m^ ^wsaBoa^WKm^i
s^upi^^^iiSi^-
n. \ ' ■ -^ ■• ' . ■';-i'4''',:^'v(Vi,.,
from i^t &i6rarg of
(J)rofe00or ^dmuef (giiffer
ixK ^emorg of
^recenfe^ fig
fo t^e feifirarg of
(Princeton 2^§eo%tc<:tf ^eminarg
A
VINDICATION
OF
CERTAIN PASSAGES
A DISCOURSE,
ON OCCASION
OF THE DEATH OF DR. PRIESTLEY, &c,
BY THOMAS BELSHAnr.
TO WHICH IS ANNEXED
THE DISCOURSE
ON THE DEATH OF DR. PRIESTLEY.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
BOSTON :
I'RINTED AND PUBLISHED BY T. B. \VAIT i)' Co.
Sold by W. Weil9....Court-stivet.
1809.
TO THE AMERICAN READER.
Soon after the publication of Mr. Belsham's
Discourse on the death of Dr. Priestley, the Rev.
John Pye Smith addressed to the author a volume
of Letters containing animadversions on some pas-
sages of the Discourse.
As these Letters have been lately published in
this country, the public will no doubt be gratified
by an opportunity of perusing the Discourse which
occasioned them, and Mr. Belsham's Vindicatory
reply to Mr. Smith.
A VINDICATION OF CERTAIN PASSAGES
IN
A DISCOURSE,
ON OCCASION OF THE DEATH OF DR. PRIESTLEY j
AND
A DEFENCE
OF DR. PRIESTLEY'S CHARACTER AND WRITINGS,
IN
REPLY TO THE ANIMADVERSIONS
OF THE
REV. JOHN PYE SMITH.
IN LETTERS TO A FRIEND.
BY THOMAS BELSHAM.
^»Mii e^yoti ^t;A«T7ejW.£Vjjv. Socrates Hisu Eccl. lib. i. c. 8.
BOSTON :
PRINTED BY THOMAS B. WAIT 6- €«.
COURT-STREET.
1809!"
ADVERTISEMENT.
1 HE substance of these Letters has appeared in the
Uni\ersal Theological Magazine ; and at the desire of
some friends, in whose judgment the author places con-
fidence, they are now re-printed in a separate form, with
some corrections, and a few additional notes and observa-
tions.
The author was the more disposed to comply in this
instance witli the wishes of his fi-iends, because, notwith-
standing his extreme disUke to a personal theological
controversy, he was inclined to hope, that a more general
circulation of these Letters might contribute to communi-
cate more correct ideas of the tenets, and to excite a
greater abhorrence of the spirit of Calvinism, tlie direct
tendency of which is to generate hatred both of God and
man, and which represents the character of the Divine
Being in a liglit more odious than that of the voluptuous
Jupiter, of tlie sanguinary and ferocious jNIolOch, or even
of its own imaginary, malignant, and mischievous, bwt not
altogether omnipotent, and infinite. Devil.
The author having been educated in the bosom of Cal-
vinism, knows sonietliiiig of the views and feelings of .r
genuine Calvinist : and from his own observation and ex-
perience he is assured, that such persons are more deserv-
ing of compassion than of censure.* He has also known
• Sec Dr. Prlistli j's account of his own fi-eliiigs >\Iitn Ik- was a practi-
cal CaU-inist. D'ni-oiu-se ou Occasion of Dr. Pritstley's Deatli, p. 18, note.
Hi: tlifre says, " I had occasionally such distress of mind, as it is not in my
" power to describe, and vhifh I still look back upon v,i\h horror."
'> ADVERTISEME.Vl.
among- the Calvinists many persons of great vlety, and
Worth of character, to wiiich, in his Discourse on the
lamented deatii of Dr. Priestley, lie was eager to bear his
testimony, in order to shew, tluvt wiiutever he thought of
the system, he was no enemy to the persons of tiiose who
profess it. If, in the warmth of his zeal to manifest his
cathoUcism, he has inadvertently over-stepped the limits
of perfect correctness, and has appeared to magnify the
t.Ucnts, or the virtues, of Calvinists, beyond their due
proportion, he hopes that they laiU forgive him thit
"wrong. He can assure them, that it was not his intention to
assert that Calvinists, as such, were wiser or better than
others, whose theoi'y of religion approached nearer to truth.
Much less did h£ mean to represent the excellence of their
character as owing to the peculiarities of the calvinistic
system. If Calvinists are (as, no doubt, many of them are)
pious towards God, and benevolent to men, it must be
owing to some powerful countervailing influences which
happily check the baneful tendency of their principles ;
and particularly to those obvious appearances of nature,
and those plain declarations of the divine benevolence in
the scriptures, which excite a hope, even in spite of them-
selves, that God is not altogether so cruel, nor their fellow-
creatures quite so detestable, as their gloomy system would
make them believe.
Another reason, why the author felt himself disposed
to give these Letters a more extensive circulation was,
that it not only afforded him an opportunity of vindicating
the insulted character of Dr. Priestley, but, wliich he
apprehends of still more importance to the public, of illus-
trating distinctly the nature of his new and unanswerable
argument, in favour of the simple humanity of Christ,
from the testimony of primitive ecclesiastical writers, as
stated in his History of Early Opinions, an argument which
is, generally, either misunderstood, or misrepresented.
ADVERTISEMEMT. V
The author of the Letters to which these are intended
as a reply, has mixed up his severe charges of ignorance, of
misrepresentation, of gross error, of perfect inadvertence,
and of asserting things pi'ecisely the reverse of acknow-
ledged facts, or in other words, of palpable falsehood,
with much of the forms of personal civility and respect,
almost even to nausea. In this particular, the author of
tiiese Letters, indignant as he could not but occasionally
feel at the groundless charges which were alleged, and
at the lofty and triumphant tone in which they were
often pressed, did not think it necessary to imitate his
correspondent. But while he considered himself as jus-
tified in stating plainly, strongly, and pointedly, the futility
of the writer's arguments, he shall regret, if he has in any
instance been betrayed into expressions which may be
thought inconsistent with civility and good manners. He
feels no ill-will against his opponent, for whose character
he entertains a sincere respect, and who must be allowed,
in his animadversions, to have discovered no small portion
of ability, and controversial dexterity. Nevertheless, I do
not hesitate to avow, that the design of these Letters is
to shew, that this gentleman has undertaken to write upon
a subject which he has not sufficiently studied ; that he has
accumulated charges which he has not been able to sub-
stantiate ; and that he has, without sufficient ground,
attacked, I might say defamed, the characters of the
illustrious and venerable dead. How far this design has
been accomplished, the judicious and attentive reader
must decide.
What impression these animadversions may make upon
the mind of the gentleman who gave occasion to them,
it is not for the author to judge. But if that gentleman
should, upon mature consideration, be convinced, that his
strictures are erroneous, and his charges unfounded, he
will, no doubt, feel himself bound in honour and duty to
retract, and modify his publication accordingly. At any
VI ADVERTISEMENT.
rate, the least that can be expected from him is, that lie
will not, if convinced of his mistake, persistm bearing /alse
witness against his neighbour. As a young writer, and a
young' man, it will be no disparagement to him to acknow-
ledge an error, and to add to his other good qualities a
proper degree of self-diffidence. This will induce him for
the future to pause a little, and attentively to survey his
ground, before he alleges unqualified charges of ignorance,
and palpable misrepresentations of plain facts, against
persons whose means of information, and whose character
for diligence, perseverance, impartiality, and accuracy of
research, are, at least, equal to his own, and who have,
perhaps, devoted as great a number of years to the patient
investigation of truth, as he has lived in the world,
CONTENTS.
LETTER I.
Pago.
Vindication of the Author's statement of the Calvinis-
tic systen) 1
LETTER II.
Abhorrence of Calvlnlsim, consistent with a favourable
opinion of many who hold that unscriptural system. —
Unjust insinuations repelled. — Concerning the per-
sonal presence of Christ with his Apostles after his
ascension 10
LETTER UI.
Origen's character defended. — Review of the contro-
versy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley. — Ter-
tullian's unequivocal testimony to the Unitarianism of
the great body of unlearned Christians 25
LETTER IV.
Charge of inadvertency and gross misrepresentation
repelled. — Progress of error concerning the person of
Christ stated. — Misrepresentation of Dr. Priestley's
sentiments corrected 40
LETTER V.
The charge against Dr. Priestley's character stated and
repelled. — Dr. Priestley and his accuser equally mis-
taken in a p.'issage from Chrysostom. — The nature
and conduct of Dr. I'liest ley's argument represented
and vindicated. — Conclusion 59
CONTENTS.
APPENDIX.
Containing an Extract from a publication of the Hev.
Theophilus Lindsey, which expresses the judgment
of that learned writer, concerning the issue of the
controversy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley,
and concerning the importance of Dr. Priestley's
History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ... 74
POSTSCRIPT.
Remarks upon the alterations and concessions in the
second edition of the Letters to Mr. B - 79
A VINDICATION, Set:.
LETTER I.
\ indication of the Author's statement of t!ie Calvuiistic system.
DEAR SIR,
X HE Rev. John Pye Smith, one of the Tutors of
the respectable Academical Institution at Homerton,
has lately addressed to me a volume of Letters,
containing animadversions upon some passages in
my late Discourse upon the lamenteu Death of
Dr. Priestley ; written upon the whole with much
personal civility, and perhaps with as much candour
as the spirit of his theological system will admit.
The truth or falsehood of that system I am not now
disposed to contest ; but some of the author's obser-
vations appear to retjuirc a cursoiy notice : especial-
ly as they are delivered with a tone of authority, an
air of triumph, and a parade of learning, which has
a tendency to impose upon ignorant and superficial
readers.
This gentleman distinctly charges me with mis-
representing the calvirjistic system : His words are,
" 1 never yet heard of the Calvinist who would adopt
1
2 LETTER i:
" your statement as his own creed*." And again,
" Such men as Voltaire and Paine, or even charac-
" ters of far more estimable fame, can, with all the
" ease imaginable, by the combined aid of miscon-
" ception, perverse mis-statement, and sparkling-
" witticisms, so twist and entangle a metaphysical or
" moral subject, and that in a few words, or sentences,
" as to require many pages of accurate writing, and
" much labour of patient reading, to unravel the
" crossing perplexities. This appears to me to be
" precisely the case with your picture of Calvinismf."
The reader will smile to see to what expressions
this pompous description applies. My words are,
" The doctrine which the apostle taught was the
" gospel of the grace of God. ^'ery remote indeed
" from that system which in modern times has been
•' dignified with the title of Gospel Doctrine ; a
" system which teaches that all mankind are doomed
" to eternal misery for Adam's sin, with the excep-
" tion of a few who are chosen by mere good plca-
"•' sure to everlasting life|." The reason why my
name is introduced in connection with those of
Voltaire and Paine, is sufficiently obvious to all who
are versed in the arts of theological controversy ;
but it would require no small portion of intellectual
perspicacity to discern the iireche resemblance be-
tween the plain and brief statement which I have
made of calvinistic doctrine, almost in the words
of its own symbols, and the wisconcc/itio7i^ perverse
vns-stateine7it.) mid sparkling ivitticisms^ with which
* Lettci-s to Mr. B. p. 16. t Ibid. p. 13, 14.
i Fiiiit'i-al Discourse for Dr. Pi-icsllt y, p. 26.
LETTER I. o
these champions of infidelity arc said to uvist mid
t'ntangle a moral or metajihysiical isubject.
My generous accuser, however, exculpates me
from the " charge of intentional misrepresentation,"
and very charitably insinuates, that what he calls my
caricature of Calvinism is the result of mere igno-
rance. Unfortunately, I cannot avail myself of this
obliging apology. Having been educated a Calvinist,
in the midst of Calvinists, and having been fully
instructed in the creeds and catechisms, and inodes
of worship of this " straitest sect of our religion,"
I cannot plead ignorance of the doctrines which I
and hundreds more were taught, and believed.
The worthy Remarker next proceeds to correct
my supposed misconccjition^ by stating, in form, and
as one having authority, in his second Letter, what
those " sentiments are, which in their aggregate"
he is pleased to call " Calvinism," and in which, he-
pro fesses " to glory*." And truly. Sir, I must
acknowledge that 1 was not a little surprised at the
perusal of this singular, prolix, and mysterious con-
fession. Yet if this reverend gentleman, who does
not appear to be deficient either in understanding
or learning, can, at this lime of day, seriously believe
all that he sets down to be believed, he has my fret-
consent, and much may it contribute to his edifica-
tion. Far be it from me to wish to abridge him of
a single article of his capacious faith, or to deprive
him of one particle of his glory. The only question
between us is, whether this faith be truly calvinistir
* I.cltiis to Mr. B. p. 16.
*■ LETTER I.
And to this the worthy author himself has supplied
the proper answer. « It is acknowledged," says he,
" that this view of the subject is different from that
" which most calvinistic writers have given*." This
concession is sufficient, and precludes all further
observation upon the subject.
Now, Sir, as this gentleman has been pleased to
state that doctrine as Calvinism, which the majority
of Calvinists do not approve, I will proceed to ex-
hibit that Calvinism which Calvinists do approve, and
the belief of which is regarded by most of them as
essential to salvation. And in order to this I shall
not, like my learned correspondent, have recourse to
the writings of the Greek or the Roman classics ;
nor shall I inquire whether the great philosophers
and moralists of antiquity, had they been now living,
wovild or would not have been the disciples of John
Calvinf. I shall not even make my principal appeal
to the Institutes of the celebrated reformer himself,
nor yet to the still more authentic documents of the
venerable Synod of Dort \. For the sake of brevity,
I shall bring my proofs from that well-known, and
highly approved symbol of the calvinistic faith, the
Assembly's Catechism, which, as a summaiy of
doctrine, is a model of simplicty, perspicuity, and
* Letters to Mr. B. p. 22. Note.
t See Letters, p. 33, 31. Wlietlicr tJic^e pro.it men woiilrl, as my Coi--
respomUnt imaffines, lia\e bieii c/mnneil witli the CaUiiiistic system, I
l^iiuot pi-etend to say; that they would have bi-eii nafuhinlicd at it, I most
Certainly Ix-lieve.
X This famous Sj-nod was assembli d A. D. 1619, for the exjiress purpose
of deciding the celebrated quimmarlicular eontroversy between tlie Cal-
Tinists and the Anninians, which at iliat time r.iged in Holland. It wa?
attended by di-puties from most of (he reformed churches.
LETTER I. 5
precision ; and which used formerly, and I presume
still continues, to be taught with great assiduity,
to children and young persons in the calvinistic
churches. To this might also be added, if neces-
sary, the Hymns and Spiritual Songs of Dr. Watts,
the crude and injudicious compositions of iiis ju-
"venile years, the publication of which, it is well
known, was the subject of deep regret in maturer
life, but Avhich are to this day used in the public
devotions of many calvinistic churches, and admired
as the standard of sound doctrine and of a devotional
spirit : and which in fact have done more to fix the
taint of Calvinism in young and impressible minds,
than all the controversial treatises that ever were
written. I believe that the gentlenran who has done
me the favour to animadvert upon my Sermon, will
not object to the authorities to which I appeal. If
he does, I will tell him plainly, that what I mean
by Calvinism is not a system of abstruse subtleties,
which may be maint;vined by a few speculative men,
and which 77iost Calvinists never heard of, but that
code of doctrine which thousands and tens of thou-
sands collect froiTi the catechisms which they learn,
and from the hymns which they sing, and which
they ivaturally suppose to be the sincere opinions of
tliose who instruct them in these symbols, and who
guide them in their devotions.
The Assembly's Catechism teaches, in answer
to the seventh question, that, " the decrees of God
" are his eternal purpose according to the counsel
" of his will, whereby for his own glory he hath
" fore-ordained iv/iatsoever comes to pass."
* 1
6 LETTER I.
From this it evidently follows, that the fall oF
man is one of those events which was ordained fov
the glory of God.
We are further taught, in reply to the sixteenth
question, " that the covenant being made with Adam,
" not only for himself, but for his posterity ; all
" mankind, descending from him by ordinary gene-
<' ration, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first
" transgi'ession." Thus, for the glory of God all
mankind were predestinated to sin in Adam, and to
fall with him.
This celebrated symbol of the true calvinistic
faith proceeds to teach us, in answer to the two
succeeding questions, " that the fall brought man-
" kind into an estate of sin and miseiy:" also, that
" the sinfulness of that estate, whereunto man fell,
" consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want
" of original righteousness, and the corruption of
" the Avhole nature, which is commonly called ori-
" ginal sin, together with all actual trangressions
" which flow from it." Hence it follows, that God,
foi- his own glory, has fore -ordained that all mankind
shall be gxdlty of Adam's first sin, together with all
actual transgressions that flow from it.
Now comes the bojme bouclie. The question next
proposed is, " What is the misery of that estate,
*' whereinto man fell r" And the answer to it is in
these memorable words: ".;/./. mankind by the fall
*' lost communion vvilh God, are under his wrath
*' AND CURSE, and so made liable to all the miseries
" of this life, to death itself, and to the pjiys of
'• HELL FOR EVER.''
LETTER I. 7
That is, God having from all eternity fore-
ordained for liis own glory that all mankind shall
be guilty of Adam's first sin, for his own glory he
hath further fore-ordained, that by this fall they
shall lie under his wrath and curse, and be made
liable to the pains of hell for ever ! ! I
To add to the horror of the picture, and to
accumulate insult upon injury, it is further asked
in the twentieth question, " Did God leave all man-
" kind to perish in the estate of sin and misery ?"
To which the answer subjoined is, that " God out
" of mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected
" SOME to everlasting life."
What then is God? It is truly replied, in one
of the most concise and comprehensive definitions
which was ever given, in answer to the fourth quesr
lion of this Catechism : '^ God is a spirit, infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom,
power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
Bur what is the God of Calvinism ? A gloomy
arbitrary tyrant, a malignant onmipotent demon.
Therefore the God of Calvinism is not the
TRUE GOD, is not the God of Christians, is not the
God and Father of Jesus, is not that God whose
name is love.
This, Sir, is the system that I am accused of
having caricatured. It is the system concerning
which I have pronounced, and 1 now solemnly re-
peat the charge, that it is " a tremendous doctrine,
" which, had it really been taught by Christ and his
" apostles, their gospel might truly have been de-
" nominated, not the doctrine of peace and good
» LETTER I.
