 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 Had there been fo much folemn and myflerimj^ 
 meaning implied in the phrafe oi baptizing in the 
 name oj the Father ^ SoUf and Spirit^ as you ruppofe; 
 had it been intended as a Handing alTertion of 
 the do(5trine of a trinity in the divine nature, it 
 might have been expelled, both that there would 
 have been fome exprefs deilaration that this w^s 
 the intent of it, and alio that thefe wordy fliould 
 always have been uied when the office was per* 
 formed. But no fuch declaraiif^n of the mican- 
 jng of the phrafe is to be found in the fcriprures j 
 and it is reinarkable, that all the baptjfais we 
 read of in the New Teframent, are baptifms /« 
 the name of Chrifi only. Muft we lay that this v/as 
 another infl.mce of the caution with which th<s 
 epoftles taught the doctrine of the trinity ? 
 
 You fiy, p. 2, " that the Fafher, Son, and 
 " Holy Spirit, are three perfons in one God, is a 
 " truth propofed to us as the ground of ourhope^ 
 ** our comfurtj and our joy j as the principle on 
 *' which the conducl of life is to be framed, ac- 
 ** cepced, and rewarded/' But furelv,- Sir, tliefe 
 affertions are moft cxtravaganr, and unautho- 
 rized. Admitting this doctiine of the trinity to 
 be true, where do you find one text in which it ii 
 propofed to us in any of thcfe lights, as the ground 
 of our hope, our comfort, or our joy; as the 
 principle on which our conduct is to be framed^ 
 accepted, and rewarded ? 
 
 Indeed, 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 33 
 
 Indeed, I do not think it poffible to conceive 
 how fuch a do6lj ine as this can anfwer any of thofe 
 purpofes. What ideas you annex to the terms 
 framing one's conduSl upon the do^rine of the trinity ^ 
 I cannot imagine. How the doctrine of a future 
 life, or that of the divine placability, are principles 
 on which the condudl of life is to be formed, I 
 clearly underftand ; becaufe the belief of them is 
 of great ufe as a motive to good condiift. But 
 how to make any fuch practical ufe of the doc- 
 trine of the trinity^ I no more perceive, than I do 
 that its fifter doftrine of tranfubftantiation Ihould 
 be a practical one. 
 
 You fay, p. 43, " Upon the very beft authority 
 *' we are informed that Chrill was the lamb flain 
 ^^ from the foundation of the worlds that is (for it 
 *' cannot be otherwife underflood ?) flain in efFecft, 
 ^■^ in the divine purpofe, and counfel. It is like- 
 " wife faid, that grace was given us in Chrift Jefus 
 before the world began. The words intimate that 
 *^ previous to the creation of the world, fomething 
 " had pafTed in our favour above, that the plan of 
 '^ our future redemption was then laid, that fome 
 ^^ agreement, fome covenant rclativeto it, had been 
 *' entered into. Grace was given us not in our pro- 
 '* per perfons -, for as yet we were not, we had no 
 '^ being ; but in the perfon of him who was after- 
 *' wards to become our reprefentative, our Sa- 
 " viour— in Chrift Jefus. Now the plan muft 
 " have been laid, the covenant entered into, by the 
 
 D *' parties 
 
U LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " parties who have fince been gracioufly pleafed 
 " to concern themfelves in its execution. Who 
 " thcfe are, wc cannot be ignorant. It was the 
 " Son of God, who took our nature upon him, 
 *■' and in that nature made a full and fufhcient 
 " oblation, fatisfaftion, and atonement, for the 
 " fins of the world. It was the Father who ac- 
 *^ cepted fuch oblation, fatisfaftion and atone- 
 " ment. It was the Holy Spirit who came forth 
 " from the Father and the Son, through the 
 " preaching of the word, and the adminiftration 
 ** of the facraments, by his enlightening, healing, 
 " and comforting grace, to apply to the hearts of 
 " men, for all the purpofes of pardon, fanftifica- 
 ** tion, and falvatton, the merits and benefits of 
 *' that oblation, fatisfa6tion, and atonement," 
 
 This is amoft remarkable example of drawing 
 many and great conclufions from fmall premifes, 
 indeed, from no premifes at all. By grace given us 
 in Chriji J ejus before the world began^ can be under- 
 ftood nothing more, according to your own mode 
 of interpretation, than that it was in the original 
 counfel of God, that we Ihould be favoured with 
 the bleffings of the gofpel ; which no more implies 
 that Chriji pre-exifted, than that we ourfelves did. 
 Befides, no mention is here made of the Holy Spi- 
 rit, and ftill lefs of any covenant being made be- 
 tween the three, of the Son propofing, the Father 
 accepting, and the Spirit applying. This is not 
 inierp-eii?}g,hut abfolutely w/^^;;7^fcripture. Where 
 
 do 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 35 
 
 do you read of any fuch covenant as this but in 
 Milton's Paradife Loll ? 
 
 Really^ Sir^ the fcriptures, in the plaineft of 
 all language, teach a dodrine the very reverfe 
 of what you here lay down, viz. that God, even 
 the Father, feeing the deplorable condition of 
 mankind, of his own motion, fent firft the pro- 
 phets, and then that prophet mighty in word and 
 deed (Luke xxiv. 19) his own fon, to fave them j 
 and confirmed his miflion by thofe miracles which 
 are called the gifts ofhisfpirit, or the fame divine 
 pov/er that appeared in Ghrift, who fays that the 
 •words which hejpake were not his own, and that the 
 Father within him did the works. Reconcile this 
 language with your dodrine of the perfe(5t equa- 
 lity of the Son to the Father, if you can. 
 
 1 could, in like manner, eafily go over yoiJr 
 other arguments from fcripture, and fliew that all 
 the foundations of this great article of your faith 
 are equally weak. They are indeed, moft ap- 
 parently fo. You cannot wonder then, that uni^ 
 tarians Ihould write with confidence, when they 
 have nothing but fuch arguments to anfwer, 
 
 I am, &c, • 
 
 Pa LETTEH 
 
36 LETTERS TOTHE 
 
 A 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Mifcellaneous Articles ^ and Conclufwn. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 LL the friends of ecclefiaftical eftablilliments 
 infift upon the right of the civil magiftrate 
 to ufe his own beft judgment, in chufing the reli- 
 gion that fhall be fupported at the expence of the 
 ftate, efpecially if the majority of the people 
 fhould be of the fame opinion with him. In 
 Ireland, no regard is paid to this latter circum- 
 ftance. For there the members of the eftabliflied 
 church, which takes the tythes of the whole king- 
 dom, are, I believe, computed at little more than 
 one tenth of the people. This, in my opinion, 
 is the moft bare-faced tyranny. You, however, 
 have mentioned one circumftance, which may 
 ferve to (hew how little ftrefs you can fometimes 
 lay on the fentiments either of the civil governors, 
 or the majority of the people. For you fay, p. 
 14, " Athanafius once ftood fingle againfl the 
 " world, and prevailed." His opinion, there- 
 fore, was not, by your own confcfiion, either that 
 of the generality of the people, or that of the go- 
 verning powers. You therefore mull think that, 
 
 a very 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 37 
 
 a very fmall minority may be in the right, and 
 finally prevail againft numbers and power com- 
 bined. In the time of Conftantius, you muft ac- 
 knewledge that Arianifm, orunitarianifm, was the 
 general opinion. And by what means was it that 
 Athanafianifm became prevalent ? Can you re- 
 flect upon the hiflory of thofe times, and think 
 that it would ever have become fo, if it had not 
 been for the fupport it afterwards had from the 
 governing powers ? It has the fame fupport at 
 this day. But even this will not be able to pre- 
 ferve it much longer. You fee how it lofes 
 ground in America, fince it has loft the counte- 
 nance of government there. 
 
 2. You fay, p. 40, Note, " I do not fee my Sa- 
 " viour only in a few detached pafTages of either 
 " Teftament. I fee him conducting the oeco- 
 " nomy of the divine difpenfations through both, 
 " from the creation to the confummation of all 
 " things, as the mn^ "im, the rvirv I.^Vd, the ^07(^- ts 
 " &E8. Dr. Allix, and Mr. Taylor have both de- 
 " monftrated this point. It isonly to be wifhed the 
 " latter had drawn the concluPiOn drawn by the 
 ** former — the juft and proper con clufion— that 
 " the perfon fpoken of muft indeed be very 
 " God." 
 
 Upon this fubjefb. Sir, I would earneftly recom- 
 mend to you, what I dare fay^ you have never yet 
 
 D 3 perufed. 
 
3S LETTERS TO THE 
 
 penifed, viz. the account which the learned Bafnag* 
 (in his truly excellent Hiftory of the Jews) has 
 given of their fentiments with refpe(fl to the Mef- 
 Bah, and ^Ar. L.ndfey's reply to Mr. Taylor, in 
 the Sequel to his Apology. This, I think, it is 
 barely poflible to read, without being convinced 
 that there is no weight whatever in any thing that 
 is alleged by Mr. Taylor. You confider it as the 
 cleareft of all truths, that Chrift was the perfon by 
 whom God fpake to Mofes and the prophets. But 
 indeed, Sir, this notion is direftly contrary to what 
 is afferted in the firft verfe of the epiftle to the 
 Hebrews, in which we read, God who at Jundry 
 times and in divers manners^ fpake in time pafl unto 
 the Fathers by the prophets, hath in thefe loft days^ 
 fpoken unto us by his Jon. What can be more evi- 
 dent from this, than that God fpake to mankind 
 by his fon only in the lajl days^ or the times of 
 the gofpel, and not in any former period of time ? 
 Yet you fay that Sorinians put forced and unna- 
 tural conftruclions on the language of fcripture. 
 
 J heartily join with you, Sir, in your exhor- 
 tation to excite the zeal of the learned mem- 
 bers of your church, in the defence of its pe- 
 culi^" doctrines, and alfo to intereit the com-> 
 '.non people in this controverfy. With refpefb to 
 every argument of importance, thefe are as cap- 
 able of judging as we can pretend to be. Let 
 the twenty thoufand copies of the pamphlet re- 
 commended 
 
DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 39 
 
 commended by you, p. 20, be immediately printed 
 and difperfed. I fearnot the confequence. It was, 
 I find, one of the many pieces that were written 
 to counteraft the effe6l of one of my own, entitled, 
 Jn Appeal to the fericus Profejfors of Chriftianiiy, 
 many of which have been difperfed, and with 
 a fuccefs far exceeding my expe6tations from it. 
 A like advantage to what I think to be the 
 caufe of truth, has refulted from the publication 
 of another fmall piece, entitled, A general View of 
 the Arguments for the Unity of Gody and againft the 
 Divinity or Pre-exiftence of Cbrifty from Reafon,. 
 from the Scriptures j and from Hiftory. 
 
 My principal expeftations, however, are from 
 the ingtnwoMS youth y whofe prejudices are not fo 
 rivetted as thofe of perfons more advanced in 
 life J and for this reafon I (hall take the liberty 
 to addrefs a few letters to thofe young men in the 
 two univerfities, who are intended for the fervice 
 of the church. They will, of courfe, read your 
 publications, and I hope they will do me, or 
 rather themfelvcs, and the Caufe of truth, the 
 juftice to read both fides. 
 
 You are pleafed to fay of my conduct, in one 
 f refped, p. 12, " It is fair, it is manly, it is noble, 
 ^' it is kind." Be aflured. Sir, you fhall never 
 find it otherwife. And be this controverfy of 
 longer or fliorter continuance, I fliall be mindful 
 of the advice you give to your friends, p. 9, " that 
 
 D 4 " it 
 
40 LETTERS, &c. 
 
 " it be conduced in an honourable way, accord- 
 "ing to the laws of war." In this refpeft, I have 
 uniformly obferved one rule, which you, Sir, as 
 well as moft of my antagonifts, have negledled ; 
 which is to fend a copy of my trafls to every per- 
 fon who is particularly noticed in them. This has 
 always appeared to me to be fair and proper; and 
 I wilh that, for the future, it may be confidered as 
 indifpenfable in thefe literary contefls. 
 
 Having nothing farther, of much confequencc, 
 to addrefs to yourfelf in particular, I conclude 
 with once more afTuring you, that I think myfelf 
 fingularly happy in having found fo learned and 
 candid an antagonift, and waiting your own time 
 (reminding you, however, of my own motto Jrs 
 longay Vita brevis) for the appearance of your 
 large work, I fubfcribe myfelf, with the greateft 
 refpe6t. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your very humble Servant, 
 J. PRIESTLEY, 
 
 BIRMINGHAM^ 
 
 March i, 1787. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 YOUNG MEN, 
 
 WHO ARE IN A 
 
 Courfs of Education for the Chrillian Miniftry, 
 
 AT THE 
 
 Univerfities of Oxford and Cambridge. 
 
 Multa ferunt anni venientes commoda fecum, 
 
 Multa recedentes adimunt. 
 
 Horace. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 y O U N G MEN, ^c. 
 
 LETTER r. 
 
 Of SuhfcripHon to Articles of Faith* 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 EXCUSE the addrefs of a Granger, whofe 
 apology for it is an earneft defire of contri- 
 buting what may be in his power to your forming 
 a right judgment concerning fome fubjefts, which 
 it imports you to underftandj and of giving you 
 fuch reprefentations of things as you are not fo 
 likely to receive from any other quarter. In many 
 things, no doubt, youi* profeflbrs and tutors, are 
 much better qualified to give you inftruftion, 
 than I can pretend to be ; and with refpcft to 
 thefe, I am very willing to fubmit to their fupe- 
 riority, and to yours. But with refpedl to fome 
 Other things, you may eafily imagine, that they 
 
 may 
 
44 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 may not have been in the way of having their own 
 attention called to them fo much as mine has 
 been ; and therefore, with the beft intentions in 
 the world, in the difcharge of their duty to you, 
 they will naturally be lefs explicit in their in- 
 ftruftions. It is in no other cafe that I would 
 prefume to lc)licit your attention. To your own 
 good fenfe, and candour, I therefore entirel}' refer 
 myfelf. If by reading this addrefs you fhould fee 
 any thing in a new and jufter light than you have 
 hitherto done, my end will be anfwered ; and if 
 nor, it will not be much of your time that will be 
 loft upon it. My own time I cannot better em- 
 ploy, than In making the attempt. 
 
 As thofe who arc dcfigned to teach the prin- 
 ciples of the chriftian religion to the reft of the 
 community, I confider you as deftined to fill a 
 ftation of the greateft honour and importance in 
 your country; and I wilh you to be truly fenfible 
 of the honour and importance of it j not to make 
 vou proud of the rank it will give you, but to in- 
 fpire you with Rn earneft defire, and a laudable 
 ambition, to difcharge the duties of it in the beft 
 manner. For in this caf.^ only, does any man 
 either receive honour from his ftation, or do ho- 
 nour to it. 
 
 In order to teach religion with advantage to 
 Others, you will agree with me that it ought to be 
 well underftood by yourfelvesi and we cannot 
 
 o expeft 
 
YOUNG MEN, &c. 45 
 
 expech to underft.md any thing of this confe- 
 quence, without giving proper time to the fludy 
 of it. Articles of faith are things of moment, 
 and therefore we fhould not form a hafty judg- 
 ment concerning them, but deliberately weigh be- 
 fore we decide. And in this r^fpect it is tiiat I 
 muft take the liberty to requeft you ferioufly to 
 confider the propriety of your prefent cuftoms, as 
 you are required to fubfcribe to what it cannot be 
 fuppofed you have had fufhcient time loftudy, and 
 therefore cannot be fuppofed to underjtand. 
 
 Such a cuftom fuited perfectly well with the 
 times of darknefs and bigotry, in which it was 
 eftablifhed. The great objeft then was the public 
 profefTion of the fame faih, which it was thought 
 could not be fecured too early ; and the extinftion 
 of all fchifm, which it was thought could not be 
 too carefully guarded againft ; and notfol'id inftruc- 
 tioHi and a well grounded knowledge of what was 
 profefled. This could not have been gained 
 without previous enquiry, and difcullion, in which 
 there would have been fome hazard of perfons 
 forming different judgments ; and then the fa- 
 vourite article of the tinity of the catholic chiirth 
 would have been in danger of being broken. 
 
 But, happily, we now fee things in a very dif- 
 ferent liffht. We refufe to receive the principles 
 o^ philojophy, and certainly fhould not receive thofe 
 of religiGfiy without being fatisfied, from proper 
 
 evidence. 
 
46 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 evidence, with refpeft to their truth. Whatever 
 life there may be in unions there cannot be any in 
 ignorance, or in an agreement in words without 
 an agreement in ideas. And it is in vain for 
 perfons to pretend to an agreement in judgment, 
 when none of them have formed any proper 
 judgment in the cafe, having made no previous 
 enquiry, on which alone fuch a judgment can be 
 formed. Two blind men may agree in their 
 evidence with refped to the colour of an objedi, 
 but would any jury be influenced by fuch evi- 
 dence ? And no better than this is the agree- 
 ment of men in articles of faith, concerning the 
 truth of which they have made no enquiry. 
 
 Perfons can then only be properly faid to think 
 alike, when they fee things in the fame light, 
 and v/hen the fame arguments have the fame 
 weight with them. But in order to this, there 
 muft be a previous clear perception of the Jub- 
 je5i concerning which a judgment is to be formed, 
 and an equally clear perception of the nature 
 and force of the evidence on which it is formed* 
 Alfo the more important any fubje<51; is, the 
 greater care Ihould we take to form a right judg- 
 ment concerning it. Since, therefore, religion is 
 of all fubjeds the moft important, it behoves us 
 to take the greateft care, and confequently to 
 employ the moft timCi in inveftigating the prin- 
 ciples of it. 
 
 By 
 
y O U N G M E N, 8cc. 47 
 
 By no means, then, ever declare your aflent to 
 any articles of faith (and the moft folemn of all 
 declarations is the mode of fubfcription) before 
 you have carefully confidered what each of thofe 
 articles is, and have really fatisfied^ yourfelves 
 that you fee the evidence on which the truth of 
 them is founded. If the fubfcription be tendered 
 to you before that procefs has commenced, or 
 before it can have been completed, refolutely de- 
 cline it. It becomes every honeft man fo to do : 
 becaufe otherwife he figns he knows not what ; 
 though he virtually fays that he has confidered 
 what he has done, and is fatisfied with refpe(5t to 
 the propriety of it. If you would not fet your 
 hand to a common bond, without previoufly read- 
 ing it, and approving of it, furely your minds 
 ought to revolt at the idea of fubfcribing articles 
 of faith which you have not examined. And yet 
 fome, I fear, do this without having fo much as 
 read them, or being able to fay what propofitions 
 they have figned their aflent to. 
 
 The probability is, that the greater part of you, 
 who will ever think of reading this addrefs, have 
 already fubfcribed the articles of the church of 
 England i having done it at your matriculation, 
 that is, on your admifTion to that place of edu- 
 cation in which you were to ftudy them, than 
 which nothing more prepollerous can well be 
 imagined. In this cafe, as perfons who have un- 
 intentionally done wrong, proceed no farther, arid 
 
 do 
 
4?> LETTERS TO THE 
 
 do not, by availing yourfclvcs of any advantages 
 accruing from it, make that to be a deliberate 
 falfehood, which originally was nothing more than 
 an overlight. Truth and uprightnefs require 
 that you renounce your fubfcription, and every 
 thing confequent upon it. Becaufe, till you be 
 fatisfied that what you have fubfcribed is true, 
 fo that you could bona fide repeat the fubfcription, 
 you ought to confider yourfelves as not having 
 fubfcribed at all. 
 
 I take it for granted, you will not think that 
 religion is the only fubjedl with refpeft to which a 
 perfon may be lawfully guilty of a known falfe- 
 hood, or prevarication; or that God, in whofe 
 prefence the fubfcription is made, is the only 
 Being who may be fafely mocked and trifled with. 
 What can you hereafter fay to any man, who 
 fliall have made a falfe declaration of any other 
 kind, or have taken a falfe oath, when you will be 
 confcious to yourfelves that you have made a 
 declaration in which there was as little fincerity, 
 and that you made a folemn profefTion of what 
 you did not know to be true, or might have 
 known to be falfe ; and that you reap the benefit 
 of fuch falfe declaration and profefTion ? 
 
 This, Gentlemen, is a cafe that will not bear 
 arguing. Every upright mind mufl decide upon 
 it immediately, and all the attempts that have 
 been made to apologize for fubfcription to arti- 
 cles 
 
YOUNG MEN, 8cc. 49 
 
 clcs of faith that are not really believed, or, which 
 is the fame thing, have never been examined, or 
 for holding the poflenion of any thing to which 
 fuch a fubfcription introduced a man, can only 
 expofe the chicanery of thofe who have recourfe 
 to them. In any other cafe fimilar to this, every 
 * clergyman would fay with David, As the Lord 
 Uvethjjuch a thing ought not to he. But how many 
 of them are there, to whom, after fuch a decla- 
 ration, it might be faid, Thou art the man ? 
 
 This is certainly the cafe with all Arians and 
 Socinians in the church of England, of all who 
 admit the principles of Dr. Clarke'' s Treatife on the 
 Trinity J or any other, in which the Son of God is 
 maintained to be, in any fenfe, inferior to the 
 father, or to be no proper objeft of prayer. For 
 in one of your creeds it is exprefsly faid, that of 
 the three perfons in the trinity ^ no :e of them is be- 
 fore or after the other y £s?f. and in your litany pe- 
 titions arc addreifed to God the Son, and God 
 the Holy Ghoft, as well as to God the Father, 
 
 With the greateft rcfpeft, I am. 
 Gentlemen, 
 Your fmcere well-wifher, 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 E LETTER 
 
50 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Of the Study of the Do£lrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 nrHOUGH I do not mean to trouble you 
 with n:iy thoughts on many articles of your 
 chriflian faithj there is one which, on account of 
 its peculiar magnitude, I cannot help recom- 
 mending to your mofb deliberate confideration, 
 viz. the ohjed of religious worfjip. From the na- 
 ture of the thing, you cannot but be fenfible, 
 that this mult be an article of the firft and lafb 
 importance ; and therefore on this fubie6t you 
 certainly ought not to form a hafty or rafh judg- 
 ment, but bring to the ftudy of it your beft facul- 
 ties, and give it your clofelt attention.. 
 
 In a rnatter of this confequence, let no man, or 
 body of men, judge for you, but honeftly and 
 fairly judge for yourfelves ; becaufe you are indi- 
 vidually refponfible for the ufc that you make of 
 your faculties. Confider that, on the very fame 
 principle on v^hich any perfon in this country 
 may imagine that he may.fifely acquiefce in the 
 judgment of the church of England, a perfon in 
 France or Italy will be juftified in acquiefcing in 
 the judgment of the church of Rome, and may 
 
 3 receive 
 
YOUNG MEN, kc. 51 
 
 receive "without examination the do6trine of 
 tranfubllanti;\tion; or the worjQiip of Mary and 
 all the Sain;s. 
 
 If you are fenfible that they ought not to bow 
 down and worlhip Mary, on the authority of the 
 church of Rome, neither ought you to worlhip 
 the Son of Mary, on the authority of the church, 
 of England, but fhould firft fiitisfy yourfelves, 
 whether the fon of Mary be your God and maker. 
 If he himfelf have a God and Father , and the fame 
 God and Father with yourfelves, you are bre- 
 thren ; and you ought no more, without an ex- 
 prefs divine authority for it, to worfhip him, than 
 he ought to worlhip you. You are equally de- 
 pendent upon the fame great God and Father of 
 all J and neither of you have any thing but what 
 he gave, what you are alike accountable to him 
 for, and what he can refume at his fovereign 
 pleafure. 
 
 But I do not mean, in this addrefs, to enter 
 into the particulars of the argument with you, 
 but only to exhort you, though with all poffible 
 earnednefs, to enquire and judge for yourfelves. 
 And do not think yourfelves unqualified to form 
 a judgment in the cafe. As far as reafon is con- 
 cerned in the difcuffion, ufe your reafon ; where 
 fcripture is appealed to, confult the fcriptures i 
 and when recourfe muft be had to antiquity y care- 
 fully read the monuments of it, efpecially in the 
 
 E 2 writings 
 
52 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 writings of thofe who are ufually called the Fa- 
 thers, fo ftrongly recommended to you by the 
 Dean of Canterbury ; and for this you enjoy un- 
 common advantages, in the noble libraries to 
 which you have accefs. We difienters have no 
 fuch privileges. All the knowledge we get of this 
 kind is the refult of much trouble, and much 
 expence. 
 
 If, not wholly relying on your own invefliga- 
 tion, you have recourfe to the alTiflance of others, 
 read the publications on both fides of the quef- 
 tion, and pay no regard to the authority o( names ^ 
 but only to the weight of argumciit. 
 
 The Dean of Canterbury, I am forry to per- 
 ceive, has only recoinmended fuch works as were 
 profefTedly written in defence of the doctrine of 
 the trinity, which is not of a piece with his ufual 
 candour and liberality. Very different from this, 
 and certainly more worthy of a chriftian and 
 proteftant bifhop, is the conduct of the prefent 
 excellent bifhop of Llandafr; who, in the lift of 
 books which he recommends to the lludents in 
 divinity, has inferted works written for and 
 againfl every do6trine of imiportance. 
 
 As this great qucftion is now in the courfe of 
 public difcuffion, bt^tween myfelf and the ableft 
 writers of your own church, and you cannot be 
 wholly unconcei ned fptdators, read the produc- 
 tions 
 
YOUNG MEN, kc. 53 
 
 tions of both. You may be well afliired that, 
 confidering the ability of the writers in favour of 
 the do6trine of the trinity, their number, and the 
 zeal with which they enter into the controverfy, 
 together with the opportunities which they and 
 their numerous friends (who will not fail to give 
 them all the afTiflance in their power) have of 
 confulting the moft valuable libraries, every 
 thing will be produced that can be favourable to 
 their argument. If, therefore, it be pofTible to 
 prove that the do6lrine of the trinity is not con- 
 trary to reafon, that it is agreeable to the fcrip- 
 tures, and that it has the countenance of primi- 
 tive antiquity, it will be done. 
 
 But if, after all that can be alleged, you cannot 
 help thinking that ibree divine -perjons muft be 
 three Gods, which our religion reprobates ; that 
 Chrift is the meflenger and fervant of God, and 
 not God himfelf ; and that the great body of 
 common chriftians in primitive times (the very 
 perfons for whofe ufe the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment were written, and who muft have underflood 
 them, and the doctrine of the apoftles, from whom 
 they had their inftruflion) v/ere unitarians, be- 
 lieving that divinity is to be aicribed to no other 
 than to one God the Father, and that Chrift was 
 fimply (Luke xxiv. 19.) a prophet mighty in word 
 and detd ('AcSts ii. 22.) a wan approved of God, by 
 fignSi wonders^ and rraghty deeds, which God did by 
 
 E 3 him i 
 
54- LETTERS TO THE 
 
 him-, you muft conclude that, notwithflanding 
 the ability, learning, and integrity, of my oppo- 
 nents, their caufe is indefenfible ; that the re- 
 formed church of England is idolatrous, as well 
 as the church of Rome ; and therefore that, till 
 fhe be farther reformed, you ought to come cut of 
 her, and he feparate. 
 
