The trial of the Unitarians, for a libel on the Christian religion

^0»^^^^^fN^

THE ,^

TRIAL

jf PR/A

OF

THE UNITARIANS,

A

LIBEL

ON

THE CHRISTIAN

RELIGION.

y

Gccra'

1

JO^

1 "

Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.

Deut. vi. 4.

Ki'piot; 6 0£6g ?/)ua)v Kvpiog tig tcrrt.

The Lord our God is one Lord.

Mark, xii. 29.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR

LONGM/xN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN,

PATERNOSTER-ROW.

1830.

LoNDO:<i :

i'riutcd by A. &. K. SiJotUbWoodc,

Ncw-Strcet.lSrquare.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND

CHARLES JAMES BLOMFIELD, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,

A PRELATE,

ALIKE CHARACTERISED BY

UNAFFECTED PIETY, PROFOUND LEARNING, AND
JUDICIOUS ZEAL,

IS

THIS VOLUME

INSCRIBED.

TRIAL.

THE KING

versus

JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, THEOPHILUS LINDSEY,

AND HENRY BELSHAM.

On an Ex-officio Information, charging them, severally, with
the Publication of

A LIBEL ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

In Trinity Term.
Before the Lord Chief Justice and a special Jury,

The Defendants being called upon their recog-
nisances to appear, came forward to answer an
Information charging them ; first, with an attempt
to uproot Christianity and to plant Deism; and
in another count, with the publication of scan-
dalous libels on the Christian Religion, the Re-
ligion of the State as by Law established, in
certain false, profane, and blasphemous writings,
with intent to excite untrue and dangerous notions
of religion ; — to which they severally pleaded,
^« Not Guiltyr

The Jury empanneled and sworn were —

Isaac Neisoton, — John Bacon, — Jo/m Locke, —
Robert Boyle, — Soame Jenyns, — Robert Nelson,
— Henry Hyde, — George Lyttleton, — Henry
West, — Joseph Addison, — Richard Steele, — Samuel
Johnson.

The Attorney-General then rose : —

May it please your Lordship ! Gentlemen of
the Jury ! This Information is filed against the
Defendants, charging them ; first, with printing and
publishing works by which they have attempted
to uproot Christianity, and upon the ruins of it
to build up a system of Deism; and next, with
publishing scandalous libels on the doctrines of
the Christian Religion, the Established Religion of
this Realm, with intent to excite false and dangerous
notions of such Religion in the minds of His Ma-
jesty's liege subjects. Now, Gentlemen, with respect
to the first part of this Information, in which these
persons are charged with a conspiracy to uproot
the Christian religion, and to plant Paganism on
the ruins of it, it is only necessary, simply to ask ;
What is Christianity ? and, I think, you will not
hesitate one moment in saying with me, that it is
the religion of Jesus Christ, the divine Saviour of
man, and that mankind are called and designated
Christians, from the God whom they worship ;
and therefore, that they who deny Christ to be
their God, and do not worship Him with divine

honour, cannot, with any propriety of speech, be
called Christians ; it being neither just nor reason-
able to denominate any one a Christian who merely
believes Christ as a human teacher; for I affirm
the common acceptation of the title of " Christian"
to apply to those, and to those only, who acknow-
ledge Christ for their God. With respect to the
first charge made against the Defendants, of at-
tempting to substitute Paganism for Christianity;
it would be easy to support this, by showing that
an impious attempt has been made by these mis-
taken men to melt down the Christian religion into
the dross of Mahomedanism, and that in this they
have so far succeeded, that they and the Ma-
homedans have come to these common terms —
namely, that they both believe Christ to have
been the Messiah, and the revealer of God to man ;
that he was a true prophet ; that he gave sight to
the blind, healed the lame, and raised the dead ;
and that what he taught was truth. Indeed, it is
a matter upon record, that an eminent leader
and chief propagator of the Socinian heresy in the
Palatinate, Adam Neuser, minister of the Church
of Heidelberg, began in Unitarianism, and finished
his career by turning Mahomedan, and underwent
the rites at Constantinople ; and what has hap-
pened in this way may occur again, particularly
among those who are less able to understand the
system. This result is not, perhaps, so much to
B 2

be deprecated, since, of the two systems, the Ma-
homedan is the nearest to Christianity, for it em-
braces the behef that Christ was the Word of God ;
that He is the intercessor between God and man ;
and that He was conceived and miraculously born of
a virgin : and. Gentlemen, if any of you have ever
taken up the volume of the Alcoran, you will have
found, in the early parts of it, that none are to be
accounted true Mussulmans, w^ho do not believe
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
to be the word of God.^ Now, in all these several
points of Mahomedan belief, the disciples of the
Impostor excel the Unitarians, and out-run them
in the nearness oiF their approach to Christianity :
nor must it be forgotten, that it was principally on
account of this adherence on the part of the Ma-
homedans to the waitings of the Old and New
Testaments, that the negotiation, opened by the
English Unitarians, in the reign of Charles the
Second, with the ambassador of the emperor of
Morocco, to form an alliance with the Mahomedans
for a more extensive propagation of Unitarian
principles, failed. If, then, it be admitted that the
Mahomedans are Pagans, and that they are op-
posed to Christians and Christianity, it follows, as
a necessary consequence, that much more so are
the Unitarians, the Defendants and their adherents.

1 See Horsley's sixteenth letter to Priestley. See Sale's
Koran, eh. 3, 4, and 3.

But, my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, it is
not my intention to proceed in this trial upon the
first count of this Information, but to rely on the
second, as that which furnishes more extensive and
certain ground for expecting your verdict on this
prosecution, — a prosecution, let me say, carried on
in no spirit of vindictive feeling towards any of the
persons before you, but with the aim of protect-
ing the public against, what I am fully prepared to
show, their pernicious and blasphemous writings.

Gentlemen, — It is hardly necessary for me to
tell you, that the doctrines of our National Church,
and more particularly that which is explained in
the first article of our faith respecting the holy and
undivided Trinity, is a part or parcel of the statute
laws of the realm ; and that to attempt to turn the
minds of his Majesty's subjects against the admission
of them, proved true by the warrant of Scripture ;
or to attempt to lessen their importance, by with-
drawing from them their only support, the evi-
dence of the word of God, constitute a very
serious offence. With this offence, grave and
awful as it is, the Defendants stand charged ; and it
devolves on me, as the Officer of the Crown, to bring
to merited punishment those who impugn the
Christian Religion.

In all Christian countries it is necessary that
some form of public worship to the Creator should
exist : in England it has been established by statute,
B 3

in the reign of Charles the Second, that if any
man, in writing, reviles, scoffs, or ridicules it, by
the Law of the land he is guilty of a libel. Now,
to deny the Holy Trinity, by an attempt to show
that our blessed Saviour was not a divine but a
human being, is taking away the corner-stone on
which the beautiful and sacred edifice of Chris-
tianity rests, and is reviling the sacred character of
its Author; and an attempt to rob this Being of
that divinity which is his own, and to hold him out
as a mere human creature, and as an unworthy and
improper object of worship, is to scoffs at his high
claims, if not to ridicule them. The Information
charges the Defendants with devising, and in-
tending to excite by these means, in the minds of
the King's subjects, false and dangerous notions
of religion.

By some, perhaps, it may be thought that such
prosecutions as the present are a direct infringe-
ment upon that natural law of toleration, which
permits every man to worship God in the manner
his conscience prescribes. For the establishment
and force of this law, I am at all times, and
upon every occasion, the firm and decided advo-
cate ; and, indeed, in this happy country, it is both
the privilege and enjoyment of every individual to
seek his God in the way, and after the manner,
which he honestly believes and feels to be his
duty. Happily for us, we have no such edicts

as those which were passed in Babylon of old,
nor such monarchs as Nebuchadnezzar, to decree
a prescribed, unauthorised worship to their sub-
jects, with the penalty of death to such as should
refuse to embrace it : but, at the same time, it is
a law which is no less natural than just, that the
Established Religion of a State or Nation, if not im-
posed as an obligatory duty upon every subject, is
so far to be reverenced, that none may wantonly
charge falsehood upon its doctrines with impu-
nity, when those doctrines are thought by the
wise and good to have a heavenly sanction ; and
none can attempt to subvert these, without incur-
ring the risk of a just degree of punishment. If
any there be, who from tenderness of conscience
scruple to receive this religion, they are at perfect
liberty to dissent from it ; they are at liberty to state
and publish the reasons of their secession ; pro-
vided, in so doing, they do not shock the feelings,
nor attempt to shake the public faith, by offensive
and impious statements, or by throwing ridicule
upon what the country at large holds sacred. I
will even go further than this ; — I will admit that
any sect may lawfully promulgate, in a rational
and serious manner, their objections even to the
established, authorised Religion of the Nation:
our laws permit every individual et ^entire qiUB
velit^ et quce sentiat, dicer e ; and that they may
advance any reasonable arguments* against the
B 4

truth of it, if such be the unfeigned and conscien-
tious belief of the party in question, and if their
objections be stated with that decorum and feel-
ing which is due to the sensibility of all who as
conscientiously differ from them : for if the Na-
tional Religion be not strictly conformable to
Holy Writ ; if its doctrines be the mere phantoms
and hallucinations of the brain, and not the teach-
ings of God's Holy word and Spirit; then let those
doctrines and that religion fall, and fall under the
weapons of those, who shall succeed in proving
their spuriousness ; then let another system be
substituted, which has higher and better evidences
of truth : but, until this be actually and satisfac-
torily done, we cannot quietly submit to the dic-
tum of those who set up a mode of interpretation
peculiar to themselves, and which has not the
sanction of legitimate and critical learning to sup-
port it. For such persons as these to publish
protests against our faith, to impugn its evidences,
and to deny as true those portions of Holy Writ
which they cannot prove false, and who only
brand as spurious, those parts and passages of
Scripture which clash with their pre-conceived opi-
nions ; amounts, in my humble opinion, to direct
blasphemy, inasmuch as they unblushingly assert
portions of that sacred volume, which no one has
ever yet shown to be other than the word of
God, to be a cheat and invention of designing

men ; and denounce those as no better than dupes
to the delusion — dupes in the awful matter of their
eternal salvation, who ground their faith on such a
foundation.

Gentlemen, — T am well aware that the present
age lays claim to the acquisition of deeper and a
more general knowledge, and to a liberality more
extensive than has, at any previous time, marked
the intellectual advancement of any people ; but
before we admit the truth of this, it becomes us to
distinguish between liberality and innovatio7i j and
with respect to knowledge, it is proper to enter
into the distinction between learning and science.
The progress of the arts and sciences has carried
with it a curiosity and an enterprise, which lead
their votaries to see blemishes in every thing long
established, and to betray a nervous impatience
to move rapidly onwards in the course which rest-
less men are hurrying on whatever has hitherto
been fixed. I will not, for it is impossible that
I should, deny that the world, and the things of
the world, cannot always remain stationary, or that
experience and insight do not produce knowledge
and sagacity, and that this increase of mental
power and energy leads to improvement in all
things ; but it is, at the same time, essential to
guard against the precipitation into which a pre-
sumption of great intellectual advancement is apt
to carrv the minds of men. He that hasteth to

10

be wise, is almost as liable to overshoot the mark,
as he who " hasteth to become rich." Great and
permanent improvement is the result of cool deli-
beration and persevering industry, not of a fe-
verish and impatient excitement. I am ready to
admit that the rapid progress of intellect, of which
we now hear so much^ is justly the boast of the
scientific world; but I have never yet seen the
connection pointed out between any modern im-
provements in science, and the new doctrines of
reformers in theology. We are certainly much
improved, for instance, in the art of making time-
keepers, above those who lived a hundred years
ago ; but no man will say, that we thence derive
any advantage for numbering our days more wisely,
or that we have any clearer ideas of eternity than
we had before. An eminent artist in this way may
doubt of the Apostles' Creed; but there is no
visible relation between his art and his unbelief.
The conceit of superior learning has always had
an ill effect upon Christianity ; and is frequently
found in those who have no great parts upon
which to pride themselves. We may be as
learned as we can make ourselves, and yet con-
tinue good Christians; because true learning and
true religion were never yet at variance ; but the
moment we are vain of our learning, we begin to
be in danger, and some folly or other is not far
off. The Greeks were unfit to receive the Gos-

11

pel, because they boasted of a sort of wisdom,
between which and the wisdom of the Gospel
there is no affinity. They delighted to speak of
little things in great words ; while they who first
published the Christian faith, propounded to the
world the highest objects in the plainest language.
Hence it has been observed, that persons in the
same state of life with the Apostles of Jesus Christ
have attained to a great understanding of sacred
things, while some scholars of high pretensions
have betrayed great dulness and misconception
in respect to the same: for our religion ever
had, and ever will have, some things which are
hidden from those who are wise and prudent in
their own estimation, and are revealed to persons
of teachable, child-like dispositions. The natural
and adequate effect of all knowledge, when rightly
used, is to make men wiser; but the affectation
and abuse of learning have a contrary effect.^

Gentlemen,— There is no subject on which man-
kind are properly more tenacious, than that of their
religious faith. There is nothing which they bear
with less patience than the sarcasms which un-
feeling, or the levities which trifling, minds throw
out against their religious sentiments ; for, of all
subjects, it is indisputably the most important,
because the concerns of it not only mainly affect us

Bishop Home's Charge to the Clergy of Norwich.

12

while we dwell on earth, but its momentous interests
extend to another and to an eternal state of exist-
ence; and if the prospects and hopes of immor-
tality, a blessed immortality, be blighted by finding
that they have been vainly sought, or that the con-
ditions upon which we have been led to attain them
are untrue, and not real, there is then prepared for
the mind a bitterness which brings on sickness and
despair, — a bitterness which renders our being a
curse instead of a blessing, and tends to make
the author of it despised rather than adored. It
is, therefore, the first duty of every nation to set
forth and establish a religion which the best and
most learned of its luminaries, on the surest
grounds, conceive to be true, and the truth of
which the experience of ages and the consent of
mankind have confirmed. Indeed, the responsibility
is dreadfully awful, which imposes upon a govern-
ment the propriety of establishing a public form of
worship for the moral and spiritual benefit of the
community over which it presides: and as this
responsibility is surely the most fearful, what must
be that of those who impugn and weaken it, unless
they can produce reasons and arguments strong and
weighty for their contrary opinions. The govern-
ment, as the guardian of the uninformed and
ignorant of the land, steps in, as in the present
instance, between them and the promulgers of
unholy doctrines, to screen them from imposition

13

and delusion ; and as it possesses the power to give
a form of worship, so it has the ardent desire that
the people committed to its charge may enjoy, and
be secured in the enjoyment of, all the advantages
and comforts which flov>^ from a true and genuine
religion. If other classes of the community have
the power of investigating these things, and can
form satisfactory, though different, opinions as to
what they feel called upon to believe, they are
left to the guidance of their own discretion, and
they may, for the benefit of others capable of
forming conclusions in these high matters, publish
and declare the motives and arguments by which
they have been led to differ from the mass around
them, provided, as I have before observed, they
do so in a manner, and by such means, as are
rational, serious, and inoffensive. While they thus
act, the State holds out protection to them in the
public exercise of their peculiar form of worship :
but if they quit the limits thus fairly prescribed,
and go forth to the public, declaring the national
religion, — the Christian religion, false; and attempt
to poison the minds of the discontented and factious,
or unsettle and disturb those of the great aggregate
of the community, who have not the power nor the
opportunity to discriminate between the true and
false ; and in doing so, declare Scripture, which is
the foundation and rock upon which the Church
of Christ is built, to be in many parts fictitious,

14

and not the word of God; — then, among the
ignorant and uninstructed, doubts are immediately
raised as to what they ought to beheve — the
current of their consolatory hopes is stopped by
a barrier which they cannot remove ; and distrust,
despair, and impiety, follow as the natural con-
sequences of these declarations.

I am aware that, among many, an opinion pre-
vails, that it would be better for the Legislature to
permit works of an impious and blasphemous
description to pass unnoticed, and to leave the
principles thus propagated to be refuted by those
to whom the charge of preserving true principles
of religion is committed, or by others who have
a zeal and knowledge of divine things : but in
my view of the case, it is with the utmost pro-
priety that the Legislature retains the power of
inflicting punishment for notorious scandals upon
our religion, and especially when our adversaries
depart from the course of regular and legitimate
reasoning, and have recourse to light and indecent
ribaldry in assailing the received doctrines of
Christianity : and though it is not my intention to
accuse the defendants as guilty in this respect, I
do not hesitate to place this offence to the neces-
sary effects of their writings ; and sure I am, that
the Legislature will never be backward in effect-
ually protecting from ridicule and insult those
sacred truths which are, and have been received

15

with reverence and awe by the great body of
Christians in all ages and countries. The Law will
not sanction blasphemy, — the Law is the guardian
of our religion, and will not suffer the Christian
faith to be wounded and maimed; but upon all
occasions of great and momentous import, when
Christianity is wilfully and impiously assailed, will
punish the delinquents, I do not say with severity,
but in such a manner as to show a proper and
due sense of veneration and respect for what is
truly esteemed holy and sacred. We have many
laws on our statute books which are seldom if ever
put in force ; if, then, it be asked. Why retain what
is obsolete and unserviceable ? I reply, That it is
wise to permit them to remain, if it be only to
show what is the spirit of our laws ; — to show
that they discountenance, if they do not punish,
offences of this nature ; and it is with the same
view of discouraging blasphemy, rather than of
p2inishi7ig or treating it with any sort of severity,
that the Defendants are now brought before you.
Surely, when men with bold effrontery come
forward, and, with the aid of great but per-
verted talents, assail the strong holds of Chris-
tianity, representing adoration to its Author as im-
pious, and our belief in him as blasphemous;
when they openly charge us with dishonesty in
adding to the Book of Life, while they are heed-
less of the curse on those who take aught from

16

it ^ ; and represent us as unwise and foolish in
our interpretation of it, as Heathens and Poly-
theists ; and all this, under the colour of profound
reading, liberal sentiments, and enlarged capacity
of reasoning; — if this torrent of misrepresentation
and error be not checked by some sort of public
disapproval and censure ; who is to calculate upon
the effects which such infidelity must produce upon
the moral conduct and religious feeling of a people ?
It is here, then, that I again repel the charge of
a narrow and persecuting spirit, in bringing the
present prosecution, which I urge, not against the
arraigned as individuals, but against their princi-
ples,— principles pernicious and impious, tending to
the substitution of a cold morality, and blighting
Deism, for all the glorious blessings and privileges
of Christianity.

From the pernicious doctrines which the persons
before you have promulged, a sect has recently
sprung up, who, under the name of " Free-thinking

I If any man shall take away from the words of the book
of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
book of life, &c. — Rev. xxii. 19.

*' It is true," says Doddridge, " this particularly refers to
the hook of the Revelaiion ; but the parity of reason extending
to other books, I doubt not the terror of the threatening does
so too." . . " I think this passage should make men very
cautious, that they may not rashly incur any censure on this
account ; though, undoubtedly, the terror of the threatening
is planted against any designed erasement or addition."

17

Christians," have grossly libelled our National
Church, as professing a religion which has no other
claim than that of being " by law established," —
" as a Church whose ministers and pastors are ser-
vants of the State only; who retain their office, titles,
and privileges, in opposition to the clear and ex-
press commands of Jesus ; — as a Church whose
laws have no earlier date than Popery, no higher
authority than Acts of Parliament ; — as a Church
whose unrighteous claims are supported by an appeal
to the hopes and fears of men ; — and, as a Church
whose un scriptural faith is fulminated by means of
a creed, which is at the same time intolerant in
its spirit, and contradictory in its assertions.*' ^

Gentlemen. When a religious sect adopts the
title of " Free-thinkers," it is time to look about us,
because we all know what Free-thinkers have done,
and what it is that they are prepared to do under
this revolutionary signal. The times must be lax
indeed which will suffer men boldly and daringly
to avow free-thinking and democratical principles,
and, under the cover of conscientious scruples, to
libel all that we hold most sacred. Religion has
too frequently been used as a cloak to conceal the
most ungodly designs, and we have too much rea-

' See the particulars of the infidelity of this sect, as de-
tailed in their petition to the House of Commons in 1827,
which is inserted in the Appendix to this volume.
C

18

son, from past experience, to suspect that the Free-
thinkers of these days may not be so different from
those of former times as the liberality of this age,
in its boasted intellectual advancement, may be dis-
posed to admit. Free-thinkers, hitherto, have been
Atheists, Deists, and Revolutionists. These allege,
indeed, that " they receive the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament as containing the revealed
word of God, and therefore they are not Atheists ; "
but whether by " the Scriptures " they mean all
and every part of those sacred, canonical books
which we receive, is doubtful; and, therefore, though
not Atheists, they may be Deists : and that they
are so, may be inferred from setting forth in the
development of their disbelief, that "the worship of
the man Jesus is idolatrous, and that the worship of
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost, is the worship of a plurality of Gods, open
and avowed Polytheism, and a Polytheism both
contrary to the laws of God and our country.
That they are Revolutionists also, is, I think, proved
upon their own showing, when they declare that
they " regard the connection of Religion with the
State as the primary cause of the grievances which
they suffer, and as having mainly contributed to
the corruption of revealed religion ; " and hence
they implore the Legislature " to put an end to the
connection between Church and Sstate." And who
are these men that would alter the government^

19

and denounce our ritual " as false and superstitious,
and our Church as having its foundation in Rome,
a superstructure of ignorance and mystery^ of Hea-
thenism and Popery ? " Who? but they who " pro-
fess an equality of rights;" among whom are "no
religious titles nor distinctions ; and whose aim is to
level all things," denying the right of the civil
magistrate to interfere in religion, alleging that
they are justified in such denial by the example of
St. Peter and St. John, who, when the Jewish rulers
threatened them if they preached Christ crucified,
demanded, " whether it were right in the sight of
God to hearken unto them, more than unto God."
Now, Gendemen, you are as well aware as I am,
that the Apostles put this question to those who
would not permit the name of Jesus to be preached :
here the Legislature supports the Apostles, and says
that that name shall not be blasphemed ; for that
divine Master commanded them and all his disci-
ples to "be subject to the higher powers," and "to
submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake," in accordance with the proof which he had
given them, that his religion was not intended to
interfere with the established government of the
country, when he ordered them to pay tribute-
money, and to render to C^sar the things that
were Caesar's. We too, like the Aposdes, deny that
our sovereign, or chief ruler, or magistrate, has the
power to administer God's words and sacraments,
c 2

^0

in right of his sovereignty or office ; but we hold
that he is the supreme Head of our Church over all
persons and things, and in all causes ecclesiastical
as well as civil : and that it is necessary that he
should be invested with this power, for the main-
tenance of public tranquillity, and for the due ad-
ministration of public justice. That the heretical
and deistical spirit of these men spring, in the first
instance, from the writings of the Defendants, I am
now prepared to show ; and in order to substantiate
the charge upon the record, I proceed to adduce
the strongest evidence in support of this prosecu-
tion, by bringing before you witnesses of no com-
mon stamp, — men of honour, learning, and sound
integrity, — such as are incapable of entertaining
prejudices, or of permitting any feeling to prevail
in the support of the charge, but such as springs from
the purest motives of rectitude, and the most ardent
love of truth. I am aware that I have a task of
some difficulty to perform, — a task which I would
fain were intrusted to better hands than mine : for
I am free to confess, that though born and edu-
cated in the principles of our national faith, and
alive to the duties, as well as to the comforts and
blessings of our holy religion, I am am not so well
nor so extensively acquainted with the various
parts of the divine law, and with those several par-
ticulars of doctrine and precept, nor with that
critical knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, as those

21

who by their profession have devoted their lives to
the study and acquisition of these high matters.
I have, however, the satisfaction to feel assured,
that the truth and goodness of the cause, which I
feel it my duty to vindicate, will suffer nothing from
my ignorance ; for the evidence which I have to
adduce is brought by those who are able to give
it in the clearest manner, and, what to me is not
less consolatory, it will be met and sifted by those
who have given sufficient proof of their power to
defend themselves : for I have learnt, since my
coming into court, that the cause of the accused
is to be defended by themselves. In this I think
they have rightly judged, for none are more able
to explain their conduct and belief; and none, I
am inclined to think, can act with greater, though
mistaken sincerity than themselves. Aided also
by the knowledge of his Lordship, which is con-
fessedly very extensive, both in respect to the
divine law and the law of the land, they will have
in him all the advantages of an advocate, and at
the same time the assurance from his general cha-
racter that, as he is above all prejudice, and inca-
pable of being swayed from the strict line of his
duty by any partial or party feelings, there pre-
sides a judge on this tribunal, whose veneration
for that greater Judge who is hereafter to try him
at the bar of Heaven, will not permit him to forget
that he stands between the people of this Nation
c 3

22

and their God; and that the responsibility in the
full discharge of his duty is, therefore, most awful.
Gentlemen, I shall confidently bring this enquiry
before you, and leave the issue of it in your hands,
persuaded that any cause, whether public or pri-
vate, cannot be in greater security than vv^hen it is
committed to the keeping, or hangs upon the de-
cision, of men whose characters, deserved fame, and
conscientious principles, are an ample guarantee
for the just and due discharge of their duty. —
Call Samuel Horsley.

Crier, He is sworn.

Examined by the Attorney-General : —

Att. Gen, Your name, sir, I think is Horsley ?

Wit7iess. It is.

Att, Gen, Do you know any thing of a book
entitled " The Corruptions of Christianity ? '*

Witness, I do, sir : I know it to have been writ-
ten by Thomas Priestley, one of the defendants.

Priestley. To save the time of the Court, I ad-
mit that I am the author of that work.

Att. Gen. Very good. Pray then, sir, inform the
gentlemen of the jury of the nature of that work.

Witness, The obj ect of it is to throw d iscredit upon
the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, by denying that
it has any existence in Scripture, or that either the
Scriptures, or the belief of the primitive Christians,
afford any support to the truth of it. It attempts
to prove that the doctrine, in the form in which it

23

is now maintained, is of no greater antiquity than
the Nicene Council; — that it is a gradual corruption
of the doctrine of the Gospel, which took its rise
in an opinion j€r5/ advanced in the second century
by converts from the Platonic school ; — that be-
fore this innovation, of which Justin Martyr is
made the author, the faith of the whole Christian
Church, and particularly of the Church of Jeru-
salem, was simply and strictly Unitarian ; — that
the immediate disciples of the Apostles conceived
our Saviour to be a man, whose existence com-
menced in the womb of Mary; — that they thought
him in no respect an object of worship ' ; — that
the next succeeding race worshipped him, indeed,
but they had no higher notions of his divinity than
those which are maintained by the followers of
Arius in the fourth century.^ Thus, by the de-
claration that the primitive Christians were Uni-
tarians, and their followers, to the fourth century,
Arians, have the defendants attempted to level,
and too fatally succeeded in striking, a blow which
aims to dispossess that Being of divinity, " who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God, although he made himself

1 The doctrine of our Lord's mere humanity is the clear
doctrine of the Scriptures, and the apostles never taught any
other. — Hist, of Corr. vol. i. p. 6.

2 See Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry
of St. Albans.

C 4

24

of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

Judge, Defendant, — I shall take it as admitted
that this and any other statement here made of your
work by the witnesses is correct, where you do not
interpose to deny it. In what year did the Nicene
Council assemble?

Witness, In the year 325.

Att, Gen, Is the assumption that the faith of
the first Christians was simply and strictly Uni-
tarian true or not ?

Witness. Decidedly untrue ; for it was the evident
object of St. John to guard against the possibility
of mistaking the divine original of Christ in his
decisive statement, that he was the divine Word or
Logos that had existed from all eternity ; and Ig-
natius, the disciple of St. John, here states in the
page now open before me, in terms highly figur-
ative, I will allow, but perfectly unequivocal, the
Word or Logos to be a distinct person from the
Father. " There is one God, who hath ma-
nifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who
is his eternal Son, who came not forth from
silence ^ ;" meaning thereby, that the Son's exist-
ence holds not of the Father by any such remote
relation as the fabulous genealogies describe ; but
he is the eternal Logos of the paternal mind.

Ign. ad Magn., sect. 8.

25

Again, Clemens Romanus, the fellow-labourer
of St. Paul ^5 says, speaking of Christ, " The
sceptre of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus
Christ, came not in the pomp of pride or arro-
gance, although he had it in his power." ^ And if
Christ had the power of coming into the world in
what manner he pleased, he was a Divine Being ;
and this exactly coincides with what St. John says,
— " Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ
is come in thejlesh, is of God." Now, had Christ
been a mere man, in what other way could he have
come than in the Jlesh ? and yet Priestley says,
that Clemens, when speaking in the highest terms
concerning Christ, only calls him " the sceptre of
the majesty of God;" whereas both he and the
Apostle, his fellow-labourer, declare that he came
in the Jlesh ; or, as another Apostle has it, " in the
likeness of men." St. John, therefore, with great
truth and reason, sets forth this as the cardinal
doctrine of Christianity ; insomuch that he speaks
of the belief of this article as the accomplishment
of our Christian warfare ; the attainment, at least,
of that faith which with certainty overcometh the
world. " This," he says, " is the victory which
overcometh the world, even our faith." Then he
adds, " Who is he that overcometh the world, but
he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? "

« Vide Phil. iv. 3. "> Ep. 1. ch. 16.

26

" Son of God " is a title that belongs to our Lord
in his human character, describing him as that
man who became The Son of God by union with
the Godhead ; as " Son of Man," on the contrary,
is a title which belongs to the Eternal Word, de-
scribing that person of the Godhead who was
made man by uniting himself to the man Jesus.
To believe, therefore, that Jesus is The Son of
God, is to believe that he is God himself incar-
nate. This the Apostle says, is the faith w^hich
overcometh the world ; inspiring the Christian
with fortitude to surmount the temptations of the
world, in whatever shape they may assail him.
On the other hand, the denial of this great truth,
so animating to the believer's hopes, he represents
as the beginning of that apostacy which is to come
to its height in the latter ages, as one of the cha-
racters of Antichrist. '' Ye have heard," he says,
*' that Antichrist shall come : even now there are
many Antichrists. Who is a liar, but he that de-
nieth the Father and Son?" And again, " Every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh, is of God ; and every spirit that con-
fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
is not of God : and this is that spirit of Antichrist
whereof ye have heard that it should come, and
now already is it in the world." " The Christ" is
a name properly alluding to the inauguration of
the Redeemer to his triple oflice of Prophet, Priest,

27

and King, by the unction from above : but in the
phraseology of the heretics of the Apostolic age, it
was used as a name of that Divine Being with
whom we maintain, but they denied, an union with
the man Jesus. To deny that Jesus is the Christ
was, in their sense of the word " Christ," to deny
that he is The Son of God, or God incarnate.
He that denieth this, says the Apostle, is a liar,
and is Antichrist. Two remarkable sects of these
lying Antichrists arose in the Apostles' days — the
sect of the Cerinthian heretics, who denied the
divinity of our Saviour ; and the sect of the Do-
cetae, who denied his manhood, maintaining that
the body of Jesus, and every thing he appeared to
do and suffer in it, was mere illusion. Thus, both
equally denied the incarnation; both, therefore,
equally were liars and Antichrists : and to give
equal and direct contradiction to the lies of both,
St. John delivers the truth in these terms, that
" Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh." ^

Att. Gen. Now, sir, inform us, whether it be
true that the primitive Church of Jerusalem was
strictly Unitarian, maintaining the simple humanity
of Christ?

Witness. It is first necessary for me to state, 'that
the Jews at Jerusalem, who were first converted to
Christianity, are designated " the Hebrews," or

> Horsley's Sermons, vol. i. p. 175.

28

** they of the Circumcision ; " and they, together
with James, the brother of our Lord, their bishop,
constituted the primitive church of Jerusalem; that
original parent church, the mother of us all.
When the emperor Adrian drove the Jews from
Jerusalem, the descendants of these Hebrew
Christians settled in the northern parts of Galilee,
and became heretics in one particular, by main-
taining the necessity of the observance of the
Mosaic law for the attainment of salvation under
the Gospel, and were then called Nazarencs,
After them arose another sect, called Ebionites.
Now, the author of the Corruptions of Chris-
tianity confounds these two sects together, and calls
them " Hebrew Christians;" and he says, with
respect to them, " You will find no trace in history
that they believed Christ to be any thing more
than man. " ^ It may be true that this author has
not been able to discover in history, that the
Nazarenes believed Christ any other than a man ;
but I affirm, that there is hardly any fact in the
early history of the church more clearly established
than the distinction between the Nazarenes and
Ebionites : both of whom maintained the opinion
of the orthodoxy of the proper Nazarenes in the
article of our Lord's divinity. It is evident, there-
fore, that these sects were not the same with the

1 Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 32.

29

Hebrew Christians who composed the primitive
church of Jerusalem.

Att, Geji. You deny the primitive church of
Jerusalem to have been Unitarian : when, and how,
do you say that Unitarianism commenced ?

Witness. Cerinthus, who was contemporary with
St. John, taught, that to Christ born as a man was
added an angelic being: that this union was inter-
rupted at the crucifixion and at the time of our
Lord's interment, but was restored after the resur-
rection ; and, being restored, it rendered the man
Jesus an object of divine honour: and this, Ter-
tullian says, was a heresy, and a heresy it was con-
sidered when Cerinthus lived ', which proves that
the divinity of Christ was the orthodox doctrine.
Now Ebion, from whom the Ebionites took their
name, is declared by Epiphanius and Irenaeus to
have held the Cerinthian doctrine or heresy re-
specting Christ; consequently, he worshipped Christ
as a deified man. From the time of Cerinthus to
the year 190, the Ebionites do not appear to have
gone further than the denial of our Lord's original
divinity, when Theodotus the apostate, the tanner
of Byzantium, came to Rome and preached the doc-
trine of Antichrist, and probably first taught the
mere humanity of Christ ; for there is no evidence
to prove that Christ was not worshipped by the

' De Praescript. Haeret. c.48. p. 221.

30

Ebionites ; and as all innovations have a progress,
and the divinity of Christ was the belief, and the
worship of Christ was the practice, of the first ages,
it is probable that presumptuous men would begin
to question the ground on which his claim to wor-
ship might be thought to stand, before they aban-
doned the worship to which they had been so long
habituated. I would ask, has not this been the
progress of the corruption in latter times? Soci-
nus, although he denied the original divinity of
our Lord, was nevertheless a worshipper of Christ,
and a strenuous asserter of his claim to worship.
It was left to others to build upon the foundation
which Socinus laid, and to bring the Unitarian doc-
trine to the goodly form in which the present age
beholds it.

Court. Well, well. — But was the divinity of
Christ the belief of the Apostles ? first show that.

Att. Gen. That, my Lord, has been proved by
what the witness has adduced from St. John.

Court. That is but a solitary instance. The
witness has gone no further than to say, that the
divinity of Christ was the belief of the primitive
church of Jerusalem ; but it is necessary to show
more than this, — that it was the original faith.

Witness. My Lord, this is a wide field in which
the believer in the divinity of Christ may long
expatiate, and with delight. St. Peter, in his first
sermon on the day of Pentecost, declares publicly

31

to the people of Israel, that Jesus, whom they had
crucified and slain, was raised up from the grave
by God ; " having loosed the pains of death, for it
was not possible that he should be holden of it."
And here, let me ask, who was this that it was im-
possible for the bonds of death to hold? Not the
mere man, Jesus of Nazareth, for all men are sub-
ject to, and are to be holden of, death; — no, it was
Christ the divine Redeemer of mankind, — that divine
Being w ho was superior to all the powers of death
and hell: He, who shed forth upon his Apostles on
this day the Holy Spirit from the place of his
exaltation on the right hand of God, having re-
ceived the promise of the Holy Ghost from the
Father. My Lord, I will also insist that the
blessed Stephen died a martyr to the deity of
Christ. The accusation which the Defendants say
was brought against him, was his *' speaking blas-
phemous words against the Temple and the Law."
The accusation which the Jews brought against
him, says the Apostle, was also a charge of blas-
phemy against Moses and against God.^ And
what was this blasphemy? It was probably a
prediction that the Temple was to be destroyed,
and the ritual of Law, of course, abolished. The
blasphemy against Moses was probably his asser-
tion that the authority of Moses was inferior to

1 Acts, vi. 11.

32

that of Christ. But what could be the blasphemy
against God ? What, except it were this ; that he
ascribed divinity to one who suffered publicly as a
malefactor ? That this was the crime of the blessed
Stephen cannot be doubted, when the conclusion
of the story is considered. " While," says the
inspired historian, " he looked up stedfastly into
heaven, and saw the glory of God," — that is, he
saw the splendour of the Shechinah, for that is
what is meant when the glory of God is mentioned
as something to be seen, — " and he saw Jesus
standing on the rif^ht hand of God ' ; " the man
Jesus in the midst of the light. The Jewish rabble
understood his declaration of seeing Jesus in the
divine glory as an assertion of his divinity ; they,
therefore, stopped their ears ; they overpowered
his voice with clamours, and hurried him out of
the city, to inflict upon him the death which the
law appointed for blasphemers.- The holy man
died as he had lived, attesting the deity of his cru-
cified Master. His last breath was uttered in a
prayer to Jesus, first for himself, and then for his
murderers, — "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Lord,
lay not this sin to their charge." ^

Court, Are not the words in our version, ** They
stoned Stephen calling upon God? "

1 Acts, vii. 55. 2 Acts, vii. 57, 58.

» Horsley's Letter XII. to Priestley.

33

Witness. They are, my Lord.

Court. And the word " God" I perceive to be
in italics, by which I understand it to be supplied
by the translators, and that it is not in the original
text.

Witness. It certainly is not in the original text,
but the force and the true rendering of the passage
in the original is, " They stoned Stephen, invocating
and saying, Lord Jesus." ^

Court, That may be the better way of render-
ing it, but I shall not take it as evidence against
Priestley.

Witness. My Lord, I do not desire that you
should ; it is sufficient for us to know that our ver-
sion gives the full and correct sense of the original ;
and it will equally answer the purpose of my testi-
mony, to consider, that, at all events, a prayer was
made by the martyr Stephen in his last agonies ;
and that men pray with the utmost seriousness to that
Being whom they conceive the mightiest to save.-

Att, Gen. It is stated in this work of the " His-
tory of the Corruptions of Christianity " that the
notion of the Trinity in Unity was —

1 ETriKaXovfisi'ov is used in the same sense and manner in
1 Pet. i. 17. " If ye call on the Father."

'2 « Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved." Rom. x. 13. Ubi voce Knot'ou Christum intelligi,
ex contextu planum est. — Bull. Prim, et Apost. Trad. p. 392.
D

34

Court. Stay. You had better ask if another
instance can be adduced, in favour of the disciples
of Christ believing their Lord to be God, contrary
to any other proposition laid down by the writer
in this work.

Att. Gen. Can you, sir, produce any other in-
stance to this purpose ?

Wit7iess. Yes ; and one as strong and certain as
any previously advanced. I allude to the story of
St. Paul's conversion, in which, as it is twice re-
lated by himself, Jesus is deified in the clearest
terms. This transaction appears to have been a
repetition of the scene of Moses and the bush,
heightened in terror and solemnity. Instead of a
lambent flame appearing to a solitary shepherd
amidst the thickets of the wilderness, the full efful-
gence of the Shechinah, overpowering the splen-
dour of the mid-day sun, bursts upon the commis-
sioners of the Sanhedrim, on the road to Damascus,
wdthin a small distance of the city. Jesus speaks,
and is spoken to, as the divinity inhabiting that
glorious light. Nothing can exceed the tone of
authority on the one side, and the submission and
religious dread on the other. The Apostle usually
recites this story before making a public defence
of his belief in Christ, and it had the effect of
heiorhteninff the resentment of his incredulous coun-
trymen against him.

Court, Mr, Attorney General, you may now

35

proceed in the course you were about to take
when I interrupted you.

Att, Gen. Very well, my Lord. — Now, sh', you
have stated it to be asserted by Priestley that the
doctrine of the Trinity in Unity was first suggested
by Plato and his disciples ; what have you to allege
against this position ?

Witness. Priestley in his book asserts, that the
notion of the Trinity was suggested, and, as he
says, " first advanced in the second century, by
converts from the Platonic school." Plato taught,
that the Supreme Being included three principles
in his divine nature, and that these principles
formed a Unity ^ ; and, because Plato has said

1 Gibbon, in the brilliant effusions of his infidelity, says on
this subject, " that Plato has marvellously anticipated one of
the most surprising discoveries of the Christian Revelation."
(Rom.Emp. ch.xxi. p. 321.) The three principles are not
the principles of Plato, but of the junior Platonists of the
second and third centuries, who differ widely from Plato,
though the acknowledged founder of the sect. (See Cud-
worth's Int. Syst. i. iv. 36.) Gibbon boldly asserts, " that the
Apostle has bestowed on the fundamental principle of Plato's
theology a divine sanction." (Ch.xxi. p. 320.) " His
notion of the theology, both of the evangelist and philoso-
pher," says Dr. Craven, " must, surely, be extravagantly er-
roneous. They who are the best acquainted with Plato's
theology make its fundamental principles to be these two;
God and Matter ; both eternal, the one independent of the
other. St. John gives no sanction to such a doctrine. The
Logos of St. John is a person, not a metaphysical abstraction."

See Craven's Jewish and Christian Dispensations, ch.xv.

D 2

56

this, the writer of " The Corruptions of Chris-
tianity " conceives that the Christians of the second
century borrowed their notions of a Trinity from
this notion of Plato; and, as the doctrine was a
doctrine of Gentile philosophy, it, therefore, could
not be one of Divine Revelation. Now, to say
that the discoveries of Revelation and the inves-
tigations of philosophy cannot coincide, will be to
affirm what cannot be proved; and why is it to be
supposed that no one part of the doctrine of an
inspired writer could be previously taught by wise
men not inspired ? Many of the moral precepts
of our Lord are to be found in works of more
ancient heathen authors ^ ; and were every iota of
the Gospel doctrine to be found in the writings of
the Greek philosophers, this would not be suffi-
cient to set aside the pretensions of the first
preachers of Christianity to a divine commission.
But the doctrine of three principles in the Divine

' On the forgiveness of injuries, Cicero says, " Quaedam
officia adversus eos sei*vanda, a quibus injuriam acceperis."
Lib. i. ch. 15. Cicero, also, commends Pericles for saying
that a magistrate should not only restrain his hands from
doing wrong, but turn his eyes from contemplating objects
that excite it. " Decet non solum manus, sed etiam oculos
abstinentes habere." Off. i. 40.

Juvenal says, Whoever secretly meditates a crime, is guilty
ofit: —

Nam scelus intra se taciturn qui cogitat uUum
Facti crunen habet. Sat. xiii. 208.

37

nature was not peculiar to the Platonic school:
the followers of Plato pretended to no more than
to be the expositors of a more ancient doctrine ;
and it may be clearly traced from Plato up to the
Egyptian priests. The same notions of a triple
principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldsean
theology. Vestiges of it are discernible in the
Roman superstition in a very late age; and this
worship of the Romans was received from their
Trojan ancestors, for the Trojans brought it with
them into Italy from Phrygia, and in Phrygia it
was introduced by Dardanus as early as the ninth
century after the flood; so that a notion of the
Trinity, more or less removed from the pm'ity of
the Christian faith, is found to have been a leading
principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy,
and in the religions of almost all nations; and
traces of an early popular belief of it appear even
in the abominable rites of idolatrous worship. If
reason was sufficient for this great discovery, what
could be the means of information but what the
Platonists themselves assign ; namely, " a theology
delivered from the gods," in other words, a theo-
logy derived from Revelation. This is the account
which Platonists, who were no Christians, have
given of the origin of their master's doctrine. But
I ask, from what revelation could they derive their
information ; they who lived before the Christian,
and had no light from the Mosaic ? For, what-
D 3

38

ever some of the early fathers may have imagined,
there is no evidence that Plato or Pythagoras were
at all acquainted with the Mosaic writings, not to
insist (as I strenuously do) that the worship of
the Trinity is traced to an earlier age than that of
Plato or Pythagoras, or even of Moses. Their
information could only be drawn from traditions
founded upon earlier revelations ; from scattered
fragments of the ancient patriarchal creed ; that
creed which was universal before the defection of
the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idol-
atry, gross and enormous as they were, could
never totally obliterate. Thus the doctrine of the
Trinity is rather confirmed than discredited by
the suffrage of the Heathen sages, since the re-
semblance of the Christian faith and the Pagan
philosophy in this article, when fairly interpreted,
appears to be nothing less than the consent of the
latest and earliest Revelations.^

Court. What were the three principles in the
Divine Nature, according to the Platonists, named ?

Witness. Goodness^ Intelligence^ and Vitality^ by
which was meant the eternal activity of the Deity,
the existence of intellect, and the vital principle.

Att. Gen. My Lord, I have done with this
witness.

1 See Dr. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of the Arch-
deaconry of St. Albans, p. 49.

39

Cross-examination of the Witness,

Court, Priestley, are there any questions which
you wish to ask of this witness ?

Priestley. Yes, my Lord. In the commence-
ment of his evidence, the witness attempts to show
that Theodotus was the first promulger of the
doctrine of the sole humanity of Christ ; whereas
that person only revived the doctrine long pre-
viously held by the ancient Unitarians, which
doctrine was the universal opinion of the pri-
mitive Church until the time of Victor, who was
contemporary with Theodotus ; and I challenge
the witness to disprove this. ^

Witness. Then, Eusebius shall decide the point ;
who tells us, " that the pretensions of these here-
tics were confuted by the presbyter Caius, who,
referring to authors older than the time of Victor,
says, " These heretics maintain that all the first
Christians, and the Apostles themselves, received
and taught those things which the followers of
Artemon (the disciple of Theodotus) now hold ;
and that the true doctrine which w^as preserved
till the time of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of
Rome in succession from St. Peter, was first cor-
rupted by his successor Zephyr inus. Their as-
sertion might have some show of probability, but
that, in the first place, the Holy Scriptures were

' History of Comip. vol.xi. p. 486.
D 4

40

directly opposed to them; and there are extant
many writings of the brethren, more ancient than
the times of Victor, which they wrote to the Gen-
tiles in defence of the truth, and against the then
existing heresies, — 1 speak of Justin, Miltiades,
Tatian, Clement, and many others ; in all of which
the divinity of Christ is maintained. And who is
ignorant of the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the
rest, which proclaim that Christ is both God and
man ? and whatever psalms and songs were written
from the first by the faithful brethren, they all
ascribe divinity to Christ, and celebrate him as
the Word of God. How, then, can it be pre-
tended that the doctrines which the Artemonites
inculcate were received till the time of Victor?
And how is it that they are not ashamed to throw
out this calumny against him, since they perfectly
well know that Victor excommunicated Theo-
dotus, the inventor and father of their God-deny-
ing apostacy^ the first who asserted the mere hu-
manity of Christ." These are the words of
Eusebius himself. ^

Priestley, I see nothing in this passage but a

1 Hist.Ecc. lib.v. c. 28.

As soon as Theodotus had impugned the divinity of Christ,
he was instantly condemned by the Church for it, and was
excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome, Victor, (about
A. D. 188,) as an Heresiarch. — Waterland's Judg. of Prim.
Chiu'ches.

