Priestley
efenses of Unitarianism
for X\)e year 1186...

'33 35L

Defences of Unitariamfm for the Tear 1786,

CONTAINING

LETTERS

T O
Dr. HORNE, DEAN of CANTERBURY;
TO T H E ^
YOUNG MEN, WHO ARE IN A COURSE OF EDUCATION
FOR THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, AT THE
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE;
TO THE
Rev. Dr. P^ R I C E;
anpt6 the
Rev. Mr. PARKHURSTj
On the Subje£l of the Person of Christ.
By JOSEPH f^^IESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.
AC IMP. FCTKOP. R. PARIS. HOLM. TAUXIN. AUREL. MEO.
rAaiS. KAKLEM, CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAO. SOCIUS,

Tandem Dufiores, audita czde fuoruin,
Conveniunt ¦ ' — VlRClJ..

BIRMINGHAM,
PRINTED FOR THE AVTHOR BY PEARSON AND ROLLASOK,
ANP SOLD BT J. JOHNtON, NO. 7I, 9T. PAOL's CUUKCH'TARD, LONBOK,
, MDCCLXXXVIII.
[I'RICS THR££ SHILLIKCS.J

THE

PREFACE.

TH E readers of this controverfy con
cerning the perfon of Chriji, will, I
doubt not, congratulate themfelvfes on feeing
it in new hands, and in thofe of perfons who
promife to condudt it both with better tem
per, and with more knowledge of the fub-
ject, than it was done by Dr. Horfley,
According to appearance, we mud 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 expedt they
would be) remains in itj ^hile Mr. White,
the learned profeflbr of Arabic at Oxford, dif-
coyers fo much laudable zeal in the caufe of
A 2 orthodoxy.

iv PREFACE.
orthodoxy; and while others, of no lefs erurr
dition*, I am informed, are, preparing to
join the corps, now that they fee the danger
to be preffing.
Indeed, in a cafe of fo great emergency,
when fo much may be loft, viz. the uninter^r
ruped pofTeffion of ages, and fo much ho-'
nour (to fay nothing of emolument J is to be
acquired by preferving it, who that has any
confidence in his prowefs would not crowd
to the ftandard, eredled by the Dean of
Canterbury, who fo loudly calls upon all
the friends of orthodoxy, to contend earnejily
for TH?.\K faith ? Without any difparage-
ment to this truly learned and worthy digni
tary, I hope his call will foon tje anfwered
by numbers, ftill higher iq rank, and in
fame, than even himfelf,
To be perfedly ferious j I muft acknow
ledge that it gives me more pleafure than I
X * In this I alluded more particularly to Mr. Farhhurjl,
wl'ofe work having appeared fines this Preface was wrrit-
ten, I have had an opportunity of replying to it at the
dofe of the prefent publication, can

PREFACE. V
can eXprefs, to fee fuch a profpedt of this
very important queftion, concerning the per
fon ofChrift, being thoroughly difcufled, and
perhaps finally terminated; fo that the gene
rality of thofe who give attention to thefe
fubjeds, may have reafon to think, that every
cohfideration 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 inqulfitive will then no
• longer halt between two opinions. If Chrift
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 him 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 diftinguifh-
ing thenifelves, and of ferving the caufe of
truth, may not foon occur again.
1 feel more particular fatiafad:ion in that
part of this generous conteft which relates
to Dr. Price ; partly hecaufe it is the firft
opportunity that has been afforded me of
difcuffing in this manner the fubjedt of
Arianifm ; and alfo becaufe it enables me to
give another example of the manner in
which I moft wifli to condudt 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 earneflly con
tend for this, without the leaft hazard of a
breach in their friendihip.
It is too common for perfons engaged in
controverfy to lofe fight of /r«/-6, and to
contend for viSlory only. And when that
is the object, thofe paffions which enter into
other contefts, which have the fame objedt, enter
3

PREFACE. vii
enter into this ; and the efFedt is fabth un-
pleafant in itlielf, and in a variety of refpeds,
unfavourable to the caufe of truth. But in
our former difcuiffion of the dodrines of ma-
ierialifm, and neceffity, nothing of this kind
appeared on eithgr fide, and the door fhall
be as religioufly fhut againft it in this.
That difcufHon was brolight to its pro
per termination; each of us having ad-
yahccd every thing that we tliought proper
in fupport of our refpedive opinions, and
then we made a joint publication of ths
whole. In this cafe, my frienddtias declared
liis, refolu tion not to engage in any contro
verfy J and, as the time is approaching,
w,hen i ^ay think proper to roalcc a fimilar
cefolution, I fliall not urge him on the fub-
jed. But I write with his full consent ; and
we both of us earneftly wifh that fome other
coimmon friend, at leaft fo^ne other learned
Arian, who, like him, fhall be ^duated by
a pure love of truth, may. take his place.
¦yV^hoevcr he j)e, I wiU engage that he fhall
have no reafon to complain of me. He
A 4 fhall

viii P R j; F A C E.
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 difcuffiort, I have no doubt .but
that he will generoully avow it in the future
editions of his Sertnons. Should he be- in
duced to adbindon Arianifm altogether (O
that this were not too much to be expeded
of man J I .have as little doubt, that he
would) take an early opportunity of acknow
ledging it, and with that ingeniious frankneft
which marks' his charader. In this cafe,
we fhould perhaps alfo have from his hand^
a ilriking- view of the Sociniah, or as he
himfelf would 'then 'call it, the onl^ proper
unitarian dodrine. There is an energy in
what he delivers, as ct)ming diredly from
the heart, which few writers have attained. It

T R E E A C E. fee
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 beft hiead,
and hold all truth, without it.
Writing to the Dean of Canterbui-y, who
is at the head of a college in Oxford, I was
infenfibly lead to addrefs myfelf to the young
men who are in a courfe of education for the
chrijlian miniftry at the two univerfties. For
this, I hope, to obtain their pardon, if not
their thanks. What I have done proceeds
from an earneft defire to awaken their atten
tion to a fubjed ihat moft nearly concerns
them, and throu^ thtm. the public, whom
they are deftined to ferve.
To have gone on, as many have done, from
generation to generation, fubfcribing what
they have not confidered, and then main
taining it becaufe they have fubfcribed it,
and becaufe they would be diftrefled if they
fhould

X PREFACE.
fhould abandon at once the fruits of their
fubfcription, can only have ari&n from a
want of attention to fa ferious a fuhjed.
The moft important and the plaineft of all.
truths may not be perceived, till it be dif-
tindly pointed out. But when attention i.s
excited, the ingenuous youth, who would
otherwife have gone heedlefely on, as thou-
fands have done before him, will ftart at
the apprehenfion of a wrong ftep in his
condud, as at the fight of a precipice before
him J and then, whatever be the inconve
nience of retreating, he will fee that it mult
be better than to proceed.
May the God of truth o^n all our miads,
and lead us into all truth ; and efpecially may
he give us the courage to acknowledge it,
when it is difcovered. The confequence*
of tbis may, in certain circumftanoes, be
painful, but they are temporary ; whereasf
the confequence of perfifting in errpr, and
of living in the perpetual violation of in
tegrity, while it fills the ingenuous mind with

PREFACE. xi
with anguifh here, muft be followed by
much greater anguifh hereafter. Such con
dud requires only to be fairly exhibited.
It muft at once be fcen to be unworthy of
a man, and much more fo of a chriftian,
and a chriftian minifter.

As I wifli not to trouble my readers with
more publications in this controverfy than
may be neceifary ; and I exped, at leafl
hope, to have many more antagonifts than
have yet appeared, I here inform them,
that I fhall not make an immediate reply to
every particular publication, but fhall gene
rally wait a proper time, in order to take
into confideration what may > be advanced
by feveral of them, as I have done on this
occafion. It is my earneft wifh that this iipportant
controverfy with trinitarians, and efpecially
with Arians, may come to a proper termina tion.

xii PREFACE.
tioU. Nothing, as I have more than once de
clared, fhall be wanting on my part to bring
it to this defirable iffue j and I pledge myfelf
to tbd public, not to pafs without [notice
any objedion to which 1 may be unable to
make a fatisfadory reply. If it relate to a
fubjed of much confequence, I fliall not
only make a frank acknowledgment of my
miftake, but take the moft early opportu
nity of doing it J but if it only affed an ar
ticle of fmall confequence, I may Content
myfelf with corrediiig my works, if they
fliould ever come to another edition. If
any perfon think me fuperior to my adver-
farics with refped to force of argument
(which can only arife from the goodnefs of
the caufe which I have efpoufed) I am de
termined to give them proofs ofa ftill greater
fuperiority with refped to ingemioufnefs.
Let it be underftood, however, that this
engagement relates only to the hiflory that
1 have given of the rife and progrcfs of the
trinitarian dodrine, of Arianifm, and of
Unitarianifm, in the early ages, which is a
proper

PREFACE. xiii
proper field for the learned in eccJefaJlical
bijlory, and not to that branch of the con
troverfy which has been fo long canvalTed,
that very little that is new can be expeded
to be advanced on any fide, I mean the doc
trine of the fcriptiires on the fubjed, any
farther than it may be introduced inciden
tally, and in connexion with the hiftoricai
difcijffion. But this hiftoricai difcuffion, when thp
nature of it is well confidered, cannot, as I
have frequently obferved, but be thought
to decide concerning the whole controverfy.
For, if it bp true, as I have endeavoured to
prove by copious hiftoricai evidence, not
only that proper unitarians were in commu
nion with the catholic church, and were
not clafTed with heretics ; but that the great
mafs of unlearned chriftians continued to be
fimply unitarians till the fecond and third
century, it will hardly be doubted but that
their inftrudors, viz. the apoftles, and firfi
difciples of Chrifl, were unitarians alfo, and
therefort

xiv PREFACE.
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 juft informed, that it was
not Mr. Prettyman, but Dr. Prettyman him
felf, the prefent bifliop of Lincoln, who
preached the Sermon, mentioned page 6. I
fhould be forry to fix a charge of illiberality
on any wrong perfon j and I fhall now with
more confidence exped, from the high rank
of his Lordfhip, that he will do me the
juftice I require.
*** A year is nearly clapfed fince this
Preface was written, but nothing has yet
come from the Bifhop on the fubjed.
PIRMINGHAM,
Feb. I, 17SS.

THE

THE

CONTENTS.

Lp T T E R- S to the Dean of Canterbury,
Letter I. IntrcduSlion ; and of the Charge of Igno-!
ranee or Infincerity in the JD'eferiders af the DoC'
trine of the Trinity ------ Page i
Letter II, Of the Argument from Antiquity, and
of Dr. Horjley^s Services with ReJpeSl to it - 7
Letter III. Ofthe Interference of Civil P^wer in
Matters of Religion -r-----i8
Letter IV. Qfjome particular Arguments for the
Doilrine of the Trinity - -----25
jLeittr V. Mifellavequs Artitltf, and Conclujion ^6
LETTERS

XVI

CONTENTS.

LETTERS to the Young Men, who are
in a Courfe of Education for the chrif
tian Miniftry, at the Univerfities of Ox
ford and Cambridge ----- — 41
Letter I. Of Suhjcription to Articles ef Faith -43
Letter II. Of tbe Study of tbe Do6lrine of the Tri-
nity  50
Letter III. Of tbe Difficulties attending an open Ac
knowledgment of Truth ------56
Letter IV. Animadverjions on Dr. Purkis's Ser^
mon ----.' - __-_,6j
1. Of tbe Influence of Pbilojopby on Religion - 64
2. Of Myfteries in Religion - - - - - 67
3. Of Toleration --------68
4. Of perverting the Language of tbe Scriptures 70
5. Of Materlalifm and the Doilrine of Philojo-
pbical Necejity ----.--'71
Letter V. Of Mr. Jones's catholic Doctrine of the
Trinity ... - -  74

LETTERS

CONTENTS. xvii

LETTERS TO THE
Rev. Dr. PRICE.
Letter I. lntrodu5iory - - - 89
Letter II. Of the Nature and antecedent Proba
bility of the Arian Hypothejis, ivith the Caujes of
Attachment to it - - 94
Letter III. Ofthe Creation of Matter by the Fa
ther, and the Formation of it hy the Son, and
other Conjiderations relating to the Idea of a finite
and imperfe£l Creator. 1 04
Letter IV. Conjiderations relating to the Origin
and Hifiory ofthe Arian Doctrine. Of Chrift not
being the ObfeSt of Prayer, and of tke Claim of
Arians to the Appellation of Unit arians 1 10
Letter V. Of the proof from the Scriptures of the
Creation of the IVorld by Chrift; - 117
Letter VI. Of the Argument for the pre-exifient
Dignity of Chrift from his working Miracles 1 24
Letter VII. Ofthe Argument for the pre-exiftcnt
Dignity of Chrifl, from his being Juppofed to have
raffed himfelf from tbe Dead, and from his volun
tarily difmifftng his Spirit when he died 1 28
b Letter

xviii CONTENTS.
Letter VIII. Of tbe Argument for tbe pre-exiftent
Disunity of Chrift, from particular Paffages oJ
Scripture ftippofed to after t, or io imply it i^S
Later IX. Of tbe Argument for tbe fuperior Na
ture of Chrift from bis raifing tbe Dead, and
judging tbe World - - 1 40
Letter X. Of tbe Hypothejis which makes Chrift
to he a mere Man, naturally as fallible, and as
peccable, as other Men - 148
Letter XI. Of tbe DeJign of Chrift' s Miffton 156
Letter XII. The Conclujion - 163
A LETTER tothe Rev. Mr. PARK-
HURST - - - i;5

LETTERS

T O

Dr. HORNE,
DEAN OF CANTERBURY.

il f 1)^01, a yetp •aa rt Hoxav c^xiyjtwit ta/Mi.
Gw /uv 3)1 ToJe /Miiov cm Kcotov, ¦») o7/ KTKAflY
A>iJia >^ evSev cjjm apik, fa'^i re, vom re,
, EK^vyoftev. HOMERI OdYSS.

Si pereo, tainibui hominum periiiTe juvabit. Virgil.

LETTERS
T O (T H.E
D'EA'N O'^ C ANTtER'B'UR^.

L E T T -E *R L
Introduction, and of the Charge of Ig^er^anfe or Irjin-i
cer ity in the Defenders ofthe Dodrine ofthe Trinity.
iREY«:Sj«,
^fV FTE.R;b(jiii»gf€i>gag^djin a controverfy |e-
atwL l«iing 50f tbe doftriQe.jefjthe Tm/'/j, witli
fbn^e, ve*y infoleast, and, .^s .1 i^nic; I haye fhejiyn,
ilifflffit«eBtt*nt#geBi(fts, I rejoice, ^hat in w«, I have
met wifih oneijtehO) is truly jG^e^iid,c)s?fn?d, and in
every "Wi««iJr»fjw5^iye. l^ou, ,§ir, are as fenfible
as myfelf of the ioiportfince of this difcuffion, and
^6itheii<vi^Mi»tfh.toi c«u>44|d it in. the ^eft gtfi-
per, «bat «,« in KhetmoftAmip^bl^jQ^nner,: as, layers
ofr«««tfi,iand ijotrWMfliidcfsf&r vjdory. " We
**'*nuft«oo,*' you'.fay, p. ,9, '*'-:lwowingiy.eng9ge
**¦ in*b«d:,fli)tfe, .flOTi sprloyere, if, inihsp^oce^,
**'<lVO'^eov«r>04ir oaitie CO be a bad «ne. Nchmif-
B ' « chief,"

2 LETTERS. TO THE
" chief," p. 15, " will arlfe from the difcuffion.
" Truth always has been, and always will be, a
" gainer by it."
With refpedl to the fubjeft of this controverfy,
you very juftly fay, p. a, " If the doftrine of the
" trinity be not true, the chriftian church has been
" guilty of /</o/a/ry )" and, though I do not think
it is with equal juftice that you add, " from the
" very days ofthe apoftles," it has certainly been
the cafe from a very early period. Againft an ac-
cufation of this magnitude, you, who hold the doc
trine, certainly do well to defend yourfclves, 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. 15,- " it is a vfrholc-
'• fome 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 j who, though
he very voluntarily engages in this difcuffion, is of
opinibn, that no good ever arofe from controverfy. 1
¦ As you and I, Sir, agree in fo many particulars,
I flatter myfelf that, in due time, *e fhall be able.
to bring this impoftant controverfy to a proper.
termination, fo that whatever may be fhe cafe with
rcfpcft to ourfclves and others, engaged in the
difcuffion (for whofe prejudices allowflpce v?ill eaiSly
2 . be

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 3
be made) attentive readers will be able to perceive
on which fide the truth lies.
^ Before I proceed any farther, I wifh to fet you
right with refpedt to a charge againft me, that I
am confident is ill-founded, viz. that I confider
all the defenders of the doftripe of the trinity as
either ignorant or infincere, p. 30. I really cannot
imagine on what it is that this fuppofition is
founded; fince, in a variety of paffages in my
writings, I have exprefTed the greateft refpcdl for
fome of thofe 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 refpeft to ability,
learning, or integrity.
This charge, I fuppofe, you have adopted from
Dr. Horfley, 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 fubjed, in my Second Set of Letters to him -,
in which, among other things, 1 fay, p. 213, " I
" do not pretend to recoiled all that I have writ-
" ten i but 1 have fuch a confcioufnefs of never
*^ having meant, or intended to fay, what Dr.
** HorQey here charges me with, that I will ven-
*' ture to affert that he cannot have any more au-
" thority for this, than for the privileges granted
" to the Jewifh chriftians of Jerufalem on their
*" abandoning the ceremonies of.jheir old religion.
B .2 " I

4 L eV^'F. R'S T b T t^E
"I 'i¥rall therefore "con'fi'dcr tliis charge 'of tJr.
" Horfley a.% a mere Ci?.'«»;/;j)',"'ti'll he fliall produce
" fome evidence for it. And if, in any of my
" Wrtcings 'be can End fi'fficient'autJhdrify'lTor'his
" accu fation, , 1 'here retrad wliat' 1 " advanced, ' Sh'd
*'aik pardon'for it."
"'As ' t)r. ' Horfle)^ did yubViih a ''Reply '"to my
Litters', Wi'i'hout pi'oductr g any proof of / is charge,
t am'at libtrty' to confid'tr it riot bnly'as a calumny,
but as 'an ac'kno'wUdged 'one, mi\\ the ag^f^vation
of h'is'n'bt having the grace to aflc pardon for itj
'which certainly'areg'aid toVruthj''and'to the' piiblic,
tailed for. Since"you, Sir,'"chooTe"to take; 'up fhe
matter where he left it, 1 am'iinder a 'tieqefTity-of
calling upon ^o«, to do what he bught''to h'a'^e
done, or to acknowledge, your inability to do it,
and confcquently.the 'irfjuft?ce of ydtir accufauon.
J haye the Tame right to call lipOri Dr. 'Parr, who
has likewife recorded this accufation in the iidteslfo
his Serindn on Education.
,_ It is true, that I'do not think'qufte To highly'of
Dr. Horfley 's literature as. you do; but airiong
other defenders of the dodrme of ihe trinity,; I am
far from denying him a comj'etent fh'tfre bf it:
though he has, iijpon all bccafions/'eJijlireired the
t- greateft contempt for -nii'nc ; bcficfes chaigi'^g me
repeatedly" with t^ie mo&fraudiilent pfaMieei'm the
cOndud of this controverfy. fwifh hiS ri^getinouf-
Wefs had been equal to liis ability, '^r'Tiis'Tearning.
As

DEAN QF C^NXERQU I^Y. :,
As, tq.ygifXi learning. Sir, no p^rfpn who has. f^;eri
yoiO^^Ctfin^^mary onthe Pfalpi^^ c^n.caljit i{\ queftion,.
And.tha? yoi^ a?-p, a, realjb^liever^i^jih^ dodriPf, '^
the trinity, a^^ l?|Vd down in tbf.i^thari^ian. creed,
it is, impqPiblf, to entertain .a cjo.ubt, a(tp yq^r. very
fol^mn. 4^,claratipri to thaf. purpofe ; wbea you
fay, p. 3, " I dei;lare before. God, iq,thq fiq^erity
" yfrpy foul, uppri. the beft .iydgmfnt-lRrifpnT;,
'^ I:^ni, Mcrily. perfuaded it. is. the; dodrine qf t|ae
" fcript4r,e, ^nd of the primitive chiifph.".
1, a^p. f^r frqjn being ofgqjlc^j at tb^ qq^^j^j-
ment, y<)|4 p^y I^r, Horfley, p. zz^ ?^ " eyjdgn|Jy
" an ove.r-roajflv iqx mtj, in point qf litera:|Ui;e i"
q,nd,d9 W^^W^er that you fliould, diink,_ p^ 15,
thajv " t^i?- tlianks of, thp Chur.ql) qI', lingj^d,ar,<=
*' due tJ9 him for \)\i feafopabiq, learned, ^nd juci'f
'.': (fipi^s ¦syritii^gs ip. her de^nce ;" and t^erjifore,
X^^ vou, fli.9ifld urg^ l),iti}, " CD, occupy, the, de-
*' partment h9,i,s.fa tl^pjQujg^ly.q^uajified tq fiji, ^d
** to go on, by ^uftrating the ^tipmpts of your
" advcrfarieS, to deprive you of the argument from
" tradition." I. am only concerned that, in this,
you fcem to give up. that important [-rovince to
Itim; when, in my bpinioQ, it would be much
better qpcupied by yourfelf.
I do Batk!?i9w» Ww^Yftfa \9% ij5 U, bwt. aAfit t^
ereac eacertiionfi of this boaMut c^am^iory of yours
WWF ^X nW WCpmUi^s, |n4 c^coura^enfient
i|^U 0W» I fe«>. fep afe^fi to. |p9| iflto, th? hi<;ld
B 3 ' again^

6 LETT.ERSTOTHE
again) your church feems more folicitousthan ever
to procure more help, and from other quarters.
Your own Sermon, the objed of which is to exhort
your friends to contend earneftly for the faith, is a
proof of this; and from many other publications,
as well as the language that, as 1 am informed, is
frequently held from many pulpits in different
parts ofthe kingdom* ; it fliould fcem that, not-
withftanding all that had been done by Dr. Horf
ley, the faith of the church, and confequently the
church itfelf, is ftill in danger. Is all this " toftay
theftain ?" The leaft that can be inferred from
your fermon is, that the controverfy is hardly well
begun, and by no means that it is ended; and
from your engaging in it, I flatter myfelf that it
will be conduded in a manner infinitely more
pleafing, both to myfelf and the public, as well as
more fatisfadory with refped to" the objed of it,
than it is probable thatit would have been, if ithad
continued in the hands of Dr. Horfley.
I am, with real efteem, '
Reverend Sir,
Your very humble Servant,
J. P R I E S T L E Y.
• I have heard that Mr. Prettyman, brother to i>r. Pretty.
tnan, fecretary tp Mr. Pitt, and now bi(hop of Lincoln,
preached a very virulent fermon, in which my name was men
tioned, before the Corporation of Norwich. I hope he is fo
much a man of honour, as to publiih the ferinon, and thereby
give me an ojiportunity of knowing, frm himfilf, what he
really did fay of me, that, if it appear to me to be aeceffary, I
may vindicate myfelf,
LET-

<DEAN.OE CANTERBURY.

LETTER II.
Of the Argument from Antiquity, and of Dr. Ho^ftey's
Services with Refpe£l ti it.
Rev. Sir,
,TT is evident, from your .exhortations to Dr.
-»- Horfley, and the whole tenor of your difcourfe,
that, notwithftanding the ftrefs you very juftly
lay upon the dodrine of iht fcriptiires, you do not
undcrvalu-- the opinion of the primitive church.
You fay, p:3i, " If the dodrine of our Lord's
" divinity be not the dodrine of the fcriptures,
" aild of the primitive church" (as if thefe mujit
have been the fame) " it matters not bow, when,
*' or by whom, it vvas afterwards introduced. It
•* fhould nod have been refceived, 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 ftrong holds of
your faith is removed, and the other muft be ia
great danger. For you could hardly have ex
prefTed yourfelf in the manner you have done,
in the above quotation, if you had not thought
fome regard due to the fenfe in which theprimi-
B 4 tive

8 LtTTEtLsro-tytt
tive chriftians underftood thofe books of feripture,
which were written more immediately for thcin
ufe, and in a language with which they were per-
fcdly acqiainteck} regard enough' to render us
doubtful of the different interpretations which
may be givefl at fo^re^t a diftance of time as the
pftfint, and under'the influence of fuch a mafs of
prejudices as rfiay 6b foppbftd f& have been con-
tradcd in the courfe of feventeen htmdred years.
It canhdt be d'diibifed', but that" the priiliitivie
chriftians reaHy th^ought that tlieiro'piniorisi, what
ever they were, were contained in the fcriptures,
a's thefd wfcrt the itaritfird to which they cbnftamly
sppe^led*. "W'lJeii you fay, therefore, of what I
have written, as you cKpofe to eiprefS it, p. 31,
^ iri four largie vol'unfies, concerning the ' Jews,
" and tfi^^ 6nofiics, aiicj the Ebibnites, and the
* ?lfazar«ncs; cetlccrniiig Plato, and f*fiiIo, at\d
'• Juflin Martyr, and TertuHlajl; coBCerning
•'* phifdfophers, fathers, and heretics, many and
" diverfe, but all unitarians*; concerning the
*' fuppofed caution of the apoftles, and the meta-
* There is ratfier too much of rhetoric in this paftage to fte
ifri^ tru«. f airi fer froiii fiifpbfirtg that Jtfft'irt VMitt^,
TertAlKan, aird nkany athet-v of j:lie Patiiers, wei<e urtiroviaii's.
I have fitefn that they were triqi(artar»> but not fuch as the
Sean 0/ Canterbury would call /b now, as they did not believe
th6 t«rft* ikn&ki of di iki tlirrt perfons, but unifdrmly Held
the infhiority of the Son to the Father ; which Dr. Morfley
mnft alfo do, as he mahitnn!} that the Father is, the fount ^n uf
diitj, ind has fome unknown prC'^minence over the Son.
6 «« phyfical

DEi¥l* OF' CAN'T ERHUILY. g
"' phyfloal and injudicious arguments, aswi dif-.
"' quifittons- of writerst, whetherr ancient or mot
"' iiorn, upwi". any part of the iiilyed ;. that all
" this, wJth the' goodly edifiicr railed on fuch a
" foundationy will.fallidiredly' to pieces, vanifh
" into air;, andj lilte' the bafelcfs fabric of a vi-
" fion, leave not a wreck bcfbind ;" your conr
clufion is rather too hafty.
If, Sir, w ha€ I have advanced in thofe four vo
lumes be juft*; if, from t-he various evidence that
I have produced, it be indifputable, as I think it
is, thax t-he primitiwtf chriftian church- was utVita-
rian ; if all the expfcoations and dtfbneas of the
dodrine ofthe trinity^ by thofe who firft broached
'it, antl by tHofe w«Ik} have* finer maintained it, be
ab'ftird, and' no better explanations or deftnces
can be produced, the dodrine itlclf cannot be
true ;, and no criticifrn upon any texts of ftri'p-
ture, if ihey can polTibly bear an unitarian inter
pretation, can prove it to be fb.
As you ftrongly recommend the ftuily of ec-
clefiaftical hiftory, and that of the Fathers, I
prefume that, though you wifli Dr. Horfley to
occupy this department in the prefent difcuffion,
you have not negleded to give due attention to
it yourfelf. Indeed, your deciding fo peremp-..
terily as you do, on Dr. Hcwrflcy's fuperiority
to me in that rcf^d, fhews that you think your
felf quafified to judge between us. Permit m?
then to retjueft, that you would ftate a little more
particularly,

10 LETTERS TO THE
particularly, what the fervices 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, ot which
that whole confifts.
As a lover of truth, then, and a candid fcholar,
pleafc, whenever you publifli your large work,
to anfwer the following queftionsytfm/«».
I. Has Dr. Horfley proved, that thofe who are
called ^.bionites, or Nazarenes, had no cxiftence
in the age of the apoftles, and that the latter
had their name from Nazareth, on their retiring
to that place after the deftrudion of Jerufalem
by Adrian? Has he even proved, that any of
them were ever fettled thete at all ?
2. Has he proved, as he undertook to do, that
the Nazarcnes, or Jerom's Hebrews believing in
Chrift, were orthodox with refped to the dodrine
of the trinity* ?
3. Has he, after eighteen moliths rc-confi-
deration ofthe fubjed, and correding his former
• Since I wrote my reply to Dr. Horjlrf's Remarh, T obferve
that Or. Lardner underftood the paffage in jerom exaftly as I
did, taking it for granted^ that by Haxarents he meant tl;e
fame people whom he called Hebrews believing in Chrift. See
hb Tefiinmnits, vol. i. p. 19, ' ¦
opiijion,

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. I'i
opinion, proved (Remarks, p. 60) that there
were, in reality, five feds of Jew'.fh chriftians,
though Origen and Eufebius. cxprtfsly make
them to be no more than two, fome of them
admitting, and others denying, the miraculous
conception; but all of thetn difbelieving the
divinity of Chrift, and adhering to the law of
Mofes ? If this is to be received as ::U'hentic
hiftory,' let us have, ac leaft, the authority ofthe
Dean of Canterbury for it, as well as that of the
Archdeacon of St. Alb.ins.
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
fped, 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 publicadon ?
5. Has he proved that there was a church of
orthodox Jewilh chriftians at Jerufalem after the
time of Adrian ? — another article on which h*
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, reprefented the apoftles as having
been obliged' to ufe great! caution in teaching the
dodrine of the divinity of Chrift, and that of the
trinity, left it fhould ftiock the prejudices of the
firft

ij LETTERS TQ. THE
firft- converts in favour of the do6trines of the
unity of God, a^dthe hi^mar\ity of Chrift ?
7. Has he proved that tHe J'ews in our Sa
viour's time were believers in the dodrine of the
trinity, that they exp>c£bed the fecond" perft)n of
it in the charader of their MefRah, and confe
quently that the apoftles confidered Chrift ^
G[od ffom the time that they confidered him ^
the Mfefnah ?
8. Has he proved' that* thfl' unitaisianfr w«re
confidered as heretics in early times ?