 You will, of courfe, hear many fermons, and 
 fee many treatlfes, againft my publicadons in de- 
 fence of the divine unity, but do me the juftice to 
 read the books and tra6ts which have alarmed 
 your fuperiors fo much. You will find them 
 written perhaps with leis ability, and lefs learn- 
 ing, than thofe of my antagonifts, but with a fin- 
 cere love of truth. While the controverfy con- 
 tinues, I pledge myfelf to acknowledge any over- 
 fight that, in fo copious an argument, I may be 
 guilty of, and fliall let nothing of any moment 
 pafs unnoticed. I am even willing to adopt any 
 method that fhall be thought, by my adverfaries 
 themfclves, naofl to facilitate the fuUeft invefti- 
 gation of the fubjeft. I openly call upon every 
 one, who has any ccnfiderable character at ftake, 
 and who has entered into the lifts, fuch as Dr. 
 Horfley, Mr. Whhe, Mr. Howes, and Dr. Home, 
 to make good what they have advanced j and 
 in thefe circumftances, you cannot doubt their 
 readinefs to produce any thing in their power 
 to confute and filence me. 
 
 Bcfides. 
 
Y O U N G M EN, Sec. 55 
 
 Befides my larger works, as the Hijlory of the 
 Corruptions of Chrifiianity^ and of Early Opinions 
 concerning Jeju's Chrift, together with all the writ* 
 ings of Mr. Lindfey, permit me to recommend to 
 your perufal, a fmall pamphlet entitled, A Gene- 
 ral View of the Arguments for the Unity of God j i^c. 
 mentioned p. 39. You will find it of great ufe 
 in ellimating the progrefs that may be made in 
 the difcuffion, as it takes in the whole compafs of 
 it, from reafon, from the fcriptures, and from 
 hiftory ; fo that if any of my arguments be found 
 to be defeftive, you will eafily fee how many re- 
 main unanfwered, and what is their proper place, 
 and weight, in the whole controverfy. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 E4 LETTER 
 
56 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Of the Difficuliies attending an open Acknowledgment 
 of '^ ruth. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 T Am truly fenfible of the peculiar difficulties at- 
 -*• tending your fituation. Many of you, I be- 
 lieve, have no other profped: in life but that of 
 officiating in a church, in which the dodlrine of 
 the trinity, to the examination of which 1 wilh to 
 draw your attention, is actually received. It even 
 enters into her forms of devotion ; fo that for the 
 prefent you have no choice but to fubfcribe her ar- 
 ticles, and make ufe of her forms, or give up all 
 hopes of preferment, or employment. Should 
 you, therefore, after the examination which I now 
 recommend, fee reafon (as I cannot help fufped:- 
 ing you will) to decline that fubfcription, and all 
 your profpefbs in life depending upon it, you 
 may be much embarraffed. 
 
 To this I can only fay, that, great as the difficulty, 
 no doubt, will be, it will be lefs now^ than if, ven- 
 turing to take a ftcp which your minds difapprove, 
 you lliould be ftruck with a fenfe of the impro- 
 priety 
 
YOUNG M E N, Sec. 57 
 
 priety of this tranfaftion, in a later period of your 
 lives ; when you will be adually engaged in an 
 employment, the duties of which you cannot con- 
 fcientioufly difcharge, with the additional burden 
 of a wife and family, and when it may be too late 
 to look out for any other fource of fubfiftence. 
 Many worthy perfons, I do alTure you, are at this 
 very time in this moil: painful fituation, wifhing 
 it was with them as it is now with you ; who clearly 
 fee v/hat duty requires, and acutely feel how na- 
 ture, and all its ties, oppofe it. 
 
 Some years ago, a clergyman, then turned fixty, 
 with a wife and a numerous family, told me his dif- 
 trefling cafe, with tears literally running down his 
 cheeks. It was not for me to advife what 1 might 
 not have been capable of doing in the fame cir- 
 cumllances. He himfelf knew but too well what 
 ftrift duty required. I could only mix my tears 
 with his. For fuch men as thefe, whofe complaints 
 are only uttered in private, our prefent governors 
 and their own ecclefialtical fuperiors, feem to have 
 no feeling. But there is a great Being, higher 
 than the higheft, who knows, and vvho will one day 
 vifit for thefe things. 
 
 Strongly as you may feel your own difficulties, 
 you cannot but be fcnfible how much they are 
 exceeded by thofe of the cafe which I have now 
 mentioned. Befides, if virtuous rcfolution is to 
 be expe<5led of man, it is to be expelled o{ youth. 
 
 That 
 
58 LETTERSTOTHE i 
 
 That is the period of life the moft diftinguilhed 
 for a generous ardour in the purfuit of truth, for 
 an ingenuous difpofition, unperverted by a com- 
 merce with the world, and a vigour of mind equal 
 to any trial. A61, then, a part becoming enlight- 
 ened, virtuous, and generous Britifh youth. Con- 
 fer together, and affociate in your common caufe. 
 A petition for a rcmioval of fubfcription to any 
 human articles of faith, and for a reformation of 
 the public liturgy, or for leave to alter it with the 
 confent of your parifhioners, would, I am confi- 
 dent, have more weight from you, than from any 
 other defcription of men in the kingdom, 
 
 Tell our governors, that you are ready to ren- 
 der your country the bell fervices in your power, 
 in promoting the knowledge and praftice of chrif- 
 tianity; but that there are obftru^lons in your 
 way, which prevent your engaging in this great 
 work, and which would defeat your purpofe if you 
 did ; that you cannot, with a good grace, or with 
 efieft, inculcate the principles of honefly and in- 
 tegrity on others, after, by a public and folemn 
 aft, violating them yourfelves ; that it will be 
 your happinefs, and your glory, to teach chriftia- 
 nity, but not the manifell abufes and corruptions 
 of it, doflrines which militate with the funda- 
 mental principles of it i that you cannot, at the 
 lame time preach the religion of Chrill, and wor- 
 fliip another Being than him whom Chrift wor- 
 
 Ihipped, 
 
* YOUNG M E N, kc. 59 
 
 Ihipped, and whom he taught all his difciples to 
 worlhip, as the only true God. 
 
 Tell them that, after an alteration in the forms 
 of public worlliip, you c;m with infinitely more ad- 
 vantage teach rhofe principles which are truly 
 great, and ellential to chriftianity, and on which 
 alone its efficacy to purify the heart, and to re- 
 form the life, can depend ; and that, provided 
 this great end be gained, the objed of all good 
 and wife government will be anfv/ered ; for that 
 the welfare of f iciety, which is the fole obje6t 
 of civil government, cannot poflibly have any ne- 
 ceflary connexion with the myfterious do(5lrine of 
 the trinity. Tell them that it is fufficient if, be- 
 lieving nothing but what they can underlland, 
 men be good citizens, and that this will be beft 
 effefted by inculcating the great docftrine of a life 
 of retribution after death, a Hate in which men will 
 receive accordin;^: to their works, not accord) nsr to 
 their opinions. 
 
 If you cannot engage a fufficient number to 
 make a refpeftable application to your fuperiors, 
 in church or ftate, ilili do what integrity requires of 
 you as individuals. It is what many, to their in- 
 finite honour, have done before you. A con- 
 fiderable number of the mod intelligent and 
 beft difpofed young men have declined entering 
 into the minlftry, when they ferioufly refledcd on 
 the terms on which they muft have done it, 
 
 men. 
 
6o LETTERSTOTHE ^ 
 
 men, whofe ability and integrity would have qua- 
 lified them to be the greateft ornaments of their 
 profeffion, if the entrance into it had not been too 
 narrow to admit them. 
 
 I cannot help flattering myfelf, however, th it an 
 earned reprefentation from even a few of you, of 
 your peculiarly difficult fituation, would not be 
 without its tffeft j and then your country would be 
 indebted to you for its emancipation from a bon- 
 dao-e which, in confcquence of the progrefs of re- 
 ligious knowledge, mull be every day m«)re fe- 
 verely felt, a bondage which cannot affeft any but 
 the intelligent, and the ingenuous ; thofe who wifli 
 well to the caufe of virtue, but who cannot pro- 
 mote it except in the way of truth. In all events, 
 howeverj you will have done your duty ; and 
 greater guilt will remain on thofe who refufe fo 
 reafonable a requeft. 
 
 Where religion is concerned, do not deceive 
 yourfelves bv waiting till fome great many in the 
 church, or the ftate, take the lead. Neither was 
 chriflianity propagated^ nor the reform.ation be- 
 oun, by this means. Individuals of all ranks 
 thou^^-ht and a£led for themfclves, and thofe who 
 had influence in public meafures favoured them 
 when it appeared to be their intereft fo to do. 
 And, in the nature of things, nothing elfe could 
 be expelled. Perfons in years, or who have ef- 
 tablilhments for life^ have generally hit upon fome 
 
 method 
 
Y O U N G M E N, Sec. 6i 
 
 method or other to make themfelves eafy ; and 
 wifhing to continue fo, they are offended at 
 any thing that is likely to create difturbance. 
 Thus difpofed, they will never be at a lofs for 
 fome plaufible pretext for putiin'^ off, at leail, 
 every propofal of reformation. There are, how- 
 ever, fuch liberal charafters on the epifcopal bench 
 at this time, that I almoft perfuade myfelf, they 
 would countenance and alTifl fuch an application 
 as I propofe. 
 
 As to minifters of ftate, they muft, and ought, 
 to follow the lead of the people. Make it appear 
 to them that the country in general wifhes for a 
 reformation, or that many earneftly defire it, and 
 that the reft would not violently oppofe it, and 
 depend upon it, they will nor. It is our bufinefs, 
 therefore, without troubling ourfelvcs about the' 
 conduct of others, to look to our own, to get all 
 the light we can ourfclvcs, and to do every thing 
 in our power to enlighten the minds of others; con- 
 fident that the general prevalence of truth will, in 
 due time, draw after it every thing that we can 
 defire, with refpeft to public reformation^ and pub- 
 lic liberty. 
 
 With refpe6l to the common people of this coun- 
 try, it would be doing them great injuftice to con- 
 fider thtm as trinitarians. More than nine in ten, 
 I am pretty confident, would be better pleafed 
 with an unitarian than a trinitarian liturgy, though 
 
 they 
 
62 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 they do not intereft themfelves fo much in the af- 
 fair, as to take any fteps towards promoting it. 
 
 TheiiE can even be no doubt, but that the think- 
 ing part of the clergy, really vv'ifli for fome altera- 
 tion in the articles, and the form of public worfliip, 
 and that they would prefer one in which all religious 
 worlhip fhould be confined to one God, the Father, 
 could they be fure that every thing eife relating 
 to the eftablifliment might remain unaltered. Of 
 the learned clergy, it is almoll certain that thofe 
 who approve of the fentiments of Dr. Clarke, are 
 more in number than the rigid trinitarians, who 
 would be clamorous againll: any change. Were 
 the younger clergy, therefore, and candidates for 
 the miniftry, in earneft, for a reformation, it could 
 not, in all probability, be kept back much longer. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER 
 
YOUNG U E N, kc. f-3 
 
 T 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Animadverjions on Dr. Furkis^s Sermon, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 H E preceding L-etters were written in come- 
 quence of reading the Dean of Canterbury's 
 truly candid Sermons, and I was led to think of 
 addreffing rnvfeif to yen, as v/cil as to him on the 
 occafion, on account of his being prefident of a 
 college in Oxford. Since the writing of them, I 
 have feen anoiher Ser7ncn preached by Dr. Purkis, 
 one of the preach-ers of the King's Ghapci, at 
 Whitehall, before the Univernty of Cambridge, 
 on Commencement Sunday, July. 2, 1786, which, 
 if the writer may be credited *, was received witft* 
 
 * The doubt here intimated was occafioned by the following 
 anonymous letter, which Ihows that one of our Univerfities, at 
 kaitj is not deiUtute of liberality. 
 
 *' I lefe no time in tranfmitting to you a difcourfe which did 
 much violence to my feelings at the time 1 heard it delivered, 
 from the univerfity pulpit. So far is the author's boail in the 
 advertifement from being, true, that 1 believe his fermon gave 
 ferious concern- to feveral very rcfpeftnbie, learned, and liberal 
 men among his audience, which, it being Commencement Sun- 
 day, was a v^ry numerous one, as well as to myfelf. Tt was 
 preached as an exercife for his dbfbor's degree. The publilher 
 informs me, that the greatcft part of the imprcilion has been fent 
 
 by 
 
46 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 as much applaufe as thofe of the Dean of Canter- 
 bury, who is of Oxford. 
 
 Though I think fuch mere declamation utterly 
 unworthy of an univerfity that has a Newton to 
 boaft of, and do not fee that it contains anv thing 
 particularly deferving of a reply, 1 (hall take occa- 
 fion from it to fhew the extreme weaknefs of fome 
 things on which great ftrefs is laid with refpeft to 
 the difculTion that is now before the public, and 
 others of a fimilar nature. One would think, in- 
 deed, that fuch things could only be faid ad cap- 
 tandum vulgus, and could never have been addrefled 
 to thofe who are brought up in a freedom from 
 vulgar prejudices, which ought to be one great ob- 
 jeft in a courfe of liberal education. 
 
 I . Of the Influence of Philojofhy on Religion. 
 
 Dr. Purkis preaches from Coll. ii. 8. Beware 
 lefi any man fpoil you through philofophy, and vain 
 dectitj after the traditions of men, after the rudi- 
 
 by the author as prefents to bifhops and great men. I truft you 
 will not be wanting to check the foi/on of its influence, to fpeak 
 like the author, for which I bluQi, as I fhould at any thing that 
 favoured of an unchrilUan fpirit. An anfwer from your maf- 
 terly pen, I have reafon to believe, will give great fatisfaftion to 
 many confcientious lovers of truth in this univerfity, but I af- 
 fure you, to none more than to your hearty well-wifher in the 
 gofpel caufe, who profefles ex aizimo to be a fincere enquirer 
 into the truth as it is in Jefus." 
 
 *' Cambridge, Nov. 27, 1786.", 
 
 ments 
 
YOUNG MEN, &c. 65 
 
 rAents of this zvorU, and not after Chrijl. By this 
 he, no doubt, meant to infinuate that myfelf, and 
 orher unitarians, who have fome pretenfions to 
 philofophy, are jud fuch philofophrrs as the apoftle 
 Paul had to do with, their principles being the 
 fame, having the fame connexion with religion, the 
 fame influence upon it, and tending alike to fill 
 the mind with pride and felf-conceit. Hence the 
 phrafes, " a minute mind bufied with remarking 
 *' only the track of its own experiments," p. 9, 
 '' a vain prefuming perfon," ib. " dogmatical ar- 
 '' rogance," p. 8, &c. &c. Indeed, without this 
 conftruftion. Dr. Purkis's text and difcourfe could 
 not be thought to be peculiarly " feafonable at 
 " this t'lme^' as the advertifement prefixed to it ex- 
 preffes. 
 
 Now really. Gentlemen, there is Ho foundation 
 whatever for any of thefe infinuations or reflec- 
 tions. The philofophy which the apoftle alluded 
 to was undoubtedly that of the Gnoflics, the prin- 
 ciples of which you will fee detailed in my Hifiory 
 of early opinions concerning Jefus Chrijl ^ and which 
 you may find in any book of ecclcfiaftical hifiory. 
 Pleafe then to examine them, and fee whether 
 you can find in them any refemblance to the mo- 
 dern experimental philofophy, with which (notwith- 
 ftanding its fuppofed evil tendency) you are, I 
 doubt not, well acquainted. The Gnoflics made 
 no experiments at all. Their notions were all 
 metaphyficai, mythological, or theological, and 
 F therefore. 
 
66 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 therefore, naturally interfered with, and contami- 
 nated, the chrillian principles > whereas, experi- 
 mental philofophy is wholly unconnected with them, 
 any farther than as all truth has a connexion. 
 
 Accordingly we fee thar there have been expe- 
 rimental philofophers, as well as mathematicians, 
 of every opinion with refpeft to the doftrine of the 
 trinity. If, therefore, this kind of fcience tends 
 to make men proud, there muft be proud and con- 
 ceited trinitarians, as well as unitarians, and there 
 are who think that my antagonift Dr. Horiley 
 might be quoted as a proof of this. But, in fa6b^ 
 experimental philofophy tends to make us hum- 
 ble j as it fhews in the ftrons-efl light, the im- 
 menfity of nature, the unfearchable wifdom of the 
 author of nature, and the narrownefs of our com- 
 prehenfion. Other perfons bear of thefe truths, 
 but exp rimental philofophers feel them ; and it 
 is chiefly from their report that others derive their 
 knowledge of them. Let Dr. Purkis alfo fay, 
 what experimental philofophy has to do with the 
 traditicm of men, or the rudiments of the world. — 
 Indeed, Gentlemen, no man could know any thing 
 of modern philofophy, or of gnofticifm, and fay 
 what Dr. Purkis does on this fubjedl. It is all 
 groundiefs infinuation, and calumny, void of ail 
 colour or refemblance of truth, and calculated to 
 prejudice the mind both againfl philofophy, and 
 rational theology. 
 
 There 
 
YOUNG MEN, kc. 67 
 
 There is more pride. Gentlemen, in difclaiming 
 reafon, and affefting to be governed by a principle 
 fuperior to it, than in humibly following it. Be- 
 fides it has been well obferved, that no man aban- 
 dons reafon till reafon has abandoned him. 
 
 2. Of Myjleries in Rsligion, 
 
 If myjleries mean, as Dr. Purkis fay they do, p. 
 10, " things in their own nature incomprehen- 
 *' fible," I mud fay that the fcriptures know fio 
 fuch myfteries, but only things that were for fome 
 time unknown, but which were perfeftly intelligible 
 when they were nrade known. The term is never 
 applied to any thing concerning the nature of God, 
 but only to the difpenfations of his providence, and 
 almoft wholly to that one particular in his difpen- 
 fations, the preaching of the gofpel to the Gentiles, 
 without burdening them with the obfervance of the 
 Jewifli ritual. But how can this be faid to be a 
 thing " in its own nature incomprehenfible V* It 
 had been, as the apoftle calls it, a fecret, or myf- 
 tcry, hid from ages, but it w^ then made knowrif 
 and when made known, was perfectly intelligible. 
 
 What Paul calls (i Tim. iii. 16) the great myf- 
 tery of godiinefs confifted of fuch particulars relat- 
 ing to chriRianity as are all perfeftly intelligible, 
 when made known, as (even admitting the common 
 reading) Godmanlfeft in thefiejh^ that is, fpeaking to 
 rnankind by the man Chrift Jefus, &c. &c. Suf- 
 
 F 2 fer 
 
G8 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 fer not your minds, therefore, to be dazzled by the 
 do6lrine of myftcries in religion, and the fubmilTion 
 of reafon to faith. By the fame bait you may be 
 drawn in to believe the doftrine of tranfubftantia- 
 tion. For the catholics ufe the very fame argu- 
 ments in its defence, that the trinitarians do in the 
 defence of that of the trinity. They are both faid 
 to be do(5trines of pure revelation^ and that it is not 
 the province of reafon to examine them. In rea- 
 lity, they are neither agreeable to reafon nor re- 
 velation. 
 
 3. Of 'Toleration. 
 
 If any fubje6l had been well underftood, I fhould 
 have thought it had been that of toleration. But I 
 perceive it is of very difficult comprehenfion to 
 thofe who have it in their power to be intolerant. 
 It happens to be unfafhionable to deny the doc- 
 trine of it in words, but its principles are certainly 
 undermined by the limitations of it in this Ser- 
 mon of Dr. Purkis. For he would not tolerate, 
 p. 20, " the difbelievers of the gofpel," faying, p. 
 21, that " the religion of Jefus manifeftly excludes 
 " every other 3 and that we mud adhere to this 
 " exclufive principle, if we affert its divine au- 
 " thority." 
 
 This, Gentlemen, you mufl fee to be the mofl: 
 palpable of all fallacies. In one fenfe, indeed, 
 every truUi is excluftve, becaufe it cannot be re- 
 ceived 
 
YOUNG MEN, Sec. 69 
 
 ccived together with the oppofite error, the one 
 necelTariiy excluding the other, that is, in the 
 mind of the fame perfon. But in no other fenfe 
 is the religion of Chrift, any more than the prin- 
 ciples of true philofophy, of an exclufive nature. 
 Whereas Dr. Purkis means, that the profeflbrs of 
 chriftianity, ought not to fuffer any other relio-jon 
 to beprofelTed, if they have power to prevent it 
 which is a doftrine that neither Chrift nor the 
 apoftles give any countenance to. The weapons 
 cf cur warfare are not carnal^ but fpiritual (2 Cor. 
 X. 4). If chriftianity itfelf be of this exclufive 
 nature, the fame property muft belong to every 
 thing that is elTential to it ; and confequently, 
 trinitarians, thinking their peculiar do6trines ef- 
 fential to chriftianity, will think themfelves jufti- 
 fied in exterminating all unitarians, as v/ell as 
 Jews and Mahometans, as dJjbelievers of true 
 chriftianity. 
 
 But muft not Dr. Purkis allow that, if the civil 
 governors of a country, as fuch^ have a ri^^ht to 
 ufe their power in fupport of what they deem to 
 be true religion, heathens and Mahometans have 
 the fame right to perfecute chriftians, that chrif- 
 tians have to perfecute them ? The chriftian 
 maxim of deittg to others as we would be done by 
 curfelves, is as juftly applicable to this cale as to 
 any other whatever. If therefore we chriftians 
 would think it right that we fliould be tolerated 
 F 3 among 
 
70 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 among heathens or Mahometans, we ought to to-r 
 lerate them among us. 
 
 4. Of perverting the Language of the Scriptures. 
 
 Dr. Purkis fays, p. 12, " Next to this turn of 
 ** philofophical fyftem in religion, wc remarked a 
 ** fceptical defire of arguing away the phrafeo- 
 " logy of fcripture, when it feems to convey doc- 
 f' trines above our comprehenfion, in order to re- 
 *^ duce them to the level of our own opinions, 
 ^' &c. &c. &c.'* 
 
 Now I dare fay, that Dr. Purkis, believing iit 
 the truth of the fcriptures, and likewifc in other 
 truths not contained in the fcriptures, will endea- 
 vour to reconcile them as well as he can, as alfq 
 to reconcile one fcripture truth with another j for 
 they cannot both be believed, unlefs they can be 
 reconciled ; and what is this but the very thing 
 that he charges the unitarians v;ith, as an unpar- 
 donable fault ? For example, he, as a proteflant 
 cannot believe that a piece of bread is changed 
 into flefh, while the properties of bread remain in 
 it, though our Saviour has faid of the facramen- 
 tal bread, ^his is my body. What then does he do,, 
 but explain away this phrafeology, by fuppofing 
 that it is a figurative expreflion, and merely be- 
 caufe the dofn ine of " the literal Jenje is above his 
 *' comprehenfion j and to reduce it to the level 
 *f of his own opinion." In this very language, 
 
 he 
 
Y O U N G M E N, &c. 71 
 
 he would be reproved for his condud by a catho- 
 lic difputant. Why then does he fee a mote in 
 my eye, and nor the beam that is in his own eye ? 
 
 But in reality, Gentlemen, the plain language 
 of fcripture is much more directly in favour of 
 unitarianifm than of the dodtrine of the trinity ; 
 and it is with difficulty made to accord to the 
 latter. The great doflrine of the ftridl tmily of- 
 God, and alfo that of the pure humanity of Cbrift, 
 is the common language of the fcriptures, where 
 no figure is ufed, or can be fufpefled. As when 
 the apoftle fays (1 Tim. ii. 5) 'To us there is one 
 God, and one mediator between God and man^ the man 
 Cbrift Jejus. By what condrudion of words and 
 phrafes, can the doitrine of the trinity be recon- 
 ciled with this pafTage ? Mud not the literal 
 meaning be explained away, before it can be 
 made confiftent with that myllerious dodtrine ? • 
 
 The texts which the unitarians have to accom- 
 modate to their fyftem are very few indeed, com- 
 pared with thofe which the trinitarians muft fub- 
 je£t to their mode of torture. 
 
 5. Of Materialifm and the Do5irine of Fhilofophical 
 Necefftty. 
 
 Dr. Purkis is not fmgular in endeavouring to 
 throw an odium upon myfelf, and others, as mate^ 
 rialijts, as if the dodtrine of an immaterial foul 
 
 F 4 was 
 
72 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 was efiential to chriftianity. I fhall not argue 
 this matter with Dr. Purkis, having already ad- 
 vanced all that I think neceflary for the purpofe in 
 my Difquifitions concerning matter andjpirit, in which 
 I am fatisfied that I have made it as evident as any 
 thing of this nature can be, that the popular doc- 
 trine of a foul has no foundation in reafon, or the 
 fcriptureSj but was borrowed from the heathen 
 philofophy. I fhall now only obferve to you, 
 that the dodrine of a foul is of no confequence 
 in itfelfy or to a chrift'iany but as an argument for 
 a future life. 
 
 If, therefore, any perfon does firmly believe 
 that he fhall live again, and receive according to 
 his works, which is the great and ultimate doc- 
 trine of chriftiani^y, of what confequence is it 
 whether he believe that he has a foul or not ? 
 It is enough that he believes that his power of 
 thinking (which is the only province of a foul) 
 will be reftored to him at the refurreftion, and 
 that he will have a perfedt recoUeftion of all the 
 tranfaftions of the prefent life. And this I be- 
 lieve as firmly as any of thofe who hold the doc- 
 trine of a foul. In what refpedts then, is my faith 
 of lefs value than theirs ? 
 
 With as little reafon do Dr. Purkis and others 
 fuppofe that, by the doctrine of philojcfhical ne- 
 cejfity^ which I hold, and which I confider as even 
 demonftrably true, " every principle," as he fays. 
 
Y O U N Cx ME N, kc. 73 
 
 p. 7, " of right and wrong, of moral 'goodnefs 
 **' and moral government, has been in reality re- 
 *^ moved from our fight, and, of courfe, the ne- 
 " ceflity of all law and religion whatfoever." 
 
 Now, in my v/ritings on this fubjedb, I have 
 * proved ir, and Ihall not take the trouble to prove 
 any more, that the do6lrine of neceflity fupplies 
 the only theoretical foundation of moral govern- 
 ment, and that the oppofite dodbrine affords no 
 foundation for it at all. But independently of 
 this, wiih refpecl to the real confequences of any 
 do6lrine, thofe who hold it, and not thofe who 
 deny it, fhould be confulted. For if I myfelf do 
 not perceive that fuch confequences flow from my 
 fyftem, I cannot a^ as if they did. And furely, 
 any man who believes that his aflidns are truly 
 voluntary^ depending upon motives, and that he 
 {hall receive 2;ood or evil hereafter according to 
 his works here, may be depended upon forgiving 
 due attention to his conduct, whatever be his opi- 
 nion with refpedt to the nature of the mind, and 
 the manner in which motives influence it. Can 
 Dr. Purkis fhew that necelTarians are at all left 
 felicitous about their moral condudt than other 
 men ? This is the proper tefl: of the moral 
 influence of any fyftem. 
 