" will, but a messat^e of Mrath and injustice, of
" terror and dispair." I have spoken of it, and
while life and breath and intellect remain, I shall
ever speak of it as " a rigorous, a gloomy, and a
" pernicious system," as " full of horror, as the very
" extravagance of error," and as " a mischievous
" compound of impiety and idolatry."
Predestination, absolute arbitrary predestina-
tion, the predestination of sovte to eternal life, and
of the many to eternal misery, from mere good
pleasure, and for the glory of God, is the very soul
of Calvinism. To affect to evade the horror of the
doctrine, by pretending that the non-elect were only
left^ and not doomed^ Vo perish ; or, that they were
predestinated to punishment, because they were
predestinated to sin ; or, that being the descendants
of a fallen pair, they were born, that is, in other
words, that God made them with corrupt natures,
and therefore under his wrath and curse; or lastly,
but not least remarkable, that sin, like darkness, is
a mere defect*, that is, a nonentity, and therefore
meritorious of eternal punishment ; all this is trifling
and puerile in the extreme. The daring and vigor-
ous mind of the reformer of Geneva disdained such
pitiful evasions ; and contends, in the most explicit
language, for the doctrine of absolute reprobalionf.
» " All positive e\istcnce must be the oljtct of the creating and sustain-
" in^ power ol' Goil, the Iramer ofall tilings, and <)y » lioin all tilings consist.
" Sin is prccisily tlie reverse of this, — it is a fauli, n deUtt, a failiii-e, an
" inipcrriction." Sic n Sermon on the Divinr Glor\ d;splayeil in the Per-
mission of Sin, pa^ 6, by the Author of the l.ettrrs to Mr B.
1" Si noil possumus ralioiiem ass:u;nare cur siios mis; ricordia dig;netur niii
quoiiinin ila illi placet, iiequc etuuii i" aliis reprobaiulis aliudhabebimu*
luain ejus voluntateiu.' Calvin, Inst. lib. iii. cap. Jwii. sec. 11.
LETTER 1. 9
A man, therefore, who denies arbitraiy predestina-
tion, iiiay, notwithstanding, be a wise man, a learned
man, a good man, and a true Christian ; but, it is
most certain, that he has no right to call himself a
Calviuist.
In my next Letter I shall proceed to justify the
charges which I have alleged against the calvinistic
system, and likewise to notice some other observa-
tions of my reverend opponent.
In the mean time I am,
Dear Sir, 85c. Sec.
LETTER II.
Abliorrence of Cal\ inisni, consistent w iili a favourable upiiiion ofmany wUo
hold ihat uiisLriiitiival sjsiuii. — U' just iiisimiatious rtpelled.—Coiici ril-
ing the personal presence of Christ with Lis Apostles after lijs ascension'
DEAR SIR,
I FLATTER myself that I stand completely exone-
rated from the charge of having either intentionally,
or ignorantly, misrepresented the calvinistic system.
Calvinism is not a term of indefinite signification,
like the cant phrase evangelical, which commonly
means nothing, but the opinions of the men who use
it. Calvinism expresses a system clearly defined,
and accurately exhibited in the Institutes of Calvin,
in the Decrees of the Synod of Dort, and in this
country, in the Assembly's Catechism, in which the
children of Calvinists are generally instructed, and
the sense of which is sufficiently ascertained.
Calvinism teaches that the great Creator, by an
arbitrary decree, and for his own glory, dooms mil-
lions of his creatures to eternal misery for Adam's
sin. This, if true, would unciuestionably have been
a message of wrath and injustice, of terror and
despair. — The fundamental principle of Calvinism
is, that God is a tyrant. This is impious. — Calvinism
teaches that God would not save the number, which
LETTER II. 11
from mere good pleasure he had elected to everlast-
ing life, till a person equal to himself in power and
glory, had satisfied his justice by bearing his wrath.
This is polytheism and absurdity. — Calvinism, con-
sistently indeed with itself, renders to this supposed
second person, a homage equal to the first. This
is idolatry ; it is Avorshipping as God, a mere crea-
ture of the imagination. — Cal' inism is a system
replete with horror: for the -^hance against every
individual is, that he is in the number of those who,
for Adam's sin, are doomed to the eternal, inevitable,
wrath and curse of the Almighty. — Calvinism there-
fore is a very pernicious system. The natural and
direct tendency of Calvinism, is to lead men to think
of their Maker with indignation and abhorrence, and
to curse their existence : it often generates presump-
tion, arrogance, and malignity, in those who fancy
themselves the elect favourites of God : It excites
much causeless anxiety and painful apprehension
in the minds of many who are sincerely virtuous,
and embitters tlieir lives with tormenting terrors.
In some cases it has driven men to despair, and
distraction, and, probably, even to suicide. — Cal-
vinism, therefore, may be justly represented as ex-
travagant and erroneous in the extreme.
Th.\t professed Calvinists should approve of this
representation of their favourite system, is not to be
expected. If they saw it in the light in which it is
here stated, they would, no doubt, renounce it with
abhorrence. To them it seems "these sentiments
appear the voice of God, and the perfection of rea-
12 LETTER II.
" son, harmony, and moral beauty*." Let the im-
partial reader judge between us.
In my discourse upon the death of Dr. Priestley,
I have remarked, that it had been the happiness of
that eminently great and good man, to meet among
Christians of the calvinistic denomination, " with
" some of the wisest and best characters that he
" had ever known." From hence my worthy Cor-
respondent infers, that a system approved by such
persons " must be presumed to have, at least, some
" inviting colours of evidence and truth," and that
it would be " strange indeed, if what they held
■" should be the extravagance of errort." But this
is an objection of little weight. Nothing is more
common than for men, in other respects eminently
learned and wise, to entertain theological opinions,
the most extravagant and absurd. Pascal, and
Fenelon, were greatly distinguished, both for their
talents and their virtues ; and yet, they were both
zealous for popeiy in its grossest forms. The great
reformer Luther, was a warm advocate for the real
presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, in
the absurdity of which doctrine, there is but a shade
of difference from that of transubstantialion itself.
Lxlius ard Faustus Socinus, imd the other Polish
Unitarians, whose names rank high amongst the
learned and the liberal cxj)ositors of the scriptures,
believed that a mere human being, a man like
• l,(tt( i-s. p. in. >[y CoiT.sporidint applies tliisc epitluis to liU <)\»n
>iypotli<!«is. The Assembly of Divim s liad the same (rood opinion, no itotiHf,
of ihcir system, wliicli is tmc Calvinism.
t Letten. p. 31. 32.
LETTER 11. i.p
liiemselves, was exalted to a supremacy over angels
and arch-angels ; that the government of the uni-
Aerse was delegated to him, and that he was entitled
to religious worship as the representative of God
himself; a notion so irrational-and unscriptural, that
as Dr. Price justly observes, " Athanasianism itself
" contains nothing that is more extravagant*." Nor
do we need to have recourse to former times for
examples of this kind. Who doubts the talents or
the learning of the present Bishop of St. Asaph ?
Yet he gravely teaches us, in a Discourse which he
has lately published, that hell is a subterraneous
region divided into two apartments. That one of
these apartments is indeed a place "of torment for
wicked spirits : but that the other, which though a
Jiri-son., is also called a Jiaradisc^ is the receptacle of
pious souls, who are there in safe kcc^iinc^ till the
resurrection. This learned prelate further informs
us, that Jesus, after he had been crucified, descend-
ed into hell ; not, as we have lately been informed,
from very high authoi'ity, to shew himself there bodij
and soul, in order to terrify the devils, caul the
damned^, but that he might comfort the souls of
the antediluvian penitents, who, though already in
paradise, " had peculiar apprehensions of themselves
* Price's Sermons, p. ISO, 151.
1" See Freyliiii^liausen's Abstract of the Cliribtian Rilijjion,j). 50. Tliis
curious Tract, editid, as it is niiiiourtd, h\ a ilistinguislu'il prelate, is asserted
l)y tlie editor, to stand very liifjli in tlie good 0|iini(>n of the first female per-
sonage in the kingdom, by v\liosc order it was translated into English foril)^
use of lier illustrious daughters.
14 LETTER II.
as marked victims of divine vengeance*." What
can be more extravagant than such suppositions as
these, or more inconsistent with the scripture doc-
trine of the state of the dead ? It follows then that
men may be very wise, veiy learned, and very good,
and yet, in their theological opinions they may fall
into the very extravagance of error.
The reason of this is sufficiently obvious. The
human intellect is too limited to comprehend every
thing : and men who are the best informed upon
subjects to which they have directed their attention,
may be as ignorant as children upon other questions :
and in no case are men more liable to err, than in
their theological opinions. There are many who
regard religion as a mystery beyond the province of
reason : there are many who are content with taking
every thing upon trust : there are many who have
neither opportunity nor inclination to inquire : there
are many who are speculativ'e but not practical
believers, who assent to a form of words but with-
out examining the ideas : there ai'e many whose
interest it is to profess the popular system of belief,
and whose judgments may be more influenced by
this consideration than they are themselves aware ;
there ai'e many who think it criminal to doubt or to
in([uire at all ; and there are many whose prejudices
are so firmly rivetted, that the most demonstrative
arguments can make nO impression upon their
understandings.
• Bisliopof'St. Asaph's Sermon on the Descent of Christ into Hell. \Wioli
of the two learned i>relatcs lias the best iiifunnatiou upon this mysterious
suhject, does not appear.
LKTTKR II. 15
I AM not however one of those "who hold, that
erroi' is a matter of indifTerence. I readily admit,
that great errors may be consistent with great good-
ness of heart ; that the mischievous tendency of
particuhir errors may be in a great degree coun-
teracted by good principles and virtuous habits ;
that speculative error, like speculative truth, may
sometimes lose its proper effect, by practical in-
attention to it : and that, sometimes, one error may
counteract the baneful influence of another. Never-
theless, error, upon subjects of great importance,
in proportion as it prevails and becomes a practical
principle, contaminates the mind, and is productive
of pernicious consequences. This is evident in the
case of persecutors, who often act under the in-
fluence of erroneous principles and a misguided
conscience ; and it is surely sufficiently obvious, that
the calvinistic system has a very dangerous ten-
dency. A thorough practical Calvinist, if he be
not malignant, must inevitably be unhappy. It is
therefore the indispensable duty of the friends of
truth and virtue and pure Christianity, to enter their
grave and firm protest against pernicious errors,
and to contend earnestly for the purity of the chris-
tian faith.
I HAVE said, that to an early education in the
rigid sect of Calvinists^ Dr. Priestly was indebted
for some of his best principles, and his most valu-
able and permanent religious impressions. Here
my worthy correspondent triumphs in my s\ipposcd
inconsistency, as if I had maintained that to an early
education in the extravagance of error, in a mis-
i6 LETTEK n.
chicvous compound of impiety and idolatrj', my-'
revered friend was indebted for some of his best
principles*. If indeed I had maintained that Dr.
Priestley owed his best principles and impression's
to an early education in the pcculun- doctrines of
Calvinism, the triumph might have been just ; but
as the case stands, had this gentleman allowed him-
self to reflect, that the doctrine of a sect is one thing,
and its didcipUtic another, and that all sects hold
many important practical /irincijdes in connection
witii their own peculiar tenets, he would have seen
that he needed not to have felt the anxiety which
he expresses, for the credit and consistency of the
author of the Elements of the Philosophy of the
Human Mindf. Dr. Priestley, educated among
serious Calvinists, v/as instructed in many valuable
religious principles, and formed to many virtuous
habits ; and to this may be ascribed, in a consider-
able degree, the distinguished excellence "of his
iTioral character. All this may be true, and yet the
peculiar tenets of the calvinistic system may be
erroneous in the extreme.
Having thus, I trust, sufficiently justified both
my censures of the doctrines, and my concessions
to the talents and virtues of those who maintain the
gloomy creed of the Geneva reformer ; I shall now
proceed briefly to notice, Mlliat appears to me parti-
* Lottcn-s, p. 53, 5-J.
t " To the autlior of Elcincnts of the Ptiilosoiiliy of the MimI, I spcuk
•• « itli ilefcivnte : but I confess there .appears to me siicli a want of toni-
'■ patihilitj in the teniTS of tliis proposition, as totally to dcsti-oy «sscl>'.''
I.i iteri, p. 51.
LETTER n. .17
cularly worthy of remark, in the remaming stric-
tures of my respectable correspondent.
This gentleman judiciously* declines to press
the favourite argument, of the superior sanctity of
Calvinism and Calvinists, to Unitarianism and Uni-
tarians. Had he determined otherwise, he might
have been assured that I should have left him an
open and unmolested course. Unitarianism stands
upon the immoveable foundation of the christian
scriptures, which teach us explicitly, that Jesus
was " a MAN, approved of God by miracles, and
" wonders, and signs," and which never even seem
to represent him as a being of a superior order,
except in a few detached and obscure passages, in
most of which, to give plausibility to the argument,
figurative expressions are interpreted in a literal
sense. Here the Unitarians feel themselves upon
firm ground : they have not a doubt that their faith
concerning the person of their honoured master, is
the same with that of Jesus himself, and of his apos-
tles, who knew and conversed with him. All other
evidence in this case they regard as trifling, and as
only tending to divert the attention from the main
question. To superior saintahiji they make no pre-
tension. But they trust that their character upon
the Avhole, will not be found unworthy of their
christian principles, and that it will not suffer in
comparison with that of the most sanctimonious of
their accusers. And in the habitual practice of
virtue and piety, though conscious of much impcr-
* I^ettirs. p. S3. 54.
*3
18 LETTER ir.
lection, they humbly and cheei'fuUy rely upon the
unchangeable mercy of an infinitely wise and bene-
volent Creator, \yithout any regard to the vniin-
Iclligible notions of vicarious suffering, or imputed
righteousness.
For the reason ^yhich I have assigned above, I
feel as little inclination to follow my zealous corres-
pondent through his triumphant argument, in the.
fifth letter, from the missionary zeal of the Trinita-
rians, in which Pharisees, Jesuits and Mahometans
stand at least upon equal ground with them. It is
an obvious ftxt, that in all ages, there have been
zealots for error, as well as advocates for truth ; and
it has too generally happened, that the former have
been more successful in perverting, than the latter
in the instruction of mankind. I am, however, far
from wishing to detract from the merit of those,
who have exerted themselves in propagating what
I judge to be a corrupt Christianity. I have no
doubt that m.uch good has been done ; much valu-
able practical truth having been mixed with a consi-
c^.erable portion of speculative error. I'he stupendous
machinery of a corrupt Christianity is far more likely
to seize the imagination, and to rouse the feelings
of a Greenlander or a Ilotlentat, than the beautiful
simplicity of christian truth. Thus the wisdom of
Divine Providence brings good out of evil, and gra-
dually prepares the way for the universal prevalence
of a pure and rational faith, by adapting the means
of information among the converted heathen, to their
growing capacity for intellectual and moral improve-
LETTER ir.' 19
mcnts*. Ill ihc mean time, we enter our protest
agiunst estimating the truth of a doctrine, by the
zeal which is discovered in the propagation of it.
Hard indeed is the lot of the unfortunate Uni-
tarians ! Whatever they do — Avhatcver they omit,
they are always in the wrong. They are always
either too hot, or too cold : benumbed in the frigid,
or scorching in the torrid zone of Christianity. If
they are active in defending or propagating what
they believe to be truth, their proselyte zeal exposes
them to the scorn of the infidel, the censure of the
timid and the /irudent, and to the fury of the bigot ;
if they are silent, they are reproached as indifferent
and lukewarm, and as doing nothings iiothing at all\^
to promote the christian doctrine. — " But wisdom
" will be justified of her children."
My worthy opponent :j: disapproves of what I have
said, concerning the spirit of Paul when a pei'secu-
tor : but I am not conscious that I have advanced any
thing upon this subject stronger than the apostle's
own expressions If, that he was exceedingly r,i l
against them ; or those of his faithful historian, thu
he breathed out threatening and slaughter against
the disciples of the Lord II.
I HAVE also presumed to suppose that the apostle
James might, like Peter and Barnabas, have given
• " Tile imjmiity of maiikiuil," says Dr. Haitlty, vol. ii. p. .T72, " is too
" g:i-oss to unite at once with the sti-ict purity of tlic gospel. The Uoinaii
" empire lir.t, and the Goths and Vaudals aftenvaitis, i-e«|uircd, as one may
" say, some supei-slitions and idolatries to be mixed with the christian re-
"ligion, else they conlil not have been eonvertid at all."
t '• Unitarians w'.tli all their boast, etc. have dune NO'l'HING, NOTHING
•'AT ALL." Letters, p. 75.
\ ieltcTs, p. 61. 5 AcU xxvi. U. \ Acts i.v. 1.
2& LETTER II.
rather too much countenance to the zealots, who are
said to have gone from him*, and to have disturbed
the peace of the church at Antioch : but I am in-
formed, no doubt, upon competent authority, that
the contrary is " the more reasonable conjecturetj"
and I have no objection to it, for I have no quarrel
•with St. James.
" How feebly supported," says my dexterous cor-
respondent, " or rather how completely destitute of
" all support is any conclusion from these premises
" against the infallible certainty of apostolic doc-
trine |." Now the fact is, that I never did assert,
or insinuate any thing against the infallible certainty
of that doctrine, which the apostles were commis-
sioned to publish, but have always maintained, that
they were fully informed upon that subject, though
they might err in other cases. But we polemics
are fully apprized of the use of a seasonable inuendo.
The worthy letter-writer has exhausted a pro-
fusion of leai'ning in the beginning of his sixth
letter, to prove that the zealots who opposed Paul
were Jewish believers and Unitarians. The fact is-
so obvious, that it hardly seems to require so long
and laboured a proof. That they were Jewish be-
lievers, is notorious from their zeal for the cere-
monial law : and that they were Unitarians is highly
probable, because neither the arian, nor the trinita-
rian heresies had then been introduced. Besides,
the only offence with which these zealots are charged
by the apostle is, their insisting upon the indispensa-
ble necessity of conformity to tlie ceremonial law :
* Gal. u. 11, 12. + Lettcj-s, p. 80. t Eetters> p. 87.