% Kfeshe.]^vediJia6pra35e|fefjb^^fii9ewi>ifl>«!l"
tarnaltpurffiGuticiBar&properJly addj^i^d (iftti^Mftf?
Tff» ^s Ipift proved, that l|y ^gim^fm ^i^ 4«
Son, all 1^8 FadlMS. ijn**)^ a, dtfpl^ qf his fmttUt
and not his afTuming a proper perfonality, from
havipitg been a mpre at$i;ihuti» ^f (he Father ?
. ^.1. ]^a^ he proved that there is no. differen,c«
betwee,B the dqdrine of \^e, perfonifi|Cation of the
logos, and the peculiar opinions of the Arians :
ehaa which I kave aflEereed thi^it np fchsifaes ^ere
tv«p msve difisSlj^ «ppoisd tg ^ph @|hpc i
j,z. ^^a^.hc proved tl^ aStiqji^ifX qf ^§ 4o^"V»6
«f ^ #yinity o^Qhiift iiiRm,S\^ WmflgU^f 5^-
wbM,. ?q4 IgJHitiM? ? 13. Has.

DTAN af CANTE^RBUR'Y, r3
13. 'Has'he.-'pr'oV^'riie brigiu bf the Son,
the fecofid ptrfoYi tn- the trinity, frOlTT the Father's
cortteni^latinghis own perfections? 'an"6pirtion,
i belife'i'e, peculiar nohitttfelf; tfnftippditeid'by-any
authority, ancient or modern. I think I per
ceive rHat, with tefpedto this ciiribds; particular,
he ' has 'not '^en pu ^tht^f e ' fatisfadidn ; fmce,
with refped Txro// ftheVrtes to SXplkin the dodri'ne
ofthe trifrity,' yCfu'fay,*p. 42, "they<leaV6"us jtft
'' where \Ve ivere,- totally in' the dark."' '"Indeed,
I 'do ft6t'V?ortder?hkra mAtdn fb fuper-bm-ihently
ab'fiird,'fa'V6i'd 6f kllferrndkNon in the f(c!-i*)W5i^s>
incdmtrton IVhfe, of fiiiiTfitive 'sintiqiiit^i'ifhfeiM
h6t ffccdi-Wnenid itOAf to- th^oft who d<:Miot?'*iWto
eit{36fe the dodrihe 'of the' trinity, *as-<Wbft<lf«cWy
ridiculo6s. ''
'^ Infield, Sir, "td undertake the Mthcto? fdvir
^^pjlaiididd ichampion on thefe artic'lei (lifM IfttiglW:
'hkve eiA^nded- the- lift tamany hiore) is WW%r-
cirftan"htteml)t. Gre^atly rauft the eSfedution bf
•il!T#tlI¦¦^hdSvo^kyou•have in hand,iiahd'wfellwr«y
'ybuc¥a^ iHau^gimte,^. 32, as to 'the^Ariifeifc^f
'rf^f. *r'tWhk'it MDft apptar, to ••all' iwipSrriil
^rt^dft-s, '*atCDr.^H*flcy has 'bfe*n-:t^EWi|>l€lfely
?bHid''-m'-ifis-'atterTtpts to"^ prove any One^bf *l*e
*8l>av*tlmi»ttti«)»Wd-'fArMculars, -and'gVWy -o*tl«r
¦•Wat is^-of^any frfti^di'tart^'cf^o the f^\We!tk$ bf
'the'.^&crafon'bW^feen' us. ^Ad "if this 'be the
•"J*^,^ i'tfatflfighifics tl^e IfAt^ f^p^i«-ky of Ms
learning. Nay, >*iP-%ll'- His .4"Of«ribr-4»BHity, ^fld
learning

14 LETTERSTOTHE
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 plabfible dtfence-
of himfelf in ether articles, . after; waiting eighteen
months, with an air of infolence peculiar, to him^
felf (which you. Sir, tacitly condemn, by recom-
mcndino a mode of conduding controverfy, the
very reverfe of his), he challei;iged me agai.n witlj
refped to tbe veracity of Origen, and the exiftence
of a church of orthodox Jewifh chriftians at Je
rufalem after the time of Adrian. But in my
j Reply, which was immediate, I havp fhcwiji that,
inftead of relieving himfelf, he has involved him
felf in much greater confufion and difficulty than
ever; haying- grofsly mifunderilood every one
of the five paffages from the Fathers' which he
produced in his defence. In this Reply x)f mine,
which has , been publiflicd ai>out fix.n^onths, I
call upon hirn tp defend himfelf, and hi^ argu
ment, in fuch a manner as, I believe^ there, is no
example of any perfon being called upon (except
Mr. White, tyf-Oxford, by myfelf). In the con-
clufion I fay, ""On this article, at leaft, an article
•"deliberately feledted, by yourfelf, let the con-
" troverfy between us come co a finr ilTue. No-
" thing has been, or fhall be, wantjng on my part ;
"and thcrt-fore the .public will certainly 'exped
" your explicit and fpeedy anfwer."
What^

DEAN OF CANTERBURY, 15
"What, Sir, can you thi^k 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 virtdicating myfelf, or acknowledging my
inability to do it) in a week, or as foon as it had
been phyfically pofllble for it to be difpatched.
When, you fpeak of the great learning of Dr.
Horfley, it is to be fuppofed that you fpeak of
fo much of it as is before the world; and we have
not yet If en enough to juftify your very high
encomiums. If the world fhould happen to think
lefs highly of it than you do, they may fay that
the thanks of the church of England were very
lightly beftowed.
To confine ourfclves to this controverfy (and
you do not profefs to look any farther) will you
fay that you infer his fuperior learning from his
tranflaung iSiftilti; by the Eriglifh word idiot*-,
* If any authority could be wanting in fnpport of my in
terpretation of the word ¦4fija[n(, I might quote that of the
famous Bentley, whofe ^earning will hardly be called in quef
tion by Dr. Horfley himfelf. In his remarks on a work inti-
tled, A Difcourfe on Free-thinking, p. 118, he expreffes himfelf in
tjie following.manner with refpeft to that very tranflation of this
word, which Dr. Horfley adopted, and Mr. Badcock defends,
" Ab Idiotis Evangelifiis, By 'idiot ev^ngelifs, fays our author;
" who, if he is fincere in this verfipn, proves himfelf a very
" idiol in the Greek and Latin acceptation bf that word.
" I(f/ai7wf, Jdiota'i iliiteratHS , indoaus, rudis. See Du Frefne
" inhis Glofliu-ies, who takes riotice that ;</;'o/<j for an idiot, or
•< naiureifotl, is p?culiar to your Englilh law, for which he
. •- " citei

i6 L ET T E R S T O T H ;£¦
from his acguieg; from ithe -proB®un ifl®:* as ne-
ceffariiy reieniogao ajperfm; -from. his fayii^
tbat. a* «M«< -wi m . cannot be rendered by -fist^ifig
^4;'fi"om his-:tftkiijg!thepart^of M-r.tBadcfXfk JA
rendtriing •¦'«*<" 'Wf noS^iN^t fg<"">h ^others an- ^##«>J
pLaif, »rfroQ^his conftrudion,Df JeromU gwis/^/-
cam^? Thefe, are alraoft.all,the fpeciimen&djat.he
has exhibited of his profound acquaintance with
thei losraed. languages \xi the cauifc of this..coiiitro^
vcrfy; a»nd,.ia.tbeopinion,'X)f m<Wiy, who„ai'e.n©t
wittiautipretenfiogis,tQ.<fchQlarftiip, it will Rot^fc^e pq
the credit .of the Dcanfff Ganterbury io;|>raiXe agy
msnfo very highly, omUacfe.acqoaipts.
/There ..are many sJXpi .who-.do -4aot,thiak..fQ
highly as you do of Dr. Horflcy's. mcKit-wi^h re
fped to the church of England, or the dodrine of
tiic trinity, as oneof itsi-anicles. Andthere aw, I
believe,, at this momen^:, i mariy sunitaiian^,. , w,ho
think ihemfclvesiuijdergroatec obi igaid.QnsjjCibim,
than any trinitariatis whatever. For to .him ha*
been owing, in a great meafure, the prefent difcuf
fion Of the fut^ed, which mifft now proceed till the
great queftion, be decided; and with, refped to
the final, iffue, fudging! from his t«ekD0i«e!l«)dg9d
" cites Raftal. Did Vjdtor" therefore mean idivtetvan^tifli in
" your Eng^lilh fenfe? No, but illiterate, urikarnid. What
" theBorfcfttiirethitik.of our author for his/cartdalaustranf-
" lation here. WJidihtr imputation will he ihufe to lie an-
"der.'that h6 knew themeani'ng of Viapr, or that W knew
" it not.>" ¦ Dr. Hohfley muft foppofe ^thfe fame, queftion piit
tb luflifelf. ability

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 17
ability to defend the dodrine ofthe trinity, as far
as it is dc-f -nfible, they entertain no doubt ar all ;
being confident that feripture, reafon, and anti
quity, will be found equally in their favour.
It is the earneft v/ifh of all unitarians, and of
none more than myfelf, that your high encomiums
may bring your champion inro the field ags^i. 1
have done every thing in my power, and in my
way, to fecond your wifhes. But as he took
eighteen months to make his laft re[.ly, he may
be l.ke a comet, v,hofe periodical revolution is
that period of time, and if fo, it will be in vain
that we endeavour to accelerate the courfe of na-
tu:e. As you are fo lavifh 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 ftcurer de
fiance than any of you, though h's deeds do not
feem to correfpond to them ; and Mr. Howes,
who has undertaken the moft difficult department
in the whole difcuffion, viz. to prove that the Jews
were always trinitaiians (which is the counrerpart
cf Moliere's Medicin malgre lui) and that there
¦were no unitarians at all till about the council
of Nice. Time will fhew how ingenioufly he will
maintain fuch paradoxes as thefe.
I am, ^&c.
C LETTER

1$ LETTERSTOTHE

LETTER III.
Of th Interference of Civil Power in Matters of
Religion.

Rev. Sir,
'T'HERE is one article of confiderable import-
ance on Which you have touched in thefe Ser
mons of yours, with refped to which you feem to
be under a miftake yourfelf, and will probably
miflead others. I wifh, 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 fuggeft, that it is our wifh, and intention, to
apply external force, in order to bring this about,
whenever we fhall think the times fufKciendy 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 deftrudion. He may
" conceive himfelf to be in duty bound to become
"an inftrument in executing the vengeance of
" heaven upon th?m, for refufing to admit an Arian "«r

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. tg
" or Socinian reformation, tendered in a milder
" way."
With refped to this infinuation, I can only fay,
that nothing has yet been advanced by any utiita-
rian that can give the leaft colour to it. It is not
confiftent with your ufual candour, and what no
appearances whatever have made at all probable.
Indeed, Sir, we fee no occafion to have recourfe to
an arm offiefh, in this conteft. We have a certairi
profpedt of vidory by the mere force o( argument,
and without any rifk whatever. I can appeal to
the uniform tenor of all my writings, and efpe
cially my Addrefs to Proteftant Diffenters as fuch,
if I have not always inculcated the moft peaceable
methods of promoting reformation, and have not
even gone farther to recommend the patient fuf-
fering of wrong than moft other writers.
I muft produce another paffage from your Ser
mons, relating to the intolerance of Unitarians.
" Let us only fuppofe," you fay, p. 4, " that the di-
" rcdion of ecclefiaftical matters in this kingdom,
" fliould pafs into the hinds of thofe perfons who
" regard the dodrihe ofthe trinity as involving in
" ir an abfurdity equal to thatof tranfubftantiation,
" and as being the grand cbftacle to the conver-
" fion of Jews, Mahometans, and Deiils; who
" deem the worfhip of Chrift to be grofs idolatry,
" afid high treafon againft the majefty ofthe one;
G 2 •' fuprsir.e

20 LETTERSTOTHE
" fupreme God ; muft not the new unitarian
" church, wiih its confeffion and fervices, be fo
" conftituted, as utterly, and for ever, to exclude
" us from becoming members of it ? Moft un-
" doubtedly, and of necefTity it muft. An unica-
" rlan people, we are told, will not long be fatif-
" fied with a trinir.irian 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 ton-
tain nothing-ofl^enfive to you, nothing in which you ,
could not heartily join: whereas, we are abfolutdy
excluded from joining in yourworfliip, byyour tri
nitarian forms. While you acknowledge o«f Goi
(v.hich you always profefs to do) you may furely
addrefs your prayers to that one God, calling him,
as you are authorized to do in the fcriptures, the
maker of heaven and earth, the God and Father of
cur Lord Jefus Chrft, the one true God, as our Sa
viour calls him, the great being who y^«; ;&/>», who
raijid 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" feripture language, and fuppofe Jefus
. Chrift

T)EAN OF CANTERBURY. 21
Chrift himfelf, and the Holy Spiiit, 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 hav" nothing to do. If
you can, by any means, accommodate fuch lan
guage as that above-mentioned to your peculiar
fentiments, in reading the fcriptures, in which it
perpetually occurs, you may do the fame in our
forms of worfhip.
We can now join in ufing the Lord's prayer,
and in almoft all the fcrvice 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, therefore, only
your fubfcriptions to articles of faith, and reform
your mor.ning fervice after the model cf that in
the afternoon, and 1 believe you will remove the
greateft of our objedions. We are not, I affure
you, fo fond of fchifm as to ftand 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 r>nd obedience, was fo far from confider-
ing himfelf as God, that, wiih the moft genuine
humility, he always afcribed every thing that he
faid, or did, to his Father that fent him, and wor-
ftiipped him with the fame deep reverence that he
inculcated upon all his followers.
C3 If

=2 LETTERSTOTHE
If, Sir, you would, without prejudice, look into'
Mr. Undjey's reformed liturgy, you would foon be
fatisfied, that there is nothing in it but what you
yourfelf could join in, with much devotion and ad
vantage. Read, ifyouplcafe, my own JForwJ of
devotion for unitarian focieties, and I am confi
dent you will find nothing in them offenfive to
yourfelf, except the prayer for Eafter Sunday ; and
to accommodate you, and other trinitarians, I
fhall have no objedion to the omifTion of it. \
will go much farther than you are difpofed to do,
for the fake of a peaceable accommodation.
But I do not expe6l, or hope for, any thing of
an intermediate kind. Your fyftem is fo com
plex, and involves fuch an unnatural connexion of
things ecclefiaftical with things civil, that though
"you might know where to begin a reformation;!
you will never be able to agree among yourfelves
where to ftop. It muft, therefore, be done in a
manner in which the leading perfons in the church
and ftate will not be the primary agents. When
this will be effeded, or by whom, I do not pretend '
to form any conjedure. This is npt my bufinefs,
but a much eafier and plainer tafls, viz. to inveftl-
gate, and to propagate that truth, which in God's
own way, and his own time, cannot fail to bring
about all that I wifh ; when a pure unitarian worfhip
will be univerfally adopted, and with uniVerfal
confent. In the mean time, do not you, and your
brethren, fear where no fear is, or alarm others

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 23
with apprehenlions 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, not",vithftanding
your profefTion of univerfal toleration, you cannot
help intimating, that you think there is fome rea
fon for that alliance of church and ftate, of which,
as chriftians, you ought to be afhamed. In thefe
very Sermonsyou more than infinuate the propriety,
if not the policy, of penal laws in matters of reli
gion i when you fay concerning the dodrine of the
trinity, p. 47, that " it requires, and demands, the
*' fupport of every ftate wifhing to enjoy the fa-
" vour and protedion of that God, who for gra-
" cious purpofes has revealed it." For how is a
ftate, as fuch, to fupport any particular dodrine,
but by civil rewards and punifhments? The civil
power has no other method of fupporting any
ihing. Thefe are its proper arms, which alone it
can employ to effed all its purpofes. The doc
trine of tranfubftantiation is fupported in the fame
manner. Like the dodrine of the trinity, it re
quites and demands fuch fupport. HappHy, uni
tarianifm neither requires, nor demands it, any
more than chriftianity itfelf did for the Ipace of
three hundred years. Nay, they both are able to
make their way in fpite of all the oppofition that
your prefent fupporters and protedors, the powers
of t^iB World, can give to them,
C 4 I ftiOuJd

2+ LETTERSTOTHE
I fhould think. Sir, that a man of your goad
fenfe, could not but fee, that any mode of religion
is in a very unnatural and auliward predicament,
w lich requires, and d mands any civil fupport, be
caufe it throws itfelf under the protedion, and is
of courfe at the mercy, of a power which may
equally promote truth or falfehood, chriftianity,
mahometanifi"n, 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 to
eftablilli any other. If this great bufinefs be left
to the difcretion of our civil governors, it muft
alfo be left to their indifcretion. And what judges
can you fuppofe fuch perfons as conftitute our two
houfes of parliament 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
things in other countries.
Would you truft the members of our parlia
ment with the choice of your phyfician, or allow
them to prefciioe the mode of treatment of you,
if your life was in danger; or would you think of
appealing to them with refped to the truth of a
theory in philofophy ; and yet i think them as
likely to decide juftly in a ca.(e of medicine, or phi'
lofopby, as with refped to religion.
I am, &c.

LETTER

DEAN OF CANTERBURY.

LETTER IV.
Of fome particular Arguments for the Doctrine of the
Trinity.
Rev. Sir,
T Wifh not to enter into the difcuflion of any par-
¦¦• ticular arguments for the dodrine of the tri
nity at this time, referving myfelf till the publica
tion of your large work ; and for the execution
of this I am willing to give you as much time as
you requeft, p, 32, fince you fay you wifh (and iTl
this I fincerely join you) " to execute the work
" with care and attention;" as we fhall then, I
doubt not, fee all that can be urged in fupport of
your opinions. But there are a few things that
it may not be improper to apprize you of before
hand; and you may take, or negled, the hints I'
fliall give, as you Ihall fee reafon.
You fay. Note, p. 42, " All difputation con-
" cerning the manner of the diftindion, the man-
" ner ofthe union, the manner ofthe generation,
*' and the manner of the procefllon, is needlefs
*' and fruitlefs. Needlefs, becaufe, if .we have
*' divine authority for the faSl, ic fufficeth. That
" is all we are concerned to know. Fruitlefs,
" becaufe it is a difputation without ideas. Af-
"tcr

16 LETTERSTOTHE
" ter a long, tedious, intricate, and perplexed
" controverfy, 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 infifts upon
" apprehending the mode. In his prefent ftate
" he cannot apprehend it. He therefore denies
" the fad, and commences unbeliever."
Now, Sir, you muft know, that all this that
you fay refpeding the dodrine of the trinity is
, continually faid by the catholics, in defence of
the dodrine of tranfubftantiation. As a pro-.
teftant, you yourfelf muft allege, that every real
fa5l 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 fad,
imply an impoflTibility, and every fenfe of a pro-
pofition imply an abfurdity, the dodrine itfelf is
untrue, and therefore that it cannot be taught
in the fcriptures, if they teach .nothing but truth.
You, confequently, explain thofe pafl"ages of
feripture which are urged in fupport of the doc
trine of tranfubftantiation,. in a manner different
from the catholics, who hold that dodrine; 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 dodrine of th'd
trinity.
We

DEAN OF CANTERBURY: 27
We fay that every poflTible definition of that
dodrine implies an abfurdity ; and that the fall
of ihe trinity in unity muft exift in fome manner
or other, but that every conceivable mode or
manner implies an impofllbility, arid therefore the
exiftence of the thing itfelf muft be impoflfiblc
alfo; and confetjuently, that if it was neceffary
to interpret a few texts, which you think teach
that dodrine in the fame, or a fimilar manner,
to that which you ufe with refped to thofe that
are fuppofed to teach the dodrine of tranfub
ftantiation, we fliould be authorifed to do it.
We do not wonder that fenfible trinitarians are
averfe to all difcuffion of the mode of fubfiftence
of three perfons in one undivided effence ; becaufe
they have found that every attempt to define this
fubjed has only tended to e.xpofe it to ridicule.
But notwithftanding this, no trinitarian, who
imagines that he can explain this myfterious doc-
trrine, ever fails to propofe his explanation, know
ing the great advantage it would be to his argu-
rrient, if he could hit upon any thing of this kind
that would be unexceptionable. Witnefs the in
credible number of illuftrations of this dodrine
among the ancients, and alfo among the moderns,
and efpecially the laft moft curious one of Dr.
Horfley, though laft not leafl. Nay, iri boldnefs
of thought, he has gone beyOrid ariy of his pre-
decefl*ors, mairitairiing, that the produdion of the
Son was the neceffary corifcquerice of the Fa-
- thcr's

2S LETTERSTOTHE
ther's contemplating his own perfedions. Atha
nafius himfelf would have flood 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 dodrine, 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 beftow
upon it.
You fay, 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 Datift,
Bocardo, Ferifon, in logic, you muft have fome
notion in your own mind in what fenfe the pro
pofition to which you give your afTent way he 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 abfo-
lutely unavoidable for the fatisfadion of your
own mind.
All particular propofitions are reducible to ab-
Irad ones, and thofe abftrad ones are predicable
of other particulars. Now if it be true, that three
divine perfons may make only one God, it ir.uft be
true in general, that three may be one, and alfo
6 in

DEAN OF CANTERBURY, 29
in the fame fenfe, if each of the divine perfons want
nothing to make them perfeSi God. But is this
abftrad propofition true of any thing elfe ?
This reafoning all prottftants urge againft the
dodrine of tranfubftantiation. For if it be true,
that the facramental bread may take the fubftance
of ftefh, 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 rejed the fuppo
fition univerfally. In the fame manner, I will
undertake to fhew, that, on whatever principles
you can defend the dodrine of the trinity, I can,
mutatis mutandis, defend that of tranfubftantiation.
Take your own choice of arguments, from reafon
or from the fcriptures.
With refped to feveral of your arguments from
the fcriptures (on which, as you rejed all argu
ments from reafon, you juftly lay fo much ftrefs)
inftead of giving us the plain words of feripture,
you give your own arbitrary conftrudion 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,
" profefling faith in him as fuch, enlifting one's
*' felf into his fervice, and vowing all obedience
" and liibmiffion to him. Such is the natural, " the

30 LETTERS TO THE
" the obvious import of this rite, by which we
" are admitted into the church of Chrift, this
" folemn form of baptizing in the name of the
" Father, and of the Son, and of she Holy Ghoft,
" that is, into the faith, fervice, and worfliip of
" the Holy Trinity, For let us refled a litde.
" The nations were to be baptized in the name
" of three perfons, in the fame manner, and there-
*' fore furely in the fame fenfe, as in the name of
" one. Whatever honour, reverence, or regard,
" is paid to the Father in this folemn rite, the
" fame we cannot but fuppofe paid to all three.
" Is he acknowledged as the objed of worfhip,
" fo are the other two perfons likewife. Is he
" the God and Lord over us, fo are they. Are
" we his fervants, fubjeds, 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
" Ghoft, 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 dodrine."
Now all this, as I have faid, is not feripture,
but your own arbitrary conftruSion of feripture.
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
baptizing in the name of three perfons imply their
equality, aoy more than doing any thing elfe that
refpeds

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 3,
refpeds them all ? May not three perfons, of
very diflferent ranks, be with propriety named
together ? Do we not read, i Chron. xxix. 20.
that " the people of Ifracl boWed down their heads,
" and worfhipped 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 objeds of worftiip, muft
be equal. Was not the aSlion of bowing down,
and the manner of performing it, the fame refped
ing both ? Muft it not, then, have been done in
' the fa.me fenfe P
That the phrafe, being baptized unto a perfon, 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 Mofes (not by Mofes)
in the cloud and in the fea. He meant into the
religion that was publifhed by Mofes. Confe
quently, being baptized unto Chrift, or in the name
of Chrifl, only means into the profefTion of the
religion which was publifhed by Chrift. This
muft be our inference, if it be allowed, that the
fcriptures are their own beft interpreteijs, the fame
phrafes being generally ufed in the fame fenfe.
The holyfpirit is ufed becaufe, according to the
phrafeology of feripture, the gofpel was con
firmed, or proved to be of God, by the gifts of
the Holy Spirit.
Had