 It is commonly faid, that the do6lrine of necct 
 fity tends to make men indifferent to all oMion, all 
 pyents being prc-determined by God, and all fure 
 
 to 
 
74 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 to work right, and end well. But how does this 
 fuppofition correfpond to fad ? Dr. Home fays, 
 " our opponents," among whom he undoubtedly 
 includes myfelf, " are Ihrev/d, adlive, bufy, and 
 " indefatigable." How far this charafter applies 
 to myfelf, I will not fay. But 1 will venture to 
 affert that, change the t^rm Jbrewd (which is al- 
 ways ufed in a bad (cnfe) for intelligent ^ or Jenjibky 
 and the reft of the defcriprion applies to many 
 necelTarians, and that fome of the advocates for 
 philofophical liberty are the moft indolent of 
 mankind. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Of Mr. Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 A S the worthy Dean of Canterbury ftrongly re- 
 commends to you Mr. Joneses Catholic DoSrine 
 of the Trinity^ proved by above a hundred Jbort and 
 clear arguments, exprejfed in the terms of the holy 
 fcripture, compared after a manner entirely new ; 
 no doubt efteeming it to be a mafter-piece of 
 reafoning, I am tempted to give you a fpecimen 
 of his mode of arguing on the fubjeft. To pur- 
 
 fue 
 
YOUNG M E N, &c. 75 
 
 fue him through all his hundred arguments will 
 hardly be required of me j as every text on which 
 any thing that to other perfons has had the appear- 
 ance of an argument, has been built, is fatisfaclo- 
 rily explained in my fmall pamphlet, entitled, A 
 Familiar Ulujlration of particular 'Texts of Scripture^ 
 and more at large in the writings of Mr. Lindfey. 
 
 The foundation of the more fpecious of Mr. 
 Jones's arguments is the following : \{ any lan- 
 guage be applied to God, and the fame be ever 
 applied to Chrifti or if the fame ad ihould be 
 afcribedto them both, it is with him a proof that 
 Chrift muft be God ; without confidering that the 
 fame language, and the fame acfbions, may be af- 
 (Cribed to God, and alfo to man, in different fenfes. 
 
 Thus, becaufc we read in If. xliii. 1 1. /, even /, 
 am the Lord, and bejides me there is no Saviour ; 
 and Chrift is alfo called a Savicur (as in 1 Pet. 
 iii. 18. our Lord and Savictir J ejus Chrifi) he con- 
 cludes that Chrift muft be God, faying, p. 3, 
 " unlefs he were God, even the Lord Jehovah, 
 " as well as man, he could not be a Saviour^ ht- 
 ^^ caufe the Lord has declared there is no Saviour 
 ^* befide himfelf. It is therefore rightly obferved 
 ^' by the apoftle, Phil. ii. 9. that God, in digni- 
 ** fying the man Chrift with the name of Jefus, 
 " has given him a name above every name, even 
 ** that of a Saviour, which is his own name, and 
 ^^ fuch as can belong to no other." 
 
 But, 
 
76 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 But, by the very fame argument, Mofes, and 
 many other perfons, might be proved to be God, 
 becaufe they are called faviours, having been 
 made the means of delivering the people of Ifrael, 
 or others, from fome of the difficulties in which 
 they were involved, as inNeh. ix. 27. T/jgu gaveft 
 them Saviours 3 ivho Javed them^ Cf^c. In the fame 
 fenfe Chrift is alfo properly called a Saviour, as 
 having been theinflrument in the hand of God of 
 faving mankind from fin, and frcm death, the con- 
 fequence of fm; and that Chrift was no more than 
 the injlrument in the hands of God for this end, 
 is as evident, and asrcjearly expreffed in the fcrip- 
 tures, as that Mofes was his inftrument in deli- 
 vering the people of Ifrael from. Egypt. They 
 are both faid to hzjent, or commiffioned, by God, 
 for the purpofe. 
 
 On the fame principle Mr. Jones argues, p. 18, 
 that becaufe we read, John iii. 16. God fo loved 
 the world, that he gave his only begotten Jon, and 
 Eph. V. 25. Chriji alfo loved the church, and gave 
 himfelffor it, that Chrifi and God muft be the fame. 
 He well obferves, in his advertifement, that '^ his 
 *' arguments are, to the beft of his knowledge, 
 " moft of them, new.'' Indeed, I fhould have 
 thought it very extraordinary, if the comparifon 
 of thefe two texts had fuggefted the fame argu- 
 ment to any other individual perfon befidcs him- 
 felf ; though when fuggefted by him, it may have 
 approved itfelf to the better fenfe of the Dean of 
 
 Canterbury. 
 
 In 
 
YOUNG MEN, 8:c. 77 
 
 In reply to it, it can hardly be neceflary to in- 
 form you, Gentlemen, that God might love the 
 world, and having the power to difpofe of Chrift, 
 as of all his other creatures, as he pleafed, might 
 fend him, give him, or appoint him, for the pur- 
 pofe of faving the world from ignorance and vice, 
 at the fame time that Chrill, engaging in this be- 
 nevolent undertaking with the fame readinefs and 
 chearfulnefs with which all perfons ought to obey 
 the commands of God ; and being a man him- 
 felf, and, as fuch, having the moft fincere good- 
 will and compafiion towards his fellow men, 
 might alfo hve them, and be faid to give hlmjelf 
 for them. As Paul likewife, and other apolUes, 
 loved the church, and gave their lives for it, 
 which it is evident they did, whether that parti- 
 cular language be ever ufed with refpe6l to them 
 in the fcriptures or not, Mr. Jones might prove 
 from this circumftance, that they are alfo each of 
 them God, equal to the Father. 
 
 Mr, Jones even argues that Chrift is of a di- 
 vine nature, becaufe, in 1 Pet. i.4. chriftians are 
 faid to be partakers of the divine nature^ and in 
 Heb. iii. 14. they are faid to be partakers of 
 Chrift. Therefore, fays he, p. 29, " Chrift is in, 
 " or of the divine nature, the fame Almighty 
 " God and Lord who declared to Abraham, I 
 " am thy fnield, and exceeding great reward •, fo 
 " that thefe being compared together, are decifive 
 •^' for the Catholic Homocufion do(5lrine, at which 
 
 " the 
 
78 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 " the Arians, from the Council of Nice to fhls 
 very day, have been fo grievoufly offended." 
 
 <c 
 
 Mr. Jones was not, perhaps, aware that, by this 
 mode of reafoning, he was fupplying the Roman 
 catholics with a new argument for their doftrine 
 of tranfubftantiation. But if every thing of 
 which chriftians are faid to be partakers be the 
 fame, the facramental bread muft be concluded 
 to be Chrifthimfelf. For it is faid, i Cor. x. 17. 
 We are all ■partakers of that one bread. 
 
 On thefe principles alfo, the diftindion in the 
 three perfons of the trinity will be confounded. 
 For as in Heb. ii. 14, chriftians are faid to be 
 partakers of Chrift ; fo in chap. vi. 4. they are 
 faid to be partakers of the Holy Ghcft. 
 
 I am ftill more furprized that Mr. Jones fhould 
 not have perceived that, according to his mode 
 of interpretation, this text in Peter would autho- 
 rize him to conclude, that all chriftians have a 
 proper divine nature, or are confubftantial with 
 the Father. For in defence of this term, which 
 he acknowledges to be unfcriptural, he fays, p. 
 30, addreffing the Arians, " And now the fcrip- 
 " ture is before us, let me afk them a plain quef- 
 " tion or two. Is not the word rjfence, or fub- 
 " feance, of the fame fignification with the word 
 " nature ? And have not the Fathers of the 
 " church thus expounded it, and is not this phrafe 
 
 "of 
 
YOUNG MEN, kc. 79 
 
 *' of the fame nature as conclufive for the divinity 
 *' of Chrift, as that other of the fame fubftance ? 
 " Why then fhould that exprefTion of the Nicene 
 " creed be thought fo ofFenfive, when there is 
 *' another in the fcripture fo near of kin to ir, 
 " that the Arians muft be fenfible that they could 
 *^ gain nothing by the exchange ? For the di- 
 " vine nature, we all agree, can be but one, three 
 " divine natures, of courfe, making three difFer- 
 " ent Gods. But the fcripture, compared as 
 " above, has aiferted Chrift to be of this divine 
 " nature." 
 
 We fee here, how much it is in the power of 
 prejudice to make men blind to the moft ob- 
 vious confiderations. For it is remarkable that 
 the participation of a divine nature is no where 
 fo exprefsly predicated of Chrift, as it is by Peter, 
 in this paflage, of all chrifiians : whereas, from 
 the above quotation from Mr. Jones, the reader 
 would have imagined that it was not to chrif- 
 tiansy but to Chrift only, that this participa- 
 tion was utrlbuted. 
 
 I ftiall conclude my animadverfions on Mr. 
 Jones's medium of proof, that God and Chrift are 
 the fame being, by obferving, that on the very 
 fame principle God and Satan may be proved to 
 be the fame Being; fin ce the fame aflion is af- 
 cribed to them both. For, in 2 Sam. i. 24. we 
 read, And- again the anger of the Lord was kindled 
 
 3 ^^rt/»/? 
 
8o LETTERS TO THE 
 
 egainji Ifraely and he moved David againjl theni^ to 
 fay^ go number IJrael and Judah j whereas, in the 
 parallel hiflory, i Chron. xxi. i. we read, And 
 Satan flood up againjt Ifrael^ and provoked David to 
 number Jfrael. 
 
 As to all the texts of fcripture in which Chrifl 
 is fpoken of as a man, and confequently inferior 
 to the Father, which are without number, Mr. 
 Jones makes himfelf very eafy about them, by- 
 faying, p. 23, that " in the perfon of Chrifi there 
 *' is a human foul and body, the nature of a man, 
 *' which, as it cannot lay claim to what is fpoken 
 " of Chrift in unity with the Father, fo muft it 
 " receive to its own account whatever feems to 
 <* degrade and disjoin him from the Father ; fo 
 " that the true catholic faith, which allows him 
 *' to be perfed God and perfeft man, is ntver of- 
 *' fended, or put to its lliifts, by any thing the 
 " fcripture may have faid about him in either 
 *' capacity." Had it therefore been afferted in 
 the mod exprefs terms, and had it been repeated 
 ever fo often, that Chrifl was not Gody it would 
 not have daggered Mr. Jones, or have put him 
 to any fhift at all j as he would inftantly have 
 replied, that the meaning was, not that the whole 
 ferfon of Chrifi, but only the man, the inferior 
 part of him, was not God. 
 
 Surely every perfon mud be fenfible, that this 
 is putting it abfolutely out of our power to make. 
 
 any 
 
YOUNG ME N, kc, gj 
 
 any inference whatever from the language of 
 fcripture, and fuppofing chat the facred writers 
 had recoil rfe to the moft unworthy equivocations. 
 For, by the fame rule, if any thing con fills of two 
 parts, whatever is afTerted as of ibe whole may be 
 underftood of which ever fart any perfon pleafes. 
 Confequently^ it might be truly faid of Chrift, 
 in contradidtion to every thing that is moft ex- 
 prefsly related of him in the gofpel hiftory, that 
 he was never born, that he neVer died, or never 
 rofe from the dead ; fecretly meaningj that none 
 of rhefe particulars could with truth be affirmed 
 of his divme nature. 
 
 When Chrifl, In order to comfort his difciples 
 under the idea of his departure from them, faid 
 that his Father (to whom he was going, and who 
 as God omniprefenr, would be always with them) 
 Was greater than hcy he certainly muft have in- 
 tended that he was greater, not than a part of 
 himfelf only, but than his whole felf His mean- 
 ing was, no doubt, the fame with that of other 
 pious perfons, who, on being feparated from their 
 friends by death, commonly fay, that they leave 
 them to the care of one who can da more for 
 them than they could. 
 
 We have an example of the manner in which 
 Mr. Jones applies the principle I have mentioned, 
 in his interpretation of i Cor. xi, 3. the head of 
 Chrijl is God. " The name Chrijly' he fays, p. 23, 
 
 G ' " does 
 
5-2 LETTERSTOTHE 
 
 ** does here ftand, as in other places out of num- 
 " ber, for the man Chrift. Otherwife it muft 
 *' follow, that as Chrift is God, God is the head 
 " of himfelf, which is a contradiction; or that 
 ** one God is the head of another God, which is 
 ** alfo a contradidion," But can you, Gentle- 
 men, think that by ChriJ}, in this paffage, the 
 apoftle did not mean the whole of Chrift, what- 
 ever his nature confifted of, and that God is not 
 here faid to be the head of, or fupeiior to, every 
 prart of that nature ? Mr. Jones might juft as 
 <vell have affirmed that when, in the former part 
 of the fame verfe, it is faid, the head of every man 
 isChnJly that by matij is to be underftood, not the 
 whole of man, but only fome part of him. 
 
 As Mr. Jones is obliged to have recourfe to 
 fqch a miferable abufe of language with refpeft 
 to the v/ord Chrift^ he makes no lefs free with the 
 term Father. For, in his interpretation of i Cor. 
 viii. 6. To us there is hut one God, the Father (a 
 text fo deciiively in favour of the proper unity of 
 God, in the perfon of the Father only, that there 
 was no other method of evading the force of it) 
 he fays, p. 21, " One God the Father is here the 
 " name of ^ nature, under which Chrift himfelf, 
 " as God, is alfo comprehended. And the fame 
 " may be proved of it in feveral other places." 
 Mr. Jones certainly was not aware of it, but this 
 kind of reafoning is even fubverfive of the doc- 
 trine of the trinity itfelf. For if the term Father 
 
 compre- 
 
Y O U N G M £ N, &:c. 83 
 
 comprehend all the perfons of the trinity, it mull 
 be fynonymous to the term God, and no proof 
 will remain of the exiilence of fuch a perfon as 
 that of the Father ; fo that the trinity will be re- 
 duced to two perfons, viz. the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit. And if his reafoning from the phrafe 
 partaking of the divine nature, be admitted, thefe 
 two will be farther reduced to one, viz. the Son, 
 , who will then, indeed, be the one God over all. 
 
 On this principle alfo we muft fuppofe, that 
 when Chriil prayed to the Fatlier, as the one true 
 God, John xvii. 3. he did not addrefs himfelf to 
 the perfon, of the Father, as any common reader 
 would imagine, but to the divine nature in gene- 
 ral ; and therefore that his prayer was as much 
 direded to himfelf, as to the Father. Befides, if 
 Mr. Jones be fuificiently authorized to confider 
 the term Father as expreflive of the divine nature 
 in general, why may we not be at liberty to ufe 
 the term Son, and Holy Ghcft, in the fame latitude. 
 And if each of them denote the whole of the di- 
 vine nature, the unity of God will be completely 
 eftablifhed ; as we fhall then have three different 
 names for the fame thing, vv'hich will be what is 
 commonly called Sabellianifm ; according to which 
 the iFather, who {Qnx. the Son, was himfelf the Son 
 that was lent, who was born, and who died. 
 
 It is furely fufficient to point out thefe fpeci- 
 mens of Mr. Jones's book, which contains no- 
 
 G 1 thing 
 
84 LETTERS TO THE 
 
 thing better, to fhew you what yoti have to ex- 
 pert from the whole. But 1 fincerely join with 
 the Dean of Canterbury in recommending the 
 whole of it to your careful perufal, thinking fuch 
 a defence of the do6trine of the trinity to be the 
 beft refutation of it 3 ftrongly exemplifying^ as 
 it does, the wretched fhifts men are reduced tOj 
 when their tenets are repugnant to common fenfe, 
 and contradidled by the plain and uniform lan- 
 guage of fcripture. Mr. Jones fcem-s to pride 
 himfelf in having muftered up " a hundred argu- 
 " mentSy moft of them new ;" but he might eafily 
 have made them a thoufand, and from the manner 
 in which they might be laid down, as likely to 
 be convincing. Mr. Jonesj however, fhould con- 
 fider, that the ftrength of an army depends not on 
 the number of fick and wounded, but only on 
 that of the effe^live men in it. 
 
 Since I wrote the preceding Letters to the Dean 
 of Canterbury, I have feen the finall pamphlet fo 
 Itrongly recommended by him. It is entitled, 
 A Prefervati've againjt the Publications dijperfed by 
 fuodern SocinianSy in which the Impiety and Ahjurdity 
 of their Principles are clearly Jhewn . T h i s Preferva ~ 
 tivey &c. contains little more than vehement ex- 
 clamation againft wehes in Jloeep^s cloathingy i^c. 
 rcprefenting the Socinians in the worft light, as 
 enemies to the gofpel, to God, and to their coun- 
 try j whofe dodrines cannot f^iil to bring the 
 
 judgments of God upon us all. 
 
 As 
 
YOUNG M E N, 8:c. 85 
 
 As a fpeclmen of the fentiments, and manner, of 
 this piece, I fhall only fele(i:l: the following para- 
 graph, from p. 16 ; " 1 do not know how the wit 
 *' of man, when it has got this new religion, can 
 ** put it into a creed. You cannot begin in the 
 " common form, I believe, &c. You mud fay, 
 " I do not believe — that any thing more than the 
 " religion of human reafon is neceflary to pro- 
 " feflbrs of chriftianity. I have no need of faith. 
 " I want not the grace of God. I need not be 
 " cajled, nor eledled, by the divine favour, &c." 
 
 " I remember, when I was a country fchool- 
 " boy, I ufed to hear my companions talk of 
 " raifing the devil by faying the creed backwards. 
 " Such a confeflion as this we have now before 
 " us feems better calculated to anfwer that pur- 
 " pofe, and is certainly fitter for a necromancer, 
 " than a profeflbr of chriftianity. Yet this is the 
 " favourite objeft, for the interefts of which a 
 " clamorous party aflembled, contributed, peti- 
 " tioned, and blotted tons of paper. For this an 
 <« unhappy gentleman" (meaning the excellent 
 Mr. Lindfey) " left his miniftry }n the church of 
 « England, to preach up the God of Mahome- 
 " tans in a chamber, and calls this conf effing Chrijl 
 " before men. For this their pamphlets are dif- 
 ^« perfed by thoufands, to turn the affedions of 
 " the ignorant from the ineftimable truths of the 
 « gofpel, and inflame their fancies with a fet of 
 p 2 *f opinions. 
 
tc 
 
 i LETTERS, he. 
 
 opinions, which can only lead thenri to perdi- 
 " tion," &c. &c. &c. 
 
 Surely, Gentlemen, 1 do not need to ccpy any 
 more of fuch a pamphlet as this, and much lefs to 
 reply to it. What mud that caufe be which re- 
 quires fuch v/retched mifreprefentaticn of the 
 principles and condud of ferious men, and fuch 
 inderent and profane drollery to fupport it. I 
 fhould not have thought ii; worth while to notice 
 fuch publications as either of thefe of Mr. Jones 
 (for this pamphlet is alfo afcribed to him) had 
 they not been fo earneftly recommended by fo 
 truly refpedable a writer as the Dean of Canter- 
 bury. I am alfo informed that Mr. Jones's Ca- 
 tholic Do^rine was recommended as a work of 
 confequence to the Univerfity of Oxford by their 
 Profelibr of Divinity, Dr. Bentham, v/ho pre- 
 ceded Dr. Randolph. I ferioufly hope that Dr. 
 Home himfelf will produce fomething much 
 fuperior to the publications he fo laviiTily com- 
 mends. If not, this controverfy is already at an 
 end. 
 
 , I nm, Gentlemen, 
 
 y^ur very h.umble fervant^ 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY. 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Dr. PRICE. 
 
 • Tn hac re fcilicet una 
 
 Mukum dillliniles j at csetera pene geirjelli, 
 Fraternis aniini§, 
 
 Horace. 
 
 G4 
 
LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Dr. P R I C E. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Dear Fr ien d, 
 
 WITHOUT any view to engaging you in 
 a controverfy, which you have exprefled 
 a fixed refolution to decline, but merely from 
 the fatisfaftion I feel in addrefling myfelf to a 
 perfon for whom I entertain the higheft degree of 
 efteem, and even veneration, and whofe candour 
 exceeds that of almoft every other man, I chufe 
 to throw a few remarks upon your late Ser- 
 mons into the form of Letters to yourfelf. A great 
 part of the fatisfadion I enjoy in this life, 
 and efpecially that valuable portion of it, which 
 arifes from my ardour (if I have any) in the 
 
 purfuic 
 
so L E T T £ R S T O 
 
 purfuit of truth, I owe to my intercourfe with 
 you 3 an intercourfcj and friendfhip, which has now 
 been of long {landing, and which, if it be not my 
 own fault, will never, I am perfuaded, have any 
 confiderable interruption ; but, afeer being the 
 fource of much happinefs to me here, will con- 
 tinue to be fo for ever. 
 
 Your diffidence with refped to conclufions, 
 which you have formed with the greateft care, 
 and after the moft deliberate enquiry, I even 
 think exceffivei and it is the only thing v/ith re- 
 fpe6t to which^ I cannot fay that I wifh to refemble 
 you. For I would not lofe the fatisfacftion that 
 arifes from a perfuafion of having found any va- 
 luable truth, nor v/ilingly continue longer than is 
 necelTary, in a fiate of doubt, than which nothing 
 is more painful and diftreffing. Whether I have 
 been too precipitate in forming my own judgment, 
 efpecially with refpeft to the important quellion 
 that will be the fubjecft of thefe Letters, is not for 
 myfelf lo determine. The time is faft approach- 
 ing, with refpeft to both of us, when all uncer- 
 tainty about it will be at an end ; and when the 
 fource of our error, on which ever fide it lies, will 
 be laid open to us -, and fo as perhaps may be of 
 fome ufe to us in our farther progrefs in the pur- 
 fuit of truth. In the m.ean time, the candour you 
 exprefs on the fubjeft, cannot but give me the 
 grcateft fatisfaftion. Speaking of the Socinian 
 fcheme, you fay, p. 72, " It maintains all that we 
 
 " need 
 
Da. PRICE. 91 
 
 *' need be anxious. about in chriftianity, and con- 
 " fequently the prejudices againft it have no juft 
 " foundation." 
 
 With that candour and diffidence which diflin- 
 guifh all your writings, and to which all ycur 
 fj-iends are witnelTes in your daily converfation, 
 you fay, with refpefl to the doftrine concerning 
 the perfon of Chrift, p. 158, " I can in this in- 
 " fiance, as in moft others, with much more 
 *' confidence fay what is noty than what is the 
 " truth. The Athanafian and Calviniftic fchemes 
 '' of chriftianity, I rejedl with ftrong convidion. 
 " The Socinian fcheme alfo, on the two points 
 '* which cuiefly diftinguifh it, I find myfclf incap- 
 " able of receiving." Now fince you cannot fay 
 that there are more than three opinions on the 
 fubjeft, and two of them are abfolutely inadmif- 
 fible by you, I fliould think that nothing could 
 'prevent you embracing the third with the greateft 
 confidence and fatisfaftion. Such, at leafl, would 
 be my own feelings in your circumftances, and fuch 
 they are with refpeft to the conclufions which I 
 draw from fimilar premifes. 
 
 Your indifference about making profelyres is 
 perfeftly agreeable to your ufual candour ; but this 
 alfo I think exceffive. " I feel," you fay, p. 158, 
 " no difpofition to be very anxious about bringing 
 *'' you over to my opinion. The rage for profe- 
 "■ Jytifm is one cf the curfes of the v/orld. I wilh 
 I to 
 
92 LETTERSTO 
 
 " tQ make no profelytes except to candour, and 
 " charity, and honeft enquiry." 
 
 If it be in the power of either precept or example 
 to make fuch profelytes as ibefey you. Sir, can- 
 not fail to have many j but in this cafe, I mufl 
 think that you exceed the juft bounds of modera- 
 tion. Our zeal to make profelytes ought, cer- 
 tainly, to be in proportion to our ideas of the im- 
 portance of the truth for which we are advocates ; 
 and it is evident that, notwithftanding your amiable 
 candour with refpeft to us SocinianSy or as we ra- 
 ther chufe to call ourfclves unitarians., you think 
 our tenets to be of dangerous confequence if 
 chrillianity itfclf be of any value. For you fay, 
 p. 146, "It appears to me that the dodrine of 
 *' ChrilVs fimple humanity, when vie\yed in con- 
 " nexion with the fcripture account of his exalta- 
 '■^ tion, implies an inconfiitency, and improba- 
 " bility, which falls )ittle ihort of an impofllbility ; 
 " and confequently that this doftrine not only 
 " renders the fcriptures unintelligible, but chriltia-f 
 " nity itfeif incredible." 
 
 If therefore, chriftianity, and the belief of it, be 
 of any importance, as no doubt you think them to 
 b", you ought to wifh, and endeavour, to make 
 profelytrs to that view of it, according to which 
 alone you think it to be credible. I write fo much 
 as I do in defence of the opinion which you 
 fo ftrongly reprobate, becaufe I fee it in a very 
 
 different 
 
Dr. price. q3 
 
 different light ; not indeed as the on'y view in 
 which chriftianity is credible (for I was a firm be- 
 liever in it when I was an Arian, and even when 
 1 was an Athanafian) but as that according to 
 which it is by far the mofi credible. I now think 
 the Athanafian doftrine to imply a dire6t contra- 
 didlion, and the Arian hypothefis to be fo inrpro- 
 bable, as that it muft greatly impede the recep- 
 tion of chridianity, efpecially with phiiofophical 
 unbelievers. I profefs to write wirh no othtr view 
 than to make profelytes ; nor indeed do I fee that 
 there can be any other rational objed: in writing at 
 all. 
 
 With the greateft refpcfl and affe6lion, 
 I am^ Dear Fn'::nd, 
 
 Yours fincerely, 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 BIRMINGHAM, 
 
 March i, 1787. 
 
94 L E T T E R S T O 
 
 L E T T E R II. 
 
 Of the Nainre and antecedent Vrohahility of the 
 Arian Uypothefis^ with the Caujes of Attachment to 
 it. 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 
 !> EFORE I ccnfider any of the arguments that 
 you have produced in fupport of your hypo- 
 thefis, I muft take the liberty to confider what it is, 
 and make fome obfcrvations refpefling its ante- 
 cedent -probability. For ■ to this muft correfpond 
 the number and weight of the argum.ents that are 
 neceffary to fupport it. The Arianifm that yoit 
 maintain is non that of Dr. Clarke, but of a much 
 lower kind. For you give it as your opinion, p. 
 95, that " by Chrift God made this world only, 
 " with its connexions and dependencies. Thofe 
 " learned men, threfore," you fay, p. 96, " feem 
 " to me to have gone too far, who fpeak of him as 
 " a being who exifted before all worlds, and as at 
 " the head of all worlds. This feems almoft as 
 " litile warranted by reafon and fcripture as the 
 " doctrine which makes him the one Jupreme ; and 
 " it makes the do<5lrine of his having humbled 
 *' himfelf to death, even the death of the crofs, to 
 
 " favethis world, almoft equally incredible." 
 