LETTER ir. 21
but if they had also been guilty of infringing upon
the fundamental doctrine of the unity of God, which,
as Jews, they were not likely to do, there can be
no doubt that the apostle would have animadverted
upon them with far greater severity. But does this
gentleman, who favours me with his correspondence,
" or the judicious arid tenifierate divine.^" whose words
he quotes*, really think that the modern Unitarians
are "the obsequious disciples" of judaizing zealots,
and answerable for all their malignant opposition to
the apostle, because they agree with them, and with
him, in the belief of the unity of God, and the proper
humanity of Jesus Christ ? What the design of these
gentlemen might be, in this strange and unjust in-
sinuation, they best can tell ; but I will not affront
their understandings so far as to suppose, that they
could themselves give the least credit to it. As
justly might the modern Baptists be made answer-
able for the extravagancies and crimes of John of
Leyden.
Permit me, sir, before I conclude, to add a few-
strictures upon a remarkable passage at the close
of this gentleman's sixth letter. When our Lord
was about to withdraw his visible, sensible presence,
and to ascend, as he expresses it, to his Father and
his Godf, he promised, that he would be with his
apostles always to the end of the world :t: ; or, as I
would render it, with Bishop Pearce, and Mr. Wake-
field, to the end of the age||, that is, of the Jewish
* Letters, p. 82. f John xx. 17. \ Matt, xxviii. 20.
|l Matt, xxviii. 20, translated l)y Mr. WakcficliI : " I will be with jon cdii-
tiimnlly di ihi; end of ibe ac;c." 'I'his learned writer refeiN to the i)aralli ?
22 LETTER II.
dispensation. Agreeably to this promise, he not
only communicated to them the Holy Spirit at the
day of pentecost*, bvit he seems upon some special
occasions, more or less frequently, to have appeared
visibly to them. He was seen by Stephen imme-
diately before his martyrdomf. He appeared to
Paul on his way to Damascus |. He afterwards,
probably in Arabia||, communicated to this apostle,
a distinct and complete discovery of the nature and
extent of the gospel dispensation, and gave him a
commission to preach it to the gentiles. Either
then, or at some other time, he made known to the
apostle the institution of the eucharistH. Paul like-
wise saw and conversed with Christ in the temple
at Jerusalemft- And it seems probable that he was
honoured with another interview with his master,
to which he refers, in his second epistle to the
Coi'inthians \\. And in many passages in his epis-
tles, he represents himself as acting in the concerns
of his mission, under the immediate direction of
Christ|)||. These considerations appear to me abun-
dantly to justify the assertion, that Jesus was gene-
rally present with the apostle, and that he occasion-
ally appeared to liim. And when Jesus was sensibly
passage in Mark x\-i. 17, 19. " So then (he adds) our Loi-d would continue
" with them in working miracles to the end of tlie age." If our Lord was
with them in working miracles, he must be personally present, as no Being
tan act where he does not exist. But 1 donbt whether the idea of a per-
sonal presence of Christ occurred lo this celebrated author. See upon this
subject of the personal presence and agency of Christ during the apostolii
age, the venerable TheophiUis Lindsey's Sequel to his Apologj-, p. 72, 85.
* Acts ii. t Acts vii. 54, 55. t Acts ix.
U Gal. i. 11, 12, 17. % I Cor. xi. 23. ft Acts xxii. 17,21.
It 2 Cor. xij. 9, 10. Hn Phil. xi. \9, 24. 1 Tim. i. 13. 1 Thess. iii. ]"!.
LETTER n. 23
present, there could be no more impropriety in the
apostle's stating to him the feelings and desires of
Ills mind, than there was in conversing with him
during his personal ministry. What there is either
mysterious or ridiculous in all this, I am at a loss
to conceive. My ingenious correspondent, how-
ever, holds it up as an inexplicable mystery*, and
is pleased to be very jocular upon the subject. And
to heighten the joke he propounds some hard ques-
tions, concerning the locomotive powers of the
glorified spiritual body of Christ, and the mode of
its presence and action, to puzzle the poor Unita-
rianst, and to raise a laugh at their expense.
For my own part, being too dull to relish a jest
upon serious subjects, I cannot but think these
" sparkling witticisms" egregiously misplaced, and
too much in the style " of Voltaire and Paine."
Least of all am I disposed to accept of ridicule in
the place of argument. Upon the authority of an
evangelist, I believe that Jesus promised to be with
his disciples till the end of that age, and upon the
testimony of Luke and Paul, I believe that this
• Toget ridof the stupendous mysteiy of one person convening with
another, my coirespondent supposes, that tlie body of Christ is in some dis«
taut and unknown region of the universe called Heaven, but that his divine
nature is always present with his cliureli. Tliis, to be sure, is verj' intelligir
ble and satisfactory. See Letters, p. 89, Note.
t It may be proper to observe, that the unitarian doctrine is not in the
•east degree compromised in the siR'Culation concerning the occasional sensi-
ble intercourse of Jesus with his apostles, after what is called, his ascension.
To the generality of Unitarians, the question I btlieve has seldom occurred,
and they have of course formed no opinion about it. For the reasons which I
have stated above, I am inclined to lielieve, that this personal intercourse,
■which all allow in the conversion of Paul, was much more frequent than is
commonly apprehended. To others, a diflerent hypothesis may possibi*-
appear more plausiblci
34 LETTER n.
promise was fulfilled. Against this cvicknce no
objection can be alleged, but that which arises from
the puerile and unphilosophical conceit, that heaven
is some splendid place beyond the skies, where God
has a throne, and where Jesus stands at his right
hand : a notion too absurd to need refutation. As
to the metaphysical presence and powers of Jesus
Christ in his glorified and exalted state, nothing is
revealed, and therefore nothing can be known.
I am, Sec.
LETTER III.
Orif^cn's character Offeiultil. — Review of t)n; c^lntl■o^■cl•sy be<",yftii Dr.
Priestley and Dr. Horsley. — Tertullian's imequivoeal testimony to tlie
Uiiitarianisin of the great body of unlearned Christians.
DEAR SIR,
Ix the Memoir annexed to my Discourse upon the
death of Dr. Priestley*, I have expressed my opi-
nion, that in the controversy with Dr. Horsley, Dr.
Priestley was completely a ictorious : and, in a note,
I have particularly alluded to the manner in which
the bishop evades the direct testimony of Origen,
by a groundless and uncjualified attack upon the
veracity of that celebrated father, and disparages
the distinct evidence of Tertullian to the Unita-
viajiism of the majority of unlearned Christians,
by representing them " as not only illiterate, but
ignorant and stupid in the extreme." At the close
I remark, that " there is an end of all reasoning
" from the testimony af ancient writers, if, when a
<' disputant is pressed by authorities which he can-
" not impugn, he is at liberty to represent men
" whose characters were never before impeached,
" as idiots and liars."
* Page 45.
26 LEirKH 111.
jVIy correspondent, as might be expccicd, does
not agree in this judgment of the case, and in his
seventh Letter he states his own opinion ; and, after
liaving retailed some of the archdeacon's arguments,
■with as much parade as if they had never been
heard of or answered before, he triumphantly con-
cludes with great apparent self-complacency, " Such
then is the complete victory of Dr. Priestley."
This triumph, however, I hesitate not to say, is
somewhat premature.
The question concerning the character of Origen
has been so thoroughly discussed in the controversy
between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horsley, and the
charge against the character of that virtuous and
learned father has been so completely repelled, that
I should have no hesitation in leaving the decision
to every candid and competent judge of the case,
who would compare the evidence on both sides.
But as few are willing to submit to this trouble, I
shall take the liberty to give a brief review of the
charge and the defence.
Du. Priestley* having alleged the unequivocal
testimony of Origen, to prove that the Jewish Chris-
tians were called Ebionites, and that they adhered
to the law ; Dr. Horsley, in reply, taxes Origen in
this instance with " the wilful and deliberate allega-
" tion of a notorious falsehoodf." And affirms that
" whatever Origen may pretend, to serve a purpose,
" the majority of hebrcw Christians, from the time
• Dr. Priestley's Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 18. Origen against Celsus, lilj,
ii. p. 56.
t AreUdeacou ol'St. Allians* Lttlcrs in rcpljr to Dr. Priestley, p. 160.
LKTIEU III. 27
" of Adrian, forsook their laws, and lived in com-
" niunion witli the gentile bishops, of the new-
" modelled church of Jerusalem*." Of this new-
modelled church, and of the sudden conversion of
the hebrew Christians, this learned divine details
the history with as much confidence as if he had
been a contemporary witness: and for a confirma-
tion of his account he appeals to the authority of
Mosheini, concluding with that historian's severe
and unwarrantable reflection upon Origen, that he
was not to be believed even upon oathf.
Never was any charge more completely refuted
than this attack upon the character of Origen. Dr.
Priestley, in reply \, first proves that Mosheim had
not the least authority from antiquity to countenance
his improbable assertion, that upon the destruction
of Jerusalem by Adrian, " the greatest part of the
" Christians, who lived in Palestine, entirely aban-
" doned the IVIosaic rites :" he then shews that his
learned opponent had pieced out this improbable
story of Mosheim's, with certain curious circum-
.stances of his oAvn invention, that were still more
improbable : and lastly, he adduces the judgment
of Tillemont and Fleury, in unison with the testi-
mony of antiquity, that the church at Jerusalem,
after the time of Adrian, consisted of gentile Chris-
tians only. The archdeacon having likewise, with-
out citing any authority whatever, charged Origen
with having " defended the practice of using un-
justifiable means to serve a good end," and with
• Ibid. p. 6. t Ibid. p. S9—C2.
t Letters to the Arc)ideacon of St. Albans", Letter 4.
2S LliTlER III.
having " employed the art he recommended*," ^i'-
Priestley allows that Jerome, in a passage to which
he refersf, says, that Origen adopted the Platonic
doctrine of the subserviency of truth to utility, but
denies that there is any evidence whatever of his
having recourse to it. Dr. Priestley concludes his
reply with the remark, that unless his reverend
antagonist " could make a better apology for him-
" self than he could suggest, he would be considered
'■' by every iuipartial person as a fahijitr of history
k' and a dcfa^ncr of the character of the dcad^ in.
" order to serve his purpose X^
Thk archdeacon, in replyll, pleads " the necessity
of helping out tlie broken accounts of the eccle-
siastical history of those times by conjecture, in
order to make out a consistent story," and as he
might have added, one pertinent to the occasion ;
and though he finds that Moshcim, upon whose
authority lie rested, had carried him a little too far,
he still continues, with more zeal than success, to
.advocate the existence of an orthodox church of
hebrew Christians at Jerusalem, after the time of
Adrian, which had abandoned the law of IMoses.
Apprehensive, however, that every reader might
not approve of his method » of helping out a broken
" story," and convinced that the foundations of his
newly erected church at Jerusalem were not suf-
ficiently firm to support the battery which he had
erected against the impregnable character of Origen,
' • Arclidtaeon or St. Albans" LeiUrs. p. 160.
+ Eitist. ad Paiiimacli. Opp. V. I. p. 490.
X Pritsilcys Lctttrs to the Aicliileaconof St. Albans' Letter, p. 4T.
II Rtmarks upon Dr. PriestWj's Scconil Letters, p. 39.
LETTER III. 29
though this was the only ground from which the
assault was originally made, this dexterous polemic
artfully changes his position, and endeavours to make
good his charge, by pretended self-contradictions
produced from Origen's own writings. With what
success, let the impartial reader judge.
Origen, in his reply to Celsus*, who Avrotc
against the Christians, under the assumed character
of a Jew, says, " He v. ho pretends to know every
" thing, does not know what belongs to the pro-
" sopopoeia. For what does he say to the Jewish
" believers ? That they have left the customs of
" their ancestors, having been ridiculously deceived
" by Jesus, and have gooe over to another name,
" and another mode of life : not considering that
" those Jews who have believed in Jesus, have not
■•' deserted the customs of their ancestors ; for they
" live according to them, having a name agreeing
" with the poverty of their legal observances. For
" the word Ebion, in the Jewish language, signifies
" poor, and those of the Jews who believe Jesus to
'* be the Christ are called Ebionites."
Three pages afterv/ards Origen addsf, " How
" confusedly does Celsus's Jew speak upon this sub-
" ject, when he might have said more plausibly :
" Some of you have relinquished the old customs,
" upon pretence of expositions and allegories ; some
" again, expoimding, as you call it, spiritually, never-
•' theless observe the institutions of our ancestors.
* Origt II contra Cclsiiiii, ji. 56. Dr. Piiestlcy's History of Early Opinions.
r. iii p. 159.
t Origen contiu Ctlsuni, ^i. 59.
30 LETTER III.
" But soTtie, not admitting these expositions, arc
" willing to receive Jesus as the person foretold by
" the prophets, and to observe the law of Moses
" according to the ancient customs, as having in the
" letter the whole meaning of the spirit*."
All that the leamied father here maintains is,
that as the hebrew Christians, in general, adhered
to the Mosaic law, Celsus's Jew would have argued
more plausibly., if he had charged only a part of
them with having deserted the customs of their
ancestors, while the majority remained attached to
them. To discover inconsistency in these passages",
and still more to detect in them any thing like wilful
and deliberate falsehood, would puzzle a consistory
of logicians.
The archdeacon, h.owever, contends that Origen
confesses, in contradiction to his former assertion,
that "• he knew of three sorts of Jews professing
" Christianity; one sort of whom had relinquished
" the observance of the literal precept." And my
worthy correspondentf, willing to co-operate with
liis learned predecessor, in the generous design of
iixing a stigma upon the character of this great man,
and being no mean proficient in the useful art of
helping out a bi'oken story, improves the slendey
notices which antiquity supplies concerning the his-
tory and character of Celsus ; first, by supposing that
Celsus spent some part of his life in Syria ; next by
asserting^ that he was unquestionably well acquainted
• Archdeacon of St. Albans' Rrmaiks upon Dr. P. p. 26. To pi'ccludc
objections, 1 have given Dr. Morslcj's tninslation of the passage from Or>
^en.
'• Letters, p. 104,, 105
LETTER III. 31
both with Judaism and Christianity, and with the
persons who adhered to them : Further, not perceiv-
ing the motive he could have for inA'enting the
assertion, that the Jews who beUeved had abandoned
the law of their fathers, he substitutes a fiction
which would have better answered his purpose : and
then, as if all these improbable and unauthorised
assumptions had been established facts, he draws
the peremptory conclusion : — " Celsus ivas there-
" fore an early witness ; he had sufficient opporluni-
" ties of information ; he could have no inducement
" to falsehood in this instance ; he 7nust have been
" a fool as well as a knave to have ventured upon
" this untruth." Such a mode of reasoning may
puzzle the ignorant, and mislead the unwary, but to
the reflecting reader it I'equires no comment, and
needs no reply.
Presuming likewise upon the unproved assertion
of Jerome, that Origen had adopted the principle
of sacrificing truth to victory, my correspondent*
first maintains that Origen, "though nothing could
" have been, more easy than to have shev/n the
" inconclusiveness of Celsus's argument," chose
rather to reply to it by the assertion of a palpable
untruth, thus preferring falsehood for falsehood's
sake ; and then, that a few pages afterwards, as a
" salvo to his own conscience," and " as a hint only
" to the initiated reader," he '■^ f dainty contradicts"
all that has been said : a supposition which would
make this renowned advocate of the christian cause,.
* Letters, p. ipt
32 LETTER III.
not only a liar unfit to be believed on oath, which
is the aspersion of Mosheim and Dr. Horslcy, but
chargeable with a degree of fatuity bordering upon
idiocy, of which he was never suspected Ipefore*.
The next passage which the archdeacon produces
to impeach the veracity of Origcn, immediately
succeeds what he had cited before. " How should
" Celsus," he says, " make clear distinctions upon
" this point, who, in the sequel of his Avork, mcn-
" tions impious heresies altogether alienated from
" Christ ; and others which have renounced the
" Creator? and has not noticed (or kncAv not of)
" Israelites believing in Jesus, and not relinquish-
" ing the law of their fathers." In order to lidfi out
his argument from this passage, the learned writer
is obliged to conjecture that Celsus, professing to
give u catalogue of heresies amongst Christians, is
condemned by his opponent for neglecting to in-
* Let 110 inadvertent reader, however, apprelR-ml that my worthy cor-
respondent means any thing uncharitable to iliis venerable father and eon-
lessor of the primitive church. Though Origen, accoi-ding to his account,
was so addicted to Ijing, as to love it for its own sake, and to be undeserving
of credit, even upon oath ; yet we are assured, p. 108, that " his mind was
wortliy and generally upright.'" And I am pei-siiaded that my correspon-
dent's Immility and candour would hesitate as much " in forming an opinion
■' on the future state" ofOrigen, as of (hat great sinner. Dr. Priestley, upon
whose critical case he gravely oliserves, p. 40, "What pixsumptuoiis mortal
" would forbid the hope, tliat a most unexpected and monientous ehangc of
" views and reliance miglit take place, in the few minutes ol'solemn niidita-
" tion which immediately preceded his dissolution ?" — J-Aalttd charily! Ry
parity of reason, we maj also hope that Origen himself might be converted
in his last moments, and may now be a glorilied saint in heaven, though lie
was a notor:ous liar all his life. Happy Calvinism ! which so liliemlly provides
for the salvation of the elect, and which so easily finds liolh faith and i-ighte-
ousnets for those who have so little of (heir own. Who would not wish this
j^enerous system to be true.' Wlio will henceforth presume to pi-d)iuuncc it,
she cxti-a>-iigance of enror^r a message of wrath ?
1.ETTEH III. S3
elude the Israelites who believed in Jesus, without
laying aside the law of their ancestors. But as tliis
conjecture is perfectly gratuitous, we are at liberty
to regard the conclusion as equally such, though
the learned writer, whose intrepidity in assertion
seems to bear an inverse ratio to the cogency of
his argument, concludes the paragraph with the re-
petition of Mosheim's calumny, that he would not
believe such a witness, even upon oath*. Dr. Priest-
ley maintains, at least with equal plausibility, that
" the most natural construction of the passage is,
" that Origen says, " It is no wonder that Celsus
" should be ignorant of what he was treating, when
" he classed the Gnostics along with Christians, and
" did not even know, that there were Israelites who
" professed Christianity, and adhered to the laws of
" Mosesf."
