our Lord God; but the Son of God, of that God who is one, and alone the maker of all things. Though he was in the form of God, he did not attempt the robbery of being equal with God. For though he knew that he was God of God the Father, he never compared himself with God the Father, remembering that he was of the Father, and that he had his being because the Father gave it him. The Son is less than the Father, because he is sanctified by him. God the Father is the maker and creator of all, who alone has no origin, invisible, immense, immortal, eternal, the one God, to whose greatness, majesty and power, nothing can be preferred or compared. The Son does nothing of his own pleasure, nor does he come of himself, but in all things obeys his Father's commands." You quote Origen as an advocate for praying to Christ.† But you should have observed that, in his treatise on the subject of prayer, he argues much at large against praying to Christ. If," says he," we know what prayer is, we must not pray to any created being; not to Christ himself, but only to God the Father of all, to whom our Saviour himself prayed-, We are not to pray to another who has the same common father as ourselves; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the Father through him. In this we are all agreed, and are not divided about the method of prayer; but should we not be divided if some prayed to the Father, and some to the Sou?" You take it for granted that Cyprian quoted the disputed text in the epistle of John, without informing your readers of any thing that Sir Isaac Newton and other learned men have alleged to prove the contrary; without attempting to account for this text not being quoted by any of those fathers who appear to have taken the most pains to collect passages of scripture in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity; and without observing that this text is not to be found in any ancient Greek manuscript whatever; or that it is now omitted by Griesbach, the last and most accurate editor of the Greek Testament.§ This, Sir, is giving evidence ex parte; it is concealing the truth and misleading your reader. Notwithstanding your great zeal for orthodoxy, you seem to endeavour not absolutely to exclude us poor Unitarians from all possibility of salvation; but your endeavours are + Prim. Christ. p. 67. (P.) • Cap. iv. 9, 27, 31. (P.) De Oratione, p. 48. (P.) See Vol. XVIII. p. 481. ineffectual. After speaking of the Athanasian creed as "containing the sum and substance of all orthodox divinity," you say, "These are the articles which are declared to be necessary to salvation, and the scripture has declared the same; for the whole fabric of Christianity rests upon them. But it does not follow from hence, that the belief of every tittle in the creed, however true, and received by ourselves as such, is therefore the necessary condition of the salvation of others."* This, Sir, is like opening the door and instantly shutting it again, without giving us an opportunity of entering. For if your premises be true, the belief of all the articles of this creed must be universally necessary to salvation, to me as well as to you. Indeed you seem to say as much in what immediately follows: "Surely, then, none need be offended at the public repetition of it in our churches; for it condemns none but those who will not believe and be saved." I suppose, then, that if I do not believe, you will say that I would not believe, though I should allege that I could not; and, therefore, in your opinion, my salvation, notwithstanding the utmost extent of your charity, is not at all the nearer. It is happy for me, Sir, that you are not my judge. You have done very prudently to decline proceeding in this controversy. Had you persisted, I should have given you a little advice how to conduct yourself better. I only fear that it may be suspected by some, that you are no real friend to the doctrine of the Trinity, and that you meant to betray the cause by seeming to defend it. In this, however, I acquit you, firmly believing that you are a weak friend, and not an insidious enemy, to the cause of orthodoxy. I am, Reverend Sir, Your very humble servant, J. PRIESTLEY. • Prim. Christ. p. 122. (P.) Bishop Taylor, on the contrary, says 66 concerning the symbol of Athanasius,—I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his preface and conclusion.-Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly, unless the article of the Trinity be believed, as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained." The Bishop presently adds, "If it were considered concerning Athanasius's Creed, how many people understand it not, how contrary to natural reason it seems, how little the Scripture says of those curiosities of explication, and how tradition was not clear on his side for the article itself, much less for those forms and minutes,—it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ; for he is appointed Judge of all the world, and he shall judge the people righteously." Liberty of Prophesying, (Sect. ii. No. 36,) Ed. 2, 1702, pp. 72, 73. LETTERS TO THE REV. JOHN HAWKINS, RECTOR OF HINTON, NEAR ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE. Ο Κίρκη, πως γαρ με κελῃ σοι ηπιον είναι, HOMERI ODYSS. LETTER I. Of the Object and Spirit of Mr. Hawkins's Address. You have, in the course of your Expostulatory Address to me, so frequently, and in such varied phrase, expressed your surprise and astonishment at my sentiments and conduct, that, without being guilty of plagiarism, I cannot tell how to express what I think of yours. Perhaps you were aware of this, and thought to escape by this means. There is not, in fact, however, any proper cause of wonder, either with respect to my conduct, or yours; and both may be very well accounted for, without any extraordinary knowledge of human nature. I shall only mention one occasion of surprise to me at the time, though it is not at all so at present. This was, that, notwithstanding our frequent interviews and occasional correspondence, in which each of us advanced, without the least apparent constraint, whatever occurred to us, and in which this controversy, and the business of subscription, were sometimes mentioned, you never expressed the least disapprobation of my conduct, nor had I any suspicion of it till this printed expostulation was announced to me. You say, that your "private sentiments of me are those of friendship and respect."