33 LETTERSTOTHE
H.id there been fo much folemn and myfterious
mearting implied in the phrafe of baptizing: in the
natKe of tbe Father, Son, and Spirit, as you fuppofe-;
had it been intended as a ftanding afTcrtion of
the dodrine of .^ trinity in the divine nature, it
might have been expeded, both that there would
have been fome exprefs declaration that this was
the intent of it, and alfo that thofe words fhould
alwa} s have been ufed when the office was per
formed. But no fuch declaration of the mean
ing ofthe phrafe is to be found in the fcriptures ;
and it is rem.;rkiible, that all the baptifms we
read of in the New Teftament, are baptifms in
tbe narr.e of Chi ijl only. Muft we fay that this was
another inftance of the caution with which the
apoftles taught the dodrine of thq trinity ?
You fay, .p. 2, " that the Father, Son, and
" Holy Spirit, are three perfons in one God, is a
" truth propofed to us as the ground of our hope,
" our comfort, and our joy ; as the principle on
" which the condud of life is to be framed, ac-.
" cepted, pnd rewarded." But furely. Sir, thefe
afTert ens are moft extravagant, and unautho-
rifed. Admitting this dodiine of the trinity to
be true, where do you find one text in which it is
prot ofea to us in any of thefe lights, as the ground
of our hope, our comfort, or our joy ; as the
principle on which our condud is to be framed,
accepted, and rewarded .'' Indeed,

DEAN OF CANTERBURY, 33
Indeed, I do not think it pofTible to conceive
how fuch a dodrine as this can anfwer any of thofe
purpofes. What ideas you annex to the terms,
fr awning one's conduEl upon the doSlrine of the trinity,
I cannot imagine. How the dodrine of a future
life, or that o{ the divine placability, are principles
on which the condud of life is to be formed, I
clearly underftood ; becaufe the belief of them is
of great ufe as a motive to good condud. But
how to make any fuch pradical ufe of the doc
trine of the trinity, I no more perceive, than 1 do,
that its fifter dodrine of tranfubftantiation fliould
be a pradical one*
You fay, p. 43, " Upori the Very beft authority
" we are informed, that Chrift w.is the lambflain
*' from the foundation of the world, that is (for it
" tfannot be otherwife underftood ?) flain in effed,
" in the divine purpofe and counfeh It is like-
" wife faid, that grace was giicn us in Chrift Jefus
" before tjse world began. The words intimate, thic
" previous to the creation of the world, fomething
*' had paffed in our favour above, that the plan of
" our future redemption was then laid, that fome
" agreement, fome covenant relative to 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

34 LETTERSTOTHE
" parties who have fince been gracioufly pleafed
" to concern themfelves in its execution. Who
" thefe are we 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, fatisfadion, and atonement, for the
" fins ofthe world. It was the Father, who ac-
" cepted fuch oblation, fatisfadion, 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 tathe hearts of
" men, for all the purpofes of pardon, fandifica-
" tion, and falvation, the merits and benefits of
" that oblation, fatisfadion, and atonement."
This is a moft remarkable example of drawing
many and great conclufions from fmall premifes,
indeed, from no premifes at all. By grace given us
in Chrift Jefus 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 fhould be- favoured with
the blefTings ofthe gofpel ; which no more implies
that Chrift pre-exifted, than that we ourfelves did.
Befides, no mention is here made of the Holy
Spirit, 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
interpreting, but abfolutely making feripture. Where do

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 35
do you read of aay fuch covenant as this but in
Milton's Paradife Loft ?
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 mifllon by thofe miracles which
are called the gifts efhisfpirit, or the fame divine
power that appeared in Chrift; who fays, that tke
words which he fpake were not his own, and that the
Father within htm did tbe works. Reconcile this
language with your dodrine of the perfed equa
lity ofthe Son to the Father, if you can.
I could, in like manner, eafily go over your
other arguments from feripture, and Ihew 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 fhould write with confidence, when they
have nothing but fuch arguments to anfwer.

I am, &c.

D 2 LETTER

36 LETTERSTOTHE I
LETTER V.
Mifiellaneous Articles, and Conclujion^
Rev. Sir,
\ LL the friends of ecclefiaftical eftabliftiments
£\ infift upon the right of the civil magiftrate
to ufe his own beft judgment, in choofing the reli
gion that fhall be fupported at the expence of the
ftate, efpecially if the majority of the people
fliould be of the fame opinion with him. In
Ireland, no regard is paid to this latter circum*
ftance. For there the members of the eftablifhed
church, which takes the tythes ofthe 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 fliew 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, " Athanalius once flood fingle againft the
" world, and prevailed." His opinion, there
fore, was nor, by your own confeffion, either that
of the generality of the people, or that ofthe go
verning powers. You muft therefore 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
knowledge that Arianifm, or unitarianifm, was the
general opinion. And by what means was it that
Athanafianifm became prevalent ? Can you re-
fltd upon the hiftory of thofe times, and think
that it would ever have become fb, 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 countenance 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 conduding the ceco-
?' nomy of the divine difpenfations through both,
" from the creation to the confummation of all
" things, as the mn'' nm, the mn'' IX'JD, the o^oy©-
« Ts &£«. Dr. Allix and Mr. Taylor have both de-
*'¦ monftrated this point. It is only to be wifhed,
*' the latter had drawn the conclufion drawn by the
<' former — the juft and proper conclufion — that
*' the perfon fpoken of muft indeed be very
«' God." Upon this fubjed, Sir, I would earneftly recom-
pif pd to you, what I dare fay, you have never yet
D 3 perufed,

38 LETTERSTOTHE
perufed, viz. the account which the learned Bafnage
(in his truly excellent Hiftory of the Jews) has
given of their fentiments with refped to the Mef-
fiah, and Mr. Li.ndfey's reply to Mr. Taylor, in
the Sequd to his Apology. This, I think, it is
barely poiTible 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
clcareft of all truths, that Chrift was the perfon by
whom God fpake to Mofes and the prophets. But
indeed, Sir, this notion is diredly contrary to what
is aflTcrted in the firft verfe of the Epiftle to the
Hebrews, in which we read, God, who at fundry
times, and in divers manners, fpake in timepaft unto
tbe Fathers by the prophets, hath in thefe laft days,
fpoken unto us by his Son. What can be more Cvi-
dent from this, than that God fpake to mankind
by his fon only in the laft days, or the times of
the gofpel, and not in any former period of time ?
Yet you fay that Socinians put forced and unna-»
tural conftrudions on the language of feripture.
I heartily join with you. Sir, in your exhor
tation to excite the zeal of the learned members
of your church, in the defence of its peculiar doc- '
trincs, and alfo to intereft the common people in this
controverfy. With refped to every argument of
importance, thefe are as capable of judging as we
can pretend to be. Let the twenty th'oufand copies
of the pamphlet, recommended by you, p. 20, be
I immediately

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 39
immediately printed and difperfed. I fear not the
confequence. It was, I find, one of the many
pieces that were written to counterad the effed of
one of my own, entitled. An Appeal to the ferious
Profejfors oJ Chrijiianity, many of which have been
difperfed, and with a fuccefs far exceeding my ex-
pedations from it. A like advantage to what I
think to be the caufe of truth, has refulted from
the publicadon of another fmall piece, entitled,
A general View of the Arguments for the Unity of
God, and againjl the Divinity or Pre-exiftence of
Chrift, from Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from
Hiftory. My principal expedations, however, are from
the ingenuous youth, whofe prejudices are not io
rivetted as thofe of perfons more advanced in
life ; and for this reafon I fhall 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 publi
cations, and I hope they will do me, or rather
themfelves, and the caufe of truth, the juftice to
read both fides.
You are pleafed to fay of my coudud, in one
refped, p. 12, " It is fair, it is manly, it is noble,
** it is kind." Be aflTured, Sir, you fliall never
find it otherwife. And be this controverfy of
longer or fliorter continuance, I Ihall be mindful-
ofthe advice you give to your friends, p, 9, " that
D 4 " ic

40 L E T T E R S, J:o.
•^ it be conduded in an honourable way, accord-r
*' ing to the laws of war." In this refped, 1 have
uniformly obferved one rule, which you. Sir, as
well as moft of my antagonifts, have negleded ;
which is, to fend a copy of my trads to every per
fon who is particularly noticed in them. This has
always appeared to me to be fair and proper ; and
I wifh that, for the future, it may be confidered as
indifpenfable in thefe literary contefts.
Having nothing farther, of much confequfence,
to addrefs to yourfelf in particular, I conclude
with once more aflliring you, that I think .myfelf
Angularly happy in having found fo learned and
pandid an antagonift j and waiting your own tipie
(reiTiinding you, however, of my own motto, Ars,
longa, vita brevis) for the appearance of your
large .work, 1 fubfcribe myfelf, with the greateft
refped, J
Reverend Sir,
Your very humble Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY,
BIRMINGHAM, March ,, {787,

LETTERS

7 9 T M &

YOUNG MEN,
yrBQ AR» IN ^
Courfe of Education for the Chriftian Miniflxy,
AT THE
Univerfities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Multa ferunt anni venlentps cpmmoda fecqni^
i^lu'ca recedentes adiinqnt.
Horace^

LETTERS

YOUNG MEN, ^c.

LETTER I.
Of Subfcription to Articles of Faith.
Gentlemen,
EXCUSE the addrefs of a ftranger, 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 fubjeds, which
it imports you to underftand, 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, your profeflTors and tutors, are
much better qualified to give you inftrudion,
than I can pretend to bci and with refped to
thefe, I am very willing to fubmit to their fupe
riority, and to yours. But with refped to fome
other things, you may eafily imagine, that they may

44 LETTERSTOTHE
may not have been in the way of having their own
attention called to them fo much as mine has
been-, ^nd therefore, with the beft intenrions in
the world, in the difcharge of their duty to you,
they will naturally be lefs explicit in their in-
ftrudions. It is in no other cafe that I would
prefume to folicit your attention. To your own
good fenfe, and candour, I therefore entirely reffer
myfelf. If by reading this addrefs you fliould fee
any thing in a new and jufter light than you have
hitherto done, my end will be anfwered j and if
not, 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 are defigned 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 wifh you to be truly fenfible
of the honour and importance of it ; not to make
you proud of the rank it will give you, but to
infpire you with an earqeft defire, and a laudable
ambition, to difcharge the duties of it in the beft
manner. For in this cafe only, does any mati
either receive honour from his ftation, or do
honour to it.
In order to teach religion with advantage to
others, you will agree with me that it ought to be
well underftood by yourfelves; and we cannoi: exped

Y O U N G M E N, gcc. 45
exped to underftand any thing of this t^onfe-
quence, without giving proper time to the ftudy
of it. Articles of faith are things of momeht,
and therefore we fhould not form a hafty judg
ment concerning them, but deliberately weigh
before we decide. And in this refped it is that 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 fufficient time to ftudy, and.
therefore cannot be fuppofed to underftand.
Such a cuftom fuited perfedly \vcll with the
times of darknefs and bigotry, in which ic was
eftablifhed. The great objed then was the public
profefllon ofthe fame faith, which it was thought
could not be fecuf-ed too early ; and theextindion
of all fchifm, which it was thought could not be
too carefully guarded againft; and notjolidinftruc-
tion, and a well grounded knowledge of what was
profelfed. This could not have been gained
without previous enquiry, and difcuffion, in Which
there would have been feme hazard of perfons
forming different judgments ; and then the fa
vourite article of the unity of the catholic church
would have been in danger of being broken.
But, happily, we nov/ fee things in a very dif
ferent light. We refuie to receive the principles
of philofophy, and certainly fliould not receive thofe
of religion, without being fatisfied, from proper
evidence.

45 LETTERSTOTHE
evidence, with refped to their truth. Whatever
ufe there may be in union, 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 objed,
but would any jury be influenced by fuch evi
dence i" 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 when the fame arguments have the fame
weight with them. But in order to this, there
muft be a previous clear perception of the fub
jed 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 fubjed is, the
greater care fhould be taken 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 time, in inveftigating the prin
ciples of it. By

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 47
By no mtans, then, ever declare your aflfent tp
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 refped to
the propriety of it. If you would not fet your
hand to a common bond, without previoufly read
ing ir, and approving of it, furely your minds
ought to revolt at the idea of fubfcribing articles
of faith which you have not examined. And yen
fome, I fear, do this without having fo much as
read them, or being able to fay what propofitions
they have figned their afllent 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 ; having done it at your matriculation*,
that is, on your admiflion to that place of edu
cation in which you were to ftudy them, than
• This I have fince been infornied is only the cafe at Oxford,
At Cambridge the ftudents are only obliged to attend the
fervice of the church of England, and on taking the degree ot
bachelor to declare that, they are bona fide members of it. They
do not fttbfwibe the articles tai tliey :alt« the degree of DoBor.
which

48 LETTERSTOTHE
which nothing more prepofterous can well be
imagined. In this cafe, as perfons who have un-1
intentionally done wrong, proceed no farther, and
do not, by availing yourfelves of any advantages
accruing from it, make that to bfc a deliberate
falfehood, which originally was nothing more than
an overfight. Truth and Uprightnefs require
that you renounce yoUr fubfcription, and every
thing conft#quent upon it. Becaufe, till you be
fluisfied that what you have fubfcribed is true,
fb 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 fubjed with refped to which a
perfon may be lawfully guilty of a known falfe-^
hood, or prevarication ; or that God, in whofe
prefente 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
fhall 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 profefllon 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 profefllon ?
This, Gentlemen, is a cafe that will not bear
arguing. Every upright mind muft decide upon
1, it

Y O U N G M E N, gcc. 49
it Immediately, and all the attempts that have
been made to apologize for fubfcription to arti
cles of faith that are not really believed, or, which
is the fame thing, have never been examined, cr
for holding the polfeflion 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
livethjfuch a thing ought not to be. But how many
of them are there, to whom, after fuch a decla
ration, it might be faid. Thou art tbe 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, 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 objeil of prayer. For
in one of your creeds it is exprefsly faid, that of
the three perfons in the trinity, no one of them is be
fore or after the other, t^c. and in your litany pe
titions are addreflfed to God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghoft, as well as to God the Father.
With the greateft refped, I am.
Gentlemen,
Your fincere well-wiflier,
J. PRIESTLEY.

LETTER

50 LETTERSTOTHE LETTER II.
0/ tbe Study of the DoSfrine ef the Trinity,
Gentlemen,
TTHOUGH I do not mean to trotible yoti
with my thoughts on many articles of your
chriftian faith, there is one which, on account of
its peculiar magnitude, I cannOt help recom
mending to your moft deliberate confideration,
viz. tbe objeSl of religious Worftiip. Frorii the na
ture of the thing, you cannot but be fenfible,
that tbis muft be an article bf the firft and laft
importance; and therefore on this fubjed you
certainly ought not to fbrrn a hafty or rafh judg
ment, but bring to the ftudy of it your beft facul
ties, and give it your clofeft attention.
In a matter of this confequence, let no man, or
body of men, judge for you, but honeftly and
fairly judge for yourfelves ; becaufe you are in
dividually refponfible for the ufe yoU make of
your faculties, Confider that, on the very fame
principle on which any perfon in this country
may imagine that he may fafely acquiefce in the
judgment of the church of England, a perfon in
France or Italy will be juftlfied in acquiefcing in
the judgment of the church of Rome, and may
receive

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 51
receive without examination the dodrine of
tranfubftantiation, or the worftiip of Mary and
all the Saints.
If you are fenfible that they ought not to bow
down and worfhip Mary, on the authority of the
church of Rome, neither ought you to worfhip
the Son of Mary, on the authority ofthe church
of England, but fhould firft fatisfy 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 worfhip 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 pofllble
earneftnefs, 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 difcuflion, ufe your reafon ; where
feripture is appealed to, confult the fcriptures;
and when recourfe muft be had to antiquity, care
fully read the monuments of it, efpecially in the
E 2 writings

52 LETTERSTOTHE
writings of thofe who are ufually called tbe Fa
thers, fo ftrongly recommended to you by the
Dean of Cantei bury; and for this you enjoy un
common advantages, in the noble libraries to
which you have accefs. We diffenters 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 inveftiga-
tion, you have recourfe to the afTiftance of others,
re.id the publications on both fides of the quef
tion, and pay no regard to the authority oi names,
but only to the weight oi argument.
The Dean of Canterbury, I am forry to per
ceive, has only recommended fuch works as were
profcfTedly written in defence of the dodrine of
the trinity, which is not of a piece with his ufual
candour ;!nd liberality. Very diflTerent from this,
and certainly more worthy of a chriftian and
proteftant bifliop, is the conduft of the prefent
cxcellem bifl^.op of Llandaff; who, in the lift of
books which he recommends to the ftudents in
divinitv, has inferted works written fbr and againft
evtry dodrine of importance.
As this great queftion is now in the courfe of
public difcuffiion, between myfelf and the ableft
writers of your own church, and you cannot be
wholly unconcerned fpedators, read the produc tions

YOUNG MEN, &c. 53
tions of both. You may be vvell aflTured that,
confidering the ability of the writers in favour of
the dodrine ofthe 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 afliftance in their power) have of
confulting the moft valuable libraries, every
tiling will be produced that cm be favourable to
their argument. If, therefore, ic be pofTible to
prove that the dodrine 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 wiil be done^
But if, after all tliat can be alleged, you cannot
help thinking that three divine perfons muft be
three Gods, which our religion reprobates; that
Chrift is the meffenger and fervant of God, and
not God himfelf; and that the great body of
common chriftians in primitive times (tlie very
perfons for whofe .ufe.the books of the New Tefta
ment were written, and who muft have underftood
themj and.the dodrine of the apoftles, f om whom
t'hey had their inftrudion) v/ere unitarians, be
lieving that divinity is to be afcribed to no o:iier
tlian to one God the Fatlier, and that Chrift was
fimply (Luke xxiv. 19.) a prophet r,::gl.h< in word
and deed (Ads ii. 22.3 a tnan approved of God, by
figns, wonders, and mighty deeds, wlich God did by
E 3 LiiiJi

54 LETTERS TO THE
him; you muft conclude that, notwithftanding
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 out of
ber, and bejeparate.
You will, of courfe, hear many fermons, and
fee many treatifes, againft my publications in de
fence ofthe divine unity, but do me the juftice to
read the books and trads which have alarmed
your fuperiors fo much. You will find them
v.ritten perhaps with lefs ability, and lefs learn
ing, than thofe of my antagonifts, but with a
fincere love cf 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 Ihall let nothing of any moment
pafs unnoticed, I am even willing to adopt any
method that fhall be thought, by my adverfaries
themfelves, moft to facilitate the fulleft invefti-
gation of the fubjed, I openly call upon every
one, who has any confiderable charader at ftake,
and who has entered into the lifts, fuch as Dr.
Horfley, Mr, White, Mr. Howes, andDr, Home,
to make good what they have advanced ; and
in thefe circumftances, you cannot doubt their
readinefs to produce any thing in their power
to confute and filence me, Befides

Y O U N G M E N, 8cc. 55
Befides my larger works, as the Hiftory of the
Corruptions of Chriftianity, and of Early Opinions
concerning Jefus 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 theUnily of God, ^c.
mentioned p. 39. You will find it of great ufe
in eftimating the progrefs that may be made in
the difcuflion, 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 defedive, 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 LETTERSTOTHE

LETTER III.
Of the Difiiculties attending an open Acknowledgment
of Truth.
Gentlemen,
T AM truly fenfible of the peculiar difficulties
-*- attending your fituation. Many of you, I
believe, have no other profped in life but that of
officiating in a church, in which the dodrine of
the trinity, to the examination of which I wifli to
draw your attention, is adually received. It even
enters into her forms of devotion ; io that for the
prefent you have no choice but to fubfcribe her
articles, 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 profpeds 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 v/ill be lefs now, rhan if, ven
turing to take a ftep which your minds difapprove,
)0U fhould be ftruck with a fenfe of the impro priety

Y O U N G M E N, fcc. 57
priety of this tranfadion, in a latter 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 afliire you, are at this
very time in this moft painful fituation, wifliing
it was with them as it is now with you ; who clearly
fee what duty requires, and acutely feel how nature,
and all ifs ties, oppofe it.
Some years ago, a clergyman, then turned fixty,
with a wife and a numerous family, told me his dif-
trefllng cafe, with tears literally running down his
cheeks. It was not for rne to advife what I might
pot have been capable of doing in the fame cir
cumftances. He himfelf knew but too- well what
ftrid duty required. I coqid only mix my tears
with his. For fuch men as thefe, whofe complaints
are only uttered in private, our prefent governors
and their own ecclefiaftical fuperiors, feem to have
no feeling. But there is a great Being, higher
than tbe higheft, who knows, and who will one day
vifit for thefe things.

'a-'

Strongly as you may feel your own difficulties,
you cannot but be fenfible how much thfey are
exceeded by thofe of the cafe which I have how
mentioned. Befides, if virtuous refolution is to
be expeded of man, it is to be expeded oi youth. That

SS LETTERSTOTHE
That is the period of life the moft diftinguiflied for
a generous ardour in the purfuit of truth, for an
ingenuous difpofition, unperverted by a commerce
with the world, and a vigour of mind equal to any
trial. Ad, then, a part becoming enlightened,
virtuous, and generous Britifli youth. Confer
together, and aflTociate in your common caufe,
A petidon for a removal 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 beft fervices in your power,
in promoting the knowledge knd pradice of chrif
tianity ; but that there are obftrudions 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
effed, inculcate the principles of honefty and in
tegrity on others, after, by a public and folemn
ad, violating them yourfelves; that it will be
your happiriefs, and your glory, to teach chriftia
nity, but not the manifeft abufes and corruptions
of it, dodrines which militate with the funda
mental principles of it ; that you cannot, at the
fame time preach the religion of Chrift, and wor
fhip another Being than him whom Chrift wor-
a fhipped.

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 59
•fhipped, and whom he taught all his difciples to
worfhip, as the only true God.
Tell them that, after an alteration in the forms
of pubhc worfhip, you can with infinitely more ad
vantage teach thofe principles which are truly
great, and cflTential 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 anfwered •, for that
the welfare of fociety, which is the fole objed
of civil government, cannot poffibly have any ne
ceffary connexion with the myfterious dodrine of
the trinity. Tell them that it is fufficient if, be
lieving nothing but what they can underftand,
men be good citizens ; and that this will be beft
effeded by inculcating the great dodrine ofa life
of retribution after death, a ftate in which men
will receive according to their works, not accord
ing to their opiniofis.
If you cannot engage a fufficient number to
make a refpedable application to your fuperiors,
in church or ftate, ftill do what integrity requires
of you as individuals. It is what many, to their
infinite honour, have done before you, A con
fiderable number of the moft intelligent and
beft difpofed young men have declined entering
into the miniftry. 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
lifted them to be the greateft ornaments of thei
profeffion, if the entrance into it had not been too
narrow to admit them.
I cannot help flattering myfelf, however, that an
earneft reprefentation from even a few of you, of
your peculiarly difficult fituation, would not be
without its efied; and then your country would
be indebted to you for its emancipation from a
bondage v.hich, in confequence ofthe progrefs of
leligious knowledge, muft be every day more fe-
verely felr, a bondage which cannot affed any but
the intelligent and the ingenuous ; thofe who wifh
ivell to the caufe of virtu;, but who cannot pro
mote it except in the way oi truth.' In all events,
however, you will have done your duty; and
greater guilt will remain on thofe who refufe fo
reafonabie a requeft.
Where religion is concerned, do not deceive
yourfelves by waiting till fome great man, in the
church or the ftate take the lead. Neither was
chriftianity propagated, nor the reformation be
gun, by this means. Individuals of all ranks
thought and aded for themfelves, 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 expeded. Perfons in years, or who have ef-
labliflimenis for life, have generally hit upon fome
method

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 6i
method or other to make themfelves eafy ; and
wilhing 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 putting off, at leaft, every
propofal of reformation. There are, however,
fuch liberal charaders on the epifcopal bench at
this time, that I almoft perfuade myfelf, they
would countenance and afllft fuch an application
as I propofe.
As to minifters of ftate, they muft, and ought,'
to follow the lead ofthe 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 not. It is our bufinefs,
therefore, without troubling ourfclves about the
condud of others, to look to our own, to get all
the hght we can ourfelves, and to do every thing
in our power to enlighten the minds of others ;
confident that the general prevalence of truth will,
in due time, draw after it every thing that we can
defire, with refped to public reformation, and pub
lic liberty.
With refped to the common people oi tW\s covn-
try, it would be doing them great injuftice to con
fider them as trinitarians. More than nine in ten,
I am pretty confident, would be better pleafed
with an unitarian than a trinitarian liturgy, though
5 they

62 LETTERSTOTHE
they do not intereft themfelves fo much in the af
fair, as to take any fteps towards promoting it.
There can even be no doubt, but that the
thinking part of the clergy really wifh for fomfc
alteration in the articles, and the form of public
worfhip, and that they would prefer one in which
all religions worftiip fhould be confined to one God,
tbe Father, could they be fure that every thing
elfe relating to the eftablifhment might remainun-
altered. Of the learned clergy, it is almoft cer
tain that thofe who approve of the fentiments of
Dr. Clarke, are more in number than the rigid
trinitarians, who would be clamorous againft any
change. Were the younger clergy, therefore, and
candidates for the miniftry, in earneft, for a re
formation, it could not, in all probability, be
kept back much longer.

I am, &c.

L E T-

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 63

T

LETTER IV.
Animadverjions on Dr. Purkis's Sermon,
Gentlemen, HE preceding Letters were written in confe

quence of reading the Dean of Canterbury's
truly candid Sermons, and I was led to think of
. addrefiing myfelf to you, as well 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 another Sermon preached by Dr, Purkis,
one of the preachers of the King's Chapel, at
Whitehall, before the Univerfity of Cambridge,
on Commencement Sunday, July 1, 1786, which,
if the writer may be credited*, was received vvith
• The doubt here intimated was occalioned by the following
anonymous letter, which fliows that one of our Univerfities, at
leaft, is not deftitute of liberality,
" I lofe no time in tranfmitting you a difcourfe which did
much violence to my feelings at the time I heard it delivered,
from the univer/ity pulpit. So far is the author's boaft in the
advertifement from being true, that 1 believe his fermon gave
ferious concern to feveral very refpedlable, learned, and liberal
men among his audience (which, it being Commencement Sun
day, was a very numerous one) as well as to myfelf. It was
preached as an exercife for his doftor's degree. The publiftier
informs me, that the greateft part ofthe impreftion has been fent

64 LETTERSTOTHE
as much applaufe as thofe of the Dean of Canter
bury, who is of Oxford.
Though I think fuch mere declamation utteriy
unworthy of an univerfity that has a Newton to
boaft of, and do not fee that it contains any thing
particularly defervingof areply, I fliall take occa
fion from it to fhew the extreme weaknefs of fome
things on which great ftrefs is laid with refped to
the difcuffion 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 captan-
dum vulgus, and could never have been addreflTed
to thofe who are brought up in a freedom from
vulgar prejudices, which ought to be one great
objed in a courfe of liberal education.