The reverend dignitaryl further charges Origen
with what he calls a strange instance of prevarica-
tion in the first book of his Reply to Celsus||. The
word Alma, he says, which the LXX have translated
into the Trx^Saoii [a virgin,] but other interpreters
into the yemm [a young woman] is put too, as they
SAY, in Deuteronomy, for a virgin. Deut. xxii, 23,
24. Where is the prevarication here ? In the first
place, we are told, that the compiler of the Hexapla
might have known, if he would, what the true read-
ing was. — Agreed. — But, secondly, that Origen pro-
bably did know, that the true reading was different
« Archdeacon of St. Albans' Remarks, p. 27, 28. Bishop of St. David's
Siippleniciital Disquisitions. Ko. 5. p. 483.
+ Dr. Priestley's Letters to the Archdeacon, p. 13.
\ Remarks p. 29. J Ori^eu cout. Celsum, p. 27,
^* LETTEtt in.
from Avhat he here insinuates it to have been. —
Why ? — Because the word Mma is not found in any
copies which are now extant : from which it is con-
cluded, that it was not the reading of Drigen's copy,
although that copy must have been many centuries
older than any which we possess*. How slender a
foundation upon which to form an attack upon so
fair and venerable a character ; and yet, so confident
is the learned writer in his conclusion, that he again
declares, he would not credit such a testimony even
upon oath.
This is all the evidence produced by the now
right reverend antagonist of Dr. Priestley, in sup-
port of his attack upon the character of one of the
most learned and I'espectable of the ancient eccle-
siastical writers; how far he has made good his
charge, and exculpated himself from the counter-
accusation of Dr. Priestley, as a falsifier of history,
and a defamer of the dead, must be left to the de-
cision of the reader. But if the question which
my correspondent puts in his usual flourishing and
triumphant manner f, should still be proposed ;
" Will it be again said, that Dr. Horsley's stric-
" tures are a groundless and unqualified attack upoiv
" the veracity of that celebrated father?" I answer,
without hesitation, Yes. It will be said by every
honest, candid, and unprejudiced person, who is
qualified to form a judgment in the case.
My correspondent adds, " You further argue
•' from the assumption, that his character was
* DisquMiious, p. 4S5. t U Iters, p. 108.
LETTER ill. 35
*" /never before impeached. Never before impeach-
« eel ! My dear Sir, your own references would in-
" form you that Dr. Horsley had only trod in the
" steps of Mosheim*." Now, Sir, to tell the truth,
my references did inform me amply upon this head.
Nor did I ever argue from the date, but from the
falsehood of the charge against Origen ; nor do the
words alluded to contain any argument at all, but
: simply a general observation, equally applicable to
Mosheim, who first called this venerable father a
wilful liar, and to Dr. Horsley, who is the first chris-
tian bishop upon i-ecord that has represented the
majority of believers as idiots. My words are these :
" There is an end of all reasoning from the testi-
" mony of ancient writers, if, when a disputant is
'' pressed by authorities which he cannot impugn,
" he is at liberty to represent men, whose charac-
" ters were never before impeached, as idiots and
••' liars." After all, the use of language would bear
me out in the expression, that Origen's character
was never before impeached ; when the fact is, that
it had stood the test of fifteen centuries, and that no
aspersion had been cast upon it, till within the last
fifty years.
But it seems I am to be overwhelmed with the
authority of Jerome, who, in a passage to which
Dr. Priestley refersf, and which my correspondent
cites pretty much at large, says, \Miat ! — That
Origen is a wilful liar, not to be believed upon his
oath ? — No such thing — But " that Origen had
• Lcttors, p. 106. t Il"id, 107,
36 LETTER in.
" adopted the Platonic doctrine of the subserviency
" of truth to utility :" and thut he and others "hav-
" ing written many thousand lines against Celsus
" and Porphyry, because they are sometimes forced
" to it in answer to the objections of the heathen,
" they say, not what they think, but what the case
" requires." Now, it is a possible case that this
holy father, who avows and justifies the pious prac-
tice of lying for the truth, might think that his own
case required the sanction of Origen's great name
and example ; and might choose upon this occasion
to say, not what he thought, but whatrhe wished
others to think. And is the fair character of Ori-
gen to be blasted by such an imputation as this ? an
imputation unsupported even by the pretence of
pi'oof ? No, no. Dr. Priestley's learned antagonist
was too wary to appeal to such authority, even when
it was suggested to him. And they who can give
credit in such a case, to such evidence, must, to say
the least, be very willing believers*.
« My worthy con-cspondent, p. 105, desires nic to " rcroHirt tliat Dr.
" Priestley himself, on the aiitlioritj- of Jerome, admits that Origen ndnptcd
'' the Platonic doctrine of the siibservit.n( y of tnilli to utility, as with ix-sptct
'• to dect;iving enemies." etc. But this iiiptnious gentleman's mm iffirencen
itfoiild infonn f)h», that Dr. Priestley fi(huils no such thing. He only men-
tions, Lett, part ii. j). 46. that Jerome, in his Episllo to Pammachius. Opera.
V. i. p. 49fi, says, that Origen adoi>tcd this doctrine ; which, surely, is vei-j- far
from admitting it as a fact, though he might reason upon it as a supposition.
My correspondent is vciy severe upon Dr. Priistley, for adding, in his Lcttc r
to Dr. HorsUy, "Jerome was far from spying, that Oiigcn reduced his theoi-j
" to practice; he mentions no instance whatever of his having recoui-se to it."*
Dr. Priestley's mistake, if any, is very inmialcrial ; Jerome does in genc-
i-al terms allege the fact, with ivspecf to Origen, as well as others: bui
he produces no specific proof whatever. M) coiTtspondent can account for
tlus inadvertence " in no other way, than bj' supposing that the Dr. some-
•' linns borrowed references, and in the haste of writing, did mU interrupt
LEriEU HI. o7
But at any rate, does not Jerome's allegation
prove that " Mosheim was not the first to impeach
" the character of Origenr" I answer, that bare
assertion, unsupported by evidence, is not to im-
peach, but to calumniate ; and in this honourable
distinction, Jerome may, perhaps, be allowed to
take the precedence of Mosheim. At the same
time, it must be remembered, that the good father
professes to mention the cii'cumstance to Origen's
praise ; a plea, which will at least acquit him from
the malignity of the charge.
As to the celebrated passage from Tertullian, 1
am willing to leave it to the judgment of the im-
partial and well-informed reader, with all the liberal
expositions of Dr. Horsley,* " the candid and
" learned investigation of Dr. Jamieson," and the
authoritative judgment of my correspondent upon its
head, w ithout any apprehension of its being misun-
derstood by any, who are not interested to maintain
that black is ivhite. Words have no meaning, if
Tei'tuUian does not aver, that the majority of un-
learned Christians were adverse to the then novel,
and philosophical notion, of a Trinity in the gotlhead.
As my learned correspondent has pronounced Dr.
Priestley's translation of the passage to be maecurate
and viutUated], but has, at the same time, prudently
abstained from giving us a complete and correct trans-
" liinisclfto examine them." Tliis et-nsiire oomes witli an ill pracc fi-om a
gentleman, wlio, with respect to tliis veiy passiif^c, lias, in the liaslc nf -iirit-
/n^, coinmittc-il an error wliich completely misnpresents tlie sense of liis
autlior. But evei-j- mote is ma^iified ir.to a beam, if it is seen iu the cyi of
Dr. Priestley.
* lA;tters,p. 110. t Letlei-s, p. 112
4
38 LKTTER in.
lation of his own ; I shall make up for this defect,
by giving it in the translation of Bishop Horsley*,
who will, I suppose, be allowed to be as competent
a judge of the construction of Greek, as Dr. Jamie-
son, and certainly not too partial to the sentiments
of Dr. Priestley. It may be proper to premise,
that the word idiots., should have been rendered
illiterate^.
" Simple persons," says Tertullian, " (not to call
" them ignorant and idiots) who always make the
* Letters in Reply to Dr. Priestley, p. 74.
+ Jly worthy torrespontlcnt, wlio, by his numcrouj quotations from tlie
classical Avriters, seems desirous of being understood to heprtfty much at home
in classical literature, expresses high gratification that Dr. Priestley, though
only a dissenting minister, was able to detect Bishop Horsley's gross mis-
translation of the woitl idiota. His words arc, (Letters, p. 109,) " It nmst be
" gratifying to mc, to see the mighty Oxonian chastised for this school-boy
" trick l)y a dissenting minister." That dissenting mitiisters may not, how-
ever, be too much elated by tlie reputation of so transcendent an exploit,
performed bj- one of their number, the auOior adds the following extraoitli-
nar>' remark : " Yet, I would be exceedingly modei-ate in my exultation ; for
" I fear there are aXmon physical hn/wssibilitics to forbid the hope tliat, as a
'• body, we shall ever be distinguished for classical learning." AVhat there
is in the physical constitution of dissenting ministers, which renders their
brains inaccessible to classical ideas, the ingenious author has not con-
descended to explain. In the mean time, I woidd take leave to inform him
for his comfort, that in the circle with which I ha\e the happiness to be
conversant, classical litii-ature was never in hisjlier repute, cither among
tile dissf-iitiiig cUrg)" or laity. And that it would not be difficult to men-
tion the names of Protestant dissenting ministers, who yield in extent,
copiousness, and accuracy of classical erudition, to none but the Parrs, the
Poisons, and the Bunieys of the establishment. The name of Mr. Cogan.
amongst many others, is well known to scholai-s, and was highly eslimateil
by that eminently compt tent judge of talent and learning, the late cele-
brated Gilbert Wakefield. Aud while that gentleman, and olhei-s in dil-
fereiit parts of the kingdom, continue to exert their suptrior talents and
energies in tha education of our youth, there is no danger that classical
literature will be lost or undervalued among the Dissenters, or that any
pretended physical impossibilities will prevent a succession of elegant and
accomplished scholars to do honour to a cause, most ultimately connected
with our dearest civil rights, and religious liberties.
LETTEU III. o9
" majority of believers ; because the rule of faith
" itself carries us aAvay from the many gods of the
" heathen to the one true God, not understanding
" that one God is indeed to be believed, but with
" an oeconomy (or arrangement) of the godhead ;
" startle at the (economy , They take it for granttdy
" that the number and disposition of the Trinity is a
" division of the Unity. They fire tend that two, and
" even three ai'e preached by us, and imagine that
" they thejnselves are tvorshipjiers of one God. We,
" they say, hold the monarchy. Latins have caught
" up the word monarchia. Greeks will not under-
" stand oeconomia."
I now conclude, in the words of my correspon-
dent: Such then is the complete victory of
Dr. Priestley,
t And am. Sir, See.
l.ETTER IN
Cliai-g-c or inadvertency ami grass niisrepi-esentaton iviiellcct -—Prop-ess of
(.-rror conet-niin^ the person of Christ stated.-- Misrepresentation of Dr.
Priestley's seuliments cori-ecttU.
Understand first, and then rebuke," is tlie
advice of a very wise writer*, to which my worthy
correspondent would have done well to have attend-
ed. It is not necessary that every man should be a
consummate scholar, or a profound theologian : but
it may reasonably be expected of one who publicly
volunteers the office of a critic, and a censor, that
he should at least know something- of the subject
of his remarks.
In the Discourse upon which this gentleman
unimadvertst, is the following passage :
" In another most valuable work, he (Dr. Priest-
'» ley) represented at large, with great compass of
" thought, acuteness of discrimination, and extent of
" learning, the rise and progress of those enormous
""errors, which have prevailed from age to age,
" concerning the person of Christ, who from the
* Ecclus. xi. 7.
t Fivieral Diseoui-se for Dr. Pi ieslky, p. 28.
J.ETTEK IV. 41
" condition of a man approved of God by signs and
" miracles and gifts of the holy spirit*, which is
" the character under which he is represented by
" himself and his apostles, has been advanced by
" the officious zeal of his mistaken followers, first,
" to the state of an angelic or superangelic being ;
" a delegated maker and governor of the world and
" its inhabitants ; and in the end, to a complete
" equality with God himself."
This compendious view of the progress of anti-
christian error concerning the person of Christ,
as described in the History of Early Opinions, is
denounced by my correspondent in the beginning
• Upon this allusion to Acts ii. 22, my corrcspondont, p. 116, is pleased
to make the I'ollowiiig sins'ilar reinarU — ^^How is this mhiimkr^tood passage
'^hackneyed by Unitarians !" The apostU-'s words are tliese: "Jesus of
" Nazareth, a MAN approvi-d of God anionjj you, l>y miracles, and wonders,
" and sigTis, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also
" know." How this plain passage can possibly be inisundei-siood , I am at a
loss to conceive. 'I'he ob\ious meaning to common apprel)en^iolls is, that
Tesus of Nazarctli was a MAN whose divine mission was publicly and incon-
irovertibly attested to the Jews, by the miracles which God enabled him to
perform. If, indeed, this text contains any other more recondite and im-
portant sense, it would siu-ely have been greater charity to instruct our
igaorauce, than. to taunt our didlness. Perhaps uiy ingenious cori-espondeut
may have some inetliod ot'interpii-'tatlon, by w liicli fo shew that the apostle's
true meaning is, that the man whose mission was publicly attested by God,
Wiis himstlfthe very God who attested his own mission, and who enabled
himself to work miracles. At any rate, it would be kind and condescending
to enlijfhten our darkness ii|)on a subject so much misundeistoud. In the
mean time, while nolions unscriptin-al, antichristian, and subversive of true
and rational piety, continue to l)e incessaiitlj' hnchiifytjct as the doctrines of
the gospel, the Unitarians will not fail (ui the decent phraseolog) of my
con-espondent) to luiikiiry the scriptm-es in ojjposilinn to them ; and wliethei-
the r.ea lots for popular opiniims approve it or no, the) will pti-severe to
demonstrate, without fi ar o( afutation, that sucli doctr'nes are as itpugi-.anc
to the explicit language of the New Testament, and to the faith of t!je piinii-
eive ch'irch, as they are contradictory to coniinou sense,, and to the tint
pnuciples of natural religion,
4*
42 LETTER IV.
of his eighth Letter, as a " singular inaccuracy of
" statement," originating, is he charitably conceives,
in " fierfect inadvertency on my part*." And wax-
ing bolder as he advances, he peremptorily affirms
that this account " is the precise reverse of acknow-
" ledged fact." " In the very work," continues he,
" which you are characterising, Dr. Priestley esta-
" blishes the direct contrary." Proceeding then
with great parade to produce his strong reasons, the
validity of which will be the subject of immediate
inquiiy, he triumphantly concludes : " Words could
" hardly be devised more fully contradictory to your
" inadvertent, though plausible observationf." In
addition to which, not having the fear of Dr. Priest-
ley's book before his eyes, he confidently hazards
the extraordinary assertion, that " according to Dr.
" Priestley, the very first step of deviation from the
" simple humanity of Christ, was the ascription to
*' him of a nature truly and properly divine :t."
Unfoutunately for this gentleman's theologi-
cal reputation, he has in this instance, as in most
uthcrs, sung Te Dcum before the victory. For in
order to convict me of the heavy charge of " per-
" feet inadvertency," and of asserting " the precise
reverse of acknowledged facts," my well-meaning
correspondent, whose zeal not unfrequently out-
strips his information, has assumed principles which
are notoriously erroneous, has alleged arguments
which are totally irrelevant, and has confounded
♦ Li ttii-s to Mj-. D. p. llfi. ■•■ l.iU( IS. p. in. t Ltttfvs, Ilii'J.
LETTER IV. 4>>
distinctions, which are plain and palpable, to every
one who is conversant with ecclesiastical antiquity*.
The basis of this gentleman's argviment, without
which the whole pompous superstructure falls to
the ground, is the extraordinary assumption, " that
the notion of the Logos, or the superior nature of
" Jesus Christ, pre-existing as an angelic or super-
" angelic being, is the distinguishing feature of the
■•' Arian hypothesisf."
This position being premised, the author further
presumes, without the shadow of reason, and con-
trary to fact, that I could have no hypothesis but
Arianism in view : and having produced from Dr.
Priestley's History of Early Opinions a collection of
passages to prove, what I am not at all inclined to
dispute, that Arianism was a novel doctrine, un-
known to the church before the age of Arius, and
that it was not " an intermediate stage by which
" the comiTion people who were Unitarians were
" brought to the Trinitarian doctrine ;" he plumes
himself upon having established his charge, and
with great self-complacency proclaims his triumph.
But with this gentleman's good leave, I must
demur, both to his premises and to his conclusion.
I am as little satisfied with his arbitrary definition
of Arianism here, as with his unauthorized detail
of Calvinism in a former letter. I deny that the
• My correspondent confounds the tenets of the Gnostics with those of
the Arians. Indeed his arjjmuont rests upon the strange supx>osition that
no other distinctions subsisted in the primitive aj^es, but those of Unita-
rianism, Arianism, and Trinitarian ism, a supposition than which nothing
tan be more remote from truth.
t Letters to Mr. B. p. 118.
44
LETTER JV.
notion of the superior nature of Christ, pre-existing
as an angelic or superangelic being, is the dis-
tinguishing feature of the Arian hypothesis*. I
affirm that this is a position which would never have
been advanced by any one, Avho was moderately
acquainted with the state of theological doctrine in
the primitive ages. I contend that this opinion was
introduced two hundred years before Arianism was
heard of. And after a mature revision of the sub-
ject, I persist in asserting the accuracy and fidelity
of that statement, which my correspondent has
attacked ; in confirmation of which, I shall now
proceed briefly to represent the progress of errone-
ous opinions, concerning the person of Christ in
the four first centuries of the christian sera.
That the founder of the christian faith should
be only a crucified Jew, has ever been, still is, and
will, I fear, long continue to be, the great stumbling-
block of the christian religion. It was eminently
such in the earliest periods of the promulgation of
the gospel. The philosophers who could not resist
the evidence of its divine authority, could not, on
the other hand, endure the disgrace of being called
'iSn nap Ebde Tolvi, the followers of the man that
was hanged: and to escape the reproach of the
cross, they soon began to combine the plain and
simple truths of the gospel, with the obscure fic-
• In fruUi, l)ie notion staitd by my corn spondt nt. Is nO' feature of
Arianism at all. For tin- Arian iloclriiie inaMitains that tlie Logos is the
soul whitli aiiimatis tlic boiiy of Christ: nor is this hypntlusis enciiiiibtn'd
with the iiiiiiitelli)^l)If jar^n of two natuns in Christ : the one siipiiior,
ihf other inferior; the one a prctxistent suiKTangelic spirit, tlie other a
luimnn sou).