+ Mine to you were the same, with the addition of the most undisguised frankness. Why, then, not hint to me, what you now publicly declare, that "my opinions were dangerous," that my manner of propagating them "tended to introduce confusion and discord into the community," and that many of my writings • See supra, p. 5, Note †. ↑ Address, p. 2. (P.) . have been the source of unhappiness and universal scepticism" ?❤ "For it is," you say, "an undoubted fact, that several serious Christians have been so far disquieted by them, as to lose their inward peace, that others have been thrown upon the verge of infidelity, and that thousands of those who already held all religion in contempt, or totally neglected its duties, have been greatly confirmed in their unbelief, or their tepidity; being persuaded, by these obstinate altercations, that there was neither certainty in religion, nor any real charity in those who profess to be guided by its influence, since they are thus disturbing society for a few metaphysical subtilties, in points which lie entirely beyond the reach of human conception." Why did not you tell me then, (for it was the part of a friend,) as you do now, that I was "not acting a friendly or a justifiable part with regard to society"? Inconsistently, however, with all this, you say, that "you are far from any design to cast any reflection upon the uprightness of my motive, or the sincerity of my belief in revealed religion." How, then, Sir, in Foro Conscientiæ, is my conduct less justifiable than yours? If it be public disputation that does the mischief, your guilt is manifestly greater than mine; as, by this publication of yours, you are promoting the very thing that you condema. On the contrary, I engage in this controversy, and urge it by every method in my power, because I believe it to be subservient to a great and public good, viz. the overturning of error, and the establishment of important truth. I rejoice to see this faggot of yours thrown into that fire which I hope will not be extinguished till it has effectually answered the end for which I have excited it, and I am happy to think that it has already done this in a great measure. It is not, I hope, the last faggot that you will contribute. 66 Why did not you tell me during our frequent intercourse, as you do now, that I ought to have written in Latin? Speaking of my publications in this controversy, you ought," you say, "in my opinion, to have published them in a form and language to which the learned only could have access, and not in cheap, flying pamphlets, &c.Neither can I see any sufficient motives for your publishing at all your opinions on Matter, Spirit, aud Philosophical Necessity, which, could they possibly be proved, are mere Address, p. 52. (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 55. (P.) metaphysical speculations, that can answer no useful purpose, and yet may in the mean time lead thousands into error and perplexities." That any man liberally educated, professing a regard to truth, and the great business of enlightening the minds of all men, should write in this manner, would have appeared extraordinary, if it had not been sufficiently of a piece with the rest of your pamphlet; though it is sufficiently discordant with your other publications, in defence of the Reformation, in which you know that every attempt was made to awaken the attention and enlighten the minds of the most illiterate. In answer to what you here allege, it is sufficient for me to say, as Luther would have done, and as the apostles would have done before him, that I write in order to be understood, and that I wish to instruct the common people in matters which appear to me most nearly to concern them, and therefore I write in a language which they understand. I also write for the instruction of the poor, and therefore I make many of my publications as cheap as possible. Besides, the Bishop of St. David's will tell you, that I am so far from being able to write in Latin, that I cannot even read that language, so that you are urging a man to run, who cannot walk, or even stand. However, I shall certainly assume the right of judging for myself, both with respect to the subjects on which I write, and the language I make use of. Your censure of my conduct in this respect equally affects Mr. Locke, and the greatest men who ever lived. How, then, could you imagine that your advice should not be considered as impertinent and absurd? "far You say, that you are" far from studying to make my expressions appear frightful,"† as many of my antagonists have done; at the same time that you have taken pains to collect from all my publications every thing that you could bring together of the kind; and by taking the passages out of their proper connexion, and without contrasting them with any others of a different nature, (which, had you been so disposed, you might have found in abundance,) you have done every thing in your power to raise the indignation of your readers against me; in fact, more than all my other antagonists put together. You must know, Sir, that the writings of no person whatever, especially of so voluminous a writer as myself, • Address, p. 47. (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 2. (P.) Ibid. pp. 46, &c. (P.) |