41

plain acknowledgement that the ancient Unitarians
themselves constantly asserted that their doctrine
was the universal opinion of the primitive Church
till the time of Victor. ^ The witness has also
said, that Ignatius speaks of Jesus as a Divine
Being, and as the Son of God, in his epistle to
the Magnesians. I will admit that he is made to
say so in our present copies of his epistles ; but
then the witness cannot but know that those
epistles are not genuine ; and the learned, on this
account, have long given them up.

Witness. This I must unequivocally deny : that
the longer epistles are spurious, I readily admit ;
but those of which we are speaking, the shorter ones,
T will, in conjunction with Vossius, Hammond,
Petavius, Grotius, and a host of others, main-
tain to be genuine ; and in them is the evidence of
the truth of Christ's Divine nature, of which I have
spoken. ^

Priestley. Then, in common justice, I require
you to prove them genuine.

Witness. No ; the onus prohandi rests with you,
to show that the great majority, indeed, I may

> History of Corrup. vol. xi. p. 486.

2 See Horsley's Letter to Priestley, V. p. 135.

When Priestley made this assertion he was unacquainted
with the writings of Bishop Bull, and many others of the
great divines, on this point.

42

say, that nearly all the learned critics and scholars
who hold them as genuine, are mistaken.

Priestley. Again, my Lord, the witness at-
tempts to make St. John speak of an incarnation,
when he says, " Every spirit which confesses that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." ^

Court. Well, are not these the very words of
our common version ?

Priestley. They are, my Lord; but the term
" in thejlesh^^ would be better if it were " of the
Jlesli ; " for the clear meaning of the passage is,
" Every spirit is of God that confesses Jesus
Christ is come of the flesh, or is truly man ; " and
if he considers the original, he must admit this.^

Witness. I can never admit this ; for how you
can venture to change the translation of a word for
that which is not the translation of the original,
I know not.

Court. Hand me the Greek Testament. — Iv

Witness. The words Iv (rup%\ can only be truly
rendered " in the flesh ; " and the difference be-
tween the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, and
his coming of the flesh, is wonderfully great : the
one declares an incarnation, the other a mortal ex-
traction.

» 1 John, iv. 2.

'-! History of Corriip. vol. i. p. 10,

43

Cmirl The alteration is inadmissible.
Priestley. Again, the witness denies that the
Nazarenes and Ebionites were the same sect under
different names, while Origen and Epiphamus both
acknowledge that they were one, and mamtamed
the same tenets. Now it is admitted t^,at the
Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ, and there-
fore the Nazarenes denied the same; and they
were the Hebrew Christians, or the primitive
church of Jerusalem.

Witiuss. What Epiphanius says is a mere doubt
(for he confesses that he knows nothing of the
matter), whether the Nazarenes believed m the
divinity of Christ'; which doubt you have mi-
proved into a positive assertion that they rejected
if and with respect to the singular assertion ol
Ori-en, that the name of Ebionites was given, with-
ont^xception, to all the Jewish Christians who
united with the acknowledgement of Jesus as the
Christ, the strict observance of the Mosaic law,
it is worthy of observation that he says, at the
same time and in the same passage, that these
Ebionites were so named on account of " the po-
verty of the law h " whereas, when he is speakmg
of the Ebionites, properly so called, who professed
the opinions of Ebion, and denied our Lords

, Adv. Hreres. lib.i. p. 123. in Nazaraos.
2 Contra Cels. lib. xi.

44

divinity, he tells us that they were so named on
account of " their poverty in their faith of Jesus. ^^ ^

Priestley. The learned tutor of the great Lardner
proves from his writings, that the Nazarenes and
the Ebionites w^ere the same sect.

Witness. That Jones, to whom you allude, wrote
to this effect I acknowledge ; but his single opinion
is opposed to that of the greatest critics, — to
Grotius, Vossius, Spencer, Huetius, and a host of
others, together with the illustrious Mosheim him-
self, who says, " This little body of Christians,
which coupled Moses with Christ, spht again into
two sects, distinguished from each other by their
doctrines concerning Christ, and the permanent
obligation of the law, and perhaps by some other
circumstances;" and he adds, "The Nazarenes
had a better and a truer notion of Christ than the
Ebionites." -

1 UroixtvovTtQ TTtpi T)]v tiQ 'Ii]<Tovv TTiGTiv. In Commeiit. in
Matt, p. 428. See British Critic, vol. ii. p. 273.

- Both Nazarenes and Ebionites were Christians of Jewish
origin, who lived, for the most part, to the east of Jordan and
the Orontes. The Nazarenes retained the name which was
originally borne, not by a single sect, but by the followers of
Christ in general : the Ebionites derived their name either
from the Hebrew word Ebion, which signifies ]}oo7\ or, as
some have thought, from a founder of the name of Ebion.
Both sects were nearly allied to each other, but on some
points they differed. They both agreed in retaining the Le-
vitical Law, at the same time that they professed themselves

45

Priestley. Still I affirm that there is no trace in
history, that the Nazarenes believed Christ to be
more than man.

Witness. The silence of history would be no proof
on this point, that such was their faith, if indeed
history were silent, which I think with Grotius and
others it is not. But if it could be proved (which
I deny to be possible) that these Nazarenes were
the first converts of the Circumcision ; we, who
maintain the full divinity of Christ, should find in
their confession the verdict of those first Christians
in our favour.

Priestley. Leaving this point upon which we
cannot agree, and going to the dying prayer of
Stephen, which you say is addressed to Jesus, I
have to observe that the proper object of prayer is
God the Father ; for " him only " are we called
upon to serve : how then can you justify suppli-
cation to any other, even though he were a Divine
Being ?

Witness. God forbid that I should ever refuse to
acknowledge that the Father is a proper object of
prayer, and may he equally forbid that I should
consider him as the proper object of adoration to

followers of Christ ; but they cliiFerecl from each other in this
respect, that the Ebionites considered Christ as a mere man ;
whereas, the Nazarenes, if not all, at least some of them, are
said to have ascribed to him a di\ine origin. — Marsh's Mi-
chaelis, vol.iv. p. 162.

46

the exclusion of the other persons in the Godhead, in
the sense in which you seem to charge me. I do not
deny that there is an honour personally due to him as
the Father ; but there is also an honour personally
due to the Son, as the Son ; and to the Spirit, as
the Spirit. Our knowledge of these personal dis-
tinctions is so obscure, in comparison with our
apprehension of the general attributes of the God-
head, that it should seem that the Divinity is rather
to be generally worshipped in the three persons
jointly and indifferently, than that any distinct ho-
nours are to be offered to each separately. Prayer,
however, for succour against external persecution,
seems addressed with peculiar propriety to the Son.^

Priestley. Next, I would ask, did not the Chris-
tians of the second centur}^, who embraced the no-
tion of Plato's Triad of Divinity, conceive Christ
(or the Divine Logos as you call him) only to have
been an attribute of the Father : and did not this
attribute or property of the Divine mind, in process
of time, come to be regarded as a separate, per-
sonal character ? And was not this the change of
a mere attribute into a thinking substance ? In
plain words, is not the "wisdom of God personified
and called the Son of God ?

Witness. No such thing; for neither did the early
Christians, or any other Christians, mistake, nor

1 Dr. Horsley's Letters to Priestley, XII. p. 234.

47

could they mistake, no person for a person, by fits
and starts ; nor could they, any more than myself,
understand a jDerson for a ^rinciple^ a substance for
a shadow, or how to create a thing out of nothing.
I affirm with others, that the Logos of St. John is
a person, not a metaphysical abstraction.^ The
Platonists and Plato have very different notions of
the divine Triad. The Platonists separate the
divine hypostasis from its attributes, and make of
them so many distmct principles ; in Plato they go
in union together, and form one wise and powerful
Being.

Priestley, You surely cannot deny that the
Christian Platonists, when they became Christians,
discarded the notion of the eternity of the Logos
as a person, and came back to the original belief,
that it was an attribute and not a person.^

1 Gibbon says, " the theology of Plato might have been
for ever confounded with the philosophical visions of the
Academy, if the name and divine attributes of the Logos had
not been confirmed by the celestial pen of the last of the
Evangelists." (D. & F. c. xxi. p. 318.) But what room can
there be, either for confusion or confirmation, when Logos
has different and distinct meanings ; and signifies in Plato,
wisdom, — a divine attribute indeed, — and in the Evangelist
denotes a person. — Dr. Craven's Jewish and Christian Dis-
pensations, p. '247.

2 TertuUian, to prevent this very conclusion, that the Logos
was, at some time or other, a mere attribute, remarks, that
nothing empty and unsubstantial can proceed from God ; for

48

Witness. If they did (and I question if more than
a few did) look upon the Logos as a principle only
of the Divine mind, they were led to adopt this
notion from a comparison between the Logos and
the reason of the human soul, or between the
Word and human speech.

Priestley. That some did think so, you admit.
At all events, the orthodoxy of the second century
was mingled with the notions of the Platonic school,
and this is a fact which you will hardly deny.

Witness. Nor do I desire. Unitarians conceive
they gain a conquest when they can stamp the
Catholic faith wdth the brand of Platonism ; for
my own part, I deem it no disgrace ; on the con-
trary, I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium, for
I am free to confess that I maintain, not a per-
fect agreement with the Platonists on this point,
but such a similitude as speaks a common origin,
and affords an argument in confirmation of the
Catholic doctrine, from its conformity to the most
ancient and universal traditions.^

Court. Would you wdsh to ask any more ques-
tions ?

Priestley. No, my Lord. I have done.

the Divine nature admitting neither quality nor accident,
every thing belonging to it must be substance. — Horsley's
Letter XIIL

• See Bull's Prim, et Apost. Trad, de Jesu^Christi Di-
vinitate, ch.v.

49

Court. Who is your next witness ?

Att. Gen, Call George Bull.

Court, Against which of the Defendants does
this witness appear?

Att, Gen. Against them all, my Lord.

Court, How so ?

Att, Gen, Because, my Lord, they each and all
assert, and have publicly declared in their writings,
that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was the
invention of the third century, and I bring this
witness to prove the direct contrary. Moreover,
I have before me on the table the " Apology of
Theophilus Lindsey on resig-ning the Vicarage of
Catterick," and his "Sequel," the "Calm Inquiry,"
" The Improved Version of the New Testament,"
and " The Reply to the Bishop of St. David's,"
which I shall prove to be the works of the Defend-
ant Belsham.

Belsham, We admit the fact of these being our
respective writings.

Att. Gen, And that they each and all deny the
Trinity to be the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures ?

Belsham. Yes ; decidedly so.

Court. Proceed.

Att. Gen, Your name, sir, I believe to be George
Bull.

Witness. It is.

£

50

Att, Gen. I am informed that you are the author
of a book entitled, ** Defensio Fidei Nicaenae."

Witness. I am.

Att, Gen. What is the object of that work ?

Witness. To prove the Godhead of the Son, and
to show both the consubstantiality and the co-
eternity of Christ the Son of God, from the consent
of the ancient doctors of the Church, who hved be-
fore the Council of Nice, with the Nicene Fathers,
by a tradition derived from the apostolical age itself.

Att. Gen. What are we to understand by the
term consubstantial ?

Witness. A participation of the very same nature.

Att. Gen. What do the early Fathers assert, in
your opinion, respecting the Divinity of Christ ?

Witness. They prove that Jesus Christ, before he
had that name or was born of the Virgin Mary,
had a real existence in a far more excellent nature
than the human, and in that nature appeared to
the holy men of old as a foretoken of his future
incarnation, and did preside over, and had care
of the Church which was to be redeemed by his
blood : so that from the beginning of the world,
the whole order of divine economy was altogether
transacted through him ; yea, even before the found-
ation of the world, he was actually present with
God his Father, and through him all the universe
was created.

Court. Adduce your proofs.

51

Witness. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote
A. D. 194, speaking of Christ, says, " Who is most
manifestly God, who is made equal to the Lord of
the Universe ; because he was his Son, and exists in

God." The force of which expression lies in this,

that every son is of the same nature and essence
with his father, and that whatsoever exists in God
himself, must necessarily be very God.^ Again, the
same Father says, " He can want nothing, who has
the Word, the Almighty God; nor does he ever
lack any of those things which are needful for
him : for the Word is a possession that has no-
thing wanting to it, and which is the foundation of
all plenty."^ — The plain meaning of which is, The
Word, as being God Almighty, can want nothing;
and thence, can do and give all things to those who

are His.

Att, Gen. You stated it as the doctrine and
belief of the early Fathers that Christ in his pre-
existing state, that is, in the state of his existence
before his coming as Messiah, appeared unto the
holy men of old : do you mean to say that he is the
Jehovah of the Old Testament?

» Defensio Fid. sect. iv. ch. 2.

2 Defensio Fid. 2. vi. 4.

Est enim minime indigens, qui Verbiim habet Deum om-
nipotentem, et nullo eorum, qiiibus opus habet, unquam eget ;
Verbum enim possessio est,cui nihil decst,etest causa onnus
copiae. — Paed. iii. 7.

E 2

52

Witness, Justin Martyr says that it was Christ
who appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre
(Gen.xviii. 1.), who rained brimstone and fire
from heaven upon Sodom (Gen. xix. 24.)? who ap-
peared in the form of a man and wrestled with
Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 24.), and who appeared in the
burning bush to Moses (Exod. iii. 4.). Irenaeus,
also, affirms the same : and these fathers are fol-
lowed by Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ter-
tullian, and others.'

Ait, Gen, If God, or the Lord, be said in the
Old Testament to have appeared to holy men in
the form of an angel or other divine resemblance,
what reason had these ancient Fathers to suppose
that it was the Son of God ?

Witness, No doubt because they were taught to
believe this from the Apostles themselves and their
immediate successors ; and also for this reason ;
because, as God created the world by his Son, by
the same Son he governs it; and as the Son had
previously held converse with mortals before his
incarnation, so he carries on the same intercourse
with them after it.^

1 Defen. Fid. sect.i. ch. 1. § 3, 4, 5, and 6.

5 Deus in terris cum hominibus alius conversari non potuit,
quam Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. — Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 16.
See, also, Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. i. c. 1 J . Orig. cont. Cels.
lib. 6.

53

Alt. Gen. And you think the angel who ap-
peared unto Jacob was God, and that God was the
Son or The Word.

Witness. I do : for Jacob or Israel when he
blessed his grandsons said, " God, before whom
my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac, did walk, the
God which fed me all my life long unto this day :
The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless
the lads." ^ Here it is evident that God and the
Angel are the same ; but no created Angel could
either confer blessing, or be the God of Abraham ;
and therefore it could be none other than He, the
Son of God, who is " higher than the Angels,"
" and came forth from the Father."

Court. And you say that the early Fathers
believed and asserted Christ, or the Son, to be
consubstantial with God, the Father; do they also
say, that he was co-eternal with him and co-equal ?

Wit, Clemens Alexandrinus says, " The Son
of God never comes down from his watch-
tower, as never being divided, never parted
asunder, and never passes from place to place,
but is always every where and contained no
where, all mind, all the Father's light, all eye,
sees all things, hears all things, knows all things,
and by his power searches all things. To him all
the host of angels and gods is in subjection,^— Here

• Gen.xlviii. 15, 16. ^ Strom, l.vii. p.702.-

E 3

54

is a proof of his consubstantiality. In the Book
ascribed to Hermas the Shepherd are these words ;
— " The Son of God is more ancient than
any created thing, so that he was present in
counsel with his Father at the creation." ^ — He
was therefore not created ; for had he been so, he
would' not have been older than all creation, but
the oldest created thinff : hence is he co-eternal

o

with God. Clemens Alexandrinus further says of
Christ, that " he w^as" the divine Logos or Word,
who is indeed true God, equal to the Lord of all ;
because he is his Son and the Word which was
in God.^ — Here Christ is said to be the Divine
Word, — very God of very God, — equal to the
Father, and that for this reason — because he is the
Son of God, and the Word subsisting in God
himself.^

Att. Geii. But though the early Fathers have
declared the nature of Christ to be Divine, may
not that heavenly and divine nature be in some
degree different, and not altogether precisely the
same with the Father ?

Witness. No : I repeat it, that it is the belief of
the earliest Christian wTiters, as well as the doctrine

' L. iii. sect. 9.

See this abundantl} proved, Dei". Fid. sect. iii. v.

2 Epist. ad Tit. c. 2.

3 Dcf. Fid. 2. vi. 3.

55

of Scripture, that the Son is consubstantial with the
Father; and that he participates equally in the
same nature with him ; that he is not of any cre-
ated or mutable essence, but of the very self-same
divine and incommunicable nature with the Father;
and I affirm this to be the constant and unanimous
opinion of the Catholic writers of the three first
centuries. These Fathers, indeed, did, by way of
distinction, call God the Father, the supreme and
most high God, and even the ojie God ; but they
also constantly acknowledge the true and undoubted
divinity of the Son of God, as I have proved at
large, in that section of my Defence of the Nicene
Faith, which treats "of the subordination of the Son
to the Father as to his origin and source.^ " Ori-
gen and Dionysius of Alexandria both speak de-
cidedly on these points.

Court. We cannot now take their opinions, be-
cause all that we are endeavouring to prove relates
to the belief of the two first centuries.

Att. Gen. We have proved this from the Chris-
tian writers before the Nicene Council; and it is
equally necessary to show that the same belief was
current, and prevailed from those times to the present.

Court. I admit this may be necessary by and
by ; but as we are are now speaking exclusively of
opinions held by the Fathers before the Nicene

I Def. Fid. sect, i v.
E 4

56

Council, adduce, therefore, some further proofs
from the early Fathers.

Witfiess. Barnabas, who wrote A. D. 72, says that
Christ existed before the world, and that he made
the world ; " for if he had not come in flesh, how
could we men have been saved when we looked at
him ? For when men look at the sun, the work
of his hands, which will cease to exist, they have
not power to resist its rays." ^ — The work of whose
hands ? — Christ's. It was, therefore, Christ who
made the sun ; but it is said in Genesis, that
^' God made two great lights, the greater light to
rule the day : " hence, according to Barnabas,
God and Christ are the same. Clemens Alexan-
drinus speaks, also, very clearly upon the same
point when he says, — " But the most perfect and
most holy, the highest and most commanding, the
most royal and beneficent nature, is that of the
Son, which is most intimately united with Him
w7io is alone Almighty^ ^ I am willing to rest the
argument of the Son's divine equality with the
Father, upon this passage alone; for this account
effectually excludes the idea of Christ being a cor-
poreal, or even an angelic being : it identifies him
with the Father in essence, and ascribes to him
those attributes which only belong to God.

Ep. c. V. p. 16. e Strom. 1. vii. c.2.

57

Att. Gen. Then here will we conclude the
evidence of this witness.

Cross-examination of the Witness,

Court. Defendants, what questions will you ask
of him ?

Priestley. My Lord, in his first quotation of
Clemens Alexandrinus, the Witness describes the
Father as saying, that Christ was made equal to
the Lord of the universe ; but this is proving too
much, for thus Christ is made supreme, whereas
supremacy can only belong, and can only properly
be ascribed, to God the Father.

Witness. Though Christ be declared equal to the
Father, as Lord of the universe, he is subordinate,
as being the Son ; or, as the Creed which speaks
the belief of Athanasius renders it, " He is equal
to the Father, as touching his Godhead ; but in-
ferior to the Father, as touching his manhood."

Lindsei/. But when Clement says of Christ,
" that he can want nothing who has the Word, the
Almighty God^^ surely the scribe has committed
an error ; for if the Greek of the original were
written in the genitive case, — " the Word of the
Almighty God," the mistake would be rectified. ^

1 This was the proposition of G. Gierke, in his Ante-
iiicemsmusy written against Bishop Bull, to substitute rou
iravTOKpcLTopog Qiov for top TravTOKparopa Qiov.

58

Witness. But we cannot submit to such an
emendation where there is no ground for it ; for
no manuscript countenances it; and were the alter-
ation admitted, the sense and meaning of the pas-
sage would be entirely done away. The sense of
Clement, as I have already asserted, is this : —
" He who has the Word, can want nothing; be-
cause that Word is God Almighty, who can do all
things for those who are his, and who, as Almighty
God, is the cause of all plenty."

Lindsei/. We defy you to prove that any ancient
Father or writer called Christ, God Almighty; for I
cannot regard the passage which you have quoted
sufficient.

Belsham. I, also, am of opinion that " Almighty "
is always applied to the Father only, by the most
ancient writers. ^

Witness. Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 200, speaks
decidedly to the contrary. He says, " The names
of the Father, — God Almighty, — the Most High,
— Lord of Hosts, — King of Israel, — I AM, as
far as the Scriptures teach us ; — I say, these titles
belong to the Son likewise^ and that the Son came
in these, and always acted according to them,
and so manifested them, in himself, to men. ' All
that the Father hath,' he saith, * are mine ; ' why

> So Dr. Clarke, in his " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,'

and others, have erroneously said.

59

not, also, his names and titles? Therefore, when
thou readest, Almighty God, the Most High, the
Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, and I AM, con-
sider whether the Son be not pointed out by these
titles, who is in his awn right God Almighty, as he
is the Word of God Almighty." — Here the sense
of TertuUian is manifest, that Christ, as he is the
natural Son of God the Father, and as he is his
Word (the Word existing in him) has all things
that God the Father has, and so all the essential
attributes of God the Father belong to him, and
among the rest the attribute of Almighty. ^

Lindsey, That the Jehovah of the Old Testament
is the same with Jesus of the New seems to be
inferred from this and from the other quotation
cited by the witness from TertuUian ; but w^e col-
lect from the writings of the ancient Fathers that
it was not God the Father who appeared unto the
Patriarchs of old, and to other holy men, but some
representation of himself, suited to be his mes-
senger, and to be occasionally seen by men.^^

1 Adv. Prax. c. 17.

Omnia Dei Patris attributa essentialia in ipsum competere,
atque inter ea attributum Dei omnipotentis. — Bull. Animad.
G. Gierke, p. 271.

Omnia, inquit, Patris mea sunt; cur non et nomina? —
Tertull. ut supra.

- This objection has been frequently started. — See Water-
land'b Defence.

60

Witness. That Christ is the Jehovah of the Old
Testament I have already shown to be the belief
of Justin Martyr ; as clearly can I show it to be
the belief and assertion of Irengeus, of TertuUian,
Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, and the Antiochan
Fathers. ^ That the angel who appeared to the
Patriarchs and others was, in the judgment of
these Fathers, Christ, is indisputable. God the
Father was never seen by any man, nor can be
seen even under any assumed appearances; for
having no principle from whence he springs, he is
subject to none ; nor can be said to be sent by an-
other. On the contrary, the Son of God, in
respect to his being born of the Father, certainly,
on that account, receives all his authority from the
Father ; nor is it any more dishonour to him to be
sent by the Father, than to be born of him. He
is of the Father ; by him the Father made all
things that are in the world, and, moreover, in due
time made himself known to the world by him. ^

Lindsey, But a forcible objection has been urged
against this position by one who alleges St. Paul,
in the beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews, to
declare, " That God, who, at sundry times, and in
divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken

1 Defen. Fid. sect.i. ch. 1.

' Defen. Fid. Brev. Animad. adv. G. Gierke, p. 278.

61

unto us by his Son." Here, by these last days Is
to be understood the days of the Evangelists ; be-
fore that time, therefore, it seems that neither the
Son of God had spoken, nor God, through the
Son ; for if the Son of God, or God through the
Son, had so spoken, the Apostle could not have
made that distinction between the latter times of
the Evangelists, and the ancient period of the Old
dispensation.^

Witness. I answer, with Justin Martyr, that the
Word, or Son of God, appeared to the holy men of
old as an angel, putting on the form of a created
though spiritual intelligence : under the New dis-
pensation he appeared in the form of man, and
assumed our nature. ^ Now, how does this agree
with the Scriptures ? God says, in Exodus (xxiii.
20 :) — " Behold, I send an angel before thee, to
keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the
place which I have prepared : beware of him, and

1 This was the objection of Ludovicus de Tena, in his
" Difficulties in the Epistle to the Hebrews."— See Def.
Fid. p. 11.

2 Filium Dei ad humana colloquia descendisse ab Adam
usque ad Patriarchas in visione, in somno, in speculo, in
aenigmate, &c. — Tertull.

Revera enim erat Dominus per Mosen Paedagogus veteris
populi ; per seipsum autem populi novi dux, facie ad faciem.
— Clem. Alex, Paed. l.i. c.7.

62

obey his voice ; provoke him not, for he will not
pardon your transgressions; for my name is in
him." Now, that this angel was Christ, St. Paul
directly asserts, when he says, — " Neither let us
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and
were destroyed of serpents."

Belsham, Christ, you say ? Christ is the name
of a man who did not then exist.

Witness. Here Christ is put for the Son of God
who, in the fulness of time, assumed our nature,
and was called Christ; by whom " were all things
created that are in heaven and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or
dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things
were created by him, and for him." Moreover,
Philo Judaeus, speaking of the angel which pre-
ceded the people of Israel, agrees with St. Paul
in declaring it to be the Word, or the only be-
gotten Son of the Father, by whom God directs
and governs the universe. Hence it appears upon
what high and clear authority the ancient Fathers
affirmed that Jehovah of the Old Testament, ho-
noured and worshipped, was none other than the
Son of God ; and that it was he who appeared to
Moses in the burning bush on Mount Sinai, and
who manifested himself to Abraham ; — that Son
of God, and that Jehovah who is the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a title applied only

63

to the true God, and not to any created angel or
being. ^

Belsham. I would ask the witness whether Christ
himself does not acknowledge that he was ignorant
of the time of the general judgment. — " Of that
day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father.""^ And Irenaeus says that God " the
Father is declared by our Lord to have the pre-
ference in knowledge, and to be above all : " ^
whereas you affirm the Son to be omniscient,
and equal to the Father.

Witness. I freely confess that the words of Ire-
naeus, at first sight, seem to ascribe this ignorance to
Christ; and I think the holy Father was hurried on
by an excessive zeal and earnestness, in opposing
the horrible tenets of the Gnostics, to speak incau-
tiously, as it sometimes happens to the best of
men: but that Irenaeus really believed Christ, as
God, to be ignorant of any thing, none can imagine
who have read his w^orks ; for no one has more
clearly asserted the absolute divinity of the Son as
equal to the Father than Irenaeus. With respect
to the words spoken by our Lord, he declares that
no dispensation of God, either by man as David, or
by an angel, or by the Son of man, had ordained

' Defen. Fid. sect. i. ch. 2. "- Mark, xiii. 32.

3 Super omnia esse Patrem. Irae. l.ii. c. 28.

64.

as to know the times and the seasons, it being no
part of the prophetic office, or within the commis-
sion of Christ himself, as Messiah, to reveal this
secret to them. As the Son of man he was igno-
rant of many things: as the Son of God, his wisdom
was infinite.^

Priestley. Have not the Catholic writers, from
the earhest to the latest times, unanimously de-
clared God the Father to be greater than the Son,
even according to what you esteem as his divinity ?

Witness. They have ; but they believed and as-
serted this, not owing to a difference of nature, or
from any essential perfection which is m the Father
and wanting to the Son ; but only by Fatherhood,
or his being the Author or Original ; inasmuch as
the Son is from the Father, not the Father from
the Son.

Priestley. With respect to the language of Cle-
ment, which the witness renders by saying, " The
person of the Son is 7nost intimately united to the
Almighty, or God the Father; " it should be trans-
lated " the person of the Son nearest to the Al-
mighty," which, if it signifies any thing, makes for
us ; for by how much more intimately the second
person is united to the first, so much the more
magnificent titles may be assigned to him : but as

' Defen. Fid. sect. ii. ch. 5.

65

the second person is not the first, however inti-
mately united to him, so, by consequence, neither is
Logos, or the Word, God Ahiiighty, notwithstand-
ing the intimacy or closeness of any union with
him.

Witness. I repeat it, that there is no passage in
the writings of the Fathers where the expression
"• Almighty God," the attribute of Jehovah alone,
is more unequivocally referred to Jesus Christ, than
the one I have before quoted from Clement,
namely, " He who hath the Almighty God, the
Word, is in want of nothing." And though the
Word be Almighty God, and is nearest and most
intimately united to him, yet he is not God the
Father ; still, as Clement says " he is the perfect
Word, born of the perfect Father, he may be
called, and really is, God Almighty." ^ — Farther
on, the same Father speaks of Christ as " the
almighty and rational Word." '^ — Again, in allu-
sion to 2 Cor. xi. 2. : " For I have espoused j-ou to
one husband, that I may present you as a chaste
virgin to Christ;" instead of using the name of
Christ, he explains the one husband by " the Al-

1 This was the objection which Gilbert Gierke made to
Bishop Bull.

2 Glem. Paedag. i. c. 6. p. 92.

See Bull's Animadv. in Tract. GUb. Gierke, p. 272.

3 Paedag. i. 9.

F

66

miglity God'* ' — Again, he quotes Eph. iv. 11, 12. :
" He gave some Apostles," &c. — where "He" evi-
dently means Christ, who is named just before; but
it is remarkable that Clement begins the quotation
thus: "The Almighty God hath given;" — and,
lastly, he speaks of the Word as " the Almighty
Power, and Omnipotent Will." - It surely is im-
possible, either to require more proof on this point,
or to expect any more decisive and clear.

Att. Gen. Sir, we will no longer detain you. —
Call Charles Leslie.

Court. Who is this Witness ? and against which
of the Defendants does he appear ?

Att. Gen. This Gentleman, my Lord, has done
infinite service to the cause of Christianity in his
defence of it against Deists, Jews, Papists, and
Unitarians; against each of whom he has conducted
his arguments, in the judgment of the learned, in a
manner to carry conviction to almost every reader,
and at the same time with a spirit of such true
wisdom and charity, as has gained him the appro-
bation of all. I do not call upon him as evidence
so much against any one of the Defendants, as

1 Strom, iii. 12.

" See Clem. Strom, iv. 21., and v. 1.

Burton's Test, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 143.

67

against the system which one and all have em-
braced : I might, indeed, fairly produce him against
two of them in particular, as having revived objec-
tions which he had long previously refuted.

Court. Well, proceed.

Att. Gen. You, sir, are the author of " The
Socinian Controversy," written in six famiHar dia-
logues : now, let me ask, what is it that you there
adduce which you are now ready to support against
the religious system of the Defendants ?

Witness. In that work I set out, and I still persist
in declaring, that the Unitarians have, from first to
last, levelled their objections against the great fun-
damental doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, on the
pretence of such doctrine being a novelty sug-
gested by a heathen philosopher, and introduced
in the early times of Christianity. Upon this basis
of error they have raised an unsound super-
structure after their own fancies. History has
been misconceived and misapplied, and Scripture
has been distorted, to support their opinion ; and
from conceiving the doctrine to be contrary to
tneir natural reason, they have endeavoured to
make Revelation conform to their understanding. ^

Att. Gen. You mean, then, to assert that the
doctrine of the Trinity is both the doctrine of
Scripture, and that which w^as the beUef of the

1 Fii-st Dialogue, p. 223.
F 2

68

primitive Church ; and hence, that the doctrine of
Christ's sole humanity is a corruption of the pri-
mitive faith; and, consequently, that it is a heresy?

Witness. That is precisely my meaning.

Att. Gen, What do the early Fathers say with
respect to the divinity of Christ ?

Witness. Barnabas, who lived A. D. 72., says,
" It w^as to Christ that God spoke, when, be-
fore the foundation of the world, he said, ' Let us
make man in our image, and after our likeness." ^ —
Justin Martyr, who wrote A. D. 150., declares it
heresy to say that these words were spoken to the
angels. " The Father there speaks to the Son,
to one numerically different from himself, to an
intelligent person." ^ Irenaeus, who wrote A.D.
185., says, that " God spoke these words to the
Son and to the Holy Ghost;" and in this he is
directly followed by Tertullian ^, who flourished
A. D. 200. And, lastly, Origen, who lived A. D.
24'0., confirmis all this by saying, " None could
raise the dead, but he who had heard from the
Father, ' Let us make man in our image ; ' —
and none could command the wind and seas,
but he by whom they, and all things else, were

' Ep, c. V. p. 60. 2 Dial, cum Tryph. p. 265.

3 Jun. adv. Her. 1. v. c. 15. Tertul.adv. Paex. ii. 12.

69

made." ' — I can adduce further proofs to the same
effect, if the Court requires it. ^

Att. Gen. ^V^lat you have said goes to show-
that Christ existed before the foundation of the
world, and that " by him all things were created;"
but this does not necessarily prove that he was
God.

Witness. But Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and
indeed all the Fathers, agree in declaring that
David's prophecy applies to Christ, and Christ
alone, at his ascension into heaven ; where he says,
" God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the
sound of a trumpet. God is king of all the earth.
The princes of the people are joined to the God of
Abraham. The Lord reigneth ; let the people
tremble. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and wor-
ship at his footstool. Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever" ^ — and this proves the Godhead of
the Son.

Att. Gen. But, though Christ be God, is he the
supreme God, and therefore equal to the Father ?

Witness. David, in the ninety-second Psalm,
speaking of Christ, says, " Confounded be all
they that delight in vain gods (or idols). Wor-
ship him, all ye gods ! "

Court. This ascribes very high honour and

4 In Matt. p. 266. ^ Second Dialogue, p. 265— 267.

3 Second Dialogue, p. 270.

F 3

70

divinity to Christ ; but still falls short of the
supreme divinity of the Almighty Father.

Att. Gen. It surely does so ; for here we have
language speaking of a gradation of gods.

Witness. I beg to observe that this is an error ;
for though Go<^l communicates his name to crea-
tures, and calls some of them gods, yet he will not
share his worship, nor give his honour to another :
of this he is exceedingly jealous : but there is no
gradation of gods.

Court, I do not mean to say that the passage
you have quoted in the ninety-second Psalm does
not prove Christ to be God supreme ; but I want
you to give it that explanation of which you think
it capable, and which you have inferred, but not
shown. It is true that in Scripture the title of
gods is applied to some; as, when Moses com-
manded the Israelites not to revile their gods, he
meant the judges of the land. ^ Samuel is called
god, by the Witch of Endor, as the prophet of
the Lord^; and the idols of the heathens are
called gods, because they were regarded by them
as such ; among whom, as St. Paul says, there
were many in heaven and earth ; that is, celestial
and terrestrial'^: but the title, in its high and pro-
per sense, is applied to none of these.

> Exod. xxii. 28. ^ j Sam.xxvni. 13.

3 1 Cor. viii. 5.

71

Witness, Wlien David, in the psalm alluded
to, speaks of Christ, and of the honour due unto
him, and calls upon celestial beings to adore him,
saying, "Worship him, all ye gods!" St. Paul
explains this to be addressed to the angels, — " Let
all the angels of God worship him." ^ If, then, all
the angels of heaven are called upon, by the Holy
Spirit speaking through David, to worship Christ,
what further proof can be necessary to show that
he is one with the Supreme Being; that Lord God
whom only we may serve ?

Att. Ge?i, What is your opinion respecting the
doctrine of Plato, as the Unitarians have applied it
to the Trinity in Unity ?

Witness. Neither Plato nor any other heathen
philosopher invented what is called his system of
Three Principles, nor any notions so much as ap-
proaching to a Trinity in the Godhead : they
learnt what little they knew of it from the early
Jews. Plato attained his knowledge from Egypt ;
and several of the Fathers have remarked the
agreement of his doctrine in many respects with
the Old Testament: hence it v/as that Numenius
the Pythagorean said of him, " Plato is only an-
other Moses speaking at Athens."^ Justin Mar-
tyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius, unite in

1 Heb. i. 6.

2 Ti yao tan HXdrojv ij Moicrjy^ drriKit^iop.

1? 4

72

stating that Plato had obtained a knowledge of the
mystery of the Trinity; but having got this notion,
he refined upon it, endeavouring to square it to
the principles of heathen philosophy, until he and
others fell into errors and absurdities, as they had
done on other points and doctrines which they
had received by tradition. Instead, therefore, of
aspersing and rejecting the errors of Plato with
disdain, I take them as confirmations of the truth
of the original tradition. They, having not in
their possession the oracles of divine truth, sought
to prove their doctrine by their reason ; ^ and we
all know what a dull and fallacious light man's
finite reason is. With such feeble aid, "in every
step of such an enquiry, we are compelled to feel
and acknowledge the immeasurable disproportion
between the size of the object and the capacity of
the human mind. We may strive to abstract the
notions of time, of space, and of matter, which so
closely adhere to all the perceptions of our expe-
rimental knowledge ; but as soon as we presume
to reason of infinite substance, of spiritual gene-
ration; as often as we deduce any positive con-
clusions from a negative idea, we are involved in
darkness, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction."^

> First Dialogue, p. 244'.

- Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch.xxi. p. 322.

73

Att, Geii. My Lord, I have done with this
evidence.

Cou7-t Stay ; do any of the Defendants desire
to examine this witness ?

Lindsey, Yes, my Lord; on behalf of the sys-
tem, and in the names of its supporters, I desire
to submit this witness to a cross-examination,
which I hope the Court will grant me permission
to do at some length. ^

Court. Undoubtedly. Take your time, and
ask as many questions as you think necessary for
your defence.

Lindsey. I do not hesitate, on the part of the
adherents to our belief, to admit that we desire to
have the doctrine of the Trinity, if the admission
of it be so essential to our salvation as it is repre-
sented to be. I say, we desire to have this so far
reconciled to our natural reason, as not to involve
a contradiction ; for if it does, the doctrine can
neither be said to come from God, nor can it be
required of us as an article of belief.

Witness, I also admit that w^e ought to receive
nothing but what we think we have reason to be-

o

lieve, and undoubtedly, if a doctrine of Revelation

'• The questions here put by Lindsey are only hnputed to
him, although in the main they were the scruples which he
entertained in common wdth his sect.

74

be found to contradict a known or revealed truth,
that doctrine is inadmissible.

Lindsey, Very well. We can and we do make
a difference between things incomprehensible, and
which exceed our understandings, and those which
are direct contradictions. Is it not then a direct
contradiction to say, that God should be man, and
that three men should make but one man ?

Witness. If by man you mean person, it is a con-
tradiction ; but it is none to say that there may be
several human persons in the same human nature.
One human nature includes many human persons.
For what is a contradiction ? It is where two op-
posites are alleged in support of the same thing, in
the same respect. We may say, that three men, or
three thousand men, make but one company; here
is no contradiction : to say that three persons make
but 07ie perso?i is a direct contradiction ; but to
affirm that three persons may be in one nature is
not so.

Lindsey. But every person partaking of this
common nature is a distinct man from all other
men, and one man cannot be another.

Witness. That one person cannot be another
person, I grant : but though we call each person a
distinct man, yet that is only with regard to his
personality ; for one man, though he differs from
another in person, does not differ in his nature.
Now, though we allow this common way of speak-

75

ing of mankind, to say one, two, or three meri,
when it is only strictly true of Xheiv pei^sons ; yet it
is not allowable to speak in such terms of one,
two^ or three Gods, when speaking of the persons
in the divine nature.

Lindsey. Allowing the divine nature to be in-
finitely exalted above the human, yet, surely, what
is a contradiction in one nature is so in another.

Witness. I beg your pardon. That which is a
contradiction in one nature is not necessarily a
contradiction in another.

Lindsey, I don't understand you.

Witness. Let me give you an example. Is it not
a contradiction to say, that while I am standing
before you in this Court, I am in your society in
another place? This is a flat contradiction as
respects my person ; but it is no contradiction as to
my soul, which is at one and the same time pre-
sent in all the most distant parts of my body.
Again, is it not a contradiction that yesterday
should be to-day ; or that to-day should be to-
morrow ? That would imply that the same thing
should be past and not past, present and not
present, at hand and yet not come. But with God
all things are present, there is nothing past or to
come in eternity.^ Hence, what is a contradiction

5 God's infinite duration being accompanied with infinite
knowledge and infinite power, he sees all things past and to

76

to body, is not so to soul; what is a contradiction
to time, is none to eternity ; and what is a contra-
diction with men, is not so with God. This arises
from the difference in the nature of things ; so that
a contradiction in one nature, does not infer a con-
tradiction in another.^

Zjindsey, Certainly there are many things in
the divine nature which infinitely exceed our un-
derstandings to comprehend ; on which account
we ought not to apply to God those terms which
are only proper to ourselves : as, for instance, the
word ^^r507?, and to say that there are three per-
sons in the Godhead ; because this lano-uage raises
the contradiction of which we complain, and w^e do
not understand how three persons can be in one
nature.

Witness. But we must use terms suited to our
faculties of conception : we do not make three
persons into one person, but in one nature. If
there were words which could express the nature
of God properly, or as he is know^n to the angels
of heaven, they would be as unintelligible to us as
the word seeing is to one born blind. The Apostle

come ; and they are no more distant from his knowledge, no
further removed from his sight, than the present : they all lie
under the same view. — Locke on the Human Understanding,
vol.i. ch. 15. § 12.

' First Dialogue, p. 224.

77

said, when he was " caught up into Paradise he
heard unspeakable words which it was not possible
for a man to utter." ^

Lindsey. I readily grant that we are obliged to
speak of God in terms and w^ords not strictly and
properly adapted to him, but borrowed from those
by which we speak of ourselves. When we call
God our Father, we mean that we have our being
from him, though in a different manner from that
in which children are descended from human fathers.

Witness, It is precisely thus that we understand
the term Person; as, when Christ is called "the
express image of God^s person" we mean something
of a totally different kind from the person of a
human being ; but we use it as w^e do the word
Father^ because we have no other by w^hich w^e can
express it. Indeed, I do not see how you can ob-
ject to either word. Father or Person^ for they are
both Scripture terms, and both used, though in-
correctly, in condescension to our weak capacities.

Lindsey, Still, let me ask, is it not a contradic-
tion to say that the Son is as old as the Father,
as you do of the persons in the Trinity, when you
say that they are co-eternal; for must not cause
necessarily precede effect?

Witness. This is again measuring one nature by

2Cor. xii. 4.

78

another, when we can only speak of one in the
finite terms of the other : because it is a contradic-
tion between Father and Son among men, it does
not follow that it is so with respect to God. The
contradictions you allege are all made as parallels
between God and the bodily persons of men on
earth : if you cannot make such parallels between
the soul and the body, which you allow yourself
unable to draw, how can you expect to do so be-
tween the divine and human natures ? ^

Court. Perhaps, Mr. Leslie, it might assist the
Jury and myself in better apprehending your opi-
nions of this high mystery of the Trinity, if you
could adapt to our comprehensions some illustra-
tion, and illustration only, from something with
which we are already acquainted, as an outline or a
shadow of the doctrine.

Witness. This it will be easy for me to do, by
taking the one which I have inserted in my work ;
I mean, that respecting the human soul.

Court. What is it?

Witness. The soul of man, though in itself one
indivisible substance, consists of three principal
faculties, the understandings the memory, and the
*imll. Of these, though all coeval in time, and
equally essential to a rational soul, the iinder-

1 First Dialogue, p. 228.

79

standing is, in the order of nature, obviously the
first, and the memory the second ; for thmgs must
be perceived before they can be remembered, and
they must be remembered and compared together
before they can excite volitions^ from being, some
agreeable, others disagreeable. The memory must,
therefore, be said to spring from the understand-
ing ; and the mil to proceed from both ; and as
these three faculties constitute one soul, so may it
be conceived, how may three divine ijersons, par-
taking of the self-same nature^ constitute one God.

Lindsey, How come you to make but three
faculties in the soul ? You may make three hun-
dred, if you will. Why do you not make every
passion a faculty ? And so of the attributes of
God : you may make them all persons; one of
wisdom, another of justice, a third of mercy, a
fourth of power, and so on.

Witness. The faculties are the powers of the soul
itself, and are of perpetual necessity to its con-
stitution ; so that without them the soul would no
longer be a soul. Not so of the passions : they go
and come ; for a man is not always in joy, grief,
fear, or anger ; but he always has an understand-
ing, a memory and a will ; and it is from the action
of these that the passions arise. The faculties are
the constitution, while the passions are the com-
plexion, of the soul : the complexion often changes,
and when the constitution is broken, it is death ;

80

but the complexion arises from the constitution,
not the constitution from the complexion. Now,
though the passions are many and various, yet
there are but three faculties, and they can neither be
more nor less. The difference between these is
like that of colour and dimensions in the same
body. The colours may be many and various ;
but the dimensions are three, and three only ; that
is, lengthy breadth^ and thichiess : these are the
properties constituting the nature of extension ;
and these three together make but one extension,
and they are each to be distinguished, though
they are inseparable, from each other. Length is
not breadth, and neither of them are thickness ;
yet no one of these can be without the other tw^o.
They are distinctly l/iree, yet entirely one ; they
all make up but one and the self-same exten-
sion. The colours, indeed, change with every va-
riation of the light, but the dimensions are still
the same, and still necessary to the body. This
body does not alter its nature by the change of
colour, but it would cease to be a body could it
want any three of its dimensions ; for then it would
no longer have an extension, and would no more
be a body.^

Liiidsey, This is new, and very ingenious ; and,
like all novelties, catching.

1 First Dialogue.

81

Witness. Not so new nor so original as you
may at first imagine : the idea is suggested to me
by our blessed Saviour's parable of the Sower,
where the three ways of sowing the seed which
became unfruitful are arranged according to the
three faculties of the soul. The first way refers
to those who understood not ; the second, to those
who retain or remember not ; and the third, to those
whose wills or affections were corrupted by the
cares and pleasures of life.

Lindsey. But this illustration does not come
up to a complete parallel with the Trinity in Unity,
in all points.

Wit7iess. No; the allusion between body and
soul, between colour and dimensions in the body,
between the faculties and passions of the soul,
will not answer in every particular, from the vast
difference subsisting between the nature of the
body and the nature of the soul, and the different
manner of their operations. Still they serve suf-
ficiently, as his Lordship remarks, for mere illus-
tration. But if it be so difficult to conceive matters
relating to our souls, if, indeed, we cannot enter
into the mysterious nature of them with our limited
powers of understanding ; how can we pretend to
define, explain, or argue upon the infinitely higher
subject of the Divine nature ? The very imperfect
knowledge we have of the nature of God is derived
from what we see in the works of his creation ;

82

yet in none of these do we find any resemblance
to that eternity, that self-existence, that omni-
presence which we know of him from the Scrip-
tures. Shall we then deny these as contradictions
when applied to us ? No ; we believe them to be in
the nature of God, though contrary to our nature,
because they are revealed. Adopt the same method
with respect to other Scripture truths which are
above our comprehension and reason, and we
immediately arrive at the assent to the doctrine of
the Trinity in Unity.