LETTER IV. 45
lions of their respective systems ; that so they might
impart that dignity and lustre to this new sect, and
to its chief, which they thought essentially requisite
both to his credit and their own.
Of these, the Gnostics set the first example : a
sect which unquestionably existed in the apostolic
age, and of which Simon Magus was the reputed
founder. The Gnostics were the professors of the
oriental philosophy, according to which, the pleroma,
or place where the Supreme Being i-esided, was
inhabited by iEons, or emanations from him* ; some
of superior, others of inferior order, according to the
degrees of their descent. Matter was regarded by
them as intrinsically evil ; and the source of all evil,
natural and moral. These philosophers represented
Christ as one of the iEons, who was sent from the
pleroma, to deliver mankind from the tyranny of the
God of the Jews. All of them maintained, that the
Christ was incapable of suffering. Some taught,
that the Christ was united to the man Jesus at his
baptism, and departed from him at his crucifixion.
Others, more consistently with their principles, hold-
ing it to be impossible that a substance intrinsically
evil, such as matter, should be united to an angelic
or superangelic spirit, contended that Jesus was a
man only in appearance ; and that he neither felt,
• " The ^vfat Iwast of llie Cinoslics," says Dr. Priestley, was thiir pro-
" fuutul anil intricate doctrine concerning the derivation of various intelli-
" gencos from the supreme niiiul, which tliey tliought to be done by emana-
" tion or efllux." H.st. of Opinions, vol. i. p. 154. Valenlinus held, with
itspect to the superangelic nature of Clu-ist, that he was one of the Mom ;
and according to his genealogy, Christ and the Holy Spirit were the offspring
of Monogeiies, which came from Logos and Zoe, as these were the oftspring
of Noils and Veritas, ami these of Bylhus aud Sige. Ibid. p. 179.
46 LETTER IV.
nor suffered, like other men, but only seemed to do
so. These were called Docetae. This was the
heresy of the apostolic age*. The apostle Paul
alludes to it, when he cautions Timothy against the
illusions of science, falsely so calledf : for the Gnos-
tics pretended to superior knowledge : and when he
warns him not to give heed to endless genealogies |,
there being great disputes among the Gnostics con-
cerning the pedigrees of the ^ons. The apostle
John certainly refers to the Docetae, when he repre-
sents those as Antichrists, who deny that Jesus is
the Christy, or that Jesus Christ is come in the
fleshU, or in other words, that he is a real man.
The Gnostic heresy appears to have been silenced
by the authority of the apostles, till the time of the
Emperor Adrian, when it burst out again with in-
creased violence, was embraced by luultitudes in
Asia and Egypt, and was split into a great variety
of subordinate sects**.
Platonism was the fashionable philosophy of the
West. Plato had obscurely taught the doctrine of
three principlesft- The Supreme Being, whom
* Jerome says, that while the apostles were still living, and when the
blood of Christ was scarcely told in Judea, there were men who taught that
his body was no more than a phantom. Lardner's Works, v. iii. p. 542.
Cotelerius says, that a man may as well dt-ny that the sun gives light ai
noon, as deny that the lieivsy of the Docetae broke out in the age of the
apostles. Laitlner ibid. Cotelerius ad Ignat. cp. ad Trail, c. 10.
t 1 Tim. vi. 20. J 1 Tim. i. 3. Tit. iii. 0.
II 1 John ii. 22. H 1 John iv. 2, 3. 2 John 7.
•• See Dr. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions, vol. i. book i. chap. i. — v..
Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. i. part ii. chap. v. Cent. ii. pait ii. chap. v. Lanl-
ner's Hist, of Heretics, book i. sect. vi. p. IS. Lartlucr's Works, vol. ix. p.
233, etc. Vol. iii. p. 541, 542.
tt Dr. Priestley, ibid, book i. chap. vi. vol. i. p. 320.
LETTER IV. 47
he calls the Good ; the Nous, or intellect of the
Supreme ; and Matter, or the visible world. The
latter Platonists expounded and improved upon the
hypothesis of their founder. Porphyry, explaining
the doctrine of Plato, extends the divine essence to
three hypostases: the first is the Supreme Being or
the Good ; the second, the Demiurgus, the Maker
of the world ; and the third, the Soul of the world*.
Philo, a platonic Jew of Alexandria, contemporary
with the apostles, personifies the Nous, or as he
calls it the Logos, the wisdom or energy of God,
and represents it as the visible symbol of the divine
presence ; sometimes appearing in the form of an
angel, sometimes in that of a man, acting as the
medium of divine communications, but having no
permanent separate existence!. This notion was
eai'ly adopted by some philosophic Christians, in
order to abate the odium which was entailed upon
the christian religion, in consequence of the mean
condition and ignominious sufferings of its founder.
Justin Martyr, a platonic philosopher, a man
of great integrity, but of warm feelings, and of
slender judgment, who embraced Christianity, and
who suffered martyrdom about A. D. 165, is the
first ecclesiastical writer, now extant, who repre-
sents the Logos, or the wisdom of God, as person-
ally united to the man Christ. Others before him
had probably held the same doctrine, but had sup-
posed that the Logos, after the ascension of Christ,
had been again absorbed into the substance of the
• Dr. Priestley, ibid book i. chap. vii. sect. i. vol.i. p. 35fi. Vol. ii. p. 41.
t Dr. Prieit!ey, ibid, biiok i. chap. vjli. vol. ii. p. 1.
48
LETTKR IV.
Father. Justin appears to have been the first writer
who taught the permanent personality of the divine
Logos*, which he asserts that he had learned from
the Jewish scriptures ; for the understanding of
which, he professes lo have had a special gift from
Godf. And his great authority, together with the
increasing desire of exalting the person and dignity
of Christ, induced the learned Christians who suc-
ceeded him to adopt his opinion |^. Thus the doc-
trine of the permanent personal union of the divine
Logos, with the man Christ, by which he became
entitled to divine attributes and honours, gradually
made its way among learned Christians in the
second and third centuries : and this was the doc-
trine from which the minds of the great body of
unlearned believers so vehemently revolted in the
time of Tcrtullianll, and against which they solemn-
ly protested, as a direct infringement of the divine
unity. Nevertheless, as it was an essential part of
this system, that the Logos which dwelt in Christ
was merely an attribute of the Father, the abettors
of it regarded themselves as sufficiently supporting
the unity of the godhead, by maintaining that the
divine nature of Christ was the same with that of
the Father. He was not a God different from the
• Priestley's Histoi-)- of Eailj- 0|)iiiioiis, hooli ii. ciiap. ii. sect. ii. vol. ii.
p. 53.
•f- See tlio venerable Mr. I.inclspy's Second Address to tl;e Yoiiili of tlie
two Uiiivevsiiies, chap. ii. sect. xiv. — ^xvii.
t Mr. Lindsey, ibid. sect, xviii. — \xi. Aiignsliiie says, tbat lie rcpirdcd
Christ only as a man of excellent and incompai-able wisdom, till lie read tlic
works of Plato. Confess, lib. vii. I*rdner's Worlis, vol. iii. p. 5a\.
P See p. 48.
LETTER IV. 49
I'ather, and equal to him, hut was an cnianalion
from him, and one with liim.
The commencement of the fourth century usher-
ed in a novel doctrine, which astonished and alarmed
tlie whole christian world, and which the pious
bishop of Alexandria, in his circular letter to the
catholic bishops, declares so far to exceed in im-
piety, every thing which has been heard of before,
that in comparison with it, the most daring ex-
travagancies of all former heresies were perfectly
innocent*. This was Arianismf. T\\g fihilo.sop/iising
prelate to whom I have just alluded, and whose
name was Alexander:}^, having upon a certain occa-
sion asserted the doctrine of a Unity in the Trinity
in a stricter sense than some of his inferior clergy-
approved, was accused by Arius, one of his presby-
ters, a man of learning and subtlety, of favouring
the Sabejlian heresy. And in the heat of argument,
this rebellious priest presumed to advance the
hitherto unheard-of position, that the Logos who
animated the body of Christ was a m.ere creature,
formed (f| ovk ofim) out of nothing : that there was
a time when he had no existence : (o7< j;v ttoIi, ele enx.
•/)v) and in fine, " that he was Iirought into being for
" no purpose, but to give existence to the world
» Soerntes, Hisf. Etcl. lili. i. <liii|). vi. p. 13 liii. 21. Kd. lUnilln^.
+ Thf cliai-acui-istic «li''tii:ctioii of An;ii;ism is iln- iloetiiiie of a crenrcii
Lof^is. Tliis was a liypoOit sis pci-T ctly new. iiiscl « hii-li excited llie utmost
clarm. The Riioslic M >iis, and liit- plaloaif Loiifos, wcri.' t^niniintioiis, not oriM-
niVfS. He lliat is i.ot apprz d of tliisp disiiiicimis, and of the inniortiince
attached to iliem, Is loially i|;nMiraiii of lJn siil ji cl.
I Socrafis ibid. c. 5. <i>tXo:ro(bu¥ e6-0>«>'/ei, h the hi.toiiairs ( \pivs-
»*>ii i-drifLTii npr the orthodox pivlatc
50 LETTER IV.
" and its inhabitants ; so that if God had not chosen
" that tJie world should be made, the Logos him-
" self would not have existed*." Notwithstanding
the novelty of this doctrine, and its contrariety to
the orthodox creed, it spread with great rapidity,
and was embraced by multitudes with great eager-
ness, till the Emperor Constantine, having in vain
endeavoured, by prudent mediation to reconcile the
angry priests, summoned a general council of chris-
tian bishops at Nice, to settle the controversy ;
who, after much debate, at length decided, that the
Son was of the same essencef with the Father, and
denounced anathema upon all who should presume
to teach, that his essence was | different from that
of God.
In the heat of controversy with the Arians, the
orthodox by degrees lost sight of their original doc-
trine of the personification of an attribute, and began
to represent the Son as a distinct intelligent Being,
derived indeed from the Father by necessary gene-
ration, but in all other respects equal with him, and
only united to him as partaking of the same divine
.nature. To these divine persons, in due time, was
added a third, called the Holy Ghost, derived by
procession from the Father only, according to the
Greek church : but the Latins have decided, that he
• Socnitisiliid. c. 6. A; >)|M,*« y«f TTSTrotipxi, iy» >)/«.«? oi xvla,
0:05 r,$eXiV TFOH/tTXl.
t 0,M.«»s-/«5.
% E| (le^xi; aricci tpxriciUxi eivxi. Soci-ates Uml. c. 8. p. 2».
RcadUig.
LETTER IV. 51
proceeds from the Father and the Son. At length,
about a century after the council of Nice, the ortho-
dox faith Avas finally settled, and the respective
claims of the three supposed divine persons were
finally adjusted in that paragon of ingenuity, ab-
surdity, and impiety, the Creed falsely ascribed to
St. Athanasius, but which is attributed by many
learned men, with more probability, to ^"igiiius
Tapsensis, a notorious writer and forger of ancient
writings, and records, in the fifth century*. It is
from this symbol, and not from that of the Nicene
fathers, who would have been shocked at the novelty
and blasphemy of the doctrine, that we learn that
" in this Trinity, none is afore or after the other ;
" none is gi'eater or less than another ; but the whole
" three persons are co-eternal together, and co-
" EQUAL."
From this brief review of the rise and progress
of anti-christian errors, concerning the person of
Christ, I conceive that it will appear to every com-
petent and impartial judge, that notwithstanding the
late I'ise of Arianism, the date of what now passes
for orthodox Trinitarianism is still later: and that
I was perfectly correct in the assertion, that " from
" the condition of a man approved of God," which is
the doctrine of the New Testament, " our Lord has
" been advanced by the officious zeal of his mistaken
" followers, first to the state of an angelic or supcr-
" angelic Being," which was the error of the Gnos-
• He is supposed to liavt- bei-n tin; iiitcrpolater of the notor'ous lest
i-elat'n^ to tlie t'irce Ueavcnly witiiesse*. 1 John v. T. Stt Griesbath on
ihe Tr\t.
^■i LETTER ly.
tics ; " then to that of a delegated Maker and Go-
'' vemor of the world and its inhabitants," which
was the opinion of Platonists and Arians ; " and in
" the end to a complete equality with God himself,"
which is the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, and
which was not known till the latter end of the
fourth century. I cannot therefore plead guilty to
the charge of having affirmed, that which is " the
" precise reverse of acknowledged fact." But, on
the contrary, if I were disposed to retaliate, it would
not be difficult to make good the indictment against,
the accuser him.self.
I SHALL now proceed to shew, from Dr. Priestley's
own words, how very agreeable to " acknowledged
'' fact'' is my correspondent's confident assertion,
" that," according to Dr. Priestley, " the -very first
" ftteji of deviation fiom the simple humanity of
•' Christ, was the ascription to him of a nature truly
'' and properly divine*.'
i'othis purpose I might transcribe the whole four
volumes of Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opi-
nions concerning Christ. I might add a very fair
proportion of his account of the Corruptions of
C'hribtianity. I might subjoin no inconsiderable
part of his controversy with Dr. Ilorsley, and might
bring up the rear with a A"olume .or two of his
Ecclesiastical History. But as all this could not
easily be contained in the compass of a Letter, I
will limit myself to a few extracts from the con-
clusion of the first-mentioned work, in which the
♦ Ltttci'sto Mr. B. p.VlO.
UETTEU IV. 53
learned writer professes to give a connected view of
all the principal articles in the preceding Histoiy.
" All that these philosophers could advance at
'■^Jirst" says Dr. Priestley, " was, that some great
" superangelic spirit had been sent down from hca-
" ven, and was attached to the man Jesus — tliis
" superangelic Being was properly the Christ. This
" was the doctrine of the earlier Gnostics*.
" Bur as it had been the opinion of many, that
" angels were only temporary and unsubslanlial
" forms — others of these philosophers thought, that
" what was called the man Jesus, was nothing
" more than one of these unsubstantial forms of
" men ; so that the superangelic spirit or the Christ
" had no proper body or soul at all. These were
" called Doceta; ; a7id this progress /lad been made in
" the time of the ajiostles^."
" Having been taught by the plalonic philoso-
" phers that there were three great principles in
" nature, viz. the Supreme Being or the Good,
" his Mind (Nous), and the Soul of the world : and
" the Jewish philosophers having already advanced,
" that the second of these principles, which they
" denominated Logos, was an emanation from the
" Supreme Being, and the cause of all the appear-
" ances of God, recorded in the C;kl Testament,
" some of uhich were in the form of men ; and
" having also taught that it was this Logos that, by
" order of the Supreme Being, had made the visible
" world, that he was the image of God, his only
* Dr. rWi.stU-\ "i Hist, ol" Karly Oiiin'.or.s, vol. iv. p. 276.
t Ibid. p. 276, 277.
54 LETTER IV'.
" begotten Son, and that he was even entitled to the
" appellation of God in an inferior sense of the
" word : these christian philosophers imagined that
" it was this Logos that was united to the man Jesus
" Christ, and that on this account he might be called
« God*.
" For some tiine, however, the more learned
" Christians contented themselves with supposing,
" that the union between this divine Logos and the
" man Christ Jesus was only temporary. For they
" held this divine efflux, which, like a beam of light
" from the sun, went out from God, and was attach-
" ed to the person of Christ, to enable him to work
" miracles while he was on earth, was drawn into
" God again when he ascended into heaven, a'M had
" no more occasion to exert a miraculous powerf.
" It was afternvards maintained, and Justin Mar-
'< tyr, who had been a platonic philosopher, was per-
" haps the first who suggested the idea, that this
" union of the Logos to the person of Christ was
*' not temporary, but permanent |.
" The philosophical Christians acknowledged, that
" though Christ, on account of the divine Logos
" luiited to him, might be called God, it was in an
" inferior sense : also that the divinity, and even the
" being of the Son, was derived from the Father|).
" As it had always been maintained by the pla-
"• ionizing Christians, that the Logos came out of
" God, just before the creation of the world, and
" consequently, that there had been a time when
♦ Dr. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions, vol. iv. p. 27S.
t Uiid. p. 27?. % Ibid. J>. £P0. ^ Ibid. p. IBI
LETTER IV. 55
" God was alone, and the Son was not; and as they
" had always held that when the Son was produced,
" he was greatly mferior to the Father, t/icTe arose
" some who said, that he ought to be considered as
" a mere creature, not derived from the substance
*' of God, but created out of nothing, as other crea-
" tures were. These, who were the Arians, consi-
" dering the Logos as being the intelligent principle
" in Christ, thought that there was no occasion to
" suppose that he had any other soul. They there-
" fore said that Christ was a superangelic Being,
" united to a human body ; that though he himself
" was created, he was the Creator of all things under
" God, and the instrument of all the divine com-
" munications to the patriarchs*.
" In opposition to the Arians, the orthodox main-
" tained the Logos must be of the same substance
" with the Father, and co-eternal with himf.
" From this ti?ne, i. e. the time of the council of
" Nice, those who had distinguished themselves the
" most by their defence of the doctrine of the con-
" substantiality of the Son with the Father, did like-
" wise maintain both the proper personality of the
" Holy Spirit, and also his consubstantiality with
" the Father and the Son. This doctrine of the
" consubstantiality of the three divine persons, soon
" led to that of their perfect equality with respect
" to all divine perfections ; and this completed the
" scheme. According to it, though there is but
" one God, there are three divine persons, each of
• Dr. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions, p. 282,283.
t Ibid. p. 283.
56 tEl'TER IV.
" which, separately taken, is perfect God, though
" all together make no more than one perfect God :
" a proposition not only repugnant to the plainest
" principles of common sense, but altogether un-
" known before the council of J\'tce^ as is acknow-
" ledged by many learned Trinitarians*."