I.

Of the Influence of Philofophy on Religion.

Dr. Purkis preaches from Col. ii. 8. Beware
left any man fpoil you through philofophy, and vain
deceit, after the traditions of men, after therudi-
by the author as prefents to bilhops and great men. I truft you
will not be wanting to check the poifon of its influence, to fpeik
like the author, for which I blulh, as I fhould at any thing that
favoured of an unchriftian fpirit. An anfwer from your maf-
terly pen, I have reafon to believe, will give great fatisfadion to
many confcientious lovers of truth in this univerfity, but I af
fure you, to none more than to your hearty well-wiflier in the
gofpel caufe, who profefl"es, ex animo, to be a fincere enquirer
into the truth at it is in Jefus."
" C^mbriJge, Nov. 27, 1786." ments

Y O U N G M E N, Sec. 6j
mHts of this world, and not after Chrift. By this
he, no doubt, meant to infinuate that myfelf, and
Other unitarians, who have fome pretenfions to
philofophy, arejuft fuch philofophers as the apoftle
Paul had to do with, their principles being t:)e
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 remark-
*• ing only the track of its own experiments, p. 9,
*' a vain prefuming perfon, ib. " dogmatical ar-
" rogance," p. 8, &c. &c. Indeed, without this
conftrudion, Dr, Purkis's text and difcourfe could
not be thought to be peculiarly " feafonable at
" this time," as the advertifement prefixed to it
expreffes. Now really. Gentlemen, there is no foundation
whatever for any of thefe infinuations or reflec
tions. The philofophy which the apoftle alluded
to was undoubtedly that ofthe Gnoftics, the prin
ciples of which you will fee detailed in my HiJloty
of early Opinions concerning Jefus Chrift, and which
you may find in any book of ecclefiaftical hiftory.
Pleafe then to examine them, and fee whether
you can find in them any refemblance to the xno-
dern experimental philofophy, Vfith which (notwith
ftanding its fuppofed evil tendency) you are, I
doubt not, well acquainted. The Gnoftics made
no experiments at aU. Their notions were all
mefaphyfical, mythological, or theological, and
F therefore.

66 LETTERS TO THE
therefore, naturally interfered with, and contami
nated, the chriftian principles ; whereas, experi
mental philofophy is wholly unconneded with
them, any farther than as all truth has a connexion.
Accordingly we fee that there have been expe-
rimicntal philofophers, as well as mathematicians,
of every opinion with refped to the dodrine ofthe
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, Horfley
might be quoted as a proof of this. But, in fad,
experimental philofophy tends to make us hum
ble ; as it fhews in the ftrongeft 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 experimental philofophers j^^i 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
traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. —
Indeed, Gendemen, no man could know any thing
of modern philofophy, or of gaofticifrn, and fay
what Dr. Purkis does on this fubjed. It is all
groundlefs infinuation and calumny, void of all
colour or refemblance of truth, and calculated to
prejudice the mind both againft philofophy, and
rational theology. There

Y O U N G M E N, Sec. 67
There is more pride, Gentlemen, in difclaiming
reafon, and affeding to be governed by a prin
ciple fuperior to it, than in humbly following it.
Befides, it has been well obferved, that no man
abandons reafon till reafon has abandoned him.
2. Of My fl eries in Religion.
If myfteries mean, as Dr. Purkis fay they do, p.
10, " things in their own nature incomprehen-
" fible," I muft fay, that the fcriptures know no
fuch myfteries, but only things that were for fome
time unknown, but which were perfedly intelli
gible when they were made known. The term is
never applied to any thing concerning /^^ nature of
God, but only to the difpenfations of his provi
dence, and almoft wholly to that one particular in
his difpenfations, the preaching ofthe gofpel to the
Gentiles, without burdening them with the obfer-
vance ofthe Jewifli ritual. But how can this be
faid to be a thing " in its own nature incompre-
« henfible ?" It had been, as the apoftle calls it,
ajecret, or myftery, hid from ages, but it was then
made known, and when made known, was perfedly
intelligible. What Paul calls (1 Tim. iii. 16) the great myf
tery ofgodlinefs confifted of fuch particulars relat
ing to chriftianity as are all perfedly intelligible,
when made known, as (even admitting the com
mon reading) God manifeft in thefleflo, that is, fpeak-
F % >nfi

6S LETTERSTOTHE
ing to mankind by the man Chrift Jefus, &c. Sec.
Suffer not your minds, therefore, to be dazzled by
the dodrine of myfteries in religion, and the fub-
miflion of reafon to faith. By the fame bait you
may be drawn in to believe the dodrine of tranfub
ftantiation. For the catholics ufe the very fame
arguments in its defence, that the trinitarians do
in the defence of that of the trinity. They are
both faid to be dodrines of pure revelation, and
that it is not the province of reafon to examine
them. In reality, they are neither agreeable to
icafon nor revelation. 3 . Of Toleration, ¦
If any fubjed had been well underftood, I fliould
have thought it had been thatof toleration. Botl
perceive it is of very difficult comprehenfion to
thofe who4iave 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. 2C, "the difbelievers of the gofpel," faying,
p. di, that " the religion of Jefus manifeftly ex-
" eludes every other; and that we muft adhere to
" this exclufive principle, if we aflTcrt its divine
-" authority." This, Gentlemen, you muft fee to be the moft
palpable of all fallacies. In one fenfe, indeed,
every truth is exclufive, becaufe it cannot be re
ceived

YOUNG MEN, fee, 69
ceived together with the oppofite error, the one
neceflfarily 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 profefl'ors of
chriftianity ought not to fuffer any other religion
to be profelfed, if they have power to prevent it,
which is a dodrine that neither Chrift nor the
apoftles give any countenance to. The weapons
of our 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 effential to it ; and confequently,
trinitarians, thinking their peculiar dodrines ef
fential to chriftianity, will think themfelves juftl
fied in exterminating all unitarians, as well as
Jews and Mahometans^ as difbelievers of true
chriftianity. But muft not Dr. Purkis allow tiiat, if tlie civil
governors of a country, as fuch, have a right to
uie 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 doing to others as we would be done ly
ourfelves, is as juftly applicable 10 this cafe as to
any other whatever. If therefore we chriftians
would think it right that we ftiould be tolerated
F 3 among

70 LETTERSTOTHE
among heathens or Mahometans, we ought to to
lerate them among us.
4, Of perverting tbe Language ofthe Scriptures.
Dr, Purkis fays, p. 1 2, " Next to this turn of
" philofophical fyftem in religion, we remarked a
" fceptical defire of aiguing away the phrafeo-
" logy of feripture, when it feems to convey doe-
" trines above our cornprehenfion, in order to re-
" duce them to the level of our own opinions,"
&c. &c. &c.
Now I dare fay, that Dr. Purkis, believing in
the truth of the fcriptures, and likewife in other
truths not contained in the fcriptures, will endea
vour to reconcile them as well as he can, as alfo
to reconcile one feripture truth with another ; for
they cannot both be believed, unlefs they can be
reconciled ; and what is this but the very thing
that he charges the unitarians with, as an unpar
donable fault ? For exkmple, he, as a proteftant
cannot believe that a piece of bread is changed
into flefh, while the properties of bread remain in
ir, though our Saviour has faid of the facramen
tal bread. This is my body. What then does he do,
but explain away this phrafeology, by fuppofing
that it is a figurative exprefllon, and merely be
caufe the dodrine of " the literal fenfe is above his
••comprehenfion; and to reduce it to the level
f oi bis 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 not the beam that is in his own eye ?
But in reality, Gentlemen, the plain language
of feripture is much more diredly in favour of
unitarianifm than of the dodrine of the -trinity ;
and it is with difficulty made to accord to the
latter. The g.eat dodrine of the iir'idi unity oJ
God, and alfo that of the pure humanity of ChriJl,
is the common language of the fcriptures, where
no figure is ufed, or can be fufped'ed. As when
the apoftle fays (i Tirn, ii. 5) To us there is one
God, and one mediator between God and man, the man
Chrift Jefus. By what conftrudion of words and
phrafes, can the dodrine of the trinity be reconciled
with this paflfage ? Muft not the literal meaning
be explained away, before it can be made confift
ent with that myfterious dodrine ?
The texts which the unitarians have to accom
modate to their fyftem are very few ind<cd, com
pared With thofe which the trinitarians muft fubjed
to their mode of torture.
5. Of Materialifm and the Doff rine of Philofophical
Neceftity.
Dr. Purkis is not fingular in endeavouring to
throw an odium upon myfelf, and others, as mate-
fialifts, as if the dodrine of an immaterial foul
F 4 was

72 LETTERSTOTHE
was eflTential to chriftianity. I fhall not argue
this matter with Dr. Purkis, having already ad
vanced all that I think neceffary for the purpofe in
my Difquifitions concerning Matter and Spirit, in
which I am fatisfied that I have made it as evident as
any thing of this nature can be, that the popular
dodrine of a foul has no foundation in reafon, or
the fcriptures, but was borrowed from the heathen
philofophy. I fliall now only obferve to you, that
the dodrine of a foul is of no confequence in
itfelf, or to a chriftian, but as an argument for a
future life.
If, therefore, any perfon does firmly believe
that he fhaU live again, and receive according to
his works, which is the great and ultimate doc
trine of chriftianity, 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 reftorqd tp him . at th? refurredion^ and
that he will have a perifed recoUedion of all the
tranfadions of the prefent life. And this 1 bq-
lieve as firmly as any of thofe who hold the doc
trine of a foul. In what refpeds then, is my faith
of lefs value than theirs ?
With as littie reafon do Dr. Purkis and others
fuppofe that, by the dodrine oi philofophical ne-
ceftity, which I hold, and which I confider as even
demonftrably true, " every principle," as he fays,
5 p. 7.

Y O U N G M E N, &c. 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-
celfity of all law and religion whatfoever,"

tc

Now, in my writings on this fubjed, I have
proved it, and fhall not take the trouble to prove
any more,, that the dodrine of neceffity fupplies
the only theoretical foundation of moral govern
ment, and that the oppofite dodrine affords no
foundation for it at all. But independently of
this, with refped to the real confequences of any
dodrine, 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 aff as if they did. And furely,
any man who believes that his adions are truly
voluntary, depending upon motives, and that he
fhall receive good or evil hereafter according to
his works here, may be depended upon for giving
due attention to his condud, whatever be his opi
nion with refped to the nature of the mind, and
the manner in which motives influence it. Can
Dr. Purkis fliew that neceflfarians are at all lefs
folicitous about their moral condud than other
men ? This is the proper teft of the moral
influence of any fyftem.
It is commonly faid, that the dodrine of necef
fity tends to make men indifferent to all aSiion, all
events being pre-determined by God, and all fure to

74 LETTERSTOTHE
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 fhrewd, adive, bufy, and
" indefatigable," How far this charader applies
to myfelf, I will not fay. But I will venture to
aflfcrt that, change the term fhrewd (which is
always ufed in a bad fenfe) for intelligent, or fenfible,
and the reft of the defcription applies to many
oecefTarians, 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 ofthe Tfmity.
Gentlbjvibn,
AS the worthy D^n of Cantferbury ftrongly re-
^ commends to you Mr. Jones' s Catholic BoSlrihe
ofthe Trinity, proved by above a hundred fhort and
clear arguments, expreffed in the terms of the holy
feripture, compared after a manner entirely new-,
no doubt cfteeming it to be a mafter-piecfr of
leafoning, I am tempted to give you a fpeciirtein-
of his mode of arguing on the fubjed. To pur-
2 fue

YOUNG MEN, gcc, 75^
fue him through all his hundred arguments will
hardly be required of me j as every text on which
any things that/o other perfons has had the appear
ance of an argument, has been buih, is fatisfado-
rily explained in my fmall pamphlet, entitled, A
Familiar Illuftr ation 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 : If any lan
guage be applied to God, and th-e fame be ever
applied to Chrift; or if the fame ad Ihould be
afcribed to them both, it is with him a proof that
Chrift muft be God; without confidering that the
fame language, and the fame adions, may be af
cribed to God, and alfo to man, in different fenfes.
Thus, becaufe we read in IC xliii. 1 1. J, even I,
am the Lord, and befides me there is no Saviour ;
and Chrift is- alfo called a Savivur (as in 1 Pet.
iii. 18. our Lord and Saviour^ejus Chrift) he con
cludes that Chrift muft be God, faying, p. j,
" unlefs he were God, even the Lord Jehovah,
" as well as man, he could not be a Saviour, be-
" caufe the Lord has declared there is no Saviour
" befide himfelf. It is therefore rightly obferved
" by the apofWe, Phil. ii. 9. that God, in digni-
« fyingthc 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 LETTERSTOTHE
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 di delivering the people of Ifrael,
or others, from fome of the difficulties in which
they were involved, as in Neh. ix. ay. Thougaveft
thtm faviours who faved them, lie.. In the fame
fenfe Chrift is alfo properly called a Saviour, as
having; been the inftrument in the hand of God of
iaving mankind from fin, and from death, the con
fequence of fin; and that Chrift was no more than
the inftrument in the hands of God for this end,
is as evident, and as clearly 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 he fent, or commiffioned, by God,
for the purpofe.
On the fame principle Mr. Jones argues, p. i8,
that becaufe we read, John iii. 16. God fo loved
the world, that be gave his only begotten Jon, and
Eph. v. 25. Chrift alfo loved the church, and gave
himjeiffor it, that Chrift and God muft be the fame.
He well obferves, in his advertifement, that " his
" arguments are, to the beft of his knowledg«,
" 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 befides him
felf; though when fuggefted by him, it may have
approved itfelf to the better fenfe of the Dean of
Canterburv. Itt

Y O U N G M E N, 8cc. 77
In reply to it, it can hardly be neceffary 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 Chrift, 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 compaffion towards his fellow • men,
might alfo love them, and be faid to give himfelf
for them. As Paul likewife, and other apoftles,
loved the church, and gave their lives for it,
which it is evident they did, whether that parti
cular language be ever ufed with refped 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 2 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 fhield, and exceeding great reward; fo
** that thefe being compared together, are dccifive
*' for the Catholic Homooufio^n dodrine, at which "the

^i LETTERSTOTHE
" the Arians, from the Council of Nice to this
" very day, have been fo grievoufly offended."
Mr. Jones was not, perhaps, aware that, by this
mode of reafoning, he was fupplying the Roman
catholics with a new argument for their dodrine
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 Chrift himfelf. For it is faid, i Cor. x. 17.
fVe 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 -, io in chap. vi. 4. they are faid
to be partakers ofthe Holy Gbsft.
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 unfcripti^ral, he fays, p, 30,
addrcffing the Arians, " And now the fcrip-
" ture is before us, let me afk them a plain quef-
" tion or two. Is not the word effence, or fub- '
"ftance, oi the fame fignification with tbe word
*• nature ? And have not the Fathers of the
<* church thus expounded it, and is not tbis phrafe "of

Y O U N G M E N, &c. ^9
** "/ Ihe fame nature as conclufive of the divinity
" of Chrift, as that other of tbe fame fubftance?
" Why tlien fliould that expreflion ofthe Nicene
" creed be thought fo ofi'enfive, when there is
" another in the feripture fo near of kin to it,
" that the ^rians 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 diffisr-
" ent Gods. But the feripture, compared as
" above, has afltrted 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 paflTage, of all chriftians : whereas, from
the above quotation from Mr. Jones, the reader
would have imagined that it was not to chrif
tians, but to Chrift only, that this participation
was attributed.
I ihall 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; fince the fame adion is af
cribed to them both. For, in 2 Sam, i. 24. we
read. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled againft

8o LETTERSTOTHE
againft Ifrael, and be moved David againft them, to ,
fay, go number Ifrael and Judab ; whereas, in the
parallel hiftory, i Chron, xxi. i, we read. And
Satan ftcod up againft Ifrael, and provoked David to
number Ifrael. •
As to all the texts of feripture in which Chrift
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 Chrift there
" is a human foul and body, the nature ofa 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 perfect God and perfed man, is never of-
" fended, or put to its ffiifts, by any thing the
" feripture may have faid about him in cither
" capacity." Had it therefore been afferted in
the moft exprefs terms, and had it been repeated
ever fo oftm, that Chrift was not God, it would -
not have ftaggered Mr. Jones, or have put him
to any fhift at all; as he would inftantly have
replied, that the meaning was, not that the whole
perfon of Chrift, but only the man, the inferior part
of him, was not God.
Surely every perfon muft be fenfible, that this '
is putting it abfolutely out of our power to make any

Y O U f^ G M E N, fee. 8i
any inference whatever from the language of
feripture, and fuppofing that the facred writers
had recourfe to the rfioft unworthy Equivocations.
For, by the fame rule, if any thing confifts of two
parts, whatever is afferted as of the whole may be
underftood of which ever part any perfon pleafes.
Confequently, it might be truly faid of Chrift,
in contradidion 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 meaning, that none
of thefe particulars could with truth be affirmed
of his divine nature.
When Chrift, 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 omniprefent, would be always with them)
was greater than he, 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 do 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
Chrift is God. " The name Chrift," he fays, p, 23,
G " does

Sj LETTERSTOTHE
" does heee 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
" cf himfelf, which is a contradidion ; or that
" one God is the head of another God, which is
" alfo a contradidion." B,ut can you. Gentle
men, think that by Chrift, in this pafl"age, 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 fuperior to, every
part of that nature? Mr. Jones might juft as
well have affirmed that when, in the former part
of the fame verfe, it is faid, the head of every man
is Chrift, that by man, is to be underftood, not the
whole of man, but only fome part of him.
As Mr. Jones is obliged to have recourfe to
fuch a miferable abufe of language with refped
to the word Cbrijl, he makes no lefs free with the
term Father. For, in his interpretation of i Cor*
viii. 6. To us there is but one God, the Father (a
text fo dccifively 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 a 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
6 compre-

Y O U N G M E N, &;c. 83
comprehend all the perfons ofthe trinity, it mull
be fynonymous to the term God, and no proof
will remain of the exiftence of fuch a perfon as
that of the Father; fo that the trinity will be re
duced tp 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 fartiier 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 Chrift prayed to the Father, 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 thercfjie that his praver was as much
direded to himfelf, as to the Father. Befides, if
Mr, Jones be fufficientlv authorized to confider
the term bather as cxpreffive of the divine nature
in general, why may we not Le at liberty to ufe
the term Son, and Holy Ghoft, in the fame latitude.
And if each of them denote the whole of the di
vine nature, tho unity of God will be complex dy
eftabliftiedi as we fliall then have three different
names for the fame thing, which will be what is
commonly called Sabellianifm ; according to which
the Father, who fent the Son, was himfelf the Son
that was fent, who was born, and who died.
"It is furely fufficient to point out thefe fpeci-
mens of Mr, Jones's book,, which contiins no-
G 1 thing

i

Si LETTERS TO t U t
thing better, to fliew you what you have to ex
ped from the whole. But I fincerely join with
the Dean of Canterbury in recommending the
whole of it to your careful perufal, thinking fuch
a defence of the dodrine of the trinity to be the
beft refutation of it; ftrongly exemplifying, as
it does, the wretched fliifts men are reduced to,
when their tenets are repugnant to common fenfe,
and contradided by the plain and uniform lan
guage of feripture. Mr, Jones feems to pridi
himfelf in having muftered up " a hundred argu-
" ments, 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, Jones, 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 effeliive men in it.
Since I wrote the preceding Letters to the Dean
of Canterbury, I have feen the fmall pamphlet fo
ftrongly recommended by him, Ic is entitled,
A Prefervative againft tbe Publications difperfed by
modern Socinians, in which the Impiety and Abfurdity
of their Principles are clearly fhewn. This Preferva^
tive, &c, contains little more than vehement ex
clamation againft wolves in fheep's cloathing, iSc,
reprefenting the Socinians in the worft light, as
enemies to the gOfpel, to God, and to their coun
try; whofe dodrines cannot fail to bring the
judgments of God upon us all.

Y O U N G M E N, gcc. 85
As afpecimen ofthe fentiments, and manner, of
this piece, I fhall only feled the following para
graph, from p. 16 ; " I 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 muft fay,
" I do not believe — that any thing more than the
" religion of human reafon is necefl'ary to pro-
" felfors of chriftianity, I have no need of faith.
" I want not the grace of God, I need not be
*' called, nor eleded, 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 fiying the creed backwards.
" Such a confeffion as this we have now before
•* us feems better calculated to anfwer that pur-
" pofe, and is certainly fitter for a necrorqancpr,
" than a profeflTor of chriftianity. Yet thfs'is the
" favourite objed, for the interefts of which a
" clamorous party affembled, contributed, peti-
" tioned, and blotted tons of paper. For this an
" unhappy gentleman" (meaning the excellent
Mr. Lindfey) " left his miniftry in the church of
*' England, to preach up the God of Mahome-
" tans in a chamber, and calls this confeffmg Chrift
" before men. For this their pamphlets are dif-
" perfed by thoufarjdj^ to turn the affedions of
*' the ignorant from the ineftimable truths of the
?^ gofpel, and inflame their fancies with a fet of
G ^ " opinions^

.,86 L E T T E R S, &c.
" opinions, which can only lead them to perdi-
" tioii," &c. :xc. &c.
Surclv, Gentlemen, I do not need to copy any
more of fuch a pamphlet as this, and much lefs to
reply to it. What muft that caufe be which re
quires fuch wretched, mifreprefentation of the
principles and condud of ferious men, and fuch
indecent and profline drollery to fupport it. I
fhould not have thought it worth whilf to notice
fuch publications as either of thefe of Mr, Johes
(for this pamphlet is alfo af riltd to him) Jiad
they nut been fo earneftly recommended by fo
truly refpedable a writer as the Dean of Canter
bury, I am alfo informed rhut Mr. Jones's Ca
tholic Doitrine was recommended, as a work of
confequence, to the Univerfity of Oxford by their
ProfcflpE|Of Divinity, Dr. Bentham, who pre
ceded, pr. Randolph. I ferioufly hope that Dr.
Home himfelf will produce fomething much
fuperior, to the publications he fo laviflily com
mends. , If not, this controverfy is already at an
end. I am. Gentlemen,
Your very humble fervant,
J. PRIESTLEY.

LETTERS

TO THE

Rev. Dr. PRICE.

In hac re fcilicet una

Multum diffimiles ; at caetera pene gemelli,
Fraternis animis.
Horace,

G4

LETTERS

Rev. Dr. P R I C B.

LETTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
Dear Friend,
WITHOUT, any view to engaging you in
a controverfy, which you have expreffed
a fixed refplution to decline, but merely from
t;lie fatisfadion I feel in addrefllng Omyfelf to a
perfon for whom I entertain the higheft degree of
f^eem, and even veneration, and whofe candour
exceeds that of ^Imoft every other man, I chufe
to throw a few remarks upon your late Ser-
.pions into the form oi Letters to yourfelf. A great
part of the fatisfadion I enjoy in this life,
and efpecially that valuable portion of it, which
afifes ffom my ar^oiir (if I have any) in the
, purfuit

go L L T T E R S T O
purfuit of truth, I owe to my intercourfe with
you ; an intercourfe, and friendfhip, which has now
been of long ftanding, and which, if it be not my
own fault, will never, I am perfuaded, have any
confiderable interruption ; but, after being the
, fource of much happincfs 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 exceffive; and it is the only thing with re
fped to which, I cannot fay that I wifh to refemble
you. For I would not lofe the fatisfadion that
arifes from a perfuafion of having found any va
luable truth, nor willingly continue longer than is
neceffary, in a ftate of doubt, than which nothing
is more painful and diftrefling. Whether I have
been too precipitate in forming my own judgment,
efpecially with refped to the important queftion
that will be the fubjed of thefe Letters, is not for
myfelf to determine. The time is faft approach
ing, with 9efpcd to both of us, when all uncer
tainty about it will be at an end ; and when the
"(burceof our error, on which ever fide it lies, will
be laid open to us ; and fo as perhaps may be of
"fome life to us in our farther progrefs in the pur
fuit of truth. In the mean time, the candour you
exprefs on the fubjed, cannot but give me the
greateft fatisfadion. Speaking of the Socinian
fchcme, you fay, p. 72, " It maintains all that we
" need

Dr. P R I C E, gi
" need be anxious about in chriftianity, and con-
" fequently the prejudices againft it have no juft
*' foundation,"
With that candour and difiidenre which dif-'n-
guifh all your writings, and to which ail your
friends are witneffes in your daily conveifationj
you fay, with refped to the dodrine concerning
the perfon of Chrift, p. 158, " 1 can in this in-
" ftance, as in moft others, with much more
" confidence fay what is not, than v;hat is the
*' truth. The Athanafian and Calviiiiftic fchemes
" of chriftianity, I reje£t with f^uong convidion.
" The Socinian fcheme alfo, on the two points
" which chiefly diftinguifli it, I find myfelf incap-
" able of receiving," Now fince you cannot fay
that there are more than three opinions on ,the
fubjed, and two of them are abfolutely inadmif'
fible by you, "I fliould think that no.hing could
prevent you embracing the third v/ith the greateft
confidence and fatisfadion. Such, at leaft, would
be my own feelings in your circumftances, and
fuch they are with refped to the conclufions which
I draw from fimilar premifes.
Your indiflFerence about making profelytes is
perfedly agreeable to your ufual candour; but this
alfo I think excefllve. " I feel, you fay, p. 158,
" no difpofition to be veryanxious about bringing
" you over to my opinion. The rage for profe-
?* lytifm is one ofthe curfes ofthe world, I wifh
" to

99 LETTERSTO

to 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 thefe, you. Sir, can
not fail to have many ; but in this cafe, I muft
thinH 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 %he truth for which we are advo
cates ; and it is evident that, notwithftanding your
amiable candour with refped to us Socinians, or
as we rather choofe to call ourfelves unitarians,
you think (but how confiftently with what I
have quoted above you ought to have confidered)
our tenets to be of dangerous confequence if
chriftianity itfelf be of any value. For you fay,
p. 146, " It appears to me that the dodrine of
" Chrift's fimple humanity, when viewed in con-
" n'exion with the feripture account of his exalta-
" tion, implies an inconfiftency, and improba-
" bifity, which falls little fhort of an impofllbility}
" and confequently that this dodrine not only
" renders the fcriptures unintelligible^ but chriftia-
" nity itfelf incredible,"
If therefore, chriftianity, and the belief of ir, be
of any importance, as no doubt you think them to
be, you ought to wifh, and endeavour, to make
profelytes to that view of it, according to which
alone you think it to be credible. I write io_ ir.uch
3 ' a^

Dr. P R I C E, 95
as I do in defence of the opinion which you
fo ftrongly reprobate, becaufe I fee it in a very
different light ; not indeed as the only view in
which chriftianity is credible (for I was a firm be
liever in it when I was an Arian, and even when
I was an Athanafian) but as that according to
which it is by far the moft credible. I now think
the Athanafian dodrine to imply a dired contra
didion, and the Arian hypothcfis to be fo impro
bable, as that it muft greatly impede the recep
tion of chriftianity, efpecially with philofophical
unbelievers, I profefs to write with no other 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 refped and affedion,
I am, dear Friend,
Yours fincerely,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BIRMINGHAM, March i, i;?;.