 But 
 
Dr. price. ^5 
 
 But whether we attend to the words of fcripture, 
 which lead you to conclude that Ghrill made this 
 worldy or whether we attend to the necedary con^ 
 nexions and dependencies of this world, which you 
 juftly fuppofe to have had the fame maker with it, it 
 appears to me that we cannot help concluding that, 
 if Chrifb made this world, he muft alfo have made 
 the fun, moon, and ftars, and confequently all 
 worlds. For the apoftle fays (Col. i. i6) by him 
 were all things created j vifihle and invifibky and 
 certainly there are not more confpicuous objefls in 
 nature than the fun, moon, and ftars. If, therefore, 
 the apoftle included in his idea of thi7igs vifibky 
 the earth on which we live, he could not have ex- 
 cluded thofe heavenly bodies, which are equally 
 vijible. Befides, v/nat can be more exprefs and 
 definite in this refpedl, than that which John fays 
 of the logosy which you fuppofe to be the fame 
 with Chrift, John i. 3. Jll things were made by him^ 
 and without him was net any thing made that was 
 made. 
 
 You fay, p. 143, " This earth, with its inha- 
 ** bitants and connexions, includes all of nature 
 *' that we have any concern with. — This obfer- 
 " vation is applicable to the account of the crea- 
 " tion in the firft chapter of Gcnefis ; that ac- 
 " count moft probably, being an account only of 
 " the creation of this earth, with its immediate 
 *^ dependencies." But in that account, the moft 
 exprefs mention is made of the creation of the fun, 
 
 m.oon. 
 
§6 L E T T E R S T O 
 
 iTioon, and ftars. Indeed, if we confider the con- 
 nexions and dependencies of the eaith, which you 
 luppofe to have been made by Chrift, we miift 
 admit that the moon^) at leafl, was alfo made by him, 
 on account of its intimate connexion with, and de- 
 pendence upon the earth ; and if the moon, furely 
 thtjun alfo, on which they both depend for light 
 and heati and if the fun, the whole of the planetary 
 fyftem, including the newly difcovered Georgium 
 Sidusj and all the comets, which belong to the 
 fun. And if the fun, with all that is connected 
 with it, and depends upon it, was created by 
 Chrift, why fhould we not fuppofe that he made 
 all that clufter, or fyjlem ofjlcirs, of which our fun 
 is one ; and if thofe liars, all the habitable worlds 
 belonging to them. 
 
 In this m.anner I do not fee hoW we can con- 
 fiftentiy ftop, till we include the whole univerfe,- 
 be the extent of it ever fo great, or even infinite.' 
 So great is the uniformity in the fyftem of nature^ 
 that we muft pronounce it to be one work, and of 
 courfe conclude that the author of it is cn^. This 
 indeed, is the proper argument for the unity of God 
 on the light of nature, and this argument re- 
 fpeits the immediate maker of the world, whoever 
 that Being be. 
 
 Though you think that all the ancient Arians,- 
 and Dr. Clarke and others among the moderns,- 
 made too much of the rank that Chrift holds in 
 
 the 
 
Dr. price. gy 
 
 the Creation, when they fuppofed him to have 
 exiftcd before all worlds, and to be ai the head of 
 worlds i you do not feem to agree with thofe of the 
 modern Arians who maintain that, on his incarna- 
 tion, he was divelled of all that power by which 
 he made and governed the world. For you make 
 his wifdom, and his miracles, to be proofs of his fu- 
 perior nature, which was alfo one of the arguments 
 of the primitive Fathers. 
 
 I cannot fay but I wifh you had been a little 
 more explicit in giving us your fentimenrs on this 
 fubjedt. For whether he was thus divelled, or not, 
 is a queftion that muft be decided one way or the 
 other J and to me it appears that you have only the 
 choice of Scylla or Charybdis. If you fay, as the 
 Arians in general now do, that while Chrifl: was 
 on earth, he was divefted of all his former power, 
 it will follow that, in the interval between his in- 
 carnation and refurreftion, the whole fyftem of the 
 government of the world was changed ; and be- 
 fides, it will not be eafy to conceive how, being 
 reduced to the condition of a mere man, he could 
 do any thing more than another mere man might 
 have done. 
 
 On the other hand, if, as you feem to fuppofe, 
 Chrift retained all his original power, and by that 
 power worked miracles, and raifed himfelf from 
 the dead, his humiliation, and efpecially his ex- 
 
 H treme 
 
98 LETTERS TO 
 
 treme dejedlion of mind during his agony in the 
 garden, will be thought to be as extraordinary. 
 For who can fuppofe that he who was at that 
 very time Jupporting dl things by the word of his 
 power, could not fupport himfelf, but needed the 
 fupport of an angel, an angel that (as pertaining 
 to this world) he himfelf had made, and was then 
 fupporting ? 
 
 Thefe things may not be proY^erlj cc7ttradi^ions, 
 but they are things at which my mind revolts, 
 with no lefs force -, fo that I cannot help think- 
 ing, that it is for want of giving due attention to 
 them, that the minds of all men do .not equally 
 revolt at them. 
 
 That mere divines fhould talk fo lightly as they 
 fometime-s do concerning creation, and the pofli- 
 bility of its falling within the province of an infe- 
 rior Being, I do not wonder j becaufe they have 
 no proper idea of what creation is, or implies. 
 They have no conception of the magnitude of it, 
 or of the wonderful extent of the laws by Vv'hich 
 the mundane fyftem is governed. But you. 
 Sir, are not a mere divine. You rank high in 
 the clafs of mathematicians, and natural philofo- 
 phers, who are daily contemiplating, and making 
 farther enauiries into, the laws of nature ; who 
 are filled with aflonilliment at what they do fee of 
 them, and who are at the fame timx well fatisfied, 
 
 that 
 
Dr. price. 
 
 99 
 
 that all they fee bears no fenfible proportion to 
 that which is unknown. 
 
 Now that a being pofiefTing the profound wif- 
 dom, and adonifhing power, that muft have been 
 neceflary to the conftruftion of fuch a fyftem as' 
 this (even allowing the matter out of which it was' 
 made to have been prepared for him) fliould be- 
 come a child in the womb of a woman, be born, 
 be brought up from infancy to manhood, be fiib-" 
 je(5l to all the piins and infirmities of men*, be 
 delivered into the hands of his enemies, be cru- 
 cified, and die, appears to me to be, in reality, no 
 lefs incredible, than it does to you that the creator 
 of all worlds fhould be fo degraded. 
 
 For between that power which is equal to the 
 conftruflion of fuch a world as this, with all its 
 connexions and dependencies, and that power which 
 is equal to the formation of all worlds j we are not 
 able to perceive any real difference. With re- 
 ipeft to our comprehen^on, that diff^erence muft be 
 merely nominal. The lefs is, to our perception, 
 infinite j and after that, if we fay that the other is 
 infiniio — infinite^ the idea is the fame \ as in our 
 ideas, an eternity a parte ;pofi makes no addition to 
 
 * I do not fay other men, for fuch a being as this, however de- 
 graded, would never be called a many by any perfon who was 
 acquainted with his natural rank. 
 
 H 1 the 
 
100 
 
 LETTERS 10 
 
 the idea of an eternity a parte ante. Each of them 
 exceeds any definite quantity, how great foever. 
 
 That you. Sir, therefore, who enter into thefe 
 ideas much more readily than I can pretend to 
 do, Ihould fo eifily admit that of fo creat a degra- 
 dation of your maker, and for a purpofe for which, 
 as you mufr allow, it is impofTible for us to con- 
 ceive that it fliould be neceffary, really aftonifhes 
 me. And yet you are no lefs aftoniflicd that I 
 fhould not adopt your views of this fubjeft. Our 
 readers mAift decide between us, and as to our- 
 felves, our mutual wonder will only produce ^ 
 friendly fmile. 
 
 Your attachment to the Arian hypothefis is evi- 
 dently owing, in a great meafure, to your fuppof- 
 ing it to have valuable fraolical ujes. You ad- 
 mire the condefcenfion of fo great a Being, as the 
 maker of the world, and of all its dependencies, 
 in becom.ing man, fufFering, and dying for us. 
 *^ I often," you fay, p. 155, " feel myfeif deeply 
 *' imprefied by this conlideration." This I can- 
 not call in qucflion. But many pious trinita- 
 rians are, I doubt not, more deeply im.prefied 
 with the confideration of the fupremc God be- 
 coming man, and then fuffering and dying for us ; 
 and the confideration of Dr. Clarke's logos (before 
 v/hom your diminutive logos flirinks into nothing) 
 the great created Being who exifted from all eter- 
 nity. 
 
Dk. price. lot 
 
 nity, and who created not only this world, but 
 all worlds, would do doubt imprefs his mind more 
 forcibly, and miore favourable than your dodlrine 
 can imprefs yours*. 
 
 There is not, indeed, any do61rine in the Cal- 
 vinftic, or the popifii fyilem, but what the advo- 
 cates for them will maintain to have excellent prac- 
 tical ufes. With what unfpeakable reverence and 
 devotion do the catholics eat their maker. But is 
 this any reafon why we proteftants fnould em- 
 brace their opinions .'' 
 
 We find fufricient fources of gratitude and devo- 
 tion in a purer fyjftem of chriftianity, and fo fhall 
 we do in paiTing from trinitarianifm to high 
 Aiianifm, from this to your luw Arianifm, and 
 from this to Socinianifn, even of the loweft 
 kind, in which Chrift is confidered as a mere 
 man, the fon of Jofeph and Mary, and naturally 
 as fallible and peccable as Moles, or any other pro- 
 phet. 1 have myfelf gone through all thefe changes, 
 and I think I may affure you, that you have no- 
 thing to apprehend from any part cf the progrels. 
 
 * " On other accounts, it [^i'^- t'le example of Chrii't] " i:? 
 " more forcible in proportion to his luperiority ; and this is trnc 
 " in particular of his condt-fceniion, humility, n^eclcnefs, and 
 " patience under ruiTering''. The greater he was, the'more we 
 *' are obliged to admire thefe virtues in him, and the more 
 <• \vc muft be excited to practice them." p. J5^. 
 
 H 3 la 
 
102 LETTERS TO 
 
 In every ftage of it you have that confideration 
 on which the fcriptures always lay the greatell 
 ftrefsj as a motive to gratitude and obedience, 
 viz. the love of God, the almighty parent, in giv- 
 ing his fon to die for us. And whether this fon 
 be man, angel, or of an fuperangelic nature,, every 
 thing that he has done is to be referred to the 
 love of God, the original author of all, and to him 
 all our ■ gratitude and obedience is ultimately 
 due. 
 
 Far would I be from detrafting from the merit 
 of Chrilt, or the value of his example, which I 
 would endeavour to keep in view. But, as a ve- 
 neration for him Ihould be checked when it 
 would lead us to afcribe to him divine honours ; 
 fo, in any other refpedl, fhould we be careful how 
 we give to him any part of that glory which his God 
 and Father will not give to another. 
 
 Now Arians, befides placing Chrifl in a de- 
 partment which belongs to God only, when they 
 make him the creator of the world, afcribe too 
 much to him, when they fuppofe, or feem to fup- 
 pofe, that it was in confequence of his own propo- 
 Jal, that he became incarnate, and undertook the 
 fcheme of our redemption. You, Sir, have not 
 aflerted this. But what you fay on the fubjed, 
 has little force on any other idea. Having fpokcn 
 of the "priftine dignity/' of Chrift, p. 153, and 
 
 of 
 
Dr. price. 103 
 
 of his " degrading himfelf to the condition of a 
 " mortal man," you fay, " This is an inftance of 
 " benevolence to which we can conceive no pa- 
 " raliel. This is probably the admiration of an- 
 « gels, &c.'' 
 
 Whatever might be the degradation of this 
 exalted Being, if it was done at the exprefs com- 
 mand of God, v/hich he muft have been fenfible 
 he had no right, or power, to difobey, there could 
 be no greater merit in it, than in the obedience of a 
 man to the known command of the fame Lord 
 of all. To do this readily, and chearfully, is all 
 the merit that created beings can pretend to. 
 
 Our Saviour's own language never gives us 
 any idea of his fervices to mankind, but as 
 what he undertook in confequence of the com- 
 mand of God ; as John vii. 28. Then cried 
 Jefus in the temple, as he taught, faying, ye both 
 know me, and ye know whence I am, and I am not 
 come of myfelf, but he that Jent me is true, whom 
 ye know not. Such is the uniform language of 
 our Saviour, whenever he fpeaks of his mifTion -, 
 and it fuggelh no other idea than that if any pro- 
 phet having received a commifiion from' God, 
 and chearfully undertaking the execution of it. 
 
 In the idea of the merit of Chrift's incarna- 
 tion, as well as in other refpefts, there is too 
 much of the proper trinitarian dO(5trine in the 
 H 4 fchcme 
 
104 LETTERS TO 
 
 fcheme of Arianifm, which rofe after it, and out of 
 it. In ancient Arianifm there was no difference in 
 the two fyftems but that between a created and an 
 uncreated logos. The office afllgned to them was the 
 very fame. Modern Arians are by degrees drop- 
 ping many ardcles in the ancient Arian creed j 
 but it appears to me that, in doing this, they make 
 a fcheme much lefs confident with itfelf, with 
 reafon, or with the fcriptures. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Of the Creation of Matter hy the Father, and the 
 Formation of it by the Son, and other Confidera- 
 iions attending the Idea of a finite and imperfect 
 Creator, 
 
 DearFriend, 
 TT is another part of your hypothefis, that crea- 
 -*• ticn out ef nothing is the prerogative of the Su- 
 preme Being, and that Chriil only employed the 
 matter, which he found already produced, in the 
 conftrudion of the world. " The formation of 
 " this world by Chrift does not;," you fay, p. 144, 
 " imply creation from nothings that probably be- 
 
 *' ing 
 
Dr, P R I C E, 105 
 
 " ing peculiar to almighty power, but only the 
 '^ arrangement of things into their prefent order, 
 " and the eftablifhment of this courfe of nature 
 " to which we are witnefies." 
 
 Now I do not fee why we fhould diftinguifli 
 the provinces of the created creator, and of the un- 
 created creator in this manner. What could »)^2//^r 
 be when it was firft produced out of nothing ? If 
 it had the necefiary properties of matter, you 
 rnuft fuppofe it to have been extended and impe- 
 neirable. For you will fay that without thefe pro- 
 perties matter would be nothing at all ; and if it 
 had impenetrability, it muft have had a firm co--* 
 hefion of its parts, v/hich implies a power of^^- 
 traSlion in the particles 0/ which it confiftsi and 
 if this frelh created matter did not immediately 
 coalefce into one mafs, or if there were SLny pores 
 in it, the particlt;s of it muft have been endued 
 with a repuljivej as well as an attradive power. 
 
 Again, if matter, as firll produced, had necef^ 
 fariiy the powers of attraftion and repulfion, why 
 not all that variety of attractions and repulfions 
 which conftitute all the different kinds of bodies ? 
 But if fimple attraftion and repulfion only be 
 admitted, we mufi; admit (omtform and arrange- 
 menty and therefore we cannot confine the exer- 
 tions of the Supreme Being to the mere creation 
 of matter. 
 
 Befidcs, 
 
io6 LETTERS TO 
 
 Befides, can any reafon be imagined why the 
 fame great Being, who with infinite eafe produced 
 matter itfelf, fhould not, with the fame eafe, have 
 produced it with all that variety^ and all that ar- 
 rangement, which conflitute the vifible fyftem of 
 the univerfe ? The whole mull have been equally 
 cafy to almighty power ; and the uniformity of the 
 fyftem would certainly be better fecured in this 
 manner, than by committing it to the difcretion, 
 and confequently to the indifcretion, of inferior, 
 and therefore imperfeft agents. To me, I own 
 there appears fomething fo ftrange in the fuppo- 
 fition of the Supreme Being having cresited ?nere 
 matter^ and of Chrift having made this mere mat- 
 ter into a world, or worlds j it is fo deilitute of 
 all probability either from appearances in nature, 
 or the language of fcripture, that I can hardly 
 think it deferves a ferious refutation. 
 
 As to the language oi the fcriptures^ it feems 
 to me to be abfolutely inconfifteiit with this hypo- 
 thefis. According to Mofes, the fame great Being 
 •who made the heavens and the earth, made alfo 
 the light y feparated the waters from the earth, and 
 made all the plants and animals with which they 
 are both furnifhed ; and no mention is made of 
 any other Being concerned in the production of 
 any thing, or in the government of the world, 
 when it was made. 
 
 According 
 
Dr. price. 107 
 
 According to your hypothefis, the Supreme 
 Being made nothing more than the earth y or dujl of 
 the ground^ as it is called (if his province extend- 
 ed even fo far as that) but the perfon who aftually 
 formed many and who made the difference of fexes, 
 was Chrill. But how does this agree with what 
 Chrift himfejf fays, Mark x. 6. From the begin- 
 ning of the creation God made them^ male and female. 
 You do not fuppofe that by the term God^ he 
 here meant himfelf ; nor will you f;y, withChry- 
 foftom, that Chrift did not chufe to intimate that 
 himfelf was the maker of man, left it fhouldgive 
 offence to the Jews. You muft, therefore, admit, 
 that the fupreme Being is here fpoken of as the 
 maker of the human race ; and fimilar to this is 
 the uniform language of fcripture^ fo that nothing 
 can authorize us to depart from the plain fenfe 
 ofit. 
 
 The Pfalmift had no idea of any intermediate 
 governor of the world when he faid, Pf. civ. 21. 
 'The young lions roar after their frey^ and feek their 
 meat from God; or our Saviour, when he faid. 
 Matt. vi. 26. Behold the fowls of the air, for th^y 
 fc-d; not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, 
 yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. 
 
 There is another puzzling circumftance at- 
 tending your hypothefis of a proper creation by 
 the Father, and of the fonnation of things only 
 by the Son, which is that part of the fcheme 
 
 which 
 
io3 L E T T E R S T O 
 
 which relates to Jpirit. For befide malerlal 
 fuhjlance, of which the earth, &c. confifts, you 
 ^fuppofe that there is alfo a derived immaterial 
 fubjiance. Was this, as well as the former, created 
 by the almighty power of the Father, and afcer- 
 wards/(5?7;2^<^inLO angels, and the fouls of men, by 
 Chrift ? This is a queftion that arifes from your 
 general hypothecs, which requires to be ccnfi- 
 dered; and the difcufficn of which may occafion 
 fome embarrafTment to your fchcme. 
 
 If the inllrumentaliry of Chrift in making the 
 world was of the fame nature with that by v^hich 
 he raifed the dead, and worked his other mira- 
 cles (as to which we are uflured, that not himfelf, 
 but the Father within him, did the works) there 
 could be no occafion for a Being of power fupe- 
 rior even to that of man. In this kn(t Adam, 
 immediately after being created himfelf, might 
 have been as good a creator as either your logos, 
 or that of Br. Clarke. But then this would he 
 no proper inftrumentality at all, 
 
 This kind of an intermediate creator cannot, 
 therefore, befuppofed. He muft have had povv- 
 ers equal to the work, and if, as you juftly ob- 
 ferve, all finite Beings attain perfeftion by de- 
 grees*, the maker of this world muft firil have 
 
 * " Do not all beings rife gradually, one acquifition laying 
 ** the foundation of another, and preparing the way for higher 
 *< acquifitions ? p. 147. 
 
 produced 
 
Dr. price. log 
 
 produced fomething lefs perf.(5l:. But what evi- 
 dence is there of the exiftence of any fuch lefs 
 perfe6lprodu(^tion ? Shall we look for this firft 
 elfay at creation in a ftate of the earth prior to that 
 of which Mofes gives us an account? And when 
 this earth fliall be dellroyed, will the maker of it 
 befo far improved by experience, as to be able to 
 new model it into a better form, fo that the evils 
 which, through v.'ant of fl<.ill in the creator, could 
 not be excluded at prefent, will be excluded here- 
 after. 
 
 But tliough this finite creator fhould be ever 
 fo much improved by obfcrvation and experience, 
 ilili his work, bcin:.^- the produiSlion of an imper- 
 feci beings mull be imperfedt ; and while the reign 
 of Chrift continues, we can never hope to be un- 
 der the condu(5l of a Being of infinite power, 
 wifdom, and goodnels, as long as v/e exifr. 
 
 Is it pofTible that fuch a notion as this, per- 
 fecllv confonant to the Arian hypothefis, fliould 
 be contemplated with pleafure ? It gives me un- 
 fpeakably more f .tisfaftion to confider the pre- 
 fent fyftem as the bed pofiible; being the imme- 
 diate produdion of a Being of infinite wildom, 
 .and that even the evils of which v/e complain are 
 neceffary parts of this beft pofiible conflitution 
 of thino;s. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
iio L E T T E R S T O 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Conjiderations relating to the Origin mid Hijlory of 
 the Avian Do^rine. Of Chriji not being the Oh- 
 je^ of Prayer, and of the Claim of Arians to the 
 Appellation of Unitarians. 
 
 Dear Fr i end, 
 
 'X/'OU cannot fay that Chrifl himfelf ever drop- 
 ped any hint that he was either the maker, or 
 the governor of the world ; and, as I have argued 
 at large, in my controverfy with Dr. Horfley, and 
 in my Hijlory of early Opinions concerning Chriji, 
 if the apoftles had, at any time, been informed of 
 the truth of a doftrine, which they -could never 
 have learned from the fcriptures of the Old Tefta- 
 ment (in which nothing is faid of the Mejfiah being 
 the maker of the world^ a do6lrine of which they 
 could have had no fufpicion from any thing that 
 they obferved while they lived and converfed 
 with Chrift, we mufl have perceived fome traces 
 of it in their hiftory. It was a neijo idea, and of 
 fuch great magnitude, and fo diftinguiiliingly ho- 
 nourable to their mafcer, compared with Mofes, 
 or any of the preceding prophets, as muft have 
 excited the greateft aftonilliment in both the 
 friends and the enemies of chrillianity. 
 
 It 
 
Dr. price. 
 
 lit 
 
 It was an opinion at which the minds of all 
 Jews mud have exceedingly revolted, and there- 
 fore would have required to have been largely 
 infifled upon, and copioufly defended, even much 
 more than the do6liine of the admifTion of gen- 
 tile converts into the chriilian church, without 
 conformity to the inilitutions of Mofesj fo that 
 we fhould not have been left, as we now are, to 
 infer this extraordinary do6lrine from two or three 
 expreflions in cafual epiftles. 
 
 I have alfo fhewn that the do6lrine of thefimple 
 humanity of Chrift, how incredible foever you 
 may think it makes the gofpel to be, was that 
 alone which was received by the great body of 
 the primitive chrifcians, both Jews and Gentiles. 
 They were in poireffion of the books of the New 
 Teftament, and for their ufe they were v/ritten, 
 and yet they faw in them no fuch do6lrine as that 
 of the creation of the world by Chrill, or even that 
 of his pre-exiftence. I have alfo proved (as I muft 
 be allowed to fay till I fee it difproved) that the 
 dodlrine of the world being made by a created 
 Being was (if we except the Gnoftics) abfolutely 
 unknown in the chriftian church till the time of 
 Arius. Alfo, the acknowledgments of Athana- 
 fius,andofall the orthodox Fathers of the church, 
 imply nothing lefs than the general prevalence of 
 the do6lrine of xhtfimpk humanity of Chrift, and 
 by no means that of his pre-exiftence, or fu- 
 perangelic nature. Ho.w then can that be re- 
 ceived 
 
%t2 LETTERS TO 
 
 ceived as the do6lrine of the fcriptures, which 
 was never underftood to be foj for fo long a 
 period ? 
 
 I have likewife fhewn that, till the fame pe- 
 riod, all the learned chriftians fuppofed that Chrifl 
 had a proper human fotily befidts the logos that 
 was united to him, and that this logos (by which 
 they fuppofed the world to have been made) had 
 been an cffential attribute of God the Father, a 
 fyftem fundamentally different from that of Aria- 
 nifm. It muft therefore require the moll exprefs 
 evidence from the fcriptures, to prove /re;;? them 
 the truth of a doctrine unfupported by any ap- 
 pearance in nature, and that was not difcovered 
 to be contained in the fcriptures of the Old or 
 New Teftament, till three hundred years after 
 Chrift. 
 
 Another part of the nnticnt Arian hypothefis, 
 viz. that of Chrift having been the perfon by 
 whom the fupreme God had intercourfe with the 
 Patriarchs, you difclaim } juftly thinking it to be 
 exprefsly contradicted in the firil yerfe of the 
 epiftle to the Hebrews. But the feparation of 
 two fuch old and intimate friends, as this opinion, 
 and that of Chrift having made the world, is, I 
 think, not a little hazardous with refpe6t to them 
 both. And furely it might naturally be expected, 
 that if Chrift be that Being who made the world, 
 who, of courfe, fupported it by his power, and who 
 
 at 
 
Dr. price. 113 
 
 at length became incarnate in it, and died for it, 
 he would be the proper ii^edium of all the divine 
 intercourfe wiih ir. Can it be fuppofed that the 
 maker of men had nothino to do with them from 
 their creation to the time of their redemption ? 
 
 You alfo reje(^t another part of the ancient 
 Arian hypothefis concerning Chrift, viz. that he 
 is the proper objeft of prayer. And yet it is fo 
 natural that the maker andpreferver of men, and 
 of the world, fhould be the object of prayer, that, 
 in my opinion, nothing could have prevented the 
 praftice, but fome very exprefs prohibition to 
 worfliip him, which we no where find in the fcrip- 
 tuies. It is only the idea of Chrift not being 
 prefent with us, together with its not being in 
 his powtr to help us, that can make him, or any 
 other B:ing, not to be the proper objedb of prayer 
 to us. For there cannot be any thing unreafonable 
 in our afking of any Being a favour which it is in 
 his power to grant, provided he be acceilible 
 to us. 
 
 You fay of the Father, p. 97, " There is no 
 *' other Being concerning whom we have fuffi- 
 "^ cient reafon to think that he is continually pre- 
 " fent with us, and a witnefs to all our thoughts 
 *•' and defires. There is, therefore, no other Being 
 *' to whom our prayers ought to be direfted." 
 But furely the Being who made, and who pre- 
 ferves us, he in ivhom all things confift, whether 
 
 I he 
 
114 LETTERS TO 
 
 he be finite or infinite, mufl always be prefent 
 with us, and mufl have it jn his power to grant 
 all the petitions that we ever addrefs to God. 
 
 It is fimply under the charafter of God being 
 the Lord our maker, that the fcriptures teach us 
 to worjhip and how down before him. Whatever 
 Being, therefore, comes under the defcription of 
 the Lord our maker, we are authorized to worlhip 
 and bow down to him ^ and as, according to you, 
 Chrifl is that Being, you muft be abundantly jufli- 
 fied in making him the objed: of your prayers. 
 To be the Lord our maker, and the objeft of 
 prayer, are fo naturally and necefllirily connected, 
 that if, by any argument whatever, it can be 
 proved that Chrifl is either not the one, or not 
 the other, it mufl follow that he cannot be either 
 of them. 
 