Lindsey. How can there be this diversity of
three persons in the Godhead without destroying
the unity ? This makes God to be compounded
of three persons, whereas his nature is simple and
entire.

Witness. The Unity of God is not compounded ;
it is the most perfect of all unities. With respect
to our bodies we know they are compounded and
made up of other bodies. My finger is a part of
my body, and there are several parts in my finger,
and these parts may be parted again and divided
ad infinitum ; so that every body is a compound
of many bodies. But this is not true of spirits ;
a spirit is not compounded or made up of parts,
and therefore cannot be divided, and is incapable
of addition or multiplication. You cannot say
of the soul that it is either multiplied or divided
among its three faculties, or that it is compounded

83

of them ; these faculties cannot be taken from the
soul as a part may be taken from the body : its
unity, therefore, is more perfect than the soul ; for
the faculties are not the parts, but the powers, of
the soul, by which it acts, and without which it
would be no longer a soul. Now, these powers of
the soul bear a near resemblance to the persons of
the Godhead, which are not parts of God, for he
is an uncompounded, and simple, and single Being.
The whole Deity perpetually flowing, in its full
infinity from one person to another, is in the
eternal enjoyment of its own beatitude, blessed for
ever in itself. This perfect Unity cannot but be
very faintly represented even in the unity of the
soul. ^

Lindsey. But do you mean to affirm that there
is not a mutual communication of spirits ? Does
not one spirit join with another, and partake of it,
as bodies do ?

Witness, Undoubtedly, there is an infinitely more
intimate communion of spirits than there can be in
bodies. All enjoyment and satisfaction in the
union of bodies is from the union of their souls.
This is what we call love : without this, our
bodies are insensible to their unions, and are only
as trees, plants, and flowers. St. Paul says, man
and wife " become one flesh ; but he that is joined

First Dialogue, p. 239.
G 2

84

unto the Lord is one spirit."^ Such a union as
this is the foundation of those mystical allusions in
the Scriptures which apply to Christ the name of
a Bridegroom, and represent the Church as his
Spouse, and Heaven as the eternal Marriage Feast.
And Christ having assumed our nature, that is,
taken it into the Deity in his own person, the com-
munications which may thence be given to our
glorified bodies from our participating in the same
human nature with Christ is " what eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor can enter into the heart
of man to conceive." Our Lord himself, when on
earth, prayed to his Father in behalf of his dis-
ciples, " that they all may be one, as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee ; that they, also, may be
one in us : " — " And the glory which thou gavest
me, I have given them ; that they may be one,
even as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one." '^

Lindsey. My Lord, I have nothing more to
ask of this witness.

Att. Gen, Sir, we will not trouble you further.

Court. Stop : I have a question to ask him.
What do you say of the doctrine of Plato ?

Witness, Plato, my Lord, and his followers held

1 1 Cor. vi. 16.

9 John xvii. 21, 22. First Dialogue, p. 240.

85

the doctrine of three Supreme and Almighty Princi-
ples, which they called persons (in Greek hypostases)^
and that these act in conjunction, and created the
world and all thino^s in it.

Court. How and when did the heathen philo-
sophers embrace this notion of these Three Prin-
ciples ?

Witness. They derived it from immemorial tra-
dition : how, it is impossible to say ; but we can
show that it was no invention of the Christians.
Plato, who speaks so much and so ambiguously
of it, was born about 428 years before Christ, but
he was not the author of what is called his Triad
of the Deity ; nor did the heathen philosophers
ascribe it to him : they said that Orpheus treated
of it long before Plato, and the Chaldaeans long
previously to Orpheus. They looked upon it as
having come down to them by old and long tra-
dition, from what source they knew not. Plotinus,
speaking of these three chiei persojis, which some-
times they call principles, says, " that they were
not new, nor then invented, but a tradition of old
time. ^ " They called these three sometimes "Three
Principles," at other times, "Three Gods;" some-
times, " Three Natures," at other times, " Three
Persons." Nor is it to be wondered at that they

1 Mj) Kaivovc, piri ck vvv, dXKa wdXai fiev etpr)T9ai.
G 3

86

fell into these varieties of expression, when we con-
sider that they were without that Revelation which
has more clearly declared these things to us ; and,
consequently, they were not tied down to that strict-
ness and correctness of expression, which binds us
when speaking of this divine mystery. Still, they
explained themselves sufficiently to show, that by
these Three, they meant only one God. They
called, therefore, this Trinity of gods, the to ©sTov,
the Godhead, or the nature of God : for what says
their ancient oracle ? — " Li all the world there
shines a Tynnity.^ ofxiohich an Unity is the head,^^

Court, Who is your next witness ?

Att, Gen. Call Edward Burton.

Cmirt, Who is Mr. Burton ?

Att. Gen. Mr. Burton, my Lord, is the erudite
author of a very valuable work, held in the high-
est esteem by the great Theologians of our day,

1 U.avTi yap tv K6<rfit^ XafXTrei rpidc, i}c jxovuq dpxei. —
Oraciila Zoroastri in Platonicis collecta, p. 8.

Leslie's Fii'st Dialogue, p. 245.

Plotinus, the pupil of Plato and the preceptor of Porphyry,
speaking of the Auyoc, says, his very nature is God, e^o^,
avTT) i) <pv<ngy and to show that he meant not the first person
of the Godhead, he calls him devrepog Oeof , a second God. —
Ennead. v. 5. c. 3.

87

entitled, " Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
to the Divinity of Christ."
Court, Very well, proceed.
Att. Gen. What do you understand to be the
doctrine which the Defendants have upheld in
their writings, as respects the divinity of Christ?

Witness. These modern Unitarians profess their
belief in the simple humanity of Christ ; by which
they mean, that Jesus had only one nature, and
that was the human ; that he was in every sense
of the term born in the ordinary way ; that he had
no pre-existence ; that he was in no sense of the
term God, except as it was apphed to Moses and
Elijah, when invested with a divine commission.

Att. Gen. You say these are the doctrines of
the Defendants, whom you call the modern Uni-
tarians : who were the ancient Unitarians ?

Witness. The ancient Unitarians sprung up in
the fourth century; but various sects have been
thrown off by these in the process of time. The
first Socinians have many and various shades of
difference from the Unitarians of the present day.
Some have approached nearer to the Arian notions ;
some have allowed that religious worship may be
paid to Christ ; some have believed that since his
ascension, he has existed in a much more exalted
state. Many other variations might be pointed
out: but, without examining them separately, I
assert, upon the authority of the Ante-Nicene

G 4"

88

Fathers, that the doctrine which they held is
wholly irreconcileable to any modification of the
Unitarian Creed. '

Att. Ge7i. The Defendants have denied in their
writings, that Christ was born of a Virgin, and
reject all ideas of his miraculous conception ; they
do this on the testimony of the ancient Fathers of
the Church : now, as your w ork treats, by its title,
of these writings, do these Fathers, in your opi-
nion, support this notion ?

Witness. Decidedly the reverse. There is not
one of the Ante-Nicene writers, from Barnabas to
Lactantius, who does not mention that Christ was
born of a Virgin ; and this single circumstance,
which I can support by their evidence, destroys at
once the notion of Christ being born in an ordi-
nary way. There is not one of them who does
not speak of Christ being made rnan, or of his com-
ing in thejlesh. The expressions, " God becom-
ing man," " God being incarnate," ^ are very
common in their writings. Now, had these Fathers
been Unitarians, had they believed Jesus Christ to
have been a mere man, I would ask, could they or
would they have spoken of him in this way ? '^

Att. Gen. What is your opinion respecting the
Nazarenes and Ebionites ?

1 Burton, p. 440.

2 Bfof iimv9pMTrf]<Tag, Qebg ivcrapKUJtpeiQ.

3 p. 440.

89

Witness, That they were distinct sects. The
Ebionites are said, by the Defendant Priestley,
not to have been heretics ; and that, as the ancient
Fathers did not mention them as heretics, the be-
lief, therefore, of these Fathers, which was that of
Unitarianism, was not heretical. ^ Now Origen
informs us that there were two sects of Ebionites,
and that one of them did believe the miraculous
conception of Christ ^ : and Irenaeus, whose autho-
rity is most valuable, and whose expressions are
particularly concise, tells us, that " they used only
the Gospel of St. Matthew." ^ It was no wonder,
then, that the Ebionites disbelieved the divinity or
pre-existence of Christ, if either of these doctrines
had been taught them by the Apostles. But, my
Lord, though these Ebionites rejected the Gospels
of Mark, Luke, and John, this was by no means
all they disclaimed. Those " primitive Unita-
rians," as the Defendants call them ; those good
Christians, who are said " not to have been looked
upon as heretical by the early Church ; " these
men took the liberty (so we are informed by Ire-
naeus, Origen, and Eusebius) ; — I say, they took the
liberty of getting rid of all St. Paul's Epistles at
once, calling that Apostle an apostate from the

1 Early Opinions, vol.iii. p. 201.

•i Cont. Celsum, v. 61. p. 625.

3 I. 26. 2. p. 105. and iii. 11. 7. p. 189.

90

Law. ^ After seeing this, who can doubt whether
the Ebionites were heretical ?

Att. Gen, My Lord, as the witness is so fa-
miliar with the ancient Fathers as to have them,
I may say, ad unguem, I propose, with the permis-
sion of the Court, to call upon him to produce
passages from those Fathers, which bear upon the
doctrines and positions of the Defendants indis-
criminately.

Court. Do so, if you please.

Att. Gen. Then be so good as to state to the
Court, sir, what early Father of the church calls
Christ Almighty,

Witness. The passage affording the most un-
equivocal proof of this, you will find in Clemens
Alexandrinus, — " He who hath the Almighty God,
the J ford, is in want of nothing ; " — and here I
would observe : —

Court. Stop. — That has been already adduced
by the witness Horsley.

Witness, Still, my Lord, I would bear my tes-
timony to this being applied to Christ : for the
same reason I repeat the observation, that the
same Father, in allusion to the words of St. Paul,
has said, " For I have espoused you to one hus-

1 Iren. I. 26. 2. p. 105. Orig. cont. Cels. v. 65. p. 628. Eus.
H.E. iii. 27. p. 121. See Burton, p. 443.

I

91

band, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to
Christ;" where, for the name of Christ, is sub-
stituted " the Almighty God." ^ — Tertullian also
says, " The titles of the Father, God Almighty,
Most High, Lord of Hosts, King of Israel, I AM,
as far as the Scriptures teach us, we say that those
titles belong to the Son, and that the Son came
under those titles, and always acted according to
them." — " He was God Almighty by his own
right, inasmuch as he is the Word of God Almighty^ -

Alt, Gen, Now, sir, as to the Son being con-
substantial with the Father.

Witness. Origen makes a resemblance of Christ's
proceeding from the Father to the vapour which
proceeds from a corporeal substance, and the
wisdom of Christ rising from him like a cor-
poreal efflux, — " both which likenesses," he says,
" most plainly show, that there is a communion of
siibstarice between the Son and the Father ; for an
efflux seems to be of one substance with that body,
fi'om which it is an efflux or vapour."^ And

1 Tov TravTOKpciTopoQ Qtov. — Strom, iii. 12.

"' Adv. Prax. c. xvii. p. 510.

3 Aporrhoea enim o^oouo-ioc videtur, id est, unius substantiaB
dim illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor. — Ep.
ad Heb. vol. iv. p. 697.

The two expressions, " vapour of the power of God," and
" efflux of the glory of the Ahnighty," are taken from the
apocryphal Book of Wisdom, vii. 25 — p. 320.

92

Dionysius of Alexandria, says, " I have proved
that the accusation which they bring against me is
false, of saying that Christ was not of one substance
^uoith God.'' — And again, " Christ was by nature
Lord, and the Word of the Father, by whom the
Father made all things, and is declared by the holy
writers to be of o?ie substance wit/i the Father'' ^ — -
In both passages the word h\Low(noc, of one substance^
is used ; which expression caused such violent dis-
putes at and after the Council of Nice : and this
term, Dionysius says, was used by the earlier
writers, and he is accused of not having adopted
it, which we see he denies; and yet, from the
Council of Nice to the present day, there are
those who assert that the word was invented and
first used at that Council ; whereas, by looking at
the creed drawn up by the Council of Antioch,
A. D. 269, the same word occurs more than once.^

Att. Gen, Now, sir, as to Christ's eternity.

Witness, I can show this to satiety. Ignatius
says of Christ, " Wait for him who is beyond all
time, eternal^ invisible, who for our sakes became

' Tov XjOicrroj' ofxoovaiov elvai T(p Qecp. — Kai ojxoovctiov T(^t
Uarpl eipr]fikvov virb Tutv ayt'wv iraTkpojv. — Ex Elench. et
Apol. p. 90. et contr. Paul Samos. p. 214.

- In the creed of the Antiochan Fathers the word o/xoovcnog
occurs twelve times in twice that number of lines. — Vide
Concil. Eph. part, iii, c. 6. p. 979. And Bull's Defen. Fid.
sect. 2.

93

visible." ^ Justin Martyr in his comment upon
the seventy-second Psalm, which we know to be
prophetical of the reign of Messiah, denies that it
was spoken of Solomon, as the Jews conceived,
but that it expressly spoke " in honour of the Eter-
nal King, that is, Christ ; for Christ is declared to
be a King, and a Priest, and God, and Lord, and
Angel, and Man, and Chief Captain, and a Stone,
and a Child born ; first made capable of suffering,
then returning into Heaven (elra b\c, ovpuvov Scvep^o-
fjisvog), and again coming thither with glory, and in
possession of the eternal kingdom, as I prove from
all the Scriptures." - — Justin in his epistle, says of
Christ, also, " He who was from the beginning,
who existethfor eve?^, in these latter days accounted
a Son." ^ — Irenaeus is still more express ; " The
Son, who always co-existed with the Father, in
times past, and from the beginning, always reveals
the Father both to Angels and Archangels, and to
principalities and powers, and to all to whom he
wishes to reveal." '^ — Origen, in the same manner,
says, " The Word, who in the beginning was God

1 Ep. ad Polycarp. c. 3. p. 40. Tbv dxpovov^ tov doparovy
Tov Ci t'lfJidg oparbvy &C.

2 Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. xxxiv. p. 130.

3 Ep. ad Diognet. c. xi. p. 240.

•^, Iren. 1. ii. c. 30. Semper autem co-existens Filius Patri
olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem et angelis, &c.

94

with God, does not admit of higher exaltation ; "
for *' He that is joined to the Lord in one spirit,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God." ^ —
Tertullian says, " Christ our Lord has called him-
self Truth, not Custom : if Christ has been always,
and is before all things, Truth is equally eternal,
and ancient.-" — Hippolytus, who wrote A. D. 220,
asks, " Why was the temple destroyed, &c. ? —
was it for the blood of the Prophets ? By no
means, but it was because they killed the Son of
their benefactor ; for it is he, who is co-eternal with
the Father." ^ — Dionysius, taking up that favourite
illustration of the light emanating from fire, and
casting his eye, perhaps, on the expression used
by St. Paul, that Christ " is the brightness or
effulgence of his Father's glory," says, "Being the
effulgence of eternal light, it follows also that he is
himself also eternal'^ — Further on he says again,
" The Father, therefore, being eternal, the Son is
eternal, being light of light." ^

• 'O yap Aoyog iv apxy rrpbg rov Qtbp Qebg ouk iTriCsxerai to
virtpvJ/ojQrivai. — Comment, in Joan, xxxii. § 17.

- Dominus noster Christus Veritatem se non Consuetudinem
cognominavit. Si semper Christus, et prior omnibus, aeque
Veritas sempiterna et antiqua res. — Tertull. de Virg. velandis,
P- 172. _ _ ^

^ AvTog yap Icrriv 6 T(p Harpi avvatciog. — Demonstr. contr.
Jud. c.vii. vol.ii. p. 4.

•* 'A7ravyd(T^a de u>v ^(orbg aidiov 7rai>Tiog Kai avrbg dialog
tffTiv. — Ex Elench. et Apol. pp. 87, 88.

95

Court, These are sufficient.

Att. Geii. Next, sir, we will proceed to the
omnijpresence of Christ : what have you to adduce
on this point ?

Witness. Clement has observed, in a manner
and in expression decisive on this subject

Court, Stay, that passage from Clement of
Alexandria has already been cited by the De-
fendant Bull; therefore, without quoting it again,
say whether you adduce that as one testimony
to the omnipresence attributed to the Son or to
Christ.

Witness. It is of all others, my Lord, the strongest
proof of this divine attribute. What terms or lan-
guage can be more express than that the Son of
God " is not divided, nor separated, nor changing
from place to place ; but every nscherey at all times,
and circumscribed no where ? " ^ Without therefore
dwelling upon this passage, which I could wish to
do for some time, I pass on to Hippolytus, who,
speaking of Jesus coming to be baptized of John
in the Jordan, thus expresses himself: — " He that
is present every xuhere^ and faileth no where, who
is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to man,
comes to be baptized, as it pleased him." - And

1 Strom, vii. c. 2. p. 831.

•! 'H aKaTci\r]7rToq TTi/yj), ?'/ Ziorfv fi\a(TTdvov<Ta Tramv avOptairoig

96

Dionysius of Alexandria directly affirms that " The
Father and the Son are every lichere" ^

Alt, Gen. That is sufficient proof as to the
omnipresence of Christ: now, sir, do any of the
Fathers say that he was a being superior to the
angels ?

Witness. St.Paul, speaking of Christ, says, "Being
made so much better than the angels, as he hath
by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than
they : for unto which of the angels said he at any
time, Thou art my Son ? Let all the angels of God
worship him ?" But Clement, with his eye on this
passage of the Apostle, says, " Who, being the bright-
ness of his majesty, is so much higher than the
angels." ^ And Tertullian has also a very remark-
able and a very beautiful passage illustrative of
this point : — " You have read," he says, " and be-
lieved, that angels have been changed into a human
form, and borne such a reality of body, that
Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was rescued
from the men of Sodom by their hands — what was
possible for angels, who are inferior to God, that
they might be changed into a human body and yet
continue angels, will you deny to the greater power

KoX teXoq ft)) t^ovcra^ vtto TrevLxpoJV icai 7rpo(Ticaipu)v v5ar<i)v
tKakvTTTtTo. — Horn, in Theo. i. p. 261.

' 'O Ilar^p Kai 6 'Yibg Travraxov. — De Promiss. c. 6. p. 81.

« Ep. C.36. p. 168.

97

of God, as if Christ were not able really to put on
man, and yet continue God?" ^ — And Origen in
his commentary upon the 1st chapter of Jeremiah,
says, " If you ascend to the Saviour, and see him
the Word who was in the beginning wdth God, you
wdll see that he cannot there speak (as a man);
and if you compare the tongues of angels with the
tongues of men, and know that he is greater than
the angels, as the Apostle Paul bore witness, you
will say that he was too great even for the tongues
of angels, since The IVord was God with the
Father." - I can multiply these proofs, if more
be required.

Court. These are sufficient at present.

Att. Gen. Now, sir, will you proceed to show
which of the Fathers speak of the pre-existence of
Christ in union with God the Father.

Witness. First of all, most briefly and clearly
does Ignatius say of Christ, " That he was with

1 Angelos Creatoris converses in effigiem humanam ali-
quando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse
veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham, et manibus ipsorum
ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth. — Quod ergo angelis inferioribus
Deo licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam angeli ni-
hilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori Deo auferes, quasi
non valuerit Christus vere hominem indutus Deus per-
severere ? — Tertul. de Carne Christi, c. 3. p. 309.

" Kaj t'ihjQ OTi ovrog fiii^otJV terl Kcii dyyf\o)v. — In Jer. Horn. I.
vol. iii. p. 128.

H

98

the Father before the xwrlds^ and appeared at the
end." ^ — And again, " Our God Jesus Christ is
rather seen by his existence in the Father." - — But
still more express is Dionysius of Alexandria, for
he says-, " By Christ being in the form of God,
is meant, that the Father is in His Son Christ
the Word, and Christ in the Father."^ — And
even more decidedly still when he adds, " When
Christ, the Word, became flesh, the Father did
not cease from being contained in him who became
flesh because Christ became a body. The Word
became Jiesh ; and the Apostle shows that Christ is
not altered by becoming flesh, being always co-
eternal with him that begat him : in him dwelleth
the "iSchole Jidness of the Godhead bodily. Observe
how St. Paul reveals the mystery ; for he says,
that the Father and the Spirit dwell bodily in
Christ."^ — Clement of Alexandria, considering that
passage of Isaiah where Christ, the child that was

1 "Of TT/oo aiu)V(iJV Trapd flarpt i]v. Ep. ad Mag. vi. p. 19.

2 'O yap QeoQ 7)[.iu>v 'Irjcrovg Xpiarbg tv VLaTpl wv fidXkov
^aivsTai. — Ep. ad Rom. c. 3. p. 26.

3 UuiQ 6 HciTtjp Iv rqi 'Yup avTOv 'KpiaTi^ Aoy^^, Kcd 6 XpLnrbg
Iv T(p Harpi, 6 tv fioptpij Qeov virdpxiov. — Adv. Paul. Samos.
Quaest. vii. p. 254.

4 'AKOvere, TrCJQ Xkya to fivarlipiov 6 iepbg diroaroXog JJavXogy
rb yap aufiariKCig KaroiKtiv top HaHpa, Kcii rb Hvtvjxa iv no
Xpi(jT(^. Ibid. p. 259.

99

born, is said to be " Wonderful, Counsellor, the
Mighty God, the Everlasting Father," breaks out
into this exclamation, " O the Mighty God ! O
the perfect Child ! the Son in the Father and the
Father in the Son ! " ^ — Hippolytus, reviewing an-
other passage of the same prophet, " Surely God is
in ihee, and there is none else ; " observes, " By the
words God is in thee, he showed the mystery of
the incarnation, that by the Word becoming flesh
and being made man, the Father was in the Son,
and the Son in the Father, it being the Son who
lived among men." - — Does the Court require
more instances in proof of this point ?

Att. Gen, No, sir — Now, proceed, if you please,
to show that Christ was not a created Being.

Witness. That may be very easily and fully
done, by running through most of the early Fathers
in succession. First of all the shepherd Hermas
says, " The Son of God is more ancient than any
created thing ?" ^

1 "Q Tov fityaXov Qeov' ^Q tov rsXsiov Traiciov 'Ywg Iv Tlarpiy
Kul liartip ev 'Yi<^. — Paedag. Li. c.6. p. 112.

2 To £e s'lTTtlVj oTi iv (Toi b Qeog tffriv, ehiKVvev ^xvryry^piov
oiKovofiiag, on (TtaapK(x)fikvov tov Aoyov kuI IvavOptoirijaavrog 6
Uart/p rjv iv r<^'Yi<^, fcai 6 'Yibg iv t<^ Uarpi iinroXiTtvojx'tvov tov
'\iov iv avBpioTToig. — Contr. Noetum, c. iv. vol. ii. p. 8.

^ Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est. Lib. iii.
hiimil.9. § 12.

H 2

100

Court. Do you infer from hence, as the witness
Horsley has done, that the expression, " being still
more ancient than the oldest created thing," esta-
blishes the pre-existence and uncreated nature of
Christ ?

Witness. My Lord, I do ; for in the same manner
St. Paul calls Christ not the Jirst of every crea-
ture, but the Jirst-horn or Jirst-hegotten of every
creature. Justin Martyr and Origen speak the
same express and correct language, " He was
begotten of the Father, and was with the Father
before any thing was created ; " says the former.
" The image of the invisible God, begotten before
every creature, is incapable of death," says the
latter. ^ — Irenaeus, addressing his fellow-man, says,
'* Thou art not uncreated, O man ! nor didst thou
always exist together with God, like his own
Word." ^ — Here are most important disclosures
made in these few words, declarative of the un-
created, pre-existing, and divine nature of the
Word or Christ. And the same Father, com-
menting upon St. John, adds, " That angels or
archangels, or thrones or dominations, were ap-
pointed by Him, who is God over all, and made by

• Dial, cum Tryph. 100. p. 195. Comment in Joan. vol. iv.
p. 392.

2 Non enim infectus es, 6 homo ! neque semper co-ex-
sistebas Deo, sicut propriimi ejus Verbum. — L.ii. c. 25.

101

his Word, John has thus told us; for, after he
had said of the Word of God, that he was in the
Father, he added, ' All things were made by him,
and without him was not any thing made.' " ^ — Hip-
polytus declares that Christ " is neither created,
nor circumscribed by creation." 2 — Origen asserts
the same repeatedly.

Court, How is that ? for Dr. Clarke in his
Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, as I remember,
says, " that Origen expressly reckoned the Son
among the created things? [dYifj^iovpyrii^uTu.)

Witness. Then, my Lord, Origen shall speak
for himself ; for this Father, writing against Celsus,
thus expresses himself: — " Our Saviour and Lord,
the Word of God, says. No one kiiowcth the Son
hit the Father ; for no one can know him who is
uncreated and begotten before every created nature
in its full extent, so well as the Father who begat
him; nor can any one know the Father so well
as the animate Word, who is His Wisdom and
Truth." ^ — And, that we may be the better assured
of Origen's belief and doctrine, it may be remarked
that, in his commentary upon St. John, he again

1 Quoniam enim sive angeli, sive archangel!, &c. — Lib. iii.
C.8. 52.

2 Ou ydp TTfcpVKS TTepiypcKpetrOai yevrjTt^ <pucru to Kara (pvaiv
aykvrjTov, — Contr. Ber. et Hel. i. p. 227.

3L.vi. J 17. vol.i. p. 643.

H 3

102

says, " God, who is above all created things, be-
came man." '

Att. Gen. Now, sir, that you have shown w^hat
the belief and writings of the early Fathers testify
of Christ as uncreated, what do they prove with
respect to his office as Creator ?

Witness. Justin Martyr, in explaining some
things to Diognetus which had raised doubts and
difficulties in the w^ay of his apprehension of Chris-
tianity, addressed a letter to him, in which he
says, " The omnipotent and all-creative and in-
visible God hath himself from heaven established
among men the truth, and the holy and incompre-
hensible word, and rooted it in their hearts : not
as you might suppose, by sending to men any of
his servants, either an angel, or a prince, or one
of those who administer the affairs of earth, or one
of those who have the management of heavenly
things intrusted to them; but the Framer and
Creator of the universe himself, by whom he created
the heavens, by whom he shut up the sea in its
own bounds." - I have already shown that Irenaeus
illustrates and enforces the passage of St. John by

' 9600 6 v'Kip TTcivTa TO. yevtjTa ki>r]v6pb)7rr](Tev. — In Joan,
vol. iv. p. 87.

- 'AXX' avTov TOP TtxviTijv Kai ^Sjxiovpybv ruJv oXwi/, (^ rove
ovpavovQ fKTiaiv, ([> Tt)v Ocikacaav idioir; bpoig ivsKKHaev. —
Ep. ad Diognetum, c. 7, p. 237.

103

saying that '-The Word of God, by "wJiom all
things "were made, is our Lord Jesus Christ." ^ — I
shall give one other quotation to confirm what
I have said, by citing Hippolytus, who, speaking
of the baptism of Jesus in the waters of Jordan,
remarks, " The Lord, by the mercifulness of his
condescension, was not unknown to the nature of
the waters in what he did secretly; for (saith
David) 'the waters saw him and were afraid;' they
all but retreated back and fled from their boundary.
Whence the prophet many ages before perceived
this, and asked, * What ailed thee, O thou sea,
thatthou, fleddest? or thou, Jordan, that thou wast
driven back ? ' But they answered and said. We
saw the Creator of all things in the form of a
servant, and not knowing the mystery of the incar-
nation, we are driven back through fear." ^

Court, But did not Dionysius of Alexandria
believe Christ to be a creature although a Creator ?

Witness. I think, my Lord, the very reverse, if
I may judge from his language to the heretic Paul
of Samosata : — " One only Virgin, the daughter
of life, brought forth the living and self-substantial

1 Verbum Dei, per quern facta sunt omniay qui est Dominus
noster Jesus Christus. 1. iii. c. 8. ^ 2.

2 Tor TvavTMV Krt(7r/)v h' fiopcpy SovXov t'idoixiVf Kal to
HV<TTi]piov ri'ig olKOvoniacayvo))(ravTe<^,dTrb rrjg hiXiag sXavi^of-uOa.
Homil. in Theo. vol.i. p. 262.

H 4-

104-

Word, the uncreated Creator^ the God who came
into the world and was unknown, God who is
above the heavens, the Maker of heaven, the
Creator of the isoorW ^

Att, Gen. Is the title of " Lord of Hosts," ap-
plied by any of these Fathers to Christ ?

Witness. It is so applied by Justin Martyr in a
most unequivocal manner, when, speaking of Christ's
ascension into heaven, and commenting on the
24th Psalm which predicted it, he says, " When
the officers in heaven saw him bearing an uncomely
and undignified and inglorious form, they did not
recognise him, and asked, JVho is this, the King of
Glory P And the Holy Ghost answers them, either
in the person of the Father or in his own, " The
Lord of Hosts himself, he is the King of Glory." ^ —
That Hippolytus referred the sublime part of this
Psalm to Christ, in the same manner with Justin
Martyr, is evident; and the testimony of both
establishes the appropriation of the titles, " Lord
of Hosts," and " King of Glory," to the Saviour.^

Att. Ge?i. Now, sir, in the last place I call upon

1 Eyevvrjas tov i^wvTa Aoyov Kai LvvTroffruTOVy rov clkictov
Kal SijfiiovpySv TOV fXOovra tv rfp KoafUfiy Kai ayvojarov Qeov,
Kal vTTtpovpdviov Ofor, ovpavov TroirjrtjVy tov drjfxiovpybv tov
KO(Tfiov. — Ep. ad Paul. Samos. p. 113.

" Dial, cum Tryph. c. xxxvi. p. 133.

3 Hip. Frag, in Ps. xxiv. 7.

105

you to state whether the Fathers have ascribed
divine worship to be due to Christ.

Witness. The only difficulty I feel on this head
is, to select a few out of the many instances which
I have it in my power to adduce. Justin says,
" The Scriptures prove expressly that Christ was to
suffer and to be worshipped, and that he is God." ^
Melito, who wrote A. D. 175, says, " We are not
worshippers of senseless stones, but of the only
God, who was before all things : and also of his
Christ, who was verily God, the Word, before the
worlds ; " ^ — and here it is worthy of remark, that
this Father says that the Christians worshipped
Christ, and yet he says also, that they worshipped
only one God; which two assertions can only be
reconciled by our concluding that the unity of that
Godhead which they worshipped comprehended
the Son as well as the Father.^ — Clement of Alex-
andria makes use of this forcible exhortation, —
" Believe, O man, in Him who is man and God !
Believe, O man, in Him who suffered, and is xvoj"-
shipped, the living God ! " ^ — Tertullian shows the

I Tbv Xpiffrbv Kal xaOr]Tbv Kai TrpoffKvvrjTuv Kai Qsbv arcohiK-
vvovffiv. — Dial, cum Trj'ph. c.lxviii. p. 166.

^"OvTcjQ Qeov Aoyov irpb aiwv<i)V, tcrixev ^prjaKivTai. — Rel.
Sacr.i. 112.

3 Burton, p. 58.

4 WiarivaoVy dvQpojTrs, av9poj7r(^ Kal Oe(p' Trhrevcoi', dvOpcjTTf,
Ttp waOovTi, Kal TrpoffKvvovfiivqi Oe(p ^wvti. — Cohort, ad Gent.

ex. p. 84.

106

same where he says, " The kingdom and the name
of Christ is extended every where, is believed
every where, is had in reverence by all the nations
enumerated above, reigns every where, is iscorshipped
every where ; he is to all a King, to all a Judge,
to all God and Lord." ^ — Minucius Felix, who
wrote A. D. 210, having been converted to Chris-
tianity, wrote a powerful exposition of the absurd-
ities of Paganism : and in doing this, he left a
remarkable proof that the Christians then wor-
shipped Christ; for on their being upbraided with
paying adoration to a man who had been crucified
as a malefactor, he says, " As for your charging our
religion with a man who was a culprit, and with his
cross, you wander very far from the truth, when
you think either that a culprit would have deserved
that we should believe him to be a God, or that a
man of this earth could be believed to be a God.
That man is indeed to be pitied, whose whole hope
rests upon a mortal man." ^ Add to this, that Ori-
gen has these words, — "Christ is to be ^worshipped
on account of the Word of God w hich is in him." ^

• Ubique regnat, ubique adoratur^ — omnibus Rex, omnibus
Judex, omnibus Deus et Dominus est. — Adv. Jud. e. ix.
p. 192.

-2 Longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum
credi, aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum, &c. —
Min. Fel. Octavi. p. 281.

3 'O ii XpioTOQ TrpoaKvvrjTOQ did rbv tv avT<i) Aoyov Qeov. —
In Psalm, xcix. 5.

107

And lastly, I will now adduce the words of Cyprian
bishop of Carthage, who flourished A. D. 250, and
who has these words, " God the Father has or-
dered his Son to be ^worshipped ; " and the Apostle
Paul, remembering the divine command, declares
and says, " God hath highly exalted him;" and in
the Revelation, the angel resists John who wished
to worship him, and says, " See thou do it not, for
I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren : te;or-
ship Jesus the Lord!" Jesum Dominum adora.^

Att, Gen. My Lord, I shall not call upon this
witness for any thing more.

Court. Now, Defendants, you are at liberty to
cross-examine the witness.

Priestley. Reverting to the subject of the Ebion-
ites, who followed so close upon the Apostolical

1 De Bono Pat. p. 254. In the face of all this evidence,
Mr. Lindsey, in his " Apology," (p. 136.) argues that Christ
is not to be worshipped ; and he says, " The opinion and prac-
tice of the ancient Christians before the Council of Nice has
been often shown from their writings, that he was not to be
worshipped." Dr. Priestley urges it as a very strong argu-
ment against the divinity of Christ, that he was not wor-
shipped by the early Christians. (Hist, of Early Opinions,
p. 40.) Belsham says, " that Unitarians regard the worship
of Christ as idolatrous and unscriptural." — Calm Inquiry,
p. 350.

108

times, and were, I affirm. Unitarians, I must repeat,
contrary to the evidence of the witness, that Ire-
naeus no where directly calls them heretics ; indeed,
TertulHan is the first Christian writer who expressly
calls them so.^

Witness, This expression will not save you from
the charge of having made in your work an un-
founded assertion. In the first place, Irenaeus
states his doubts very strongly, whether the Ebion-
ites can be saved, on account of their disbelief of
the divinity of Christ ; and this I think you must
admit to approach very nearly to a direct declar-
ation of their being heretical.^ But I affirm that
Irenaeus expressly calls them heretics, where he
says, " Since the means of detecting and convincing
all heretics are various and multifarious, and w^e
have proposed to ourselves to refute all according
to their peculiar tenets, we have deemed it neces-
sary to begin by noticing the source and root of
them."^ He then mentions several persons, the
discussion of whose doctrines occupies the re-
mainder of the book. He begins with Simon
Magus, and observes of him, that all heresies took
their rise with him. He then notices Menander,

1 Hist, of Early Corrupt, vol. i. p. 281. and vol. iii. p. 201.
^ L.iii. 19. 1. p. 212. 3 L.iii. 18.

109

Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the
Ebioiiites, &c. It surely is impossible to deny that
this classification directly and expressly includes
the Ebionites in the number of heretics. But, in
another place, Irenaeus speaks still more expressly :
adverting to the principles of the Gospel, he says,
" There is such a certainty about the Gospels, that
even heretics themselves bear testimony to them,
and each of them endeavours to confirm his own
doctrine out of them ; for the Ebionites, who use
the Gospel of St. Matthew only," &c. &c. — I
think therefore, that I have established the contrary
position, and proved decidedly that the Ebionites
were not first called heretics in the time of Ter-
tullian.'

Belsham, The witness has quoted St. Paul, where,
speaking of Christ, he says, " By whom, also, he
made the world ;'^ and infers from hence, that
Christ was the Creator, whereas the words of St,
Paul should be rendered, " For whom, also, he con-
stituted the ages,^^ or, " with a view to whom he evefi
constituted the former dispensatioris ; ^^ '^ the preposi-
tion S<a ought here to be rendered ybr, not by.

Witness. Do you not render the word, in your
version of St. John, i. 3., and in the first chapter of

1 Burton, p. 444. See Iraen.iii. 11. 7. p. 189.

2 Improved Version of the N. T., Heb. i. 2.

110

the Colossians and 16th verse, "by" and not
" for " ? And in the second chapter of Hebrews,
verse 10, where the word occurs twice in the same
line, but where it is applied differently, do you not
come back to the rendering of the common ver-
sion?

Belsham. I allow that I do, but not so in the
eleventh chapter of Romans, verse S6\ because in
these several passages I have considered the proper
and appropriate force of the word.

Witness. Excuse me ; your reasons are much
more apparent : w^herever the term is applied to
God the Father, j/o^j consider it to mean the instru-
mental cause ; but when it is applied to the Son, you
understand it as denoting thejlnal caused

Belsham. I feel my sense of it to be correct ;
and I will add that Jesus Christ is no where in the
New Testament said to be the Creator or Maker
of the heavens, the earth, the sea, or of any visible
natural objects.*

Witness, If you would admit, as you ought, that
the Christian writers of the earliest times were best
able to interpret the Christian doctrines, you would
have reason to speak differently, for these writers
indifferently style the Son, the Maker or Creator,
I have already alluded to the passage of Irenaeus,

• Burton, p. 50. "• Calm Inquiry, p. '^81,

Ill

where he calls Christ " the only begotten Son of
Godj Maker of all things — Maker of the 'wo?id; "
and " The Word of God, the Framer and Creator^
and Maker of all things^'' and also speaks " of the
Son creating,''^ ^ — Clement of Alexandria speaks of
" the Son in the Father, the Creator ; " — and says,
that " the Son has boldness of speech, because he
is God the Creator^^^ — and again, " Such is the
Word, the Creator of the world a?id of man — God
the Creator; — the Word, the cause of creation^ " —
Hippolytus calls him " the Creator of the univei^se ; *'
and " the Maker of all things.^^ ^ — Gregory of
Neocaesarea calls him " Creator and Governor of
all things^'' ^ — And Dionysius of Alexandria styles
him " the uncreated Creator" and " Creator to-
gether with his Father." ^ — And, in conclusion, by
way of summing up the whole, I will show that the
Apostle has distinctly and unequivocally declared

that Christ was the Maker of the world, for

Priestley. You may save yourself the trouble of
doing so ; for I do not see that we are under any

1 I. 9. 2.; i. 15.5.; iv. 38. 3.

2Paed.i.8. p. 142. j i. 11. p. 156.; iii.c. p.310. Strom, iv. 8.
V.3.

3 Beron. et Hel. i. p. 230., and In Theop. 2. vol. i. p. 262.

4 Orat. Paneg. in Orig. c. 4.

^ P. 244. See Burton, p. 52.

112

obligation to believe it, merely because it was an
opinion held by an Apostle.^

Witness, Then I have done. It is useless to
argue with one who holds language and belief such
as this.

Att, Gen. One thing at least w^e gain from this
extraordinary avowal ; by saying this, the Defend-
ant at least admits that there was an Apostle who
had maintained such a doctrine.

Lindsey. The witness has attempted to prove
that Christ was not only divine, but almighty, which
I think he has wholly failed in doing.

Belsham. Mr. Lindsey agrees with me in con-
ceiving those expressions which appear to attribute
personal dignity and authority to Christ as wholly
figurative. The witnesses plead that the kingdom
of Christ is uniformly opposed to that of Satan ;
but Satan we conceive to be a symbolical and not
a real person, and that his government expresses,
not the rule of a powerful evil spirit, but the pre-
valence of idolatry, superstition, and vice. It is
therefore reasonable to conclude, that the dominion
of Christ is to be understood in the same figurative
sense.^

Witness. I can only urge that the Fathers

1 These are the very words of Priestley. See History of
Early Opinions, i. p. 163.

2 Calm Inquiry, p. 320.

113

never entertained any such notion as this, when
they affirmed that " The Word was Almighty
Godj" and that he " wanted nothing," and that
"he was God Almighty in his own right:" and
as to the flnicifiil notion of Satan being a figurative
person, it is so completely at variance with the
opinions and belief of the whol^ Christian world,
that no refutation of the doctrine can be expected
from me. ^

Lindsey. To come to another point ; I beg to
deny, not only that Christ was the Creator, but to
affirm that he himself was created ; for, to meet
your quotation from the Fathers by another, I
aver that Dionysius of Alexandria hesitated not to
call Christ a creature — one inade,^

Witness. Where, let me ask ?

Lindsey. At least, he speaks of God as a
Maker (no<»)T^?), with reference to the Son; and
hence I conclude, with others, that the Son is a
creature.

Witness. This strikes me as exceedingly per-
verse ; for when they who first started this objec-
tion brought it against Dionysius, how did he him-
self answer it ? " If," says he, " any of my accusers

1 Upon this subject of Evil Spirits, see the elaborate note
prefixed to Townshend's New Testament, arranged in chrono-
logical and historical order, vol.i. p. 156.

'^ Apology, p. 204.

I

114

imagine, because I have called God the Maker
and Creator of all things, that I also call him the
Maker of Christ, let him observe that I first had
called him Father, in which the term Son is
included." — And in the following chapter, he
allows that he may have applied the w^ord Maker
to God, with reference to his Son ; but he says
that he used it " on account of the flesh, which the
Word assumed, and which was made."

Belsliam, That Christ was a creature, made
and born, is what the proper rendering of St.
Paul to the Romans (ix. 5.) shows.

Court, Hand me both the Greek Testament
and the common Version : — " Of whom, as con-
cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever." — Well.

Belsham. My Lord, the sense and force of the
passage is this : — " Of whom, by natural descent,
Christ came. God, who is over all, be blessed for
ever ! " — In this sense it is probable that the early
Christian writers understood the words, who do
not apply it to Christ.^

Lindsey. Yes, my Lord ; this clause was so
read as not to appear to belong to Christ, for the

1 Ex Elench. et Apol. c. 10. p. 96. See Burton, p. 365.
See also Bull's Defen. Fid. sect.ii. c. 11.

2 Belsham's Improved Version, Rom. ix. 5. and note.

115

three first centuries.^ Had the original stood as it
now does, the early Fathers would have cited this
clause in proof of the divinity of Christ : but nei-
ther Justin (I believe), nor Irenaeus, nor Tertid-
lian, have quoted it with this view.-

Court. Witness, what say you to this ?

Witness. My Lord, I must confess that I can-
cannot show the contrary from Justin Martyr, for
a very obvious reason, namely, that he never
quotes the passage at all. Irenaeus does quote the
passage, and with this punctuation : — "Of whom
according to the flesh Christ came, who is God
over all blessed for ever;"^ — a division which
gives a very different sense from that offered by
the Defendant's Improved Version. Irenaeus must
often have read this passage himself; he must often
have heard it read : it is, perhaps, not assuming
too much to say, that he may have heard it read
by Polycarp himself, the immediate disciple of
St. John. He must, therefore, have known the
manner in which it was customary to read the sen-
tence in the churches; and we have seen that
he reads it, not so as to make the doxology at die
end a separate and independent clause, but so as

1 Lindsey's Sequel, p. 204.

2 Jones's Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans.

' Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super
onines benedictus in saecula.

I 2

116

to affirm that Christ, who came of the Jews accord-
ing to the flesh was also God over all, blessed
for ever. So much for Irenaeus : now for Tertul-
lian. " If," says this writer, " the Father and
the Son are mentioned together, for sake of dis-
tinction we call the Father, God^ and Jesus Christ,
Lord; yet, speaking of Christ singly, I can call
him God, as Paul did, — Of whom is Christ, "jcho,
he says, is God over all, blessed for everT And in
the same treatise, referring again to the same text,
he quotes it word for word, and stop for stop, the
same as it is rendered in our version.^ Hippo-
lytus, who wrote A. D. 220., begins his sixth
chapter thus: — «' As to the Apostle saying. Whose
are the Father's, &c., he declares the mystery of
the truth properly and plainly. He who is over
all, is God ; for he thus says boldly, — All things
are delivered unto me of my Father. He that is
God over all is blessed : and, becoming man, is
God for ever.'' ^ Origen speaks the same thing.^ —

' Sed apostolum seqiiar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint
Pater et Filius, Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum
Bomimim noniinem. Solum autem Christum potero Deum
dicere, sicut idem apostolus, £'^- qidbus C//ristns, qui csty inquit,
Deus super ovinia bencdictiis in csvum omne. — Adv. Prax.
c. 13. p. 507.

2 Kai dvQphiTTOQ ytvoufvog, Oeog iariv etg tovq a'uoi'otj. —
Noet. 6. p. 10.

3 Comment, in Rom. vii. 13. Vol.iv. p. G12.

117

Cyprian quotes the same words, in the same way,
from St. Paul to prove the subject of his chapter, —
" That Christ is God."' — Novatian, who believed
in the divinity of Christ, quotes this passage twice,
to show, as Hippolytus did, that the Father is
God, and the Son is God, and yet not two Gods,
but one God.^ — Dionysius of Alexandria, speaking
of Christ, calls him twice, God over all, in allusion,
we may suppose, to this passage, the only one in
the New Testament where this expression occurs.^
And, lastly, the Council of Antioch, convened
A. D. 269, against the heresy of Paul of Samosata,
asserts this passage in proof that the Son is essen-
tially and substantially God."^ So much for these
words, which the Defendants state to have been so
read, turned, and misapplied by the writer's of the
three first centuries as not to apply to Christ. ""

Belsham. We have heard much of the writers
of the three first centuries, and more of the belief
which is reposed upon their authority. But what
is there to claim respect in the spurious epistles of
Clement, in the tissue of nonsense ascribed to Bar-
nabas, or in the. silly visions which pass under the
name of Hennas, or in the interpolated epistles of
those venerable martyrs Ignatius and Polycarp ?

1 Test, contr. Jud. c. 6. ^ Ch.iii. and ch.xxx.

3 P. 246. and p. 248. * Reliq. Sacr.ii. p. 467.

^ Burton, p. 83.