94

LEiii. ivo TO

LETTER II.
Of the Nature, and antecedent Probability, pf the
Arian Hypothcfis, ivi:h the Caufes of Attachment
to it.
DearFriend,
BEFORE I confider any of the arguments that
you have produced in fupport ofryour hypo
thcfis, i muft take the liberty to confider what // is,
and make fome obfcrvations refpeding its ante
cedent probability. For to this muft correfpond
the number and weight of the arguments that are
neccfiary to fupport it. The Arianifm that you
maintain is not 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, therefore," you fay, p, 96, " feem to me to
" have gone too far, who fp-ak of him as a being
" who exifted before all worlds, and as at the head
" of ail worlds. This feems almoft as little war-
" ranted by reafon aid (cripture as the dodrine
" which makes him the one fupreme ; and it makes
" the dodrine of his having humbled himfelf to
«« a death, even the death of the crofs, to fave this
«' world, almoft equally incredible." But

Dr. P R I C E. 95
But whether we attend to the words of feripture,
which lead you to conclude that Chrift made this
world, or whether we attend to the neceffary con
nexions and dependencies of this world, which you
juftly fuppofe t^ have had the fame maker with ir,
it appears to me that we cannot help concluding,
that if Chrift made this worid, he muft alfo have
made the fun, moon, and ftar.":, and confequentiy all
worlds. For the apoftle fays (Col. i. \6) by him
were all things created, vijible and invijible and
certainly there are not more confpicuous objeds in
nature than the fun, moon, and ftars. If, thereforcj
the apoftle included in his idea of things vifible,
the earth on which we live, he could not have ex
cluded thofe heavenly bodies, which are equally
vijible. Befides, what can be more exprefs and
definite in this refped, than that which John fays
of the logos, which you fuppofe to be the fame
with Chrift, John i. j, AU things were made by him,
and without him was not any thing made that iva:
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 Genefis j that account
" moft probably, being an account only of the
" creation of this earth, witii its immediate dc-
" pendencies." But in that account, the moft ex
prefs mention is made of the creation of the fun,
moon,

g6 LETTERSTO
moon, and ftars. Indeed, if we confider the con
nexions and dependencies of the earth, which you
fuppofe to have been made by Chrift, We muft
admit that the moon, at leaft, was alfo made by him,
on account of its intimate connexiqp with, and de
pendence upon the earth ; and if the moon, furely
the fun alfo, on which they both depend for light
and heat ; and if the fun, the whole of the planetary
fyftem, including the newly difcovered Geergium
Sidus, and all the comets, which belong to thtf
fun. And if the fun, with all that is conneded with
it, and depends upon it, was created by Chrift, why
fliould we not fuppofe that he made all that clufler,
or fyftem of ftars, of which our fun is one ; and
if thofe ftars, aU the habitable worlds belonging to
them. In this manner I do not fee how we can con*
fiftcntly 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 one. This
indeed, is the proper argument for the unity of God
on the light of nature, and this argument refpeds
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

IJE. PRIG E. Qf
the creation, when they fuppofed him" to have
exifted before all worlds, and to be at the head of all
worlds ; you do not feem to agree with thofe of the
modern Arians, who maintain that, on his incarna
tion, he was divefted 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
Df the primitive Fathers. (
I cannot fay but I wifli you had been a little
more explicit in giving u.? your fentiments on this
fubjed. For whether he was thus divefted, or not,
is a queftion that muft be decided one way or the
other; and to me it appears that you hive only the
choice of Scylla or Charybdis. li you fay, as the
Aria.ns in general now do, that while Chrift' was
on earth, hz was divefted of ail his former power,
it will follow that, in the interval between his in
carnation and refurredion, the whole fyftem of the
government of the world Was changed ; ar^d 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 nliglit
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 hiinfelf from
the dead, his humi!i.ition, and efpeci?.!!y his cx-
H • treme

9? LETTERSTO
treme dejedion of mind during, his agony in the
garden, will be thought to be as extraordinary.
For who can fiippoCb that he who was at that
very time fupporting all things by the word of bis
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 properly contradiSlions,
but they are things at which my mind revolts
with no lefs force ; fo tjjat 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 themi
That mere divines fhould talk fo lightly as they
fometimes do concerning creation, and the pofli-
bility of its falling within the province of an infe
rior Being, I do not wonder ; 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 which
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 contemplating, and making
farther enquiries into, the laws of nature; who
are filled with aftoniftiment at what they do fee of
them, and who are at the fame time well fatisfied,
'I th»(

Dr. P R I C E, gq
that all they fee bears no fenfible proportion to
that which is unknown.
Now, that a being poflfefling the profound wif
dom, and aftonifhing power, that muft have been
neceflTary to the conftrudion of fuch a fyftem as
this (even allowing the matter out of which it was
made to have been prepared for him) Ihould be
come a child in the womb of a woman, be born,
be brought up from infancy to manhood, be fub
jed to all the pains andjnfirmities 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 fliould be fo degraded.
For between that power which is equal to the
conftrudion of fuch a world as this, with all its
connexions and dependencies, and that power which
is equal to the formation ofa// worlds, we are not
able to perceive any real difference. With re
fped to our comprehenfion, that difference muft be
merely nominal. The lefs is, to our perception,
infinite ; and after that, if we fay that the other ia
infinito — infinite, the idea is the fame ; as in our
ideas, an eternity a parte poft makes no addition to
• I do not fay other men, for fuch a being as this, however de
graded, would never be called a man, by any perfon who was
acquainted vvith his natural rank.
H 2 the

100 LETTERSTO
the idea of an eternity a parte ante. Each of thern
exceeds any definite quantity, how great fo ever.
That you, Sir, therefore, who enter into thefe
ideas much more readily than I can pretend to
do, fliould fo eafily admit that of fo great a degra
dation of your maker, and for a purpofe for which,
as you muft allow, ic is impofTible for us to con
ceive that it fhould be neceflTary, really aftoniflies
me. And yet you are no lefs aftonifhed that I
(hould not adopt your views of this fubjed. Our
readers muft decide between us, and as to our
fclves, our mutual wonder will only produce a
friendly fmile.
Your attachment to the Arian hypothefis is evi
dently owing, in a great meafure, to your fuppof
ing it to have valuable practical ufes. Ycu ad
mire the condefcenfion offo great a Being, as the
maker of the world, and of all its dependencies,
in becoming man, fuffering, and dying for us.
" I often," you fay, p. 155, " feel myfelf deeply
" imprefled by this confideration." This I can
not call in queftion. But many pious trinita
rians are, I doubt not, more deeply imprefTcd
with the confideration of the fupreme God be-.
coming man, and then fuffcring and dying for us ;
and the confideration of Dr. Clarke's logos (before
v.'hom your diminutive logos fhrinks into nothing)
the great created Being who exifted from al! eter nity.

Da. PRICE.

lor

ftity, and who created not only this world, but
all worlds, would no doubt imprefs his mind more
forcibly, and more favourably than your dodrine
can imprefs yours*.
There is not, indeed, any dodrine in the Cal-
viniflic, or the popifli fyftem, but what the advo
cates for them will maintain to have excellent
pradical ufes. With what unfpeakable reverence
add devotion do the catholics eat their maker.
But is this any reafon why we proteftants fhould
embrace their opinions ?
We find fufficient fources of gratitude and devo
tion in a purer fyftem of chriftianity, and fo fliall
We do in pafllng from trinitarianifm to high
Arianifm, from this to your low Arianifm, and
from this to Socinianifra, even of the loweft
kind, in which Chrift is confidered as a jnere
man, the fon of Jofeph and Mary, and naturally
as fallible and peccable as Mofes, or any other pro
phet. I have myfelf gone through all thefe changes,
and I think I may aflTure you, that you have no
thing to apprehend from any part of the progrefs,
* " On other accounts, it [viz. the example of Chrift] is
more forcible in proportion to his fuperiority ; and this is true
in particular of his condefcenfion, humility, meeknefs, and
patience under fufferings. The greater he was, the more we
are obliged to admire thefe virtues in him, and the more w(
»uft be excited to pradlice them," — P. 153.
H 3 In

102 LETTERSTO
In every ftage of it you have that confideration
on which the fcriptures always lay the greateft
ftrefs, as -.i 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 a fuperangclic nature, every
ihing that he has done is to be referred to the
love cf God, the original author of all, and to hira
all our gratitude and obedience is ultimately
due. Far would I be from detrading from the merit
of Chrift, or the value of his example, which I
v/ould endeavour to keep in view. But, as a ve
neration for him fhould be checked when it
Tvould l.ad us to afcribe to him divine honours ;
f ', in any other refped, fhould we be careful how
we give lo him any part oi that glory which his God
and Father will npt give to another.
Now Arians, befides placing Chrift 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
fal, that he became incarnate, and undertook the
fchcme of our redemption. You, Sir, have not
aflferted this. But what you fay on the fubjed,
has little force on any otljer idea. Having fpoken
pf the " priftine dignity," of Chrift, p. 153, and of

Dr. price. 103
of his " degrading himfelf to the condition of a
** monal man," you fay, " This is an inftance of
*' benevolence )to which we can conceive no pa-
*' rallel. This is probably the admiration of an-
" gels, &c."
Whoever migbt be the degradation of this
exalted Being, if it was done at the exprefs com
mand of God, which 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 chearfuUy, 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 command
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 l am not come of myfelf ,
but he that fent me is true, whom ye know not. Such
is the uniform language of our Saviour, whenever
he fpeaks of his mifllon; and it fuggefts no other
idea than that of any prophet having received a
Gommifllon 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 refpeds, there is too
much of the proper trinitarian dodrine in the
H 4 fcheme

i(?4 LETTERSTO
fcheme of Arianifm, which rofe after it, and out of
it. In ancient Arianifm there was no difference in
the two fyftcms but that between a created and an
uncreated logos. The effce.atHgiied to them was the
very fame. Modern Arians are by degreesdrop-
ping many articles in the ancient Arian creed j
but it appears to me that, in doing this, they make
a fcheme much lefst confiftent with itfelf, with
legfon, or with the fcriptures.
I am, &c.

LETTER III,
Of tbe Creation cf Matter by the Father, and th(
Formation of it by the Son, and' other, Confidera
tions attending tbe Idea of a finite and imperfed.
Creator. J ,*»4U . \ . - '¦'¦ .
De AR F R I END,  - ' !,,
IT is another part of^your hypothcfis,' that crea
tion out cf nothing is the prerogative, of the Su
preme Being, and that Chrift oply 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 froni nathiiig ; that probably be-
t' ing

Dr. PRICE. lo^
*' ing peculiar to almightly power, but only the
" arrangement of things into their prefent order,
** and the eftablifhment of this courfe of nature
" to which we are witneffes."
Now I do not fee why we fhould diftinguifli
the provinces of the created creator, and ofthe un
created creator in this manner. What could matter
be when it was firft produced out of nothing? If
it had the neceffary properties of matter, you
muft fuppofe it to have been extended and impe
netrable. For you will fay that without thefe pro
perties matter would be nothing at all ; and if it
had impenetrability, it mufl have had a firm co-
hefion of its parts, which implies a power of at-
traStion.'va. the particles. of which it confifts; and
if this frefli created matter did not immediately
coalefce into one mafs, or if there were any pores
in ir, the particles of it muft have been endued
with a repulftve, as well as an attraSive povfer.
Again, if matter, as firft produced, had necef-
farily the powers of attradion and repulfion, why
not all that variety of attradions and repulfions
which conftitute all the diflferent kinds of bodies ?
Bur if fimple attradion and repulfion only be
admitted, we muft admit fome form and arrange-
ntent, and therefore we cannot confine. the exer
tions of the Supreme Being to the mere creation
of matter, BefideS)

io5 LETTERS TO
Befides, can any reafon be imagined why the
fame great Being, who with infinite eafe produced
matter itfelf, fhould nor, with the fame eafe, have
produced it with all that variety, and all that af-
rangement, which conftitute the "vifible fyftem of
the univerfe ? The whole mi|ft have been equally
eafy to almighty power; and the uniformity of the
fyftem would certainly be better fecurcd in this
manner, than by committing it to the difcretion,
and confequentiy to the indifcreti-on, of inferior,
and therefore imperfed agents. To, me, I own
there appears fomediing fo ftrange in the fbppo-
fition of tiie Supreme Being having created mere
matter, and of Chrift having made this mere mat
ter into a world, or worlds; it is fo, deftitute of
all probability either from appearances in nature,
or the language of fcrif)ture, that I can hardly
tiiink it deferves a ferious refutation.
As to the language of Jbe fcriptures, it feems
to me to be abfolutely inconfiftent with this hypo
thcfis. According to Mofes, the fame great Being
v.ho made the heavens and the earth, made alfo
the light, feparated the waters from the earth, and
made all the plants and animals with which they
are both furnilhed; and no mention is made of
any other Being concerned in the produdion of
any thing, or in the government of the world,
when it was made. According

Dr. P R I C E. 107
According to your hypothefis, the Supreme
Being made nothing more than the earth, or duft of
the ground, as it is called (if his province extended
even fo far as that) but the perfon who adually
formed man, and who made the difference of fexcs,
was Chrift. But how does this agree with what
Chrift himfelf 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
tere meant himfelf; nor will you fay, with Chrv-
foftom, that Chrift did not chufe to intimate that
himfelf was the maker of man, left it Ihould give
offence to the Jews. You muft, therefore, admit,
that the Supreme Being is here fpoken of as the
maker of the human race; and fimilar to this is
the uniform language of feripture, fo that nothing
can authorize us to depart from the plain fenfe
pf it.
The Pfalmift had no idea of any intermediate
governor ofthe world when he faid (Pf civ. 21)
The young lions roar after their prey, and feek their
meat from God; or our Saviour, when he faid
(Matt. vi. 26) Behold the fowls ef the air, for tbey
fow not, neither do tbey reap, nor gather into barns,
yet your heavenly Father feedetb them.
There is another puzzling circumftance at
tending your hypothefis of a proper creation by
the Father, and of the formation of things only
by the Son, which is that part of the fcheme which

loS LETTERSTO
whic!i relates to fpirit. For befides material
Jubftance, of which the earth, &c, confifts, you
fuppofe that there is alfo a derived immaterial
fubft.mce. Was this, as well as the former, created
by the almighty power of the Father, and aftcr-
¦vi.\tds formed into angels, and the fouls of men, by
Chrift ? This is a queftion that arifes from your
general hypothefis, which requires to be confi
dered; and the difcuffion of which may occafion
fome embarraffment to your fcheme.
If the inftrumentality of Chrift in making the
world was of the fame nature with that by which
he raifed the dead, and worked his other mira
cles (as to which we are alTured, 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 fenfe Adami
immediately after being created himfelf, might
have been as good a creator as either your logos,
or that of Dr. Clarke. But then this would be
no proper inftrumentality at all.
This kind of an intermediate creator cannot,
therefore, be fuppofed. He muft have had pow
ers equal to the work, and if, as you juftly ob
ferve, all finite Beings attain perfedion by de
grees*, the maker of this world muft firft have
• " Do not all beings rife gr-idually, one acquifition laying
" the foundation of another, and preparing the way for higher
" ^cquiiiuoDs ,'" p. 147, produced

Dr. P R I C E. 169
produced fomething lefs perfed. But what evi
dence is there of the exiftence of any fuch lefs
perfed produdion ? Shall we look for this firft
effay at creation in a ftate of the earth prior to that
of which Mofes gives us an account ? And when
this earth fliall be deftroyed, will the maker of it
be fo far improved by experience, as to be able to
new model it into a better form, fo that the evils
which, through want of fkill in the creator, could
not be excluded at prefent, will be excluded here
after. But though this finite creator fhould be ever
fo much improved by obfervation and experience,
ftill his work, being the produdion of an imper-
fe£l being, muft be imperfed; and while the reign
of Chrift continues, we can never hope to be
under the condud of a Being of infinite power,
wifdom, and goodnefs, as long as we exift.
Is it pofTible that fuch a notion as this, per
fedly confonant to the Arian hypothefis, fhould
be contemplated with pleafure? It gives me un-
fpeakably more fatisfadion to confider the pre
fent fyftem as the beft poffible; being the imme
diate produ6tion of a Being of infinite v/ifdom,
and that even the evils oi which we complain are
neceflary parts of this beft pofiible conftitution
of things. I am, &c.

Ji<» LETTERS TO

LETTER IV.
Conjiderations relating to tbe Origin and Hiftory of
the Arian DoSlrine. Of Chrift not being tbe Ob
jeet of Prayer, and of the Claim of Arians to the
Appellation of Unitarians.
Dear Friend,
'V/'OU cannot fay that Chrift 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 Hiftory of early Opinions concerning Chrift,
if the apoftles had, at any time, been informed of
the truth of a dodrine, which they could never
have learned from the fcriptures of the Old Tefta
ment (in which nothing is faid oi tbe Mefftab being
the maker ofthe world) a dodrine of which they
could have had no fufpicion from any thing that
they obferved while they lived and converfed
with Chrift, we muft have perceived fome traces
of it in their hiftory. It was a new idea, and, of
fuch great magnitude, and fo diftinguifhingly ho
nourable to their matter, compared with Mofes,
or any of the preceding prophets, as muft have
excited the greateft aftonifhment in both the
friends and enemies' ofchriftianity. It

Dr. P R I C E. HI
It was an opinion at which the minds of all
Jews muft bave exceedingly revolted, and there--
fore would have required to have been largely
infifted upon, and copioufly defended, even much
more than the dodrine of the admifTion of gen
tile converts into the chriftian church, without
conformity to the inftitutions of Mofes; fo that
we fhould not have been left, as we now are, to
infer this extraordinary dodrine from two or three
expreflions in cafual epiftles.
I have alfo fhewn that the dodlrine ofthe fimple
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 chriftians, both Jews and Gentiles.
They were in pofTeffion of the books of the New
Teftament, and for their ufe they were written,
and yet they faw in them no fuch dodrine as that
ofthe creation of the world by Chrift, 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
dodrine of the world being made by a created
Being was (if we except the Gnoftics) abfolutely
unknown in the chriftian church till the tipne of
Arius. Alfo, the acknowledgments of Athana
fius, and of all the orthodox Fathers ofthe church,
imply nothing lefs than the general prevalence of
the dodrine of the Jmple humanity oi Chrift, and
by no means that of his pre-exiftence, or fu-
perangelic nature. How then qaij that be re
ceived

tit LETTERS TO
ceived as the dodrine of the fcriptures, which
was never underftood to be fo, for fo long a
period ?
I have likewife fhewn that, till the fame pe-^
riod, all the learned chriftians fuppofed that Chrift
had a proper human foul, befides the logos that
was united to him, and that this logos (by which
they fuppofed the world to have been made) had
been an efTential attribute of God the Father, a
fyftem fundamentally different from that of Aria
nifm. It muft therefore require the moft exprefs
evidence from the fcriptures, to prove from them
the truth of a dodrine 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 ancient 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 contradided in the firft verfe of the
epiftle .to the Hebrews, But the fcparation of
two fuch old and intimate friends, as this opinion;
and that of Chrift having made the world, is, 1
think, not a littie hazardous with refped to them
both. And furely it might naturally be expeded,
that if Chrift be that Being who made the' world,
who, of courfe, fupported it by his power, apd who
3 at

, Dr,, P R I C E. 113
dt length became incarnate in it, and died for ir,
he would be the proper medium of all the divine
intercourfe with it. Can it be fuppofed that the
maker of men had nothing to do with them from
?heir creation to the time of their redemption ?
You alfo rejed another part of tbe ancient
Arian hypothefis concerning Chrift, viz, ti^at he
!s the proper objeft of prayer. And yet" it is fo
natural that the maker and preferver of men, and
ofthe world, Ihould be the objed of prayer, that,
in my opinion, nothing could have prevented the
pradice, but fome very exprefs prohibition to
worfhip him, which we no where find in the fcrip
tures. It is only the idea of Chrift not being
' prefent with us, together with its not being in
his power to help us, that can make him, or any
other Being, nor to be the proper objed 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 acccfllble
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, therefott, no other Being
" to whom our prayers ought to be direded."
But furely the Being who made, and who pre-
ferves us, he « whom all things conjtft, whether
I he

lit LETTERS TO
he be finite or infinite, mufl always be prefent
with us, and muft have it in his power to grant
all the petitions that w« ever adshefs to God^
It is fimply »indc» the charader of God being
tbe Lord our maker, that the fcriptures teach us
to warfhip and bow down befora him. Whatever
Being, therefore, comes under the' defeeiption of
tbe Lord onr maker,, wc are authoriaed to worlhip
and bow down to him ; and as, a»ccording to you>
Chrift is that Beings you mnft beabundantly jufti-
fied in making him the o\yjie£t of your prayers.
To be the Lord our maker, and the objed of
prayer, arc fo naturally and n«cefrari;ly conneded,
that "if,, by any argument whatever, it can be
proved that Chrift is- dther not the one, or nott
che other, it mvit follow that he cannot b&ekhev
of them.
Moreover, all the ancient Arian* allowed Chrift
tbe appellation of God, and indeed you. do the
fame, when you apply to him what is faid of thfl
logos in the introdudion to the gofpel of John.
For that logos is exprefsly faid to be God, and
has the.actribot^ of the God defcribed by Mofes,
viz. tbe maker of all things that art made. It is,
therefore, no fiich God, as Mofes himfelf is called
with refped to Fbaroah, or as any magiftrate may
be called. You make \\\vci to be a God both in
name, and \n power. It appeasrs to me, therefore,
iio^t a littie extraordkiaiy, that you fhould claim the

Dr. price. M|
th^ title of u»itafia»Jti whei) al) that you can with
propriety fay is, that, t^QUgh you ackOQwledga-
two Gods, one of them only is the objeft of pray«f?>
and to be worfliipped, and the other, though your
maker, and cottftant pTefefver, yet, for fqime un
known reafon, is not the objed of prayer, and not
to be worfliipped.
Youf definition of the word., unitarian. Note,
p. 6g, appears to me to be quite firbitrary, apc^
unncceflTarily complex^ " By unitarians," you fay,
" I mean thofe chriftians who believe there ia
" but one God, and one objed of religious vror-
" fhip; ahd that this one God is the Father onlyi
" and not a trinity, confiftingof Father, Son, and
*' Holy Ghoft. An unitarian, therefore," youi
add, " may, or may not, be a believer in Chrift'^}
" pre-exiftence/' But I fliould think (hat the only natural at)d .
fimple definition of an unitarian fliould be, « be
liever in one God, or one perfon, properly entitied
to the appellation of God, whether he was an pb'
jed of religious worfhip, or not ; which is another
and independent circumftance. If a perfon not
concerned in this controverfy were allccd to give.
his opinion, I fhould imagine that, if he mad«
any addition to this definition, he would fay, that
an unitarian was a believer in one God, or one Beirig
eoncthted in the ereatioa and care of the world. And
I 2 even

ii6 LETTERSTO
even this is rifing higher in the definition of' the
powers oi godhead than the aqcient heathens, who
were properly and profeflTcdly polytheifts, ever did.
You fay, that " an unitarian may, or may
*• not be a believer in Chrift's pre-exiftence,"
and very juftly, if you mean thitt he pre-exifted
as an angel, or arch-angel, and if you can af-
fign him any department fimilar lo theirs. But
I really cannot help confidering Arians as be
lieving in /wo Go^, while they hold that Chrift,
though a created Being himfelf, had for his de
partment the formation of this world, the ad-
juftment of all the laws to which it is fubjed, and
of courfe theconftant care and government of the
whole, fupporting it ly tbe word of bis powers And
that the great Being to whom this defcription be
longs fliould not be the objed of prayer, is to me
incomprehenfible. If I thought there really was
any fuch derived" Being, always prefent with me,
who planned all the events of my life, and whofe
power continually fupported me, I could hardly
refift the impulfe to pray to him,
Laftly, if according to your definitioni the one
God muft be the Father only, and they are not
unitarians who do not make him the fole cbied
of religious worfhip, how will you clafs the Mo
ravians, who addrefs no prayers tohim, but to the
Bon only i Will you fay that they are worfliip-
.3 P«"

pS. P R I C E, 117
pers of no GOd at all ? They -might even be
come Arians, and continue their pradice of pray
ing to Chrift only. All the ancient Arians prayed
to him. I am, &c.

L E T T E ; R v..
Of the proof from the Scriptures of the Creation of
tbe IVorld by Chrift.
Dear Friend,
CURELY fuch an hypothcfis as yours, viz. that
of a great pre-exiftent crei|ed Being, tbe
creator of this world, witb all its connexions and de
pendencies, and yet not the objed of prayer j a
Being which, it muft be acknowledged, no ap
pearance in nature would 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 time of Arius, requires
fome very fatisfadory evidence ; and if all the
proofs be from feripture, thofe proofs ought to be
very niimerous, as well as very clear. You ought
alfo to be able to give fome good reafon why the
1 3 fcrip.