I SHALL add one paragraph more from Dr. Priest-
ley's summary view of the evidence for the primitive
Christians having held the doctrino of the simple
humanity of Christ, " There is a pretty easy gra-
•' dation (says he) in the progress of the doctrine
" of the divinity of Christ ; as he was first thought
" to be a God in some qualified sense of the word,
" a distinguished emanation from the supreme
" mind ; and then the logos^ or the wisdom of God
" personified : and this logos was first thought to
" be only occasionally detached from the Deity, and
" then drawn into his essence again, before it was
" imagined that it had a permanent personality, dis-
" tinct from that of the source from whence it
" sprung, that it ivas not till the fourth century^ that
" this Logos, or Christ, was thought to be properly
" equal to the Father. Whereas, on tlie other hand,
" though it is now pretended, that the apostles
" taught tjie doctrine of the divinity of Christ ; yet
" it cannot be denied, that in the very time of the
" apostles, the Jewish church, and many ol the
" gentiles also, held the opinion of his being a merg
" man. Here the transition is quite sudden, with-
" out any gradation at all. This must naturally havs
* Dr.Piitstley's Hist. orEarlyOpiiiion?, vol. iv. p. 285, 59?.
LETTER IV. 57
<> given the greatest alarm, and yet nothing of this
" kind can be perceived*."
From these extracts, the reader will be able to
form a competent judgment of the reliance which
is to be placed upon my correspondent's assertion,
that " according to Dr. Priestley, the very first step
" of deviation from the simple humanity of Christ,
" was the ascription to him of a nature truly and
" p/operly divinef."
This gentleman has been pleased to affirm, " that
" implicit reliance cannot be placed on Dr. Priest-
" ley's representations, even in cases of the plainest
" fact:^-" How far this charge is applicable to that
truly venerable character, will be the subject of in-
quiry in my next letter. In the mean time, my advice
to my worthy correspondent is, to look well at home.
Such indeed is his strange misapprehension, and
consequent mis-statement, of the most obvious facts,
that V ithout meaning any reflection upon his vera-
city, I am inclined to think that a cautious reader
will, for the future, be 7nore disposed to believe what
he shall firove^ than what he shall say.
It is, I think, the observation of Montaigne, " Let
" no man say I will write a little book." I was far
from expecting, when I began to write, that my
animadversions would have extended to so great a
length. But I found it impossible to repel the
point-blank charges of ignorance, of inadvertency,
of misrepresentation, and asserting the precise re-
verse of acknowledged fact, which my zealous cor-
* Dr. Pi-ieslln's Hist, of Early Opinions, p. 311, 312.
+ I.ctiiT! to Mr. B. p. 119. \ Letters, p. 130.
58 LETTER IV.
respondent has accumulated against me, with an
unsparing hand, without stating the evidence upon
which my convictions were founded. If you will
permit me to trouble you with one letter more, I
believe I may now explicitly promise, that you shall
receive no more last words from,
Dear Sir,
Your humble Servant, Sec.
BETTER Y.
Tin- cliaifje np:ai;iit Dr. Prifstloj 's character stated ami repelled. — Dr.
Priestley and liis accuser equally mistaken in a passage from Chi-j sostom.—
Tlie nature and conduct of Dr. Priestley's argument represented and
\ indicated. — Conclusion.
DEAR SIR,
My redoubted opponent having in imagination
given me the coitfi de grace^ like a valorous knight
sets out again in quest of new adventures ; and
elated with presumed success, he hesitates not to
tilt a lance with the great champion of the theolo-
gical field : and having, as he thinks, plucked a
feather from the crest of his mighty antagonist, he
annexes it to his own as a trophy of victory. How
far he is entitled to the triumph which he claims,
it is our present business to inquire.
The allegation which my correspondent under-
takes to establish*, is indeed of no inconsiderable
moment, viz. that " implicit ueliance cannot
" BE SAFELY PLACED ON DU. PUIESTLEy's REPRE-
SENTATIONS, EVEN IN CASES OF THE PLAINEST
U
" FACTS."
It is an old and approved maxim amongst us
•theological disputants, when we do not find it easy
* Letten to Mr. B. p. 130.
*0 I.ETTRR V.
or convenient to reply to our opponent's argument,
to do all we can to depreciate his work, and to dis-
suade our readers from looking into it, or troubling
themselves about it. This manoeuvre has. been
played off with great industry, and some effect,
against the writings of Dr. Priestley. The learned
bishop of St. Asaph, in particular, excelled in this
species of controversial tactics : and my worthy cor-
respondent, if not equal in ability, is not at all defi-
cient in good will. But the armour which was proof
against the iron mace of the Brobdingnag knight,
is not likely to be much injured by the brittle reed
of the Lilliputian squire.
" Implicit reliance cannot safely be placed upon
" Dr. Priestley's representations, even in cases of
" the plainest facts." — To substantiate so grave a
charge, it would be natural to expect a considerable
induction of very plain facts, which have been mis-
represented by Dr. Priestley. Instead of which,
the gentleman who brings the accusation presents
us with three passages, out of a collection of nearly
two thousand from the ancient ecclesiastical writers,
in which he apprehends that the learned and inde-
fatigable historian of Early Opinions has, not indeed
misquoted, nor mistranslated, but merely misunder-
stood, his author. And this, forsooth, is the evi-
dence upon which that venerable character is to be
dragged forth, and arraigned at the tribunal "of the
public, as unfit to be trusted in representations even
of tlie plainest facts.
I AM no advocate for the infallibility of Dr. Priest-
Icy. His noble and ingenuous spirit pretended to
I.ETTER V. 61
no exemption from infirmities incident to human
nature : and with (rue magnanimity he eagerly soli-
cited, and gratefully acknowledged, the correction
of any mistakes into which he had inadvertently
fallen. I freely admit that Dr. Priestley's accuser
has, in one instance, detected a singular misappre-
hension of the connection of an obscure passage,
which that learned writer has extracted from the
works of Chrysostom ; though I am far from being
satisfied that the gentleman, who has with so much
parade pointed out the error, is himself at all nearer
to the truth, in his own construction of the passage.
Dr. Priestley says, that " Chrysostom represents all
" the fireceding ivriters of the JVew Testament as chil-
" di'en who heard but did not understand things, and
" who were busy about cheesecakes and childish
" sports ; but John taught, what the angels them-
" selves did not know before he declared it*." My
correspondent justly observes, that the clause as it
stands in Chrysostom is " all the rest," and that the
persons referred to in it, are not " the writers of the
" New Testament." So far we are obliged to him
for correcting an inadvertence of the learned author.
But when he adds that " the antecedent is the
" effeminate and dissipated spectators of athletic
*' games, and the auditors of musicians and orato-
" rical sophists," he errs as widely from the mark
as the great man whom he so severely censures. If
my worthy correspondent will have the goodness,
as he advises me, to take down his Chrysostom
• Hist, of Karly Opinions, vol. iii. p. 128, 129.
6
6"2 LEl'TKU V.
again, and to re\ise the context with a little more
attention, he will find, that by the exceptive clause
" all the rest," the orator intends all men " who not
" being angels already, nor ambitious of becoming
" such, do nevertheless occasionally hear the words
" of the evangelist." This declamatory writer, in
his preface to John's gospel, representing the evan-
gelist under the character of one who exhibits
himself upon the public stage, amongst other cir-
cumstances, describes his situation in these words :
" His proscenium, or stage, is the whole heaven,
" his theatre is the habitable world, his spectators
" and hearers are all the angels, and of the human
" race, those who are already angels, or who desire
" to become such ; for they only can rightly under-
" stand this harmony, and shew it by their works.
^' As to all the rest, like little children, who hear,
" but understand not what they hear, and are cap-
" tivated with cakes and childish toys, so these like-
" wise being gay, luxurious, and devoted to wealth,
" to power, and to pleasure, sometimes indeed hear
" the words that are sJioke?i, but exhibit nothing
" great or sublime in their actions, because they
" have immured themselves in brick and clay*."
Who were the persons intended by the rhetori-
cal expression " men who are already angels, or
* &ecc]xi $e xKt UK^omleii, 7rav7c5 ayytXci, y.u: ay^-^UTruv
cQ-aiTTt^ ccy/iX'H TV'/^u.i'OVTiv 3v7f«> i} "«' yevsirSxi t^rtS-v-
fMvo-iv OTTOl TAP MONOI rxvlr.i ccx^toM^ eyrxxovcxt
evv»ivl' otv Tiii ci^f^victi - ui OirE AAAOI ITANTES x»$oi-
Ti^ 7«fr TTXleiX K. 7. ^. Clirysostoii) in Joan. Homil. i. 0\>\>. 'loin. li.
p. 550. Ell. Eton. 1012.
LtlTER \ . Do
" Avho are desirous of becoming such," the author
has not distinctly explained. Possibly, Chrysostom
might allude to the epistles to the seven churches
of Asia in the Apocalypse, in which the bishops, or
pastors of the churches, are styled angelsf and might
mean the priesthood, and the candidates for holy
orders, as opposed to the laity. But, more proba-
bly, the eloquent father intends those speculative
and philosophising Christians, who \»ere initiated
into the mysteries of the orthodox faith, and who
passed their lives in these sublime speculations. It
is in contradistinction to these angelic personages,
that unlearned Christians, who contented them-
selves with plain matters of fact, who understood
the scriptures in their literal sense, and who en-
gaged in the usual occupations of life without
troubling themselves about unintelligible notions,
or aspiring to the character of ascetics, or philoso-
phers, arc contemptuously represented as children,
amusing themselves with cakes and toys, under-
standing nothing which they heard, and immersed
in worldly pleasures and pursuits. This interpreta-
• tion will not appear improbable, to those who know
in what contempt plain and unlearned Christians
were held, by men who fancied that they possessed
a deep insight into the mystical sense of the evan-
gelical history. Admitting this to be the true
meaning of this obscure passage, it would not be
irrelevant to Dr. P.'s piu'pose, though not exactly
in the sense in which he has cited it : the allusion
bc!ng, not to the preceding writers of the New
64
LETTER V.
Testament, but, to the mass of unlearned Chris-
tians*.
The reverend letter-writer, rightly judging that
a single instance of erroneous interpretation, select-
ed from a collection of almost two thousand pas-
sages, would hardly be thought sufficient to convict
a person of Dr. Priestley's established reputation of
the charge alleged, drags in another passage, quoted
■by Dr. Priestley from the same writer, to bolster
up the infirm evidence of the first. " Dr. Priestley
" proceeds. But John, he (i. e. Chrysostom) says,
" taught what the angels themselves did not know
" before he declared itf : and he represents them
" as his most attentive auditors \." It is not pre-
tended that this sentence is not correctly cited. And,
as the gentleman who brings the impeachment, has
not condescended to shew, how a correct quotation
of an author's words proves that no reliance is to be
placed upon the I'epresentations of the person who
* In this way it is easy to nccount for Dr. PncstUy's mistal^e. He l;a(l
pvobahly noted this as a i>assage which was much to his i)uq)Osc ofillustra^
ing the clitrercncc which suhsisted between the learned and uiikanied
Christians, and the contempt with which the laltt r were (reaieil by tl.e
former for not adoplinp; their mysterious speculations. But forgetting the
reference, he understood tlie expression, all the vst, as n lining to ilie pit-
cedlng evangehsts: in which supposition he wouUl he confirmed by the
long quotations which immediately succee<l, and in which his author really
does represent the other evangelists, as having taught litile, or nothing, oi'
tlie doctrine of the Logos, or divine nature of Christ, in comparison with
John. At any rate, thi< passage from Chi-ysostom has no more contiectioii
with the spectators of the games, and the auditors of musicians and sophists,
than it has with the inhabitants ofChina, or the Moon. I should, however,
regard it as unpardonable asperity, to charge my coiTespondi lit ai unfit to
be relied upon in his representations of the plainest facts, merely because he
haa misapplied an obsctuv passage in Chrvsostom.
t Chrjsostom Opp. ibid. Tom. ii. p. ?56. Ed. Eton. 1612.
t Letters, p. 125.
LETTER \. 65
makes the quotation, we may safely dismiss this
evidence without any further questions. It is true
that the accuser puts the question, " Is it possible
" that Dr. Priestley could read the above passage
" so as ever to dream of the interpretation he has
" put upon it ?*" But as Dr. Priestley has put no
interpretation whatever upon the passage, and has
left it to speak for itself, this observation may be
passed by, as a dream of the ingenious gentleman
who produces the charge.
In a situation precisely similar, stands the next
evidence brought forward to confirm the accusa-
tion. The passage as cited by Dr. P. is as follows :
" Leaving the Father (he says) he (John) discoursed
*' concerning the Son, because the Father was
" known to all, if not as a Father yet as God ; but
" the only begotten was unknownf." The correct-
ness of the quotation from Chrysostom is not ques-
tioned ; but it is alleged, that the word all is to be
understood, " of the 7nass of mankind." This is not
probable : but whether it be, or be not, Dr. Priest-
ley is not concerned in it, for he only cites the
passage without any comment.
Upon such evidence does this very candid writer
found his conclusion, " that implicit reliance cannot
" be safely placed on Dr. Priestley's representations,
" even in cases of the plainest facts."
Having thus produced passages which Dr. Priest-
Icy has cited correctly, in order to prove that he is
» LettciN, p. 126.
t Chrysostom Opp. Tom. ii. p. SG2. EU. Eton.— History of Early Opi.
iiioiis, vol. iii. p. 129.— Lettei-s, p, Mf', 127.
66 LETTER \.
not to be depended upon, to crown his arguniciu,
this sagacious critic next brings forward a passage
which that learned writer has never cited at all, as
a " proof how totally Dr. Priestley has misunder-
" stood Chrysostom's extravagant oratory*." Surely
such criticisms must have been impoi'ted from the
banks of the Shannon.
Perhaps my coiTespondcnt may plead, that he
has qualified the charge with the epithet imjilicit.
But if he meant no more than that implicit faith is
not to be placed in man, what occasion was there
for pompous proofs, and solemn professions of can-
dour, to introduce so trite a truisin ? But if the
writer means any thing, he means to insinuate, that
Dr. Priestley is not to be depended upon eciually
with other learned authors ; and it cannot be doubt-
ed that the expression, '' implicit reliance cannot be
" safely placed on Dr. Priestley," would by super-
ficial readers be understood to signify, that no con-
fidence at all was to be placed in his assertions ; an
insinuation, which if it was intended, is as unfounded,
as it is illiberal.
I SCRUPLE not to declare my firm conviction, that
lightly as this reverend gentleman affects to treat
Dr. Priestley's testimony, he docs not himself give
'■ • Letters, p. 127, 123. The piiiiiort of tlieautliOr's qiiolntious from tlie
tlilixl Homily is (o shew (hat Chrysoilom ttaihes, that " John chd not so
" confine himself to the Lo^os, as eniirely to negli ct the human naiiiie of
■' Christ, nor diil tlie other evangelists conCne themselves so entirely to the
•' human nature, as to l)e silent eoncernin;; his eternal pi-e^.-xistence." This
Dr. Priestley never denied. See Hist, ol Opiiuons, vol. iii. p 128. But he
(ruly affirms that Chi-ysoston.'s not:on is, that Join) taught tlearly and ex-
plicitly, what they only ventured to hint at. And this is evident froni,'lw
lontext of this vcrj' passage wliieh m\ corrcs]>cndeiU <n:oles.
LETTER V. &7
credit to the charge, to the extent in which it will
naturally and inevitably be understood, by those who
place implicit confidence in him. If my correspon-
dent has read that learned work, the authority of
which he has thought fit to impugn, I will venture
to assert, that it is not in his power, if he possesses
a capacity to appreciate moral evidence, to withhold
his assent from the fact established by Dr. Priest-
ley, upon the testimony of passages which he pro-
duces from Chrysostom himself, that this eloquent
father means to affirm, that John was the first evan-
gelist, M'ho ventured openly and explicitly to assert
the divinity of Jesus Christ, a doctrine which the
other evangelists had with great and commendable
caution, if not passed over entirely, at most, hinted
at very obscurely, that they might not give offence
to their readers. But the object of most of Dr.
Priestley's opponents is, not to reply to his argu-
ments, but to make their ignorant admirers believe,
that his works are not Avorthy of a perusal, by un-
justly stigmatizing his character, as an inattentive
and incorrect writer.
Dr. Priestley's argument for the unitarian
doctrine, from the testimony of the ancient eccle-
siastical writers, is original and masterly, and in my
judgment clear and decisive ; but being new, it has
been greatly misunderstood and misrepresented.
Former theologians have appealed to^the fathers, as
advocates for the doctrines which they themselves
espoused ; and have endeavoured to support the
credit of their respective systems, by the authority
■ of the venerable confessors of tlie primitive church.
68 LETTER V.
Dr. Priestley has chosen very different ground : he
is the first controversial writer who has -scntured
openly to declare, that his doctrine is in direct
opposition to that of the great names to whose
authority he appeals, and who have hitherto been
generally regarded as the authorized expositors of
the christian faith. He allows that very few, if any,
of these eminent men were, properly speaking,
Unitarians in principle. Nay, that they even held
the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ in
contempt and abhorrence, and that they opposed it
to the utmost of their power. He nevertheless
contends, that the great body of Christians, both
Jews and Heathens, for the three first centuries,
were strenuous advocates for the proper unity of
God, and that they zealously opposed the gnostic,
the platonic, and the arian doctrines as they were
successively introduced, and all the other wild spe-
culations of the philosophizing Christians which
were invented to shelter themselves from the dis-
grace of being the disciples of a low-born Jew, wlio
had been ignominiously executed as a common male-
factor. This alarm of the unlearned Christians was
so general, and the dislike of the new doctrines
was so deeply rooted, that it was with very great
difficulty, and not till after a great length of time,
that they were brought quietly to acquiesce in them.
These important facts are established by Dr.
Priestley upon the testimony of the primitive writers
of the christian church. Not indeed upon their
direct assertion : this could hardly be expected, and
would be liable to suspicion. The evidence which
l.IiTTEIl V.
G9
the learned historian of Early Opinions cluefly pro-
duces, and upon wliich he lays the principal stress,
is tiiat of inadvertent concession, of incidental re-
mark, of complaint, of caution, of affected candour,
of apology, of inference, which, thougli indirect, is
at the same time, the most, satisfactory, to the in-
quisitive and reflecting mind. It is that species of
evidence which judicious readers so much admire
in Dr. Paley's Horne Paulina, and similar to that by
which the rapid progress, and consec^uently the truth
of the christian religion, is established by the unwil-
ling testimony of heathen writers.