I 3

118

And as for the Clementine Homilies, they are, as
Dr. Jortin admits, as undoubtedly a romance as
" Gulliver's Travels," and contain as much truth
as Lucian's " True History : " but, at any rate,
they are good evidence of the existence of Unita-
rianism in the second century. ^

Witness. I beg, my Lord, to decline answering
the Defendants any further questions. If this per-
son speaks the sentiments of the Unitarians, and
he has undoubtedly been invested with the honour
of being their accredited organ, we are to under-
stand that no confidence is to be placed in the
general sense or opinion of the early Christian
Fathers. Why, then, have the Unitarians chal-
lenged us to adduce the writings of these Fathers
against their position, that Christ was solely a
human being, by one saying, " It is absolutely
necessary that the less learned should be told
what, ujjon enquiry^ will be found to be undeniably
true, viz., that the Fathers of the three first cen-
turies, and consequently all Christian people for
upwards of three hundred years after Christ, till
the council of Nice, were generally Unitarians ? " -
Another asserts that " the Unitarians have made
it evident, from undoubted testimonies of the Fa-

' Belsham's Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 96.
'2 Lindsey's Apology, p. 23, 24.

119

thers, that the opmion of the Ante-Nicene doctors
were either thoroughly Arian, or very near being
so; unquestionably nearer to the error in which
Arius had fallen, than to the fancies of the school-
men:"' And another, that <' the great body of
primitive Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, for
the two first centuries and upwards, were Unita-
rians and behevers in the simple humanity of Jesus
Christ."- If all this were true, the foundations of
that faith which believes Jesus Christ to be God,
are shaken even to the ground. We are naturally
led to support that faith by reference to Scripture
fairly and reasonably interpreted; but we are
called upon by our opponents to investigate, and
see whether the contemporaries and immediate fol-
lowers of the Apostles do not support their inter-
pretation of the sacred Scriptures, and condemn
ours. We readily fall in with the proposal, be-
cause the works of these writers are the grand
repositories of Christian antiquity ; and they them-
selves, as preachers of Christian virtue, and as the
defenders of true Christian doctrine, are allowed
by the Christian world as the best and highest
authority to which we can appeal for the testimony
we require ; and we have shown, and can further

1 Gilbert Gierke, Ante-Nicsenesmus, Praef.

2 Belsham's Calm Inquiry, p. 955.

I 4

120

show, that they mention Christ being born of a
Virgin, — becoming man, — of his creating all
things, — of his appearing to the Patriarchs, —
and various other particulars, as undoubted proofs
that the writers w^ho used such expressions believed
that Jesus Christ was God, or, at least, that they
do not agree with modern Unitarians, the De-
fendants, who deny that any of these expressions
can properly be applied to Christ. To get rid of
such plain testimony, the writings of the Fathers
bearing on all these points are said by them to be
either the errors of the writers, or to be the fables
and dreams of impostors, who have interpolated
the text of these authors to sanction the doctrine
of the unscriptural Trinity in Unity.

Att. Gen. My Lord, I entirely agree with this
witness in thinking that it is lost labour, as far as
the Defendants are concerned, to show that the
early Christian Fathers, the holy writers of the
first three centuries, are directly opposed to their
doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. My
object in producing his evidence and that of the
former witnesses, is to put the matter clearly be-
fore the Jury, that they may have all the assistance
they can require for forming an impartial decision
on this great and momentous question. Now, my
Lord, I shall produce witnesses, with another, but
no less important view, — to obtain from them not
the opinion of ancient writers, but of modern

121

authors, and that also of their own, as to the sense
of the Scriptures on points by which the sole
humanity, or the divinity of Christ is to be esta-
bUshed.

Court. I think you are quite right. Whom will
you call ?

Att. Gen. I will call Edward Nares, the author
of " Remarks on the Version of the New Testa-
ment edited by the Unitarians."

Do you, sir, acknowledge yourself the author of
the book now mentioned ?
Witness. I do.

Att. Gen. What is the object of your " Reply?"
Witness. To prove that the Unitarians generally,
and the Defendant Bel sham in particular, have
perverted the plain and obvious sense of Scripture
in reference to every part of it which bears upon
or supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

Att. Gen. What is it that is affirmed respecting
the miraculous conception and birth of Christ ?

Witness. The Defendant, upon the most un-
warrantable plea, declares the greater part of
the first, and the whole of the second chapter of
St. Matthew, together with the two chapters of
St. Luke (with the exception of the five prefatory
verses) as all being of such doubtful authority,
that they are not to be taken as parts of the

122

Gospel ; and, he adds, " that the account of tlie
miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the
fiction of some Gentile convert, who hoped, by
elevating the dignity of the founder, to abate the
popular prejudice against the sect.^

Court. Defendant, you will interpose whenever
the witnesses make any statement respecting your
writings w^hich you consider misunderstood.

Belsham. My Lord, I thank you ; I shall not
fail to do so.

Att. Gefi. I now ask you, sir, whether this
assertion be true or false, in your opinion ; because,
if it be true, it will follow that the sense of the
Christian Church is mistaken, and the faith of
Christians, instead of being founded upon rock,
is built upon the mere sand; but, on the other
hand, if it be false, I w^ould ask whether, upon
your oath, this does not amount to blasphemy ?

Witness, I declare it, as my own opinion and
as the belief of the soundest divines of Chris-
tendom, to be false ; and the notion of elevating the
Saviour of the world to the dignity of the heroes
and demigods of heathen mythology to be an
unquestionable and disgusting blasphemy ; for
need any, with the Revelation of St. John in their

1 Iinpro\ed Version of the New Testament, Notes to
Matthew, ch.i.

123

hands, which even such pruning expositors of
Scripture as the Defendants, concede to be genu-
ine, — need any to have forged such an account
of the birth of Christ with materials such as we
have in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke ? They
give him a poo7' Virgin for his mother, a small
village for his birth-place, a stable for his nursery,
and a manger for his cradle ; and they give him
these wretched and lowly investments — for what ?
" In order," says the Defendant, " to lessen Jewish
prejudices, and to raise him to the rank of a
demigod ! " Him, who declares himself, in another
part of Scripture, to be " the Alpha and Omega,
the Beginning and the End, unto whom every
creature that is in heaven, and on earth, and under
the earth, and in the sea, and all things in them,
ascribe blessing and glory and dominion for ever
and ever ! " Permit me here to ask, what mytho-
logical idol could ever be compared to the Lamb
of the Apocalypse, the Lord of Lords and King
of Kings ? What demigod of Paganism ever
made such an appearance as the Word of God
in the Revelation of St. John ? — "I saw heaven
opened, and behold a white horse, and he who sat
upon him was called Faithful and True, and with
righteousness he judgeth and maketh war. And
his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head
were many crowns. And he had a name written
which none knoweth but himself: and he was

124

clothed with a mantle dipped in blood : and his
name is called The Word of God : and the
armies which are in heaven followed him on white
horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure ; and
out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,
that with it he might smite the nations : and he
shall rule them with a rod of iron : and he shall
tread the wine-press of the fierce anger of Almighty
God : and he had on his mantle and on his thigh,
a name written. King of Kings and Lord of
Lords." If I have shown any undue warmth in
reciting this passage, and giving my evidence on
this point, I trust the Court will excuse it, and
attribute it to the feelings of disgust and indigna-
tion excited in my mind, by those who talk of
elevating such a mighty and august personage as
this, to the rank of a demigod ! ^

Att. Gen. To go from this point to another. —
What is your opinion and belief, as to the Jehovah
of the Old Testament being the same with Christ
in the New? and how does this opinion and belief
either differ from, or agree with, what the Defendant
Belsham has published ?

Witness. On this point I am directly at issue
with all the Defendants. My firm opinion is, that
the Logos of St. John was the Jehovah Adonai of

' Nares's Reply, p. 38.

125

the Jews ; the Angel of God's Presence ; the Angel .
of both Covenants ; the Appearing God. It is thus
that we can fairly assimilate the terms of the Old
and New Testament, and illustrate the one by the
other. When Jehovah appeared in the Shechinah
to the patriarchs, it was "in the glory of God;"
and is not the Son of God described by the Apostle
to the Hebrews as "the brightness of God's glory?"
Was not the Angel that was sent to the patriarchs
above every thing distinguished by that most pecu-
liar circumstance of bearing the very name of God
or Jehovah, a name wholly incommunicable to
creatures ? — " Behold ! I send an angel to keep
thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place
which I have prepared; beware of him^ and obey
his voice ; provoke him not, for he will not pardon
your trangressions, for my name is in him.^' Now
this Angel is repeatedly spoken of by Moses as
Jehovah, in a manner the most striking^ and re-
markable. Nothing, however, is more to the pur-
pose than the relation given in Exodus, where it
is said, " The Angel of the Lord appeared unto him
(Moses) in a flame of fire out of the midst of a
bush, and the bush was not consumed ; and Moses
said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight,
why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord
[Jehovah) saw that he turned aside to see, God
called unto him out of the midst of the bush."
(iii. 2 — 4-.) It is certain that the Angel of God,

126

who, under the patriarchal and legal dispensations,
had the name of God in him, was called Jehovah,
spake in the first person as Jehovah, calling him-
self " The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,'*
appeared in the visible glory of God, w^as worship-
ped as God ; yet we know, and are assured upon
testimony the most unexceptionable, that " no man
has seen the Father at any time." But this great
and ineffable name of Jehovah was also by the
prophets given to the Messiah ; for the prophecy
of Jeremiah declares that the name by which
the Messiah shall be called is, Jehovah our
RIGHTEOUSNESS.^ And what do we read in Isaiah ?
" I, even I, am Jehovah, besides me there is no
Saviour ; " and yet St. John emphatically declares
Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world.^
The great name of Jehovah being thus given by
the prophets to the Messiah, and, by implication at
least, if not directly, ascribed to Jesus Christ by the
writers of the New Testament, is it any wonder to
find the Apostle to the Hebrews insisting so much

1 Ch.xxiii. 6.

2 See Nares's Reply, p. 88. and note.
Compare Isaiah, ch. xiiii. and John, iv. 42.

The Prophet also says (xliv. 6.) : " Thus saith Jehovah, the
King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, I am
the First and the Last, and besides me there is no God." —
Now, this very character of the God of Israel, Christ as-
sumes to himself in the Revelation, " I am Alpha and
Omega, the Fh'st and the Last." (Rev. xxii. 13)

127

on the superiority of Christ above the Prophets of
the Old Testament, describing him as the " effid-
gence and the brightness of God's glory," and " the
express image of his person;" as "sitting on the
right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so
much better than the angels, as he hath by inherit-
ance obtained a more excellent name than they " —
" a NAME which is above every name " — " that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven, and things in earth, and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father ? " ^ These are the
several plain and strong declarations of the Apostle
Paul: but, to sum up the whole, and to bring the mat-
ter to a perfect focus, I will add that clear, explicit,
and incontrovertible passage of this Apostle to his
disciple Titus : — " The grace of God that bringeth
salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us
that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this
present world ; looking for that blessed hope, and
the glorious appearing of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that
he might redeem us from all iniquity. These
things speak and exhort." ^

Att, Gen. But one of the Defendants has al-

Philip.ii. 9—11. 2 Chap. ii. 13—1.

128

readv declared that there is no obligation to credit ^
such things, merely because it is the belief of cin
Apostle ; so we will proceed to some other point.
How, then, sir, do the Defendants, and Belsham
in particular, render the words 'Tjoj Qsov, where
it occurs in the New Testament ?

Witness. Invariably so, as that the same expres-
sion may be applied indifferently to any pious and
ofood Christian whatever.

AU. Gen. How is this ?

Witness. They say the Unitarians acknowledge
that our Lord fully confessed himself to be The
Son of God ; but then they do not grant it in that
high sense which he claimed, and the Evangelists
and Apostles ascribe to him ; and they render 'Tio?
0=00, " The Son of a God ; " that is, a Son of
Jupiter, or Mercury, or the god of Siam, perhaps.
And in the passage of St. Matthew (xiv. 33.) where
the Disciples are described as worshipping Cln'ist,
saying, " Truly Thou art the Son of God," after
he had performed the most stupendous miracle, not
as an inspired Prophet, but upon his own inherent
authority, and they acknowledged in the expres-
sion both his divinity and his Messiahship ; they
render the words, " Truly Thou art a son of
God!" which amounts to nothing more than an
acknowledgment that he was a religious person :
" Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be
called the children of God." When our Saviour

129

was crucified, his enemies reviled him, because he
had said that he was The Son of God : this was no
blasphemy, as the High Priests declared it was,
had it been spoken in the sense which the Uni-
tarians give it, instead of its being claimed by
Christ, as being equal to God, and as the title of
the Messiah.

Att. Gen. How do they understand and render
Logos, The Word of God?

Witness, The Court will best see by referring
to the first verse of St. John's Gospel, as given
and explained in their New and Impi'oved Version.
The words are these in our version : — "In the
beginning was the Word; and the Word was with
God ; and the Word was God : " which are thus
rendered by them : — " The Word was in the be-
ginning; and the Word was with God; and the
Word was a God." Then follows the explan-
ation : — " The Word, or Jesus Christ, through
whom God revealed liis word, w^as in the begin-
ning of the Gospel dispensation ; and The Word,
or Jesus, was with God, withdrawing from the
world to receive divine instructions and qualifi-
cations for his ministry : he was then invested with
extraordinary miraculous pow^ers, and thus, in
Jewish phraseology, was called a god." ^

See Improved Version, and notes upon John i.

130

Att, Gen. How do they get over the plain and
simple construction and grammar of the original
Greek?

Wit7iess. This is all made to give way to
their conjectures ; and articles, definite and inde-
finite, are subtracted, added, or omitted, to answer
the constrained and perverted sense, or rather non-
sense, of this unwarrantable interpretation.

Court. How is that memorable confession of
St. Thomas's faith rendered, when Christ removed
his unbelief by showing the wounds that had been
inflicted upon him at his crucifixion, and he cried
out, " My Lord, and my God ! "

Witness. The force and sense of these words,
spoken and solely addressed to Jesus, are got over
by the assertion of the Defendants, that they are
not a confession, but an exclamation ; an exclama-
tion to the Almighty, meaning, My Lord and my
God, how great is thy power ! ^

Att. Gen. How do you meet this ?

Wit7iess. By affirming that the words speak a
direct and unequivocal confession of our Saviour's
divine nature. The Defendant says they are an
exclamation ; but it is quite certain that the words,
" My Lord," refer to our Saviour ; and in an ex-
clamation like that of Tliomas, which was occasioned

' John XX. 29. and note of Improved Version.

J31

by the joyful certainty of bis Master's resurrection,
we can bardly separate the two members of the
sentence, and apply one to Christ and the other to
God. Had St. John so understood it, he would have
taken care to record it in such a manner (suppos-
ing him to have entertained the same notions with
the Defendants) as not to give it the semblance of a
direct acknowledgment of Christ's divine nature.
He would have told us, that Thomas said, My
Lord, and shortly afterwards, My God, or some-
thing to that effect. But a fatal objection to the
Defendant's interpretation is this : — St. John says
expressly, that this exclamation was addressed to
Jesus: — "Thomas answered and said unto liim^^ —
Besides which, our Saviour commended it as a
confession of faith ; which it would not have been,
had it expressed only surprise. This passage is
more deserving attention, because it is the first
time that Christ is called God by any of his dis-
ciples. ^

Att. Gen. How do they explain that passage
of St. John, in which our Saviour told the Jews, in
his indignation, " Ye are of your father the Devil :
he was a murderer from the beginning ? "

Witness, They affirm that the Devil here men-
tioned is \hQ principle of moral evil personified ; and

I Bp. Blomfiekl's Five Lectures on St. John's Gospel,
p. 86.

K 2

132

that wicked men are said to be his children^ and to
resemble him.^ Now, to say that the wicked are
called his children, and that he is a fictitious per-
son, would, by parity of reason, imply that the
good and virtuous, called the children of God, are
the children of an unreal and illusive being. But
it is manifest that one of the objects of Christ's
coming upon earth was, that he might destroy the
works of the Devil, a real but fallen Spirit, whom
God permits to tempt mankind in order to make
trial of their faith and virtue ; for, says St. John,
** He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the
Devil sinneth from the beginning ; for this purpose
the Son of God was manifested, that he might
destroy the works of the Devil." ^ The Evil One
is, therefore, spoken of in Scripture as the sovereign
and head of a kingdom, — " The Prince of the
power of the air, the Spirit that worketh disobe-
dience." ^ And against this kingdom of Satan the
kingdom of Christ was opposed, and subdued it': —
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace,
his goods are in peace : but when a stronger than
he shall come upon him and overcome him, he
taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted,
and divideth his spoils." * But independent of this,

1 Improved Version, note to John viii. 44.

2 1 John, iii. 8. 3 Ephes. ii. 2.
■* Lukexi. 21, 22.

133

our Saviour speaks of him again and again as a
real being, and particularly where he says, " The
enemy that sowed the tares (among the wheat) is
the Devil." ^ And this is made positively certain
by what St. Paul says, that Satan can transform
himself into the appearance of "an angel of light." ^
as no doubt he did, when he tempted the first
Adam in Paradise, and the second in the wilder-
ness.

Att, Gen, My Lord, I have no further ques-
tions to ask of this witness.

Court. Then, Defendants, you are at liberty to
begin.

BelsJiam. I would ask whether we have not
assigned good and substantial reasons for our
rejection of those parts of the Gospel which have
been mentioned? and whether we have not ad-
duced the testimony of the learned to support our
disbelief of these being genuine parts of Scrip-
ture ?

Witness, I, for one, think the reverse.

Belsham, My Lord, this is not candid. I will
therefore state each of the six objections we have
against considering nearly the whole of the first
chapter of St. Matthew, and the two first chapters
of St. Luke as spurious, when I will call upon the

1 Matt. xiii. 39. 2 2 Cor. xi. 14.

K 3

134

witness to grant at least the force and truth of
the evidence we produce. Our rejection of these
parts is founded, first, on the ground of the Evan-
gelists having affirmed (if what is here said to be
his writing is true) that Jesus had completed his
thirteenth year in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, by which Jesus must have been
born fifteen years before the death of Augustus :
thus Herod, who died A. U. C. 751., must have
been dead upwards of two years before Christ was
born ; a fact which at once invalidates the whole
narrative. ^

Witness. Stop, stop; you are rather too rapid
in drawing your conclusion. Who says that He-
rod was dead two years before the birth of Christ ?

Belsham, I refer you to Lardner for the cor-
roboration of the fact.^

Wit7iess. Stay. Here, at page 432. of the first
volume of his works, he says, " It may be made
appear several "ways, that Jesus was born above a
year, probably above two years, before Herod died."
And, after making a comparison of two other
computations of Herod's death, he concludes thus :
— " Which is the truth, I dare not determine."^

Belsham. This does not make against us.

Witness. Nor for you. All that can be said is

' hiiproved Version, note to Lnke i. 4.
- Ibid. Nares's Reply, p. 12.

135

this, that Lardner makes the computation on the
notion that Herod died A. U. C. 748. or 749., and
not upon that of 751.; and he, and the learned
who have endeavoured to clear this point, draw no
such hasty conclusion as that at which you have
arrived.

Belsham. The point at least is left undecided.
But if this argument be deemed insufficient, I will
go on to show, in the next place, that Epiphanius
and Jerome state the copies of St. Matthew's Gos-
pel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is to
say, the ancient Hebrew Christians, to omit these
parts of St. Matthew and St. Luke ; and, what is
more, the two chapters of St. Luke were rejected
by Marcion, a reputed heretic of the second century,
who was a man of learning and integrity, though
represented by his adversaries as holding some ex-
travagant opinions.^

Jfztfiess. Your aro'ument is this: — St. Matthew
is known to have written his Gospel for the He-
brew Christians, therefore the Gospel used by the
Nazarenes and Ebionites was the genuine one which
St. Matthew wrote. Now, before we grant the
conclusion, let us look at the premises. The terms
Hebrew Christians, Nazarenes, and Ebionites, which
are here artfully classed together, as if synonymous,
were decidedly distinct. The Hebrew Christians

' Improved Version, Matt, i., Luke i., notes.
K 4

136

for whom St. Matthew wrote, were the body of
Jewish converts at his time, viz. at latest A. D. 66.
The Nazarenes and Ebionites of whom Epiphaniiis
speaks A. D. 370, were posterior to the former
three hundred years. The Nazarenes, indeed, were
a sect of the Hebrew Christians, holding some tenets
peculiar to themselves, and separated from the main
body; the name having been first applied to those
who, banished from Jerusalem by Adrian, A. D. 1 30,
settled in the north of Galilee. The Ebionites, by
some authors confounded with the Nazarenes, by
others distinguished from them, appear to have for
the most part aoreed with them in their main opi-
nions and character, but to have been separated
from them by some partial differences. Wc are
told first " on the authority of Epiphanius and Je-
rome, the narrative of the miraculous conception
appears to have been wanting in the copy used by
the Nazarenes and Ebionites." This statement is
not quite correct. Epiphanius treats of the Naza-
renes and Ebionites as two distinct sects. The
former, he tells us, use ajiill copy of St. Matthew ;
the latter use one much altered, and deficient in the
two first chapters, as it begins with the account of
the baptism. St. Jerome frequently mentions " a
Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Naza-
renes use," and by this he probably intends the
Ebionite Gospel mentioned by Epiphanius, but he
no where testifies the fact of its wanting the two

137

first chapters. Epiphanius also says of the Naza-
renes, that sect of Hebrew Christians who are
commonly understood to have held other opinions,
that he cannot affirm for certain, whether they be-
lieve that our Saviour was begotten of Mary by
the Holy Ghost ; a doubt which implies the per-
suasion on his part, that some Jewish Christians, at
least, received the accounts. St. Jerome expressly
says of them, that " they believe in Christ, the Son
of God, born of the Virgin." ^ But who, let me
ask, is Marcion ? — an unjustly rejTuted heretic ?
No: Marcion maintained notions the most wild
that can be conceived. He affirmed, that our
Saviour was man only in outward figure ; that he
was not born like other men, but appeared first on
earth in a full-grown form. Fie rejected the Old
Testament, and mutilated the New where it con-
tained quotations from the Old. He received only
eleven books of the New Testament; no Gospel
besides St. Luke's, and this completely disguised
by alterations, interpolations, and omissions, of
which a long account is given by Epiphanius. His
copy began thus : — In the fifteenth year of Tibe-
rius, Christ descended into Capernaum^ &c. And
this is the Marcion whose authority is to invalidate
St. Luke. 2

1 Quarterly Review on the Improved Version, vol. i. p. 324.
'2 Ibid. p. 326.

138

Belsham. I understand all this differently. If,
however, you reject it, I state, in the third place,
that St. Luke does not mention, in his preface to
the Acts of the Apostles, that his Gospel contained
any thing more than records of the public ministry
of Jesus, and makes no allusion to the remarkable
incidents contained in the two first chapters, which,
therefore, probably were not written by him.

Witness. Your objection amounts only to what
you are pleased to term a probability, which is no
argument, and much less any proof, against the
validity of the chapters in question ; and even this
only arises from St. Luke having, in the preface to
the Acts, made no allusion to the incidents in these
chapters. Neither did he make any allusion to the
remarkable incidents in the third chapter, when
John baptized Jesus, and a voice from heaven de-
clared him to be his beloved Son ; so that there is
the same ground for the prohahiliti/ of the spurious-
ness of the third, as of the two first chapters.

Belsham, The subject of the two first chapters
and the third chapter are very dissimilar, and infi-
nitely distant in importance.

Priestley, Justin Martyr is the first writer who
mentions the mu'aculous conception.^

Belsham. He is so : but, in the fourth place, if
the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus

1 History of Eai'ly Opinions, vol. iv. p. 107.

,

139

be true, he could not have been the offspring of
David and Abraham, from whom it was predicted
the Messiah should descend.

Witness. Both Joseph and Mary, the reputed
father and the actual mother of Jesus, were de-
scended from the same lineage, and this lineage
was to be traced, according to all Jewish law and
custom, by the side of the espoused husband of
Mary. It is granted on all hands that Matthew,
who wrote principally for the Jews, carries his
genealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise
of the Messiah w as given to the Jews ; but Luke,
who wrote for the Gentiles, carried his genealogy
to Adam, to whom the promise of the Saviour was
made in behalf of all his posterity : now, from
Abraham to David the two genealogies coincide,
and it must be remembered that both Evangelists
published their Gospels at a time when the general
tables of pedigree were still preserved, and when
every genealogical title which proposed to trace
the descent of one who claimed to be the expected
Messiah, would be inspected with the most scru-
pulous and jealous anxiety ; and we have no where
read that any objection to the accuracy of the
Evangelists was raised by their contemporaries.^

1 See the full consideration of this subject in the note to
the ninth section of Townsend's first volume of " The New
Testament arranged in Chronological and Historical Order,"
p. 51.

140

Belsham, This is a subject of far too great
intricacy to be discussed here. I proceed, there-
fore, to the fifth objection. There is no allusion
to any of these extraordinary facts (the miraculous
conception and birth) in either of the succeeding
histories of Luke, or in any other books of the
New Testament.^

Witness. Could we admit, which we cannot,
that " no allusion is made to these events in any
other passage of the New Testament," we could
by no means allow that this applies as an objection
to the miraculous birth exclusively. Many highly
important facts of our Saviour's history are not
alluded to in other parts of the sacred writings.
But, far from conceding the point, I positively aver
that most frequent allusion is made to the accounts
of his. supernatural birth. I affirm, that this fact is
implied throughout his whole history; that it is
implied wherever he is spoken of as being God
himself, and the Son of God ; that it is supposed
and understood in the whole doctrine of the atone-
ment. I maintain also, that where we read, " God
sent forth his Son, born of a woman," we have not
merely an allusion to his miraculous conception,
but an express mention of it. It is clear to the
most superficial reader of the " Improved Version,"
that the translators think proper to pervert, to

1 Note to Luke, ch. i.

141

other meanings, all the sentences by which the
doctrines of the divinity of our Saviour and of the
atonement are proved.^

Belsham, The expression of being " born of a
woman," bears no allusion to the supposed miracu-
lous conception of Christ. It is a common Jewish
phrase to express a proper human being.^

Witness, But the expression "born of a woman,"
ismanifestly too general to mark out him w^ho, in a
particular manner, was to be the '^seed of the woman,
who w^as to bruise the serpent's head ; " and, when
taken in conjunction with other passages of similar
import, surely cannot be misunderstood. " God sent

1 The Improved Version reviewed by the Quarterly, vol. i.
p. 328.

2 Improved Version, Gal. iv. 4. note.

The condemnation of the iniquity of Adam's progeny was
universal. To reverse the universal sentence, and to purge
the universal corruption, a Redeemer was to be found, pure
of every strain of inbred and contracted guilt : and since
every person produced in the natm-al way could not but be of
the contaminated race, the purity requisite to the efficacy of
the Redeemer's atonement made it necessary that the manner
of his conception should be supernatural. The incarnation of
the Divine Word, so roundly asserted by St. John, and so
clearly implied in innimierable passages of Holy Writ, in any
other way had been impossible, and the Redeemer's atone-
ment inadequate and ineffectual ; insomuch that, had the ex-
traordinary manner of our Lord's generation made no part of
the Evangelical narrative, the opinion might have been de-
fended as°a thing clearly implied in the Evangelical doctrine."
— Bp. Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 80.

142

his own Son in the Hkeness of sinful flesh." — " The
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." —
" God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made
under the law."

Belsham, I say, with the disciples of Jesus,
" This is a hard saying, who can bear it ? " I
proceed, therefore, to state, in the last place, that
John the Baptist should have been ignorant of
the person of Christ is not probable, if this nar-
rative be true ; and there are many other circum-
stances in the story which bear an improbable and
fabulous aspect.^

Witness. It has been pretty generally supposed,
that John knew not the person of Jesus before
his baptism. 1 do not feel certain that this was
the case. John, indeed, in two instances, declared
that he " knew him not : " but I question if more
be implied in these than that he knew him not as
the Messiah, till he was especially revealed on
his approach to be baptized.^ And as to your
charge, that some of the facts have a fabulous
appearance, surely this is no other than a direct
departure from real argument to vague and un-
intelligible insinuation. I would ask, where are
these marks of fiction ? From what proofs is

1 Improved Version, Luke i., note.

2 Nares's Reply, p. 34. This is the opinion of BezH,
Lightfoot, Grotius, and Doddridge.

148

this inference drawn ? Do not all the facts of our
Saviour's history, his several miracles, his resur-
rection, bear the same fabulous appearance ? that
is, are they not facts wholly out of the common
course of nature, which we should never have
beheved if they had not been pressed upon' our
conviction by evidence which we cannot question ?
How far the Defendants may carry this sort of
scepticism, I know not ; but the same reasoning,
and the same grounds for disbelief, would con-
sistently carry them to regard all that our Saviour
taught and did, to be a " cunningly devised
fable." '

Belsham. We proceed on principles of reason
for the confirmation of our belief, not upon the mere
dicta of others. I affirm, that our Lord is re-
peatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without
any intimation on the part of the historian that
this language is incorrect.

Witness, I admit that our Saviour is mentioned,
I think, as many as five times, as the son of Jo-
seph. In one, the name is given by a new convert,
ignorant, as yet, of his nature and ministry. (John
i. 45.) In another, it is urged as an objection
to his mission by the unbelieving Jews. (John vi.
4-2.) In two others, his hearers, astonished at
what they hear and see, exclaim, " Is not this

' Quarterly Review on Improved Version^ p. 328.

144

Joseph's son?" (Luke iv. 22. Mark vi. 3.) and he
expressly disclaims the title, by saying, " No
prophet is accepted in his own country." In the
fifth instance, his genealogy begins : " Being {as
was supposed) the son of Josej)h."

Belsham, The last instance you have mentioned
should be rendered, " Being entered in the public
registers, the son of Joseph."

Witness, I will take it either way : for the first
refers only to the vulgar opinion; the second
regards the legal mode of tracing his ancestry
through the espoused husband of his mother:
neither tends to prove what j'ou regard as the
fact of his being the actual son of Joseph.^

Belsliam. Sufficient authority, of a clear and
undisputed kind, and natural probabilities, compel
us to regard the story of his miraculous concep-
tion, if not his birth, as a fable.

Witness. It must be borne in mind that the
Gospels were read in different churches from the
earliest times, and copies of them w^ere widely
dispersed. Would, then, the Evangelists them-
selves have concurred in such a foroerv ? Would
Christians of all countries, sects, and opinions,
have been willing, silently and at once, to adopt it ?
Would history have preserved no record of such
an alteration in the code of Christian faith?

) Quarterly Review of the Improved Version, p. 330.

I

145

Would no doubts or suspicions have remained
in the minds of any? Would no enemies of
Christianity have heard of such an interpolation,
and gladly have exposed it? Would the con-
tending sects of Christians never have urged it

aojainst each other, in the heat of reliojious war-
es ^ o

fare ? ^

Belsham. How all this might have been, I
cannot stop to enquire, though I think all your
difficulties capable of an easy solution. I now
advert to another topic which you have urged
against us. You endeavour to prove that Christ
is the Angel sent, " the appearing Angel " of the
Old Testament. We allow that he was an Angel
or Messenger' as the prophets which preceded him
were ; and that he was the highest of this order of
celestial messengers ; but beyond this we cannot
go.

Witness. We read in the third chapter of Ma-
lachi, " Behold, I will send my Messe?iger, and
he shall prepare the way before me : and the
Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, \!ohom
ye delight in, saith the Lord of Hosts.'' — This is
the passage as it stands in the received text. Now,
let us observe, first, that the person speaking is
described to be the Lord of Hosts, who, in the

' Quarterly Review on the Improved Version, vol. i. p. 33 J.
L

146

original is Jehovah Sabaoth, for Isaiah says
that the name of our Redeemer is Jehovah Sa-
baoth : ^ " Behold ! I will send my Messenger be-
fore ME." — Messenger is here proper : it evidently
alludes to Elias, or rather to his representative,
John the Baptist, as our Lord himself applied it :
— " The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness.
Prepare ye the way of Jehovah ; make straight
in the desert a highway for our God." — " And
the Lord (that is, Jehovah Adonai, the same
whom David called his Lord, as our Saviour re-
marked), HE shall come to his Temple, the
Temple of Jerusalem, that isj the Temple of
God, the Temple of the Lord of Hosts ! " ^

Att. Gen. My Lord, as this is a point of the
gi'eatest importance, I beg permission of the Court
to call up the witness Horsley again, to put one
question to him upon this matter.

Court, You have leave to do so, provided
your question bears upon this subject, and this
subject only.

Att» Gen. Call again the witness Horsley. —
I would beg to ask you one question more, sir :
do you consider the Jehovah of the Old Testament
to be the Messiah of the New ; if so, how do you
show it ?

Horsleif. I will prove it from the passage of

' Ch. xlvii. 4. 2 Nares's Reply, p. 04.

147

Malachi which is so well taken up by the witness
Nares, the consideration of which is now before
the Court. A Covenant is to be established be-
tween Jehovah and his people ; proposed on the
part of God, and to be embraced by the people.
The Messenger of the Covenant can be no other
than the Messenger sent by Jehovah to make this
proposal. The Messenger of the Covenant is
therefore Jehovah^s Messenger; — if his Messejiget;
his Servant ,• for a message is a service : it implies
a person sending, and a person sent. In the person
who sendeth, there must be authority to send ;
submission to that authority in the person sent.
The Messenger, therefore, of the Covenant is the
servant of the Lord Jehovah : but the same per-
son who is the Messenger, is the Lord Jehovah
himself ; noi the same person with the sender, but
bearing the same name, because united in that mys-
terious nature, and undivided substance, which the
name imports. The same person, tlierefore, is
Servant and Lord ; and, by uniting these characters
in the same person, what does the Prophet but
describe that great mystery of the Gospel, the
union of the nature which governs and the nature
which serves ; the union of the divine and human
nature in the person of the Christ ? This doc-
trine, therefore, was no less than that of the divi-
nity of the Messiah ; a novelty, as we are told, in
the third and fourth century after the birth of
L 2

148

Christ ; an invention of the dark and superstitious
ages ! '

Behham, I do not understand how he that
said, " I will send my Angel," can be the Angel
whom he said he would send.

Att, Gen. The Father is only known through
the Son ; but the Son as Jehovah, speaks as Jeho-
vah, though not unfrequently with a marked dis-
tinction of persons. 2 Is not this what you mean
to say?

Priestley. I admit it in this instance.^

Horslei). Permit me to explain myself further by
stating, that the ancient Jews had a persuasion,
which their descendants retain at this day, that the
true pronunciation of the word " Jehovah " was
unknown ; and lest they should miscal the sacred
name of God, they scrupulously abstained from
attempting to pronounce it "*; insomuch, that, when

1 Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 24»

5 Nares's Repl}^, p. 85. note.

Compare Exod. xxiii. 22. and xxxii. 34. and xxxiii. 2.

3 Dr. Priestley admits that " though the angel here be
spoken of by the Divine Being as a third person, and distinct
from himself y they must^ nevertheless, in effect have been one."
— Priestley, as quoted by Nares, p. 86. n.

-J Among the Hindoos, O — M is a mystic emblem of the
Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a
syllabic formed of the Sanscreet letters a, u, o, which, in com-
position, coalesce, and make o with the nasal consonant w.

149

the sacred books were publicly read in their syn-
agogues, the reader, wherever this name occurred,
was careful to substitute for it that other word of
the Hebrew language which answers to the English
word " Lord." The learned Jews who were em-
ployed by Ptolemy to turn the Scriptures of the Old
Testament into Greek have every where, in their
translation, substituted the corresponding word
of the Greek language. Later translators have
followed their mischievous example, — mischievous
in its consequences, though innocently meant : and
our English translators, among the rest, in innu-
merable instances, instead of the original " Je-
hovah," which ought upon all occasions to have
been religiously retained, have put the more ge-
neral title of " the Lord." A flagrant instance of
this occurs in that solemn proem of the Decalogue,
in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, " I am the
Lord thy God," so we read in our English Bibles,
" who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage.'' In the original it is.
" I am Jehovah thy God, who have brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage." — Another example of the same unhappy
alteration we find in that famous passage of the

(AUM.) The first letter stands for the Creator^ the second
for the Preserver^ and the third for the Destroyer of the Evil
Spirit, or Regenerator. — Dr. Adam Clarke on John i.
L 3

150

hundred and twentieth Psalm, " The Lord said
unto my Lord ; " which is, in the Hebrew, " Je-
hovah said unto my Lord." — If translators have
used this unwarrantable licence of substituting a
title of the Deity for his proper name in texts
where that name is applied to the Almighty Father,
— and in one particular, when the Father seems
to be distinguished by that name from Jesus as
man, — it is not to be wondered at that they should
make a similar alteration in passages where the
Messiah is evidently the person intended. One
among many other examples of this kind is
found in Joel, where the prophet, speaking of the
blessings of the Messiah's day, saith, " And it
shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the
name of the Lord (in the original, Jehovah),
shall be delivered." Here, the Holy Spirit has
vouchsafed to be his own interpreter; and his
interpretation, one would think, might be decisive.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, alleges this
passage of Joel, to prove that all men shall be saved
by believing in Christ Jesus. But how is the
Apostle's assertion, that all men shall be saved by
faith in Christ, confirmed by the prophet's promise
of deliverance to all who should devoutly invocate
Jehovah, unless Christ were, in the judgment of
St. Paul, the Jehovah of the prophet Joel ? ^

> Horsley's Sermon xxx. vol. 3. p. 6.

Court. That, sir, is sufficient.

Belsham. With respect to the words of Thomas,
on being convinced that our Lord had actually
risen from the grave, by seeing and feeling in
Jesus, who addressed him, the wounds which had
been inflicted on his body at his crucifixion, 1 have
the authority of Beza for saying, that they are " an
exclamation ; " as if, in his astonishment, he had
said, " My Lord, and my God, how great is thy
power ! " ^

Wit7iess. 1 do not remember what Beza says ;
but the impression on my mind is, that he does not
go quite to this length.

Att, Gen, Here is the volume of Beza on the
table ; hand it to the witness.

Witness, It is as I thought. Beza says, " These
words are not merely an exclamation, but an actual
address of Thomas to Jesus, calling him, both his
Lord, and his God ; an indisputable precedent for
invoking Christ as the true God." ^

> Improved Version, John xx. 28. and note.

- Haec igitur verba quae sequuntur non sunt tantum ad-
mirantis Thomae, nt hunc locum eludebnnt Kestorianiy sed
ipsum ilium Jesum et verum Deum ac Dominum suum com-
pellantis. Male igitur vulgate interpretatur hie locus, recto
casu Dominus mens et Dens mens ; nee alius est locus in his
libris expressior, de Christo, ut vero Deo invocando. — Beza,
quoted by Nares, p. 181.

L 4

152

Belsham, I am still right in saying that Beza
called the passage an exclamation.

WitJiess. Yes ; but I must be permitted to add,
not right nor honest in stopping there, when he
said, this is not only an exclamation, but an address
to Christ himself; the Word who was with God,
and was God.

Belsham. This reminds me of another point.
I have already said that the expression " the Word
was with God," signifies that Jesus was in retire-
ment with God, qualifying for his ministry ; in the
same way that it is said of Moses, that " he was
there in the mount forty days and forty nights."
Now, in further proof that this does not mean, that
Jesus was consubstantial with God, I have this
unquestionable evidence. St. John says, " There
was a man sent from God whose name was John ; " —
a man SGntfrom God ! — a plain illustration of the
former text, and implies that he had been first with
God.^ This, I think, makes the speculation of the
witness to be of no weight.

Witness. Let us adopt this reasoning. Then,
because John was sent froin God, therefore he was
first "with God, so that John as truly came from
heaven as the divine Logos. John was as truly
from above, as truly with God from the beginning,
as truly came forth from God when he came into

' Improved Version, John i. 6. and note.

153

the world, as the blessed Jesus. But what says
John the Baptist himself? So far from being on
any footing of equality with Him^ whose forerunner
he was appointed to be, — " He that comethyroTW
above^^ saith he, " is above all. He that is of the
earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he
that Cometh from heaven^ is above all :" — but how
above all, if he himself and every other prophet
came from heaven, and came from above in like
manner? But what does the Saviour tell us of
those who come from above, in the way that he
came ? — " No man hath seen the Father," he
says, " but he that is from God ; he hath seen the
Father." Can any one say or believe this of John
the Baptist and of Christ, indifferently ? Assuredly
not.

Court. Defendants, do you desire to ask any
thing further of this witness ?

Belsham, No, my Lord.

Court. Call again the witness Burton.

Burton. Here am I, my Lord.

Court. The Defendant Priestley incidentally
mentioned, during the cross-examination of the
last witness, that Justin Martyr was the first writer
who mentions the miraculous conception : do you
admit this to be the case ?

Burton. By no means, my Lord ; for Ignatius,
half a century previously, warning the Ephesians
to beware of those who taught false doctrines, and

154

whom he considered almost incurable, says, " There
is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, made and
not made, God born in the flesh, true life in death,
both of Mary and of God, first capable of suffering,
and then incajmble : " ^ — which passage reminds
us of the expressions of St. John and St. Paul,
" The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us," and " God was made manifest in the flesh." —
But in another place, after quoting from St. Paul,
" Where is the wise, 'where is the disputer ? where is
the boasting of those who are called intelligent ? "
he adds, " for our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived
by Mary, according to the dispensation of God;
of the seed, indeed, of David, but of the Holy
Ghost."- — Ignatius, also, alludes to the star which
appeared at the birth of Christ, which shows that
he believed the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel
to be genuine.^

Court. Call the next witness. What is his
name ?

Att. Gen. Layman Burgh. This gentleman,

1 'Ej^ (TapKi yivofXtvoQ Qtoq, tv Oavdrii) ^wr) aX-qBiv)), Kai sk
Mapiag Kai tic Geov. — Epist. ad Eph. c. 7. p. 13.

'■^ 'O yap Qeog y'lfjiCJv 'IrjcrovQ u Xptorof eKvo<popr]9r) virb Mapiag
kut' oiKovofiiav Qeovy Ik (TTspnarog fxiv Aa/3i^, Uvevfiarog dk
ayiov. — Epist. ad Eph. c. 18. p. 15.

■^ Burton's Anti-Nicene Test. pp. 22. 28.

155

my Lord, is the author of " A Scriptural Confuta-
tion of the Arguments against the One Godhead
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, produced by
the Rev. Mr. Lmdsey in his late ' Apology.' " ^
For, my Lord, I bring no more witnesses, as I
intended, in support of the opinions of the ancient
Christian writers, nor do I adduce any in support
of modern authors, or to show the opinion of the
learned from the earliest to the most recent times ;
but I now go upon the design of showing the
errors of the Defendants, simply from the Scrip-
tures themselves.

Court, I understand.

Att. Gen, Pray, sir, tell us what is the " Apology"
or defence which the Defendant Lindsey has pub-
lished, the arguments of which you have aimed to
confute ?

Witness, It is the defence or excuse for the
Defendant's conversion from the faidi of the Church
of England, to the belief, or, more properly speak-
ing, to the dislDelief, of Unitarianism.

Att, Gen, What is known of the public cha-
racter of this Defendant ?

Witness, He is known to be a conscientious

' This confutation was written by a layman (said to be
IVIr. Burgh) in ITT-i, immediately upon the publication of the
Apology.

156

person who has thrown up his preferment and
office in the church, and himself into want and
dependence, as the test of the conviction that he
has been in error in having been a minister and
member of the church, and that he has gone over
to, what he thinks, a better and a sounder faith ;
and he has since taken great pains to show that
the Christian world lies in error and darkness,
and that he is a voluntary martyr to the light of
truth.

AtU Gen. But how does this martyrdom and
this apology show the truth of his new belief?

Witness. To my mind they neither of them
prove it. Submission to distress in preference to
a dishonest concession to an opinion, proves indeed
the sincerity of the sufferer, but not the soundness
of the opinion for which he suffers. It may prove,
as I think in this case it does, the weakness of his
understanding, rather than the strength of his
cause. I fear, that too easy credit may be yielded
to a doctrine held forth by the claimant to martyr-
dom. The seal of blood has given an apparent
validity to many a position from which the assertors
had previously derived no glory. The stake, where
it has been the only argument, has sometimes been
considered as a very convincing one ; and a depart-
ure in flames has been thought to have revealed the
angel, where the precepts for which they are sus-

157

tained has, perhaps, only shown forth the con-
temptible man.^

Court, Have you, sir, dedicated much of your
time to the study of theology ?

Witness. No, my Lord, and any one who has
read my confutation of the Defendant's arguments
will soon perceive that I am altogether unread in
theological disputations.

Court. May I ask, then, what led you to take up
the subject ?

Witness. A gi-eat noise was excited by the
Defendant's surrender of his preferment, and still
greater on the consequent publication of his " Apo-
logy." Drawn by curiosity to look into this book,
I found, to my surprise, the design of it was not
barely to offer a vindication of the motives, conduct,
and sentiments of a private person ; but to assail
every fundamental doctrine of the Church, to de-
grade the God of our salvation, to snatch from us
the object of our religion, and to evince that Jesus
Christ is not one with the Father and the Holy
Ghost. With perfect freedom from prejudice,
nay, I am almost ashamed to confess, with the
first serious consideration of so important a point,
I sat down to read the Defendant's book ; and for
the truth of every position contained in it I ap-
pealed to the word of God itself, that I might

Scriptural Confutation, p. 5,

158

learn how truly that word was advanced ; when, to
my utter astonishment, I soon found, that this was
the only book upon the subject which the Apo-
logist had not critically read ; and that, in every
particular, it directly opposed itself to him and to
his frequent quotations. Convinced, however, that
the Bible was the only guide to be depended upon,
I thought that reading it with attention would be
a sufficient preparative for writing ; that my very
ignorance in controversy would turn to account;
and that it might be considered as a corroborating
proof of the truth of what I should write ; and that
the Bible alone would be found sufficient for my
purpose : and, consequently, the Bible alone have
I consulted, without a single prejudice either of
my own, or borrowed from any other person. ^

CouH. Very well, sir.

Att, Gen. How does the Defendant impugn
the doctrine of the Trinity ?

Witness. By declaring that the doctrine of a
Trinity in Unity is as new as the title given to it,
and that both name and title are unscriptural.^

Att. Gen. What do you say to this ?

Witness. I deny it altogether ; for the name of
a sacred doctrine not being found in Scripture is
no proof against the doctrine itself being a true
one. We speak of God's omniscieiice, his onmi-

' Scriptural Confutation, p. 221. ^ Apology, p. 12.

159

potence, and his omnipreseiice ; and though such
words are not found in the Scriptures, yet no one
can deny that they are the attributes of God, and
that the Scriptures declare sucli attributes to be-
long to him. In the same manner, if we show, as
assuredly we can, that the attributes, the titles,
and the inherent power of the Supreme Being are
severally and clearly ascribed to the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, any word or name which will in-
clude and express all this may be used to desig-
nate what is thus found to be a Scripture doctrine.
" The Rose, by any other name, will smell as sweet."