;!$ LETTERS TO
fcriptures were npt underftood to teach t'lis ex-
tratjrdinary dodrine for fo many centuries, by
fhtvfe Vhp muft have been the beft acqdaitited
with the language in which they ate written.'
Now there are nor, in reality, more than two
paflTages, in which Chrift is, in any fenfe, faid to
have created any thing, and thefe are not in any
hiftoricai work, but only incidental expreflions
in the epiftles of Paul, viz. Eph, iii, 9, who cre
ated all things by Jefus Chrift, and here the word^
by Jtfits Chrifl are, with gr'pat probability thought
to be an intei^lation, and Col, viii. 16. by
him were all things created, that are in beavetf,
and that are in eftrth ; vifible and invifible ; whe-,
ther tbey be thrones, cr dominions, er principalities,
iftf ewers. All things -eoere created by him, and for
1^ <and "hi is i^cre all things, and by him all things
mitfilfl ; (and he is tbe bead of the tody tbe cb'urch^
%>ba is the btginnfng, the firft-iorn from the dead ;
thai in ill tbingi ht might have tbe pTe-hninptte.
)Pbr it p/lekfisA the fatHtr that in him poiA& aHlfulnefs
JNedl. And, having fno'de peact throU^ tbi bipod vf
Ui 'tfofs, by him 'to rfcbnci'le all things mfS. \>Mfelfi
^ 9>ini, J py^ •ntbetbtr tbsy be ibings ip iarfh, or
^^iinheftvtH. As tj3 thfe ifttrodttdibti to tht go^el of Jo'hn,
Jt is hot ift^re faid that »ny thing was mad-e by
'€S»^, but only by the logos. Which we lYiaiht-ai'q
to be itbeiMfd, or power of Golf, ^ich, as it Weft,
I^Tid^ in Ghtift, p whiph he afcribed all the
1 ' miracles

Dr. P R I C E. ii9
mtrsfcles that he ¦#rcnight, and wbich there can
fee no doubt rfiri malte all things. In Heb, i, 2.
it is not "faid -rfiat the worlds i but that tl:^ ages were
'made liy Chrift ; fo thatfomethingtniift be meant
' by tl*e phrafe v<ry different from prciper cretition.
' Without entering into a large isxamination of
the two paflTages abOvc-mentiomtd, In w^ich crea
tion, in fome fenfe or other, is afcribed to Chjift,
I would only obferve that neither the earth, nor
the fun, moon, ;6r ftars, nor any material fub
ftance, is fpecified among t}i6 things created by
him. In the former it is all things, in' general,
which is quite indefinite.; and in th'elaiter, in which
the -things created by him are enutnerated, we
only find thronei, dbminions^c. by llie breation of
which may be intended fome exercife of that
power, and authority, whidi was given to Chrift
after his- refurredion.
That iJiis -was the whole Tneaning- of the 'apoftle
is prerty evident from two crrcmnftinces; firft,
that this enunreratioB of things -created fey him,
and tcmfifting in him, -elofes wi*h iSie tnention of
Tii-s being the head ofthe body d>e chierchi as if thai
yas intended to comprehend all ifee preceding
¦particulars. Secondly, -as in the former part of
the palTage,' all things that are in heaven and
eartli, VifiWe and invifible, arc faid to be erected by
Chrift, in the latter pan of it all things in heaven
and in earth, are faid to be reconciled -by him; fo
Chat thofe two expreflfions created andreconciled, may
I 4 well

i£o LETTERS TO
well be fuppofed to be fynonymous to each other,
and to be defcriptive ofthe new creation, or renova
tion of the world by chriftianity. And this is the
more probable, from the apoftle's enlarging on
this idea in the verfes immediately following thofe
quoted above, And you, that were fometimes alienat
ed, and enemies in y bur minds, by wicked works f yet
now bath be reconciled, ^c,
tiad 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 oi things by this term, and
efpecially that great and happy change in the fyf
tem of human aflfairs which was brought about by
the gofpel. This ufe of the term creation in the
New Teftament feems to have been borrowed
from the fame ufe of it in tlie Old, and efpecially
in If Ixv, 1 7. Fgr heboid I create new heavens and
a new earth ; and the former fbtill not be remembered,
nor come into mind- But be ye glad, and rejoice for
ever in that which I create, For behold I create
¦Jerufalem a rejoicing, and bfr people a joyt In this
figurative language, it is evident, that the prophqp
defcribcs the new and happy ftate of things, whieh
is to take place in the latter days, when the Jews
will be reftored to their own country, and Jeru-.
falem, here faid to be created, will be rebuilt', with
great fplcndpr. Tilt;*

Dr. PRICE. 121'
There is a variety of paflTages in which the
term creation is evidently ufed in this fecondary
fenfe in the New Teftament, as 2 Con v. 17. If
any one be in Chrift heis a new creature. Gal. vi, 15.
In Chrift Jefus neither circumcifion availeth any things
nor uncircutncifien, but a new creature. Eph, ii. 10.
We are his workman/hip, created in Chrift Jefut unto
good works.
The very fame word which is ufed when things
are faid to be created by Chrift, is even applied to
Jiunrian inftitutions; as in i Pet. ii. ^. fubmit your
felves to every ordinance ef man (wairt) cai^painm «7((r«)
every creation ef man i and it is remarkable that
the creation which is afcribed to Chrift in the
Epiftle to the Colofllans, is of the fame nature
with this which is here afcribed to men, viz. that
oi dominions, principalities, and powers.
Now fince it is moft evident that the term crea-
tionh ufed in two fenfes, the one literal, and the
other figurative, you ought not to determine the
application of it, in any particular paflTage, 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 the figurative 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
pslfjlge in which tht exprefllon is indefinite. If
thi^

182 L E T T E R S TQ
this be nota natural and juftrok of interpretation,
1 am not acquainted with any that tJti^ to be
fcaUcd fuch ; and this clearly gives the creation of
the worid to the Faither, and not to Chrift.-
After reciting ¦rtiotfe paiKrges which you ' think
prove that the apbfdes GonMered Chrift as the
maker cf the world, but without any notice of
the Socinian interpretations of them, you fay,
Note, p. 141, ¦" It is a circutnftance a little dif-
" couragiilg, in reciting this evidence from fcrip-
" ture, that fortip modern Socinians would notTae
" convinced by it, were it ever fo clear and de-
" cifive." Then, mentioning my name with a
degree of refped to Which 1 cannot think myfelf
cntided^ you fay, " he intimates that had this
"¦been" the opinion ofthe apoftles, we fhould 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, 1 do not fee why you fhould
1ie at all ftaggered at this. Suppbfe any ofthe
apoftles had incidently fpoken of the fun and
ftars revolving round the earth (Which, if they had
given any opinion on the fubjed, they pr^abably
would) fliould you haVe. fubfcribed to it? You
would have faid, that fudh an opinion had no con
nexion with their proper commifTion. Shew' then
the neceffary connexion (for oi imaginary and remote
connexions there is no -end) between any thing in,

Dr: price. J23
in, or belonging to, the commifllon of th e apof
tles. Go, and teach all nations, &c. and the dodrine
ofthe making of the world by Chrift. It certainly
was not necfffary that he who came, to redeem the
world (whatever you mean by that term) fliould
have created it alfo.
As I have obfervsed before, yoy cannot fay that
Chrift himfelf ever dropped the moft diftant hint
of his having been the maker ofthe world. CNay,
•the contx^ry, as I have fhewn,. is implied in
wfiat b.e faid. We ought therefore, to have very
]^obd and cliear evidence, to think that theapof-
iles meant nxiit only to advance fo much above
what had beeri taught 'by their tnaiier, but realfy
to teach a contrary dodrine.
Had I been living in the age of the apoftles,
.and heard any of th^m advance fucfi an opinion,
I' think I fliould have taken th£ liberty to aflc
ifiieir authbrfty for it. The jews, who loblced
to the prophets for the charadei- and ofiice of the
Meffi'ah, wji'ere they faw nothing of the lynd,
mijght well have faid to any' of them who fliould
¦have taught fuch a doftrine as this, Thou 'bringeft
ftrange things to our^ ears. That fuch a remark
does not appeair tO have been made, amounts, in
)Tiy opinion, to a proof tliat no fuch dodrine was
taught. I am, &c.

JJ4 LETTERSTO

LETTER VI.
Of the Argument for tbe pretxiftent Dignity ef
Cbfift f^m bit working Miracles.
De ar Fri e n d, *
I Shall now drop the confideration of Chrift hav
ing been the creator ofthe world, and attend
to what you have faid of lus pre-exiftent dignity in
general. Among other proofs of this, you fay,
p. 1 25, " the hiftory of our Savipvir, as given in the
" New Teftament, arid the events of his Ufe and
" miniftry, anfwer beft to the opinion of the fy-
" pcriority of bis nature," and among other parti
culars, you enumerate " the wifdom which dif-
" covered itfelf in his dodrine, and by which lie
" fpake as never man fpake, that knowledge of
" the hearts of men, by which he could fpeak t0
" 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 tempefti} to cesifc, and gave
" eyes to the blind, limbs to the maimed, reafon
•• to the frantic, health to the fick, and life to the
•^ dead," Thefe

Dr. P R I C E. 125
Thefe inftances of wifdom and power would
indeed be a proof of a nature fuperioi? to man, if
in any proper fenfe, this wifdom and power could
be faid to be his own, or to belong to him, as the
powers of walking and fpeaking belong to men in
general, powers which we can exert whenever we
pleafe. But the reverfe of this is moft clearly
aflTertcd by our Lord himfelf, John xiv. lo. The
words that I fpeak unto you I fpeak not of myfelf,
hut the Father, that dwelltth in me, he doth tbe
works^. This is indeed fully acknowledged by yourfelf,
in your Sermon on tbe Rejiirre£lion of I-azarus,
where you fay, p. 331, " the manner in which he
" referred his- mira«les to the will and power of
" God, recjuires our attention. After the ftone
*' Was taken away, he made, we are told, a folemn
" addrefs ro 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-
" racks was the confequence of his having prayed
" for it. Throughout his whole miniftry, he was
"Careful to dired the regards erf" men to the deity,
" as the fountain of all his powers. His language
" was, the Father who dwelleth in me, be doth tbe
" works. I can of my own felf do nothing. I came
" to do the will of him that fent me." This is very
ingenuous, but furely not very confiftent with your
inferring the fuper-human nature of Chrift from
-his miracles, which, according to your pwn ac
count,

lib LETTERSTO
count, nii^ht have been wrought by any man,
equally aided by God.
The perfons who faw the miracles of Chrift,
and who muft have been as good judgesin the
cafe as we can pretend to be, never inferred- from
them that he was, in himfelf, oi a nature fuperior
to man, but only that Ged was witb him, and aded
by him, as he had done by Mofes. Among others*
Nicodemus fays, John iii. 2. Rabbi, we know that
thou art a teacher come from God. For no man
can do thefe miracles that thou doft, except God be
witb him. After he had cured a perfon fick of
the palfy at Capernaum, we read, Matt, ix, 8.
When the multitude faw it, they marvelled, andglo"
rifted God, wbobadgiven fuch (power unto men. Af
ter the cure of the demoniac, on the defcent of
Chrift from the mount of transfiguration, Luke 'mi
43, it is fafid, thiy were all amaied at tbe migbf^
power of God. And after his raifing the widow's
fon to lift, it is faid, Lulcc vii, i6. And there came
a fear on aH, and they glorified God, faying, that a
great prophet isrifen up among us, and that God bad
vifitid his people ; meaning, no doubt, as he bad
dgnc the Ifraelites in Egypt, hy fending Mofes
to theitr.
Befides, I do. not fee how youi" argument for the
fuperior nature of Chrifl from his miracles is con
fiftent with what you fay. Note, p. 140, of .the
fyfp^ff&oft of his powers i' That humiliation of
" Chrift,

Dh. P R I C E, 137
** Chrift, and fufpenfion of his powers, which is
*' implied in his being made a man, and growing
*' up from infancy to mature age, fubjed 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 fulpended only from the time of his
incarnation to that of his public miniftry ; when
the full exercife of them wasi reftored to him, fo
that he wrought his miracles with no more parti
cular afliftance than 1 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 hiftory, or rather in contra
didion to all thofe paffagerthat imply the immer
diate aggency of the Father in the miracles of
Cbrift. There is alfo, in this cafe, a difficulty
which I have, mentioned before, and to which you
do not fe^m 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 prcfome, .perceived
in the condwd of it. . .v., , .

.1-
I am, &c.

128 LETTfiRSTO

LETTER VU.
Ofthe Argument for tbe pre-exiftent Dignity of Chrift,
from bis being fuppofed to bave raifed himfelf from
the Dead, and from his voluntarily difmifftng hii
Spirit when he died.

¦ Dear Friend,
" A NOTHER fad," you fay, p. 128, " of the
" Jl\. fame kind" (viz, which proves his natur*
to be fuperior to that of man) " is his raifing
" himfelf from the dead. This he feems to hav^
•' intimated^ when he fays to the Jews, Diftroy this
?• temple, and in three days I will rarfe it up again.
«' But more exprefsly in John x. 17, 18. There f
" fore doth my Father love tme, becaufe I lay down my
•' life that I may take it again. No one taketb it
"from me, but I lay it down of myfelf . I have
•' power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
" again. Tbis tommandment 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 lo be underftood, God
" raifed Chrift from the dead by giving him a
*' power to raife himfelf from the. dead, and not
*• only hjmfcl^ but all th^ world." But.

t)R. ?~ R I G E, 'J2%
But can you fuppofe that, if every thing which
iekcceded the power of an ordinary rnan, that was
feemingly done by Chrift, was not teally done by
him, but by God who was with him, while he was
alive, the cafe was not^ the fame with every thing
that refpeded him wiicn he was dead? Or can
you, imagine thatj if the apoftles -had underftood
,him to mean what you do,, in the expreflions
above quoted, they would not liaVe made thp
g)"efteft account of the circumftance, and have
expreffed it in the cleare|l terms .after his re-
furre^iqn, as a proof of his pre-exiftent dignit}',
and fuperior nature ? But, as ycjy acknowledge,
*' in all other places God is faid^to have raifed
" Chrift/rom the dead j" and though the refurrec-
tion of Chrift is frequently mentioned by them,
there dpes not occur a fingle expreflion, in all their
preaching or writing, that, by any mode of con
ftrudion, can be interpreted into an intimation,
that they had, tije idea qf his having raifed himfelf
frotn the dead. It is plain, thereifore, that hfs
difciple;s did not under.^and, him to mean what
you do in the cxpreliiorisjou have tjuoted.
Pefldes, t^e exprefEons which you have quoted,
eafily admit of another interpretation-, whereas,
Jn ^he numberlefs pafl'ages in which God is faid to
have xaifed Chrift fjroin the dead, jthe 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 iji lefs intelligibly
K bjr

13* L E T T E R S 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 tke language that Chrift
ufed by itfelf ' HeTays, T have power to lay dowit
my life, and I have power to take' it again, li
therefore the latter power was voluntary, and
exerted at his own pleafure, fo was the former.
But did Chrift die, that is, expire on the crofs, by
any proper ad of his own, and not aS the natu
ral confequence of his crucifiJciOn ? This is very
far from any.SSing that is faid, bt that is inti
mated, by tHe^hiftorianS'; rnd'if it had been the
fad, would have refleded the greateft' difliOnour
up in himi and muft have had a very 'bad efi^ed
wiJh refped to his example in fiiffering ? as''Jt
wduld have been" faid, that he -exerted a power to
fhorten his falferings, of which his followef-g Werfc
pot pofTefTed. - And the natural fufpicion would
have beeri, thair by the fatni: pfowcr' by which he
flio'rtened his ' fufferings (putting a period to his
own life, arid "thereby certainly- authorizing fui-
cide) he prevented jhe natural effed of fcpurging
and cfUdfixion, fo as to havcEJlt no pam atall in
the whole 'of the tranfadiob. 'Far be fuiih thought^
as thefe fro'ni thofe who pi-ofefs tb refpfed and'hdiVotlt
Chrift, as the Y7«;*flr of their faith, and the patterrv
'they propofe to follow.

YOH

15 R. I» k i ^ Ej i^i
You feem, however, to have adopted this idea
bf Chrift having voluntarily difmilfed his fpirit,
ftrange as it appears to me, equally difhonourable
to Chrift, and unfriendly to the gofpel. For you
fay, Notej p. 126, *' After hanging on tiie crofs
" a fufficient time, arid crying with a loud voice,
" it is finifhed, he bowed his head, and difmifled
" his fpirit (naps^ms to isvsufMi). 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 fubjed, which is of fome importance^'
I wifh to make a few obfcrvations.
I. Had it been the real opiriion ofthe writeri
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 themi haveex-
preflTed themfelves fo clearly, as to have put the
inatter out of doubt. The thing was fo new,
and fo Extraordinary, that not one of them would
have contented himfelf with defcribing the fad,
in fuch language as could have led any one to
conclude that hfe might have died as other men
did. But both Mark and Luke, defcribing the
death of Chrift, fimply fay, ibiinvrt, he expired, or
breathed his laft, though Matthew fays, «ipwE to
wvsi/fwt, and John, whom you quote, fays, va^thxt t»
¦fVEl/^,
K a 2. Had

rja LETTERSTO
2. Had you looked into 'Wetftein on Mat, xxvir.
49, you would have found four examples of natural
djaths being defcribed by heathen writers, in the
fame nianner as the death of Chrift is defcribed
by Matthew and John. Euripides ufes the very
fame phrafe with Matthew", «^»£ to w/su/kx. In two
of JEUin, and one of Herodotus, we have apm tw
iixw. In the Septuagint, Gen, xxxv. 18, the death
of Rachel is defcribed in the fame manner, «v tm
agii£-jM auiw T»» if*xw, literally when fhe difmiffed her
foul? How then can any ftrefs' be laid on this
phrafeology ? 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 Chtift was
of the fame nature with that which fubfifts be
tween the bodies and fouls of pther men (and
as his pre-exiftent fpirit is fuppofed to have fup-
plied the place of a proper human foul, one
would imagine that the cpnnexion muft haye been
of tlie 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, agreeably to the
plain -and uniform tenor of feripture (according
to which Chrift was raifed from the dead hy the
power of Cod 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 aded in life, with a
view to the reward that he was to have for ir, 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 fife from
him, is beft 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 wiih a loud voice immediately before
he expired, and on Pilate's wcnidering that he
fliould have been fo foon dead. But what Chrift
had previoufly fuffered in his agony in the garden ]
fliould be taken into confideration. Such diftrefs
of mind as he muft have felt (probably through
a great part ofthe night, which he pafl"ed without
flecp) and which produced great drcps of fweat
falling to the ground (even though they fhould be
fup;.-ofed not to have been drops of blood) muft
have cxhaufted 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 death,
by cxliaufting the vital powers.
' K 3 When

034 LETTERSTO »
When you fhall have confidered all thefe cir
cumftances, I flatter myfejf 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, 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 'hp phrafe^
power to take away bis life, does not mean a vq-
luntary power of putiing an end to it, the corre-
fponding phrafe, power to take it again, cannot be
conftrued to imply a power of faifing hir^ife^f
from the de^d,

lam, (&:$;»

LETTER.

»». P R I C E.

135

LETTER VIII.
•f
Of the. Argument for the pre-exiftent Dignity of
Chrift from particular Paffages of Scripture fup-
. .f of ed to affert, or to imply it.
Dear Friend,
I Am rather furprized that you Ihould lay any
ftrefs on, Chrift's praying fbr the glory which
he had with 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 world, and not of any thing that he did before
he came into it. John xvii. 4. I have glorified thee
on the earth, I have finifhed the work which thou
gavejl me to do, And now, O father, glorify thou me
with thine ownfelf, with the glory which J had with
thee before the world was. .^
B^fules, how unnatural muft it be to fuppofe
that Chrift could have, any occafion to pray for a
degree of gloryof whicjihe was poffeflTed before he
came into the world, when the part that he had
aded in it wjulJ naturally entitle him to fome
thing more. As we are affured he was exalted, fo
K 4 no

IS5 LETTERSTO
no doubt, he knew the divine intention, and may
be fuppofed to have had that ejialt-ation in view in-
the glory for which he prayed.
If we muft interpret the language of feripture
in an abfolutely literal manner, we muft admit, as
I have fhewn in fome of the former letters, not
only t'^at Chrift exifted, but alfo that he was ftain,
before the foundation ofthe world} and not orily
th .t be had glory, but alfo that wfi had g^ory With
him before the world began.
You make it an argument for the pre-exiftent
dignity of Chrift, p, 136, that Paul fays, 2 Cor,
viii. 9, 2'e know the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift,
that though he was rich, yet for our fakes be became
poor, that ive through his poverty migbt be made
rich. *' When," you fay, "did our Lprd poffefs
" riches ? When did he exchange riches for po-
" verty, in order to make us rich ? In this world,
f he was always poor and perfecuted." But may
not a man be faid to be rich, who has the power of
1 being fo, or is fuppofed to have that power f Now,
Martha fays to Chrift, John xi. 22, I know that
even now, whatfoever thou wilt afk of God, God will
give it thee ; and he himfelf faid, when he was ap
prehended, that he could have prayed to his Fa
ther, and that thereupon he would haye fent him
legions of angels to refcue him. Was not this to be
rich, and powerful? And pnight not his declining
2 the

b«. PRICE. 137
the adual poffefllon of riches and power, which
were wifhin his reach, be called his becoming poor P
But you fay, " In my opinion, the moft decifive
*' text of all is that in Phil. ii. 5. Let the fame
" mind be in you that was in ChriJl, who," as you
properly tranflate it " being in the form of God, did
" not covet to be honoured as God; but made himfelf of
^' no reputation, and took upon him the form of afer-
*' vant, and was made in the likenefs of men. And
f being found in fafhion as a man, he humbled himfelf ,
" and became obedient unto death, even the death ef
^' the crofs. Wherefore God hath alfo highly exalted
*' him, and given hini a name which is above every
*' name; that at the name of Jefus every knee fhould
^' bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
*' things under the earth ; and that every tongue
"fhould confefs that Jefus Chrift is Lord, to the
f ghry ef God the Father,"
After reciting the Socinian interpretation of this
¦pafl'age, you add, p. 138, " It is natura^l to aflc.
" here, when did Chrift diveft himfelf of the power
^' of working miracles ? The gofpel hiftory tells
" us that he retained it to the laft, and that hewas
^' never more djftinguiflied than when, at his cru-
" cifiifion, the earth fhook, the rocks were fplit,
" and the fun was darkened. Indeed, the turn
^' and ftrudure of this paflTage are fUch, that I find
" it impofllble not to believe, that the humiliation
f' of Chrift, which St. Paul had in view, was not
" his

,38 LETTERSTO
" 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
." difficulties of human life, and to fufi^er and die
?' on the crofs. This was in truth, an event
ff 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
afferted with unequivocal clearnefs, have been fre
quently repeated, and have been dwelt upon, as its
importance required. But becaufe it is no where
clearly afferted, and much ^^^s dwelt upon by the fa
cred writers, I cannot perfuade myfelf that any
fuch thing ever took place, For whatever you
may infer from this paJTage, the apoftle neither
here, nor elfewhere, plainly fays that Chrift exifted
before he was born in this world.
Whatever be meant by the phrafe the form of
Cod, whether the power of working miracles, or
any thing elfe, wc are not told that he was pof-
fcfTed of it before bis birth. To affirm that he
was, is not interpreting feripture, but adding to it.
And as the fame exaltation of Chrift, which you
make to be the rev/ard of this degradation, is al
ways faid to have been the reward qi his fuf ering
of death; we are, in my opinion, abundantly au
thorifed to conclude, that thefe two circumftances, which

Dr. P R I C E. 139
which had the fame confequences, were the fame
things, let the terms in which they are expreffed
be ever fo different.
You aflt, " 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; though, as he aflTures us, he might have
prayed to the Father, and he would have fent
legions of angels to refcue him out of their hands.
And however his death was diftinguilhed by mi-
ra(;les, 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,
pr alleviate his fufferings in the leaft,
Confidering the amazing diflcrence between
the appearance of Jefus when ftilling the waves
ofthe fea, giving fight to the Hind, and raifing
the dead, and that of the fame perfon in the hands
of his enemies, and hanging on a crofs ; 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 aflave ; cru
cifixion being the death to which flaves were
ufually put. I therefore fee no reafon tq be dif-
fatisfied

Its LETTERSTO
fatisfied with the interpretation which the Soci-
jiians ufually put upon this celebrated text j nor
do I think it to be in the leaft degree favourable
to the Arian hypothefis.
I am, &e. ,.

LETTER IX.
0/ tbe Argument for the fuperior Nature of Chrift
from his raifing the Dead, and judging the World,
Dear Friend,
T Now come to the confideration of two circuttl-
-*- ftances, on which you have laid very great
ftrefs, as incoriteftably proving that Chrift muft
have had powers fuperior to thofe of man, and
):onfecjuentiy have been of a nature fuperior to
that of rinan ; I mean his being deftiried to raife
tbe dead, and judge the world at the laft day. On
this fubjed 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 eahh, that angels
« were

Dr. P R 1 C E. " 141
" were made fubjed 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 refped to this earth, by con-
" ferring eternal happinefs on all the virtuous, and.
" punifhing the wicked with everlafting deftruc-
" tion. — Confider whether fuch an elevation of a
" mere man is credible, or even pofllble. Can ic
" be believed that a mere man 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-
" cei-ve, of the order of God's works? Do not
" all beings rife gradually, one acquifition layiiig
"the foundation of another, and preparing for
" higher acquifitions ? What wo"uid you think,
" were you told that a child juft born, inftead of
" growing like all other human creatures, had
" ftarted 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
*' poflTeflTes, of raifing to life all who have died,
*' and all who will die, is equivalent to the power
" of creating a world. How inconfiftent is it to
** allow to him one of thofe powers, and at the
" fame time to queftion whether he could have
" poflTelfed the other ?— to allow that he is- to re-
" ftore and new create diis world, and yet to deny
" that he might have been God's agent in origi-
« nally for©in^ it ?" I was

142 fcETTERS TO
I was not willing to abridge any p-rt df this
fine pafl"age, to fhew that I am not afraid to mecf
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. Inthat I fhould
fail. But 1 fliafl take the liberty to analyze it,*
and interpret one feripture expreflion by another.
Now, there are but two particulars of much confe
quence, in which tlie great power and prerogative
of Chrift are here faid to confift; one is that oi raif
ing the dead, and the other that oi judging the world.'
As tb the former, yoii will hardly fay that Chrift
will hereafter raife the dead by any other pOwer
than that by which he raifed them when he was
cn earth; and this, you haVe- acknowledged, not
to have been by any power propetiy his own, but
that of his Father, who was in him, or aded by
him. And in the fame manner you cannot deny,*
but that he was in, or aded by, other mere nienj
For fome of the old prophets raifed the dead be
fore Chrift, as did the apoftles after him. From
this circumftance, therefore, we are npt obliged
to infer that Chrift;was of a nature fuperior to
that of man.
Chrift is alfo faid to jtldge the world. But;
whatever knowledge may be requifite to his doing
this, may be as eafily imparted by God, asthe
power of raifing the dead; though wben you fay
that his qualifications for difcharging this office were

t)R. PRICE.

