Слике страница
PDF
ePub

2. Has he proved, as he undertook to do, that the Nazarenes, or Jerome's Hebrews believing in Christ, were orthodox with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity ?*

3. Has he, after eighteen months' re-consideration of the subject, and correcting his former opinion, proved that there were, in reality, five sects of Jewish Christians,t though Origen and Eusebius expressly make them to be no more than tio, some of them admitting, and others denying the miraculous conception ; but all of them disbelieving the divinity of Christ, and adhering to the law of Moses? If this is to be received as authentic history, let us have, at least, the authority of the Dean of Canterbury for it, as well as that of the Archdeacon of St. Alban's.

4. Has he proved that Origen, who expressly asserts that no Jewish Christians believed the divinity of Christ, was, in that or in any other respect, a wilful liar ; and, therefore, not to be credited in any thing, -an article which he has laboured so much in his last publication ?

5. Has he proved that there was a church of orthodox Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, after the time of Adrian?another article on which he has bestowed much pains in his last piece.

6. Has he invalidated any thing that I have advanced to prove that Athanasius, and others of the fathers, represented the apostles as having been obliged to use great caution in teaching the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and that of the Trinity, lest it should shock the prejudices of the first converts in favour of the doctrines of the unity of God and the humanity of Christ ?

7. Has he proved that the Jews in our Saviour's time were believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, that they expected the second person of it in the character of their Messiah; and, consequently, that the apostles considered Christ as God from the time that they considered him as the Messiah?

8. Has he proved that the Unitarians were considered as heretics, in early times ?

9. Has he proved that prayers for succour in external persecution are properly addressed to Christ?

10. Has he proved that by the generation of the Son, all

• Since I wrote my Reply to Dr. Horsley's Remarks, [supra, p. 298,] I observe, that Dr. Lardner understood the passage in Jerome exactly as I did, taking it for granted, that by Nazarenes, he meant the same people whom he called Hebrews believing in Christ. See his Testimonies, I. p. 19. (P.) Works, VỊI. p. 22.

Dr. Horsley's Remarks, p. 60. (P.) Sce supra, p. 294.

the fathers meant a display of his powers, and not his assum-. ing a proper personality, from having been a mere attribute of the Father?

11. Has he proved that there is no difference between the doctrine of the personification of the Logos, and the peculiar opinions of the Arians ; than which I have asserted that no schemes were ever more directly opposed to each other ?

12. Has he proved the antiquity of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from the writings of Barnabas and Ignatius ?

13. Has he proved the origin of the Son, the second person in the Trinity, from the Father's contemplating his own perfections ? An opinion, I believe, peculiar to himself, unsupported by any authority, ancient or modern. I think I perceive that, with respect to this curious particular, he has not given you entire satisfaction ; since, with respect to all schemes to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, you say, they leave us “just where we were, totally in the dark."* Indeed, I do not wonder that a notion so super-eminently absurd, so void of all foundation in the Scriptures, in common sense, or primitive antiquity, should not recommend itself to those who do not wish to expose the doctrine of the Trinity as absolutely ridiculous.

Indeed, Sir, to undertake the defence of your applauded champion on these articles, (and I might have extended the list to many more,) is an Herculean attempt. Greatly must the execution of it swell the work you have in hand, and well may you crave indulgence, as to the article of time.t I think it must appear to all impartial readers, that Dr. Horsley has been completely foiled in his attempts to prove any one of the above-mentioned particulars, and every other that is of any importance to the real merits of the question between us. And if this be the case, what signifies the great superiority of his learning? Nay, if all his superior ability and learning has not enabled him to prove what he so earnestly contended for, does it not afford an arguinent, that neither learning nor ability can be of any avail in the cause that he has espoused?

Utterly unable to make any plausible defence of himself

Sermons, p. 42. (P.) Works, p. 92, Note.

+ P. 32. (P.) « • Indulgence,' said he is requested as to the article of time. I cannot write so fast as Dr. Priestley does.'" Jones in Works, I. pp. 146, 147. After all,“ the design of writing against Priestley was not prosecuted with vigour.” Ibid. p. 149. See supra, p. 325, Note Il.

in other articles, after waiting eighteen months, with an air of insolence peculiar to himself, (which you, Sir, tacitly condemn, by recommending a mode of conducting controversy the very reverse of his,) he challenged me again with respect to the veracity of Origen, and the existence of a church of orthodox Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, after the time of Adrian, But in my Reply, which was immediate, I have shewn that, instead of relieving himself, he has involved himself in much greater confusion and-difficulty than ever; having grossly misunderstood every one of the five passages from the fathers which he produced in his defence. In this Reply of mine, which has been published about six months, I call upon him to defend himself and his argument in such a manner as, I believe, there is no example of any person being called upon (except Mr. White, of Oxford, by myself). In the conclusion I say, “On this article, at least, an article deliberately selected by yourself, let the controversy between us come to a fair issue. Nothing has been, or shall be wanting on my part ; and, therefore, the public will certainly expect your explicit and speedy answer.”+

What, Sir, can you think of a man who can sit down contented without making any reply to such a call as this? Had any person called upon me in this manner, he would have had my Reply (either vindicating myself, or acknowledging my inability to do it) in a week, or as soon as it had been physically possible for it to be dispatched.