 Moreover, all the ancient Arians allowed Chrifl 
 the appellation of God, and indeed you do the 
 fame, when you apply to him what is faid of the 
 logos in the introdudion to the gofpel of John, 
 For that logos is exprefsly faid to be God, and 
 has the attributes of the God defcribed by Mofes, 
 viz. the maker of all things that are made. It is, 
 therefore, no fuch God, as Mofes himfelf is called 
 with refpc6l to Pharoah, or as any magiflrate may 
 be called. You make him to be a God both in 
 name, and in power. It appears to me, therefore, 
 not a little extraordinary, that you fhould claim 
 3 the 
 
Dr. P R I G E. 11^ 
 
 the title of unitarians f when all that you can with 
 propriety fay is, that, though you acknowledge 
 two Gods, one of them only is the obje<5t of prayer, 
 and to be worfhipped, and the other, though your 
 maker, and conftant preferver, yet, for fome un- 
 Icnown reafon, is not the objefl of prayer, or to be 
 worlliipped. 
 
 Your definition of the word unilariattj Note, 
 p. S^y appears to me to be quite arbitrary, and 
 unnecelTarily complex. " By unitarians," you fay, 
 " I mean thofe chriftians who believe there is 
 " but one God, and one object of religious wor- 
 *^ fhip ; and that this one God is the Father only, 
 " and not a trinity, confifling of Father, Son, and 
 " Holy Ghoft. An unitarian, therefore," you 
 add, " may, or may not, be a believer in Chriil's 
 " pre-exiftence." 
 
 But I Ihould think that the only natural and 
 fimple definition of an unitarian fhould be, a be- 
 liever in one God., or one perfon, properly entitled 
 to the appellation of God, whether he was an ob- 
 je6t of religious worlhip, or not i which is another 
 and independent circumltance. If a perfon not 
 concerned in this controverfy were a(ked to give 
 his opinion, I Ihould imagine that, if he made 
 any addiiion to this definition, he would fay, that 
 an unitarian was a believer in one God, or one Being 
 concerned in the creation and care ef the world. And 
 
 1 2 even 
 
116 LETTERS TO 
 
 ev^en this is rifing higher in the definition of the 
 powers o^ godhead than the anticnc heathens, who 
 were properly and profciTedly polytheifls, ever did. 
 
 You fay, that " an unitari.in may, or may 
 " not, be a believer in ChriiVs pre-exifbence," 
 and very iuflly, if you mean that he pre-exifted 
 as an angel, or arch-angel, and if you can af- 
 fign him any department fimilar to theirs. But 
 I really cannot help confidering Arians as be- 
 lieving in two Godsy while they hold that Chrift, 
 though a created Being himfelf, had for his de- 
 f)artment the formation of this world, the ad- 
 juftmentof all the laws to which it is fubjecl, and 
 of courfe the conilant care and government of the 
 v>/ho\e, fuppoj iing it by the -word of his power. And 
 that the great Being to whom this defcription be- 
 longs fhould not be the objeft of prayer, is to me 
 incomprehenfible. If I thought there really was 
 any fuch derived Being, always prcfent with me, 
 who planned all the events of my life, and whofe 
 power continually fupported me, 1 could hardly 
 refill the impulfe to pray to him. 
 
 Laftly, if according to your definition, the one 
 God mull be the Father only, and they are not 
 unitarians who do not make him the fole objed 
 of religious worfliip, how will you clafs the Mo- 
 ravians, who addrefs no prayers to him, but to the 
 Son only ? Will you fay that they are worlhip- 
 
 pers 
 
Dr. price. 117 
 
 pers of no God at all ? They might even be- 
 come Arians, and continue their practice of pray- 
 ing to Chrift only. All the antient Arians prayed, 
 to him. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Of the Froof from the Scriptures of the Creation of 
 the JForld by Chrift, 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 C URELY fuch an hypothefis as yours, viz. that 
 of a great pre-exiftent created Being, the 
 creator of this world, with all its connexions and de- 
 pendencies, and yet not the objedt of prayer; a 
 Being which, it muft be acknowledged, no ap- 
 pearance in nature Vv'ould ever have fuggefted to 
 US, of which we have no account in any part of 
 the Old Teftament (though we are there informed 
 concerning the creation of all things) an hypo- 
 thefis which was unknown to all chriftians, learned 
 and unlearned, till the rime of Arius, requires 
 fome vtry fatisfadlory evidence ; and if all the 
 proofs be (rom fcriptiire, thofe proofs ought to be 
 very numerous, as well as very clear. You ought 
 Uifo to be able to give fome good reafon why the 
 
 1 3 fcrip- 
 
ii8 LETTERS TO 
 
 fcriptures were not underftood to teach this ex- 
 traordinary dodtrine for fo many centuries, by 
 thole who muft have been the beft acquainted 
 with the language in which they are written. 
 
 Now there are not, in reality, more than two 
 paflages, in which Chrift is, in any fenfe, faid to 
 have created any thing, and thefe are not in any 
 hijlorkal work^ but only incidental exprelTions 
 in the epifties of PauJ, viz. Eph. iii. 9, who cre- 
 ated all things by Jejus Chrift j and Col. viii. 16, 
 by him were all things created^ that are in heaven, 
 and that are in earth j viftble and inv'ifihle j whe- 
 ther they he thrones^ or dominionSy or principalities, 
 or powers. All things were created by him^ and for 
 him, and he is before all things^ and by him all things 
 conjif i and he is the head of the body the church, 
 who is the begin lingy the firji-born from the dead ; 
 that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. 
 For it pleafed the Father that in himjhould allfulnefs 
 dwell. And, having made peace through the Hood of 
 his crofs, by him to reconcile all things unto himself ; 
 by him, I fay, whether they be things in earth, or 
 things in heaven. 
 
 As to the introduction to the gofpel of John, 
 it is not there fai^ that any thing was made by 
 Chriji, but only by the logos, which we maintain 
 to be the word, or power of God, which, as it were, 
 refided in Chrift, to which he afcribed all the 
 miracles that he wrought, and which there can 
 
 be 
 
Dr. price. iig 
 
 be no doubt did make all things. In Heb. i. 2. 
 it is not faid that the worlds ^ but that the ages were 
 made by Chrift ; fo that fomething mufi: be meant 
 by the phrafe very different from proper creation. 
 
 Without entering into a large examination of 
 the two paflages above-mentioned, in which crea- 
 tiofij in fome fenfe or other, is afcribed to Chrift, 
 I would only obferve that neither the earth, nor 
 the fun, moon, or ftars, nor any material fub- 
 ftance, is fpecified among the things created by 
 him. In the former it is all things^ in general, 
 which is quite indefinite ; and in the latter, in which 
 the things created by him are enumerated, we 
 only find thrones, dominions, i^c. by the creation of 
 which may be intended fome exercife of that 
 power, and authority, which were given to Chriit 
 after his rcfurreftion. 
 
 That this was the whole meaning of the apoftle 
 is pretty evident from two circumftances ; firft, 
 that this enumeration of things created by him, 
 and confining in him, clofes with the mention of 
 his being the head of the body the church, as if that 
 was intended to comprehend all the preceding 
 particulars. Secondly, as in the former part of 
 the paffage, ail things that are in heaven snd 
 earth, vifible and invifible, are faid to be createdhy 
 Chrift, in the latter part of it all things in heaven 
 and in earth, are faid to be reconciled by himj fo 
 that thofe two expreffions created and reconciled, may 
 
 I 4 well 
 
120 LETTER S T O 
 
 well be fuppofed to be fynonymous to each other, 
 and t be defcriptive of the new creation, or renova- 
 tion of the world by chriflianity. And this is the 
 more probable, from the apoftie's enlarging on 
 this idea in the verfes immediately following thofe 
 quoted above, And you y that were fometimes alienat- 
 ed^ and enemies in your minds ^ by wicked works, yet 
 now hath be reconciled, &c. 
 
 Had the term creation never been applied in 
 the fcriptures to any thing but the creation of ma- 
 terial things, there would have been fome plaufi- 
 bility in your argument from thefe two texts. But 
 you know it is very ufual with the facred writers to 
 defcribe the renovation of things by this term, and 
 efpecially that great and happy change in the fyf- 
 tem of human affairs which was brought about by 
 the gofpel. This ufe of the term creation in the 
 New Teilament feems to have been borrowed 
 from the fame ufe of it in the Old, and efpecially 
 in If. Ixv. 17. For behold I create new heavens and 
 a new earth -, and the former Jhall not be remembered, 
 nor come into mind. Bi^ be ye glad, and rejoice for 
 ever in that which 1 create. For behold I create 
 Jerufalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. In this 
 figurative language, it is evident, that the prophet 
 defcribes the new and happy ftate of things, which 
 is to take place in the latter days, when the Jews 
 will be rellored to their own country, and Jeru- 
 falem, here faid to be created, will be rebuilt, with 
 
 great fplendor. 
 
 There 
 
Dr. price. 
 
 121 
 
 There are a variety of paflages in which the 
 term creation is evidenily ufed in this fecondary 
 fenfe in the New Teftament, as 2 Cor. v. 17. If 
 any one he in Chrijl he is a new creature. Gal. vi. 15. 
 In Chrifl J ejus neilher circumcifion availeth any 
 things nor uncircumcifwn^ but a new creature. Eph. 
 ii. 10. IVe are his workman/hip y created in Chrijl 
 J ejus unto good works. 
 
 The very fame word which is ufed when things 
 are faid to be created by Chrift, is even applied to 
 human inftitutions ; as in i Pet. ii. 3. Jubmii yaur- 
 Jelves to every ordinance of man (-nraan av^pccTrivn kuuzi) 
 every creation of man ; and it is remarkable that the 
 creation which is afcribed to Chrift in the epiftle 
 to the Coiloffians, is of the fame nature with this 
 which is here afcribed to men, viz. that of domi- 
 nions ^ -principalities^ arid powers. 
 
 Now fince it is moil evident that the term crea- 
 tion is ufed in two fenfes, the one literal, and the 
 other figurative, you ought not to determine the 
 application of it, in any particular paffage, to 
 either of them, without a reafon. And fince the 
 creation of the heavens and the earth, whenever 
 they are exprefsly mentioned, is conftantly af- 
 cribed to God the Father; and x\\^fij^urative crea- 
 tion only, where that is evidently intended, to 
 Chrift, we are certainly not authorized to afcribe 
 to him any other creation than the latter, in any 
 paftage in which the exprcffion is indefinite. If 
 
 this 
 
J22 LETTERSTO 
 
 this be not a natural and juft rule of interpretation, 
 I am not acquainted with any that ought to be 
 called fuchi and this clearly gives the creation of 
 the world to the Father, and not to Chrift. 
 
 After reciting thofe pafiages which you think 
 prove that the apoitles confidered Chrift as the 
 maker of the world, but without any notice of 
 the Socinian interpretations of them, you fay. 
 Note, p. 141, " It is a circumftance a little dif- 
 " couraging, in reciting this evidence from fcrip- 
 *' ture, that fome modern Socinians would nor be 
 *' convinced by it, were it ever fo clear and de- 
 " cifive." Then, mentioning my name with a 
 degree of refpe£l to which I cannot think myfelf 
 entitled, you fay, " he intimates that had this 
 " been the opinion of the apoftles, we Ihould not 
 *' be bound to receive it." 
 
 Now, unlefs you believe the plenary and uni- 
 verfal infpiration of the apoftles, which you will 
 not pretend to do, I do not fee v;hy you fliould 
 be at all ftaggered at this. Suppofe any of the 
 apoftles had incidently fpoken of the fun and 
 ftars revolving round the earth (which, if they had 
 given any opinion on the fubjed, they probably 
 would) fliould you have fubfcribed to it ? You 
 would have faid, that fuch an opinion had no con- 
 nexion with their proper commiftlon. Shew then 
 the necejfary comexion (for of imaginary and remote 
 connexions there is no end) between any thing 
 
 in. 
 
Dr. price. 123 
 
 in, or belonging to, the commiffion of the apof- 
 tles, Go, and teach all nations^ &c. and the dodrine 
 of the making of the world by Chrlft. It certainly 
 was not Jiecejfary that he wlio came to redeem the 
 world (whatever you mean by that term) fhould 
 have created it alfo. 
 
 As I have obferved before, you cannot fay that 
 Chrift himfelf ever dropped the mod diftann 
 hint of his having been the maker of the world. 
 Nay, the contrary, as I have Ihewn, is implied in 
 what he faid. We ought therefore, to have very 
 good and clear evidence, to think that the apof- 
 tles meant not only to advance fo much above 
 what had been taught by their mafter, but realijT 
 to teach a contrary doftrine. 
 
 Had I been living in the age of the apoftles, 
 and heard any of them advance fuch an opinion, 
 I think I ihould have taken the liberty to alk 
 their authority for it. The Jews, who looked 
 to the prophets for the charafter and office of the 
 Meffiah, where they fav/ nothing of the kind, 
 might well have faid to any of them who fhould 
 have taught fuch a do6trine as this, though hringejl 
 jlrange thhigs to our ears. That fuch a remark 
 does not appear to have been made, amounts, in 
 my opinion, to a proof that no fuch doftrine was 
 'taiight, 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
124 LETTERS TO 
 
 LETTER VI. p. 
 
 Of the Argument for the pre-e>:iftent Dignity of 
 Chrift from his working Miracles. 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 
 T Shall now drop the confideration of Chrifl hav- 
 •*" ing been the creator of the world, and attend 
 to what you have faid of his ■pre-exiftent dignity in 
 general. Among other proofs of this, you fay, 
 p. 125, " the hiftory of our Saviour as given in the 
 *' New Teftament, and the events of his life and 
 *' miniftry, anfwer beft to the opinion of the fu- 
 ** periority of his nature," and among other parti- 
 culars, you enumerate '' the wifdom which dif- 
 " covered itfelf in his doctrine, and by which he 
 *' fpake as never man fpake, that knowledge of 
 *^ the hearts of men, by which he could fpeak to 
 " their thoughts, as we do to one another's words, 
 " and thofe miraculous powers by which, with a 
 " command over nature like that which firft pro- 
 '^ duced it, he ordered cempefts to ceafe, and gave 
 " eyes to the blind, limbs to the maimed, reafon 
 '^ to the frantic, health to the fick, and life to the 
 " deid." 
 
 Thef^ 
 
Dr. price. m5 
 
 Thefe inftances of wifdom and power would 
 indeed be a proof of a nature fuperior to man, if 
 in any proper fenfe, this v/ifdom and power could 
 be faid to be his o%vn^ or to belong to him, as the 
 powers of walking and fpeaking belong to men in 
 general, powers which we can exert whene/er we 
 pleafe. But the reverfe of this is moll clearly 
 aflerted by our Lord himfelf, John xiv. lo. 'Thz 
 words that 1 fpsak unto you 1 fpeak not of myfelfy 
 hut the Father, that divelkth in me, he doth the 
 works. 
 
 This is indeed fuily acknowledged by yourfelf, 
 in your Sermon on the rejurreolion of Lazarus y 
 where }ou fay, p. 331, " the manner in which he 
 *' referred his miracles to the will and power of 
 *^ God, requires our attention. After the ftone 
 " was taken away, he made, we are told, a folemn 
 " addrefs to God -, and lifting up his eyes faid, 
 " Father, I thank thee that thou haft heard me. 
 *' This implies that his ability to work his mi- 
 '^ racles was the confequence of his having prayed 
 " for, it. Throughout his whole miniftry, he was 
 '' careful to direct the regards of men to the deity, 
 " as the fountain of all his powers. His language 
 " was, the Father who dwelleth in me, he doth the 
 " works. lean of my own fef do nothing. I came 
 ** to do the will of him that Jeni me." This is very 
 ingenuous, but fureiy not very conliftent with your 
 inferring the fuper-human nature of Chrift from 
 his miracles, which, according to your ov/n ac- 
 count, 
 
126 LETTERS TO 
 
 count, might have been wrought by any man, 
 equally aided by God. 
 
 The perlbns who faw the miracles of Chrift, 
 and who mull have been as good judges in the 
 cafe as we can pretend to be, never inferred from 
 them that he was, in himfelf^ of a nature fuperior 
 to man, but only that God was with him., and aited 
 by him, as he had done by Mofes. Among others, 
 Nicodemus fays, John iii. i. Rabbij we know that 
 thou art a teacher come from God. For no man 
 can do thefe miracles that thou dofi^ except God be 
 with him. After he had cured a perfon fick of 
 the palfy at Capernaum, we read. Matt. ix. 8. 
 PVhen the multitude faw it, they marvelledy and glo- 
 rifiid God, who had given fuch power unto men. Af- 
 ter the cure of the demoniac, on the defcent of 
 Chrift from the mount of transfiguration, Luke ix. 
 43. it is faid, they were all amazed at the mighty 
 power of Gcd. And after his raifing the widow's 
 fon to life, it is faid, Luke vii. 16. y^nd there came 
 a fear on ally and they glorified Gody fayingy that a 
 great prophet is rifen up among uSy and that Gcd had 
 vifited his peopky' meaning, no doubt, as he had 
 done the Ifraeiites in Egypt, by fending Mofes 
 to them. 
 
 Befides, I do not fee how your argument for the 
 fuperior nature of Chrift from his miracles is con- 
 fiftent with what you fay. Note, p. 140, of the 
 fufpenfion of his powers. " That humiliation of 
 
 " Chrift, 
 
Dr. P R I G E. 127 
 
 *' Chrifl:, and fufpenfion of his powers, which is 
 '^ implied in his being made a man, and growing 
 '^ up from infancy to mature age, fubjeft to all 
 " our wants and forrows, is indeed, as to the man- 
 ** ner of it, entirely incomprehenfible to us." 
 
 But perhaps your idea was, that his natural 
 powers were fufpended only from the time of his 
 incarnation to that of his public miniftryj when 
 the full exercife of them was reftored to him, fo 
 that he wrought his miracles with no more parti- 
 cular afliilance than I have in writing this book. 
 But fuch a temporary fufpenfion and reftoration of 
 his powers is a mere arbitrary fuppofition, without 
 any foundation in the hillory, or rather in contra- 
 diftion to all thofe pafTages that imply the imme- 
 diate agency of the Father in the miracles of 
 Chrift. There is alfo, in this cafe, a difficulty 
 which I have mentioned before, and to which you 
 do not feem to have given fufficient attention, viz. 
 that in this interval of thirty years, the govern- 
 ment of the world was in different hands, and yet 
 without any change being, I prefume, perceived 
 in the condud of it. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
12S LETTERS TO 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Of the Argument for the pre-exi pi ent Dignity of Chrifi^ 
 from his being fuppojed to have rafed himfelf froyn 
 the Deady and from his voluntarily dijmiffing his 
 Spirit when he died. 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 
 « A NOTHER fift," you fay, p. 128, " of ihe 
 *' fame kind" (viz. which proves his nature 
 
 to be fuperior to that of man) " in liis raifmg 
 " himfelf from the dead. This he feems to have 
 " intimated, vi^hen he fays to the Jevv's, Dejiroy this 
 " temple, and in three days I will raife it up again. 
 "But more exprefsly in John x. 17, 18. There- 
 ''^ fore doth my Father love me, hecauje I lay dozvn my 
 " life that I may take it again. No one taketh it 
 f^ from me, but I lay it down of myfelf. 1 have 
 *' power to lay it down, and I have power to take it 
 ** again. This commandment have I received of my 
 " Father. In all other places God is faid to have 
 " raifed Chrift from the dead ; and thefe words 
 ** inform us how this is to be underfrood. God 
 " raifed Chrift from the dead by giving him a 
 " pov/er to raife himfelf from the deadj and not 
 " only himfelf, but all the world." 
 
 But 
 
Dr. price. 123 
 
 But can you fuppofe that, if every thing which 
 exceeded the power of an ordinary man, that was 
 feemingly done by Chrift, was not really done by 
 him, but by God who was with him, while he was 
 alive^ tp.e cafe was not the fame with every thing 
 that refpe(fled him when he was dead? Or can 
 you imagine that, if the apoftles had underjiood 
 him to mean what you do, in the exprefTions 
 above quoted, they would not have made the 
 greateft account of the circumftance, and have 
 exprefled it in the cleared terms after his re- 
 furre^tion^ as a proof of his pre-exiftent dignity, 
 and fuperior nature ? But, as you acknowledge, 
 *' in all other places God is faid to have raifed 
 *' Chrift from the dead ;" and though the refurrec- 
 tion of Chrift is frequently mentioned by them, 
 there does not occur a fingle expreflion, in all their 
 preaching or writing, that, by any mode of con- 
 ftruftion, can be interpreted into an intimation, 
 that they had the idea of his having raifed himfelf 
 from the dead. It is plain, therefore, that his 
 difciples did not underftand him to mean what 
 you do in the exprefTions you have quoted. 
 
 Befides, the exprefTions which you have quoted, 
 eafily admit of another interpretation ; whereas, 
 in the numberlefs pafTages in which God is faid to 
 have raifed Chrift from the dead, the language is 
 plain, fo as to give no fufpicion of one thing being 
 faid, and another thing being intended. And 
 furely we ought to interpret what is lefs intelligible 
 K by 
 
150 LETTERS TO 
 
 by what is more fo, and not that which is more 
 intelligible by that which is lefs fo, which is the 
 rule which you have followed. 
 
 But let us interpret the language that Chrift 
 ufed by itfelf. He fays / have power to lay down 
 my Ufej and I have power to take it again. If 
 therefore the latter power was voluntary, and 
 exerted at his own pleallire, fo was the former. 
 But did Chrift die, that is, expire on the crofs, by 
 any proper a6l of his own, and not as the natu- 
 ral confequence of his crucifixion ? This is very 
 far from any thing that is faid, or that is inti- 
 mated, by the hiftorians 3 and if it had been the 
 fa6l, would have refledted the greateft difhonour 
 upon him, and muft have had a very bad effect 
 with refpet^ to his example in fufFering; as it 
 would have been faid, that he exerted a power to 
 to fhorten his fufferings, of which his followers 
 were not polTefTed. And the natural fufpicion 
 would have been, that by the fame power by which 
 he fhortened his fufferings (putting a period to- 
 his own life, and thereby certainly authorizing 
 fuicide) he prevented the natural effecfl of fcourg- 
 ing and crucifixion, fo as to have felt no pain at 
 all in the whole of the tranfadlion. Far be fuch 
 thoughts as thefe from thofe who profefs to refpeft 
 and honour Chrift, as the author of their faith, and 
 ihe pattern they propofe to follow. 
 
 Toil 
 
Dr. price. 131 
 
 You feem, however, to have adopted this idea 
 of Chrifl having voluntarily difmifed his fpirit, 
 ftrange as it appears to me, equally dilhonourable 
 to Chrill, and unfriendly to the gofpel. For you 
 fay. Note, p. 126, " After hanging on the crofs 
 ** a fufficient time, and crying with a loud voice 
 " it is Jinijbed, he bowed his head, and difmiffed 
 " his fpirit (^^ccpsouHE ro 'ssnvij.ci). This was dying 
 *' as no one ever died, and verified his declara- 
 " tion, that no one took his life from him, but 
 *' that he gave it up of himfelf." 
 
 On this fubjeft, which is of fome importance^ 
 1 wilh to make a few obfervations. 
 
 I. Had it been the real opinion of the writers 
 of the gofpel hiftory, that Chrift voluntarily dif- 
 miffed his own fpirit, and did not die as other 
 men do, by the exhaufting of what may be called, 
 the vital powers^ they would all of ihemy have ex- 
 prelfed themfelves fo clearly, as to have put the 
 matter out of doubt. The thing was fo new» 
 and fo extraordinary, that none of them would 
 have contented himfelf with defcribing the fa«^,. 
 in fuch language as could have led any one to 
 conclude that he might have died as other men 
 did. But both Mark and Luke, defcribing the 
 death of Chrift, fimply fay ek^irvsvae^ he expired^ or 
 breathed his laftj though Matthew fays, acpmera 
 msvixa^ and John, whom you quote, fays, laa^s^uxe to 
 
 TSViVt*CK-, 
 
 K 2 2. Had 
 
132 LETTERS TO 
 
 2. Had you looked into Wetftcin on Mat. xxvii. 
 49. you would have found four examples of natural 
 deaths being defcribed by heathen writers, in the 
 fame manner as the death of Chrifl is defcribed 
 by Matthew and John. Euripides ufes the very 
 fame phrafe with Matthew aipnxs to 'sjvbvimc. In two 
 of ^lian, and one of Herodotus, we have a<pm£ rviir 
 4'vxw. In the Sepuagint, Gen. XXXV. 18. the death 
 of Rachel is defcribed in the fame manner, £v ra 
 a(piivaiaviy\vry\v -^vx^Vy literally when Jhe d'ifmijfed her 
 foul P How then can any llrefs be laid on this 
 phraftology ? How does it prove that no one 
 died as Chrift did ? 
 
 J. I would farther obferve, that if the con- 
 nexion between the body and foul of Chrift was 
 of the fame nature with that which fubfifts be- 
 tween the bodies and fouls of other men (and 
 as his pre-exiftent fpirit is fuppofed to have fup- 
 plied the place of a proper human foui, one 
 would imagine that the connexion muft have been 
 of the fame nature) its agency upon the body 
 muft, according to your idea, have ceafed at 
 death. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, we are abundantly au- 
 thorized, to interpret the very few expreflions, on 
 which you lay fo much ftrefs, agreeable to the 
 plain and uniform tenor of fcripture (according 
 to which Chrift was raifed from the dead by the 
 power of God his Father, and not by any power 
 
 of 
 
Dr. P R I C E. 133 
 
 of his own) as only importing his voluntary ac- 
 ceptance of the part that he afled in life, with a 
 view to the reward, that he was to have for it, vo- 
 luntarily fubmitting to be put to death, in order 
 to be raifed again. And I conclude, that what he 
 faid of no man having power to take his life from 
 him^ is bcft explained by his declaration, that he 
 could have prayed to the Father, who would have 
 fent him legions of angels to refcue him, and not 
 by his manner of expiring on the crofs. 
 
 Strefs has been laid on the circumftance of 
 Chrift crying with a lend voice immediately before 
 he expired, and on Pilate's wondering that he 
 fliould have been fo foon dead. But what Chrift 
 had pr.vioufly fuffcrred in his agony in the o-arden 
 fhould be taken into confideration. Such diftrefs 
 of mind as he muft have felt (probably through 
 a great part of the night, which he pafled without 
 fleep) and which produced great drops of fweat 
 falling to the ground (even though they Ihould be 
 fuppofed not to have been drops of blood) muft 
 have exhaulled him very much. Such terror of 
 mind as this has been known, of itfelf, to occafion 
 death. No wonder then, that Chrift was not able 
 to carry his crofs, and that he expired before the 
 two thieves. As to the loudnefs of his cry, nothing 
 is more common than great exertions of any kind 
 before death, and they contribute to haften deadi, 
 by exhaufting the vital powers. 
 