143

Were acquired Juddenly, 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 we i interpret the fcriptures by
themfelves, you muff 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 Sav^iour himfelf fays. Matt. xix. 28.
Verily I fay unto you, that ye who have followed me
in the regeneration, when the fon af man fhall fit in
tbe throne of his glory, ye alfo fhall Jtt upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Ifrael. And
the apoftle Paul fays, i Cor, vi, 2, Do ye not knovb
that the faints fhall judge the world — Know ye not
that we fhall judge angels ? ' Whatever fuperiority
to arigels is ever faid to be given to Chrift, is
here fufficiently intimated to be given to all chrif
tians. ' For the ytevion judging is certainly fuperior
to the peribny«^^^i/. '
You may fay, that we are to underftand the
term- jitdging literally with refped to Chrift, but
figuratively with refped to his difciples. But
this is quite arbitrary, and unauthorized. Judg
ing thfe world, therefore, is no proof of a nature
fuperior to that of man. Nay, fo far is this bu
finefs oi judging irom being confidered as a proof
of a fuperior nature, that our Saviour himfelf re-
'".'^•. prefents

144 LETTERS TO
prefervts ir as peculiarly proper to him as a mani
John V. zy, .//(./ bath given him authority to execute
ji(drr:c::i alfo, becaufe heis the fon of man. Not fg*
til J Avu n ^s ill fay, but becaufe he is thefon of God,
air. was ib before all worlds. But this is being
«¦;,;¦ above what is writ tent
In this manner it is eafily fhewn, that, whatever
glc'j, or j.cwer, is attributed to Chrift in the fcrip-
tuic.s, tlie liine in ktnd, \i pot in, degree, is afcribed
to all his difciples, and efpecially his apoftles.
Indmi, this is fully afferted in general, but very
expreliive terms, by pur Saviour himfelf, in, his
lalt folemn prayer, in which he fays, John xvii, 22.
And the fjory which thou gaveft , me, I have given
them, that they may be one, as we t^re one. The
apoftle Paul alfo fays, Rom. viii. 17, And if chil
dren then heirs, heirs of Gpd, and joint keir s with
Chrift; if fo be that wefi^er with him, that we, may
be glorified together. From this it is imppflihk:,t^
colled any idea of diffirrence,, except in precedence,
of Beings of the fame rank. On this idea Chrift
is ftiled our elder brother. But how could he be ..
foijfidered as our brother, if he was our maker ?
The difference would be , far top great to adftii^
of any fuch comparifon. j^^jj,, .;-,7 ' j -.1-
Thus, I imagine, I luve in fome meafure an^
fwered your demand, in the Npte, p. 130, in
which, after exhibiting what may be called the tglff
Socinian fcheme, " which alOQe," you fay, " is ten-
" able,"

De. P^ R I C E, 145
" able," you add, " The confequence of thus low-
" ering Chrift 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 from his opinions, has far-
" ther intimated, that Chrift's judging the world
" may mean lefs than is commonly believed, and
" perhaps the fame that is meant, i Cor. vi. 2.
" where it is faid that the faints are to judge tha
" world. I hope that fome time or other he will
*' have the goodnefs to oblige the public by ex-
" plaining himfelf on this fubjed; and when he
" does, I hope he will farther fliew how much
*' lefs than is commonly believed we are to un-
*' derftand by Chrift's raifing 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 power 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 eafily find any au
thority for your opinion in the fcriptures.
There muft always be great uncertainty in the
inttrpretation of prophecies not y?t fulfilled.. We
L cannot

t^5 L E T T E R..S TO
cannot, therefore, exped to underftand what is
meant by the phraie judging the -world by Chrift, or
by tbe faints; but it is very poffible that it may be
Ibmetiiing very different tVom what the literal
meaning of the words would convey to us. Per
haps neither the faints, nor Chrift, will then difcover
any greater difcernment of charaders than all men,
even thofe who fhall then be judged, will be pof-
feffed of; in confequence of which every perfon
prefent may be fatisfied, from his own infpedion,
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 ; 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 Socinian in
terpretation of the fcriptures, and I, in my turn,'
cannot help exprefllng fome furprize, that the
comparifon of fome prophetic phrafes of feripture
with the fulfilment of them, fhould not have led
you to fufped that much lefs than the words
literally intimate may be intended by what is faid
ofthe world being judged by Chrift. I fhall re
call to your attention two prophecies, as they may
be termed, of this kind.
When

Dr. price. 147
When God appointed Jeremiah to be a pro
phet, he faid, Jer, i. 10. See, I have this day fet
thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root
out, and lo pull down, and to deftroy, and to throw
down, to build, 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 concerning what he would do with
refped to various nations in the neighbourhood
of Judea, and that Jeremiah, perfonally confi
dered, had no more power than any other man.
Our Lord faid ro Peter, Matt. xvi. 19. I wHl
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatfoever thoufijalt bind on eanb fhall be bound in
heaven, and whatfoever thou (halt loofe on earth, fhall
be hofed in heaven. To appearance, this was giv
ing Peter more power than was given to Jere
miah, But if we confider what was adiially
done by Peter, and the other apoftles (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 of it might
lead us to imagine.
Interpreters difier withrefjcd to its mean
ing. But it is evident that, at the moft, it
could only mean the apoftles being empowered
L 2 to ,

148 LETTERSTO
to fignify the will of God, and to pronounce
what be would do; as when Peter pafTed fen-
tence upon Simon, Ads viii, ao. and upon Sap-
phira. For thefe are the greateft ads of power
that we ever find to have been exercifed by Pe
ter, or any of the apoftles. But this was no
power of their own. Neither, therefore, are we
authorized, from the language of feripture, to in
fer that Chrift wifl 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 tbe Hypothefis which makes Chrift to be a merf
Man, naturally as fallible, and as peccable, asothtr
Men.
Dear Friend,
Y^U exprefs much furprize at my fuppofing
Chrift to be naturally peccable and fallible.
But the maxims on which this is advanced with
refped to him, you muft admit to be juft, when
applied to any other man appearing in the cha
rader

Dr. price, i4|
rader of a prophet; and, therefore, till it be
proved that he is more than man, they muft ap
ply to him alfo. They are thefe, viz. that no man
claiming a divine miffion is to be confidered as
infpired farther than he himfelf profeflTes to be fo,
than the objed of his miffion requires, and than
he proves that he is by the working of miracles i
and that, with regard to other things, not con
neded with the objed of his mifllon, and whiclj
he does not affert to be parts of the revelation
communicated to him, there is no ground to fup
pofe hvr>i to haye more knowledge than any other
man, who i-s, in other refpeds, in the fame cir
cumftances. The dodrine of univerfal infpiration, or that of
any man being poffeflTed qi all knowledge, is ma
nifeftly extravagant,, and would never have been
fuppofed of Chrift, any mpre than of Mofes, if ic
had not been imagined that he was naturally i'u-
perior to Mofes, and therefore had means of
knowledge which Mofes bad not. If you confider
the objed of the iniftion of Chrift, you muft, I
IhoiQld think, be fenfible, that it did not require
more natural power,, phyfical or moral, than that
'of other iTien, and thercfor.e nothing is gained by
fuppofing liim to- have more. And much will be
loft, if any marks of ignorance, or of infirmity,
flnguld be difcovered in hitii. In that c.iii:, v.e
flsMlUoad the defence ofchriftianity with ncedlefi
dii^u.lties. L 3 Ag in.

?50 LETTERS TO
Again, if other prophets might be ignorant of
• many things relating to themfelves, why might
not Chrift alfo? As to his underftanding all
preceding prophecies, we are no where told that
he was infpired wiih that knowledge, and there
fore he might apply them as his countrymen
of that age generally did, and as we perceive
that the apoftles, who were likewife prophets, did
afterwards. But this fubjed is pretty largely
difcufl^ed in the Theological Repofitory, and I can
not help wifliing 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 greateft ftrefs on the immdculatenefs
of Chrift's char alter, as an argument for his fuperior
nature. But though you profefs to be deter
mined by the language of feripture, you produce
no paffage in which h\s finleffiiefs is expreffed in
ftronger terms than that of other good men, be
fore and after him. If his nature was fo imma
culate, as that no temptation could have any effed
upon him, why was he cxpofed to temptation ?
This would then have been as abfurd as for God
himfelf to have been tempted with evil.
That Chrift had all the natural weakneflTes of
human nature, both of body and mind, is evident
from the whole of his hiftory; and if fo, it was
impoflTible

Dr. P R I C E. 15!
impofllble that he fhould have been naturally im
peccable. In this cafe ther^ would have been no
merit in his refifting temptation; and his example
is very improperly urged upon us, except in the
fame fenfe as that in which the example of God
himfelf is propofed to us; whereas it is evident,
that the facred writers had very diflferent ideas of
the nature a.nd ufe of thefe two examples.
Was it pofllble that the author of the epiftle
to the Hebrews fliould have had the idea that
you have ofthe natural ftrength of Chrift's mind,
when he faid of him, Heb. v, y. Who in the days
ef his ftefh offered up prayers and fupplications, with
ftrong crying and tears, unto him that was able to fave
him from death, and was heard in that he feared.
Though he were a fon, yet learned he obedience hy the
things which he fuffered. What can be more evi
dent from this defcription, than that the writer
confidered Chrift to have been naturally as weak
as other men, and that he felt himfelf to be fo ?
Was this ftrong crying and tears, in the view of
approaching death, what might be expedted frc;m
the creator and governor of the world ? The
hiftory ofthe agony 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, and pre-exiftent dignity.
L4 Yo«

i5s LETTERS TO
You likewife 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, I fcruple not
to fay, that I confider them both as equally defti
tute of proper evidence; and, moreover, that
neither cf them would be of any advantage to the
chriftian fcheme, if they could be proved. With
refped to the miraculous conception, I fliall only
obferve here, as I have done elfewhere, that if the
circumftance of having no human father, be an
argument for a fuptricr and immaculate nature in
Chrift, the fame thing, with the addition of
havirig no human mother, muft be allowed to
be as good an argument for a fuperior and imma-
culate nature in Adam. And yctlie was a mere
man, and naturaUy as liable to fin as any of his
pofterity. You fay, and very juftly, of this abfolute im-
maculatencfs of charader, p. 128, "it is incon-
" ceivable that it fhould have belonged to a mere
*' man," and this you well illuftrate in the Note,
But if you refled that your logos is a created, and
therefore an imperfeSi Being, you muft allow that,
ftridly fpeaking, even he cannot be immaculate,
any more tlian he can be omnipotent, or omni-
fcient. It is the prerogative of Cod only, that
great

Dr. P R I C E. 1^3
great Being, who only is holy, and who charges his
angels with folly.
If abfolute perfedion of moral charader be
jieceflTary to that of our redeemer, we muft both of
us go back to Athanafianifm. But if that be
impofllble, why fliould we acquiefce in an imper
fed angelic being* rather than in an imperfed
man ; efpecially as it may eafily be conceived,
that a man like ourfelves, incident to the imper-
ftdions of other men, is, in feveral refpeds, bet
ter adapted to be an example to us, than any Being
ofa nature fuperior to ours.
You acknowledge that there is fome advantage
in that hypothefis whicb 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 diftinguiflied from the
" common men Of bis 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 refpeds more an encou-
" ragement to us, and more fit to be propofed to
•• our imitation." Now, it is certain thaJ: the
example of Chrift, efpedally in his humiliation
and fufferings, is frequentiy propofed to us. It
cannot, therefore, be any difad vantage to a fcheme
that gives fo important an exhortation its greateft That

154 LETTERSTO
That Socinus himfelf, and others who have
been called after his name, Ihould have held
an opinion concerning Chrift very different from
that which I have adopted, is as eafily accounted
for, as that Dr. Clarke fliould have adopted an
opinion concerning the logos much higher than
that which you contend for. After Chrift had,
for feveral ages been generally confidered as the
fupreme God, and the proper objed of worfhip,
it might be difcovered 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 man, might be the appointed me
dium, through whom our prayers were 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 diflinguifhed by
God as he was, and brought into the world ip 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 chriftian fcheme that required this unique of
a man, and that they fhould have embarrafTed their
hypothefis, rather than purfue it to its proper
confequences^

Dr. P R I C E. 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 feripture, uni
tarians in general will, I doubt not, acquiefce
in that, opinion concerning Chrift which makes
their hypothefis truly uniform, confiftent, and
abundantly lefs exceptionable, viz. that vvhich
you hold out as an objed of aftonifliment in the
notes to ybvir Sermons. In the Theological Re
pofitory this hypothefis is fairly propofed, and de
fended ; and there I wifh to fee it difpaffionately
difcuflfed.

I am, &:c.

LETTER

»56 LETTERSTO
LETTER Xi;
Ofthe Defign of Chrift's Miffton.
DearFriend,
I Do not chufe to confider .largely what you call
the other part of tbe Socinian hypothefis, viz.
that which relates to tbe end of Chrift's miffion,
with refped to which you fay, p. 86, that "he
" not only declared, but obtained, the availablc-
•' nefs of repentance to pardon," having already
advanced all that is in my power on this fubjed,
in my Hiftory of tbe Corruptions of Chriftianity. I
fliall therefore content myfelf with making a very
few obfcrvations.
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.
2»If this had been the great end of Chrift's
mifllon, 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. P R I C E. 157
3. If luch, indeed, was the true caufe of Chrift's
incarnation, is it not extraordinary that it fliould
not have been thought of hy any of the chriftian
Fathers, or heretics ; and that the idea fliould
never have been ftarted till a late period, as I
have fhewn in my Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chrif
tianity ?
4. The Divine Being is declared to be as mer
ciful to repenting finners in the Old Teftament as
in the New, and without reference to any future
event. 5. Our Saviour, giving an account ofthe mif¦^
fion of the preceding prophets, and of his own,
in their order, certainly reprefents the great ob-.
jed of their mifllons to be the fame. Matt. xxi. 33.
Tbe preceding prophets are, indeed, compared to
fervants, and himfelf to the fon of the houfholder j
but they were all fent to receive for him the fruits of
the vineyard.
6. As to the fufferings of Chrift, not only is his
patience in bearing them propofed as an example
to us, but in the paflTage quoted in a former letter,
chriftians are reprefented as both fuffering and
reigning with Chrift.
Let us not then look for myfteries where no myf
tery is, and obfcure the beautiful fimplicity of the
gofpel i which reprefents the Divine Being as al
ways

158 LETTERSTO
ways difpofed to receive returning penitents, as
having fent his Son, as well as other prophets, for
the benevolent purpofe of reclaiming the world
from fin, and to promife eternal life and happinefs
to all that hearken to them,
I muft likewife add a few obfcrvations on what
feems to have been the fource of your ideas of the
neccflity of Chrift's incarnation, and the efiicacy
of his death, " The whble 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 tbe fall of
" man. At the fame time," you fay, " what the
" true and full account of this event is, it.is pro-
*' bably impofllble for us to difcover, or even to
" underftand, were it communicated to us. It
" is recorded in the third chapter of Genefisj but
" in a manner, fo mixed with emblems, derived
" perhaps from the ancient hieroglyphical manner
« of writing, and confequently fp veiled and ob-
*' fcure, that I think Uttle more can be learned of
*' it, than that there was a tranfadion at the origin
" of our race, and the commencement of this
*' world, which degraded us to our preferit ftate,
" and fubjeded us to death, and all its- conco-
" mitant evils."
On this fubjed I would obferve that, \i tbe fall
of man, whatever' it was, had been an event on
which " the whole chriftian fcheme was founded," we

Dr. P R I C E, 159
we might have expeded a more exprefs declara
tion, from fufficient authority, that it was fo. But
in none of the prophecies in which the Meffiah is
announced, is there the leaft reference to this ca-
taftrophe, which you fuppofe to have made his in
carnation neceflTary. Neither John the Baptift,
nor our Saviour himfelf, ever faid any thing that
could lead our thoughts to it. And notwithftand
ing the frequent mention that is made of the love
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 paflTages of Paul
alone excepted, who, calls Chrift the laft Adam,
and makes ufe of terms 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 ftrefs is to be
laid. Allowing, however, all the authority that you
poflibly can to the obfcrvations of Paul, it is far
from carrying you to the whole extent of your hy
pothefis. AU mankind, the wicked as well as the
righteous, are to rife again, and nothing is faid by
him that can poflTibly be conftrued to fignify that
the availablenefs 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 efl'eds of his fin, he muft have
learned

i6o LETTERSTO
leamed from the books of Mofes, which are as
open to us as they were to him. What Mofes
fays on the fubjed, you acknowledge to be very
obfcure, and therefore it wiil not authorize impli
cit confidence in any particular interpretation.
" There arc fome," you fay, Note, p, y^' " ^'^^
" give fuch interpretations of the account in the
•' third chapter of Genefis, and the fubfequenc
" references to it in the facred Writings — as make
*' them no evidence of any fuch event (introduc-
" tory of death) as Is commonly underftood by
" the FALL. But thefe ihterpretations, and the
" opinions 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 Repofitory, with the
evidence on which they are founded ¦, and inftead
of this unqualified cenfure, it would have given
myfelf, and many other perfons, great fatisfadion,
if you had thought them worthy of a ferious exa
mination. The opinion that 1 have advanced
concerning the hiftory of the fall of man, cannof,
I am confident, he refuted, biit on principles
which fuppofe the plenary infpiration of Mofes,
and that -of all the writers of the Old and New
Teflament, with refped to every thing they wrote,
whether they exprefsly fay that they were Wpired
z ¦ or

Dr, P R I C E. i6i
or not ; a pofition at which I fufped your mind
will revolt as much as mine does.
As Mofes himfelf, who feems particularly cire-
ful to diftinguifli what God faid to him, and what
came from himfelf, does not fay that he received
the account that he has given us of the creation,
and fall of man,/ro»j Goi:/, I think myfelf at li
berty to confider it as the beft that he could col
led/row /r(2(^?/m. In my opinion alfo, there are
many marks of its being a very lame account.
And, as I have obferved, it is far from fblving the
difficulty it feems to have been intended to an-
.fwer, viz. the introdudion of death and calamity
into the world. Among ether things I have re-
. marked, that the fad of the human race being
originally formed male and female, and confe
quentiy their being intended to increafe and mul
tiply, is a proof that they were alfo originally in
tended to be. mortal ; and that immortality is re-
ferved for that ftate, in which there ftoall he neither
marrying, nor giving in mfirriage, but where men
fliall be as the angels that are in heaven.
Iri the Note, p. 178, you confider tbe devil as the
tempter of Adam in the form of a ferpent. But
-this could riot have been the idea of Mofes ; ac
cording to whom, the fentence paflTed upon the
-ferpent has no relation to any thing but to the
•animal lb called. ¦ And would there be any juftice
in- pumfljlRg- the ferpent, the mere paflive inftru-
M ment.

i6i LETTERSTO
ment, end letting the proper apcnt in the bufinefs
go fiee ? Mofes had no idea of any thing beyond
the mere ferpent, and 1 cannot allow any autho
rity to the interpretation of the author of the
apocryphal book of Wifdom.
That our Saviour alludes to the agency ofthe
devil in tiie fiift intrcdudion of fin into the world,
is, 1 think, by no means probable. He fays (John
viii. 44) the devil was a murderer from the beginning.
But this refers to the murder of Abel by Cain.
And as to what John fays (t John iii, 8) ofthe Son
ef Ged being manifeft ed to deftroy the works ef the
devil, it may well be fuppofed to mean that he
came to put an end to^», er moral. evil, which is
referred to the devil, or fatan, as its principle, as
every other evil is. On this account Peter is called
Satan (Matt. xvi. 23) when he fuggefted an un
worthy propofal, and Judas is called the devil
(John vi, 70.) on account of his baddefigns.
As to the old ferpent, the devil, and Satan, in Rev.
xii, 9. XX, 2. on which ybu 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 cafl; d (Rev. xii. 9,) tbe great dragon, and
this dragon is farther defcribed as being red, and
having feven heads, and ten horns, v/\th feven crowns
upon bis beads. He has alfo a tail, by which he
drew the third part ofthe ftars of heaven^ and caft
them

Dr. P R I C E. 163
them to the earth. And, according to moft inter
preters, this red dragon, with feven heads, feven
crowns, and ten horns, is not the devil (admitting
the exiftence offo extraordinary a being) but re
prefents fome earthly potentate, the enemy of
chriftianity. But whatever be the meaning of this
prophecy, we are not to look into fo myfterious a
book as the Revelation, for a plain account of
either the introdudion 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 XII.
The CONCLUSION.
Dear. Friend,
I Have now troubled you with animadverfions
on every thing that I think moft open to ob
jedion in your truly excellent Sermons, and efpe
¬cially in the Notes, in which you chiefly quote
what has been advanced by myfelf, either ia
works th.u bear my nam?, or in the Theological
Repofitory, Let the arguments I have there ad
vanced, and to which you have not diredly re
plied, anfwer for themfelves. You juftly obferve,
that I do not Ihrink from any confequences of
M 2 whii^

>'B4 LETTERSTO
V. hat I have advanced. Indeed, \i a propofition bfe
true, fo muft every corollary fairly drawn from it;
tmd I have not yet feen any reafon to be afraid of
truth. Some of the opinions on which'you have flightly
def:anted are, I believe, novel, and a ftep, as yoo
may fay, beyond what other Socinians have gone ;
and vcurfelf, and others of my beft friends, are
a good de.ll ftaggered at them. But in a flio'rt
time tliis alarm, which is already much abated,
v.ill be entirely gone off, and then I fhall exped
a calm difcuflion of wh^it 1 have advanced ; and
that dodrine will, no doubt, be cftabliflied which
fhall appear to be moft agreeable to reafon, and
the true fenfe oi feripture. May whatever will not
ftand this teft, whether advanced by myfelf or
others, foon fall to the ground ; but let no fenti-
ment, however alarming at the firft propofal, be
condemned unheard, and unexaminedi ' ' -
Many of our common friends exprefs fome fur
prize that you and I, conneded as we are by
friendfhip, and a variety of other common circum-
.ftances ; equally, I hope, ardent, and equally un
wearied, in the purfuit of truth ; and having given
perhaps equal attention to the fubjed of thefe
Letters, fliould, notwithftanding, differ fo reiuch as
we do with refped to it. Mariy perfons who know
• this, and who haye nOt the leifure, or the oppor
tunity, to ftudy this queftion, that we haye, may be

Dr. P R I C E. 165
be led to think, that it will be in vain for them to
attempt to arrive at any certainty with refped to
it; and, out of defpair, abandon the examination.
But neitheryou 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 evi-
,dently contrary to reafon and the fcriptures, under
the idea of their being important truths. And I
alfo muft have fome method of fatisfying myfelf
havryou may be as ingenuous, and as candid, as I,
of courfe, think myfelf to be, and yet perfift in
opinions, which Icannot help con fideringcs wrong,
.and ofthe erroncoufnefs of which there feems ta
be the moft abundant evidence.
Speaking of the Socinian interpretations of
feripture, you fay, p. 135, " I muft own to you,
" that I am inclined to wonder that good men
" can fatisfy themfelves with fuch explanations."
However you candidly add, " But I corred myfelf,
' " I knowtbat chriftians, amidft their diffeiencesof
" 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 ure all in-
M 3 Yo'i

i66 LETTERSTO
You are too much of a philofopher to think
that there can be any effect without an adequate
caufe; and you know that wonder is noth ng more
than the ftate of mind into which our ignorance of
the caufes of events throw us. And therefore
whenever we tiiink we can account for any appear
ance, all wonder ceafes.
Y-ui will, I know, excufe me, ifl account to
myfelf for your continuing an Arian, notwith
ftanding the evidence that has lately be¥n-pfo-
duccd inproof of the Socinian, or as- a I chiife to
call it, the proper unitarian hypothcfis, in thefame
manner in which we account for many worthy
and intelligent perfons continuing catholics, or
Calvinift?. This we believe to be chiefly owing
to their minds having been very early imprefl^ed
with the fulleft perfuafion of the truth of their re
fpedive principles ; to their dwelling long on the
arguments in favour of them (by which they are
much magnified in their view) and to their not
giving fufficient attention to thofe on the other
fide. They may have the candour to hear, or to read,
arguments againft their opinions. But their minds
being previoufly indifpofcd towards them, fuch
arguments find there nothing congenial to them
felves, and are not detained long enough to make
a due impreflion. It is like the paflTage of a fliip
through the fea, or that of an arrow throqgh the
air. 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 ; and it is always
with fome degree of avcrfi' n that we hear any
thing that tends to difturb what we think already
well fettled.
You have read, I doubt not, with as much care
and attention as, from the previous ftate of your
mind, could reafonably be expeded, all that has
been written by Dr. Lardner, by our common
friend Mr. Lindfey, and by myfelf, in flipport of
the unitarian hypothefis. But I prefume, that you
have often refrefhed your mind, and recruited your
former opinions, by the writings of Dr. Clarke,
Bifliop 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 concreted
into a folid form, and which nothing can after
wards efface.
On the other hand, I fliall not be offended, if
you fhould account for my roving from one opi
nion to anbther, by fuppofing that 1 have a temper
of mind too hoftile to every thing that is efta-
bUflsed; or if you fliould fay, that I am more apt,
to be fatisfied with any thing belonging to myfelf,
ihan with my opinions, and that I am not likely to
lix long in any fcheme. M 4 Certait>

i68 LETTERSTO
Certain it is, that, fo far from having much
fondnefs for the opinions that 1 received from my
educatiin, I have gene on changing, though al
ways in one diredion, from the lime that I beg.in
la think for myfelf to the prefent day, and I will
net pretend to fay wlicn my creed will be fixed.
But \\hether we be apt to keep our opinions a
longer ora fliorter time, they pleafe us ib long as
we can call them ours ; and in that ftate of mind
it is natural to give more attention to arguments
that make for, than to thofe that make againft
them. As to the fcriptures, the perufal of particular
texts never fails tb be accompanied with their ufual
long approved interpretation ; and we ofteneft think
of, and dwell upon, thofe which favour ouropinionsi
And with refped to thofe which feem unfavourable
to them, we have all got fome method or other of
difpofing of them, fo that they fhall not ftand in our
way; and thefe modes of accommodation neverfail
to occur to the mind along with the texts them
felves, and thereby effedually preclude the con- '
vidion they might otherwife bring along with
them. And if we think that, upon the whole,
the fcriptures are favourable to our opinions, we
are apt to confider ourfelves juftified in giving
little attention to other confiderations ; which, if
properly refleded upon, might ferve to give us a
better

Dr. P R I C E. 169
a better infight into the real fenfe of feripture
itfelf Thus the pious catholic having always been
taught implicit confidence in the deciffons of his
church, and having always underftood our Lord
literally, when he faid, this is my body, and ex
cept ye eat the flefh of the fon of man, and drink bis
blood,' ye have no life in you ; it is in vain to objed
to him the natural impofllbility ofthe dodrine of
tranfubftantiation. That he leaves with God,
whofe word, he believes, afllires him of the fa£l.
In this, therefore, he thi.iks it his duty to ac
quiefce; and he even makes a merit of facrificing
his reafon to his faith.
In like manner, yoii 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 introdudion to the
gofpel of John (which was in the beginning with
God, and which was God) to be defcriptive of
Chrift ; having always underftood the phrafes cre
ation by ChriJl, and his being before' Abraham, &c.
•not in a figurative, but a literal fenfe, you have
fatisfied yourfelf with payin/? but liitle regard to
the natural improbability (though in my opinion
approaching very nearly to an impolfibility) of
.your hypothefis. And then with refued to the
numerous paffages in which Chrift is fpoken of as
a man.