But if these facts arc established, the conclusion
follows immediately. No person of reflection caa
for a moment maintain, that the apostles believed,
and distinctly taught, the pre-existcnce and divinity
of their master, and that the great mass of their
converts were unbelievers in their testimony. The
primitive Christians to avoid reproach, were under
the strongest temptations to exalt the person and
dignity of their teacher; but surely they could have
no motive to derogate from, and to reduce it. If
then the unitarian doctrine was the faith of the
primitive church, it must have been the faith of
the apostles themselves, and therefore this doctrine
must be true.
In order to establish this important fact, the
learned historian of Early Opinions has, with won-
derful industry and sagacity, selected upwards of
eighteen hundred passages from the early eccle-
idastical writers, all of which, in his estimation,
tend in one wav or another, to iflustrate and confirm
"0 LETTER V.
the unitaiianism of the great body oi" unlearned
Christians in the primitive ages* !
It would indeed be marvellous in the highest
degree if, in so great a number of quotations, some
passages Avcre not misquoted, misunderstood, or
misapplied, and if there should not, here and there,
be found some gross and palpable errors. This
opens an ample held to pedling criticism : and if in
two, or three, or half a dozen instances, an over-
sight is discovered, however insignificant, the hue
and cry is immediately raised, " Dr. Priestley's
" representations are not to be trusted, even in the
" plainest facts."
To offer ai'guments to minds incapable of com-
prehending them, or indisposed to admit them,
would be a waste of time and labour. But the judi-
cious reader will easily perceive that such objections
are of no weight. Scores, and hundreds, of passages
may be spared, and yet the argument remain valid.
It is indeed surprizing that in so great a number of
quotations, so few material errors should have been
detected by Dr. Priestley's learned and quick-sight-
ed antagonists. But I am convinced that the clear,
though unwilling testimony of Justin Maityr, of
* See Mr. Lindsiy's Vliuliciic Pricstlciaiisf, p. 3:!5. Tliis excellent writer
obsen'es, that in a work or such compass and oxteiit as tins History of Early
Opinions concerning Jtsiis Christ, in which you have tJie woitls of the ori-
ginal writirs themselves, it was scarcely to he expected that no niist:<kes
would 1)0 committed. Tlie author foresaw it to he una\<)i<lable, and desired
all allowance lo be 7nadr, and to be told lii< faults, and he would pladly cor-
rect lliein. Tliey lia\e, however, turned out much I'ewer than could have
been imagined, and none of thiiu in the least affectinp; his maiTi propositions
and conclusions, though lie has been told of them in an unhandsome wav.
Sec the Appendix.
Tertullian, of Origcn, of Athanasius, and of Chry-
sostom, to the unitarianism of the primitive church,
and to the great caution of the apostles in divulging
the doctrine of Christ's divinity, can never be resist-
ed by any fair reasoning. To say that Origcn was
a liar, and Tertullian in a pet, is a sort of reply
which considerate persons well know how to appre-
ciate.
To press the venerable fathers of the church, (to
whose authority servile submission has been so often
challenged, and so abjectly yielded,) to give evidence
against themselves, and to confute them by their
own testimony, was an original and happy thought
of the learned historian of Ancient Opinions con-
cerning the Person of Christ, and was worthy the
great and adventurous genius of Dr. Priestley. And
though minute critics may have discovered minute
errors in his numerous quotations, yet none of them
have in the least degree affected his conclusions ;
and I will venture to predict that they never will.
The more severely the argument is investigated,
and the better it is understood, the more luminous,
the more satisfactory, and the more decisive, it will
appear.
Of the opponents of Dr. Priestley, my corres-
pondent refers to Dr. Williams, "whose objections
" to the whole structure" of Dr. Priestley's argu-
ment " wore, in his opinion, worthy of very serious
attention," but were only " noticed in a wav of
" private compiiment*." I have never seen Dr.
* I.clki-s P- 120.
72 LETTER V.
Williams's work ; but if his objections are correctly
stated by his friend, viz. that Dr. Priestley's " mode
" of argument has long ago been solidly refuted ;
" that it is plainly reprehended by Jesus Christ ;
" that it is highly untheological in its just conse-
" quences," and the like, I confess I do not see what
other reply Dr. Priestley could with propriety have
made to such objections, than by a civil bow.
But it seems the great strength of the cause
rests upon Dr. Jamieson's " elaborate and learned
" work," which, we are told, " is the very pcrform-
" ance which Dr. Priestley had so long desired and
" challenged," which therefore " had a just chiim
" on his particular and public notice.*" This much-
extolled work, by the favour of an eminent and re-
spectable calvinistic minister in the metropolisf, I
had an opportunity of seeing when it was first pub-
lished, and I perused it with a considerable degree
of attention. But I acknowledge, that the arguments
and criticisms made very little impression upon my
mind. Perhaps I was not disposed to rate very
highly the judgment of a writer, who in his zeal
for the doctrine of the Trinity, appeals to the testi-
mony of the devil, as an evidence of its truth. This
work of Dr. Jamieson's was I believe never seen by
Dr. Priestley ; and we have abundant evidence, that
the time of that great philosopher and divine, was
much better employed during his exile, than in
writing an answer to it. And indeed, what answer
does it recjuire ? These learned works are both
* Letten to Mr. B, p. 121, t Rev. Mr. Towle-
l.ETTER V. /3
before the public ; and men of erudition, who are
competent to judge, and desirous to learn, may
easily compare them, and draw the conclusion for
themselves.
Having thus finished my animadversions upon
the strictures of my correspondent, and established
a defence both of my own assertions, and of Dr.
Priestley's insulted character, which, I trust, will
prove satisfactory to the judicious, unprejudiced,
and well-informed reader ; I now willingly take
leave of the controversy, subscribing myself,
Dear Sir,
Very sincerely your's,
T. BELSHAM
Hackney, A piil 17, 1805.
APPENDIX,
Cgntaining an Extract from a publication of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsej,
which expresses the judgment of that learned writer, concerning the issue
of the controvei"sy between Dr. Priestley and Dr. Horslty, and contemiiig
the importance of Dr. Priestley's Histoi-j- of Early Opinions concerning
Jesus Christ.*
This work of Dr. Priestley's, viz. his History of
the Corruptions of Christianity, was not suflered to
pass without being controverted by several persons,
among whom, Dr. Horsley much distinguished him-
self; though by no means to his credit with learned
men and judges of the subject. For, perhaps, there
hardly ever was an instance in which a controversial
writer was so entirely baffled, and confuted in every
thing advanced by him, both from scripture, and
early antiquity, to invalidate Dr. Priestley's posi-
tions, as has been verified, with respect to Dr.
Horsley. And this is the opinion of not a few
among the learned, who are far from favouring Dr.
Priestley's peculiar sentiments.
In consequence of this discussion of the subject
with Dr. Horsley, yet not with a view to add to his
triumphs over him, but for his own satisfaction, and
that of others, the learned more especially. Dr.
Priestley undertook this his herculean work.f In
• Mr. Lindsey's Address to the Youth of the two Uni vei-sities, p. 337—2-13.
p.irt i. 1783.
+ The Hisloi-j- of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Cluist, compiled from
ori^al wrircrt. proving that the tlni'tian church was at first Unitarian .-
Vl'PENUlX. '^
this he has brouglit to light and displayed a \ ast ac-
cumulation of evidence,.unknown before, to " prove
" the truth and untitiuity, as he himself speaks, of
•' the proper unitarian doctrine, in opposition to the
" trinitarian and arian hypotheses," deriving his in-
formation from the first sources only, having perused
all the original authors from the beginning, and
produced almost two thousand passages from them,
and having many others in reserve, equally impor-
tant, if needed, to establish the facts for which he
pleads.
Concerning, however, this lav^cjield, or more
justly to speak, this overgrown wood of Christian
antiquity, which our author alone has cleared up,
and in which he has made such discoveries, I would
beg leave to observe to you ;
I. That before he led the way, we were all much
in confusion, and had no distinct ideas concerning
that great corruption of the gospel, and of genuine
Christianity, called Arimiism : I mean the doctrine
which makes Jesus Christ to have been a great pre-
existent spirit, next to the eternal God, and deriv-
ing his being from him ; who condescended to come
into this world of our's, and to animate a human
body, shrunk from his original dignity and power,
first into the state of an embryo, next into that of
a helpless infant, till by degrees he became rational,
8cc. &c.
in Tour vols. 1786. This (says Mr. Lindscy, p. 33S,) is the most curious and
vahmble of all Dr. Priestlty's works ; and I risk nothing in adding, that it
couhl only be executed In the manner it has been done, by a superior genius
like his own.
f>
?'6 APPENDIX.
This doctrine, which has no countenance in the
scriptures, but in a very few passages of plainly
Avrong interpretation, Dr. Priestley has proved not
to have been known in the chiistian church till
about the time of Arius* : and has likewise shewn
that the doctrine of the platonic fathers concerning
Christ, which probably first begun with Justin
Martyr, or about his time, and has been mistaken
for it, was quite another thing: Christ, according to
them, not being a superangelic spirit, animating a
human body, but the Logos, the wisdom or reason
of the Divine Being, his attribute, Avhich these philo-
sophers made a person of, and which, according to
them, bore the same relation to the Father, that the
platonic vy?, which was their second principle, bore
to the first principle, usually called ayec^*?, or rather,
were the same with them. This they held to be
» This inipoi'tant fact, wliii'h Mr. Limiscy here niciilions as proved by
Dr. Priestley, vix. tliat Ariniiisin, or the Joctrine ot'a created Logos animat-
ing the body of Christ, had no existence before the age of Ariu% a faci
which is decisi\e of the arian controversy, has been brought forward, and
pointedly stated, nearly twenty years, and it still remains nnconlradictcd,
and, indeed, cannot be controvcrttd. Learned Arians have abandontd the
cause, and seem to give it up as untcnalile. It would surely better become
them to repel arguments which affect the vitals of tlieir system, flian to
amuse themselves with verbal controversies about the word Unitarian,
which, hnjjpily, Ixing a terjn of good repute, is claimed by all parties, and
w hich, according as it is defined, may be made to include the highest Trini-
tarian, or to exclude even the lowest Arian, excepting those modern theolo-
gians who limit themselves to the belief of the simple pre-existence of Christ.
'J'his hypothesis, the invention of the eighteenth centui7, which has never
yet had a public advocate, but which is known to be the private opinion of
some respectable individuals, falls w iiliin tlie limits of Uuitaiianism, even
accordnig to its most restricted definition: but why its advocates should
choose to pass themselves off as Ar'ans is difficult to explain, for this liypoi
thesis is no more .\rianism than it is Mahometisin.
APPENWX. 5'!'
intimately united to Jesus Christ, who was still a
man in their system, with a body and soul like the
rest of us.
I MUST own that this wild abstracted perversion
of the true scripture doctrine concerning Christ, is
to me less exceptionable, and less repugnant to rea-
son, than the arian doctrine concerning him : which
is a heap of incongruous staggering improbabilites
from beginning to end : whether you suppose the
great pre-existent spirit, which was shut up in a
human body of flesh and blood for thirty years, to
have been the first and principal of created Beings*
and the subordinate Creator of all things, or one of
an inferior class with inferior powers.
II. The distinction of the opinion of the early
writers from that of the common people, was never
before observed by any one : and being a thing
wholly unknown to the first Socinians, they were
exceedingly embarrassed in defence of their senti-
inents in point of antiquity. But we here see the
seeming gap and chasm filled up ; and that the doc-
trine of the apostles concerning their divine master,
being altogether one of the human race, was also
the doctrine of all those that were immediately
laught by and succeeded them, a few speculative
men excepted, who would be wise above what is
written.
III. The variety of curious knowledge of facts
and opinions contained in this work ; the illustra*-
lions of the oriental philosophy ; and the doctrine
of Platonism in particular, never so well exhibited
before ; must be pleasing and instructive to all, who
7 #
78 APPENDIX..
wish to know the historj' of the human mind, au
interesting history assuredly : so that throwing even
the question of religion aside, it is a valuable acces-
sion to the litei'ary world, but connected with that
important object, it is above all price.
In a work of such compass and extent as this
History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ,
in which you have the words of the original writers
themselves, it was scarcely to be expected, that no
mistakes would be committed. The author foresaw
it to be unavoidable, and desired all allowance to be
made, and to be told his faults, and he would gladly
correct them. They have, however, turned out
much fewer than could have been imagined, and
none of them in the least affecting his main pro-
positions and conclusions, though he has been told
of them in an unhandsome way.
With respect to the unworthy insinuations of
some men, all that know any thing of Dr. Priestley
believe, and are persuaded, that he would as soon
be guilty of robbing on the highway, as of designedly
misquoting or misinterpreting any passage in an
ancient writer to deceive others, and serve the pur-
pose of a private party or opinion. For he has no
interest in view, but that of truth, nor any desires,
but to have that in the best way promoted and
established.
POSTSCRIPT.
Remarks upon the alterations and concessions in tUe second edition of ilit
Letters to Mr. B.
Since these sheets were printed off, a second
edition of the Letters, which are the subject of
animadversion in them, has made its appearance ;
upon which, I beg leave to offer a few remarks.
In the first place, the writer, in his Advertise-
ment to this edition, has fairly and candidly acknow-
ledged, " that he had egregiously misapprehended
" my meaning in the passage animadverted upon
" in his eighth Letter, the whole of which animad-
" version is now expunged." This is the passage
in which my correspondent had charged me with
asserting, " the reverse of acknowledged facts," and
is the subject of the fourth Letter of the preceding
series.
This gentleman has likewise omitted in his new
edition, the heavy allegation against Dr. Priestley,
" that implicit reUance cannot safely be placed on
" his representations, even in cases of the plainest
" fact." The reason which he assigns for this
omission is, that " the paragraph had an aji/iearance
^' of asperity towards Dr. Priestley." IJe might
80 POSTSCRIPT.
with great propriety have added, that the charge
was both unjust, and unproved.
These concessions are important, but they are
not all which I consider myself as entitled to claim.
This gentleman has charged me with misrepre-
senting, caricaturing, and calumniating Calvinism ;
which allegation he has attempted to establish, by
giving a long detail of his own opinions, which he
calls Calvinism, and which he thinks entitled to
more honourable mention. My worthy correspon-
dent is at full liberty to believe what he likes, and to
call his creed by what name he pleases. But most
assuredly, when I spoke of Calvinism, I did not
I'efer either to his particular system, or to that of
any other individual. I alluded to the Calvinism
which is exhibited in the public symbols of the sect,
which is taught to their children, which is blended
in their worship. If tins gentleman's sentiments
do not coincide with those, they were not within
my contemplation, nor were they the objects of my
censure. What I hold to be Cah inism, or rather
what the Calvinists themselves declare to be their
own principles, I have stated in my first Letter :
and that statement still remains, and I venture to say,
that it will i-emain uncontradicted. Whatever there-
fore my correspondent may think of the opinion
which I entertain of the tendency of Calvinism, he
has no right to persist in the charge, that I misre-
present the system.
The imputation against the character of Origen
is not retracted, and nothing further is offered in
support of it, but a quotation froa-n Daille, which
POSTSCRIPT. 81
brings a general allegation of insincerity against the
fathers in their polemical writings, but does not
particularly mention Origen.
I WAS curious to learn how my coiTespondent,
with the help of Dr. Jamieson, would set aside the
clear and explicit evidence of Tertullian, to the
strong prejudices of the great mass of vmlearned
Christians, against the then novel and offensive doc.
trine of the Trinity.* Tertullian's words are these.
Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes,
et idiotac, cjuae major semper credentium pars est
— expavescunt ad oeconomiam. Tiiis is rendered
by Dr. Horsley, " Simple persons, not to call them
" ignorant and idiots, who always make the majority
" of believers — startle at the oeconomy." Plainly
meaning, as the bishop has properly represented
it, that the same persons whom he calls simfilices^
might have been denoted by the harsher epithets
of imprudentes and idiotx,, and that these persons,
■who made the majority of believers, startled at the
doctrine of the Trinity. This passage, my inge-
nious correspondent softens down in the following
manner, in the new translation with which he haa
favoured us. " For some simple persons, not to
" speak of the uninformed and ignorant, who always
" constitute the greater part of believers, tremble
" at that oeconomy." To make the good father
speak to his purpose, he has reduced a universal
term to a particular one, and has translated a clause
which was clearly exegetical, and which would admit
of no other sense, as if it were exceptive. Such is
* Sep 7,ctt. iii. p. 47'
82 rosiscRipr.
this'acute polemic's method of pressing recruits into
his service ; whether such recruits will pass muster,
must be left to the decision of impartial criticism.
I CANNOT avoid expressing extreme surprize,
that the worthy letter-v/riter has not corrected his
interpretation of that passage in Chrysostom, in
which, though he has detected a misconception ot
Dr. Priestley, he has himself fallen into a similar
mistake. Had he paid the same respect to my
advice, which I did to his, and consulted his Chry-
sostom in the case, he must have discovered his
error : for it is too palpable to be overlooked. In
the additional note, in which he appeals to the czxn-
dour of his English reader, in favour of his own
interpretation of the clause, he cannot mean to be
Serious.
This gentleman complains heavily of " the ex-
« tremely illiberal and angry spirit of his opponent's
" remarks," which, he observes, " that he did not
" provoke; that he does not fear ; and that he shall
" not imitate." What the meaning of the word
provocation may be in this gentleman's vocabulary,
I know not. And there may possibly be some tame
and gentle souls, who are not in the least degree
provoked, or moved, at being taxed with solemnly
asserting the precise reverse of acknov.lcdged facts,
or by hearing the friend whom they highly revere,
and who is no longer able to defend himself, accused
as unworthy of credit in his representations, even
of the plainest facts ; especially, if these charges
are ushered in with solemn professions of candour
and personal regard. I confess I am not quite of
POSTSCRIPT. 83
SO milky a temperament. I felt some indignation
at the unfounded and unprovoked attack upon my
own character ; and still more, at the illiberal attempt
to blast the unsullied reputation of my venerable
departed friend ; and not the less, because of the
mask of candour, under which the blow was aimed.
I am not, however, conscious that I have written
under the influence of an improper spirit. But of
this, my readers must be better judges than myself.
And if in any instance I have been betrayed into
unbecoming warmth and asperity of language ; if I
have exceeded the limits of true liberality, and of
what my learned friend Gilbert Wakefield used
jocosely to style due christian aniitiosity^ I ask for-
giveness both of my reverend correspondent, and
of my readers.
Hackney, May 16, 1805.
DISCOURSE
DELIVERKD AT HACENKT, APRIL 8, ]R04.