 K 3 When 
 
J34 LETTERS TO 
 
 When you fhall have confidered all thefe clr- 
 cumftances, I flatter myfelf that you will fee fuffi- 
 cient reafon to be fatisfied that Chrift did not ac- 
 celerate his own death. To think that he died 
 naturally y and as other men do, in and by torture, 
 is infinitely more honourable to him, and more 
 favourable to chriftianity, though lefs favourable 
 to your peculiar opinion concerning the pre- 
 exiftent dignity of his nature. And if the phrafe 
 power to take away his life, does not mean a vo- 
 luntary power of putting an end to it, the corre- 
 fponding phrafe power to take it again^ cannot be 
 conftrued to imply a power of railing himfelf 
 from the dead. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER 
 
Dr. price. 135 
 
 LETTER VIII. 
 
 Of the Argument for the pre-emflent Bignity of 
 Chrifi from particular Paffages of Scripture fup- 
 pcfed to ajfert, or to imply it. 
 
 Dear Fr i end. 
 
 Am rather furprized that you Ihould lay any 
 flrefs on Chrift's praying for the glory which 
 he hadwth God before the world was, p. 133, when 
 this is fo naturally interpreted of the glory that 
 was intended him before the world was. This 
 glory was evidently the reward of what he did in 
 the worldy and not of any thing that he did before 
 he came into it. John xvii. 4. / have glorified thee 
 en the earth J I have finifhsd the work which thou 
 gavejl me to do. And now, O father, Scorify thou jne 
 with thine own f elf , with the glory which 1 had with 
 thee before the world was. 
 
 Befides, how unnatural muft it be to fuppofe 
 that Chrift could have any occafion to pray for a 
 degree of glory of which he v/as poffefTed before he 
 came into the world, when the part that he had 
 afled in it would naturally entitle him to fome- 
 thing more. As we are afTured he was exalted, fo 
 
 K 4 no 
 
136 LETTERS TO 
 
 no doubtj he knew the divine intention, and may 
 be fuppofed to have had that exaltation in view in 
 the glory for which he prayed. 
 
 If we muft interpret the language of fcripturc 
 ,in an abfolutely literal manner, we muft admit, as 
 I have Ihewn in fome of the former letters, not 
 only that Chrift exijledy but alfo that; he ^2,^Jlain 
 before the foundation of the world ; and not only 
 that he had glory, but alfo that we had glory with 
 him before the world began. 
 
 You m.ake it an argument for the pre-exiftent 
 dignity of Chrift, p. 136, that Paul fays, 2 Cor. 
 viii. 9. Te know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, 
 that though he was rich j yet for our fakes he became 
 ^oor^ that we through his poverty might be made 
 rich. " When," you fay, '* did our Lord poflefs 
 ** riches ? when did he exchange riches for poverty, 
 *' in order to make us rich ? In this world, he 
 *' was always poor and perfecuted." But may not 
 a man be faid to be rich, who has the power of 
 being fo, or is fuppofed to have that power ? Now 
 Martha fays to Chrift, Johnxi. 22. / know that 
 even now, whatfoever thou wilt afk of God, God will 
 give it thee-y and he himfelf faid, when he was ap- 
 prehended, that he could have prayed to his Fa- 
 ther, and that thereupon he would have fent him 
 legions of angels to refcue him. Was not this to be 
 richj and powerful F And might not his declining 
 
 the 
 
Dr. P R I C E. 137 
 
 the actual poffefTion of riches and power, which 
 were within his reach, be called his becoming poor ? 
 
 But you fay, *^ In my opinion, the mofl decifive 
 '' text of all is that in Phil. ii. 5. Le^ the fame 
 " mind be in you that was in Chriji^ who," as you 
 properly tranflate it " being in the form of Gcdj did 
 " ?iot covet to be honoured as God j but made himfelf of 
 *' no reputation, nnd took upon him thefoim of ajer- 
 '* "J ant, and was made in the likenefs of men. And 
 " being found in fafhion as a man, he humbled himfef, 
 *' and became obedient unto deaths even the death of 
 " the crofs. Wherefore God hath afo highly exalted 
 ** him, and given him a name which is above every ' 
 *' name; that at the name of J ejus every kneefhould 
 *' bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and 
 " things under the earth ; and that every tongue 
 *■* fhould confefs that Jefus Chrifl is Lord, to the 
 " glory of God the Father.'^ 
 
 After reciting the Socinran interpretation of this 
 paflage, you add, p. 138, " It is natural to aflc, 
 " here, when did Chrift divefV himfelf of the power 
 " of working miracles ? The gofpel hiftory tdls 
 '^ us that he retained it to the laft, and that he was 
 " never more diftinguifhed than when, at his cru- 
 " cifixion, the earth fhook, the rocks were fplit, 
 " and the fun was darkened. Indeed, the turn 
 *^ and ftrufture of this paffage are fuch, that I find 
 " it impoffible not to believe, that the humiliation 
 " of Chrift, which St. Paul had in view, was not 
 
 " his 
 
138 LETTERS TO 
 
 " his exchanging one condition on earth for an- 
 " other, but his exchanging the glory he had with 
 ** God before the world was, for the condition of 
 " a man, and leaving that glory to encounter the 
 " difEculties of human life, and to fufFer and die 
 " on the crofs. This was in truth, an event 
 " worthy to be held forth to the admiration of 
 " chriftians." 
 
 Indeed, had fuch an extraordinary event as this 
 really taken place, it certainly would have been 
 afierted Vv'ith unequivocal clearncfs, have been fre- 
 quently repeated, and have been dwelt upon, as its 
 importance required. But becaufe it is no where 
 clearly ajferied, and much lefs dweli upon by the fa- 
 cred writers, I cannot perfuade myfelf that any 
 fuch thing ever took place. For whatever you 
 may infer from this paflage, the apoflle neither 
 here, nor eifewhere, plainly fays that Chrift exifted 
 before he was born in this world. 
 
 Whatever be meant by the phrafe the form of 
 €cdy whether the power of working miracles, or 
 any thing elfe, we are not told that he was pof- 
 fefled of it before his birth. To affirm that he 
 was, is not ititerpreting fcripture, but adding to it. 
 And as the fame exaltation of Chrift, which you 
 make to be the reward of this degradation, is al- 
 ways faid to have been the reward of his fuffmng 
 of death ; we are, in my opinion, abundantly au- 
 thorifed to conclude, that thefe two circumllances, 
 
 which 
 
Dr. price. 13^ 
 
 which had the fame conlequences, were the fame 
 things, let the terms in which they are exprelTed 
 be ever fo different. 
 
 You afk, " When did Chrift diveft himfelf of 
 " the power of working miracles ?" I anfwer, 
 that he ceafed to exert this power (which, to all 
 the purpofes of the prefent queftion, is the fame 
 thing with divefting himfelf of it) when he volun- 
 tarily yielded himfelf up into the power of his 
 enemies j though, as he afiTures us, he might have 
 prayed to the Father, and he would have fent 
 lesions of angels to refcue him out of their hands. 
 And however his death was diftinguifhed by mi- 
 racles, which God thought proper to work for 
 that purpofe, it does not appear that he himfelf 
 was in the fmalleft degree inftrumental in work- 
 ing them ; and they did not fave him from death^ 
 or alleviate his fufferings in the lead. 
 
 Confidering the amazing difference between 
 the appearance of Jefus when llilling the waves 
 of the fea, giving fight to the blind, and railing 
 the dead, and that of the fame perfon in the hands 
 of his enemies, and hanging on a crofs j furely 
 it is not too much to defcribe the former, by- 
 faying, that he was in the form of God^ and the 
 latter by faying he was in the form of a Jlave ; cru- 
 cifixion being the death to which flaves were 
 vfually put. I therefore fee no reafon to be dif- 
 
 fatisfied 
 
140 LETTERS TO 
 
 fatisfied with the interpretation which the Soci^ 
 nians ufually put upon this celebrated text -, nor 
 do I think it to be in the leaft degree favourable 
 to the Arian hypothefis. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Of the Argument for the fuperior nature of Chrifi 
 frem his raifing the Deadj and judging the World 
 
 DearFriend, 
 
 T Now come to the confideration of two circum- 
 ~^ fiances, on which you have laid very great 
 ftrefs, as inconteftably proving that Chrift mufl 
 have had powers fuperior to thofe of man, and 
 confequently have been of a nature fuperior to 
 that of man ; I mean his being deftined to raifs 
 the dead, znd judge the world at the laft day. On 
 this fubjeft you exprefs yourfelf with peculiar 
 energy, and an air of triumph, 
 
 " The fcriptures," you fay, p. 146, " tell us 
 *' that Chrift, after his refurredion, became Lord 
 " of the dead and living, that he had all power 
 " given him in heaven and in earth, that angels 
 
 " were 
 
Dr. price. 141 
 
 " were made fubjcct to him, and that he is here- 
 " after to raife all the dead, to judge the world, 
 " and to finifh the fcheme of the divine moral 
 *^ government with refpe6t to this earth, by con- 
 *' ferring eternal happinefs on all the virtuous, and 
 " punifhing the wicked with everlafting dcllruc- 
 " tion. — Confider whether fuch an elevation of a 
 *' mere man is credible, or even poflible. Can it 
 " be believed that a mere m.an could be advanced 
 " at once fo high, as to be above angels, and to 
 ■" be qualified to rule and judge this world ? Does 
 " not this contradid all that we fee, or can con- 
 " ceive, of the order of God's works ? Do not 
 " all beings rife gradually, one acquificion laying 
 " the foundation of another, and preparing for 
 " higher acquifitions ? What would you think, 
 ^' were you told that a child juft born, inftead of 
 " growing like all other human creatures, had 
 " llarted at once to complete manhood, and the 
 " government of an empire. This is nothing to 
 " the fad: I am confidering. The power, in parti- 
 " cular, which the fcriptures teach us that Chrift 
 " pofiefles, of raifmg to life all who have died, 
 " and all who will die, is equivalent to the power 
 " of creating a world. How inconfiflent is it to 
 " allow to him. one of thofe powers, and at the 
 " fame time to queftion whether he could have 
 " poireflcd the other ? — to allow that he is to re- 
 " (tore and new create this world, and yet to deny 
 " that he might have been God's agent in origi- 
 *^ nally forming it ?" 
 
 I was 
 
142 LETTERSTO 
 
 I was not willing to abridge any part oT this- 
 fine pafiagc, to iliew that I am not afraid to nneec 
 the full force of your argument. I fhall not, 
 however, attempt to anfwer this piece of eloquence 
 (for fuch it is) by a fimilar one. In that I fliould 
 fail. But I fhall take the liberty to analyze it, 
 and interpret one fcripture exprelTion by another. 
 Now, there are but two particulars of much confe- 
 quence, in which the great power and prerogative 
 of Chrift are here faid to confifl: j one is that oiraif^ 
 ing the dead, and the other that o^ judging the world. 
 
 As to the former, you will hardly fay that Chrift 
 will hereafter raife the dead by any other power 
 than that by which he raifed them when he was 
 on earth -, and this, you have acknowledged, not 
 to have been by any power properly his cwUy but 
 that of his Father, who was in him, or acted by 
 him. And in the fame manner you cannot deny, 
 both that he was in, or afted by, other mere men. 
 For fome of the old prophets raifed the dead be- 
 fore Chrift, as did the apoftles after him. From 
 this circumftance, therefore, we are not obliged 
 to infer that Chrift was of a nature fuperior to 
 that of man. 
 
 Chrift is alfo faid to judge the world. But 
 whatever knowledge may be requifite to his doing 
 this, may be as eafily imparted by God, as the 
 power of raifing the dead j though when you fay 
 that his c^ualifications for difcharging this office 
 
 were 
 
Dr. price. 143 
 
 were acquired fuddenly^ you overlook the long 
 interval between his afcenfion and his fecond 
 coming, in which you cannot fuppofe that he is 
 doing and learning nothing. 
 
 However, if v/e in;erpret the fcriptures by 
 themfelves, you mud acknowledge that this of- 
 fice of judging the world, in whatever it confifts, 
 and in whatever manner it be difcharged, is no 
 more peculiar to Chrift than that of raifing the 
 dead. Our Saviour himfclf fays, Matt. xix. 28. 
 Verily I fay unto you^ that ye who have followed me 
 in the regeneration^ when the f on of man fh all fit in 
 the throne of his glory y ye alfo fhall /it upon twelve 
 thrones^ judging the twelve tribes of Ifrael. And 
 the apoftle Paul fays, 1 Cor. vi. 2. Do ye not knov> 
 that the faints fhall judge the world — Know ye not 
 that we Jhall judge angels? Whatever fuperiority 
 to angels is ever laid to be given to Chrift, is 
 here fuificienLly intimated to be given to all chrif- 
 tians. For the perfon _;V/r/^/;^^ is certainly fuperior 
 to the ^^v(on judged. 
 
 You may fay, that v^re are to underftand the 
 term judging literally with refpe6t to Chrift, but 
 figuratively with refpecl to his difciples. But 
 this is quire arbitrary, pnd unauthorized. Judg- 
 ing the world, therefore, is no proof of a nature 
 fuperior to that of man. Nay, fo far is this bu- 
 finefs adjudging from being confidered as a proof 
 of a fuperior 'nature^ that our Saviour himfelf re- 
 3 prefents 
 
144 LETTERS TO 
 
 prefents it as peculiarly proper to him as a man. 
 John V. 27. And hath given him authority to execute 
 judgment aljhy becaufe he is the Jon of man. Not fo 
 the Arian will fay, but becaufe he is th.t Jon oJGod, 
 and was fo before all worlds. But this is being- 
 wije above what is written. 
 
 In this manner it is eafily ftiewn, that, whatever 
 glory^ or power, is attributed to Chrift in the fcrip- 
 tures, the fame in kind, if not in degree, is afcribed 
 to all his difciples, and efpecially his apoftles.- 
 Indeed, this is fully afferted in general, but very 
 expreffive terms, by our Saviour himfelf, in his 
 laft folemn prayer, in which he fays, John xvii. 22. 
 And the glory which thou gaveji me, I have given 
 them, that they may be one, as we are one. The 
 apoftle Paul alfo fays, Rom. viii. 17. And ij chil- 
 dren then heirs, heirs oj God, and joint heirs with 
 Chrijl; ijjo be that we Juffer with him, that we may 
 he glorified together. From this it is impoflible to 
 colJeft any idea of difference, except in precedence, 
 of Beings of the fame rank. On this idea Chrift 
 is fliled our elder brother. But how could he be 
 confidered as our brother, if he was our maker ? 
 The difference would be far too great to admit 
 of any fuch comparifon 
 
 Thus, I imagine, I have in fome meafure an- 
 Twered your demand, in the Note, p. 130, in 
 which, after exhibiting what may be called the low 
 Sccinianjcheme, "which alone," vou fay, "is ten- 
 
 "able," 
 
Dr. price. 14.5 
 
 *' able," you add, " The confequence of thus low- 
 " ering Chrifl before his death, is the neceffity of 
 "lowering him likewife fince-his death. And 
 " accordingly this able writer, whofe candour ap- 
 ^'- pears to be fuch as will not fuffer him to evade 
 " any fair inference fom his opinions, has far- 
 *' ther intimated, that ChritVs judging the world 
 " may mean lefs than is commonly believed, and 
 " perhaps the fame that is meant, i Cor. vi. 1, 
 *^ where it is faid that the faints are to judge the 
 " world. I hope that fome time or other he will 
 " have the goodnefs to oblige the public by ex- 
 " plaining himfelf on this fubje6t j and when he 
 " does, I hope he will farther fhew how much 
 " lefs than is commonly believed we are to un- 
 " derftand by Chrift's raijing the world from the 
 '^ dead/* 
 
 If by Chrift's raifing men from the dead here- 
 after, you underftand a raifing them by a power 
 different from that by which he raifed them here, 
 viz. a pov/er that may, in any proper fenfe, be 
 called his own, which you fometimes feem to ap- 
 prehend, and which indeed your argument re- 
 quires, my idea of it is very different from yours. 
 But then I think you will not eafiiy find any au-» 
 thority for your opinion in the fcripttires. 
 
 There muft always be great uncertainty in the 
 interpretation of prophecies not yet fiilfiiled. We 
 
 L cannot 
 
146 LETTERS TO 
 
 cannot, therefore, expeft to underftand what is 
 meant by the pJirafe judging the world by Chriji, or 
 hy the faints j but it is very pofTible that it may be 
 fomething very different from what the literal 
 meaning of the words would convey to us. Per- 
 haps neither the faints, nor Chrilt, will then difcover 
 any greater difcernment of characters than all men, 
 even thofe who fliall then be judged, will be pof- 
 felfed of; in ccnfequcnce of which every perfon 
 prefent may be fatisfied, from his own infpeftion, 
 as it were, that every charader is juftly difcrimi- 
 nated, and the condition of all perfons properly 
 determined ; all having the fame intuitive know- 
 ledge of themfelves, and of each other j all 
 equally judging from the appearances which will 
 then be prefented to them. Indeed, a general 
 convidion of the equity of the proceedings of 
 that great day, feems to require this general 
 knowledge. 
 
 You exprefs much furprize at the Sccinian in- 
 terpretation of the fcriptures, and I, in my turn, 
 cannot help exprefling feme furprize, that the 
 comparifon of fome prophetic phrafes of fcripture 
 with the fulfilment of them, fliould not have led 
 you to fufpeft that much lefs than the words 
 literally intimate may be intended by what is faid 
 of the world being judged by Chrift. I fliall re- 
 call to your attention two prophecies, as they may 
 be termed, of this kind. 
 
 When 
 
r 
 
 Dr* P R I C K. 147 
 
 When God appointed Jeremiah to be a pro- 
 phet, he laid, Jer. i. lo. See^ I have this day Jet 
 thee over the nations^ and over the kingdoms j to root 
 outy and to pull down^ and to dejiroyy and to throw 
 down^ to buildy and to plant. Do not .thefe 
 phrafes, literally interpreted, imply that as much 
 power was given to Jeremiah in this world, as 
 is ever faid to be given to Chrift in the next ? 
 And yet we are fatisfied, that all that was meant 
 by them was, that by him God would fignify his 
 intentions concerriing what he would do with 
 refpe6l to various nations in the neighbourhood 
 of Judea, and that Jeremiah, peribnally confi- 
 dered, had no more power than any other man. 
 
 Our Lord faid to Peter, Matt. xvi. 19. I will 
 give unto thee the keys cf the kingdom of heaven y and 
 whatfoever thou /halt bind on earth jhall he bound in 
 heaven^ and whatfoever thoufhah looje on earth, fhall 
 he loofed in heaven. To appearance, this was giv- 
 ing Peter more power than was given to Jere- 
 miah. But if we confider what was a6tually 
 done by Peter, and the other apoitles (for the 
 fame power is elfewhere given to them all) we 
 fliall find that much lefs was intended by this 
 phrafeology, than the literal import might lead 
 us to imagine. 
 
 Interpreters differ with refpeft to its mean- 
 ing. But it is evident that, at the mofl, it 
 could only mean the apoftle's being empowered 
 
 L 2 to 
 
148 LETTERS TO 
 
 to iignif)^ the wiil of God, and to pronounce 
 ■what he v.ould do ; as when Peter pafTed fen- 
 tence upon Simonj Afts viii. 10. and upon Sap- 
 phira. For thele are the greatefl: a£ts of power 
 that we ever find to have been exercifed by Pe- 
 ter, or any of the apcftles. But this was no 
 power of their own. Neither, therefore, are we 
 authorized, from the language of fcripture, to in- 
 fer that Chrift will hereafter exercife any more 
 power than he did on earth, which was no more 
 than any other man, aided as he was by God, 
 might have exercifed. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 Of the Hypothefis which makes Chriji to he a mere 
 Man^ naturally as fallible ^ and as peccable, as other 
 Men. 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 ■\/OU exprefs much furprize at my fuppofing 
 ^ Chrift to be naturally peccable and fallible. 
 But the maxims en which this is advanced with 
 refpeft to him, you muft admit to be juft, when 
 applied to any other man appearing in the cha- 
 o rafter 
 
Dr. price. 149 
 
 rader of a prophet ; and, therefore, till it be 
 proved that he is more than man, they mud ap- 
 ply to him alfo. They are thefe, viz. that no man 
 claiming a divine miffion is to be confidered as 
 injpired farther than he himfelf profefles to be fo, 
 than the object of his mifTion requires, and than 
 he proves that he is by the working of miracles ; 
 and that, with regard to other things, not con- 
 nected with the object of his miffion, and which 
 he does not alTert to be parts of the revelation 
 comm.unicated to him, there is no ground to fup- 
 pofe him to have more knowledge than any other 
 man, who is, in other refpefcs, in the fame cir- 
 cumfcances. 
 
 The doftrine of univerfal infpiration^ or that of 
 any man being poffefTed o^ all knowledge, is ma- 
 nifeftly extravagant, and would never have been 
 fuppofed of Chrift, any more than of Mofes, if it 
 had not been imagined that he was naturally fu- 
 perior to Mofes, and therefore had means of 
 knowledge which Mofes had nor. If you confider 
 the objed of the miffion of Chrift, you muft, I 
 Hiould think, be fenfible, that it did not require 
 more natural power, phy'fical or moral, than that 
 of other men, and therefore nothing is gained by 
 fuppofing him to have more. And much will be 
 loft, if any marks of ignorance, or of infirmity, 
 iliould be difcovered in him. In that cafe, we 
 Ihall load the defence of chriftianity with needlefs 
 difficulties. 
 
 L 3 Again, 
 
150 L E T T E H S T O 
 
 Again, if other prophets might be ignorant of 
 many things relating to themfelves, why might 
 not Chrift alfo ? As to his iinderilanding all 
 preceding prophecies, we are no where told that 
 he was infpired with that knowledge, and there- 
 fore he might apply them as his countrymen 
 of that age generally did, and as we perceive 
 that the apoltles, who were likewife prophets, did 
 afterwards. But this fubjed is pretty largely 
 difcufied in the Theological Repojitory^ and I can- 
 not help wifhing that you had not only quoted the 
 fentiments there advanced, which, at the firft 
 propofal, cannot but appear offenfive, and alarm- 
 ing, but had alfo examined the arguments there 
 alleged in defence of them. 
 
 You lay the greatcft ftrefs on the immaculatenefs 
 ofChriJl's character ^ as an argument for his fuperior 
 nature. But though you profefs to be deter- 
 mined by the language of fcripture, you produce 
 no pafTage in which his finleffnefs is exprefled in 
 ftronger terms than that of other good men, be- 
 fore and after him. If his nature was fo imma- 
 culatey as that no cemptation could have any effedt 
 upon him, why was he expofed to temptation ? 
 This would then have been as abfurd as for God 
 himfelf to have been temped with evil. 
 
 That Chrift had all the natural weaknefles of 
 human nature, both of body and mind, is evident 
 from the whole of his hiHory ; and if fo, it w?,s 
 
 impoffible 
 
Dr. price. 151 
 
 impoffible that he fhould have been naturally im- 
 peccable. In this cafe there would have been no 
 merit in his refifting temptation; and his example 
 is very improperly urged upon us, except in the 
 fcime fenfe as that in which the example of God 
 himlelf is propofed to us; whereas it is evident, 
 that the facred writers had very different ideas of 
 the nature and ufe of thefe two examples. 
 
 Was it poffible that the author of the epiftle 
 to the Hebrews fhould have had the idea that 
 you have of the natural ftrength of Chrilt's mind, 
 when he faid of him, Heb. v. 7. Who in the days 
 of his flejh offered up prayers and fupplicationSj with 
 Jirong crying and tears ^ unto him that was able to Jave 
 him from death, and was heard in that he feared. 
 Though he were a fon, yet learned he obedience by the 
 things which he fuffered. V/hat can be more evi- 
 dent from this defcription, than that the writer 
 confidered Chrift to have been naturally as v>^eak 
 as other men, and that he felt himfelf to be fo ? 
 
 Was this flrong crying and fears, in the view of 
 approaching death, what might be expefted from 
 the creator and governor of the world ? The 
 hiftory of the iigony in the garden, though it does 
 infinite honour to Chrift as a man, is certainly an 
 abundant confutation of any opinion concerning 
 his fuperior nature, an.i pre-exiftent dignity. 
 
 L 4 You 
 
152 LETTERS TO 
 
 You like wife make the miraculous conception of 
 Jefus as well as his immaculate nature, an argu- 
 ment for his pre-exiftent dignity. Thefe two 
 circumftances are indeed generally urged as proofs 
 of each other. For my own part, 1 fcruple not 
 to fiy, that I confider them both as equally defti- 
 tute of proper evidence ; and, moreover, that 
 neither of them would be of any advantage to the 
 chriil'ian fcheme, if they could he proved. With 
 refpedt to the miraculous conception, I fhall only 
 obferve here, as I have done eifewhere, that if the 
 circumftance of having no human father, he an 
 argument for a fuperior and immaculate nature in 
 Chrift, the fame thing, with the addition of 
 having no human metheri mult be allowed to 
 be as good an argument for a fuperior and imma- 
 culate nature in Adam. And yet he was a m.ere 
 man, and naturally as liable to fm as any of his 
 pofterity. 
 
 You fay, and very jullly, of this abfolute im- 
 maculatenefs of charader, p. ii8, " it is incon- 
 " ceivable that it fnould have belonged to a mere 
 " man," and this you well illuitrate in the Note. 
 But if you refleft that your logos is a created, and 
 therefore an imperfe^ Being, you muft allow that, 
 ftriftly fpeaking, even he cannot be immaculate, 
 any more than he can be omipotent, or omni- 
 fcient. It is the prerogative of God only, that 
 
 great 
 
Dr. price. 153 
 
 great Being, who only is holjy and who charges his 
 angels with folly. 
 
 If abfolute perfeclion of moral charafter be 
 necefTary to that of our redeemer^ we muft both of 
 us go back to Arhanafianifm. But if that be 
 impoflible, why fhoiild we acquiefce in an imper- 
 feft angelic being, rather than in an impeifed: 
 man ; efpecially as it may eafily be conceived, 
 that a man like ourrelves, incident to the imper- 
 feftions of other men, is, in. feveral refpecls, bet- 
 ter adapted to be an example to us, than any Be- 
 ing of a nature fuperior to ours. 
 
 You acknowledge that there is fome advantage 
 in that hypothecs which reprefents Chrift as a 
 man, who had not naturally any advantage over 
 other men. " Some," you fay, p. 152, Note, 
 *^ have lowered him into a man, ignorant and 
 *' peccable, and no way difcinguifhed from the 
 " common men of his time, except by being 
 '^ infpired. And this, I am fenfible, by bring- 
 " ing him down more to our own level, makes 
 *^ his example in fome refpefts more an encou- 
 *' ragement to us, and more fit to be propofed to 
 *^ our imitation." Now it is certain that the 
 example of Chrift, efpecially in his humiliation 
 and fuiferings, is frequently propofed to us. It 
 cannot, therefore, be any difadvantage to a fcheme 
 that gives (o important an exhortation its greatell 
 force. 
 