Att, Gen. Well, sir ; but tell us what is the
general opinion of the Defendant, not merely in
respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, but of the
other mysterious doctrines and parts of Scripture ?

Witness. He lays it down as an undeniable
position that " Our Saviour Christ taught no mys-
terious doctrine ; " and he treats with contempt
every thing connected with the term mystery.^

Alt. Gen. How do you answer this ?

Witness. By stating the difference between the
precepts and the doctrines of Scripture : the former,
as being clear and intelligible to all ; but the latter,
many of them mysterious, and are so declared to
be by the Apostles themselves. St. Paul, speaking
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and him crucified,

' Apology, p. 16.

160

declares it not to be given or delivered "with the
enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstra-
tion of the Spirit ; that our faith might stand, not
in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God ; " —
and he further adds, " We speak the wisdom of
God in a mystery," and this, "by the Spirit of
God, by which alone the deep things of God are
searched." — " The Sph^it compares spiritual things
with spiritual, which things are foolishness to the
natural man, who receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God." ^ — But clear as this seems to be,
the Apostle is even more explicit, where, speaking
of Christ, he says, " In him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead bodily." ^ — Is not this a mystery?
Is not the Trinity declared to be a mysterious doc-
trine by St. Paul himself; for he says, " Without
controversy great is the mystery of Godliness. God
was made manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory." ^ —
Here is the mysterious doctrine of the divinity and
incarnation of Christ, circumstantially discovered ;
the whole doctrine is here literally epitomised, and
the Father and Son are clearly declared to be the
same God.*

' 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. 7. and 15. ^ Col. ii. 9.

3 1 Tim.iii. 16.

^ St. Paul speaks of another mmtcrif, and a great one, when

161

Att. Gen. Does the Defendant speak of the doc-
trine as derived from Plato ?

Witness. He does, and he goes so far as to say,
that it is achiondedged to be entirely of heathen
extraction, borrowed from Plato and the Platonic
philosophy ; and this being its true origin, it should
seem that a proper zeal for God's word, and regard
for Christ and his inspired Apostles, should make
us relax a little of our passion and vehemence
against those who scruple to use a language not
sanctified by their authority, in speaking of, and
addressing the great God.^

Att. Gen. And do you admit this to be the
'' true origin " of the Trinity ?

Wit7iess. Decidedly not. To deduce the doc-
trine from the Platonic philosophy is as absurd as
to suppose the doctrine of the Unity of the God-
head is derived from Socrates, because, though
educated in a country where the unity of the Deity
was esteemed impious, that philosopher dared to
preach this imagination of his own brain.^

Att. Gen. What does the Defendant say of the
nature of Christ ?

Witness. He would fain get rid of the testimony

he alludes to the union of Christ with his chui'ch, in the same
manner that man and wife, though two, are made one flesh. —
Eph. iv. 32.

' Apol. p. 13. 2 Script. Confiit. p. 8.

M

162

of the Fathers and all other early Christian writers,
by saying ; " Authorities of men are nothing : it is
Holy Scripture alone which can decide the point,
and to which we must make our final appeal. But
if the matter is to be put to the vote as it were, it
is absolutely necessary that the less learned should
be told, what upon enquiry will be found to be
undeniably true, namely, that the Fathers of the
three first centuries, and consequently, all Christian
people, for upwards of three hundred years after
Christ till the Council of Nice, were generally
Unitarians, what is now called either Arian or So-
cinian, 2.^., such as held our Saviour Christ to
derive life and being, and all his powers, from God,
though with different sentiments concerning the
date of his original dignity and nature."^

Jtt. Gen. What do you affirm or deny in this
declaration ?

Court, You hardly want more evidence upon
that point.

Wittiess, 1 do not profess to know much of the
sentiments, the opinions, or even the works, of the
early Christian writers ; I confine myself simply
to the Scriptures themselves.

Att, Ge?u Are there any passages involving any
particular doctrine of Scripture on which this De-

Apology, p. 23.

163

fendant has commented, bearing upon the point at
issue, — I mean, the Trinity ?

Witness. There are many, but the principal one
is that which contains the command of Christ that
his disciples should " Go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost." " This form of baptism,"
says this Defendant, " which is made to contain a
mystery, is only a compendious summary of the
Gospel which Jesus had taught them, and into which
all men were to be initiated and instructed : that
religion which he received from God the Father,
which he, the Son, had preached, and which was
to be confirmed and propagated by the miraculous
powers of the Holy Spirit : and, from what Jesus
had taught, no other construction can be put upon
this baptismal commission."^ Now,this explanation,
I do not hesitate to say^ is the most absurd that
ever was committed to paper. Dust is here thrown
into the eyes, which not only pains the sight, but
renders objects distorted; for the same sacred
names into which Christians are commanded by
their Lord to be baptized, are the very same by
which the Apostles blessed their hearers ; and it
cannot be imagined possible for the people to do
otherwise than equally believe in those, in whose
names they are both baptized and blessed. They

' Apology, p. 104.
M 2

164

must believe that those who are called upon to
bestow graces and blessings upon them, are able
to give what they are thus taught to call upon them
for. And whatever is meant by baptizing in the
name of the Father^ Son, and Holy Ghost, it clearly
seems that these three are equally concerned in
what is done in that sacrament. Whether in this
form of baptism be signified, on the minister's part,
the authority or commission by which he acts in his
administration ; or whether, on the part of the
person baptized, be meant any ackno^idedgment or
confession, suhmission or dedication of himself; or
whether this phrase " in the name " (or, according
to the Greek, into the name) implies all this and
more ; the whole force and importance of the ex-
pression belongs, in the same extent, to Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, The jpo\soer and authority here
received is derived from all three: they are all
to be acknowledged as Authors of our Salvation ;
all infallible, and to be believed in what they teach ;
have all the same title to our submission and obe-
dience ; and are joint parties in the Covenant which
we make in baptism. The inference from all this
is very plain and easy ; — that if any one of these
terms signify God, they must all three signify God^
and if all three signify God, they must all three
signify one and the same God ; for God is but 07ie,
Now that the One supreme God, the Lord and
Maker of all things, is here meant by the w^ord

165

Father^ is a thing not questioned , and therefore
Son and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the
same Divine Nature: for, let us for a moment
suppose^^^the direct contrary, that by So7i was meant
only a mere man, or some heavenly being of highest
rank under God ; and by Holy Ghost was signified
some created spirit, inferior to the Son, or that it
meant only the jpo^wer, the love, or the favour of
God, how strange would such a form of baptism
then appear, as this : — / baptize thee in the name
of God, Peter the Apostle, and the Love of God !
or this : — / baptize thee in the name of God,
Michael the Archangel, and Raphael, a ministering
spirit ! The bare mention of such an exposition is
sufficient to show the absurdity and falsehood of it.^

Att. Gen. Does the Defendant deny Christ to
be a proper object of worship ?

Witness. He does; for he says, our Saviour
Christ, in words as express as can be used, forbids
men offering prayer unto himself: — " In that day
ye shall ash me nothing : verily, verily, I say unto
you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name^
he will give it you." ^ Hitherto he had been all
along present with his disciples, as it were, in
God's stead? And he adds, " As Christ was now

1 Bishop Gastrell's Considerations on the Trinity. — En-
chiridion TheoL, vol. iii. p. 118.

■2 Apology, p. 121. 3 Ibid.

M 3

166

going to be withdrawn from them, he acquaints
them that, when that event took place, they were
no more to apply to him for any thing, but to the
Father (the Father of him and of them all) in his
name.

Att. Gen. What is the inference which you
yourself draw from these words of the Saviour ?

WitJiess, That, in their plain and obvious mean-
ing, they lead to the very opposite conclusion to
that drawn by the Defendant. Christ distinctly
said, " If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do
it.'* ' — "I go unto my Father ; and whatsoever
ye shall ask in my name, that mil I do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son." - — But as a
still stronger confirmation of my assertion that
Christ is the proper object of worship, I will cite
the passage from the Acts of the Apostles, which
incontrovertibly proves it : — " They stoned Ste-
phen, calling upon God, and saying, ' Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit.' And he kneeled down, and
cried with a loud voice, ' Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge.' " ^ Here was present to the martyr's
sight, as he " looked up stedfastly into heaven,"
both the glory of God, and " Jesus standing on
the right hand of God ; " that is, the holy She-
chinah, which the Jews knew to be the symbol of

» John, xiv. 14. 2 John, xiv. 13.

3 Acts, vii. 59, CO,

i

167

Jehovah^s presence, and also Jesus: and we find
that, in the tortures of a cruel death, St. Stephen
does not call upon, does not invoke God, but the
Lord Jesus, into whose hands he commended his
departing spirit. He could not thus have invoked
him, had Jesus been a creature even in this highest
state of exaltation. That same Christ had said
to Satan, " It is WTitten, thou shalt worship the
Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." ^ —
" Worship God," said the angel to St. John ^ ;
but our Saviour did not say so to Stephen, nor
did he refer him to that God whose glory was be-
fore his eyes ; and therefore I am justified in con-
cluding that it was God, and God only, whom
Stephen worshipped in the person of Jesus Christ.^

Alt. Gen, What does the Defendant affirm
respecting the Holy Ghost, the Comforter ?

Witness. He says, " The promise of the Holy
Spirit to the Apostles has been much mistaken ;
and the mistake concerning it has, unhappily,
contributed to bring into the Christian Church a
new object of worship, a third Divine Person, un-
known to the Jews entirely, and to Christians for
the three Jirst centuries; but our Lord speaks of
the Spirit as a person only, in the same manner as
wisdom (Prov. viii.) and charity (1 Cor. xiii.) have

' Luke, iv. 8. - Rev. xxii. 9.

^ See Script. Confut. p. 82.
M 4

168

personal acts attributed to them : " and he adds :
" In the New Testament, where we have an ac-
count of the fulfihnent of this promise of Christ,
and of the particular mission of the Holy Spirit,
we do not find any intelligent agent or person
introduced." ^

Att. Gen. How do you answer this ?

Witiiess. Our Saviour, when about to leave the
world, gave his disciples the promise that they
should not be left either comfortless, or left alone.
He promises them the Paraclete, the Comforter,
that is, the Holy Ghost. " I will pray the Fa-
ther," he says, " and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever,
even the Spirit of truth." llien he shows that
this Comforter will be himself: — '*/ will not leave
you comfortless, I mil come to you" " Where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there
am / in the midst of them." - Then he proceeds
to show that the Comforter is both himself and
God : — "If a man love me, he will keep my
words ; and my Father will love him, and we mil
come unto him, and make our abode mlh him." ^
Here the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God,
are (or is) the Comforter ; the witness to the Truth,
which shall come and abide, or make abode, with

' Sequel to Apology, p. 180. ^ Matt, xviii. 20.

3 John, xiv. 17, 18.

169

him who loveth the Son, and keepeth his word.
The identity of the Godhead, of the Holy Spirit
with that of the Father and of the Son, is here
expressly declared. And I would caution all men
to beware how they reject or blaspheme the Com-
forter, by denying his personality with the Father
and the Son in the Godhead; remembering, that
" all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men,
and blasphemies wherewith soever they blas-
pheme ; but he that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." ^ More-
over, " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,"- is a
title which evidently cannot, with any degree of
propriety, apply to a human or corporeal teacher ;
but it is also as evident, on the face of the asser-
tion, and according to its literal tenour, that not
only a spiritual effect or influence, but an intel-
ligent and personal agent, is intended, by whom
those graces were to be dispensed which should
entitle him to the name of Comforter. And there
are many passages of Scripture in which the per-
son thus designated is adorned with the most
striking and tremendous attributes of the Deity.
He is spoken of as omnipresent : — " Whither shall
I go from thy Spirit ? " — as all-knowing, " The

1 Mark, iii. 29.

2 John, xiv. 26. See Script. Confut. p. 209.

170

Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of
God : " — to lie to him is to lie to God : — " Thou
hast not lied unto men, but unto God ; " — to blas-
pheme him is a crime the most awful in its guilt
and consequences of which human nature is ca-
pable ; and the inspiration of the prophets, which
is, in some passages of Scripture, imputed to the
Holy Ghost, is, in others, ascribed to the Al-
mighty. " The Holy Ghost saith. To-day, if ye
will hear his voice ;" — and, " All Scripture is given
by the inspiration of God." ^

Att, Gen. How does the Defendant, in his writ-
ings, evade the manifest and multifarious proofs
of the divinity of Christ with which the Gospel of
John abounds ?

Witness. He says, that " this Evangelist does
not describe Christ in any other capacity but
as a man extraordinarily commissioned and em-
powered by God, nor does he intimate any prior
existence belorging to him before his birth of
Mary."^ Now, our Saviour says of the Father,
"Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the
world ; " ^ and to the Jews, " Ye are from beneath :
I am from above." "^ " Wliat if ye shall see the
Son of Man ascend up where he was hefore^^ ^ to

1 Bishop Heber's Personality and Office of the Comforter,
p. 36.

2 Sequel to Apology, p. 196. 3 John xvii. 24.
4 John viii. 23. ^ John vi. 62.

171

be glorified "with the glory which I had with the
Father before the nx>orld was P " ' If this testimony
of our Saviour, which he thus bears to himself,
be true, and if the testimony, borne by the Holy
Ghost, to which he refers enquirers into his nature,
be credible, and if these testimonies unite with
that of David 2, in declaring Jesus Christ to be
God from everlasting, I see not how a doubt can
be entertained either of his divinity or his equality
with the Father ; but if his having appeared clothed
with flesh among men, as a man; if his sympathetic
tears ; if his apprehensive agonies and prayers to
have the cup of evil put away from him ; if his
having fallen under the severest afflictions, and even
having suffered an ignominious death, added to his
own testimony and that of the Holy Ghost, be
admitted as evidence that he was man, I see not
how a doubt can be entertained that he was man
inferior to God, as we are inferior to him ; and
if these both be admitted, it must necessarHy
follow that Jesus Chi'ist is both God and man:
But if both God and man, I do not see the force
of the objection to his Godhead, that he has acted
and suffered as man, particularly as he was, what

1 John xvii. 5.

'2 « Thy throne is established of old, thou art from ever-
lasting ; " this and other parts of the ninety-third Psalm are
universally acknowledged, and even by the Jews themselves,
to relate to Christ, the Messiah, the Eternal King.

172

man never was and God ever is, — free from sin.
It is no objection to his Godhead, that he refers
the preservation of his human nature to the power
which is alone equal to preserve it, — that he prays,
as a man, in behalf of the world with which he
sympathises, — that he declares his human nature
and the man Jesus to be a messenger to man, and
acting with power derived from God. For as I
believe that men, who made a difficulty of believing
any union between two natures being possible, will
hardly insist upon their own capacity to explain
the manner of it, or to show that, upon such a
union, so much of the divinity is derived to the
manhood of Christ, as to render it independent of
God, and able to act for its own purposes without
further application than the exertion of this derived
power ; so I will not admit of their explanations of
our Saviour's prayers and declarations that he was
sent : for these prayers were breathed by the man
Jesus ; and this commission to die for and to
adopt a world, was given to the human nature by
God, and not to the divine nature of Christ, which
was itself the power, one with the Father, God
Almighty, which had so sent forth this "mm
without sin " to atone for us. I am far from saying,
that I am myself able to explain this union ; God
forbid : but that I am not able to explore the ways
of an Almighty God, whose mere creature I am, is
not a reason why I should doubt his word, when

17S

he is pleased to reveal any part of his ways to me.
We are told that " the ways of God are not our ways,
nor his thoughts our thoughts; " and that "he is past
finding out." Shall we then question the wisdom
which we cannot comprehend, merely because we
cannot understand it ? Were the Almighty pleased
to open the stores of his wisdom to our eyes, but
not to open our eyes with more extended faculties
for looking at them than we now enjoy, is it to be
conceived that we could comprehend them? I there-
fore readily grant the Defendant that Jesus Christ
formally professes his inferiority and dependence,
and that he received his human being and his
powers from God; but w^hat can he infer more
than I have already done, that, as man, the Man
Jesus was inferior to God; that is, having two
natures, one was greater, and, consequently, the
other was less ? Were I, in the midst of an argu-
ment proving the immortality of the soul of man,
to say, that I laboured under a lingering disease,
of which I feared that I should die, would the
Defendant say, I had confuted my own doctrine
of the soul's immortality ? Would he pronounce
that I meant that my soul should die ? Upon this
reasoning, he may equally, as in the case before us,
declare, that when Jesus Christ speaks as man, he
denies his Godhead.^

See Scriptural Confutation, p. 25. 2'

174

Court. Now, then, Defendants, if any of you be
disposed to question this witness, you may proceed.

Lindsey. In reply to what this witness has ad-
vanced, I have first to state, my Lord, that to
the doctrine called the Trinity I object, as not
being revealed by Scripture ; and if it were one of
such vital importance as the Attorney-General and
the several Witnesses represent it, it seems only
reasonable to expect that what constitutes the
leading point of Christianity should be clearly and
unequivocally defined. If it were, indeed, required
as an article of Christian belief. Christians of the
dullest faculties, in all justice, should be possessed
of sufficient ability to comprehend it. That the
doctrine is mysterious, all who hear any thing of
it must admit ; but my words respecting mysteries
have been wantonly misunderstood : my own ex-
pression and my own belief is, that " our Saviour
Christ teaches no mysterious doctrine." And I
bes: to ask the witness, whether what he has de-
clared as the doctrines of Christ are not the
doctrines of the Apostles ; and of the Apostles I
have not said that they taught no mysteries.

Witness. What I have before stated, at all events,
refers to the belief of the Apostles, who declared
many of the doctrines of Christianity mysterious ;
and particularly that which relates to the divinity
of Christ ; and upon this ground alone your argu-
ments fall : but I moreover maintain, that the

175

deep and mysterious doctrine of the incarnation,
and previous divinity of Christ is insisted upon
by our Saviour himself; for, as I have ah-eady
mentioned, he declares that God " lov^ed him
before the foundation of the world ; " — that " he
had a glory with the Father before the world was;"
— that he spake "what he had seen with the Father,
whom no man had seen but himself alone ; " — that
*' he came down from heaven to do the will of
him that sent him ; " — that " he came forth from
the Father, and came into the world, and was to
leave the world, and go to the Father ; " — that " he
should be seen ascending up where he was be-
fore." — And because the Jews cavilled when he
observed, that Abraham saw his day with joy,
he adds, " Before Abraham was, I am." It is true
that he calls himself a man ; but this no more ex-
cludes his divine nature, than the application of that
term to angels excludes their angelic nature.^

Lindsey, Again, my Lord, with respect to the
term Trinity, it is one which none have a right to
assume as the designation of a doctrine of Chris-
tianity, when the doctrine itself is, at best, but

' This paragraph is taken from Archbishop Newcome's ob-
servations on the conduct of our Lord, sect. ii. p. 6. ; and
shows what was that Prelate's belief respecting the divinity of
Christ ; although the editors of " the Improved Version "
conspicuously place his name in their titlepage, as if he were
a favourer of a very different doctrine.

176

questionable ; and I beg to ask the witness whether
Luther or Calvin did not both of them condemn
the term ? and with them I agree in considering it
barbarous, insipid, and profane; a human invention,
grounded on no testimony of God.^

Witness. I answer, that Luther and Calvin
should prefer addressing prayer to God Almighty,
in the name and through the merits of Christ in
preference to the Trinity, by no means impugns
their belief in the doctrine itself. Were they not,
I ask, both of them believers, and strenuous as-
sertors of this article of belief? However Luther
might prefer praying to God, rather than to the
Trinity, it is quite clear that he looked upon the
words as synonymous ; and did not Calvin demon-
strate the sincerity and earnestness of the same
belief, by that horrible proof which he gave in
bringing Servetus to the stake for opposing it ? -

Lindsey, With respect, also, to the argument
of the witness grounded on the form of baptism, I

1 Apol. p. 18. The word Trbiitij was first used for mere
convenience, to avoid the repetition of Father^ Son, and Holi/
Ghost. It does not imply that the three persons are divine ;
it only implies that, in Scripture, they are so frequently men-
tioned together as to make it desirable to have a collective
name for them. In the same manner, the word Triumvirate
was used to avoid the repetition of Pompey, Ccesary and
CrassuSy or of Octaviiis, Anthony, and Lepidns, — Hey's Lect.
vol.ii. p. 226. and 259.

- Script. Confut, p. 1 1.

177

take the liberty to ask him, whether the Apostles
baptized in any other name than simply that of
Christ? Peter says, "Be baptized every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ;" — or when Philip
baptized the great officer of the queen of Ethiopia,
the confession of faith which he made, and with
which Philip w^as satisfied, w^as, " I believe that
Jesus Christ is The Son of God." ^ — Now, directly
contrary to this, the Nicene Council pronounces
that baptism to be nugatory which is not per-
formed in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.^

Witness. Hold, hold ! To be baptized in the
name of Christ was most essential to be observed
then, that the rite might be distinguished from
the baptism of John the forerunner. And it is
the generally received opinion, that these instances
of baptism in the name of Christ only, has no
meaning beyond that of a baptism into the faith
and religion of Jesus Christ, — that is, a baptism
into the Christian covenant: and considering the
fact, how unanimous most, if not all, the early Chris-
tian writers (not excepting Cyprian himself) have
been in denying that the Apostles ever baptized
in any different form from what our Lord pre-
scribed, it is concluded, that the Apostles baptized
all, Jew^s and Gentiles, in "the name of the Father,

1 Acts, viii. 37. ^ Apology, p. 105.

178

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But
even granting that baptism was thus administered
in the name of Christ only, (which, however, I
deny) ; yet whatever it was, it was assuredly sanc-
tioned by our Lord, and has nothing to do with
that form and mode of administering the sacra-
ment, expressly commanded to be adopted by
his disciples after his ascent into heaven, when,
whatever he might have ordered before, he com-
missioned them to " go into all nations, and to
baptize every creature, in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." You
admit however that when the Ethiopian officer was
baptized, Philip was satisfied with the confession
of faith which he made, by declaring his belief
that Jesus Christ was The Son of God. And a
noble confession it was. Had he believed Christ
to have been the Son of a God, or a Son of a God,
or to be a mere " child of God," in the common
acceptation of this term, this confession would
have applied to Philip himself, or to any other
good man. No : far from all this, the Ethiopian
convert w^as taught by Philip to confess and believe
that Christ was the Son of God, in that Iiigh and
divine sense which Christ assumed, and which his
Apostles acknowledged it to import, — in that high
sense which Peter felt when he said, " Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God ! " which
our Saviour declared to be, not the acknowledge-

179

raent of flesh and blood, but the revelation of
the ffreat God of heaven : an acknowledojement
which was the very Rock on which the Church of
Christ is built, and against which the gates of hell
shall never prevail.

Lindsey. I still hold to this point, that because
the name of Christ and the name of the Holy
Spirit are added to that of the Father in this form
of baptism, they no more include or infer an
equality wdth God, than what Paul said to Ti-
mothy, " I charge thee, before God, and the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou
observe these things," implied an equality of di-
vinity, from the circumstances of the Angels and
Christ being named together with God.^

Witness. Calling, as St. Paul thus did, upon a
minister to the strict discharge of his duty by
reminding him of the heavenly w^itnesses of his
actions, or by reminding him of that great day of
account when the testimony of these witnesses
would be adduced against him, is a matter totally
distinct from that of the present question; and,
I repeat it, that if by Son was meant a mere man
higher than an Angel, and by Holij Ghost was
signified any created being inferior to the Son,
that the form of baptism might as reasonably run
in the name of the Father, in the name of Michael

1 Apology, p. 107.
N 2

180

the archangel, and of Philip the deacon ; in short,
that it would be a most palpable absurdity.

Liindseif. It is useless to carry this point further :
but with respect to what I have written against
your assumed position, that Christ in Scripture is
made the object of divine worship, I repeat it, that
it is hardly possible for you, or for any one, by any
subterfuge or device, to evade or set aside the force
of our Saviour's own example and express precept
of offering prayer to the one God and heavenly
Father. I therefore call upon the witness to deny,
by argument and fact, that it is the sheer invention
of man, and not the declaration of Holy Writ, to
make the word Father signify both, what he calls,
the first person of the Trinity, and the divine
nature or essence containing the whole Trinity.
And I would further ask, when Christ prays, or
commands us to pray, to the Father, whether it is to
be understood of supplication to the whole Trinity ?
If so, the device is not only a weak one, but it
involves a long chain of contradictions ; for the
Apostles prayed, and directed others to pray to
God, and to God only.^

Witness. I readily grant you that Christ, as
man, prayed to the Father, and as man he suffered,
and he commanded others to pray to the Father
in his name; but it is equally true that he said,

» Apology, p. 124.

181

*' Whatsoever ye shall ask m my name, that mil I
do;" " If ye ask any thing in my name, / will do
it." ^ The term Father, as the sole object of
prayer, though it excludes only other gods, does
not exclude the So7i, because he is the same God.
The Father and the Son, though distinct persons
in the divine nature, are not separate, divided, per-
sons; and therefore, in a qualified sense, the Son is
the very self of the Father, another self, another
same ; distinct, and yet not different, one with the
Father, and undivided from him. The Father is
regarded as being first of the Unity, the head and
fountain of all, because he is the first in our con-
ception of God ; when, therefore, we speak of the
Almighty God, or the eternal God, the all-knomng
God, we primarily and principally mean the Father^
tacitly including the other persons of the divine na-
ture. In strictness of speech, one God is the whole
Trinity, but we are compelled to speak in such
terms as the customary use of language supplies.^
I have, however, shown that Christ taught that
prayer should be made unto him, and that he
would not only be present in the assemblies when
making supplication, that is, by the Holy Ghost,
but that what was asked faithfully in his name, he
ivotdd do it. St. Paul addresses one of his epistles

1 John, xiv. 13, 14.

"' See Waterland on the Divine Unity, vol. ii. p. 82.

N 3

182

to " all that, in every place, call upon the name of
the Lord Jesus, both theirs and ours : " that is,
" whom we and all true Christians join in acknow-
ledging and adoring, as their Lord and ours." ^
Ananias, speaking of Saul, says, " And here he
hath authority to bind all that call on thy name :" —
that is, "all who publicly avow the worship of
Christ ; " ^ — and afterwards, again, we read, "And
straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues,
that he is The Son of God. But all that heard
him were amazed, and said. Is not this he that de-
stroyed them who called on this name P " that is,
evidently, they who called on the name of Christ.
And does not St. Paul expressly say, " Whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved ?"^
A text which furnishes us with a double argument
in favour of our Lord's divinity, for the Lord Jesus
Christ is, without doubt, the only one here men-
tioned.'* " But," continues the Apostle, " how^ shall
they call on him^ of whom they have not heard ?
and how shall they hear without a preacher ? "
Consequently, Christ is declared, by the Scriptures,
the object of invocation, a principal part of religious
adoration; and the man who desires to be saved
must " call upon him " by praj-er.

1 Doddridge in loc.

- Acts, ix. 14. Sec ITanimond in loc.

3 Rom.x. 13, 14. -1 Whitby in loc.

183

Lindsey, But permit me to say to this, that the
phrase of " calhiig upon the name of Christ," is to
be taken passively, as denoting those who were
named by the name of Christ, or who were called
" Christians/'

Witness. But this cannot be. The name Christian '
was not known in the world till some time after
St. Paul's conversion, when, as St. Luke expressly
informs us, " the disciples were called ' Christians *
first at Antioch : " whereas, before that time, they
were distinguished by the title of " those who
called on the name of Christ." {siriKaKoui/.svoi to
ovoi/.o(. Xpio-rou.) St. Paul says, " the same Lord is
rich to all who call upon him,'' " for whosoever
shall call on the name shall be saved." And Paul
himself, upon his conversion, was commanded " to
wash away his sins, calling on the name of the
Lord." ^ " And here," says Origen, " the apostle
declares Him to be God, whose name was called
upon." 2

Lindsey. With respect to the case of the proto-
martyr St. Stephen, I think the words of his
prayer, or rather the 59th verse of Acts vii., may
well bear this signification, viz. " Stephen called
upon God, saying. Lord of Jesus, receive my spirit;

1 Acts, xxii. 16.

2 Origen, Com. in Rom. x. lib. 8. See Bishop Home's
discourse upon " Christ adored."

N 4

184

for the use of the Greek word (eTnxaXsw) in the
Old and New Testament with ''Lord" or " God,''
is so common, that either may be easily under-
stood and safely supplied.^

Witness. I wholly protest against this alter-
ation: any scholar will show" j^ou that the strict
critical sense is otherwise. ^ We find the same
word and expression used in Genesis : — " Then
began men to call upon the name of the Lord;" —
" Abram built an altar at Bethel, and there called
upon the name of the Lord." ^

Lindsey, Whether St. Stephen, at the sight of
his master Christ at God's right hand, called to
him, as he would have done had he seen him
working miracles here on earth, to help and assist
him; or whether St. Stephen, according to his
Master's rule and example, called upon God, the
God and Father of Jesus Christ, is not very ma-
terial to be determined either way : —

Witness. Of no consequence at all ; for neither
suppositions are true.

Lindsey. Be that, I say, as it may. The trans-
lators of the common version ought to have been
more impartial ; and instead of rendering the pas-
sage in question, " They stoned Stephen, calling

' Sequel to Apology, p. 59. 2 Vide Schleusner in verb.
3 Compare 1 Pet. i. 17. 1 Cor. i. 2. STim.ii. 22.; also
Genesis iv. 26. and xii. 8.

185

upon God^ and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit ; " it had been fairer and truer to have done
it thus : — " They stoned Stephen, calling (to Jesus,
whom he saw at God's right hand) and saying, O
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." '

Witness. Every scholar knows that " calling
upon God," used in this instance, is the rendering
of the Greek word of which we have been speak-
ing, and which I have shown to signify involdng.
At all events, the matter resolves itself into what
I have stated in my evidence ; and the question
still arises, —Why did the martyr invoke Jesiis^ and
not God^ on whose right hand he stood ?

Lindsey, This vision might give a sudden turn
to his thoughts, and cause him to call out to Christ,
and not upon God, as his disciples once did in a
storm ; for they, and Stephen too, well knew his
power with God, and well they knew their own
duty Avas to call upon God for help in extremity ;
but being persuaded, like Martha, "that what-
ever Christ should ask of God, God would grant
it him," upon their seeing Christ, or being with
him, they might readily apply to him, whom they
knew to be in such favour with God : yet,^ —

Witness. My Lord, there is no end to the sup-
positions which may be made by those determined

Sequel to Apology, p. Gl. - Ibid.

upon making an escape from what they are re-
solved not to believe.

Ccnirt, Defendant, you do your cause no good
by these subterfuges. You have admitted that St.
Stephen at all events said the words, " O Lord
Jesus, receive my spirit ; " and there stop.

Lindsey. Permit me, then, my Lord, to add,
that St. Stephen, when he surrendered his life and
said, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," meant,
" Lord Jesus, receive my life, which I give up in
thy cause ; " after which he betakes himself pro-
perly to address, not Jesus, but God, copying the
example of Jesus when expiring by a violent and
unjust death : and " he kneeled down and cried
with a loud voice. Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge." ^

Court. The distorted meaning which you en-
deavour to put upon the words by which Stephen
commends his soul to Christ, as Christ commended
his to God, cannot be admitted ; besides, the last
part of the prayer is addressed to the same being
as the first.

Lindsey. Be it so, my Lord ; still I will contend
that, as this invocation was made by the martyr
looking upon Jesus, it offers no precedent for mak-
ing prayer to him now that he is invisible. He

Sequel to Apology, p. 61.

187

was then So7i of Man ; consider, ^on of Man, and
God Most High ! — *i<Dhat a space heU^een ! ^

Witness, Do you conceive the actions of an
Almighty God to be limited to your comprehen-
sion, and that the space beyond your faculties
cannot be passed ? I will take you at your own
word, — " The authorities of men are nothing ; it
is Holy Scripture alone which can decide the im-
portant point, and to that we must make our final
appeal : " and from these Scriptures I find that
God has put his own nature into union with that
of man ; and I will believe this, though neither
any of the Defendants nor I, know, nor can know,
anything of the matter. Now, whether the vision
of God and of Jesus at his right hand were all the
time, (both in the council and out of the city where
Stephen was stoned,) before the martyr's eyes or
not, still the glory of God and the Son of Man
had appeared, and Stephen passed down from
God Most High, through that immense space, to
the Son of Man, conducted by the Holy Ghost,
sent to " guide him into all truth," to supplicate
Jesus ; seeing, as he did, that the Lord Jesus, into
whose hands he commended his spirit, was the
same Almighty God to whom David, by the
guidance of the same Spirit, had said, " Into thine
hand I commit my spirit : thou hast redeemed me,

, 1 Apology, p. 129.

188

O Lord God of truth ! " ^ — Now, according to the
Defendants' argument, Christ was worshipped
when he was present ; but he cannot be so when
he is mvisible.- How can this be, if Jesus Christ,
even in his highest state of exaltation, be but a
fellow-creature ? If the command be, and if it is
the duty of a Christian, to w^orship God only^ I
own myself too blind to discern how the visibility
of any creature should supersede the command-
ment, and alter the unchangeable law, of God.
The angel was visible to St. John,'^ yet he was
restrained from worshipping him, which was not
done by Christ to his adorer. It is evident, then,
that Stephen worshipped God, and God only, in
the person of Jesus Christ, one with the Father, God.
The word " Got?," acknowledged by the trans-
lators of our common version, shows how they
understood the passage before us ; and though I
do not choose to make use of human authority, I
cannot avoid here publicly declaring that I con-
sider this conclusion, drawn by men of great
abilities, and employed in the most diligent perusal
of the w^hole Bible, as more than a balance to
every assertion made by the Defendants in the

1 Psalm xxxi. 5.

'^ The editors of the Improved Version vii'tually say the
same, for they adduce this argument of Lindsey's, in a note,
to explain the text of Acts, vii. b^.

3 Rev. xxii. 9.

189

establishment of their system, by wresting half
sentences to their own particular ends and pur-
poses. Christ and God, the Father and the Son,
are one God ; " a God at hand, and not a God
afar off."

Court, Well, well : — you need not proceed any
farther in this strain. The jury and myself are
now in full possession of the sentiments of the
Defendants on the subject of the worship to be
paid, or not to be offered to Christ. Defendants,
you must proceed to some other topic springing
from the evidence which this witness has given, if
you have more on which to question him.

Lindsei/. Then, my Lord, I go on to say, that
the witness has not disproved my assertion wath
respect to what Trinitarians have affirmed of the
personality and office of the Comforter, or Holy
Ghost ; for I repeat it, that as a divine person, he
was unknown as such both by the Jews entirely,
and by the Christians of the three first centuries.

Witness, It does not quite come into my pro-
vince to answer these questions : there are others
who are present much better qualified than myself
to explain them.

Att, Gen. My Lord, will the Court permit me
to recall Horsley and Burton upon these points ?

Court. Stop. — Lindsey, the witness has said
that on these subjects he does not feel himself
qualified to speak. I do not know if it be of much

190

consequence to have the questions answered which
you have put ; but if you think it necessary, I will
call others to do this. Consider, therefore, whether
you judge it desirable for your defence.

Lindsey. I candidly say that it will make for
our cause, if we can show that what I assert cannot
be denied.

Court. But then it will make more against you,
if they should prove the contrary.

Liiidsey. I do not fear it, my Lord ; and to
show the Court that we are candid enquirers after
truth, I beg to say, that I desire they may be called.

Court. Then call Horsley. — Horsley, the De-
fendant states that the Jews were entirely ignorant
of the personality and office of the Paraclete, or
the Comforter ; they deny that the Holy Spirit is
any other than a figurative personification of the
power by which ancient prophets had been inspired
to do miracles and to deliver the oracles of God.^

Horsley. Christ himself promised his disciples,
that " when he should leave them to return to the
Father, he would send them another Comforter, to
abide with them for ever, even the Spirit of Truth,
who should lead them into all truth ; " give them
just views of that scheme of mercy which they were
to publish to the world ; a right understanding of
the ancient prophecies ; a discernment of their

1 Sequel to Apology, p. 181.

191

true completion in the person of Christ, and the
establishment of his religion ; bring all things to
their remembrance which Christ had told them,
and supply them, without previous study or medi-
tation of their own, with a ready and commanding
eloquence, when they should be called to make the
apology of the Christian faith before kings and
rulers. But this Comforter, he told them, could
not come before his own departure ; and this was
agreeable to ancient prophecy. David, in the
sixty-eighth Psalm, predicting, according to St.
Paul's interpretation of the passage, these mira-
culous gifts of the Spirit, speaks of them as sub-
sequent to the Messiah's ascension, — " Thou hast
ascended up on high, thou hast led captivity cap-
tive, thou hast received gifts for men." What these
mfts should be, is declared in the conclusion of the
verse, — " that the Lord God may dticell among themJ^
This dwelling of God must signify more than God's
residence in the Jewish sanctuary; for, whatever
might have been in the mind of the prophet, the
prophetic spirit looked forward to later times. It
cannot signify the Son^s dwelling among men when
he came to preach the doctrine of life, and to pay
the forfeit of their crimes, because it is described as
sidfsequent to his ascension. It can signify, there-
fore, no other dwelling of God than the residence
of the Holy Spirit in the Christian church. I must
not pass over this passage of the Psalmist without

192

remarking, that the original word, which is rendered
Lord, — " that the Z/Orc?may dwell among them," is
Jah, one of the proper names of God, of the same
etymology and import with the name Jehovah, of
which, indeed, some have thought it only an abbre-
viation. Here, then, you have an instance of a
name of the same kind equally proper to the Deity,
applied to the Holy Ghost, provided I am right in
the application of this clause to him. It may be
further observed, that the prophet Jeremiah calls
the Holy Spirit " the finger of God, by which," he
says, " God's law is put into their inward parts,
and written in their hearts ; " " inscribed," as St.
Paul explains it, " not with ink, but hy the Sj)irit
of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in the
fleshy tables of the heart." "^

Court. Now, sir, state w^hether it be the fact
that the Holy Ghost, oi- Spirit, was unknown to
the Christians of the three first centuries, as a
person.

Horsley, This question I can fully and satis-
factorily answer from the works of Dr. Waterland.
He says that Justin Martyr thus repels the charge
of being an Atheist : — " We confess, indeed, that,
in respect of such reputed gods, we are Atheists ;

1 Horsley's sermon upon " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of
God," &c.

2 Jerem. xxxi. 33. 2 Cor. iii. 3.

193

but not in respect of the most true God, untainted
with evil, the Father of righteousness and sober-
ness, and of other virtues : Him, and his Son that
came from him, and the Prophetic Spirit, we wor-
ship and adore, honouring them in spirit {reason)
and in truth." ^ — Athenagoras repels the same
charge, " Who would not be astonished to hear
us called Atheists, who acknowledge the Father as
God, and the Son, God, and the Holy Ghost, as-
serting their union of power (or pcwer of wiion)
and distinction of order." -— Clemens of Alexandria
gives us a kind of short baptismal creed, as it seem.s,
in these words, "One Father of the whole uni-
verse, and One Word of the whole universe, and
the Holy Ghost one, the same every where." ^ —
And to assure us that he looked upon all three as
one God, he further says, " Let us give thanks to
the only Father and Son, Son and Father, to the
Son our Teacher and Master, together with the
Holy Ghost, one in all respects ; in whom are all

' Uvevixd re to 7rpo(pT]TiK6v (Tfgojut^rt, Kai irpoaKwovixeVy Xoy<f>
Kai aXr]9dq, Ti[iCjvreg. — Apol. i. C 6. p. 11.

2 Tig ovv ovK av aTroprjtrai, Xeyovrag Qtbv Uarspay Kai 'Yibv
OebVy Kai Uvevfia" Ay lOVy ceiKVVVTag avroiv Kai ti)v tv ry tva^ati
dvvaniv, Kai Tt)v iv ry ralti haiptmv^ aKOvtrag aOkovg KaXovfxs-
vovg. — Legat. c. 10. p. 40.

3 Kig ixtv 6 tS)V bXwv Rarrip' cte ^£ f^f^^*- » t^'^ '^^^'^ Aoyof koi
TO nvfi'/ta r6"Aytov tV, Kai to avrb TravTaxov. p. 123.

O

194

things, — to whom be glory both now and for ever." ^
Tertullian tells us plamly and concisely, that the
" Father is God, and the So7i, God, and the Hob/
Ghost, God ; and every one singly God, and all to-
gether make one GodJ' ^ And he adds, that this doc-
trine is, in a manner, the prime article of the Gos«
pel, the very sum and substance of Christianity.^
Hippolytus says. The Word of the Father gave
his disciples orders after his resurrection, to this
purpose, " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; " —
signifying, that whosoever should leave out any one
of the three, would fall short of honouring God
perfectly; for by this Trinity, the Father is ho-
noured.'^ — Origen speaks of baptism to the same
effect : "It is, by virtue of the invocations there
made, the spring and fountain of spiritual graces, to
every one that dedicates himself to the Divinity (or
Godhead) of the adorable Trinity,^ — And next I

1 — avv Kai T(^ 'Ay/t^j nvevjxaTL' Tzavra T(p hn' Iv <^ to. Tcavra^
— Peed, l.iii. p. 311.

« Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et
Deus unusquisque. — Cont. Prax. c. 13.

3 Pater et Filius et Spii'itiis tres crediti unum Deum sis-
tunt. C.31.

4 Aid yap Tpiddog TavTt)Q UarTjp do^d^eTai. — Contr. Noet.
c. 14. p. 16.

5 T^ sfiTrepexovTi eavrbv tij ^uot^tl tT]q dwajneiog twv Tijg
TrpotTKVvriTrjQ TpidSog t7riK\r](7Hov iartv rj x<^p^<^l^ciTit)v ^aicjv dpxn
<ai Tnjyr], — Com. in Joan, p, 124.

19.5

subjoin that remarkable passage of Cyprian (who
wrote A. D. 250.). Arguing for the invalidity of
heretical baptisms, he asks, how any person so
baptized can be supposed to obtain remission of
sins, and become the Temj^le of God P For, says
he, " Of what God {of "jchich of the divine persons)
is he made the temple ? Is it of {God) the Creator ?
He cannot be so without believing in him. Is it
of Christ? Impossible that any should be his
Temple who denies Christ to he God. Is it then of
the Holy Ghost? But since those three are one,
how is it possible that he should be at peace with
the Holy Ghost, while he is at enmity either with
the Father or the Son?" ^ — And, lastly, I adduce
Dionysius of Rome, who sums up the Christian
doctrine in these words : — " The divine Logos
must of necessity be united to the God of the uni-
verse ; and the Holy Ghost must abide and dwell
in God ; and the divine Trinity must of necessity-
be conceived to be gathered together and collected,
as it were, into one head, namely, into the God of

1 Si baptizari qiiis apud haereticos potuit ; utique et remis-
sam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam
consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus
est ; qusero cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, non potuit qui in euin
non credidit ; si Christi, nee hujus fieri potest templum, qui
negaf Deum Christum: si Sjnritus Sancti ; cum tres unum si?if,
quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut
Patris, aut Filii inimicus est ? — Ad Jub. Ep. 73. p. 203,
o 2

196

the universe, the Almighty." ^ — While Dionysius
of Alexandria expresses the same thing in these few
words, — " We extend the Uniti/ without dividing
it into a TrinUy ; and again, we contract the Trinity
without taking from it the Unity ;''^ ' — which passage
might be rendered still more concise thus: — The
undivided Monad we extend to a Triad ; and again,
the undiminished Triad we collect into a MonadJ^
Here, then, I have clearly proved that the Chris-
tians of the three first centuries not only knew and
acknowledged the Holy Ghost as one of the God-
head having a personality and office ; but I have
at the same time shown that the form of baptism
given by our Saviour was a dedication of the bap-
tized into the names of three divine persons, or
into the names of three persons, each of which is
God.

Court. That is sufficient.

Belshain. My Lord, may I be permited to put
one question more to this witness ?
Court, You may.

' "H^i; Kal Tt)i> ^tiav Tpidca tig tVa, ojffTrep eig Kopv(!>r]V Tiva,
Tov Qtbv TU)v oXujv TOP iravTOKparopa Xkyit). — Apud Athan. i.
p. 231.

2 'HjUfTf iig T?) T7)v Tpid^a t>)v Movdca TrXarvvofiSv dha'iptroVy
Kal Ty)v TpidSa TrdXiv dfidiorov elg t))v MovdSa avyKe<paXaiovni9a.
— Apud Athan. vol. i. p. 255.

3 Waterland's Seventh Sermon on Christ's Di\anity, vol. ii.
p. 187.

197

Belsfiam. Tlien, as the Attorney -General seems
purposely to have avoided asking the witnesses for
an explanation of that remarkable passage of St.
Mark, in which that Evangelist says that our
Saviour, when asked by his disciples when the ge-
neral judgment should come, replied, *' Of that
day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father," Now, Mr. Lindsey claims this as a
proof that the Father and Son are not equal, for
it is clear that he was ignorant of some things ; ^
to which declaration we also subscribe, alleging,
with him, that at least Christ is not God, because
his knowledge is limited. ^ I, therefore, call upon
this witness to refute this argument if he can ;
because, as I feel convinced he logically cannot,
it will go far to prove that we are the soundest
Christians.

Att. Gen. I beg to say I had not overlooked
nor avoided this ; for I know it to be the strong-
hold of the Defendants, and as in every battle
the defeated enemy, before he yields, throws himself
into the place which offers the greatest security,
so I conceive the position is taken by the De-
fendant as his ultimate resource; and, with per-

Sequel to Apology, p. 173.
Improved Version, Mark, xiii. 32. note.
O 3

198

mission of the Court, I request the witness to
answer the pohit.

Horsley. This difficulty I meet by quoting the
able solution of it given by an eminent scholar
and deep theologian. Here, then, are the two
passages from the Evangelists : — " Of that day
and hour knoweth no man, not the Angels in
heaven, but my Fatlier only : " so says St. Mat-
thew ' ; but St. Mark is supposed to go farther
than this : — " Of that day and hour knoweth no
man, no, not the Angels which are in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father." These texts
prove nothing at all against the perfect knowledge,
or strict omiiiscience, of the divme nature of Christ.
It is not said, the Son of God knew not the day of
judgment ; but, the Son, that is (as it appears in
the context in both Evangelists ^) the Son of Man.
And it is well observed by Athanasius, that when
our Lord says, — " knoweth no man, not the Angels,
neither the Son," — he does not, after the Angels,
add, neither the Holy Ghost ; because, if the Holy
Ghost knew the day, well also might God the Son
know it ; and, therefore, what is here said of the
Son, relates to the Son of Ma?i only.