170 LETTERSTO
a man, unable to do any thing of himfelf, Whicb
the Athanafi.ins interpret of his human nature only,
you are fatisfied with referring them to his ftate
oi degradation, in which he was only in fafhion, or
external appearance, as a man.
Being thus fecure with refped to the argument
from feripture, which we all confider as the great
ftrong hold of our faith ; though, I doubt not,
you have read with care all that I have written to
prove that the great body of primitive chriftians
were unitarians, you will naturally think either
that the proof is fomewhere defedive (though you
may not be able to fay where) or at moft, that it
can only furnifh one uncertain light to the inter
pretation of feripture, which to you appears, in
this cafe, to be fo plain, that it needs no inter
pretation at all.
I have noti therefore, the leaft expedation that
any thing that I have advanced in thefe Letters
will be able to make much impreflion on your
mind ; 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
jed I am willing to hope that the evidence I have
produced of •fcnr having miftaken the meaning
of the evangelifts is fo clear, and unexceptionable,
that you may not fee much to objed to it.
6 But

Dr. price. 171
But this concelfion, which is the otmoft that I
dare flatter myfelf with the hope of, does not
materially afi^ed your general hypothefis. You
will even probabty ftill thmk, that Chrift raifed
himfelf from fhe dead, and will have no doubt of
his being a great pre-exiftent •fpirit, the maker
of the world, from matter with wliich he was
furniflied by the Father; and that he conde-
fcended to become incarnate, for the purpofe o(f
making it corSiBxnt with the juftice of God to
receive penitent finners into his favour.
On the other hand, I m.nft acknowledge, chat
my perfuafion Of the fimple humanity of Chrift,
and even that of his 'being a man, •na'turally as
«weak, as fallible, and as peccable, as other men,
is fo fixed, from my prefent ideas ofthe meaning
of feripture, and a variety of other confiderations,
tending to' prove that ^ch 'ww^ be the meaning
of feripture; that; J, have no idea of the pofllbility
of my being ever brought to entertain a contrary
fentiment. Indeed, I do not think that the ar-
gHiirents in faYQcnrfof lArianifm can be better ex
hibited, and as I may fay, concentcatcdi than .they
are in your Sermons. In all probability, there
fore, you and I muft wait for farther light till the
arrival of the great teacher death, and the fccnes
that will follow it.
In the mean time, our difference of opinion on
this fubjed will not, I am confident, make the
leaft

172 LETTERS, Sic.
leaft" change in our friendfhip and affedion. 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 objed of his mifllon;
though you confider him as your maier, and I as
thefon of Jofeph and Mary, and (exclufive of divine
communications) as pofTefTed of no natural ad
vantages over his father Jofeph, or any other man
..in a fimilar fituation of life in Judea.
It is likewife 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 refped and affedion,
I am. Dear Friiend,
Your's, fincerely,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BIRMINGHAM, Makch I, 1787.

LETTER

TO TBS

Rev. Mr. PARKHURST.

'Ta\tf i-iaji"* n'))2rvtf hd^^k? raiD.»<i y^hq os
Sim ao9 Dityn imD3 niTrr vki Trp wn
: mmi mrrmrrwi'ps ni^
Fid, Jud. Art. 2.
Prxceptum de idolatria quafi tanti ponderis elt ac rellqua
t>{nnia Mandata, Maimooides de Idolatria.

LETTER

TO THE

R F. V. 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. The Divinity and Pre-exiftence of Chrift de-
monfirated from Scripture, in Anfwer to the firft
Section ef Dr. Prieftley's IntroduSiion to his Hiftory
of Early Opinions concerning Jefus Chrift, together
with Striilures on fome other Parts of that Work,
and I cannot pafs, without notice, the produdion
of fo learned a writer.
You muft excufe, me, however, if I fay that,
having heard fome time ago of this publication
of yours, I had, from your charader, formed ex
pedations, which I do not find anfwered by it.
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 L E T T E R T O T n E
repl)in.g to a fingle fedion of the Incrodu6tion
to it, which only relates to a difeuflLm in which
little /»;«; can be advanced, viz, of the doSirine
of the fcriptures concerning the perlbn of Chrift,
The proper objed of my work is to cfcert.iin ;
what muft have been the fenfe of die books of
feripture from the fenfe in which they were adu
ally u ulerftood by thofe for whofe iifc tliey were
compofcd; and to determine what muft 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 parr, of
the chriftian world; and 1 had flattered myfelf,
that Mr. Parkhurft had been prepared to enter
it with me. But this- you entirely decline, be
caufe you think, p. 147, " your time xmy be much
" better employed." On the contrary, I cannot
help thinking that, in the prefent ftate of things,
it woiild have been much better to go over this
new ground, than to tread over again the old. and
beaten one.
In your ftridures, however, on my work, you
.think you have proved that Clemens Romanus,
Ignatius, and Polycarp, were believers in the
diviniry of Chrift. ^But what you have urged on
.this fubjed appears to me to be of .little confe
quence, and to have been fufiiciently obviated by
what

Rev. Mr, PARKHURST. 177
what r have advanced in my Hiftory; fo that I
fee no occafion to trouble our readers with any
thing more on the fubjed. Let them compare
my obfcrvations with your reply. Indeed, I do
not know what more to fay to any perfon, who
can. ferioufly maintain, that the appellation of
Ged, perpetually applied to Chrift in the Ihorter
epiftles of Ignatius, is no interpolarion; fuch as
the example youhave produced, p. 135, "J wifh
" you all happinefs in our God Jefus Chrift.','
This, Sir, is neither apoftolical language, nor,
indeed, that of any writer whatever, in any age
of the church.
With refped to the great objed of my work,
you grant almoft all that I contend for, when you
fayj p. 9, " There is but too muclv reafon to ap-»
" prebend, 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 dodrine." And yetyoufay, p. 98, " Mr.
" Howes has. juflly 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-
" cient fedaries.'' This expreflfes more confi
dence on the fubjed 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.

1 S A L. K T 1 h R 1" O THE
Mr. Howe.s or yourftlf, time, 1 fuppofe, will
flicw, jLt nuifl, however, be by another kind of
ecclefiaftical hiftory than any that I am yet ac
quainted with.
As to the orthodox Fathers, whofe writings I
have made uie of in tracing the rife and progrefs
of the dodrine of the triniiy, you treat them with
a degree of inditterence and contempt that really
aftonilhes me. " With regard to the follies of
" the fuccecding chriftian writers, whether Greek
" or Latin, who, neglecting tbe Hebrew fcriptures,
" idolized the very imperfedt and faulty verfion
" of the Septuagint, and yet frequently followed
" the ignes fatui of their own imaginations, and
" ofthe Platonic and other vain philofophy,— ^-as
" to fuch follies as thefe, I have no great objec-
" tion to their being treated with the feverii:y
" they deferve, though 1 fhould not myfelf choofe
" the office of executioner,"
But if there be any truth in the outline only of
my Hiftory, the dodrine of the trinity had no
exiftence till it was ftarted by thefe very platoniz-
ing Fathers, lb that the folly you afcribe to them
muft refled upon the dodrine itfelf. It appears
from their own confeffion, that this dodrine gave
the greateft offence to the great body of unlearned
chriftians, v/ho had not been taught with clear
nefs any other dodrine concerning Chrift, than
that he was a man infpired by God. You your felf

Rev, Mr. PARKHURST. 179
felf produce a paffage from Eufebius, p. 99', in
which it is faid, that " the divinity of Chrift was
" a dodrine rcferved by the Holy Spirit for John,
" as being more excellent;" and the earlieft date
of his gofpel is the year 64. Confequently, be
fore this time the chriftian church muft have been
unitarian. If I have fufliciently proved the truth of thefe
fads, and others conneded with them, it muft be
in vain to pretend that the fcriptures of the ISTew
Teftament will admit of any other than an unita
rian interpretation. And the evidence of the
fads I refer to does not depend upon writings,
the authenticity and purity of which are fo
qucftionable as thofe of the apoftolical Fathers,
but on the uniform concurrent teftimony of all
the chriftian writers, from the age of the apoftles
rill long after the council of Nice; and their
works have, in general, come down to us as per
fed as any ancient writings whatever.
I have alfo fhewn, much at large, that the uni
tarians were not confidered as heretics till a late
period. I faid, that even the Ebicnites are not
diredly called heretics by Irenseus. In one paf
fage, however, fiom this writer, which you pro~
duce, p. 96, you think that it does appear, that he
muft have confidered them in that lisiht. But
admitting this, it amounts to nothing of any
confequence, as it is exprefsly aflTerted by Je-
K 2 rom.

iSo A li^E T T E R -SO T H E
rom, that the Ebionites, who lived in a ftate of
feparation 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, T have no occafion to examine any
thing that you have advanced; but, having this
opportunity of addrefllng a letter to you, L fhall
make a few obfcrvations on an article which you
have laboured the moft in your performance, viz.
the proof, or demonftration, as you call it, of the
dodrine of the trinity, from the plural form of
the word which is ufed to denote God in the He
brew language, viz, DTl^X, elohim, or as you write"
it, alcim.
" Aleim," you fay, p, 69, " regularly and pre-
" cifcly denotes the denouncers ef a conditional cftrfe,
" and by this very important Hebrev/ name, the
" ever bleflTed three reprefent themfelves as ftnder
" the obligation of an oath to perform certain con-
•' ditions," Taking this for granted, you fay,
p, 8a, " The dodrine of a plurality in Jehovah
*' is taught in above two thoufand places of the
" Old; and 1 add, that this plurality is, by anum-
" ber of palTages in both Teilaments, fixed to a
" trinity," You likewife find an intimation, p.
16, " of th'e dodrine ofthe bleffed unity in tri-
" nity, and trinity in unity," in the three men
who appeared to Abraham. Few

Rev, Mr. PARKHURST. i3i
Few perfons, I believe, except thofe who pre
tend to find the philofophical difcoveries of the
prefent age in the Hebrew words ofthe Old Tefta
ment, 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 ; and till what they
have written be anfwered, I fhould be abundantly
jiiftified in taking no notice at all of it. I fhall,
however, as the opportunity may never occur
again, make a few obfcrvations on this fubjed.
I. Admitting the plural form of the word fig-
nifying God to be a juft foundation for believing
that there is a plurality in the divine effence, it is
only in one particular language, which can nd
more be proved to be of divine origin than any
other language, and may not even have been the
' moft ancient ; fo 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 fingular form.
2. We are no where taught in the Old Tefta
ment, that this myfterious doftrineof three divine
denouncers -of a conditional curfe (at the idea of
which the mind recoils) is to be inferred from the
form of the word aleim.
,.3. As the fame word is ufed to fignify the
heathen gods,, as well as the God. of Ifrael, it
vo.l N 2 might

iS2 A LETTER TO THE
might be expeded that all nations had an idea
of a plurality in the tlience of all their gods.
This you in part allow, and endeavour to prov»e
it in the cafe of Hecate, or Diana, p. 144; and
you fuppofe, p. 1 56, that the Philiftines, who ap
plied this term 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 to Hecate. But really. Sir, I wonder
you were not ftruck with horror at this indited
comparifon of your holy bleffed and glorious
trinity to the three-fold form of a heathen god-
dcfs. You might as well have pitched upon the
three-headed monftcr Cerberus for your purpofe.
What would you have faid if / had faid any thing
that could have led the mind to fuch a com- ¦^
parifon ? " •
4. Can you make it appear that any of the
ancient Jews underftood the word aleim<, as you
do, or that they drew any fuch inference from it ?
This you feem to have taken for granted, and you
add, p. 36, that " a very great majority of the
" Jews before our Saviour's coming had apofta-
*' tized from the dodrine 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
apoftatize? Of the apoftacy ofthe Ifraelites from
the worfhip of the true God to that of idols, we
6 ,. c have

Rev. Mr. PARKHURST. iSj
have abundant evidence; but of this greater change
in the fenriments of a great majority of the na
tion, we have no account at al).
Of thofe Jews who had ap )ftatized froin the
dodrine of the trinity, you fay, p. 36, "_ they
" could not poflibly at the time he" [Cjirift]
" appeared, have fuppofed that the Mefliah would
" be the fecond perfon in the trinity." And as
tothe Jews who were after our Saviour's 'time,
you do 'not pretend to find among them any trace
ofthe dodrine of the trinity, or of the divinity
of the Mefllah, Wfth refped to thefe yoii fay,
p. 33, " I muft enter my fplemn proteft againft
*' being guided by them, as to the fenfe of the
" facred books, or in any matter of religion what-
" ever ; becaufe the blefl'ed mafter whom I pro-
" fefs to follow, and to obey, has repeatedly cai-
" led the predeceflfors and inftruftors of thefe mo^
'* dern J ev/s* fools and blind, i^e. as ro religious
*' knowledge, and has faid of them, they be blind
" leaders ofthe blind ; and if the blind lead tbe blind,
"fiiall not both fall into the ditch ?"
But can you, Sir, imagine that, if our Saviour
had found in the Jewifh teachers fo capital a de
parture from the dodrine concerning God, as this
apoftacy from the ancient Mofaic dodrine of the
trinity muft have been, he would not have dif-
tindly pointed it out, and that he would not have
warned the people againft th« falfe gloflTss of the
^ N 4 Scribe*

i8i A L E T T E R TO THE
Scribes and Pharifecs 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 effence, when he w.is
queftioned about tbe firft commandment, Mark xii.
28. But both the. Scribe and himfJf, on that re
markable occ*fion, aflTertthe. abfolute unity of the
divine nature. • ,i"tr. . : •.'?;'
You do maintain, however, p. 119, that. our
Lord's own difciples were at It^it fufficiently prepared
by his difcourfes to confide? him as, God, diiring
their intercourfe with him. But how .does this ap
pear, when after his crucifixion We find two of iiis
dif:ipleson their way to Emmaus, cxpreffing their
higheft admiration of him in thefe words,-: Luke
xxiv, 19, Jefus of Nazareth,., who was.a pfophet
mighty in word ar-d deed, before God and all the
people. Is this, tbe natural lanjgua^e of men who
had ever 'confidered Chrift as properly God, or
who were at all prepared fo to do ? i-iv.iuo'' '
I fhall not enter with you into a difcuflion of
the meaning oi particukr teixts ; having,' as I
think, fufficiently 'explained ill thofe on which
you defcknt, in my other writings. But I cannot
help 'noticing your' very curious interpretation of
Chrift's faying, John v, 30, that he could dtno-
thing^ of himfelf. " We fee then," you fay.^p. 62,
" \n what feafe only the Son of God, in this paf-
••^ ''^' - '¦' "fage,

Rev, Mr, PARKHURST, 185
" fage, difclaims any power of his own, and Lys,
" that he can do nothing of himfelf , viz. as ading
¦ " diftindly from his Father, with whom he was
" united." But would you. Sir, have put the
fame conftrudion on .any fimilar faying of Mofcj,
or :any other prophet.? Befides, if in this fenfe
only, Chrift could do nothing of himfelf, in the
fame fenfe the Father alfo couM do nothing of
himfelf ; fince, on your hypothefis, he muft always
ad in conjundion with the Son. But where do
you find any affertion like this in the fcriptures ?
Indeed, Sir, unlefs you, or your friends, can mak-e
a better defence than you have yet done of the
dodrine of the trinity, notwithft.inding you fay.
Adv. p, 6. you confider me " as by no means'a
" formidable opponent on fcriptural fubjeds," the
confequence of which you exprefs fo much dread,
ibid,' p, 7,*viz. that " the religion of this once
" chriftiain land will be reduced to a level with
" MahOmetanifm, and even in fome refpeds be-
" low it," muft follow. In this method of cha-
¦ ra&erizir.g unitariarlifm, you think, no doubt, to
bring an odium upon it. But thecomparifon is
now too much hackneyed for that purpofe ; and
you are miftaken if you think that I am afliamed
to aVow my agreement with the Mahometans, or
any other part of the human pace,- in the dodriiie
of the divine unity, and to worftiip together with
themi the one God and Father of all, the maker cf
heaven and earth, ¦•o- v..;.'-.
2 Yo-.,

i86 A L E T T E R T O T H E
You, Sir, as well as my other adverfaries thihk,
I prefume, to derive fome advantage to your
caufe, from depreciating my knowledge of the
learned languages, which is fo neceffary in thefe
theological difcufllons. 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 rne. Adv. p. 6, " he appears to have but a
" flender acquaintance with the original language
" of the Old Teftament, and never to have read
" the Hebrew Bible with care and attention. If
" he had, it feems almoft impofTible that he
" Ihould have fallen into fuch palpable errors as
" he has done." You even infinuate, p, 3. that I
may not know " that D' is as truly a plural ter-
" mination in Hebrew, as — s is in our lan-

Whether I be ignorant of Hebrew, or not,
your proofs oi my ignorance are not a little cu
rious. One of them is that, " -in the fedion of my
" Introdudion, which profeflTedly relates to the
" fcriptures in general, I have not produced- a
*• Angle Hebrew word," (Adv, p. 6.) which I
might have done, and yet have known very little
of the language. And as to the unpardonable
miftake I have fallen into, it is no otlier than I
dare fay, Bifhop Lowth would have fallen into as
well as myfelf. For he would not probably have
thought of inferring the dodrine of. the trinity
from the word aleitn.
On

Rev. Mr. PARKHUR st, 187
On this fubjed of the knowledge of Hebrew,
I will fay (and you may fmile at me if you pleafc)
that, as I have faid I would not exchange my
knowledge of Greek for that of Dr. Horfley, fo
neither would I exchange my knowledge of He
brew with even that of Mr, Parkhurft, unfcen,
and unexamined.
I have, in the courfe of my life, given very par
ticular attention to the Hebrew language, 1 began
the ftudy of it when I was about fifteen, and re
member that at about eighteen I read in the hifto
ricai books ofthe Old Teftament, from Flebrew
into Englifh at family prayers, I taught He
brew to a friend now living, before I was eighteen.
Before I was twenty, I 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 had begun the ftudy
of other oriental languages. I was then pretty
well acquainted with Syriac, and was .ible to read
Arabic. After this, though my attention was
drawn to other objeds, I never wholly laid afide
my application to Hebrew ; and it has happened
that, within lefs than fix months of the laft year,
I read the Hebrew Bible quite 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) and this I did
without confidering it as any great addition to
my

i88 ALETTE R, he: '
my other bufijvefs. If after all this, I know fo very
litde of Hebrew as you reprefent, there muft be
fomething very extraordinary in tlie cafe ; and
the ftory will yield but little encouragement to
other perfons to apply to it.
But really. Sir, the important queftion is not,
whether Dr, Horfley or myfelf know more of
Greek, or whether you or I know more of .He-
brew, but which of us makes the, beft ufe of what
we do know.
With real refped, though with great. difference
of opinion, I am, '
Reverend Sir,
Your very humble Servant,
J. PRIESTLEY.
BIRMINGHAM,
March 7, 1787.'

A
CATALOGUE of BOOKS,
WRITTEN By
Dr. PRIESTLEY:
And printed for J. JOHNSON, Bookfelier,
No, 72, St, PAUL'S CHURCH -YARD, Londoi*,
i,"p\ISCiUISITIONS relating to Matter and Spirit.
X^ To which is added, the Hiltory of the Philofophical
Do£lrine concerning the Origin of the Soul, and the Nature of
Matter ; with its Infloence on Chriftianity, efpecially with Re-
fpeft to the Doftrine of the Pre-exiftence of Chrift, Alfo the Doc
trine of Philofophical Necefllty illuftrated, the id Edition, enlarged
and improved, with Remarks on thofe uho have controverted the
Winciples of them, 2 vols. 8s, 6d. in boards, los, bound, ^
2, A Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Materialicm
and Philosophical Necessity, in a Correfpondence between
Dr. Pri^e and Dr. Priestley, To which are added by Doc-
ter Priestley, an lNTROoucTiON,explaining the Nature of the
Conttbverfy, and Letters to feveral Writers who hare anim;<d>
verted on his Difquiiitions relating to Matter and Spirit, or hi«
Treatife on Neccflity, 8vo. 6s. fevred, 7s. bound.
3. A Defence ofthe Doctrine of Necessity, in tvro Letters
to the Rev. Mr, John Palmer, 2s.
4. A Letter to Jacob Bryant, Efq; in Defence of Philofo-
phical Neceflity, is.
Tbe two preceding Articles may be properly bound vp tvilh the
fecond •volume of Difquifitions on Matter and Si)irit,
5. Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, P.irt r. Con
taining an Examination of the principal Objeftions to the DoflrJiies
of Natural Religion, and efpecially thofe conlained in the Writings
of Mr, Hume, js, fewed. ^
6. ADDITiONAL

BOOKS lAiiiiieii I'i)' D R . P R 1 E s r L E V.
6. ADDinONAL LeTI ers to il PhILOSOFJIIC U. UKBEI.ltVliR
in Anfwer to Mr. William Mammon, is. 6(1.
7. LsTTERS toa PHILOSOPHICALUNBELIbViR, P.irt II. Coi>.
tsininga State of the Evidence of ReveaUd Religion, with Anim^
advei lions on the two latl Cfiapters of the fiift Volumeof A/r. C/A-
bo/i'j Hifiory (i/'lte Decline aiui Fall ofthe Roman Empire, 3s.
N. B, Tbe t-wo Parts, bounit together , including Art. 6, 7s. fid,
8, A Harmony of the Evangelists in Greek, fo whxta'
aie prtfixed. Critical Dissertations in Englifh, tfto. i+s. in
boaiJs, 1 7s. bound.
9. A Harmony ofthe Evangelists in Englijb ; with Notes,
and an occafional Paraphrafe for the Ufe of the Unlearned. To
which are prtfixed. Critical DiflTertations, and a Letter to the Bi-
Ihop of OfToiy, 4to, iis, in hoards, 15'. hound,
N.B. rbofe who are pojefeii of I he Gretk Hfrmony, may have this
ia Englifli ivitbout the Critical DifTertations, 8s. in boards.
•,• The Greek and Englifh Harmony writh the Critical Dif-
t'ertalions, complete, il. is, in boards, or il, 4s. bound.
¦ 0. Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, it*
Iwo volumes, 8vo. id edition, pi ice los. 6d. in boards, iis. bound.
N. B. The third Part of tkis IVork, containing the Doftrinei of
Revelation, may be had alone, zi. Sd.fe'uied.
,1. An History of the Corruptions of Christianity,
with a general Conclufion, in two Parts. Part I. Containing
Confiderations addreffed to Unbelievers, and efpecially tu Mr.GiB.
BON. Part II. containing Confiderations addreffed to the Ad.
vacates for the prefent Eftablifhment, and efpecially to Bp. Hurd,
z vol.", 8vo. price ixs. in boards, or I4.S. bound. Or,' bound uni-
Jtrmlj ivitb tbe three following Defences of it, in 3 voli. il, los, ¦
II. 'A Reply to the Animadversions on theHisTORY of
the Corruptions of Christianity, in the Monthly Review
for June, 1783; with Obfcrvations relating to the DoArine 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
writer of that Review, is called upon to defend what he has ad
vanced in it, price 6d,
14, Letters

BOOKS •written by Db. PRIESTLEY.
14. Letters to Dr, Horsley, Archdeaconof St. Albans, !¦
shieepaits, containtng farther Evidence that the primitive Cbrif-
tiin Church was Unitarian, price 7s. 6d.
N, B. Tbefe laft three Articles togrtker in boards, 9/. or bound los,
15. An History cf early Opinions concerning Jesus
Chuist, compiled from original Writers; proving that the Chrif
tian Church was at Hrlt Unitarian, 4 vols, oftavo, price il. 4s.
in boards, or il. 8s. bound.
iS. Defences of U.s'iTARiANisM for the Year 1787. Con
taining Letters to the Rev. Dr. Geddes, to the Rev. Dr.
Price, Part II. and to the Candidates for Orders In the
Two Univerfities,"— Part If. Relating to Mr. Howes's Appendix
to his fourth Volume of Oblervations on Books j a Letter by an
Und:r-Graduate of Oxford; Dr. Croft's Bampton Leflures; and
feveral other Publications, Price, as. fid. fewed.
17. A Letter to the Right Honourable William Pitt,
Fifft Lord of the Treafury, and Chancellor of the Exchequer ; on
the Subjefl of Toleration and Church Establishments;
occafioned by his Speech againft the Repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts, on Wednefday tbe ai ft of March, 1787, tbe
fecond Edition, price is.
,8, Letters to the Jews ; inviting them to an amicable Dif-
¦cuflion of the Evidence of Chriftianity, in two parts, price xs.
19. Discourses on Various Subjects, including feveral on
Particvlar Occasions, price 6a. in boards.
20. An Appeal to the ferious and candid Profeflbrs of Chrif
tianity, on the following fubjeds, viz. i. The Ufe of Reafon
in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the Will of
God. 3. Original Sin. 4. Eleflion and Reprobation. 5. The
Divinity of Chrift; and 6. Atonement for Sin by the Death of
Chrift, a new Edition ; to which is added, a concife Hiltory of
thofe 0o£lrines, id. An Edition in large Print, price fid.
11, A familiar Illustration of certain PafTages of Scrip
ture, relating to the fame Subjefls, ilic id Edition, fid,
11. The TRiyMPH of Truth ; being an Account of the Trial
of Mr. Elwall for Herefy and Bhafphemy, at Stafford Affizep,
bcfat* Judge Dsnton, id Edition, «d. 23. A

, , .BOOKS wWtfcii iy Dft. PRIESTLEY.
%3. A General View of the; Arguments for the Unity of
Go», and againft the Divinity and Pre-exiltence of Chrift, fr°<^
Reafon, from the Scriptures, and from Hiftory, fecond£dition,
price id. Spiediiy to be publijbed, in One ITolumt, SlA^rta,
LECTURES on HISTORY and GENERAL POLICY t To
which is prefixed^' An Essay oh a Cburfe of Liberal Education '
for civil and aftive Life.
JIfiPuBliJbid under tht Dire3ion of Dr. Priestley,
THE THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY.
C O.N SISTIMC OF ORIGINAL
ESSAYS, Hints, Queries, &c. calculated to promote religious
Knowledge, in three volumes^ 8vo. Price 1 8s. in lioards, or
i). IS, bound. Among other Articles, too many to be enume
rated in aii Advertifentent, thefe three volumes will be found to
contain Ibth origihal ^nd truly valilable Obfcrvations on the
Doftrine of Atonement, the l^te^exiflence of Chrifti and the Injpi-
ratiott tf tbe Scriptures, more, efpecially 'refpe£lihg tlie Harmony
if the E'vangelifts, and the Reafoning of tbe Apoftle Paal, as can
not fail to recommend ibew to.thofe Perfons who wiili to make
a truly free. Inquiry into thefe important Subjefts.
This Work has been lately refumed, a 4th and 5th volume
have been publiflied, price 13s. io boardt, and the 6th is |>riiitin.g.
in numbers.

p»v|^

YALb UNIVfcHbt T Y LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 3116

m