When you speak of the great learning of Dr. Horsley, it is to be supposed that you speak of so much of it as is before the world; and we have not yet seen enough to justify your very high encomiums. If the world should happen to think less highly of it than you do, they may say that the thanks of the Church of England were very lightly bestowed.

To confine ourselves to this controversy, (and you do not profess to look any farther,) will you say that you infer his superior learning from his translating idiotns by the English word idiot; from his arguing from the pronoun outQ, as ne

• See Appendix, No. XII.

+ See supra, p. 277. § If any authority could be wanting in support of my interpretation of the word idiwrns, I might quote that of the famous Bentley, whose learning will hardly be called in question by Dr. Horsley himself. In his Remarks on a work entitled A Discourse on Free-thinking, (p. 118,) he expresses himself in the following manner, with respect to that very translation of this word, which Dr. Horsley adopted, and Mr. Badcock defends :

“ Ab idiotis evangelistis, by idiot evangelists, says our author; who, if he is

cessarily referring to a person ;* from his saying that oux anaw TIVI n cannot be rendered by nothing but ; from his taking the part with Mr. Badcock, in rendering annou yag

κατ' αλλον Toorov, others on another plan, or from his construction of Jerome's quid dicam ? These are almost all the specimens that he has exhibited of his profound acquaintance with the learned languages, in the course of this controversy; and, in the opinion of many, who are not without pretensions to scholarship, it will not be to the credit of the Dean of Canterbury to praise any man so very highly on these ac. counts.

There are many also who do not think so highly as you do of Dr. Horsley's merit with respect to the Church of England, or the doctrine of the Trinity, as one of its articles. And there are, I believe, at this moment, many Unitarians, who think themselves under greater obligations to him, than any Trinitarians whatever. For to him has been owing, in a great measure, the present discussion of the subject, which must now proceed till the great question be decided; and with respect to the final issue, judging from his acknowledged ability to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as it is defensible, they entertain no doubt at all; being confident that scripture, reason, and antiquity, will be found equally in their favour.

It is the earnest wish of all Unitarians, and of none more than myself, that your high encomiums may bring your champion into the field again. I have done every thing in my power, and in my way, to second your wishes. But as he took eighteen months to make his last reply, he may be like a comet whose periodical revolution is that period of time, and if so, it will be in vain that we endeavour to accelerate the course of nature.

As you are so lavish in your praise of one of your champions, I wonder you should overlook the merit of others, such as Mr. Burgh, † who had the title of LL.D. conferred

siucere in this version, proves bimself a very idiot in the Greek and Latin acceptation of that word. Idwins, idiota; illiteratis, indoctus, rudis. See Du Fresne in his Glossaries, who takes notice, that idiota, for an idiot, or natural fool, is peculiar to your English law, for which he cites Rastal. Did Victor, therefore, mean idiot evangelists in your English sense? No, but illiterate, unlearned. What, then, must we think of our author, for his scandalous translation here? Whether imputation will he choose to lie under, that he knew the meaning of Victor, or that he knew it not?" Dr. Horsley must suppose the same question put to himself. (P.) Remarks (xxxiii.), ed. 8, 1743, p. 113.

See supra, p. 51. + “A member of the Irish Parliament, residing in the city of York.” Lindsey's Fromel, 1776, p. vi.

upon him at Oxford, for his answer to Mr. Lindsey ; * Mr. White, who has stepped into the arena with looks of stouter defiance than any of you, though his deeds do not seem to correspond to them; and Mr. Howes, who has undertaken the most difficult departinent in the whole discussion, viz. to prove that the Jews were always Trinitarians, (which is the counterpart of Molière's Médecin malgré lui,) and that there were no Unilarians at all till about the Council of Nice, Time will shew how ingeniously he will maintain such pa. radoxes as these.

I am, &c.

LETTER II.

Of the Interference of Civil Power in Matters of Religion.

Rev. Sir, THERE is one article of considerable importance on which you have touched in these Sermons of yours, with respect to which you seem to be under a mistake yourself, and will probably mislead others. I wish, therefore, to set you right before the publication of your larger work.t

You more than hint, that the consequence of the general prevalence of Unitarianism, will be the exclusion of Trinitarians from the church. You even suggest, that it is our wish and intention to apply external force, in order to bring this about, whenever we shall think the times sufficiently ripe for such a measure. " A zealous Anti-trinitarian, you say, may fancy that those idolatrous churches and kingdoms require to be quickened in their progress towards destruction. He may conceive himself in duty bound to become an instrument in executing the vengeance of heaven upon them, for refusing to admit an Arian or Socinian reformation, tendered in a milder way."#

With respect to this insinuation, I can only say, that nothing has yet been advanced by any Unitarian that can give the least colour to it. It is not consistent with your usual candour, and what no appearances whatever have

رز

Entitled “ A Scriptural Confutation of the Arguments against the one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, produced by the Rev. Mr. Lindsey, in his late Apology." See Sequel, pp. vi.-xii. Dr. Burgh published, in 1778, “ An Inquiry into the Belief of the Christians of the first three Centuries, respecting the one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." See Mon. Rev. LXI. pp. 366-369. + See supra, p. 325, Note l.

Sermons, p. 10. (P.) Works, VI. p. 69.

« ПретходнаНастави »