 That 
 
131 LETTERSTO 
 
 That Socinus himfelf, and others who have 
 been called after his nanne, fhould have held 
 an opinion concerning Chrift very different from 
 that which I have adopted, is as eafily accounted 
 for, as that Dr. Clarke fhould have adopted an 
 opinion concerning the logos much higher than 
 that which you contend for. Alter Chrid had, 
 for feveral ages been generally conddered as the 
 fupreme God, and the proper objed't of worfhip, 
 it might be difcovercd that he was a created Be- 
 ing, and even a man, and yet it might be thought 
 going too far, not to admit that this created 
 Being, or this mian, might be the appointed me- 
 dium, through whom our prayers weie to be pre- 
 fented to the almighty Father, efpecially as he is 
 called a mediator ^ and an high-prieft. 
 
 In the fame manner, after admitting that Chrift 
 was a mere man, and not the objed of any wor- 
 fhip, it might be thought too degrading to him, 
 not to fuppofe, that a man fo diftinguifhed by 
 God as he was, and brought into the world in fo 
 extraordinary a manner, as he was believed to 
 be, had not fome peculiar privileges above thofe 
 of other men, and other prophets, as thofe of his 
 being naturally infallible, and impeccable. It is no 
 wonder that it fhould be fome time before even 
 Socinians began to think that there was nothing 
 in the chriiiian fcheme that required this unique oi 
 a man, and that they fhould have embarrafTed their 
 hypothefis, rather than purfue it to its proper 
 
 confequences, 
 
Dr. price. 155 
 
 confequences, when they appeared fo very alarm- 
 ing. 
 
 But now, finding this alarm to be founded 
 on mere prejudice, and that the caufe of it has 
 no exiftence in reafon, or the fcriptures, uni- 
 tarians in general will, I doubt not, acquiefce 
 in that opinion concerning Chrift which makes 
 their hypothecs truly uniform, confident, and 
 abundantly lefs exceptionable, viz. that which 
 you hold out as an objed: of aftoniibment in the 
 notes to your Sermons. In the Theokgkal Re- 
 pofitury^ this hypothefis is fairly propofed, and de- 
 fended ; and there I willi to fee it difpaflionately 
 difculTed. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 LETTER 
 
J56 LETTERS TO 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 Of the Deftgn of Chrijl's Miffio/U 
 
 Dear Friend, 
 
 do not chufe to confider largely what you call 
 the other part of the SociniLin hypothefisj viz. 
 that which relates to the end of Chrifi's mijfion, 
 with refped: to which you fay, p. 86, that " he 
 " not only declared, but obtained, the available- 
 ** ncfs of repentance to pardon," having already 
 advanced all that is in my power on this fubjeft^ 
 in my Hijlory of the Corruptions of Chrijiia)nty. I 
 fhal] therefore content myfdf wich making a very 
 few obfervations. 
 
 I. If what you lay down above be true, if 
 Chrift came to obtain the availablenefs of repent- 
 ance to pardon, is it not rather extraordinary, that 
 this, which muft have been the great and principal 
 end of his coming, fhould not have been an- 
 nounced by any of the ancient prophets. 
 
 1. If this had been the great end of Chrifl's 
 miffion, would it not have been declared to be fo 
 by John the Baptift, by our Saviour himfelf, or at 
 leaft by fome of the apoftles, and in fuch language 
 as could not have been mifunderftood ? 
 
 3- If 
 
Dr. price. i^y 
 
 3. If fuch, indeed, Vv^as the true caufe of Chrlft's 
 
 . incarnation, is it not extraordinary that it Ihould 
 not have been tliought of by any of the chi-iftian 
 Fathers, or heretics -, and that the idea fhould 
 never have been ftarted till a late period, as I 
 havefhewn in my Hifrory of the Corruptions ofChriJ- 
 tianity ? 
 
 4. The Divine Being is declared to be as mer- 
 ciful to repenting finners in the Old Teftameilt as 
 in the New, and without reference to any future 
 event. 
 
 5. Our Saviour, giving an account of the mif- 
 fion of the preceding prophets, and of his ov/n, 
 in their order, certainly reprefents the great ob-' 
 jeft of their miiTions to be th-efame, Matt, xxi. 33, 
 The preceding prophets are, indeed, compared to 
 fervants, and himfeif to the fon of the houfhoUer ; 
 but they were all fent to receive for him the fruits of 
 the Vineyard. 
 
 6. As to the fufFerings of Chi ill, not only is his 
 patience in bearing them propofed as an example 
 to us, but in the pafiage quoted in a former letter^ 
 chriftians are reprefented as both fiffering and' 
 reigning with Chrift. 
 
 Let us not then- louk for my/leries where no myf- 
 tery isVand obfcure the beautiful fimplicity of thd' 
 gofpel; which reprefents the Divine Being as -al-' 
 
 ways 
 
i5§ LETTERS TO 
 
 ways dirpoft^d to receive returning peni;ents, as 
 having fent his Son, as well as other prophets, for 
 the benevolent purpofes of reclaiming the world 
 from fin, and to promife eternal life and happinefs 
 to all that hearken to th.m. 
 
 I mufb likewife add a few obfervations on what 
 feems to have been the fource of your ideas of the 
 necelTity of Chrift's incarnation, and the efficacy 
 of his death. " The whole chriftian fcheme," 
 you fay, p. 170, " is founded on the fuppofition of 
 *^ a calamity in which our race had been involved, 
 '* and which has been generally termed I he fall of 
 "■ man. At the fame time," you fay, " what the 
 *'' true and full account of this event is, it is pro- 
 " bably impoffible for us to difcover, or even to 
 " underfhand, were it communicated to us. It 
 " is recorded in the third chapter of Genefis, but 
 " in a manner, fo mixed with emblems, derived 
 *' perhaps from the ancient hieroglyphical mmner 
 " of writing, and confequently fo veiled and ob- 
 ** fcure, that I think little more can be learned of 
 " it, than that there was a tranfaftion at the origin 
 " of our race, and the commencement of this 
 " world, which degraded us to our prefent ftate, 
 " and fubjefted us to death, and all its conco- 
 " mitant evils." 
 
 On this fubjed I would obferve that, \( the fall 
 cf man, whatever it was, had been an event on 
 which, " the v/hole chriftian fcheme was founded," 
 
 we 
 
Dr. price. i5g 
 
 we might have expecfled a more exprefs declara- 
 tion, from fufficient authority, that it was fo. But 
 in none of the prophecies in which the MciTiah is 
 announced, is there t!ie lead reference to this ca- 
 taftrophe, which you fuppofe to have made his in- 
 carnation neceffary. Neither John the Baptift, 
 nor cur Saviour himfelf, ever faid any thing that 
 could lead our thoudits to it. And notwithftand- 
 ing the frequent mention that is made of the lo-ve 
 of God in the gift of his Son by the apoftles, it is 
 never faid to have been to undo any thing that 
 had been done at the fall, fome pafTages of Paul 
 alone excepted, who calls Chrift the lafi Adavriy 
 and makes ufe of termiS which imply that death 
 was introduced by Adam, as eternal life is the 
 gift of God by Chrift. But you know that the 
 writings of this apoftle abound with analogies and 
 antithefes, on which no very ferious ilrefs is to be 
 laid. 
 
 Ailovv'ing, however, all the authority that you 
 poffibly can to the obfervations of Paul, it is far 
 from carrying you to the whole extent of your hy- 
 pothefis. Ail mankind, the wicked as well as vhe 
 righteous, are to rife again, and nothing is faid by 
 him that can pollibly be conftrued to fignify that 
 the availablemfs of repentance to pardon was ever 
 loft, or that it was recovered by Chrift. 
 
 Befides, all that Paul himfelf could know about 
 Adam, and the tffeds of his fm, he muft have 
 
 learned 
 
i6o LETTERS TO 
 
 learned from the books of Mofes, which are as 
 open to us as they were to liim. What Mofes 
 fays on the fubjed:, you acknowledge to be very 
 obfcure, and therefore it will not authorize impli- 
 cit confidence in any particular interpretation. 
 
 " There are fome," you fay. Note, p. 73, " who 
 " give fuch interpretations of the account in the 
 " third chapter of Genefis, and the fuhfequent 
 *' references to it in the facred writings — as make 
 " them no evidence of any fuch event (introduc- 
 '^ tory of deadi) as is commxonly underflood by 
 '^ the FALL. But thefe interpreiations, and the 
 *' opinons grounded upon them^ are fo fingular, 
 *^ that I have not thought them worth particular 
 " notice." 
 
 The interpretations on which you pafs this cen- 
 fure, are pretty generally known to be mine. They 
 are advanced in the Theological Repq/Iiory, with the 
 evidence on which they are founded j and inftead 
 of this unqualified cenfure, it would have given 
 myfelf, and many other perfons, great fatisfa6tion, 
 if you had thought them worthy of a ferious exa- 
 mination. The opinion that I have advanced 
 concerning the hiftory of the fall of man, cannot, 
 I am confident, be refuted, but on principles 
 which fuppofe the plenary infpiration of Mofes, 
 and that of all the writers of the Old and New 
 Teftamenr, with refpeit to every thing they wrote, 
 whether they exprefsly fay that they were infpired 
 
 or 
 
Dr. P R I C E. i6j 
 
 or not J a pofition at which I fufpefl your mind 
 will revolt, as much as mine does. 
 
 As Moles himfelf, who feems particularly carcr 
 ful to diftinguifh what God faid to him, and what 
 came from himfdf, does not fay tliat he received 
 the account that he has given us of the creation, 
 and fall of man, from Ged, I think myfelf at li- 
 berty to confider it as the befl: that he could col- 
 lect: /r^?;? tradition. In my opinion alfo, there are 
 itT-any marks of its being a very lame account. 
 And, as I have obferved, it is far from folving the 
 difficulty it feems to have been intended to an- 
 fv/er, viz. the introduction of death and calamity 
 into the world. Among other things I have re- 
 marked, that the faft of the human race beins: 
 originally formed male and female, and confe- 
 quently their being intended to increafe and mul- 
 tiply, is a proof that they were alfo originally in- 
 tended to be miortal ; and that immortality is re- 
 ferved for that Itate, in which there Jlo all be neither 
 marrying., nor giving in marriage^ but where men 
 fhall be as the angels that are in heaven. 
 
 In the Note, p. 178, you confider the devil 2ls the 
 tempter of Adam in the form of a ferpenc. But 
 this could not have been the idea of Mofes, ac- 
 cording to whom, the fentence pafled upon the 
 ferpent has no relation to any thing hut to the ani- 
 mal fo Called. And would there be any juftice in 
 .punifhing the ferpent, the mere paflive inrtrument, 
 
 M and 
 
i62 LETTERS TO 
 
 and letting the proper agent in the bufinefs go 
 free ? Mofes had no idea of any thing beyond the ' 
 mere ferpent, and I cannot allow any authority to 
 the interpretation of the author of the apocryphal 
 book of JViJdom. 
 
 That our Saviour alludes to the agency of the 
 devil in the firll introdu(5tion of fin into the vs^orld, 
 is, I think, by no means probable. He fays, John 
 viii. ^.4. the devil was a murderer from the beginning. 
 But this refers to the murder of Abel by Cain. 
 And as to what John fays, i John iii. 8. of the Son of 
 God being manifefled to defiroy the works of the devil, 
 it may well be fuppofed to mean that he came to 
 put an end toj^», or moral evil 3 which is referred 
 to the devil J ov fat an as its principle, as all other 
 evil is. On this account Peter is called Satan (Matt, 
 xvi. 23) when he fuggefted an unworthy propofal, 
 and Judas is called the devil (John vi. 70.) on ac- 
 count of his bad defigns. 
 
 As to the old ferpent y the devil, and Satan, in Rev. 
 xii. 9. XX. 2. on which you lay fome ftrefs, I 
 really do not pretend to underftand it. It is the 
 language of prophecy perhaps not yet fulfilled. 
 It muft alfo be obferved that, this fame old ferpent, 
 is likewife called (Rev. xii. 9.) the great dragon, and 
 this dragoA'is farther defcribed as being red, and 
 having feven heads, and ten horns, vf'iihfeven crowns 
 upon his heads. He has alfo a tail, by which he 
 drew the third part of theflars of heaven, and caft 
 
 them 
 
Dr. price. 163 
 
 thhn to the earth. And, according to moft inter- 
 pretero, this red dragon, with feVen heads, fevert 
 Crowns, and ten horns, is not the devil (admitting 
 the exiftence of fo extraordinary a being) but re- 
 prefents feme earthly potentate, the enemy of chrif- 
 tianity. But whatever be the meaning of this pro- 
 phecy, we are not to look into fo myfterious a 
 book as the Revelation, for a plain account of 
 either the introduftion of evil into the world, or 
 the remedy of that evil. It feems to have been 
 written for a very different purpofe. 
 
 i am, &c. 
 
 LETTER XIL , 
 
 The Condufjon, 
 
 Dear Fr I END, 
 T Have now troubled yoii with animadverfions 
 '■• on every thing that I think moft open to ob- 
 jcftion in your truly excellent Sermons j and elpe- 
 cially in the Notes^ in which you chiefly quote 
 what has been advanced by himfelf, either in 
 works that bear my name, or in the Theological 
 Repojitpry. Let the arguments I have there ad- 
 vanced, and to which you have not directly re- 
 plied, anfwer for themfelves. You juftly obferve, 
 that I do not fhrink from any confequences of 
 
 M 2 what 
 
i64 LETTERS TO 
 
 what I have advanced. Indeed, if a propfition be 
 true, fo muft every corollary fairly drawn from it ; 
 and I have not yet {ttvi any reafon to be afraid of 
 truth. 
 
 Some of the opinions on which you haveflightly 
 defcanted are, I believe, novel, and a flep, as you 
 may fay, beyond what other Socinians have gone ; 
 and yourfelf, and others of my beft friends, are 
 a good deal flaggered at them. But in a fhort 
 time this alarm, which is already much abated, 
 will be entirely gone off, and then I ihall expeft 
 a calm difcuffion of what I have advanced j and 
 that doftrine will, no doubt, be eftabliflied which 
 fliall appear to be moll agreeable to reafon^ and 
 the true fenfe aijcripture. May whatever will not 
 ftand this teft, whether advanced by myfelf or 
 others, foon fall to the ground j but let no fenti- 
 ment, however alarming at the firft propofal, be 
 condemned unheard, and unexamined. 
 
 Many of our common friends exprefs fome fur- 
 prize that you and I, connefled as we are by 
 friendlliip, and a variety of other common circum- 
 ftances ; equally, I hope, ardent, and equally un- 
 wearied, in the purfuit of truth j and having given 
 perhaps equal attention to the fubjeft of thefe 
 Letters^ fhould, notwithftanding, differ fo much as 
 we do with refpeft to it. Many perfons who know 
 this, and who have not the leifure, or the opportu- 
 nity, to ftudy this queftion, that we have, may be led 
 to think, that it will be in vain for them to attempt 
 
 i to 
 
Dr. price. 165 
 
 to arrive at any certainty with refpeft to itj and, 
 out of defpair, abandon the examination. But 
 neither you nor myfelf, fhall think this infer- 
 ence a juft one ; fince each of us may be under the 
 influence of prejudices, unknown to ourfelves, but 
 fufficiently confpicuous to others. Nay, with a 
 beam in our own eye, we may fancy that we can 
 difcover a mote in that of each other. 
 
 You will, I doubt not, be able to account to 
 yourfelf for what you will think my obftinacy in 
 defending principles which to you appear evir 
 dently contrary to reafon and the fcriptures, under 
 the idea of their being important truths. And I 
 alfo muft have fome method o'f fatisfying myfelf 
 how you may be as ingenuous, and as candid, as I, 
 of courfe, think myfelf to be, and yet perfifl in 
 opinions, which I cannot help confidering as wrong, 
 T and of the erroneoufnefs of which there feems to 
 be the moft abundant evidence. 
 
 Speaking of the Socinian interpretations of 
 fcripture, you fay, p. 135, " I muft own to you, 
 *' that I am inclined to wonder that good men 
 *' can fatisfy themfelves with fuch explanations.'.' 
 But you candidly add, " But I correct myfelf. I 
 *' know that chriftians, amidft their differences of 
 *' opinion, are too apt to wonder at one another, 
 *^' and to forget the allowances that ought to be 
 "made for the darknefs in which we are all in- 
 "volved." 
 
 M 3 You 
 
i66 LETTERS TO 
 
 You are too much of a philofopher to think 
 that there can be any effe5i without an adequate 
 caufe ', and you know that wonder is nothing more 
 than the ftate of mind into which our ignorance of 
 the caufes of events throw us. And therefore 
 whenever we think we can account for any appear- 
 ance, all wonder ceales. 
 
 You will, I know, excufe me, if I account tq 
 myfelf for your continuing an Arian, noiwith- 
 ftanding the evidence that has lately been pro- 
 duced in proof of the Socinian, or as I chufe to 
 call it, the proper unitarian hypothefis, in the fame 
 manner in which we account for many worthy 
 and intelligent perfons continuing catholics, or 
 Calvinifts. This we believe to be chiefly owing 
 to their minds having been very early imprefled 
 with the fulleft perfuafion of the truth of their re- 
 ipecfbive principles j to their dwelling long on the 
 arguments in favour of them (by which they are ^ 
 much magnified in their view) and to their not giv- 
 ing fufEcient attention to thofe on the other fide. 
 
 They may have the candour to hear, or to read 
 arguments againft their opinions. But their minds 
 laeing previoufly indifpofed towards them, fuch 
 arguments find there nothing congenial to them- 
 felves, and are not detained long enough to make 
 a due impreffion. It is like the paffage of a fhip 
 through the fea, or that of an arrow through the ) 
 aT. No track is left behind. Whatever it be that , 
 ' > ' has 
 
Dr. P R I C E. 167 
 
 has once recommended itfelf to us, and we entirely 
 relifh, we wifh to fee confirmed j and it is always 
 with fome degree of averfion that we hear any 
 thing that tends to difturb what we think already 
 well fettled. 
 
 You have read, I doubt nor, with as much care 
 and attention as, from the previous ftate of your 
 mind, could reafonably be expefled, all that has 
 been written by Dr. Lardner, by our common 
 friend Mr. Lindfey, and by myfelf, in fupport of 
 the unitarian hypothefis. But I prefume, that you 
 have often refrelhed your mind, and recruited your 
 former opinions, by the writings of Dr. Clarke, 
 Bifhop Butler, Mr. Pierce, Mr. Emlyn, and other 
 Arians, and having been early converfant with 
 them, they have made an impreflion like that 
 which is fometimes made on marble before it is 
 converted into a folid form, and which nothing 
 can afterwards efface. 
 
 On the other hand, I fhall not be offended, if 
 you fhould account for my roving from one opi- 
 nion to another, by fuppofing that I have a temper 
 of mind too hoftjle to every thing that is ejia- 
 hlijhed-y or if you Ihould fay, that 1 am more ape 
 to be fatisfied with any thing belonging to myelf, 
 than with my opinions y and that I am not likely 
 XO fix long in any fcheme. 
 
 M 4 Certain 
 
i68 LETTERS TO 
 
 Certain it is, that, fo far from" having much 
 fondnefs for the opinions that I received from my 
 education, I have gone on changing, though al- 
 ways in one direftion, from the time that I began 
 to think fcr myfelf to the prefent day, and I will 
 not pretend to fay when my creed will be fixed. 
 
 But whether we be apt to keep our opinions a 
 longer or a fhorter tim.e, they pleafe us fo long 
 as we can call them ours y and in that flate of 
 mind it is natural to give more attention to argu- 
 ments that make fcr, than to thofe that make 
 againji therru 
 
 As to the fcriptures, the perufal of particular 
 texts never fails to be accompanied with their ufual 
 long approved interpretation ; and we ofteneft think 
 of, and dwell upon, thofe which favour our opinions. 
 And with refpeft to thofe which feem unfavourable 
 to them, we have all got fomic metaod or other of 
 difpofing of them, fo that they fhall not (land in our 
 way; and thefe miodes of accom.modation never fail 
 to occur to the mind alono- with the texts them- 
 
 CD 
 
 felves, and thereby elfeftually preclude the con- 
 viftion they might orherwife bring along with 
 them. And if we think that, upon the whole, 
 the Jtriptures are favourable to our opinions, we 
 are apt to confider ourfelves juftified in giving 
 little attention to other confideraiions ; which, if 
 properly reflefted upon, migh.t ferve to give us 
 
 a better 
 
Dr. P R I C E. 169 
 
 a better infight into the real fenfe of fcripturc 
 itfeif. 
 
 Thus the pious catholic having always been 
 taught implicit confidence in the decifions of his 
 church, and having always underflood our Lord 
 literally, when he faid, this is my body, and ex- 
 cept ye eat the fiefh of the fon of man, and drink his 
 bloody ye have no life in you ; it is in vain to obje6t 
 to him the natural impoffibility of the doftrine of 
 tranfubllantiation. That he leaves with God, 
 v/hofe word, he believes, affures him of the fa5f. 
 In this, therefore, he thinks it his duty to ac- 
 quiefce; and he even makes a merit of facrificing 
 his reafon to \i\% faith. 
 
 In like manner, you muft permit me to fay, 
 that, having, in a very early period, adopted your 
 prefent opinion concerning Chrift, having always 
 confidered the logos in the introduftion to the 
 gofpel of John {which was in the beginning with 
 Cod, and which was God) to be defcriptive of 
 Chrijl i having always underflood the phrafes crea- 
 tion by Chrijl, and his being before Abrahajn, &c. 
 not in a figurative, but a literal fenfe, you have 
 fatisfied yourfeif with paying but little regard to 
 the natural improbability (though in my opinion 
 approaching very nearly to an impoffibility) of 
 your hypothefis. And then with refpeft to the 
 numerous pafiages in which Chrift is fpoken of as 
 
 a man. 
 
170 LETTERS TO 
 
 a man, unable to do any thing of himjelf, which 
 the Athanafians interpret of his human nature only, 
 you are fatistied with referring them to his ftate 
 Cii degradation i in which he was only in fajhion^ or 
 external appearance, as a man. 
 
 Being thus fecure with refpeft to the argument 
 from fcripturcy which we all confider as the great 
 ftrong hold of our faith j though, I doubt not, 
 you have read with care all that I have written to 
 prove that the great body of primitive chrlftians 
 were unitarians, you will naturally think either 
 that the proof is fomewhere defective (though you 
 may not be able to fay where) or at moft, that it 
 can only furnilh one uncertain light to the inter^ 
 pretation of fcripture, which to you appears, in 
 this cafe, to be fo plain, that it needs no inter- 
 pretation at all, 
 
 I have not, therefore, thp leaf]: expet^^ation that 
 any thing that I have advanced iri thefe Letters 
 will be able to make much inaprelTion on your 
 mind j except that you may, perhaps, be led to 
 think, that you had not fufficient authority for 
 concluding that Chrift, by his fuper- human 
 power, accelerated his own death. On this fub- 
 jeft I am willing to hope that the evidence I have 
 produced of your having miftaken the meaning 
 of the evangelifts is fo clear, and unexceptionable, 
 that you may not fee much to objeft to it. 
 
 But 
 
Dr. P R I C E. 271 
 
 But this concefllon, which is the utmoft that I 
 ,darc flatter myfelf with the hope of, does not 
 materially affeft your general hypothefis. You 
 will even probably ftill think, that Ghrift railed 
 himfelf from the dead, and will have no doubt of 
 his being a great pre-exiftent fpirit, the maker 
 of the world, from matter with which he was 
 furniflied by the jFather; and that he conde- 
 fcended to become incarnate, for the piirpofe of 
 making it confident with the juftice of God to 
 receivq penitent linners into his favour, 
 
 Gn the other hand, I muft acknowledge, that 
 my perfuafion of the fimple humanity of Chrifl, 
 and even that of his being a man, naturally as 
 v/eak, as fallible, and as peccable, as other men, 
 is fo fixed, from my prefent ideas of the meaning 
 of fcripture, and a variety of other confiderations, 
 tending to prove that fuch mufi be the meaning 
 of fcripture ; that 1 have no idea of the pofllbiliiy 
 of my being ever brought to entertain a contrary 
 fentimenr. Indeed, 1 do not think that the ar- 
 guments in favour of Arianifm can be better ex- 
 hibited, and as I may fay, concentrated, than they 
 are in your Sermons. In all probability, there- 
 fore, you and I mull wait for farther light till the 
 arrival o( the great teacher deatb^ and the fcenes 
 that will follow it^ 
 
 In the mean time, our difference of opinion on 
 this fubjed will not, I am confident, make the 
 
 leaft 
 
172 LETTE«.S, Sec. 
 
 leaft change in our friendihip and affeflion. We 
 are equally, I truft, lovers of truth, and lovers of 
 virtue; and alfo:equally lovers of Chrift, and of 
 his gofpel, notwithftanding our very different 
 ideas of his perfon, and the objedt of his miffion; 
 though you confider him as your makeVy and I as 
 thtjon ofjojeph and Mary^ and (exclufive of divine 
 conamunications) as poffeffed of no natural ad- 
 vantages over his father Jofeph, or :.ny other man 
 in a fimilar fituation of life in Judea. 
 
 It is likev^^ife an equal fatisfadion to both of 
 us, to think that, on which ever fide the truth lies, 
 it will finally prevail over prejudice and error ; 
 and that, though the error be the opinion that 
 we are now contending for, we are ready to fay 
 amen to a prayer for the extermination of it. 
 
 With the greateft refpeft and affection, 
 I am. Dear Friend, 
 Yours, fincer^ly, 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY, 
 
 BIRMINGHAM, 
 March i, 1787. 
 
L E T T E R 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Mr. P A R K H U R S T. 
 
 .sini D^:3 DTi^^a imDD mTn^ rj^i th^ ^sin 
 
 Fid. Jud. Art. a. 
 
 Praeceptum de idolatria quafi tanti ponderis eft ac reliqua 
 •mnia Mandata. 
 
 Maimonides de Idolatria, 
 
LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. Mr. PARKHURST, 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 X^HEN the preceding parts of this pamphlet 
 were nearly printed off, I received (oblig- 
 ingly fent me by yourfelf ) a treatife of yours, en- 
 titled, Th Divinity and Fre-exifience of Chrift ds- 
 monjlrated from Scripiitre, in Jnfwer to the firji 
 Se5fion of Dn Priefilefs Introdu5fion to his Hijlory 
 cf Early Opinions concerning Jefus Chriji^ together 
 with Strictures on fame other Parts of that Work, 
 and I cannot pafs, without notice, the produc- 
 tion of fo learned a writer. 
 
 You mufl- excufe, me, however, if I fay that, 
 having heard fome time ago of this publication 
 of yours, I liad, from your chara6ter, formed ex- 
 peflations, which I do not find anfwered by if. 
 I had been led to imagine, that you would have 
 criticized my Hiftory itfelf as a learned ecclefiaftical 
 hiftorian, and not have contented yourfelf with 
 
 replying 
 
176 A LETTER T O 
 
 replying to a fingle fc6lion of the Introdu6lIon to 
 to it, which only relates to a difcufiion in which 
 little new can be advanced, viz. of the do6lrine 
 of the fcriptiires concerning the perfon of Chrift. 
 The proper objeft of my work is to afcertain 
 what muft have been the fenfe of the books of 
 fcripture fronm the fenfe in which they were adu- 
 ally underftood by thofe for whofe ufe they were 
 compofed ; and to determine what mufl have been 
 the fentiments of the apoftles, by means of the 
 opinions of thofe who received their inftrudion 
 from them only. 
 