Belsham. In truth and sincerity it cannot be
said of Christ that he was ignorant of the day, if

» IVIatt. xxiv. 36.

^ See Mark, xiii. 26. 3:1-. and Matt. xxiv. 37. 39.

199

he knew it in ani/ capacity. If, as you contend,
he knew it as Son of God, he knew it also as Son
of Man : in the same manner, you cannot deny
that man is immortal, so long as he is immortal in
any respect or capacity.

Horsley. I beg your pardon. You may say truly
of the body of man, that it is not immortal, though
the wul be immortal ; and in the same manner
and with equal truth, you may say that the Son of
Man is not omniscient, though the Son ofGodknew
every thing. And as Christ may speak of himself
either as Son of God or as Son of Man, it is not
inconsistent with truth and sincerity for him to
deny that he knew, what he really did know in
one capacity, while he was ignorant of it in another.
Our Lord says, in one place, " Now I am no
more in the world," ^ — and in another place, " Ye
have the poor always with you ; but me, you have
not always ; " ^ — denying that he was, or should be,
any longer present with his disciples : which can
only be understood of his human nature and bodily
presence ; for in another respect, he elsewhere
says, " Lo ! I am with you akmy ; '* — and, " If
any man love me, ... my Father will love him,
and we will come unto him, and make our abode
with him." ^ — From hence we see that our Blessed

1 John, xvii. 2. ^ Matt. xxvi. 2.

3 Miitt. xxviii. 20. and John, xiv. 23,
o 4

200

Lord might, without any breach of sincerity, deni/
that of himself considered in one capacity, which
he could not have denied in another. He denies
the knowledge of the day of judgment only in
respect of his human nature ; in which respect,
also, he is said to have " increased in wisdom," ^
the divine Logos having, with the human nature,
assumed the ignorance and other injirmities be-
longing to that nature.

Belsham, But observe the order preserved by
the Evangelists in both places, in mentioning first,
Man, then the Angels, then the Son, and then the
Father ; and this gradation requires us to under-
stand the Son as superior to the Angels.

Horsley. I answer to this, that the union of
the Son of Man with the Logos, and the particular
concern the Son of Man has in the last judgment,
when " He shall come in his glory, and all the
holy Angels with him," are sufficient to account
for the supposed climax or gradation.

Belsham. But not only the Son of Man, but
the Soil of God, and every other person whatever,
is excluded from the knowledge of the time of the
judgment, by the words, '' hut the Father," or,
" excepting the Father ow/j/."

Horsley. The exclusive term only is not to be
so interpreted as to exclude what essentially be-

' Luke, ii. 52.

'201

longs to the Father, and may be reckoned to hini,
as included in him, his Word, or Spirit. It is
said of God the Son, that he had a name written,
which no o?ie (ouSeij) knew, but he himself.'''' ^ Can
you infer from hence that the Father was ignorant
of that 7iame ? No : neither is it just nor reason-
able to infer from this place of St. Matthew that
the Soil was ignorant of the day of judgment. -
To preclude the curiosity of men, and to engage
their vigilance, Christ is pleased to tell them, that
no dispensation of God, either by man (as Daniel),
or by Angel, or, which is the highest, by the Son
of Man, had ordered us to know the times and the
seasons ; it being no part of the prophetic office,
or within the commission of Christ himself, as
Messiah, to reveal this secret to us.'^

Belsham, I can neither admit your conclusion,
nor that the judgment spoken of refers to any
other than that about to fall upon Jerusalem and
the Jewish nation. I hold that Christ was not
omniscient, for he knew not the season when his
own prophecy, this judgment, should be fulfilled ;
and though it is said " he knew all things," it is

1 Rev. xix. 12.

2 Waterland's Seventh Sermon on Christ's Divinity, vol. if.
p. 163.

3 Hammond on Mark, xiii. 32.

202

evident that the words are to be taken in a very
restricted sense. ^ But I have done.

Att, Gen, This, my Lord, is my case.

Court, Defendants, the time is now come w^hen
you are at liberty to enter upon your defence.

After some consultation among themselves, it was
signified to the Court that Mr, Belsham "would enter
upon the defence on the part of all of them. He
then hega7i hy saying : —

Gentlemen of the Jury, — I am called upon to
stand forth in defence of a body of Religionists,
who are actuated by as sincere and conscientious
motives as impel the minds and direct the conduct
of any Christian people upon earth, — by motives
sanctioned by that reason which heaven has im-
planted in our souls as the surest and safest guide
to truth. Gentlemen, a charge is made against
us, and is supported by all the arbitrary power of
which the law-officer of the Crown has been pos-
sessed from the dark and bigoted ages of our
history to the present time ; — a charge by which
the Unitarians are branded with the name of
libellers, and, by implication, blasphemers of that
Religion which our understandings convince us is
preserved pure and unadulterated in the system

• John, xxi. 17, Belsham's Calm Inquiiy, p. 185.

203

which we profess to maintain. We are unappalled
by any consequences which can befall us from that
vindictive persecution which men, bhnd to truth,
deaf to the voice of reason, and averse to enquiry,
are ever ready to press against us ; nor are we to
be turned from the line of our course by the con-
tumely so lavishly bestowed upon us by that body
of narrow-minded, and, 1 might add, irrational
theologians, who, versed in the jargon and encum-
bered with the lumber of scholastic lore, would
impose upon us the traditions of superstition,
rather than the doctrines of a simple and a sound
philosophy. Liberal principles in religion, as w^ell
as in politics, are now happily gaining ground, and
trampling upon that abject spirit of weakness and
folly which would bridle men's minds, and chain
them down to darkness; and though the demon
of bigotry is ever ready to sound his bloody
trumpet, and to call forth a host of adversaries,
yet, the amended liberality and temper of the
times is such, that no enlightened Jury of this
free and happy country will give their sanction to
the official advocate of the Crow^n to fetter the
public exertions in its struggle for that perfect
toleration, which leaves every man to follow the
dictates of his conscience in the concerns of re-
ligion. The learned Advocate has taken infinite
pains to establish, and to notify as a fact, that
Unitarians are not Christians, and that they ought

204

to be classed with Atheists, Deists, Heathens, and
Mahommedans, with whom he very charitably joins
them. He urges this with the very laudable and
Christian purpose of making it known that we are
within the reach of the law ; so that, if any pious
and orthodox believer, like himself, wishes to
glorify God and to gratify his own exuberant and
holy zeal by the sufferings of us pestilent heretics,
he may do it effectually in a circuitous, though not
in a direct route ; for though we cannot be ruined,
outlawed, or imprisoned for life in a dungeon, as
Anti-trinitarians ; yet, the denial of the Trinity
being the denial of Christianity, we are still liable
to the same penalties as are in force against the
class of Deists and Infidels. ^

It seems hardly possible to conceive that the
advocate for the Crown, in these enlightened days,
would display his bigotry by filing an information
against any individuals upon such grounds as
these; yet so it is, and he does this act in a
manner highly offensive, by asserting, that as the
Scripture doctrines are founded upon divine autho-
rity, we both impugn the divine authority of the
Scriptures, and deny the Christian Religion to be
true; and, consequently, in either case we come
within the offence recited by the statute. But
though the learned Attorney- General may have

Reply to the Bishop of St. David'.s, p. 59.

205

been raised by his Sovereign to guard the prero-
gatives of the Crown, and to bring to punishment
those who offend against the spiritual and tem-
poral interests of the State ; who, let me ask, has
intrusted him with the keys of heaven ? and how
does he make good the authority, which he claims, of
excluding his Unitarian brethren from the Church
of Christ, of which they, equally with himself, pro-
fess (and, they trust, not without reason) to be
members ? It is in vain that he and others allege
the doctrine of the Trinity to be the sum of Chris-
tian faith, and that we, who deny that doctrine to
be true, deny the Christian Religion to be true
also, and that the law of the land supports him
in this conclusion. He well knows, or ought to
know, that the question, " Who is a member of
the Church of Christ?" is not to be decided by
the law of the land, nor by any system of articles
of belief, which any fallible Protestant, or any in-
fallible Catholic Church, may think fit to insert in
its list of fundamentals. He well knows that the
Unitarians, professing, and truly professing, to
admit the Scriptures as the rule of their faith and
practice, maintain that no such doctrine is to be
found in the New Testament, from one end to the
other : nor will we be convinced of the contrary by
all the witnesses arrayed here before us this day
to support the irrational position that three omni-
present nonentities make one omnipresent Being,

206

any more than that we will guide our faith by cu-
rious and far-fetched criticisms on Hebrew idioms
and Greek particles.

The Attorney- General calls the Unitarians un-
believers : the Unitarians, in return, denounce the
doctrine of the Attorney-General, and of his wit-
nesses, as anti- Christian. If they believe our tenets
to be contrary to the Gospel of Christ and his
Apostles, we also believe the same of theirs. If
we are to be charged as libellers, in publicly de-
claring our sense of their doctrine, how can they
escape the same imputation for declaring their
judgment of our doctrine ? If the learned Ad-
vocate acts under an imperative sense of duty in
warning the public against important errors, we,
also defend our conduct upon the same ground.
If he pleads that he is justified in supporting such
a cause, because he is certainly right, and we are
certainly wrong, we call upon him to show the
patent of his infallibility with the seal of his office,
before we will, with submission, acknowledge our
error. Till then, we will rely, in our worst per-
secutions, upon the honesty and tolerating spirit
of an enlightened Jury of our countrymen ; and
trust that they, upon a calm and scientific enquiry
into our pretensions, will show the public that ours
is the primitive faith, and that the learned At-
torney-General labours under an accumulation of
error, when he calculates upon the sanction of

207

twelve impartial jurymen to punish and torture
any subjects of this free country for their religious
opinions and sentiments.^

We wish to have our principles and belief clearly
stated and understood. While we discard many
of the doctrines of the Established Church as
enormously erroneous, we, nevertheless, regard the
sincere believers and adherents to it, as worthy
members of a Christian community, because this
Church professes to receive Christ as its teacher
and master, and it believes nothing but what it
imagines, however erroneously, Jesus to have
taught. The Church looks upon our doctrine as
dangerous to the souls of men ; and under that im-
pression, it warns mankind against it as a fatal error.
We, on the other hand, regard the doctrine of the
Church as erroneous, unscriptural, irrational, con-
tradictory, filling the mind with perplexity and
distress, and leading to spiritual pride, bigotry^
censoriousness, and persecution. But though we
conceive these errors so pernicious, we do not re-
gard them as damnable ; and we believe that in
many instances their evil tendency is counteracted
by better principles. The Church is built upon a
right foundation, and is, so far, safe; but upon
this foundation is reared an edifice of wood, and
hay, and stubble, which in the day of trial will be

1 See the Reply to the Bishop of St. Davids, p. 67.

208

consumed, though the mistaken architect will escape
destruction.^

To point out all these errors and misconceptions
would be impossible, nor, happily, is it necessary,
I hope, for me to dwell upon even the most palpable
of them, after the scrutiny to which so many of
them w^ere exposed in our cross-examination of the
witnesses. There are, however, some few points
to which I must revert, before I enter into that
explanation of our tenets which it is our wish
should be detailed this day. First, then, with re-
spect to Jesus Christ: — If he who appeared in the
form of a man, with all the incidents of frail human
nature had, in truth, been very and eternal God,
when this fact w^as first revealed to his disciples,
how must their minds have been absorbed and
overwhelmed with astonishment and terror ! At
Lystra, when the people inferred, from the miracles
of the Apostles, '' that the gods were come down in
the likeness of men," the whole city was in an uproar.
Every one was filled with amazement ; and priests
and people assembled together, to worship and to
offer sacrifices to the celestial visitants. All this is
natural and probable, and exactly what might be
expected upon an occasion so extraordinary. What
then must have been the feelings and conduct of
the Jews, educated as they had been in such exalted

Reply, p. 68.

209

ideas of the great Supreme, when a discovery so
new, so unexpected, so remote from all conceptions
and ideas, so amazing, so overwhelming, was made
known to them, that the person whom they con-
ceived to be the son of Joseph and Mary, — with
whom they had conversed for months and years with
the greatest familiarity, — whom many of them had
witnessed as having passed through the various
stages of human life, from helpless infancy to
vigorous manhood, was, — what ? No other than
the eternal and almighty God, the irifinite Jehovah,
the Creator of heaven and earth ! How would they
feel, how would they act, when this surprising and
alarming discovery was made ? Would they asso-
ciate and converse with him familiarly, as before ?
Would they reason with him, would they rebuke
him, would they desert him, would they deny him ?
Let any one consider with himself what his own
feelings would be after such an awful disclosure ;
and then look into the New Testament, consult the
evangelical history, and see what was the conduct
of the disciples of Jesus in the circumstances sup-
posed. They discover no surprise, they abate no-
thing of their freedom of familiarity ; from the be-
ginning to the end of his ministry, their behaviour
is uniform ; they talk to him as a companion, they
love him as a friend, they revere him as a master,
they bow to him as a prophet of the Most High;

210

but nothing is said, nothing is done, which indicates
the least suspicion, that he was in reality any thing
more than he was in appearance, much less that he
was the eternal Jehovah himself.

It has been said that this important and astonish-
ing fact was not revealed to the disciples till after
the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, until the
day of Pentecost. — Let us sup}X)se it to have been
so. In this case, however, they must have under-
stood his language, — "I came down from heaven; "

— " Before Abraham was, I am ; " — " The Father
and I are one " — " Glorify me, O Father, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was ; "

— expressions which have here been adduced as
asserting the pre-existence and divinity of Christ :
yet these made no particular impression upon the
Apostles, nor any change in their conduct to their
master ; a plain proof that they understood his lan-
guage in a very different sense from that which
modern Christians now put upon it. Would, more-
over, the Apostle Peter, immediately upon this grand
discovery, when addressing the assembled crowd,
impressed and agitated as his mind must have been
with the novelty, the magnitude, and the import-
ance of the doctrine, — would he have spoken to this
tremendous Being, this " very God of very God,"
under no higher character than that of a man ap-
proved by God by signs and wonders, and who was
now exalted to God's right hand?

211

How deeply are the minds of Trinitarians pe-
netrated with a sense of the grandeur, subhmity,
and importance, of their favourite doctrine ! How
seldom, how slightly, do they think and speak of
Jesus as a man, in comparison with the fi'equency
and earnestness with which they think and speak
of him as God ! But how much more deeply must
the minds of the primitive disciples have been
impressed with the stupendous discovery ! It must
have seized and kept possession of every faculty of
their souls. In the present age the doctrine of a
Trinity of persons in the Deity, and of an incar-
nate and crucified God, are so common and fa-
miliar that they almost cease to shock the mind.
But to the primitive believers it must have had all
the freshness and the force of novelty ; it was an
idea which would never be out of their thoughts ;
it must have occupied and filled the imagina-
tion, and must have been the constant topic of
their meditation, their conversation, and their cor-
respondence. And in sitting down to write the
history of Jesus, his high dignity, his divine na-
ture, his condescension in becoming incarnate,
must have been their darling theme, in compa-
rison with which all other topics must have been
frivolous and nugatory; and if they were under
the necessity of touching upon them for a time,
they would constantly recur to that astonishing
p 2

212

fact, which could never be forgotten for a moment,
and must have been uppermost in their thoughts.
But how stands the fact ? Observe and wonder !
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, professing to write
a history which should contain all that would be
necessary to know and believe concerning their ve-
nerated master, absolutely forgot to mention the
stupendous fact, that Jesus Christ was the living
and true God, and they take no more notice of this
awful distinction, than if he were a man like them-
selves. And one of these sacred historians (Luke)
continues his history for thirty years after the
ascension of Christ, and relates the travels, the
labours, the doctrine, and the success of the
Apostles and first teachers of the Gospel ; but not
a syllable does he mention of the divinity of Christ,
or the doctrine of the Trinity, and no one would
know or suspect from Luke's history that the
Apostles had ever heard of any such doctrine. Is
this credible, is it even possible, if the doctrine
itself were true ? Certainly not. Let every Tri-
nitarian lay his hand upon his heart, and declare
upon his honour and in the presence of God,
whether he could himself have been guilty of such
an unpardonable omission. How then can they
believe that the Evangelists would have been so un-
faithful to their trust, if they really had it in charge
to record, or even if they were apprised of this
extraordinary event ?

213

Again, the witnesses affirm that Jesus Christ
was the Creator, Preserver, and Governor, of this
and of all worlds. This also would be a most
novel and astonisliing doctrine, especially to Jews,
who had never heard of any Creator but God. This
then is a doctrine which we might expect to be
blazoned in every page of the New Testament.
But what is the fact ? It is omitted by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, James, Peter, and Jude, and by the
Apostle Paul in ten out of fourteen epistles. Is
it possible, then, that these writers should have
given credit to this doctrine? — no, no ; the thought
of it never entered into their minds, and if it had
been proposed, they would have rejected it with
horror.

And what, let me ask, is there, with King James's
version before us, to rebut these weighty con-
siderations, and to command our assent to these
astonishing and most improbable propositions, so
contrary to all just conceptions of the Unity of
God, so contrary to the most explicit declarations
of the Jewish Scriptures, and to the main and
avowed object of the Mosaic dispensation, and so
inconsistent with the general tenour of the Evan-
gelical and Apostolic writings themselves, viz. that
Jesus Christ is the true God, the Creator of all
things, equal with the Father, and that the Father,
Son, and Spirit, being three distinct persons, are
only one Being, one God ! The witnesses have,.
p 3

214

indeed, referred us to one passage here, and to
another there, in which it is said that Jesus Christ
is called God, equal to or one with the Father ;
and to two or three more, in which he is supposed
to be represented as the Maker of the world ; and
to a few other texts, in which it is thought that
divine attributes are ascribed to Christ. And when
we ask for the texts which prove the Trinity, they
refer us to the form of baptism ; as if baptizing
into the name of a person, of Paul or Moses, for
example, was an acknowledgment of their di-
vinity : or, they send us to St. Paul's valediction to
the Corinthians that the grace of Christ, — that
is, that the blessings of the Gospel, the love of
God, and a plentiful participation of spiritual gifts,
may be communicated to his Corinthian friends.
Upon evidence so feeble and unsatisfactory, rest
the amazing doctrines of the divinity of Christ and
of the holy Trinity ! And these detached texts,
being frequently cited by the advocates of these
mysterious doctrines, are for that reason believed
to be of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures ; and,
in contradiction to the most notorious fact, though
not to their sincere persuasion, they represent the
New Testament as full of these mysteries from
beginning to end: though it is plain, that not a
shadow of them exists in many of the books, and
particularly in those in which we should most
naturally expect to find them, in the history of

215

our Lord's ministry, and of the preaching of the
Apostles. We conclude, therefore, that these pas-
sages, which only occur incidentally, and which
pass without comment, in whatever way they are
to be accounted for or explained, were not, and
could not possibly be, understood or intended by
the sacred writers in the sense in which believers
in the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the
Trinity now understand and explain them ; because
these doctrines did not make that impression upon
their minds, nor produce that visible effect in their
teaching and writings which they now do in all
who receive them, and which they necessarily must
and w^ould have done in the Apostles and Evan-
gelists, and their readers and hearers, if they had
believed these doctrines, and if their language
had been originally understood in the sense in
which they are now received by those who profess
the popular creed.

We, who are armed with such considerations as
these, — considerations which must find a way to the
hearts and bosoms of all who seriously and im-
partially seek after truth, — we are little affected by
the curious disquisitions of learned men upon the
niceties of grammatical construction and the force
of Greek particles. We will never be persuaded
that it can be necessary for us to study the bulky
volumes of Hoogveen, or the more moderate sub-
tleties of Middleton, in order to learn the essen-
p 4

216

tial doctrines of the Christian religion, which we
naturally and justly expect to find upon the front
and surface, and in the general strain and tenour,
of the New Testament. Let us admit, for the
sake of argument, that the text of St. Paul to
Titus is the true and only proper translation of
the passage as rendered in the common version :
— " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ,^* — (ii. 13.) Can we even from such an
expression conclude, that the Apostle was an as-
serter of the supreme divinity of his crucified
master? Surely not. We argue that, if Paul
believed that Jesus Christ was the supreme God,
his mind would have been so full of the amazing
doctrine, that it must have shone forth in every
page of his writings, in every sentence of his dis-
courses. His delight and his duty w^ould have
been to insist continually upon this new, unheard
of, and astonishing theme, and to have explained
the necessity and importance of it in all its bearings
in the scheme of redemption. Could the Apostle,
under these impressions, have coldly taught the
Athenians that " God would judge the world in
righteousness by the man whom he had ordained,
of which he had given assurance to all men in that
he had raised him from the dead ? " Could he
have written to the Corinthians, what, indeed,
would hardly be reconcileable to the simplicity of

217

truth, that " as by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead ? " How then,
it may be asked, is this declaration of the Apostle
to Titus to be reconciled to his not acknowledging
the divinity of Christ ? We answer, upon various
suppositions. It may have been a slip of the
Apostle's tongue in dictating ; or a mistake of his
amanuensis ; or an error of some early transcriber ;
or, there may be a various reading ; or, the words
might be intended in a different sense; or, the
Apostle might not study perfect correctness of
language ; or, there might be some other reason,
which cannot now be discovered. We will give
up the text as altogether inexplicable, sooner than
we will believe that the Apostle intended in this
casual incidental manner to teach a doctrine so
new, so incredible, and of such high importance,
and which is so little countenanced by the general
strain of his discourses and epistles, and so re-
pugnant to the whole tenour of the Christian
Scriptures.^

Having thus, by the arguments of reason and
consistency, shown the firm and solid basis upon
which the goodly edifice of our belief and under-
standing of Christianity is founded, I proceed to
detail the several parts of it, with the view to
guard against misconception, and, by these means,

' Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 72 — 83^.

218

rebut the malicious and persecuting charge of
being libellers of that Religion which is only pre-
served in a pure form, and in genuine force, by
our rational system. Our doctrine is this : — We
believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a man con-
stituted in all respects like other men ; subject to
the same infirmities, the same ignorance, preju-
dices, and frailties ; descended from the family of
Joseph and Mary, — though some of us still adhere
to the popular opinion of the miraculous concep-
tion ; — that he was born in low circumstances,
having no peculiar advantages of education or
learning ; but that he was a man of exemplary
character, and that, in conformity to ancient pro-
phecy, he was chosen and appointed of God to
introduce a new moral dispensation into the world,
the design of which was to abolish the Jewish
economy, and to place believing Gentiles upon an
equal ground of privilege and favour with the pos-
terity of Abraham — in other words, he was au-
thorised to reveal to all mankind, without dis-
tinction, the great doctrine of a future life, in
which men shall be rewarded according to their
works.

It does not appear to us that Jesus was at all
conscious of the honour and dignity for which he
was intended till after his baptism, when the Holy
Spirit was communicated to him in a visible sym-
bol, and when he was miraculously announced as

219

the beloved Son of God, that is, as the great Pro-
phet or Messiah whom the Jews had been taught
to expect ; after which, in the course of his pubUc
ministry, he occasionally spoke of himself as the
Son of Man, and the Son of God.

After his baptism, we conceive that he spent
some time in the wilderness, where he was fully
instructed in the nature of his mission, and invested
with voluntary miraculous powers, which, by the
visionary scene of his temptation, he was instructed
to exercise, not for any personal advantage, but
solely for the purposes of his mission. Others of
us, however, imagine that Jesus never performed
a miracle but when he was prompted to it by a
divine impulse. It is maintained by some of us,
that, during the period of his residence in the wil-
derness, Jesus was favoured with divine visions, in
which, like the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. xii.), he ap-
prehended himself to be transported into heaven ;
and that the language which he uses concerning
his descent from heaven is to be explained by this
hypothesis ; but the greater part of us interpret
these expressions as relating to his divine commis-
sion ; to the perfect knowledge with which he w as
favoured, above all other prophets ; to the will of
God concerning the moral state of men ; and the
new dispensation which he was appointed to intro-
duce.

We believe, also, that Jesus, having exercised

220

his public ministry for the space of a year, and,
perliaps, a little more, suffered death publicly upon
the cross, not to appease the wrath of God; not
as a satisfaction to divine justice ; not to exhibit
the evil of sin, nor in any sense whatever to make
an atonement to God for it, — for this doctrine, in
every sense, and according to every explanation,
we explode, as irrational, unscriptural, and dero-
gatory from the divine perfections ; but as a
martyr to the truth, and as a necessary prelimi-
nary to his resurrection. And we hold, that it
was wisely ordered, to preclude cavils, that his
death should be an event of great public notoriety,
and that it should be inflicted by his enemies.

We maintain that Jesus was raised to life by
the power of God, agreeably to his own predic-
tions, on the third day ; and that, by this event,
he not only confirmed the truth and divinity of
his mission, but exhibited, in his own person, a
pattern and a pledge of a resurrection to immortal
life; for which reason he is called the first-born of
the whole new creation, and the first-begotten from
the dead.

We further believe, that, after having given suf-
ficient proofs to his disciples, for forty days, of the
truth of his resurrection, he was in a miraculous
manner withdrawn from their society; a circum-
stance which is described as an ascension into
heaven : and that in a few days after this event

221

the Holy Spirit was communicated to his Apostles
in a visible symbol on the day of Pentecost, by
which they were endued with the gift of speaking
various languages which they had never learned,
and were furnished with many other gifts and
powers, by which they were qualified to propagate
the Gospel in the world, and to exhibit a most
satisfactory and public proof of the resurrection of
their master from the dead.

We maintain that Jesus and his Apostles were
supernaturally instructed as far as was necessary
for the execution of their commission ; that is, for
the revelation and proof of the doctrine of eternal
life; and that the favour of God extended to the
Gentiles equally with the Jew^s : and that Jesus
and his Apostles, and others of the primitive be-
lievers, were occasionally inspired to foretell future
events. But we believe that supernatural inspir-
ation was limited to those cases alone : and that
when Jesus or his Apostles deliver opinions upon
subjects unconnected with the object of their mis-
sion, such opinions, and their reasonings upon
them, are to be received with the same attention
and caution with those of other persons in similar
circumstances, of similar education, and with simi-
lar habits of thinking;.

We admit that the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament, and especially the latter, contain
authentic records of facts, and of divine interposi-

222

lions ; but we utterly deny the universal inspiration
of the writers of those compositions, as a quah-
fication to which indeed they make no pretension,
and of which they offer no proof; and the assertion
of which tends only to embarrass the evidences of
revelation, and to give advantage to its enemies.
And we judge of the genuineness, of the meaning,
and of the credibility, of these works, exactly in
the same way as we judge of any other ancient
writing.

We believe that Jesus continued to maintain,
occasionally at least, some personal and sensible
connection with the church during the apostolic age,
which he expressly promised to do (Matt, xxviii.
20.) ; and in this way we account for the continu-
ance of those miraculous gifts and powers which
were exercised in his name while the Apostles
lived, and also for occasional personal appearances
and interpositions, which have never occurred since;
but we believe that he is now withdrawn from all
sensible intercourse with this world, though some
have conjectured that he may still be actually pre-
sent in, and attentive to, its concerns.

We believe, also, that Christ is appointed to
raise the dead, and to judge the world. With
regard to the former, we believe him to be the
instrument of his Father's power. With respect
to the latter, whether the declarations concerning
it are to be understood literally or figuratively —

223

whether Jesus will be personally invested with
some high official character, or whether nothing-
more is intended than that the final states of men
shall be awarded agreeably to the declarations of
the Gospel, cannot, we think, at present be ascer-
tained. Probably, as is usual with prophetic lan-
guage, the event will be very different from what
the literal sense of the words would lead us to
expect. But whatever be the meaning of the de-
claration, the part which Jesus wdll bear in it will,
we are confident, be no more than what may be
properly allotted to a human being ^ ; and in the
execution of which his Apostles and Disciples will,
it is said, be associated with him.^

Wliile we bow to the authority of Jesus as the
great prophet of the Most High, and receive with
implicit submission whatever appears to us to have
the sanction of divine authority, — while w^e regard
the character of Christ as the most complete and
the most interesting that was ever exhibited to the
world, — while we feel ourselves under an indispen-
sable obligation to obey the precepts of his Gospel,
and, after his example, to diffuse to the utmost of
our ability the knowledge of truth and the practice
of virtue ; we disavow all those personal regards to
Christ, and direct addresses to him, either of prayer
or praise, which properly fall under the definition

1 John, V. 27. 2 Matt. xix. 28. 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.

224

of religious worship, as unfounded in reason,
unauthorised by Scripture, derogatory from the
honour of the Supreme Being, the only proper ob-
ject of rehgious homage, and as in a strict and
proper sense polytheistical and idolatrous. And
in this case, so far from being conscious of any
wilful derogation from the honour due to Christ,
whom we acknowledge and venerate as our Lord
and Master, we are fully persuaded we act in per-
fect conformity to his authority and example, and
in a manner of which he himself would testify the
most entire approbation, if he were to appear in
person upon earth.

We think it superfluous to produce any argu-
ments to prove that a person, who is repeatedly
called a man, — who had every appearance of a hu-
man being, — who was born, who grew, who lived,
who conversed, who felt, who acted, who suffered,
and who died like other men, — who was universally
allowed to be a man by all who saw and conversed
with him, — and who was addressed and spoken of
as a human being by all his contemporaries, whether
friends or enemies, was really what he appeared,
and affirmed himself to be, truly and properly a
man, and nothing more than a man. This is a fact
which must be admitted without hesitation, unless
the most unequivocal and decisive evidence can be
produced to the contrary. And surely a fact so
astonishing, and so contrary to experience and

225

analogy, as the incarnation of a superior spirit is
not to be received on the authority of oblique hints,
or of obscure, figurative, and ambiguous phraseo-
logy, but that it is reasonable to expect that the
evidence of such a fact should be clear and decisive
in proportion to its antecedent improbability. Now,
after the closest examination of the Scriptures, we
find no such clear and satisfactory evidence. As
to the passages which have been adduced by the
several witnesses, in which Jesus represents himself
as having descended from heaven, they signify no-
thing more than the divine original of his doctrine ;
that where he is represented as the Maker of all
things, the new creation only is intended ; that is,
the new state of things which he was commissioned
to introduce into the moral world ; and that the
creation of natural objects is no where attributed to
Christ. And with respect to the title of " God,"
if it ever be applied to Christ in the New Testa-
ment (which we deny), it is only in the sense in
which Moses is said to have been a god to Pharaoh,
that is, as being invested with a divine commission
and a power of working miracles in proof of it.
We declare that the same, nay even stronger, ex-
pressions are applied to Christians in general, than
those from which the deity of Christ is usually in-
ferred. And, lastly, we maintain that the creation
and support of the natural world and its inhabitants
is uniformly ascribed to God ; that there is no evi-
9

226

dence whatever, in spite of all that has been said to
the contrary, to prove that Christ was personally
concerned in any of the former dispensations of
God to mankind, either to the patriarchs or to the
Jews, but that the contrary is explicitly and re-
peatedly asserted in the Scriptures J

Upon these grounds we rest our pretensions to
be received as members of the great Christian
community. And while we faithfully adhere to
these doctrines, and the principles of action spring-
ing fi'om them, though our misjudging brethren
may disown and condemn them, — though many
who have a high conceit of their own attainments
may despise and revile them, — though Churches,
which arrogate to themselves the lofty titles of
orthodox and infallible, may excommunicate and
anathematise us, and though persecutors and men
of a persecuting spirit, may vent their impotent
execrations upon us, or visit us with pains and
penalties horrible to humanity, none of these
things can move us ; and from the sentence of
these erring and censorious brethren we appeal to
Him who knows our integrity, and with humble
confidence will we rely upon deliverance from the
evils which now beset us, by his power, in the
instrumentality of a verdict in our favour. With
this hope, as the reward of our sincerity, and this

I Calm Inquiry, p. 447 — 458.

227

expectation, as the proof of your liberalitV} I now
end our defence.^

The Attorney-General no'w rose to reply.

Gentlemen of the Jury, — In rising to reply to
the defence set up by the Defendants, my first
object will be, to direct your attention to that pe-
culiar species of argument which is made use of
to repel the charge upon the record, and to show
that the Unitarians pretend not only that their
tenets are not censurable, but that they are more
rational, and more consistent with truth, than a
very considerable portion of the Scriptures them-
selves. We argue that, " all Scripture being
given by the inspiration of God," whatever it
discloses demands our belief; but the Defendants
take another and an opposite course, and say, —
" Whatever those Scriptures reveal we will not
believe, unless the revelation be approved of by
our understanding and the faculties of our reason ;
nor will we admit that to be Scripture, which is
not conformable with our rational conceptions."
Hence it is, that vast and most important parts of
Holy Writ are wholly set aside ; and, under pre-
tence of their being of ' doubtful authority,' or
contrary to human conjecture, are reckoned as a
dead letter ; and all who object to this arbitrary

1 See Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 63.
9 2

228

excision are marked as bigots, — men devoid of
reason, and of illiberal minds and principles ; and
their motto is, Stat pro ratione voluntas. The
Sacred Volume thus mangled, and afterwards, in
all its essential parts, distorted and disfigured,
they call the Scripture : and now mark how they
make use of it. " The Attorney-General knows
that the Unitarians, professing, and truly professing,
to admit the Scriptures as the rule of their faith
and practice, maintain that no such doctrine as
that of the divinity of Christ, or that of the Trinity,
are to be found in the New Testament from one
end to the other ; and therefore he has no right
to disgrace them by classing them with Deists and
Infidels." Gentlemen, the time of the Court has
been wantonly wasted, if we have not shown you,
to satiety, that the Scriptures every where abound
with declarations of the divinity of the Son, — that
they declare Christ to have claimed that divinity,
and that his Apostles duly acknowledged it. " But
then," say the Defendants, " your Scriptures are
not ours ; and if you persist in guiding your faith
and practice by yours, we do the same by ours."
Be it so : but then, what saith the Law of the land ?
" I lay no restraint upon the conscience, but I am
the conservator of the volume of the canonical
Scriptures." Now, the Law knows no other volume
of Holy Writ save that which is now before us ;
the Law protects all the several books composing

229

this Sacred Volume, which we call the Bible ; it ac-
knowledges and it preserves the whole entu'e, with-
out addition or diminution of its parts ; it permits
of no arbitrary excisions, to suit persons of every
different complexion and character; and, what is
more, in discharging the duties of this guardian-
ship, it will not suffer what is therein written to be
evil spoken of, much less will it bear with impunity
that its sacred doctrines be charged with falsehood.
The Deists may come forward, and slash from its
sacred pages whatever they conceive to be con-
trary to reason and to their tenets ; and say, in
the language of the Defendants, " We admit the
Scriptures (thus garbled) to be the rule of our
faith and practice ; but we maintain, that no doc-
trines are to be found, nor can the similitude of
any such be discovered in the whole volume, which
call upon us to believe and act according to your
system : " and thus, on the same principle, may
any inflict wounds that would engender diseases
and death to the souls of men.

Our Scriptures explicitly declare Jesus Christ
to be both God and man ; God from all eternity,
and one with the Father, who assumed our nature
that, as man, he might redeem and save us.
They tell us this fact, and they tell us no more ;
but this, our reason convinces us, is sufficient^
because we have full assurance that those '' Scrip-
tures were given by inspiration of God," and that,
S 3

230

as they treat not even of the nature of man, how
his body and his soul are brought into such an
union as to form one living rational being, so
neither do they disclose any thing of the nature of
God, a subject infinitely more incomprehensible;
and if they did develop the particulars of either
nature, such a discovery in the present constitution
of our minds would be useless, because the mental
faculties of man are wholly insufficient for the
comprehension of these things ; and, supposing it
were otherwise, and that what was thus revealed
were all clear to our comprehension, what room
would then be left for the exercise of that faith
and piety, to which the Gospel makes so many
promises of great reward ? Looking, therefore,
at the fact as we find it, we receive it with implicit
confidence on the faith of God's word : and hence,
on subjects of Revelation, we dare not bring our
reason to deny what is so much above its province
to estimate ; because what thus comes from heaven
cannot be measured by the limited scale of human
comprehension ; and because we know, in matters
of a spiritual nature revealed by God, the ground
of our certainty lies not in the evidence of the
things, but in the undoubted veracity of God, who
has revealed them. We maintain that we derive
our doctrines from the most rational consideration
of the true meaning of Scripture, from understand-
ing its words in their most usual sense, — from

231

catching its general tone and spirit, and from
taking a combined and comprehensive view of its
several texts, so as to ascertain its true doctrine
in the surest manner. The Defendants, on the
contrary, derive their doctrine from their Scrip-
tures, — Scriptures made theirs by forcing words
from their acknowledged and obvious meaning ;
by adopting a most erroneous method of interpret-
ation ; by taking single passages without adverting
to others bearing on the same point. They say,
" We pay no regard to what your Scriptures
speak on these points, because reason is our guide,
and not revelation. Our reason tells us that the
supposition of the Deity putting on the earthly
form of its vile creatures, may be believed by
Heathens, but in our estimation it is absurd : it is
contrary to nature, — contrary to the eternal fitness
of things, — contrary to reason. If it were really
possible and true, every page of Revelation would be
blazoned with the notifications of the astonishing
deed; there the matter would be so clearly and
conspicuously shown that he who runs might read,
and might know it without stopping to consider
it ; nor, indeed, was it at all necessary that God
should demean his divine nature by putting on the
form of a man ; for he might equally well save us
from sin and error by coming, as he did, in the
plain and intelligible character of a great Prophet."
But " Who art thou, O man, that arguest a^gainst
9 ^

232

God ? ^ Shall the thing formed say unto hhn that
formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" or,
why wilt thou save us so ? I will ask the De-
fendants if they be able to say what a spirit is,
how it subsists, and how it can pervade at all times
every part of the unbounded universe ? Can
they form the least conception how any Being
can exist without a cause ? Can they fathom the
depths of eternity, and explain how, to the great
and unsearchable God, all the past and all the
future are but a single point of time ? Can they
tell us how the Supreme Ruler foreknows all
events, without determining their issues ? how he
exercises a providence, without controlling free
agency ? Can they explain to us what the soul is ?
Can they even tell us the nature of those material
bodies which surround them ; on what their pro-
perties depend; how these properties are pre-
served ; by what means they are brought into
action ? Can they look at the most insignificant
insect or plant, and not perceive in its structure
and economy wonders which baffle all research,
and which they cannot pretend to understand or
explain ? If, on all these points, they are obliged
to confess their ignorance to be most complete,
they depart at once from their principle of not

1 ' AvTaTTOKplveOai non est simpliciter respondere, sed car-
j)endi et refellendi animo. — Vide Luc. xiv. 6. Hardy in loc.
Rom. ix. 20.

233

extending their belief beyond what comes home to
their apprehensions. ^

It is, then, highly presumptuous and arrogant
for men, with their finite abilities, to limit the oper-
ations of Omnipotence, and to say, "so far shalt
thou come, but no farther," It is even worse than
this, it is a species of idolatry, to set up a God in
the proud temple of the mind, to oppose the God
of heaven ; to take reason for a guide and a vain
philosophy instead of revelation, and an humble
disposition to obey it. — " Verily thou art a God
that hidest thyself, O God of Israel the Saviour." ^
Our Scriptures, then, I affirm, are the word of God,
and they teach us that Christ our Saviour is both
God and man. The Unitarians deny him not
only to be their God, but ours : how, then, can
they presume to call themselves Christians, when
they acknowledge not the God of the Christians ? —
when they say. Hail ! Master, and spit on him ?
" Deists " is the title nailed over them, let them
take down the superscription if they can !

Gentlemen, Under the pretence of liberality,
and with an affected spirit of benevolence, the
Defendants ask us to compromise our differences,
and agree that, though one party may consider the
other to be enormouslr/ erro7ieous in their religious
views and principles, both shall shake hands and

1 See D'Oyly's Sermons, p. 216. - Is.xlv. 15.

234

be friends, in no less a matter than that in which
God and his blessed Son, and all that relates to
heaven and an eternal hereafter, are concerned.
They propose to us to extend the right hand
of fellowship to those who hold the doctrines of
our Church " not to be the doctrines of truth and
righteousness ; not as consolatory to the heart and
healthful to the soul, but as calculated to Jill the
mind with perplexity and distress, and to lead to spi-
ritual pride, censorioiisness, and persecution.''^ They
consider our views of Scripture as calculated to
excite pride, because they teach us that we have
God for our Saviour, who, while he kept on the
flesh, " was tempted in all things like as we are ; " —
as calculated to excite censoriousness, because we
look upon those as excluded from the number of
Christians, who deny the divinity of Christ, and
would rob us of our Saviour ; — as calculated to excite
a persecuting spirit, because w^e will not allow the
Deity to be spoken of with irreverence and con-
tempt. Now, without any disinclination whatever
to withhold feelings of kindness, good will, or
Christian charity from any, particularly from those
who are so sincere and conscientious as we believe
the Defendants to be, it is hardly to be expected
that we should approach to a nearer intercourse
with those who regard our religious sentiments
with abhorrence, and who must feel that we en-
tertain a similar disgust for theirs. We, therefore,

235

must decline their invitation io friendship, not for
want of liberality of mind, nor for want of every
kind feeling towards them, but because we will not
run the hazard of imbibing their errors, and of
thus endangering our salvation.

Having protested against that interpretation of
Scripture which claims a superiority for reason
above revelation, I proceed to consider the argu-
ments made use of by the Defendants, that I may
show, even upon their principles, that neither do
they adhere to the deductions of sound reason, nor
to the suggestions of truth in what they bring to
oppose us in our belief. " Think," say they, " think
into what a state of consternation and alarm the
disciples of Jesus would have been thrown, when
they were informed that their master, whom they
apprehended to be the Son of Joseph and Mary,
was no other than the eternal God ! the infinite
Jehovah ! the Creator of the universe ! Instead
of all this, they talk as familiarly with him as before,
they reason with him, they rebuke him, they desert
or they deny him, although he had told them
that * He and the Father were one,' and that he
' came down from heaven.' All these expres-
sions, therefore, were never understood by these
honest men to signify that he was any thing more
than a mere man." — Thus far we agree with them,
that the disciples until after the resurrection (in-
deed, hardly before the day of Pentecost, when the

236

Holy Spirit fell visibly upon them,) " understood
none of these things, and these sayings were hid
from them, neither knew they the things which
were spoken ; " for they were remarkably dull
in apprehending many of the plainer discoveries
which their Lord and Master made to them. They
understood not how he was to die and rise attain
on the third day, although he had repeatedly ad-
vertised them of it, and they had seen him raise
the dead upon three several occasions. They at
one moment placed the greatest degree of faith
in him, which they withdrew the next. They
were, in fact, all ignorance and weakness. When
their Lord was captured they deserted him, and
all the hopes, which he had so fondly excited in
their bosoms, were buried with him in the tomb ;
and even after the resurrection they were incredu-
lous and fearful ; but the moment they are visited
by the Holy Spirit from on high their characters
instantly change. No longer ignorant, they speak,
and they speak eloquently, clearly, and fluently, in
various languages. Instead of assembling '' in
private for fear of the Jews, the doors being shut,"
and whispering their hopes or alarms in each other^s
hearing, they declaim openly and aloud. Fearless
of every danger, and unawed by the presence of
either Scribes or Pharisees, they now removed the
veil which concealed the divinity while they looked
upon the person of their Master. Thii change of

237

character and new doctrine is " noised abroad^ and
the multitude come together and are confounded,
and are amazed, and marvelled, saying one to an-
other, Behold ! are not these Galileans ? hear we
every man in our own tongue, wherein we were
born ? " Indeed, so great is the amazement of the
people, that they for a moment attribute the frenzy
of feeling in the Apostles to madness, or to the
effects of new wine. And what is it that St. Peter
now declares unto the amazed multitude? He
adds to their astonishment by telling them that
Jesus of Nazareth, who hitherto appeared among
them " as a 7na7i approved of God," and whom
they " had taken and by mcked hands crucified
and slain^^ (mark the boldness of the expression,)
was none other than God, whom " it was not pos-
sible for death to hold " or destroy, and against
whom death had no power ; a circumstance which
David in the spirit of prophecy had predicted, when
he said that he had " foreseen Jehovah," and had
thus spoken of his resurrection, " that his soul
was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see cor-
ruption." And what was the effect which this
astonishing discovery of the divinity of Jesus pro-
duced upon his hearers ? " They were pricked in
their hearts " — their hearts now fail them, for
they perceive, but perceive too late, that they had
crucified and murdered not only Jesus of Nazareth,
but him who was indeed " one with the Father ; "

238

and in terror and alarm they cry out, " Men and
brethren, what shall we do ! " St. Peter afterwards
addressed the dispersed Jews to the same effect,
" We have not followed cunningly-devised fables,
when we made known to you the power and coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses
of his majesty;" — where the power and coming
of Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, was not, as
the Defendants conceive, either his general coming
to judgment upon the world, or his particular
coming upon the nation of the Jews ; but by his
power and coming is meant his powerful appear-
ance in the world, by which he mightily discovered
himself to be the Son of God.^ Before I close
this address, I shall adduce another instance of
the surprise, consternation, and alarm, which a
discovery of Christ's divinity produced among the
Scribes, the Pharisees, and others of the Jewish
people, who saw, acknowledged, and were per-
plexed at the proof of it. This transaction, and
that which I have already detailed, are both of
them recorded by St. Luke ; and yet what say the
Defendants ? — " Matthew, Mark, and Luke, pro-
fessing to write a history which should contain all
that would be necessary, absolutely forget to men-
tion that Jesus Christ was the living and true God,
and take no more notice of this axvful distinction than

' Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrse, b. ii. c. 9. xiii.

239

if he *mere a man like themselves.'^ But supposing
the case had been as it is here represented, and that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke had made no allusion
to the divinity of their Lord ; what is to be said of
St. John, who wrote almost exclusively upon the sub-
ject of the person and office of Christ ? I will take
upon myself to say, that an able theologian, with
this single Gospel alone, might meet and refute
every argument brought by the Unitarians to deny
the divinity of Christ : for it is impossible to take
even any small part of his Gospel in which it is
not again and again asserted or implied.^ Matthew
tells, of the miraculous conception of Jesus, that
his birth of a virgin was the fulfilment of ancient
prophecy, and that his name, Emmanuel, signified
" God with us ; " that this blessed Saviour after-
wards promised, that "wherever two or three were
gathered together in his name. He would be in the
midst of them ; and when he finally left his dis-
ciples for his heavenly kingdom, he said, " Lo !
/ am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world." Mark tells us that the evil spirits imme-
diately knew and acknowledged his divine power.

I This has been admirably done by Bishop Blomfield in his
" Five Lectures on the Gospel of St. John," a work equally
characterised, with all others on subjects of theology from his
pen, for that peculiar simplicity of expression and style so
rare among the leai'ned, yet with all that force so common to
this profound scholar and divine.