 This is a new, and certainly an important field 
 of argumentation, open to the learned part of 
 the chriftian world ; and I had flattered myfelf, 
 that Mr. Parkhurft had been prepared to enter 
 it with me. But this you entirely decline, be- 
 caufeyou think, p. 147, "your time may be much 
 " better employed," On the contrary, I cannot 
 help thinking that, in the prefent ftate of things, 
 it would have been much better to go over this 
 new ground, than to tread over again the old and 
 beaten one. 
 
 In your Stridures, however, on my work, you 
 think you have proved that Clemens Romanus, 
 Ignatius, and Polycarp, were believers in the 
 divinity of Chrift. But what you have urged on 
 this fubjed appears to me to be of little confe- 
 quence, and to have been fufEciently obviated by 
 
 what 
 
Mr. PARKHURSt. 177 
 
 what I have advanced inmyHiftoryi fo that I 
 fte no occafion to trouble our readers with any" 
 thing more on the fubjeft. Let them compare 
 my obfervations with your reply. Indeed, I do 
 not know what more to fay to any perfon> who 
 can feriouQy maintain, that the appellation of 
 Gad, perpetually applied to Chrifl in the Ihorter 
 epiftles of Ignatius, is no interpolation j fuch as 
 the example you have produced, p. 135, " I wifh 
 ** you all happinefs in our God Jefus Chrift." 
 This, Sir, is neither apoilolical language, nor, 
 indeed, that of any writer whatever, in any age 
 of the church. 
 
 "With refpefb to the great obje6t of my work, 
 you grant almoft all that I contend for, when you 
 fay, p. 9, " There is but too much reafon to ap- 
 " prehend, what Dr. Prieftley, in the courfe of 
 " his work, feveral times mentions with triumph, 
 ** to wit, that the bulk of chriftians have, in all 
 " ages of the church, been inclined to the unita- 
 ** rian doftrine." And yet you fay, p. 98, " Mr. 
 " Howes has juftly obferved, that the modern 
 " opinion concerning the humanity of Jefus 
 " through life, has not the leaft countenance in its 
 " favour from the tenets of any one of the an- 
 " tient fedaries." This exprefles more confi- 
 dence on the fubjeft than Mr. Howes himfelf 
 has done, as you include Photinus among thofe 
 who were not properly unitarians. How this 
 very extraordinary pofition will be fupported by 
 
 N Mr. 
 
178 A L E T T E R T O 
 
 Mr. Howes, ' or yourfelf, time, I fuppofe, will 
 fhew. It muft, however, be by another kind of 
 ecclefiaftical hillory than any that I am yet ac- 
 quainted with. 
 
 As to the orthodox Fathers, whofe writings I 
 have made ufe of in tracing the rife and progrefs- 
 of the dodrine of the trinity, you treat them with 
 a degree of indifference and contempt that really 
 allonilhes me. " With regard to the follies of 
 '^^ the fucceeding chriflian writers, whether Greek 
 *' or Latin, who, negk^ing the Hebrew Jcripiures, 
 " idolized the very imperfe6l and faulty verfion 
 " of the Septuagint, and yet frequently followed 
 " the ignes fatui of their own imaginations, and 
 " of the Platonic and other vain philofophy, — as 
 " to fuch follies as thefe, I have no great objec- 
 " tion to their being treated with the feverity 
 " they deferve, though I Ihould not myfelf choofc 
 " the office of executioner." 
 
 But if there be any truth in the cutline only of 
 inyHiftory, the do6i:rine of the trinity had no 
 exiilence till it was ftarted by thefe very platoniz- 
 ing Fathers, fo that the folly you afcribe to them 
 muft refleft upon the dodtrine itfelf. It appears 
 from their own confeirion,that this doftrine gave 
 the greateft offence to the great body of unlearned 
 chriftians, v^ho had not been taught with clear- 
 nefs any other doctrine concerning Chrift, than 
 that he was a man infpired by God. You your- 
 
 ■3 felf 
 
Mr. PARKHURST. 179 
 
 felf prbduce a pafTage from Eufebius, p. 99, in 
 which it is faid, that " the divinity of Chrift was 
 " a do6lrine referved by the Holy Spirit for John, 
 " as being more excellent i" and the earlieft date 
 of his gofpel is the year 64. Confequently, be- 
 fore this time the chriflian church mult have been 
 unitarian. 
 
 If I have fufficiently proved the truth of thefe 
 facts, and OLhers connedted with them, it mufl be 
 in vain to pretend that the fcriptures of the Nev/ 
 Teflament will admit of any other than an unita- 
 rian interpretation. And the evidence of the 
 fa6ts I refer to does not depend upon Vv^ri tings, 
 the authenticity and puriiy of which are fo 
 queftionable as thofe of the apoftolical Fathers, 
 but on the uniform concurrent teftimony of all 
 the chriflian writers, from the age of the apoftles 
 till long after the council of Nice ; and their 
 works have, in general, come down to us as per- 
 fett as any antient writings whatever. 
 
 I have alfo fliewn, much at large, that the uni- 
 tarians were not confidered as heretics till a late 
 period. I faid, that even the Ebionites are not 
 direftly called heretics by Iren^us. In one paf- 
 fage, however, from this writer, which you pro- 
 duce, p. 96, you think that it docs appear, that he 
 mult have confidered them in that light. But 
 admitting this, it am.ounts to nothing of any 
 confequence, as it is exprefsly aflerted by Je- 
 N 1 rom. 
 
i8o ALETTERTO 
 
 torn, that the Ebionites, who lived in a ftate of 
 reparation from other chriftians, were confidered 
 as heretics only on account of their obfervance of 
 the laws of Mofes. 
 
 As you have not even attempted to anfwer my 
 work itfelf, I have no occafion to examine any- 
 thing that you have advanced ; but, having this 
 opportunity of addrefllng a letter to you, I Ihall 
 make a few obfervations on an article which you 
 have laboured the moft in your performance, viz, 
 the proof, or demonjiration, as you call it, of the 
 dodtrine of the trinity, from the plural form of 
 the word which is ufed to denote God in the He- 
 brew language, viz. D^n'?»S, elohimt or as you write, 
 it, aleim, 
 
 " Aleim,'* you fay, p. 6^^ ** regularly and pre- 
 " cifely denotes the denouncers of a conditional curfe. 
 " and by this very important Hebrev/ name, the 
 " ever bleffed three reprefent themfelves as under 
 ** the obligation of an oath to perform certain con- 
 " ditions.** Taking this for granted, you fay, 
 p. 82, '* The dodrine of a plurality in Jehovah 
 " is taught in above two thoufand places of the 
 " Old ; and I add, that this plurality is, by a num- 
 ** ber of paflages in both Teftaments, fixed to a 
 " trinity." You likewife find an intimation, p. 
 16, " of the dodrine of the bleffed unity in tri- 
 '* nity, and trinity in unity," in the three men 
 who appeared to Abraham, 
 
 Few 
 
Mr. park hurst. i8i 
 
 Few perfons, I believe, except thofe who pre- 
 tend to find the philofophical difcoveries of the 
 prefentage in the Hebrew words of the Old Tefta- 
 mcnt, will be difpofed to lay any ftrefs on this 
 argument, or demonftration, of yours. Bafnage 
 and others, as zealous trinitarians as yourfelf, 
 have fhewn the futility of it j and till v/hat they 
 have written be anfwered, I fhould be abundantly 
 juftified in taking no notice at all of it. 1 Ihall, 
 however, as the opportunity may never occur 
 again, make a few obfervations on this fubjeft. 
 
 1. Admitting the plural form of the word fig- 
 nifying God to be a jull foundation for believing 
 that there is a plurality in the divine effence, it is 
 only in one particular language, which can no 
 more be proved to be of divine origin than any 
 other language, and may not even have been the 
 moft antient j (o that it might be merely acci- 
 dental, that this word, as well as feveral others in 
 the fame language, and many in all languages, 
 had a plural,.and not a Angular form. 
 
 2. We are no where taught in the Old Tefta- 
 ment, that this myfterious doftrine o( three divine 
 denouncers of a conditional curje (at the idea of 
 which the mind recoils) is to be inferred from the 
 form of the word akim, 
 
 3. As the fame word is ufed to fignify the 
 heathen gods, as well as the God of Ifrael, it 
 
 N 3 might 
 
i82 ALETTERTO 
 
 might be expedled that all nations had an idea 
 of a plurality in the elTence of all their gods. 
 This you in part allow, and endeavour to prove 
 it in the cafe of Hecate^ or Diana, p. 1445 and 
 you fuppofe, p. 156, that the Philiftines, who ap- 
 plied this ternn to their god Dagon, " might be 
 " ufed to compound idols." But you ought to 
 have extended this to all the heathen gods, as 
 well as tQ Hecate. But really. Sir, I wonder 
 you were not flruck with horror at this indirect 
 comparifon of your holy blefled and glorious 
 trinity to the three-fold form of a heathen god- 
 defs. You might as well have pitched upon the 
 three-headed monfter Cerberus for your purpofe. 
 What woUid you have faid if / had faid any thing 
 that could have led the mind to any fuch com- 
 parifon ? 
 
 4. Can you make it appear that any of the 
 antient Jews underftood the word aleimj as you 
 do, or that they drew any fuch inference from it ? 
 This you feem to have taken for granted, and you 
 " add, p. ^6y that " a very great majority of the 
 " Jews before our Saviour's coming had apofta- 
 " tized from the doftrine of the divine trinity." 
 But where. Sir, do you find the records of this 
 great apoftacy ? And where are we to look for 
 the remonftrances on the fubjed, which would 
 certainly have been made by thofe who did not 
 apoilatize ? Of tlie apoftacy of the Ifraelites from 
 the worfliip of the true God to that of idols, we 
 
 have 
 
Mr. PARKHURST. 183 
 
 have abundant evidence j but of this greater chano-e 
 in the fentiments of a great majority of the na- 
 tion, we have no account at all. 
 
 Of thofe Jews who had apoftatized from the 
 doflrine of the trinity, you fay, p. 36, " they 
 " could not pofTibly at the time he" [Chrift] 
 " appeared, have fuppofed that the Meffiah would. 
 " be the fecond perlbn in the trinity." And as 
 to the Jev/s who were after our Saviour's time, 
 you do not pretend to Pind among them any trace 
 of the doftrine of the trinity, or of the divinity of 
 of the Meffiah. With refpe6|; to thefe you fay, 
 p. 33, " I mufl enter my folemn proteft againft 
 *^ being guided by them, as to the fenfe of the 
 *^ facred books, or in any matter of religion what- 
 '^ ever j becaufe the bleiTed m.afler whom I pro- 
 " fefs to follow, and to obey, has repeatedly cal- 
 *^ led the predecefTors and inllruftors of thefe mo- 
 *' dern Jews, fools and blinds i. e. as to religious 
 " knowledge, and has faid of them, they be blind 
 *' leaders of the blind » and if the blind lead the blmd^ 
 ^^ Jhall not both fall into the ditch f" 
 
 But can you, Sir, imagine that, if our Saviour 
 had found in the Jewifli teachers Co capital a de- 
 parture from the doftrine concerning God, as this 
 apoftacy from the ancient Mofaic doftrine of the 
 trinity muft have been, he would not have dif- 
 tinflly pointed it out, and that he would not have 
 warned the people againft the falfe glvffes of the 
 M 4 . Scribes 
 
i84 ALETTERSTO 
 
 Scribes and Pharifees upon this article of the 
 law, as he did on others of much lefs importance ? 
 He had one fine opportunity, you muft acknow- 
 ledge, of doing this, and of explaining the doc- 
 trine concerning the divine eflence, when he was 
 queftioned about the firji commandment^ Mark xii. 
 a8. But both the Scribe and himfeif, on that re- 
 markable occafion, aflert the abfolute unity of the 
 divine nature. 
 
 You do maintain, however, p. tip, that our 
 Lord's own difciples were at \tdSk.Jufficiently prepared 
 by his difcourfes to confider him as God, during 
 their intercourfe with him. But how does this ap- 
 pear, when after his crucifixion we find two of hiss 
 difciples on their way to Emmaus, exprefling their 
 higheft admiration of him in thefe words, Luke 
 xxiv. 1 9. Jejus of Nazarethy who was a prophet 
 mighty in werd and deedy before God and all the 
 people. Is this, the natural language of men who 
 had ever confidered Chrift as properly God, or 
 who were at all prepared fo to do. 
 
 I Ihall not enter with you into a difcufiion of 
 the meaning of particular texts ^ having, as I 
 think, fufficiently explained all thofe on which 
 you defcant, in my other writings. But I cannot 
 help noticing your very curious interpretation of 
 of Chriit's faying, John v. 30, that he could do no- 
 thing ofhimfelf. " We fee then," you fay, p. 62, 
 ^^ m what fenfe only the Spn of God, in this paf- 
 
Mr. park hurst. 185 
 
 *' lage, difclaims any power of his own, and fays, 
 ** that he can do nothing of himjelf, vk. as adling 
 '^ diftinftly from his Father, with whom he was 
 " united." But would you, Sir, have put the 
 fame conftruftion on any fimilar faying of Mofes, 
 or any other prophet ? Befides, if in this fenfe 
 only Chrift could do nothing of himfelf, in the 
 fame fenfe the Father a^fo could do nothing of 
 himfelf J fince, on your hypothefis, he mufl always 
 aft in conjun6tion with the Son* But where do 
 you find any afiertion like this in the fcriptures ? 
 
 Indeed, Sir, unlefs you, or your friends, can make 
 a better defence than you have yet done of the doc- 
 trine of the trinity, notwithftanding you fay. Adv. 
 p. 6. you confider me " as by no means a formid- 
 " able opponent on fcriptural fubjecls," the confe- 
 quence of which you exprefs fo much dread, ibid. 
 p. 7. viz. that " the religion of this once chriftian 
 " land will be reduced to a level with Maho- 
 *' metanifm, and even in fome refpefts below it," 
 mufl: follow. In this method of charafterizing 
 unitarianifm, you think, no doubt, to bring an 
 odium upon it. But the comparifon is now too 
 much hackneyed for that purpofe j and you are 
 miilaken if you think that I am aihamed to avow 
 my agreement with the Mahometans, or any 
 orher part of the human race, in the doftrine of 
 the divine unity^ and to worlhip together with 
 them, the one God and Father of all, the maker of 
 Jseavenand earth. 
 
 You, 
 
iS6 A LETTERSTO 
 
 You, Sir, as well as my other adverfaries think, 
 1 prefume, to derive fome advantage to your 
 caufe, from depreciating my knowledge of the 
 learned languages, which is fo neceffary in thefe 
 theological difcuffions. Dr, Horfley will not 
 allow me to know any thing of Greek. Mr. Bad- 
 cock makes me ignorant even of Latin, and you 
 fay of me. Adv. p. 6. "he appears to have but a 
 *^ (lender acquaintance with the original language 
 *■* of the Old Teftament, and never to have read 
 ** the Hebrew Bible vv'ith care and atcention. If 
 " he had, it feems almoft impofiible that he 
 " fliould fallen into fuch palpable errors as he 
 *' has done." You even infinuate, p. 3. that I 
 may not know " that Q'' is as truly a plural ter- 
 " mination in Hebrew, as — s is in cur Ian- 
 ♦' guage." 
 
 "Whether I be ignorant of Hebrew, or not, 
 your proofs of my ignorance are not a little cu- 
 rious. One of them is that, " in the fecbion of my 
 " Introdudlion, which profefTedly relates to the 
 " fcriptures in general, I have not produced a 
 " fingle Hebrew word." (Adv. p. 6.) which I 
 rpight have done^ and yet have known very little 
 of the language. And as to the unpardonable 
 miftake I have fallen into, it is no other than I 
 dare fay, Bilhop Lowth, or Dr. Kennicott, would. 
 have fallen into as well as myfelf. For neither 
 of them would probably have thought of inferring, 
 the dodrine of the trinity from the word aleim. 
 
 On 
 
Mr. P a R K H U R S T. 187 
 
 On this fubjed of the knowledge of Hebrew, 
 I will fay (and you may fmile at me if you pleafe) 
 that as I have faid I would not exchange my 
 knowledge of Greek for that of Dr. Horfley, fo 
 neither wouid I exchange my knowledge of He- 
 brew with even that of Mr. Parkhurft, unfeen, 
 and unexamined, 
 
 I have, in the courfe of my life, given very par- 
 ticular attention to the Hebrew language. I began 
 the ftudy of it when I was about fifteen, and re- 
 member that at about eighteen I read in the hifto- 
 rical books of the Old Teftamenr, from Hebrew 
 into Englifh at family prayers. I taught He- 
 brew to a friend now living, before I was eighteen. 
 Before I was twenty, 1 had read the Hebrew Bible 
 twice through, once with points, and once without 
 points. I had, likewife, read other books in He- 
 brew befides the Bible, and h?.d begun the ftudy 
 of other oriental languao;es. I was then pretty 
 well acquainted with Syriac, and was able to read 
 Arabic. After this, though my attention was 
 drawn to other objefts, I never wholly laid afide 
 my application to Flebrew i and it has happened 
 that, within lefs than fix months of the laft 
 year, I read the Hebrew Bible qv.ite through, 
 chiefly in Kennicott's edition (led to it in fome 
 meafure, by a prefent being made me of that noble 
 work by a perfon unknown, and for which I 
 take this opportunity of returning thanks for it) 
 ;^nd this I did without confidering it as any great 
 
 addition 
 
i8S LETTERS, &c. 
 
 addition to my other bufmefs. If after all this, 
 I know fo very little of Hebrew as you repre^ 
 fent, there mull be fomething very extraordinary 
 in the cafe j and the ftory will yield but little 
 encouragement to other perfons to apply to it. 
 
 But really. Sir, the important quellion is not, 
 whether Dr. Horfley or myfelf know more of 
 Greek, or whether you or 1 know more of He- 
 brew", but which of us makes the belt ufe of what 
 we dr know. 
 
 * With real refpedb, though with.^reat difference 
 of opinion, I am. 
 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your very humble Servant. 
 
 J. PRIESTLEY, 
 
 BIRMINGHAM, 
 March 7, 1787. 
 
A 
 
 CATALOGUE OF BOOKS, 
 
 VVRITTENBY 
 
 Dr. PRIESTLEY, 
 
 AND FRINT£0 FOR 
 
 J. JOHNSON, Bookfeller, No. 72, St. Paul's Church Yard, 
 London. 
 
 i;. 
 1. "p^ISQUISlTlONS relating to Matter and Spib t. To 
 -i-' which is added, the Hiftory of the Philofophical Doflrine 
 concerning the Origin of the Soul, and the Nature of Matter; 
 with its Influence on Chriilianity, efpecially with refpeft to the 
 Doftrineof the Pre-exiftenceof Chrift. Alfo the Dodlrine of Phi- 
 lofophical Neceffity illuftrated, the 2d Edition enlarged and im- 
 proved, with Remarks on thofe who have controverted the Prin- 
 ciples of them, 2 vols. 8s. 6d. in boards. los. bound. 
 
 2. A Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materi- 
 alism and Philosophical Necessity, in a Correfpondence 
 between Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley. To which are added 
 by Dr. Priestley, an Introduction, explaining the Nature 
 of the Controverfy, and Letters to fcveral Writers who have 
 animadverted on his Difquifitions relating to Matter and Spirit, 
 or his Treatife on Neceflity, 8vo. 6s. fewed, 7$. bound. 
 
 3. A Defence of the Doftrine of Necessity, in two Letters 
 to the Rev. Mr. John Palmer, 2s. 
 
 4. A Letter to Jacob Bryant, Efq; in Defence of Philofo- 
 phical Neceflity, is. 
 
 The tifjo preceding Artichi may he properly bound up ivith the 
 fecond volume «/" Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit. 
 
 5. Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Parti. 
 Containing an Examination of the principal Objedlions to the 
 Doftrines of Natural Religion, and efpecially thofe contained in 
 the Writings of Mr. Hurae, 3?. fewed , 
 
 6. Addt- 
 
 V 
 
BOOKS ivritten by Dr. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 6. Additional Letters to a Philosophical Unbe- 
 liever in Anfvver to Mr. William Hammon, is. 6d. 
 
 7. Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, Part IT. 
 containing a State of the Evidence of Revealed Religion, with 
 Animadverfions on the two laft Chapters of the flrft Volume of 
 Mr. Gibbon'' s Eifiory of the Decline and Fall uf the Roman Empire, 3s. 
 
 N. B. T^he tivo Parts, bound together, including Art. 6, 7s. 6d, 
 
 8. A Harmony of the Evangelists in Greek : To which 
 are prefixed Critical Dissertations in Englifh, 410. 14s. 
 in boards, 17s. bound. 
 
 g. A Harmon V of the Evangelists in Englijh ; with 
 Notes, and an occafional Paraphrafe for the Ufe of the Un- 
 learned ; to which are prefixed, Critical Differtations, and a Let- 
 ter to the Bifhop of Oflbry,4tn. 12s. in boards, 15s. bound. 
 
 N. B. Thofe nxiho are poj/ejjed of the GxQtk Harmony, may ha've this 
 in Englifh nuithout /^f Critical Diflertations, 8s. in boards. 
 
 *^* The Greek and Englifh Harmony with the Critical Dif- 
 {crliiions, complete, il. is. in boards, or il. 4s. bound. 
 
 10. Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, 
 in two volumes, 8vo. 2d. edition, price 10s, 6d. in boards, 
 12s. bound. 
 
 N. B. The third Part cf this Work, containing the Dodlrlnes of 
 Revelation, may be had alone, zs. 6d. fe^wed. 
 
 11. An History of the Corruptions of Christiani- 
 ty, with a general Conclufion, in two Parts. Part i. Con- 
 taining Confiderationsaddreffed to Unbelievers, and efpecially to 
 Mr. Gibbon. Part II. containing Confiderations addreffed to 
 Advocates for the prefent Ellablifhment, and efpecially to Bifl"i0p 
 HuRD, 2 vols. 8vo. price 12s. in boards, or 14s. bound. Or, 
 bound uniformly ixiith thef-vefolloiving Defences of it, in 3 'vols. 
 II. los. 
 
 12. A Reply to the Animadversions on the Histor'Y of 
 the Corruptions of Christianity, in the Monthly Review 
 for June, 1783 ; with Obfervations relating to the Do(ftrine 
 of the Primitive Church, concerning the Perfon of Christ, 
 8vo. price is. 
 
 13. Remarks on the Monthly Review of the Letters 
 to Dr. HoRSLEY ; in which the Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock, 
 
 the 
 
BOOKS ivritten by Dr. PRIESTLEY. 
 
 the writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has 
 advanced in it, price 6d. 
 
 14. Letters to Dr. Horsley, Archdeacon of St. Albans, 
 in three Parts, containing farther Evidsnce that the Primitive 
 Chriilian Church was Unitarian, Parti. 2S.6d. 
 
 15. Letters to the fame in Defence of the fame, Part IL 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 16. Letters to the fame in Defence of the fame, Part III. 
 IS. 6d. 
 
 N. B. Thefe lajl fi've Article i together in boards, px. or bound los. 
 
 17. An History of early Opinions concerning Jesus 
 Christ, compiled from Original Writers; proving that the 
 Chriftian Church was at firft Unitarian, 4 vols, odavo, price il. 
 4$. in boards, or il. 8s. bound. 
 
 i8. Letters to the Jews; inviting them to an amicable 
 Difcuilion of the Evidence of Chriilianity, price is. 
 N.B. A new and enlarged edition of this workis nowin theprefs. 
 
 19. Two Discourses, i. On Habitual Devotion. 
 2. On the Duty of not Living to Ourselves J both preach- 
 ed to AfTemblies of Proteitant Diffenting Minifters, and publifh- 
 ed at their Reqiiell, price is. 6d. 
 
 20. The Importance and Extent of Free Enquiry in mat- 
 ters of Religion, a Sermon, preached Nov. 5, 1785 ; to which are 
 added, Refieftions on the prefent State of free Inquiry in this 
 Country, and Animadverfions on fome PafTages in Mr. White's 
 Sermons at the Bampton Ledtures, on Mr. Howes's Difcourfe on 
 the Abufe' of the Talent of Difputation in Religion, and on a 
 Pamphlet entitled Primiti've Candour, ^x\zq is.6d. 
 
 31, A Catechism for Children andToung Perfons, 5th Edit. 4d» 
 
 22. An Appeal to the ferious and candid ProfelTors of Chrif- 
 tianity, on the following fubjefts, viz. i. The Ule of Reafon 
 in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the Will of 
 God. 3. Original Sin. 4. Eleilion and Reprobation. 5. The 
 Divir.ity of Chrift; and 6. Atonement for Sin by the Death of 
 Chrill, a new Edition ; to which is added, a Concifc Hiltory of 
 thofe Dodrines, 2d. An Edition in larger Print, price 6d, 
 
 23. A Familiar Jlluftration of certain PafTages of Scripture, 
 relating to the fame Subieds, the 2d Edition, 6d. 
 
 24. Tlie 
 
BOOKS ivritten ^> Dr. P R I E S T L E Y, 
 
 24. The Triumph of Truth; being an Account of the 
 Trial of Mr. Elwall for Herefy and Blafphemy, at StaiFord 
 Alfizes, before Judge Denton, 2d Edition, 2d. 
 
 25. A Free Address 'to thofe who have petitioned for the 
 Repeal of the late Aft of Parliament in favour of the Romak 
 Catholics. Price 2d. or 12s. per Hundred to giveaway. 
 
 26. A General View of the Arguments for the Unity of 
 God, and againft the Divinity and Pre-exiftence of Chrill, from 
 Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from Hiftory, 2d Edition, 
 price 2d. 
 
 j^lfo Publijhed under the DireSlion o/"Dr. Priestley. 
 
 ' THE-'>^HEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY: 
 
 Confining o. Original EfTays, Hints, Queries, &c. calculated 
 to promote Religious Knowledge, in three Volumes, 8vo. 
 Price i8s, in boards, or il. is. bound. Among other articles 
 too many to be enumerated in an Advertifement, thefe three 
 volumes will be found to contain fuch original and truly valu- 
 able obfervations on the doftrine of Atonement, the PrC' 
 e>.ifience of Chrift, and the Infpiratlon of the Scriptures, more 
 cfpecially refpefting the Harmony of the Enjangtlifls, and the 
 Reafonirg of the Apoflle Paul, as cannot fail to recommend 
 them to thofe Perfons who wifh to make a truly free Inquiry 
 into thefe important fuhjefts. 
 .i;.;IThis \t7ork has been lately refumed, a 4th and 5th Volume 
 .:.ave been publifhed, price 13s. in boards, and the 6th is print- 
 ing in numbers. 
 
 ♦in* The Doctor's Works, complete, 15I. 10s. in boards. 
 
lllMI/m"""""'"^""' L.bra, 
 
 *' J ^0^2 01015 4757