240

— " Let us alone : /what have we to do with
thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? Art thou come
to destroy us ? I know thee, who thou art, — the
Holy One of God." Luke speaks fully of the
miraculous conception and the birth of him who
was born a Saviour, Christ the Lord ; '* relates
the birth and office of his forerunner, who was
appointed to go before the face of the Lord (Je-
hovah) and to prepare his ways : with a variety
of other circumstances bespeaking his divinity.
However slight might be the notice of the super-
natural incidents accompanying the birth and early
years of the Messiah, the virgin mother we are
told, regarded all that passed with wonder and
amazement; and though, perchance, she did not
make known her feelings, yet we are assured that
she preserved every thing in her memory, " pon-
dering them in her heart." " Yet," say the De-
fendants, " Luke, who continues his history for
thirty years after the resurrection of Christ, and
relates the travels, the doctrines, and the success of
the Apostles, mentions not a syllable of the divinity
of Christ, and no one would know or^ suspect in 7'ead-
ing his history, that the Apostles had ever heard of
any such doctrine.''^

Luke, however, in the Acts of the Apostles
represents them as praying to their ascended Lord,
to direct them in their choice of one to supply the
place of Judas : — he tells, more tlian once, of the

241

miraculous circumstances attending St. Paul's con-
version, in one narration, he states him to have
been expressly chosen for the Apostles to the Gen-
tiles, by Jesus; and in the other, that he was so
chosen and for that purpose, by God; implying
that they were one and the same. He tells us,
moreover, that when Paul preached the doctrine
of Jesus, and proved the truth of it by the fact of
his resurrection, the philosophers and others of
Athens accused him of being a " setter forth of
strange Gods"

Again, the Defendants allege that three out of
the four Evangelists, neither state nor prove Christ
to have been the Creator of the world, and that
St. Paul only speaks of the matter in four of his
epistles. Now, as these Scriptures are, we affirm,
the word of God, the single narration of an occur-
rence or truth has the same weight as if it were
related a hundred times ; yet we find St. John
commencing his Gospel with these words : — "In

the beginning was the Word all things were

made by Him, and without Him was not any thing
made that was made ; " — having manifestly his
eye fixed upon the same language in the opening
chapter of Genesis; so that it is clear that the
same unerring Spirit spoke both in Moses and the
Evangelist. This declaration, of Christ being the
Creator, is corroborated by St. Paul, who says, that
" God created all things by Jesus Christ .... whom

24.2

He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom, also,
He made the worlds .... for by Him were all things
created that are in heaven and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or
dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things
were created by Him and for Him ; for he is before
all things, and by him all things consist : " — so that,
like St. Paul, " through faith, we understand that
the worlds were framed by the Word of God,"
not as the instrument of the Almighty Father, but
as his equal ; for, " without Him was not any thing
made that was made." These passages are suf-
ficient to convince us of the fact, that the universe
and all that is in it was created by the Son of God ;
but Unitarians will not believe it, because all this
is not " blazoned in every page of the New Testa-
ment." " No ; " say they, " in the face of all you
adduce from St. Paul or St. John we mil not believe
the doctrine, 7ior will ive believe that a tkoug/it of it
ever entered their minds ; and^ what is m(yre than all
this. We know the spirit of the holy writers well
enough to say, that had it heen jpi'Ojposed to them,
they would have rejected it with horror ! " Here the
Socinian principle of believing only what can be
understood, or what men are willing to receive,
is clearly displayed; and this mode of trifling
with what we regard as most sacred may be illus-
trated by a practice much too common, and which,
evil as it is, has received the sanction of the De-

243

fendants. In order to throw an air cf absurdity
and ridicule upon the doctrine of Christ being both
God and man, they speak of him with an ironical
usage of our language, so as to involve us in a
species of blasphemy, calling him, the " crucified
God ; " implying that he suffered as God, whereas
as Athanasius says, " The Scriptures never speak
of Jesus suffering as God, but in his human nature;
and when they mention the blood of God, it is onl3'^
in reference to the flesh." ^ With equal propriety
of expression might these votaries of reason de-
signate the Angels who visited Abraham, or those
who rescued Lot from Sodom, as ethereal men ; or
call the mangled body of the martyr Stephen, a
murdered soid.

The Defendants are so candid as to admit that
here and there a few isolated passages have been
adduced to show that Christ is represented as
equal to God ; and a few others, to prove that

1 So in Acts, XX. 28. On this point see Hey's Lectures,
vol.ii. lib. 4. art. I. sect. 18. p. 275.

In the same manner Hume speaks of Christ as a crucified
Gody and the Jews as being made murderers of God; and
Gibbon, after Voltaire, speaks of " Christians having the same
being as God and as Victim" Now, all this is wanton per-
version ; for it is well known that the Divine Nature cannot
suffer, and it is equally well known that Christ did not suffer
in his divine nature.

It is here quite necessary to bear in mind the reading of
St. Luke, Ara Tov a'lf.iaTog rov Idiov.
R 2

244

divine attributes were ascribed to him : but they
add, " These, from being continually quoted, in
process of time have been believed to be of very
frequent occurrence; whereas it is a notorious
facty that not a shado^jo of the mysterious doctrine
exists in many of the books ivhere we (Unitarians)
shoidd expect the most to find it; and where any
alltisions do occur, they coidd not possibly be under-
stood by the sacred writei'S in the sense you believe
them : — it is not probable ! it is not natural ! it is
not reasonable ! " To what purpose, then, let me
ask, did the sacred penmen write, guided by that
Holy Spirit which was " to lead them to all truth,
and to bring to their remembrance" whatever was
necessary to be known or believed of their master?
— " That is all very true, for aught we know," say
the Defendants ; " but we can account for the in-
troduction of these things in a variety of ways :
perhaps the "doyiter did not write himself but pro-
cured an amanuensis ; and, as he dictated to him,
these things were accidental slips of the Apostle's
tongue ; perhaps the amanuensis mistook ; perhaps
some very early transcriber copied inccnTectly ; per-
haps this may be only one of various readings ;
perhaps the words might be i?ite?ided i7i a very dif-
ferent sense from what they are usually put; it is
possible that the Apostle might have sent off his
epistle in such a hurry that he did not study per-
fect co7rectness ; (and this supposes that the Spirit

245

was in haste^i and in erroi' also.) In short, it is pro-
bable that there were many other reasons^ isohich
cannot now he discovered, why all these mistakes
occurred. But if Trinitarians will be so bigoted,
so irrational, as to believe these things, we will give
tip the texts as altogether inexplicable, sooner than
we will believe that the Apostle intended, in this
casual incidental manner, to teach a doctrine so 7iew
and so incredible, and of such high importance, and
which is so little countenanced by the general strain
of his discourses and epistles, and so repugnant to
the whole tenor of the Christian Scriptures ; and,
what is more than this, we will not submit to be
bullied by the witnesses, in a matter where our
conscience and religion are concerned, into what
they and the learned call ' the critical interpret-
ation * of Scripture ; for we declare, once for all,
that we hold the niceties of grammatical construc-
tion, and the force of the Greek particles and
Hebrew idioms, in perfect contempt." ^

Gentlemen, — This is the style of language, and
these the expressions, of the defence, made with a
view to convince you that the Defendants, in all
these particulars, have not libelled the Christian
Religion, by denouncing as false the great and
savmg doctrines of the Scripture ; and by fritter-
ing away the plain and obvious sense of every

Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 83. and p. 81.
R 3

246

word and expression bearing upon them. Now,
why is it that these persons wage war against
Hebrew idioms and Greek particles ? Is it be-
cause the Hebrew idiom designates the Lord our
God, Jehovah ? and that this high name implies a
union of persons, and especially when it said, " Je-
hovah our God is one Jehovah," and which would
be a useless expression in any other sense ?"^
For if we were to say, " the Sovereign our King is
one Sovereign," what idea would this convey, but
that of absurdity, to suppose any could want to be
told a truth which none would or could call in
question ? But when we see that David, speaking
of Christ, calls him his Lord, and applies the high
name of Jehovah to him, — when, as the witness
Horsley has powerfully and clearly proved, Christ
was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, — then we
see why the Defendants scout and detest Hebrew
idioms. We find, too, in pursuing the same track,
that their abhorrence of Greek particles arises
from a principle of the same feeling. St. John
opens his Gospel, as I have already mentioned.

' This text is ui-ged by the Jews as an unanswerable argu-
ment against the doctrine of the Trinity ; but they admit that
it is extraordinary and perplexing that the name of God
should be thrice repeated. As to the Cliristians against whom
it is urged, they are almost unanhnous that in this very sen-
tence is a plain indication of the Trinity. — Sandford's Con-
nection, p. 328.

247

after the manner of Moses in opening the history
of the creation, with these words : — "In the be-
ginning was the Word ('Ev ap%>j ?v 6 Aoyog);" which
the Defendant Belsham alters thus: — "The Word
was in the beginning," — which, however trifling the
variation may at first sight appear, is of immense
importance. The Greek construction preserves
the parallel with the opening of Genesis, and im-
plies, that in the beginning of all things, The Son
was in existence : ^ the Defendants' construction is
made to imply that The Son was in the beginning
of the new (or Christian) dispensation. Now, that
Christ should be in existence at the commence-
ment of his own ministry, is an axiom which I
think none of you, Gentlemen, will be disposed to
question ; and if this were all that was meant by
the Evangelist, it would be of about as much
importance as my telling you that when I com-
menced this reply, I was alive in your presence.
But St. John proceeds to say, " And the Word
was God (Kal 0eoj ^v 6 Aoyog)." The Defendant
renders this, — " The Word was a God." Again,
they render vlog Qsovy a Son of God, because the
article before uloj is omitted ; and this they think
implies that he is said to be God, not actually, but

1 It is still more important to observe here, that these words
are rendered in the Jewish Targum, " In the Beginning the
Word Jehovah created," &c.
R 4

248

Jiguratively ; and yet they admit that he acknow-
ledged himself The Son of God (6 ulo^ toD ©sot),
Luke xxii. 70.), where his having made such an
acknowledgment subjected him to the charge of
blasphemy. Now, permit me here, Gentlemen, to
represent to you, and that without exaggeration,
the style and manner which the Defendant has
adopted in paraphrasing the verses of St. John to
which I here allude ; and if you will take up the
volume of this "/wzprot?^^/ Version" of our Scriptures,
you will see that the absurdity I am about to show
is not my own.

'Ev a^x% ^^ ° Aoyo^. — " In the beginning was the
Word." By the beginning I by no means intend the
beginning of the creation, or of all things, but merely
the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. I do not
specify this to be my meaning, because I conclude you
will perceive it, though I know well enough that I ex-
press m3^self exactly as though I did mean it, and that
another beginning must be present to your minds, when
the world was made by the Logos or Word of God:
however, I certainly do 7iot mean this ; I mean to make
no sort of allusion to any thing you may happen to
know, or have previously heard, of the Logos or Word
of God, by whom the world was made ; but I mean
merely to give this appellation to Jesus Christ, a man
like myself, because he was commissioned to reveal the
word of God ( that is in Greek hlyoq) to mankind : it is
what grammarians and rhetoricians would call a me-
tonymy; I do not tell you this in my Gospel, because,
notwithstanding any prejudices to the contrary, I think
you must know it by instinct.

249

Ku) h Ao'yo? h ^P°? '^"ov @ziv. — " And the Word was
with God," that is, not with him really and personally,
— but how, do you think ? Why, in the way of retire-
ment or private communion, as might be the case with
you, or me, or any other man. Do not fancy he was
really with God, though I say so ; there is something
implied under the preposition wpo?, which I do not stop
to explain to you, because I conclude that you, and
every convert that comes after you, however unac-
quainted with the Greek language, ivom^n and children,
will easily comprehend what I mean, by instinct.

Ka* ©ec? y\v 6 Aoyoq. " And the Word was God : " — Do
not mistake me, I mean God was the Word; though,
contrary to grammar, depend upon it this is my par-
ticular meaning ; or, if you do not like this, mind that
0£^,' has in this place 7io article before it ; therefore, at
the utmost, it can only imply that the Word was A
God, perhaps you will think Jupiter or 3Iercury : not
so, but yet a God ; one, in short, of the Jewish Elohim,
but take special care you do not account it one of the
Elohim spoken of in Deuteronomy, vi. 4., for, of course
it is impossible I should mean any such thing, though,
indeed, I know that you have been brought up to be-
lieve that the Word of God was the appearing Jehovah,
and, therefore, might reasonably be accounted one of
the Elohim, which God himself has told us constitutes
one Jehovah : but had I meant to describe him to be
Jehovah, you may be sure that I should have put the
definite article before 0£o?, and called o 0eo^, a dis-
tinction which in no manner belongs to him. Though,
indeed, I know that St. Matthew has blundered so
greatly as to deceive you in this particular, when he
tells you that the Messiah was to be God with us,
that is, in our language, Emma7iuel ; in the blundering

250

Greek of St. Matthew, ^eQ' -^/xwy o 0fo?. This may not
strike you at first ; but, depend upon it, he never meant
Jehovah^ he only meant a God in some way or other as
/ do : do not, therefore, on any account, attend to his
insertion of the article, mind only my omission of it.^

Gentlemen, — I should scorn to use ridicule as
a test of truth, much more so upon such a subject
as this, were I not anxious to show how nearly it
borders upon an actual absurdity to suppose that a
Jewish evangelist could, in those days, have 50 ex-
pressed himself, as to be subject to the interpret-
ation which Unitarians 7ionx> put upon his words.

These arbitrary alterations, so much at variance
with the rules of legitimate criticism, and which
would instantly be rejected by any scholar in the
interpretation of a profane classical author, in con-
junction with the great and unwarrantable excision
of the text, afford to my mind a very strong argu-
ment against the truth of the Unitarian system ;
for it is evident that all this lopping and mangling,
all the new readings suggested, all the improbable
probabilities hazarded, apply to the Scriptures only
in those points where they are conceived to oppose
that system; and even the substitution of reason
for revelation is used only where the doctrine of
the Trinity is in question. If we look around us,
we shall invariably find this practice resorted to by

1 Nares*s Remarks on the Improved Version of the New
Testament, p. 100.

251

all fVamers of peculiar systems. The Jew denies
the truth of the whole of the New Testament, not
because he can disprove any part of it, but because
it treats of the actions and teachings of a Messiah,
such as his nation mil not receive. His Scriptures,
he declares, and we readily admit, to be unquestion-
ably canonical and true. They announce the time
when Christ was to come, at which time he did ap-
pear, although they affirm that his advent is delayed.
Now this denial has no effect upon the rest of the
religious world, because it is known and seen to
spring from obstinacy of belief and a judicial blind-
ness ; and, moreover, in this case, the conduct of
the Jews is observed to fulfil their own accepted
Scriptures. But the Jew and the Unitarian are
the only parties who bring against our Scriptures
the charge of untruth, if we except, perhaps, one
passage blotted out to form the creed of the Ro-
manist, and which the Jew satisfactorily proves to
be both genuine and authentic ; I mean, the Second
Commandment, the rejection of which is admitted
by none professing to believe the Bible but the
Romanist ; because it is seen that a " fond con-
ceit," and a leading doctrine and practice, of the
Romish Church is forbidden by this pretended ad-
dition. I must not forget that, with respect to the
New Testament, words are falsely rendered, and
the sense of some passages is wrested to a peculiar
meaning, also, by the Romanists, in order that they

252

may establish or enforce their particular practices
and belief: and thus it is that the Jew, the Uni-
tarian, and the Romanist, alter and amend, and re-
gard as spurious or interpolated, only what mili-
tates against their own respective, peculiar, systems.
Now, of the Holy Volume, as of the chain of uni-
versal being, it may be said,

" Whatever link you strike,

Tenth, or ten-thousandth part, divides the chain alike."

We have shown, then, this day, by the evidence of
witnesses whose testimony is as valuable as sound
learning and piety, fair character and calm judg-
ment can make it, that ou7^ Scriptures divulge the
high and mysterious doctrine of a Trinity in
Unity ; and nothing that the witnesses have ad-
duced in its support has been so much as shaken
by all the sifting, shifting, and subterfuge which
has been employed to render any part of their evi-
dence doubtful. They prove, and they support
their proof by the unanimous sanction of all the
Christian world, (for I will maintain that the De-
fendants exclude themselves from that religious
community,) that the doctrine of the Trinity, that
is, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, three persons in one divine nature, is the
fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the doctrine
of the Old and New Testaments, the belief of which
is required of us all on the faith of the word of
God. This doctrine has been admirably illustrated

253

by the witness Leslie, in an example taken from our
own nature, where the under standings the memory,
and the will, three distinct faculties are seen to con-
stitute the one soul of man ; that mysterious part of
us of w^hich we know no more than that it exists.
Where or how it so exists, is altogether hid from
us ; and as we cannot unravel a plain circumstance
thus mysteriously attached to our own earthly,
much less can we expect to comprehend what be-
longs to an infinitely higher, and divine nature,
beyond what God has been graciously pleased
faintly to trace, and shadow out to us in his revela-
tion.^ The doctrine, however, is not confined to
Christianity, although it is there more clearly ma-
nifested than in any of the previous dispensations.
There can be no doubt that it was known to the

1 " The three persons in the Trinity," says Tertullian,
" stand to each other in the relation of the root, the shrubs
and t\iQ fruit ; of the fountain, the river, and the cut from the
river ; of the sun, the ray, and the terminating point of the
rayT For these illustrations he professes himself indebted
to the revelations of the Paraclete. In later times, divines
have occasionally resorted to similar illustrations, for the pur-
pose of familiarising the doctrine of the Trinity to the mind ;
nor can any danger arise from the proceeding, so long as we
recollect that they are illustrations, and not arguments ; that
we must not draw conclusions from them, or think that what-
ever may be truly predicated of the illustration, may be pre-
dicated with equal truth of that which it was designed to il-
lustrate.— Bishop Kaye's Eccl. Hist, of Second and Third
Centuries, p. 534.

254.

Patriarchs, and that, after the flood, Noah and his
descendants preserved so much of the knowledge
of what had been vouchsafed to the antedihivian
workl, that the tradition of it was transferred from
age to age, faintly marked indeed, but still sufficient
to be traced; until, at length, it was adopted by
the philosophers of antiquity, and grafted into their
system of a divine Triad : and thus, as Dryden says,
" What Socrates said of God, what Plato wrote,
and the rest of the heathen philosophers of several
nations spoke, is all no more than the twilight of
revelation, after the sun of it was set in the race of
Noah." ^ This knowledge of a Trinity further
appears from the accounts given of the cavern of
Elephanta, thought to be the most ancient temple
of the world,^ in which is rudely but distmctly
carved, in the solid rock, a colossal representation
of the Hindoo deity, with one body and three heads,

> Pref. to Religio Laici.

2 At the upper end of the principal cave, which is in the
form of a cross, and exceedingly resembles the plan of an an-
cient basilica, is an enormous bust with three faces, reaching
from the pavement to the ceiling of the temple. It has ge-
nerally been supposed, and is so even by Mr. Erskine, a repre-
sentation of the Trimurti, or Hindoo Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu,
and Siva. But more recent discoveries have ascertained that
Siva himself, to whose worship and adventures most of the
ornaments of the cave refer, is sometimes represented with
three faces, so that the temple is evidently one to the popular
deity of the modern Hindoos alone. — Bishop Heber's " Nai'-
rative of a Journey," vol. iii. p. 81.

255

adorned with the oldest symbols of Indian theology,
and avowed, by the sacerdotal tribe of India, to
indicate the Creatoi\ the Preserver^ and the Rege-
iieratcn' of mankind. That this may be affirmed to
be their triune divinity, seems certain from the
testimony of a Sanscreet inscription upon a stone
found in a cave near the ancient city of Gyre in the
East Indies, in which the three persons, BraJima,
Veeshnoo, and Mahesa, the Creator^, the Preserver,
and the Destroyer qf Evil, make one great divinity,
whose name (AUM) is forbidden to be uttered
aloud. ^ A triad of deity may be traced in the

' The inscription is this : —

The Deity who is the Lord, the possessor of all, appeared
in the ocean of natural beings at the beginning of the Kalee
Yoog (the age of contention and baseness). He who is omni-
present, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme
Being, the Eternal One^ the Divinity worthy to be adored,
appeared here with a portion of his divine nature. Reverence
be unto Thee in the form of Bood-dha (author of hap-
piness). Reverence be unto the Lord of the Earth ! Rever-
ence be unto Thee, an incarnation of the Deity and the
Eternal One. Reverence be unto Thee, O God ! in the form
of the God of Mercy ! the dispeller of pain and trouble ; the
Lord of all things ; the Deity who overcometh the sins of the
Kalee Yoog ; the guardian of the universe ; the emblem of
mercy towards those who serve thee ! O — M (the unutter-
able title of the Deity) ! The possessor of all things in vital
form ! Thou art Brahmay Veeshnoo^ Mahesa ! Thou art
Lord of the universe ! Thou art under the form of all things,
moveable and immoveable, the possessor of the whole ! And
thus I adore thee ! Reverence be unto the Bestower of sal-
vatio?i, and the Buier of the faculties. Reverence be unto

256

Egyptian and Persian mytholog}^, all emanating
from the same source, — the original tradition given
to the early race of Adam, and preserved, though
gradually fainter and fainter, through the post-dilu-
vian world, until the embers of it, blown upon and
excited into flame, broke out in the advent of Christ,
the incarnate Deity himself

In every dispute concerning the apostolicity of
any point of Christian discipline or doctrine, it is
obviously of the highest importance to ascertain
what was the belief or practice of those Christians
who lived in the first ages of the Church. They,
who, like Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius, were con-
temporaries with the Apostles, and fellow-labourers
with them, could not possibly be ignorant of the
doctrines which they taught, or of the disciplme
which they established in their respective churches ;
and we may be sure they would religiously hand
down to their successors that doctrine and that form
of government which they themselves had received
from the Apostles. Yet the witnesses having pro-
duced a multitude of extracts from the writings
of these and other fathers of the primitive Church,
to establish tlie certainty that the belief of the

Thee, the Destroyer of the Evil Spirit ! O Damordara (Indian
God of Virtue) show me favour ! I adore Thee who art
celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in
the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy ! Be propitious,
O Most High God ! — Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284.

257

Trinity prevailed in the apostolical and imme-
diately succeeding ages; and although the De-
fendant Priestley in his writings admits that "it
was an unanswerable argument a jpriori^ against
any particular doctrine being contained in the Scrip-
tures, that it was never understood to be so by those
persons for whose immediate use the Scriptures
were written, and who must have been much better
qualified to understand them, in that respect at
least, than we can pretend to be at this day'; " —
notwithstanding this admission, the Defendant,
Belsham, to get rid of all such testimony, declares
the epistles of Clement to be spurious, treats the
writings of Hernias and Barnabas with contempt,
charges the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp as
being filled with interpolations, and stamps the
Clementine Homilies as a romance : still, in spite
of all this, he arrives at this logical and impartial
conclusion : — "At any rate, they are good evidence
of the existence of Unitarianism in the second
century." ^ Then comes the Defendant Lindsey,

' History of Early Opinions, p. 15.

2 Reply to the Bishop of St. Da\4d's, p. 96.

When Dr. Priestley was once pressed by the clear sense of
a scriptural text, which was too stubborn to bend to his
schemes, he declared that, sooner than admit the received
sense, he would suppose the whole verse to be an inter-
polation, or the amanuensis of the Apostle to have committed
an error in taking down his words. — - See Quarterly Keview,
vol. XV. p. 46.

S

S5S

and with one stroke of his pen, he dashes out
the testimony of the Fathers akogether. He must
haveaclear and open space for the manoeuvring of his
system, and therefore cuts down root and branch
to make way for it, and cries out, " The authorities
of men ctre nothing !^^ — an assertion. Gentlemen,
which I hardly think he would have made had
their testimony been in favour of his views. Now,
to reject the evidence of the Fathers in the inter-
pretation of Christian doctrine and belief, would be
as absurd as for us to reject the opinions of all con-
temporary lawyers, and the uniform decision of the
judges, if the true meaning of some ancient statute
were in dispute. This we should consider to amount
to an abandonment of the question. On this account
it is that all parties involved in doctrinal con-
troversy are anxious to obtain the support of the
early Fathers ; justly looking upon them as ancient
receptacles of primitive articles of belief, and good
expositors of the Christian faith. It must, I believe,
be admitted, that these holy men have been treated
at one time with a deference bordering upon enthu-
siasm, at another with a negligence nearly allied to
contempt ; neither of which, in the judgment of the
learned, they deserved, — extremes from both of
which, I am led to think, the sober learning of the
present day bids fair to emancipate them. And
here I must be permitted to remark, with respect
to the vi^ritings of the early Fathers, that, of such

259

as remain to us, there is not one hundredth part of
those which were extant at the bemnninof of the
fourth centm-y; and yet, with all this quantity of
evidence before the Fathers of the council at Nice,
and which was open to their opponents as well as
to themselves, they did not hesitate to declare that
all their predecessors, all the Fathers who had pre-
ceded them, believed in the divinity of Christ.
Where were the Unitarian teachers when this
confident assertion was made ? If the writers of
the three first centuries believed, as we are re-
peatedly told, in the simple humanity of Jesus, why
was not a whisper of this belief heard at the council
of Nice ? ^ There is not the smallest particle of

1 In the year 325, a numerous and celebrated assembly was
convened at Nice in Bithpiia, to extinguish, by their final
sentence, the subtle disputes which had arisen in Egypt on
the subject of the Trinity. Three hundred and eighteen
bishops obeyed the summons of theu* indulgent master ; the
ecclesiastics of every rank, and sect, and denomination, have
been computed at two thousand and forty-eight persons ; the
Greeks appeared in person ; and the consent of the Latins
was expressed by the legates of the Roman pontiff. The
session, which lasted about two months, was frequently ho-
noured by the presence of the Emperor. Leaving his guards
at the door, he seated himself (with the permission of the
council) on a low stool in the midst of the hall. Constantine
listened with patience, and spoke with modesty : and while
he influenced the debates, he humbly professed that he was
the minister, not the judge, of the successors of the Apostles,
— Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. iii.
p. 304.

s 2

260

evidence to show that the Unitarian or Socinian
doctrines were so much as thought of at that
council. It is true, indeed, that those who were
inch'ned to Arianism appealed to the early Fathers
in support of their opinions. Marcion, Valentinus,
and others of the same school, were so convinced of
Jesus Christ being God, that they could not believe
him to be man ; they held that his body was an il-
lusion : which surely makes it extremely improbable
that the majority of Christians in those days beheved
in the simple humanity of Christ. The same con-
viction led, in the third century, to the Patripassian
and Sabellian heresies.^ The leaders of these
sects could not persuade themselves that Christ was
a man ; and one taught that he was actually God
the Father, the other maintained that he was an
emanation from God* I repeat, therefore, that
the total absence of all mention of Unitarianism at
the Council of Nice is a very strong argument
against the notion that the early Fathers were
Unitarians. We might believe, perhaps, though

' The Patrij)assians were the disciples of Praxeas^ of the
third century, who held that it was God the Father who
suffered in the person of Jesus Christ. The Sabellians were
so called from SabeUiuSy a bishop of Upper Egypt, who
flourished near the fourth century. He was a disciple of
Nocius, and taught that the Deity appeared in the Old Dis-
pensation as the Father, in the New as the Soti ; and that he
descended on the Apostles as the Holi/ Ghost : that is, that
he was one God with three names.

261

the hypothesis is highly improbable, that the bishops
assembled at that council all agreed in drawing up
a profession of faith which they knew to be funda-
mentally opposed to the doctrines held in the three
preceding centuries ; yet surely they would not
have dared to assert, with such a mass of evidence
before them, that they were supporting the same
doctrine which had always been preached. They
would have taken the bolder and more consistent
ground of saying, that the Fathers who preceded
them had gradually corrupted the purity of the
Gospel. But their language is the very opposite
to this. They drew up the exposition of their
faith in the plainest and strongest terms, explain-
ing every article so as to meet the varied objections
and subtile sophistry of conflicting heresies ; they
were driven to assert the divinity of Christ with
more minuteness and precision of language than
it had ever been necessary to use before ; and yet
they declared, that every article of their belief had
been held and preached from the days of the
Apostles to their own. Nor did any person venture
to rise up and contradict them by saying, that the
Catholic church for the first three centuries had
believed in the simple humanity of Jes2is Christ.^ But,
Gentlemen, to proceed : — the Defendants, in the ex-
position of their creed, go all along upon the principle

1 Vide Burton's Test, of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 448.
s 3

262

of their right to receive or to reject such parts and
portions of Scripture as the reasoning faculties of
men, of men like themselves, approve or disapprove ;
and hence they conceive that Christ was not only
a human being, but a man marked with the same
" ignorance, prejudices^ cmdfrailties^^^ as characterise
every other man : in short, that he w as only a very
common man gifted with very uncommon endow-
ments. As a proof of this " ignorance^^ they conjee-
ture that " Jesus knew not the honour and dignity
for which he was intended, until after his baptism,"
which, we all know, took place when he was about to
enter upon his public ministry. Now, upon the face
of the Gospel history, it seems to me that his wisdom
was most extraordinary, even at the early period of
the twelfth year of his age, when, as we read, he went
up with his parents to keep the passover at Jerusa-
lem, and took the opportunity of leaving their com-
pany unobserved, and, after a search of three days,
was found in the schools of the Rabbins, within the
temple, " Mis Father'' s Iwuse^^ as he called it, hear-
ing their arguments, and replying to them in a
manner " and v/ith an understanding that asto-
nished all who heard him." And w^hat was the
language he used in reply to the remonstrances of
his mother for having deserted, and caused her and
her husband such anxiety ? " How is it that ye
sought me ? wdst ye not that I must be about my
Father's business" — the business of man's salva-

263

tion ? To me, and I think also to you. Gentlemen,
these words convey an unquestionable proof that
Christ, as man, knew from the earliest time what
purpose his coming into the world was to answer,
and why it was that he had come " down from
heaven to do his Father's will." Again, to say
that Christ had human ^^ jprejudices^^ is what I
think none have shown, and none can prove,
unless, indeed, that can be called prejudice, which
led him first to prefer his own people and nation,
the chosen of God, before others, in offering the
terms of his mighty salvation; and to have per-
sonally visited them, and not the Gentiles. Unless
his consideration of the poor^ rather than of the
rich, in his pastoral visitations ; and his preference
of the submissive and teachable disposition of the
ignorant, to the self-conceited and opinionated
Scribes, and others of the wise, be called prejudice ;
he assuredly had none. And, with respect to the
''''frailties " to which he is also said to have been
subject — if by the expression more be meant than
the natural iiifirmities which flesh is heir to, I, on
behalf of the Christian world, repel the insinuation
with the indignation and scorn which it deserves ;
for it is impossible to forget that Jesus, the holy
Jesus, " did no sin, neither was guile found in his
mouth." ^ And it is upon this firm ground, that

1 1 Peter, ii. 22.
s 4

264

Christ " did no sin^^'' that I would take my stand
against all the host of sceptics, to maintain his
righteous claim to divinity. Whatever is of the
earth must, in its inherent nature, be depraved and
earthly : but here is a being in the form of man,
obnoxious to the common infirmities of a created
and fallen nature, and yet xvithout sin, " "joithout
spot or blemish ! " ^ Here is one having outwardly
all the bodily incidents of humanity, with a mind
altogether heavenly and divine, and incapable of
taint ! Here is a man with a body that it was not
possible for death to hold captive or to corrupt,
yet with a spirit that was in heaven while he him-
self was on earth ! " No man," saith he, " hath
ascended up into heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in
heaven ! " Here is a proof of his divinity spring-
ing from one of the simplest circumstances in the
particulars of his history; yet a circumstance of
such immense importance, that it was foretold by
ancient and authentic prophecy,'^ confirmed by its
actual accomplishment, acknowledged by every be-
liever of the Gospel, and denied by no enemy, —
by none, indeed, save only by Unitarians.^

1 1 Peter, i. 19. 2 Isaiah, liii. 9.

3 It seems incredible, but still it is so, that the Unitarians,
and the Unitarians only, deny that Christ was sinless. The
trash brought to prop up this horrible perversion may be seen
in a long note on Hebrews, vii. 28. of the Improved Version.
Yet what say the Scriptures ? —

God

265

The Defendant next proceeds to say, " that,
after his baptism, Christ retired to the wilderness,
where he was fully instructed in the nature of his
mission^ and invested mth voluntary miraadous
pots:ers, ischich, hy the visionary scene of his tempt-
ation^ he was instructed to exercise, not for his own
personal advantage, hut solely for the purposes of his
mission,'' — insinuations the most gross and the
most degrading. This very common man, as they
make of the divine Jesus, required, according to
their belief, forty days' instruction, in retirement,
for the knowledge of his mission ; when his own
simple, fearful, ignorant disciples were prepared
for theirs by the momentary conversion wrought
on them by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente-
cost — by the instantaneous impulse of that Spirit
which he, Christ, their own Lord and Master, him-
self poured out upon them ! After this we are told

God hath made him to be sin for us, who hieiu no sin. —
2 Cor.v. 21.

He was tempted like as we are, i/et ivithout sin. — Heb.iii. 13.

Whoso committeth sin, transgresseth also the law, for sin is
the transgression of the law : but in him^sno^m. — lJohn,iii. 4,5.

Christ, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without
spot to God. — Heb. ix. 1-i.

He once suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust.—
1 Pet. iii. 18.

He shall appear a second time without sin. — Heb. ix. 28.

He that committeth sin is of the De\'il ; whosoever is born
of God doth not commit sin. — 1 John, iii. 8, 9.

Christ himself asked, Which of you convinceth me of sin ?
— John,viii. 46. and John,xiv. 30.

266

that a visionary scene was presented to his mmcl, in
which an ideal Spirit came to tempt him to fail
in the promise he had made of savmg mankind.
Now, mark the consequence which is to follow these
visionary trials. By the example which he gave
in resisting the allurements of an unreal tempter,
he is to teach mankind how to resist temptations
that were to be real, and of perpetual occurrence.

0 most lame and impotent conclusion ! But the
absurdity ends not here. He was, moreover, en^
dued with a voluntary power of working miracles ;
but, as this teacher was open to frailties and to sin,
it was necessary to guard against an abuse of this
voluntary power : this restraint, therefore, w^as
cautiously imposed upon him, " that he should
not work miracles for his own advantage or profit,
but solely for the purpose of his mission ! " What
more earthly and groveling can be conceived than
this ! Really there is something so puerile, so
contemptible, so absurd, in these vile suppositions,
that I cannot further stoop to refute them, nor can

1 suppose that any Jury in this country were so
void of understanding or feeling as to require that
I should; much less can I deem it necessary to
rebut that further charge of ignorance imputed to
" Himv/ho knew all things," of incapacity to judge
of what was real, and what was unreal, as regarded
himself; and that he should be in such a state of
doubt, uncertainty, and blindness, as " to apprehend

26*?

himself transported into heaven^ U'hen only he was
Javoiired with a divine vision}

Next, Gentlemen, we come to another point of
great importance. After all that we have heard
and believed, what, think you, was the pm'port of
the death of Christ ? Perhaps you are irrational
enough to think, with St. Paul, that he offered
" himself a sacrifice to God for the sins of the
world?" that " he died for our sins?" that " he
was delivered for our offences?" that " he tasted
death for every man ? " or, with St. Peter, perhaps,
you think that " he bare our sins in his own body
upon the tree?" that "he once suffered for our
sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring
us to God ? " and that in this manner he fulfilled
the prediction of Isaiah, — " He hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows, and the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all?"^ " No such
thing," say the Defendants : " you and the two
Apostles are wholly in an error. Christ did not
suffer death to appease the wrath, or to satisfy the
justice, of God, In no sense did he make an atone-
mentfor sin? You are entirely mistaken, and so
is St. John when he ignorantly says, ' He is the
pi'opitiation for our sins ; and not for our sins only,

1 Calm Inquiry, p. 449.

2 1 Cor. XV. 3. Rom. iv. 25. 1 Pet. ii. 24. 1 Pet. iii. 18.
Isaiah, liii. 4.

3 Calm Inquiry, p. 450.

26S

but also for the sins of the whole world/ ^ The
idea is as contrary to reason as you must see it is
to Scripture. No : " the sole purport of Christ's
death was, that he might fall a martyr to the
truth." « To what truth ?" you ask ; " to the
truth of our being redeemed and saved by him?"
No : ^^ to the tmth of his resurrection from the grave.
This, and this only, was the purport of his coming
into the *is:orldP Now, Gentlemen, you will have
the goodness to bear in mind that Christ, pointing
to his own body, said, " Destroy this Temple, and
in three days / will r^ise it up." " / lay down
my life, that I might take it again ; / have power
to lay it down, and / have power to take it
again." ^ Yet he elsewhere says, " As The Father
raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so
The Son quickeneth whom he will." ^ Who can
read these passages and not see that the Son made
himself a voluntary sacrifice, and that the Father
and the Son are spoken of as possessing equal
power ? With respect to the particular mode of
death which Christ was to suffer, our Lord did
not think fit to disclose it otherwise than by a
similitude ; that as the brazen serpent was raised
up by Moses, in order that the children of Israel,
at the sight of it, might be cured of bodily disease,

> 1 John, ii. 2. 2 John, xi. 19. and x. 17.

3 John, V. 21.

269

so the Messiah was to be Ufted up, that, by a sted-
fast looking to, and firm belief in him, so raised up,
all men might be healed of the spiritual disease,
the disease of sin, — " that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have eternal life." No
words could more pointedly express the efficacy of
the death of Christ. He is lifted up,^ or crucified,
in order that whosoever believeth in him may
have eternal life. Now, surely men might have
believed (and many did believe) that Jesus was the
Messiah, a Prophet sent from God, without his
being crucified ; and, indeed, our Saviour does
not say that he was to be crucified that men might
believe in him, but in order that those who did
believe in him might be saved. It is then a plain
and necessary inference, that the death of Christ
was the indispensable condition of man's salvation,
and that the belief required of Christians is a
belief in the efficacy of that death." ^

Yet it is but fair to the Defendants to say, that
if only to prove the certainty of the resurrection
from the grave were the object of the death of
Christ, and the instruction of mankind in morality,
were the sole purport of his coming into the world,
certainly a very common man with the delegated

I " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me." " This," adds the Evangelist, " he said,
signifying what death he should die."

"- Bishop Blomfield's " Five Lectures," p. 4:7.

270

powers of heaven was quite sufficient to answer these
purposes ; and all that our Scriptures tell us, how,
" that he purchased the Church of God with his
own blood ; " — '^ that he came to give his life a
ransom for many ; " — " that we are bought with a
price ; " — " that he redeemed us to God by his
blood ; " ^ — and all such things, are merely the
illusions of a vain philosophy, upon which we can
build nothing ; although St. John would persuade
us that " through faith in him we are no longer
children of wrath, but are made children of grace,
for, as many as received him, to them gave he
power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe in his name ; which were born not of
blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God." ^ But we have not so learned
Christ : we have been taught from our youth up
tmtil now, with those Scriptures in our hands, that
Christ was the " Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world ; " that the whole Jewish ceremonial
law was one continued type of his coming into the
world to offer himself a piacular victim, an expia-
tory sacrifice for the sins of the human race ; that
the paschal lamb, a male, a firstling without spot or
blemish, to be killed, but whose bones were not to

• Acts, XX. 28. Matt. XX. 28. and 1 Tim.ii. 6. 1 Cor. iv. 20.
Rev.v. 9. and 1 Pet. i. 19.
•2 John. ii. 12.

271

be broken, and whose blood was to be poured out
upon the earth, was the emblem of the Lamb of
God, and that thus the Jewish law of ceremonies
"was the schoolmaster which brought us to Christ,"
by showing that he was the substance and reality
of what that law was the mere shadow. St. Paul
has indeed said, in language which I should have
thought it impossible to have misunderstood : —
" We are justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Jesus Christ : whom God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood." ^ — " When we were yet without strength,
in due time Christ died for the ungodly." " — " God
commended his love towards us, in that while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more
then, being now justified by his blood we shall be
saved from wrath through him : for if, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by his life." ^ But on these points,

1 Rom. iii. 24. The word which is here rendered prO'
p'ltiation, means, properly, a propitiatory victimy QXaGri'jpwv).
In 1 John, ii. 2. the word signifies the propitiation itself,
(iXacTfiog). — Schleusner in voce.

2 Rom. v. 6.

3 Rom. v. 10. The death of Christ is here so distinctly
spoken of as the mean, or medium, of our atonement, or re-
conciliation with God, KartjWdyijfxtv t<^ Bi<^ did tov Qavdrov
Tov 'Xiov av-ov, that the doctrine of the atonement by his
blood would stand immoveably upon this single text of Scrip-
ture. — Bishop Blomfield.

272

the Apostle and the Defendants are directly at
issue ; and as we stand wondering how it is possible
for any to elude the force of these unequivocal de-
clarations, in comes the Defendant Priestley, with
his pruning knife in hand, and, without attempting
to untie the knot, cuts it asunder, exclaiming, " I
do not see that we are under any obligation to
believe this or that, merely because it was an opinion
held by an Apostle ! " ^ We however feel ourselves
bound by such an obligation, and prefer the testi-
mony of St. Paul, supported as he is by St. Peter,
who says, " We are redeemed wdth the precious
blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and
without spot;" — backed, as they both are, by the
prophets Daniel and Isaiah, - to the rash judgment
of those who have thus dared to tax this chosen vessel
of the Lord with error and inaccuracy.^

The Defendants, withholding from us salvation

' Hist, of Early Opinions, vol.i. p. 163.

2 iPet. i. 19. Dan.ii. 24. Isaiah, liii. 6—12.

3 I think I have shown that the Apostle Paul often reasons
inconclusively. — Priestley's Hist, of Corrup. vol.ii. p. 370.

Such, no doubt, was the Apostle's meaning, if he had any
meaning at all. — Belsham's Trans, of St. Paul's Ep. vol. i.
p. 171.

The Apostle does not say that he was inspired to assert
the literal truth of the Mosaic history of the fall ; probably he
knew no more of it than ive do. — Ihid. vol.i. p. 110.

This incorrectness of style is not uncommon in the sacred
writers, and St. Paul has before availed himself of the am-
biguity of the word angel, — Improved Version, note on
Heb.ii. 5.

273

through the satisfaction and blood of Christ;
having cut Him down to the standard of a mortal
and a very common man, proceed next to deny,
contrary to our fondest, and, as we thought, our well
founded hopes, that Christ is our Intercessor, Me-
diator, and Advocate, " sitting on the right hand
of the Majesty on high," to intercede with God
for his people. They affirm that he has never as-
cended from the earth at all, but is merely " tsoith-
dra-ison ; " and this " removal,^' say they, '^from the
society of mankind is a circumstance described as an
ascension into heaven ;^^ intimating that this super-
stitious belief springs from the heathen notion of
an apotheosis of a human creature ; so that, in
fact, what happened to Christ was only the re-
petition of what had previously been done in the
case of Lazarus. Now, St. Paul's character on
this account ought to be less appreciated than it
is ; for he has again led us into error by stating,
that " Christ, our High Priest of good things to
come, has entered into the Holy Place, a greater
and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands;"
— and not only has St. Paul been mistaken on this
point, but David and Micah also, who both pre-
dicted that Christ should ascend up on high, and
that the gates of heaven should open to him, the
King of Glory.^ And, if my memory does not

I Heb.ix. 11. Micah, ii. 13. Ps.lxviii. 18. Ps.xxiv. 9.
T

274

deceive me, I think our Saviour himself, when he
appeared to Mary Magdalene, said, " Touch me
not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father ; " —
having long previously said to Nicodemus, '* No
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven : " — nor must I forget to remind
you that he still more expressly said, " I am the
living h^ead^'' (in contrast with the bread or manna
which fell fi'om heaven upon the Israelites), — "I am
the living bread, which came down from heaven ; "
— an expression which the Jews understood to be
an assumption of divinity, and which, indeed, gave
such offence to his disciples, that, remarking it,
he said, " Does this offend you ? What and if
ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up "inhere he
'was before?" ^ All this the Defendants represent
as improbable, useless, metaphorical, unreal, and
altogether untrue. According to them, Christ is
said in Scripture to have created all things by a
figure ! — he made an atonement for the sins of
mankind by a figure! Satan and all Angels
are fictitious personages ; and here Clu'ist is said
to have ascended into heaven by a figure ! Yet
when our Lord "led his disciples out to Bethany
and blessed them," he did not appear in a figure
before them, but was actually, corporeally, present
with them : he w^alked out from the city in their
company, and when he had reached Bethany, —

1 John, vi. 42.

275

when he had conversed with them, and given them
his blessing, they saw him, not suddenly snatched
from their view, as he had been from the sight of
the tw^o disciples at Emmaus, but they beheld him
slowly and gradually rise up into the heavens ;
and as they stood gazing upwards, in the direction
beyond which their mortal ken could not reach,
there came two Angels in human form, who ad-
dressed not one but all of them, " Ye men of
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into
heaven^ shall so come in like manner as ye have
seen him go into heaven" ^ And thus, "as he
came from God, so he went to God." ^

Having denied us Christ as our sacrifice oi
atonement, — havingdenied him to be our Advocate,
Intercessor, and Mediator with God in heaven, —
having robbed us of those blessings which could
only be purchased by his blood, and which the
sufferings, and death, and blood of none but Em-
manuel himself could obtain for us, — the Defend-
ants aim to leave us still more comfortless, by taking
away from us the gracious influence of that Holy
Spirit which was given to supply his removal, —
given to comfort, to guide, to encourage and assist
us, in all dangers ghostly and bodily ; and we are
told what, if true, we should receive with infinite

' Acts, i. 11. - John, xvii. 3.

T 2

276

concern and amazement, that " the personal or
sensible connection which Christ promised, was
only to continue dw^ing the apostolic age, since
which he is withdrawn from all sensible (and, by
inference, all imperceptible) intercourse with the
world; though, perhaps, he may be (wherever he
is) still attentive to its concerns." *

Gentlemen, — Can you consent to give up for
yourselves and your children, and for the Christian
world, all these mighty blessings ? Will you con-
sent to yield all the clear and express promises
made of them in your Scriptures, without some
resistance? The witnesses who have appeared
before you this day have shov/n to demonstration,
that the Apostles, one and all, speak and declare
against this cruel and wicked plunder of our spi-
ritual possessions. Upon what grounds do the
Defendants set up their plea for this oppression
and robbery ? Will they venture to say that the
inspired teachers of these doctrines were mistaken
in these points ? and that they have taught us not
" the truth as it is in Jesus?" You would scarcely
believe it possible, had you not heard it, that they
do virtually assert this. They declare "that they
utterly deny the universal inspiration of these \s:riters,
but they judge of the genuineness^ the meanings and
the credibility of their works, exactly as they judge

1 Calm Inquiry, p. 453.

277

of any other ancient writing : " that is, by the
measure of their own reason crippled and paralysed
by their peculiar prejudices and their erring will.
Now, to this 1 answer by using the words and lan-
guage of one of the witnesses, — " You will esteem
it an objection of little weight, that the modern
advocates of the Unitarian tenets cannot otherwise
give a colour to their wretched cause than by
denying the inspiration of the sacred historians,
that they may seem to themselves at liberty to
reject their testimony. You will remember that
the doctrines of the Christian revelation were not
originally delivered in a system, but interwoven in
the history of our Saviour's life. To say, there-
fore, that the first preachers were not inspired in
the composition of the narratives in which their
doctrine is conveyed, is nearly the same thing as
to deny their inspiration in general. You will,
perhaps, think it incredible that they who were
assisted by the Divine Spirit when they preached,
should be deserted by that Spirit when they com-
mitted what they had preached to writing. You will
think it improbable that they who were endowed
with the gift of discerning spirits, should be endowed
with no gift of discerning the truth of facts. You
will recollect one instance upon record, in which
St. Peter detected a falsehood by the light of in-
spiration; and you will perhaps be inclined to
think that it could be of no less importance to the
T 3

27S

Church, that the Apostles and Evangelists should
be enabled to detect falsehoods in the history of
our Saviour's life, than that St. Peter should be
enabled to detect Ananias's lie about the sale of his
estate. You will think it unlikely that they wha
were led by the Spirit into all truth, should be
permitted to lead the whole Church for many ages
into error; that they should be permitted to leave
behind them, as authentic memoirs of their Mas-
ter's life, narratives compiled, wdth little judgment
or selection, from the stories of the day, from facts
and fictions in promiscuous circulation. The cre-
dulity which swallows these contradictions, while
it strains at mysteries, is not the faith which will
remove mountains. The Ebionites of antiquity,
little as they were famed for penetration and dis-
cernment, managed however the affairs of the sect
with more discretion than our modern Unitarians.
They questioned not the inspiration of the books
which they received ; but they received only one
book, — a spurious copy of St. Matthew's Gospel,
curtailed of the two first chapters." ^

It is extraordinary with what pains and anxieties
the Defendants labour to dishonour Him who
claimed for himself the same honour that v/as due
to his heavenly Father. With the same disregard
of Scripture, the same aim to pervert it to a mean-

' Horsley's Sermons, vol.iii. p. 87,

279

ing suited to their own earthly notions, they pre-
tend to show that Christ when he comes to judg-
ment, that is, from his seat in heaven, with all the
retinue of Angels and all the heavenly host, will
come forth, not from the right hand of God, but
from some uncelestial abode with a delegated power
as a sort of puisne Judge of the great Assize, with
the Apostles associated with him in the same com-
mission.^ But let any one read only the latter
half of the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew's
Gospel, and say whether we have not, in that sub-
lime Scripture, not only reason for the expectation
of a very different advent, but a hope of the coming
of such a judge, in that most awful and tremendous
day of trial, of which no groveling scheme of ra-
tional religion can deprive us. With gratitude to
the all-merciful Father in heaven, we accept the
coming of the Son of Man as our great Judge, be-
cause he has been made flesh for us, and has taken
a human body in which " he has been tempted in
all points, like as we are, yet without sin."

Having made every attempt to lower the dignity
of our Saviour, it is only mere consistency in the
Defendants to deny that he can be a proper object
of religious worship, although he himself said, " Ye
believe in God, believe also in me." This denial
and the grounds of it have been so fully and so com-

1 Calm Inquiry, p. 453.
T 4

280

pletely refuted by the evidence of the witnesses,
that it is unnecessary for me to attempt to add
greater weight to their arguments ; I shall, there-
fore, only observe, in passing, that St. John appears
to me to establish the claim which the blessed Son
of God demanded, when he required " that all
men should honour the Son even as they honour
the Father." ^ " These things have I written unto
you, that ye may believe on the name of the Son
of God. And this is the confidence we have in
him, that if we ask any thing according to his
will, he heareth us. And if we know that he
hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we
have the petitions we desired of him." ^ But in
another part of the same epistle, tlie same precept
is repeated, with this only difference, that the word
" God " is used instead of " Christ." We have
confidence towards God, and whatsoever we ask,
we receive of him." "^ Now, I ask, can any man
read these two passages, and doubt for a single mo-
ment whether his Saviour be the God that heareth
prayer ? "* The witness Burton has shown that it
was the practice of the earliest Christians to address
prayer to Christ ; and to his testimony I have only
to add that of Justin Martyr. " We worship
and adore," says he, " the God of Righteousness,

• John, V. 23. - 1 John, v. 13, 14.

3 1 John, iii, 21. "* Bishop Home's Sermon xxxiv.

281

and his Son, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy : " —
" We hold it unlawful to worship any but God
alone." In this he is joined by Origen, who says,
"We worship and adore no creature, but the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost." ^ It must be ob-
served, also, that when Christ prayed himself to
the Father in the character of a teacher sent unto
them, he speaks with propriety as if the Father
were the only God, and he himself a man. " This
(saith he) is life eternal, that they might know thee
the o?ily true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent." But when he has once said, " 1 have
finished the work which thou gavest me to do," —
then another scene opens upon us : we are in heaven ;
Christ is ascended to the right hand of the Majesty
on high ; the earthly things, the earthly offices, of
the Messiah are vanished ; and if we give in to this
conception, we shall rightly feel and understand
what follows : — " And now, O Father, glorify thou
me with thine own self, with the glory which I had
with thee before the world was."^ Phny, who wrote
in the beginning of the second century, and who was
employed by the emperor Trajan to examine into
the principles of the sect of the Christians, says : —

' Justin Martyr, Apol. 4-. Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom.
lib.i.

•^ Compare John, xvii. 3, 4. 11. John, x. 30. Lev. xxiv. 16.
See Hey's Lectures, vol.ii. p. 266.

282

" Their custom is to meet on a certain day before
it is light, and among other parts of their worship
they sing an hymn to Christ, as their God^^ ^ And,
beyond all this, Christ himself said, " He that hath
seen me, hath seen the Father." — '^ I am in tJie
Father, and the Father in me." — "Whatsoever ye
shall ask in my name, that "imll I doj'' ^ — Yet, di-
rectly in the face of all this, the Defendants hazard
this bold, and, as I think, most false assertion : —
We are fully persuaded, in refusing this homage,
whicli is in itself poh^theistical and idolatrous, that
we act in perfect conformity to the authority and ex-
ample of Jesus, and in a manner of which he him-
self would testify the most entire approbation, if he
were to appear in person upon earth.'^ This is as
much as to say, We are right in our opinion that
Christ is a mere common man, and as such, worship
to him is an act of superstitious idolatry; and if you
ask us why we say so, in flat contradiction to all

1 Carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem.
— Lib.x. ep. 97.

Eusebius quotes the Presbyter Cains as appealing to
Melito, Irenaeus, and Clement, whether they did not declare
Christ to be both God and Man, and whether " the songs
and psalms, written from the ^rst by the faithful brethren,
did not ascribe divinity to Christ, and celebrate him as the
Word of God ? " '^aXixol ck oaoi Kal ujdai a.d(\(pu>v aiz apxVQ
VTTO ttkttCjp ypa(pel<Tai TON AOPON TOY e£OY TON XPISTON
•YMN0Y2I eEOAOrOYNTES. — Hist. Eccl. lib.V. c.28.

2 John, xiv. 9. 11. 13.

^ Cahn Inquii'y, p. 454.

283

that you pretend to prove, our answer is, — We
will give no other reason than this, and a sufficient
one it is, viz., that we are quite sure that we are
right. Then again they return to the charge, and
take up their former position, and say, " Jesus
declared himself to be a man, a fact which must
be admitted without hesitation ; " and it is readily
admitted by all Christians; for we, one and all,
declare that, truly, " he was made man, — made of
a woman." " But," they continue, " all that is as-
serted of his divinity is founded merely 7ij)on oblique
hints^ obscure^ Jigurative^ and ambiguous phi^aseo-
logy.'^ ^ " How then," we ask, " do you get rid of
such as are not obscure, but which speak clearly and
simply to the point?" " Oh," they reply, " all
that you conceive to speak of the divinity of Jesus,
applies not to himself, but to the divine original of
his doctrine?^ " Why, is not Christ said to be the
Creator and Maker of all things ?" I ask. " Yes,"
they answer ; " but you are surely not so simple as
to conceive that he was the Maker of the natural
isoorld: no, no, he was Maker, we tell you, of the
new creation^ — the new moi'al world ! " " But
Christ is said to be with God, and to be God him-
self." " Ay, so your Scriptures say ; but even
them you do not understand, for they speak of
him thus, only to imply that he was invested with

1 Calm Inquiry, p. 456.

284

a power of working miracles, and is called a god
only in the same sense that Moses was a god to
Pharaoh. But, let us tell you, to put an end to all
farther dispute, that Christians have as great and
just a claim to divinity as Christ himself had, inas-
much as they are the sons or children of God." *

Can it be necessary to go farther into this
rational scheme of rational Christians, to show the
defamatory blasphemous nature of this abhorrent
and truly ungodly system ? There is no arguing
vrith men who have no other data than their own
shifting unstable fancies to reason upon ; and, as
their Scriptures and ours are so directly opposed
to each other, it is in vain to expect that we can
maintain any one doctrine in common with them.
The witnesses have proved again and again, and
they have adduced evidence from the most learned
and pious of the Christian world to show, that
Jehovah, in the Old Testament, and our Lord, in
the New, are one and the same ; yet these men,
perverse to the very last, persist in saying (but it
is only saying) that the Scriptures, ours and theirs,
explicitly and repeatedly assert " that Christ was
not personally concerned in any of the former dis-
pensations of God to mankind, either to the Pa-

• The same, or even stronger^ expressions are applied to
Christians in general than those from which the deity of
Christ is visually inferred. — Calm Inquiry, p. 458.

285

triarchs or to the Jews:" yet, if acklitional testi-
mony were wanted to establish the direct contrary,
I would adduce that simple circumstance which
took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman
soldier with his spear pierced the side of Jesus,
and which St. John says was done in the fulfilment
of prophecy, — " They shall look on him whom
they have pierced." ' Now, upon referring to the
original prediction, we find that it is Jehovah intro-
duced, saying, " They shall look upon ME whom
they have pierced."'- But, setting all this aside,
allow me, Gentlemen, to put a case on which you
can as well judge as any theologians whatever.

The New Testament represents, and Jesus as-
serted, that he was man : now, the same Scriptures,
and the same Jesus, as often, if not often er, affirm,
and still more frequently imply, that he was the
Son of God, one with the Father. If we adopt
the reasoning and the argument made use of by
the Defendants, I can, with equal truth and pro-
priety, upon tlieir owm grounds, maintain that
Jesus Christ was God, and not man : but, taking
the true and correct mode of simple and legitimate
reasoning, we arrive at this point, that he was
both God and man, " God of the substance of

1 Compare John, xix. 37. with Zech. xii. 10.

2 In Gen. XV. 1. 4., 1 Sam.iii. 7.21. and xv. 10., 1 Kings,
xiii. 9. 17. and xix. 9. 15., Ps. cvii. 20., have mn' nDT Debar
Yehovah^ The Word of Jehovah.

^86

the Father, begotten before the worlds ; and man
of the substance of his mother, born in the world ;
equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, but
inferior to the Father as touching his manhood : "
" who," says St. Paul, " in the days of his fesh,
when he had offered up prayers and supplications,
with strong crying and tears, unto him that was
able to save him from death, and was heard in that
he feared : though he were a Son, yet learned he
obedience by the things which he suffered." ^ And
why was it that he took upon him this flesh, and
became Son of God, of God ; and Son of Man, of
woman ; and was made subject to these sufferings,
and to this death ? Because it was originally fore-
told, and first promised, that the seed of the Woman
should bruise the serpent's head. Observe, Gen-
tlemen, " the seed of the TVoman : " no mention
is made of the Man : so that this birth of the Sa-
viour was to be effected, not after the ordinary
and natural manner ; for then, how could Christ
have been the Son of God (properly so called), as
the anofel Gabriel had declared ? No : this birth
was to be accompanied with superhuman circum-
stances ; so that, when Isaiah said, " A Virgin shall
conceive, and bear a Son," the Jews did not, nor
could they then, comprehend how that were pos-
sible to happen. But afterwards the difficulty was

' Hei>. V. 7, 8.

287

removed, and we have seen how Christ was bodi
God and Man, — God, as generated by his pre-
existing Divinity, which overshadowed the Virgin ;
and Man, as born of Womcni, of the V'irgin her-
self.

The last argument I shall adduce in proof of
Christ's being " very God of very God," is that
furnished by the Jews themselves, when, upon
several occasions, they chai'ged our Lord with
blasphemy for his assumption of divinity, and for
his putting himself upon an equality with the One
God whom they worshipped. On one of these
occasions he declared to the Jews that fact openly
and unambiguously, — "I and the Father are
one:" upon which they immediately took up
stones to put him to that death which the law
sanctioned against blasphemers ; and when he
remonstrated with them against the act, and re-
minded them of the many good works which he
had done amongst them, what was their reply ? —
" For a good work we stone thee not, but because
thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'" ^ Here it
is evident that his claim to divinity brought this
charge against him ; for it had not been blasphemy
if his claim had been merely to the title of a god
by virtue of his office. Again, when, upon another
occasion, he told the Jews, " Before Abraham was,

' Levit. xxiv. 14. 16. John, x. 33.

288

I am ; " the assumption, not only of a pre-existing
state, but of the title of Jehovah (I AM), again
brought upon him their indignation, at what they
conceived his abhorrent blasphemy, and once
more they would have stoned him to death, had
he not exerted his own inherent heavenly power,
and vanished from their sight, by the exercise
of that miraculous power which he only rarely
exerted for his own personal security during his
ministry.^ Again, when he healed the man sick
of the palsy, by saying, " Man, thy sins are for-
given thee," the Scribes and Pharisees declared
that he had spoken blasphemy by assuming the
attribute and prerogative of God, and of God only,
in his pardon of sin - — Jesus, instead of clearing
himself by disclaiming the intention, persisted in
his right to it; and further, to show that, though
the Son of Man, the pov%er of forgiving sins was
his own attribute, he added, "/ say unto thee,
arise, take up thy couch, and go unto thine home.
And immediately the sick man rose up before them,
took up that whereon he lay, and departed, glori-
fying God." Then foUow^ed all that surprise, and

> When Christ asked those who came to capture him,
" Whom seek ye ? " and they answered him, " Jesus of
Nazareth ; " he said to them, 'Eyw et/a, I AM ! and such was
the effect of his utterance of these words, that they were
struck to the ground, and fell backward. — John, xviii. 6.

- Compare Isaiah, xliii. 25. and Luke, iv. 21.

289

awe, and wonder, which the Defendants say should
have followed, had he been known to be one with
God ; for the people " were all amazed, and glori-
fied God, and wevejilled mth fear, saying, We
have seen strange things to-day." ^ They were
not seized with an uncommon amazement at the
miracle itself, for he had before cured a man of
leprosy under ordinary symptoms of wonder ; but
because the manner of eifecting the miracle sud-
denly proved his divinity, by the discovery of his
own attribute of pardoning sin. In the last place,
when Christ stood arraigned before the High
Priest, and the members of the Jewish Council ;
and the High Priest adjured him to declare whether
he were Christ, the Son of God, he gave them at
once to understand that he laid claim to that
honour, and that he was very God. The High
Priest immediately rent his clothes, in token of his
abhorrence at the assertion, and cried out, " What
further need have we of witnesses ? behold now ye
have heard his hlasjphemy ! " and he was instantly
condemned to death.^ And, indeed, it seems pretty
evident, by all that has been brought before us, that
if the Unitarians had been present upon these oc-
casions, they also would so far have taken part
with the Jews, as to have declared him guilty
of blasphemy. But I trust that you. Gentlemen,

• Luke, V. 26. ^ Matt. xxvi. 65.

290

will have no hesitation in repelling such a charge,
from the blessed Jesus, and of turning it against
those who deny him to be their God, and look
upon us as credulous fools and madmen for be-
lieving him to be ours. And when we have shown

o

you to demonstration, that the Defendants, by their
self-made, rational, scheme and system of religion,
contend,

That Christ is not the Son of the Most High,
nor born of a Virgin.

That he was a mere man, a man of ignorance,
prejudices, and frailties, and not "without sin.

That he was only a Teacher and Prophet more
highly endowed than any other, and iiiferior to
any heavenly being.

That he came into the world only to teach mo-
rality, and suffered only as a martyr to the truth,
and died only to prove a resurrection from the
grave.

That he did not die for the sins of mankind, and
therefore is not our Redeemer.

That he was not the Lamb of God, offered as a
full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice or oblation and
satisfaction to the justice of God, for his fallen and
sinful creatures.

That he did not ascend up into heaven, and
therefore is neither our Advocate, nor Intercessor,
nor Mediator.

That he will only be constituted a Judge of the

291

quick and dead in a commission with his Apostles,
to award a sentence of which we know nothing at
present.

That he had no power and no authority to assist
mankind after his death.

That lie can neither be a Comforter, nor send
the Holy Spirit to dwell among us, and therefore
that we have no Sanctifier.

That there is no Holy Ghost, no Son of God,
no Trinity in Unity.

That there is no Evil Spirit, no Satan, no Devil,
no Wicked One.

That the temptation of Christ in the wilderness
was all a mere vision.

That what the Apostles have written is not to
be regarded in every part as inspiration, but only
so much of it as Unitarians will condescend to ad-
mit ; and therefore the Holy Spirit did not guide
them to all truth. ^

1 Perniciosa cumpriniis est haeresis Sociniana, qua inter
hodiernas, sub nomine Christiano, nulla asque detestanda.
Non enim haec articulum aliquem religionis, sed ejus animam
et fundamenta concutit et evertit ferme secundum hanc, et
Christus nihil est nisi Doctor aliquis, aut Martyr egregius ; ejus
officium, docere duntaxat, non vere redimere ; Evangelium,
altera lex ; justificatio, propter opera ; probitas, solummodo
ethica; infernus, et animae plurimorum post hanc vitam,
nihil; quodque primo loco dicendum fuerat, S. in Deo
Trinitas ludibrium et idolum. Quae omnia, iisque annexa
capita et errores, quantopere totani theologiam et religionem
u 2

292

Now, I ask, what can this " system of the best
practical Deism," as the witness Horsley calls it;
or " this sort of infidelity in disguise," as the great
Warburton designated it, be, but as gross and
scandalous a libel as can be published against the
Christian Religion ; against Jesus Christ our Lord
and Saviour ; and against his holy Apostles ? I
do not mean, however, to say by this that the De-
fendants are not sincere in their principles, but
only to protest against the baneful influence of
their principles, and to show and declare that,
rational Christians as they may deem themselves,
they are egregiously mistaken, and obstinately
perverse in their errors ; and that their principles
only serve to shelter and cover Deists and others,
who, arraying themselves under the guise of Uni-
tarianism, screen from public view and public
odium the indecencies of a more odious infidelity.
There is nothing, indeed, in the system to captivate
the affections of the soul. All there is cold and
comfortless, and these deadly feelings are main-
tained at the expense of all that is fair, and open,
and invigorating, in the Christian scheme ; at the
expense of unsatisfactory quibbles, gross distor-
tions, and crooked criticism, which, though the
coin of an ingenious mint, is base and worthless :

infestent ac corrumpant, nemo est qui non sentiat. — Hoorn-
beck de Socinianismo, p. 441.

293

a system it is, that only flatters a false pride of
sophism, at the expense of all that is pious, all
that is honest and good, in philosophy. I there-
fore earnestly call upon you. Gentlemen, to mark
your abhorrence of it, that it may go forth to all
the world that an enlightened, rational, and reli-
gious Jury, of the most liberal and intelligent king-
dom of the earth, after a full, fair, and clear inves-
tigation, have pronounced the several writings of
the Defendants to be libels against the Established
Religion of the State, — against the Religion of him
who was truly the Son of God. By such a verdict
you may guard, at least, some portion of mankind
from falling under that fearful denunciation, which
we will sincerely hope, through the mercy and
the merits of this injured Christ, may be the final
doom of none. " Of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall they be thought worthy, who
have trodden under foot the Son of God, and have
counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith they
are sanctified an unholy thing, and have done de-
spite unto the Spirit of grace ? "

The Judge then charged the Jury,

Gentlemen of the Jury, — The three Defendants
are charged, on an Information filed by his Majesty's
Attorney-General, with each having written and
published works irreverently reflecting upon the
great fundamental doctrine of the Christian Re-
u 3

294

ligion, — which doctrine, as grounded on Scripture,
the Established Church receives and upholds ; and
therefore the offence with which they are charged
has reference both to the Holy Scriptures and to
the Religion of the State. I need only remind you
that we live in a Christian country, and that the
Legislature has recognised the canonical books of
the Old and New Testament as being authentic
and genuine Scripture, — as being most true and
holy, — as being the inspired Word of God. From
this volume of inspiration has been drawn, by the
wisest, the most learned and pious men, a form of
public prayer and worship, which, also, the Legis-
lature has received as being in exact harmony and
consistency with the Scriptures, fairly and simply
interpreted. The Defendants are charged with de-
nying these Scriptures in many parts to be either
canonical or true, and they have proceeded to alter
them to suit an interpretation which, if right, goes to
show that the State is in error, and that its learned
and pious men are mistaken in their notions of the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They declare
that the Scriptures themselves are incorrect both
with regard to the matter and manner of their con-
tents ; and that, from deducing doctrines not to be
found in them, the community is made polytheistical
and idolatrous in its worship. It must be evident
to you, Gentlemen, that by representing the Na-
tional Faith and worship as corrupt, the object and

295

effect of the writings of the Defendants must be to
alienate the people from belief in the accepted
Scriptures, and also from conforming to the pre-
scribed worship grounded upon them; a proceeding
which the Law of the land will not permit, because
it tends to unsettle and mislead the public mind,
to weaken the sacred cause of religion, and to cut
asunder all the ties which bind the people in social
compact together. The Law of the land, certainly,
cannot so bind the conscience as to compel an in-
voluntary belief on such an awful and high subject
as that of religion ; but it has such a control over
human action, as justly to command outward re-
verence and respect for that belief, and that form
of worship, which the community at large regards
and holds as sacred. However the conduct of the
official advocate of the crown may be considered
as savouring of intolerance and persecution, I, for
one, cannot regret that he has thought fit to bring
this high matter to the scrutiny of a British Jury,
and a British Court of Justice ; because, if what we
have been taught to believe of the holy volume of
Scripture has been false, the sooner we are made
sensible of our error, and can retract from it, the
better and safer it must be for us all : while on the
other hand, if those Scriptures have been cut down,
and mutilated, and misinterpreted, by the Defend-
ants, it is but common justice that their practices
u 4

296

and pernicious errors should be exposed to all the
censure and contempt which they deserve.

Gentlemen, — You have heard this day the body
of evidence brought against the Defendants ; you
have heard and witnessed how they have met it :
but, that you may be guided in your verdict only
by the evidence adduced, and that you may not
be led away to the one side or to the other, by
either the justification of the Defendants, or by
the allegations of the learned advocate, I proceed
to recapitulate the testimony of each witness as it
has been given, and I beg to observe that I shall
forbear making a single comment of my own as I
proceed, that you may be swayed by nothing but
your ow^n clear and unbiassed judgment in return-
ing such a verdict as your consciences approve.

His Lordship then recapitulated the evideiice as
it is here given, \sohen he proceeded to observe : —

I have now fully detailed all the particulars of
the case, as the witnesses have severally deposed to
it ; and have therefore only further to observe, that
Christianity is a part of the law of England, and
was so held from the earliest periods of our history.
At the Reformation, and by several subsequent acts
in the reign of Edward the Sixth, and of Elizabeth,
the form of the national religion was established ;
but after the restoration of Charles ths Second,
the Act of Uniformity, as it was called, was passed,
and provided that form of public prayer which was

297

inserted in the " Common- Prayer Book," and or-
dained to be kept in all parts of the country as a re-
cord, to be produced, if necessary, in courts of justice.
Now, though the Law, as 1 have before observed,
does not forbid the decent discussion of the theo-
logical subjects to which it referred, it does not
allow the Scriptures to be scoffed at, or treated with
irreverence and contempt ; much less does it permit
any part of them to be upheld as false and unwor-
thy of belief. It is for you, Gentlemen, to consider
whether in your judgment, the several writings of
the Defendants which have been brought before
you, and which they have acknowledged to be
theirs, do not come under the description of those
forbidden by the statute ; and whether, if so, they
are not gross libels upon the Holy Scriptures; upon
the Christian Religion; and, consequently, upon the
Religion of the State as by the Law established. If,
in your opinion, the Defendants have erred only in
judgment, and not from any evil intention either to
Religion or to the State, it is still your duty to find
them guilty ; because, the conviction of their having
offended against law or not, rests upon j^our verdict ;
the degree of punishment is to be determined by
the Court ; and, be assured, that will be measured
in exact proportion to the intention with which the
offence has been committed. If, on the other hand,
you are of opinion that the Defendants by their
writings have not traduced the Holy Scriptures

298

and the Christian Religion, — that they liave not im-
pugned that holy doctrine which the Law protects,
and declares to be the fundamental doctrine of
Christian faith and practice, — that they have not
committed the offence imputed to them ; then you
are to pronounce them not guilty. But, in either
case, if you have the least hesitation upon these
points, and cannot at once come to a clear and
certain decision upon them, I must tell you, that
you are then bound in conscience to give the De-
fendants the benefit of your doubts.

The Jury confeyred together without leaving the
box ; and in ahout ten minutes returned by their fore-
man a verdict of — Guilty.

The Attorney-General and the. Judge conferred
together ; after "tichich the Lord Chief Justice thus
addressed the Defendants : —

Joseph Priestley, Theophilus Lindsey,
Henry Belsham : — You have heard the verdict
which a most enlightened jury of your country, after
a long and attentive investigation, have now de-
livered. I studiously abstained, in my charge, from
giving the opinion which the evidence adduced
before the Court led me, in my own mind, to form
of the nature of the publications which have here
been called in question ; that opinion, however,
without prejudice to your case, I may now state,

299

and I do so by declaring it to be in perfect unison
with the verdict just pronounced. It has been well
observed, " that, in spiritual matters revealed by
God, the ground of our certainty lies not in the
evidence of the things, but in the undoubted veracity
of God who has revealed them." This, however,
is not admitted by those who take reason for their
only guide in matters of religion. They affirm that
the veracity of God assures them that they must
have a clear and distinct perception of things in the
natural world before they can give belief to their
reality; and, therefore, if they cannot have this
clear and distinct perception in matters above their
comprehension, they hold, that they are not bound
to believe them. As this objection is made by
those who have assumed the name of " Rational
Christians," I think it not incompatible with my
duty to show them that the objection is not well
grounded, and that it is the cause of that unbelief
which I conceive to be the rock on which your-
selves have split, and which must prove hazardous
to the future happiness, as well as to the present
peace, of all who adopt the same principle.

It is evident that the foundation of all certainty
of knowledge must be laid upon a clear and dis-
tinct perception of that which cannot be compre-
hended, — upon the belief of a Being absolutely
perfect ; for if we have not a clear and distinct
perception of God, then the foundation of all cer-

300

tainty is destroyed at once, and there is no ground
left, even for the belief of the existence of such
a Being. They, therefore, who say that there can
be no clear perception of God without compre-
hending his nature, contradict themselves ; for if
he be an infinite Being, he must be " past finding
out." Hence it is evident, that there may be a
clear perception when the object itself is above
our capacity. Now, whatever foundation there is
in nature for such a perception without under-
standing it, the same and greater there must also
be in such things as are revealed by God, though
they may be above our comprehension. The idea
of God which the mind conceives cannot be so
strong a proof of the existence of an incomprehen-
sible Being, as the evidence of revealed matters of
faith is a proof of their truth, though our senses
are lost in attempting to understand the nature of
them, and the manner of their existence. The
objection made to this is most unreasonable ;
namely, that we are to embrace nothing for truth,
though divinely revealed, but what our reason is
able to comprehend, both as to the nature of the
thing proposed for our belief, and the manner of
its existence. On these grounds, the doctrine of
the Trinity^ Incarnation^ Satisfaction^ and conse-
quently the whole mystery of the Gospel of Christ,
must be rejected as incredible ; because, though
these doctrines have the support of Scripture, yet

301

we are bound to understand them in some other
sense, consonant with our reason. But though
Christianity comes to us with the highest testimony
of its truth, and although we are not bound to
credit any thing but what we have sufficient reason
to beheve to be actually revealed, yet that any
such revelation should be called in question merely
because reason demands a full and adequate con-
ception of it, is a most absurd and unreasonable
pretence, leading to two as absurd consequences.
First, Tliat nothing can be received as true, either
in nature or religion, but what can be fully, clearly,
and simply explained. Now, let any such unbe-
lievers apply this principle to the appearances of
nature, and in one moment they arrive at this
difficulty, — they must not believe that the sun
shines, until they have proved, by demonstrative
arguments, the undoubted truth of the Ptolemaic
or Copernican systems of astronomy, — they can-
not believe the ebb and flow of tides, until they
resolve all the doubts which hang about the dif-
ferent opinions concerning this phenomenon, —
they cannot believe that there is any such thing as
matter in the world, until they discover how the
several parts of it are united, — they cannot be-
lieve that they themselves are possessed of a ra-
tional soul, because they cannot explain its union
with the body. Until they can understand all
these things in nature, it were useless for them to

302

attempt the comprehension of matters of a higher
kind.

For, in the second place, this would imply that
a finite creatm-e might measure the perfections of
an infinite and uncreated Being. To form a clear
conception of God would be to suppose that he is not
of an incomprehensible nature ; for we form an
idea of the Divine Being in our mind by taking
away all the imperfections we find in ourselves ;
and if we can arrive at such a point as that of
seeing that he is absolutely perfect, we are then
called upon to add iiifinity^ that attribute of Divi-
nity, of which, notwithstanding the definitions which
the most eminent philosophers have given, the
human mind can form no conception; it cannot
contemplate any thing so vast as to admit of no
addition, nor any thing so small as to admit of no
diminution.^

" It is therefore a most unreasonable mode of
proceeding," as a very learned writer observes,
" to examine the Word of Revelation with a pre-
conceived resolution to reject every doctrine which
shall transcend the grasp of human reason. The
first step to be ascertained is, whether the Scrip-
tures are, what they profess to be, the word of God.
Having settled this to our satisfaction, the next
duty is, to read them with the best attention we

> See Stillingflect's Origines Sacrse, book ii. c, 8.

303

can give to so important a study : * to search out
the testimonies of the Lord,' with a view to dis-
covering what we are required to beheve concerning
him, and what we are to practise ; to take the
words of Scripture in their plain and obvious sense ;
to compare its doctrines and precepts, in order
that our interpretation of them may be consistent ;
to rest assured that what we are unable to com-
prehend must yet be true, if it is distinctly stated
in the Word of God ; and not to guide ourselves
by any such deceitful rule as this, — that w here
mystery begins religion ends ; that whatever is not
clear need not be believed; a rule by which no
man thinks of guiding himself in any other branch
of knowledge." ^

I have been induced to offer these remarks with
the hope that the subject of them may become a
matter of greater attention and study to you, and
to all who conceive themselves justified in demand-
ing greater and higher evidence than they can
possibly obtain, or, if obtained, than they could
comprehend, and greater than it was clearly in-
tended they should ever possess. I have now
only to communicate to you, that the learned At-
torney-General — having gained all that he aimed
at in this prosecution, namely, an enquiry into a

' Bishop Blomfield's Sermon on " Mysteriousness of Re-
velation no Ground of Objection."

304

subject of such deep and vital importance; and
having shown that the Law of the land protects the
Christian Religion, and suffers it not to be lightly
spoken of, or its sacred doctrines to be scoffed at;
and hoping that the verdict now obtained will
operate as a censure upon your writings, and put
the community on their guard against them ; and,
lastly, feeling that the end and object of justice is
amendment, and not punishment — has moved that
the judgment of the Court be deferred ; and, ac-
cordingly, the judgment of this Courtis so deferred
sine die.

APPENDIX.

PETITION,

PRESENTED MAY 12. 1827, BY JOSEPH HUME, ESQ.

To the Hofwurable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland^
in Parliament assembled.

The humble Petition of the Elders, Deacons, and Members
of the Church of God, meeting in London, and known
as Freethinking Christians,

Sheweth,

That your petitioners are an united and organised religious
body, which, under the appellation of " Freethinking Chris-
tians," has existed for nearly thirty years, separate and distinct
from all other religious communities.

That, whilst the Toleration Act hath secured complete
liberty of opinion, your petitioners complain that, by an act
of the legislature, which passed in the 26th year of the reign
of George II. they are prevented entering into the marriage
state without submitting to a rite of the Established Church
of England, and joining in an act of religious worship with
one of its ordained ministers — which act of worship is a
clear and public admission of the doctrines, the authority and
claims of such church.

That, to avoid all misconceptions as to their motives, to
prove the extent of the grievance of which your petitioners
complain, and to establish the practicability of the relief for
which they pray — they humbly submit to your Honourable
House a declaration of their faith and principles of union.

306 APPENDIX.

That, convinced of the insufficiency of what is called Na-
tural Religion, and confirmed by evidence in their belief in
Revelation, your petitioners receive the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament as containing the revealed will of
God.

That, desirous of obeying in all things the will of God, as
made known by Revelation, they reject all human authority
in matters of religion, making the laws of God, as contained
in the Scriptures, the sole rule of their faith, discipline, and
practice.

That, from a serious, unremitting, and free enquiry into the
Scriptures, they have concluded and believe —

That, " there is none other God but one."

That " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob," " the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the Christ," is " the

ONLY TRUE GoD."

That " Jesus of Nazareth " was " a man approved of God
by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him."

That he died, and, by the power of God, was " raised again,
according to the Scriptures."

That God " hath appointed a day in which he will judge
the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath or-
dained."

That God hath separated to himself a people on earth,
" which is the Church of the living God — the pillar and
ground of truth."

That this Church, as " the household of God," is governed
by God alone, being " built upon the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets, Jesus, the Christ, himself being the
chief corner stone."

That the constitution, laws, and government of this Church
are, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, so expressly set
forth as not to need, but absolutely to preclude, all human
legislation therein.

That this constitution, these laws, and this government,
being of Divine appointment, cannot be violated — cannot
be dispensed with — cannot be altered, abridged, or added
to, without rebellion against God, and treason against his
authoritv.

APPENDIX. 307

That your petitioners, an the Churcli of God, acknowledge
the constitution, maintain the laws, and submit to the go-
vernment, thus given by God to his Church.

They acknowledge Jesus as the sole and exclusive Head
of the Church ; for God " hath put all things under his feet,
and given him to be head over all things to the Church."

They are one united and indivisible Body — " for as the
body is one, and has many members, and all the members
of that one body being many are one," so also is the Church
of God.

Their membei-s possess an equality of rights, no one being
permitted to arrogate to himself religious titles and distinc-
tions, or to call any man master on earth — " for one is your
Master, even the Christ, and all ye are brethren."

They reject all hired or exclusive teachers, and in their
assemblies " admonish one another " and " edify one another"
according to the Scriptures — " for ye may all teach, one by
one, that all may learn and all may be comforted."

They " choose out of themselves " certain officers for the
regulation of their affairs, that all things may " be done de-
cently and in order."

These officers of the Church are Bishops (i. e. overseers)
or Elders and Deacons (i. e. servants) who are to serve and
to take "the oversight thereof— not by constraint but willingly
— not by filthy lucre, but of a ready mind — neither as being
lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."

Your petitioners further submit to your Honourable House,
that, where God hath fully revealed his will to man, the rites,
ceremonies, and acts of worship, in order to be acceptable to
God, must be appointed by him ; and believing that, since the
abolition of the Mosaic ritual and temple worship, no rites,
ceremonies, or public social prayer and worship, have ever
been appointed by Divine Authority, they, as the disciples of
Jesus, and in obedience to his commands, " pray in secret to
the Father," and, as the true worshippers, " worship the
Father in spirit and in truth."

That rejecting, like the Jewish people of old, the pre-
tensions of every Church whose doctrines, discipline, and
worship are not founded on the laws of God without any
X 2

308 APPENDIX.

admixture of human authority, and required, as they are, b}
law, to conform to the established Church in the instance of
marriage, your petitioners declare and avow that the Church
of England^ whose religious worship they are thus called
upon to sanction, they know only as a Church teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men — as a Church profess-
ing a religion tvhich has no other claim than that of being " by
law established " — as a Church whose laws have no earlier
date than Popery, no higher authority than Acts of Parliament ;

— as a Church whose only head is an earthly potentate, fal-
lible in all cases; corrupt and ivicked in the instance of its
founder Henry VIII., yet nevertheless, by law " vested with
all power to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction"

— as a Church whose ministers and pastors are the servants
of the State only, possessing " no manner of jurisdiction eccle-
siasticaly but by and under the King or Queenh Majesty ;'''' — as
a Church whose rites and ceremonies, whether of baptism,
the Lord's Supper, or for the solemnisation of marriage, are
maintained only by a self-asserted authority " to decree Rites
and Ceremonies ; " — as a Church ivhose lordly Prelates and
asj)iring Priesthood retain their office, titles, and privileges in
ojrposition to the clear and express commands of Jesus ; — as a
Church whose tithes and revenues constitute a violation at once
of the rights of property, and of the laws of God; — as a
Church whose unrighteous claims are supported by an appeal
to the hopes and fears of men, profanely asserting " that
every priest of this church hath power and authority from
Almighty God, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to forgive
or to retain the sins of men ; " — as a Church whose unsa^i^J-
tural faith is fulminated by means of a creed which is at the
same time iiitolerant in its spirit and contradictory in its asser-
tions ; " which faith," it is impiously avoived, " except every
one doth keep whole and undefiled, he shall, without doubt,
perish everlastingly;" — as a Church whose canons denounce
curses and excommunication upon all who, following the dic-
tates of conscience, shall, like your petitioners, " affirm that
the form of God's worship, contained in the Common
Prayer," is unscriptural ; « that any of its thirty-nine articles
are in any part uperstitious," or « that the Government oi'

APPENDIX. 309

the Church of England, under His or Her Majesty, by Arch-
bishops, Bishops, Deans, &c. is rei)ugnant to tlie word of
God ; " — as a Church whose alliance with the State hath
produced that a'liel and oj^press'ive " Act of Uniformity ^^'' yet
unrepealed, by which any one who shall speak any thing to
the derogation of the Book of Common Prayer, or any tiling
therein contained, " shall, for the first offence, forfeit a hun-
dred marks ; for the second, four hundred marks ; and for
the thii'd, alt his goods and chattels, and shall suffer impri-
sonment DURING LIFE ! ! "

That this Church — having its foundation in Rome, being a
stipcrstriLcture of ignorance and mystery, of heathenism and
Pojyery — maintained by worldly riches and power, and
guarded by the sword of iJersecution — is, by your petitioners,
regarded as part and parcel of that city shadowed forth in
prophecy — that great city which hath made merchandise of
men's souls, by w hose " sorceries all nations were deceived " —
in which was " found the blood of the Prophets and the
Saints," but which God, by his judgments, hath threatened
to destroy. That in this spiritual Babylon your petitioners
can, as the true worshippers of God, have no lot nor inherit-
ance. Yea, rather than partake of its abominations, they are
prepared to suffer on the altar of its idolatry, mingling their
lives Nvith " the souls of them that were slain for the word of
God, and for the testimony which they held."

Viewing the Church of England as part of such a system,
of Political Religion and Corrupt Spiritual Poiver — regarding
the form of marriage, as contained in the Book of Common
Prayer, as one of the rites of such a Church, how can your
petitioners conform thereunto ? " Hovv" (in the language
of Scripture) " can they do this thing, a«c/ sin against Godf
And if, haply, on the grounds o? false doctrines and corrupt
practices, no objections existed against the Established Church,
yet will it be evident to your Honourable House that, denying
as they do, the authority of any established religion — reject-
ing the claims oiany priesthood — reflising assent to a// public
social worship — your petitioners stand too widely separated
from the Established Church, and indeed from all other re-
X 3

310 APPENDIX.

ligioiis bodies, to join in any religious act with any party —
other than their own — the true Church of God.

Your petitioners, in addition to these theii* broad and
general grounds of objection against the religion established
by law, of which the marriage ceremony forms a part, further
and especially object, against that particular ceremony, —

That it makes a religious rite where God has made none :
marriage being a natural and civil right, which is no where
appointed in the Scriptures to be entered upon by means of a
religious solemnisation.

That it is a Popish rite, first rendered compulsory in the
Church by a corrupt pontiff, as a means of increasing the
revenue of the clergy ; and that, though nominally not re-
garded by the Established Church as a Sacrament — or
Mystery, it is, in substance, and even in terras, made such
in the present Church Liturgy.

That, by reason of its origin from the Popish Mass Book,
together ^v^th the obsoleteness of certain of its terms ; its
forms are superstitious, its meaning has in some instances be-
come obscure, its assertio7is false ; and its allusions indelicate,
offensive, and revolting.

That the worship connected with this ceremony is Idola-
trous, the language of prayer being therein addressed to
" Christ," who, as the Christ, that is, the Anointed or Mes-
siah, is in Scripture expressly called " the Man Jesus," " the
Son of INIan," and who hath himself proclaimed, " thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

That it is open and avowed Polytheism, a plurality of gods
being expressly worshipped and separately invoked therein,
as " God the Father," " God the Son," and « God the Holy
Ghost ; " such Polytheism being contrary both to the laws of
CJod and of our country : to the laws of God, by the declar-
ation of the Apostle, that " to us there is but one God, even
the Father, of whom are all things;" to the laws of our
country, by the 9th and 10th of William IIL cap. 32., as
amended by the 53d George IIL cap. IGO., vvhicli alteration of
the law still leaves exposed to civil disabilities and imprison-
ment, all persons who shall " maintain that there ai*e more
Gods than one."

APPENDIX, 311

That your petitioners, with these views of the church mar-
riage ceremony, and of the established religion of which it is
a part, have ever held it impossible for their members to sub-
mit, and to subscribe thereunto on occasion of their marriages,
without publicly, and in the face of the established church,
protesting against the same.

That the delivery of such protests by your petitioners, to-
gether with their refusal to kneel at " the Altar," and repeat
certain parts of the marriage service deemed by them to be
idolatrous, have exposed your petitioners to great and serious
pain and inconvenience; that the marriages of members of
their body have been, in consequence sometimes refused,
sometimes delayed, sometimes broken off, when partly cele-
brated, and on one occasion adjourned till a future day. That
the members of their body have, in some instances, been kept
in the church several hours waiting the completion of the
marriage ; that in others they have been threatened to be ex-
pelled therefrom by civil force, or be handed over to the
terrors of the ecclesiastical courts, — those hateful remnants of
spiritual tp'anny and popish oppression ; whilst upon some oc-
casions, indeed, the liberality of the officiating minister hath
rendered the situation of your petitioners even the more painflil
and embarrassing.

That your petitioners implore your Honourable House to
put an end to a state of things painful to all the parties con-
cerned therein — necessary to no existing interest of the
coimtry — compelled by no avowed object or policy of the
laws; and affording neither support nor the appearance of
support to the religion established by law.

That whereas the right to contract marriages before their
own congregations being by law allowed to Jews and Quakers,
your petitioners trust it will appear to your Honourable
House, from the above statement of their doctrines and prin-
ciples, that their scruples against conformity with the estab-
lished religion are as serious and as valid as those entertained
by Jews or Quakers; whilst, from the statement of theii-
discipline and church government, it will appear that they are
as closely united and as distinct a body as Jews or Quakers,
— thus offering to the legislature equal securities against the

312 APPENDIX.

performance of clandestine or unlawful marriages. That tiu-
ther evidence can, if required, be offered at the bar of your
Honourable House, as to the unity and identity of > our peti-
tioners as a body, so as fully to justify and superinduce the
conclusion, that, with reference to all the objects of civil
society touching the marriage contract, such contracts may
be entered into before the people known as " Freethinking
Christians," with the same security as those contracted
among the people called Quakers, or the members of the
Jewish persuasion.

That whilst your petitioners will not venture to dictate to
your Honourable House the mode of relief now prayed for,
they take leave to state, that, as far as their own body is con-
cerned, the extending to their members the same exemption
from the operation of the marriage act as that which is en-
joyed by Jews and Quakers, and upon the same principle,
or the permitting them to contract marriages before the
justices of the peace, as in the days of the Commonwealth,
would be a simple process of legislation, and that the same
would be satisfactory to } our petitioners.

That, regarding marriage as a civil rite, your petitioners
seek only to obtain a legal sanction thereto, without a viola-
tion of their consciences : they ask this, as the free citizens of
a free state, — as Protestants, resisting all spiritual domination,
and appealing to the Bible as the great charter of their liber-
ties, — as dissenters, denying the right of the civil magistrate
to interfere in religion, or usurp authority over the consciences
of men, — as the church of God, bound, like its Master and
Head, to " bear witness of the truth," and appealing, in the
language of the Apostles, to the rulers of this world, " whether
it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than
unto God — judge ye."

Thaty regarding the connection of religion with the state as the
primart/ cause of the grievance of which i/our jjetitioners com-
j)lainy and deploring the same, as ha\nng mainly contributed
to the corruption of revealed religioyiy as giving occasion to the
infidel and scoffer to speak evil of religion, and above all, as
being denounced by the judgments and threatenings of God
as made known in the Scriptures ; }our petitioners, beside'

APPENDIX. 31:3

the relief now sought to be obtained, praj- your Honourable
House iojmtmi end to the connection between Church and State
— that so the power and simplicity of divine truth may
appear — that so the word of God may no longer be blas-
phemed— that so the judgments of God may peradvcnture be
averted from our country — when "Babylon the Great"
shall be had in remembrance, and her sins shall have " reached
unto heaven."

That all and several the allegations contained in this pe-
tition — whether as regards the grievance sustained by your
petitioners, their claims as a true church, or all the matters
and things urged against the established religion, and the
marriage ceremony, to which they are by law required to con-
form — your petitioners are prepared to support and prove
at the bar of your Honourable House, or before a convocation
of the clergj- for that purpose assembled ; and they pray for
such alteration in the lav/ as in the premises shall seem meet
to your Honoural)le House.

And your petitioners will ever pra} \

THE END.

London :

Printed by A. & R. Spoltiswoode,
New-Street- Square.

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1 1012 01029 2581