OCCASION OF THE DEATH
REV. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY,
LLD. F.R.S. &c.
PUBLISHED AT THE DESIRE OF THE CONGREGATION.
BY THOMAS BELSHAM.
BOSTON :
PRINTED BY THOMAS B. "WAIT ©- CO,
COURT-STREET.
1809.
A SERMON.
ACTS XX. 24.
But none of iliese tilings move me, neitlier count I my life dear unto myself,
so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministiy which I have
received of the Loi-d Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the Grace of God.
Nor was this an empty boast : for, if we read the
history of this eminent apostle, from his first con-
A'ersion to the christian religion to his imprisonment
at Rome, as it is related by his friend and fellow-
labourer Luke, we shall find,
That it was the great business of his life to tes-
tify, from place to place, the glorious gospel of the
grace of God, agreeably to the commission which
he had received from Jesus Christ for this purpose ;
That he every where met with opposition and
persecution, often even to the hazard of his life,
according to his own declaration that the holy spirit
forewarned him that in every city bonds and afiiic-
lions awaited him ;
That, nevertheless, nothing discouraged him,
and no danger deterred him from performing the
duties of his office, and executing his commission
to the fullest extent ; and finally.
That he was animated to all his labours, and sup-
ported under all his sufferings, by the ardent desire
8
86
SERMON.
and confident expectation of a final and a glorious
triumph.
1. That doctrine which the apostle taught was
the " gospel of the grace of God." Very remote
indeed from the system which in modern times has
been dignified with the title of gospel-doctrine, a
system which teaches that all mankind are doomed
to eternal misery for Adam's sin, with the exception
of a few who are chosen by mere good pleasure to
everlasting life. A tremendous doctrine ! Avhich
had it really been taught by Jesus and his apostles,
their gospel might truly have been denominated,
not the doctrine of peace and good will, but a mes-
sage of wrath and injustice, of terror and despair.
The doctrine which Jesus revealed, and which Paul
preached, was the reverse of this. It was glad
tidings of great and universal joy ; for it revealed
the equal and impartial love of God to his whole
human offspring, unrestrained by any local or cere-
monial distinction ; the infinite placability of the
divine character ; the free and unpurchased mercy of
God to the truly penitent ; the momentous doctrine
of a vmiversal resurrection of the dead ; the advance-
ment of the I'ighteous to glory, honour, and immor-
tality ; and the future condemnation of the wicked to
a just and necessary, but not to a vindictive, much
less to an everlasting punishment.
This was the doctrine which Paul taught; and his
authority for teaching it was a commission which he
received from Jesus Christ himself, attested and
sealed by various extraordinary gifts of the holy
spirit, and by miraculous powers with vhich the
apostle was eminently endowed.
SERMOX. 87
While " Saul was yet breathing out threatening-
" and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,"
while he was upon the road to Damascus with au-
thority from the high-priest to bring those whom he
should find there in chains to Jerusalem ; in the
middle of the day, as he approached the city, when
he was probably enjoying by anticipation the suf-
ferings and groans of his intended victims, on a
sudden, the furious and unrelenting persecutor is
arrested in his way, and, by a miracle of poAver and
mercy, becomes in an instant the trembling suppliant
of that Jesus whose name he had blasphemed, whose
authority he had defied, whose doctrine he had
scorned, and whose disciples he had imprisoned,
tormented, and put to death. And when, prostrate
on the ground in an agony of terror, he requests to
know the pleasure of the majestic personage who
had condescended to address him in the language
of pathetic e::postulation, the merciful Redeemer
embraces the very instant of contrition and remorse
to pronounce forgiveness, and to appoint him to the
office of an apostle and a teacher of the gentiles.
" Rise," said he, " and stand upon thy feet ; for I
" have appeared to thee for this purpose, to make
" thee a minister and a witness both of these things
" which thou hast seen, and those in which I will
" appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people,
" and from the gentiles to whom I now send thee, to
" open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness
" to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,
" that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an
" inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith
" which is in mc."
88 SEIIMON.
Nor was the humbled penitent " disobedient to
" the heavenly vision." He arose, and with very dif-
ferent views from those with which he had entered
upon his journey, he reached Damascus ; and having
there been miraculously healed of the blindness with
which he had been struck by the dazzling splendour
of the vision, he speedily retired into Arabia*, where
he resided a considerable time, during which his
understanding was enlightened in the doctrine, and
his heart disciplined to the spirit, of the gospel.
After which returning to Damascus, without any
communication with the other apostles, and being
fully instructed in the doctrine of the gospel by
immediate revelation from Jesus himself, he opened
his commission of peace and truth in that very city
to which he had been sent upon a purpose of malice
and cruelty, and confounded the Jews who dwelt at
Damascus by the irresistible evidence with which he
demonstrated, that Jesus, who had been crucifiedj
was the true Messiah.
From this time it became the business of his life
to go from place to place " testifying the gospel of
" the grace of God." And for this end he left all.
He forsook his family and friends, and all his former
honourable and powerful connections ; he resigned
his prospects of literary reputation, and all his hopes
of rising to opulence and power ; he even did Avhat is
still more difficult, he abandoned all his inveterate
prejudices and all his pharisaic pride, and devoted
himself wholly and without reserve to the ministry
of the gospel, and particularly to the conversion of
the heathen ; glorymg in the character and office ol
» Gal. i. 17, ts.
SERMON. §9
the apostle of those gentiles Avhom he had fomierly
regarded with disdain. " I shewed," saith he, " iirst
" to the Jews at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and
" throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the
" Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God,
" and do works meet for repentance*." And again,
" I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Bar-
•' barians, to the wise and to the unwisef."
2. That in the course of his apostolic mission
and labours he encountered constant and malignant
opposition, and often to the hazard of his Ufe, is
evident to all who arc in the least acquainted with
his history. He opened his iTiinistry at Damascus :
and there the governor, in concert with the Jews,
endeavoured to seize and to put him to death ; but
with difficulty he made his escape, and returned to
Jerusalem ^. Here he expected the most signal
success, and thought it impossible that the enemies
of the gospel should be able to resist the arguments
of one who, having formerly distinguished himself
as a savage persecutor, was now become the zealous
advocate of the doctrine which he then blasphemed.
But he soon discovered his mistake, and in a few
days he found it necessary to flee for his life ; and
being warned in a vision||, he employed his suc-
ceeding laboiu's in the conversion of the gentiles,
amongst whom, though his success was great, his
persecutions were proportionable. But time would
fail iiie to recount all the sufferings of this eminent
apostle which are recorded by his historians, Avho
• Acls XXV i. 20. t Rom. i. 14.
^Acts. is. 23 — 25. 2Cor. si. 32. H Acts, xxiHr—II.
« *
90
SERMON.
have nevertheless omitted many, and perhaps even
the greater part of them. « I go to Jerusalem,"
says this christian hero, " not knowing what shall
" befall me there, save that the holy spirit witnesses
" in every city, that bonds and afflictions abide
" me*." " Thou hast fully known," says he to
Timothy, his pupil, companion, and friend, " my
" doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long suf-
" fering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions
" which came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, at
" Lystra, what persecutions I endured : but out of
"them all the Lord delivered met."
The most malignant opposition which the apostle
encountered proceeded from those Avho professed,
indeed, to believe in Christ, but who corrupted the
simplicity of the gospel by a mixture of Jewish fable
and pharisaic tradition, who were the determined
enemies to the liberties of the gentile church, £ind
were desirous of bowing the necks of the heathen
converts to the yoke of the ceremonial law. These
men, to accomplish their sinister purposes, intruded
themselves into the churches which the apostle had
planted, and scrupled not to foment divisions among
them, and to alienate the affections of his converts
by the grossest calumnies. They represented him
as an uninfoi'med, unauthorised, and inconsistent
teacher of Christianity, who preached for the sake
of gain, and who sacrificed truth to secure popular-
itv|. And the intemperate zeal of these rash bigots
» Acts, XX. 22. t 2 Tim. iii. 10, U.
\ This is t'\i(lciit from the solicitmlo wliicli the apostle iliscovers to cxcul-
pale himself from thcsf cliarg;is in hi^i t'pistles to the Corinthians and tlie GaU-
I'.aiu. see 2 Cor. xii. 11, 12. 16-^18.
' SERHfOX. 91
was too much countenanced by the equivocal and
unmanly conduct of some of the other apostles, or,
at least, by that of Peter, to whom Paul was under
the necessity of administering a sharp and public
reproof at Antioch *. But with the leaders of the
opposing factions the apostle kept no terms what-
ever ; but upon every proper occasion he exposed
their ignorance, their selfishness, their ambitious
views, their vain pretensions, their envy and malice,
their ungenerous conduct, their daring corruptions
of the christian doctrine, their rancorous opposition
to the liberty and the spirit of the gospel. And in
reply to their vile insinuations agidnst his character,
juid their attacks upon his authority, he appeals to
the whole tenor of his public life, and particularly
rests his defence upon the sufferings which he
endured in the cause of truth. '< Are they minis-
" ters of Christ ?" says he, " I am more. In labours
" more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons
" more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five
" times have I received forty stripes, save one.
" Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned,
" thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have
" been in the deep. In journeyings often, in perils of
" waters, in perils of robbers, in peiils by my own
" countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in
« See Gal. ii. 11—17. The .Tpostle ivlates this iiuidfnt to il'^riiul lilmself
I ram the cliar^e of inconsistency. See v. 18. The persons who introduced
dissension into tlie church at Antiocli, and who stdnced I'cterand Raniahas
are said lo ha\e come from James, wlio presided over tlic uhtnch at .Ii rusalnm,
and who;e prejndices were pi-obaUly as strongs as those of Peter. The ad(ir< s»
to Peter inds at v- 17. The apostle then resumes his discourse to tiie (Jala-
ti.uis, .and arjjiies the folly of such incoiisistcnty of conduct as Jmd been iuiput-
.'d to liin.
92 StRMON.
" the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils iu
" the sea, in perils among false brethren. In weari-
" ness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger
" and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness,
"besides those things that are without, that which
" Cometh upon me daily, the care of all the
« churches*."
3. It is further observable, that notwithstanding
all these persecutions and dangers, nothing discou-
raged the apostle, nothing deterred him from per-
formuig the duties of his oincc, and executing his
commission to its utmost extent. " None of these
" things," says he, " inove me." When persecuted
in one city, he sought refuge in another : and no
sooner was he silenced in one place, than he opened
his commission in another. Narrowly escaping from
Damascus, he begins to preach at Jerusalem : driven
from Jerusalem, he carries the gospel to Cesarea,
to Tarsus his native city, and to Antioch, where the
disciples first obtained the honourable name of Chris-
tians, And such was his conduct through tht-
whole of his life and ministry. He reminds the
Thessalonians, that " after having suffered and been
"shamefully treated at Philippi, he was bold in his
« God to speak the gospel to them, though amidst
" much contentiont." And when it was foretold by
Agabus, that " he should be bound at Jerusalem
"and delivered up to the gentiles," while his friends
were earnestly dissuading him from taking the jour-
ney, " What mean ye," says he, " to weep and to
" break my heart ? for I am ready not to be boiuid
» 2 Cor. xi. 22— 2!i. t 1 TliCis. !i. 2,
SERMON. 93
* only, but to die at Jerusalem for the name of the
" Lord Jesus*."
4. Finally, the apostle was animated to his la-
bours, and supported under his sufferings, by the
ardent desire and confident expectation of ultimate
success, and of a final glorious triumph. <■ None
*' of these things move me, neither count I my life
" dear unto myself, so that I may finish my course
"with joy."
Amidst difficulties and dangers he possessed
many sources of consolation even while he was fulfill-
ing his ministry. The consciousness of fidelity^
disinterestedness and zeal in the cause in which he
was embarked, was an inexhaustible spring of com-
fort, and a powerful motive to activity and persever-
ance. " Our rejoicing," suith he, " is this, the testi-
*' mony of our conscience, that in simplicity and
" godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by
" the grace of God, we have had our conversation
in the worldf." The apostle also felt the warmest
emotions of gratitude and delight at the recollection
of the great mercy that he had experienced, and of
the high honour which had been conferred upon him
in his conversion to the christian faith, in his call to
the apostolic office, and in his mission to the gen-
tiles. " Unto me," says he, " who am less than the
" least of all saints, is this grace given, to preach
' " among the gentiles the unsearchable riches of
Christ.^." The extraordinary succesa of his apostol-
ical labours was a continually increasing source of
joy and triumph. If many rejected his doctrine
* Acts, xxi. U— 1-1. t 2 Cor. i, 13. } KpU. iiL ».
94 SERMON.
as folly or blasphemy, many also received it " as the
" wisdom of God and the power of God." He sel-
dom resided in a pk.ce, even for a short time, Avith-
out collecting a considercbie ciiristian society. And
if there were some ignorant or maiicious intruders
who corrupted the doctrine of Christ, disturbed the
harmony of the church, and calumniated the char-
acter of the apostle ; there were also many who were
fully sensible of the value of the gospel, who were
zealous for purity of doctrine, and for the preserva-
tion of christian liberty ; whose conduct was an or-
nament to their profession, who cheerfully and ac-
tively concurred with the apostle in his schemes of
usefulness, and who, penetrated with admiration of
his character and v/ith gratitude for his instructions,
regarded him with veneration and love, " as a mes-
" senger of God, or even as Christ Jesus*." Jesus
had himself appeared in person to the apostle, to
invest him with the apostolic office, and to qualify
him for the honovirable and successful discharge of
it. He was no doubt generally present with him,
though invisibly, and we know that he occasionally
appeared to him during the course of his ministiy ;
and, surely, it must have been an exquisite gratifi-
cation to the apostle to rellect that he lived and la-
boured and suffered tmder his inaster^s eye., to whom
he might at any time have recourse in a season of
difficulty, and of whose protection he was secure.
" I can do all things," says he, " through Christ who
" strengtheneth me : gladly therefore will I glory
" in my infirmity, that the power of Christ may
" rest upon me : for when I am weak, then am I
• Gil. iv. 14.
SERMON. 95
" strong*." Nevertheless his chief solicitude was to
stand approved in the sight of God, and his highest
consolation >vas a hope of the divine favour. " We
" are not," says he, " as many who corrupt the word
<' of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, as in the
" presence of God we speak in Jesus Christf." It
likewise afforded him great satisfaction to observe
that his sufferings., as well as his labours, tended to
promote the cause of truth and virtue. He is desir-
ous that the Philippians " should understand that
'' the things which had happened to him had fallen
*' out rather to the furtherance of the gospel, and
" that many waxing confident by his bonds were
" much more bold to speak the word without fear|."
And it was not the least inaportant source of conso-
lation to reflect, that the cause in which he laboured
and for which he suffered was a living and a growing
cause ; and that, whatever might happen to himself,
christian truth was, like its author immortal, and
must ultimately and universally prevail. With what
an air of triumph does he assure the evangelist
Timothy, " I know in whom I have believed : and I
" am persuaded that he is able to keep the treasure
" he has deposited with me until that day||."
• 2 Cor. xii. Q. 10. Tlie I.onl to whom the apostle prayed, ¥. 8. and who
promised that his streiif^lh slioulcl bt- made porftct in him, ajipears evidently
to liave been Christ, v. 9. of whose personal presence with him, thei-efore, at
that time, the apostle must have bt'en assurc'd : otherwise he would not iiave
prayed to him. But Jesus liad promised to be with his apo!.tles to the end of
that age, wliieh authorised those personal addresses to him which in succeed-
ing ages w ould not be waiTantahle. Sec Matt, xxviii. 20. Also bishop Pearce's
Corainentaiy, and Mr. Wakefield's excellent note upon the text.
t 2 Cor. ii. 17. X Phil. i. 12— ll.
II 2 Tim. i. 12. TotpxiriKtit, evangeliam mihi commissum. Wakefield',
innnuscript note upon Wvtstein, Conipnrc v. 14. wlicre the same word n
96 SERMON.
But the greatest satisfaction of all was the
confident and joyful expectation which the apostle
entertained of ?, future e-ver lasting recom/iense. In
comparison with this, all present sufierings Avere
light and niomentaiy in his estimation. " I have
" fought," says he, " the good fight. I have finished
" my course. I have kept the faith. Henceforth
" there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,
« which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give
" me in that day*."
And yet he makes comparatively light of his own
personal reward if it were not to be shared in com-
mon with his friends and converts. The summit of
his bliss, the palm of his ambition, is to meet them
vith satisfaction at the tribunal of Christ, and to be
united with them in glory and happiness. " What,"
saith he, " is our hope, our joy, our crown of re-
" joicing? are not even ye in the presence of our
" Lord Jesus Christ at his coming ? for ye are our
" gloiy and our joyf."
Supported by these consolations, and animated
by these views and hopes, what wonder is it that
none of the afflictions and persecutions which he
endured could move the apostle from his faith and
duty, and that life itself was often exposed, and hi
the end cheerfully sacrificed, " that so he might
" finish his course with joy, and that ministry which
used ill the best manuscripts. Ste Griestoch: Also Mackniglit and Benson
on t'le text. Dr. Harwood paraplirastically but .justly translates tlie passage
" I am persuaded that he is able to jireserve in the world till his future torn-
'• ing that sacred deposit with wliich he has entrusted me."
» 2 Tun. iv. 7, 8. +1 Thess. ii. IP, 20.
SERMON. ^7
" he had received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the
*' gospel of the grace of God."
I AM persuaded, my christian friends, that while
I have been thus briefly illustrating the short sketch
which the apostle has given of his own character,
many of you have been impressed with the striking
features of resemblance which it bears to that of a
great and venerable man whose decease has just
been announced to us, — Dr. Priestley, — a name emi-
nently dear to science, but still dearer to religion,
justly celebrated through the w'oi'ld for talents
and for learning, and particulai-ly for his numerous
original and important discoveries in the philosophy
of nature and of man ; but still more estimable,
more truly renowned, for his zeal and industry, his
laljours and his sufferings, in the cause of moral
truth and of pure unsophisticated Christianity : a
•character dear to every one whois capeible of appre-
ciating intellectual excellence and moral worth, but
peculiarly endeared to you, my friends, by the rela-
tion which he once sustained as the pastor of this
christian society ; by the extraordinary ability, assi-
•duity and success with which he discharged the
•duties of his profession, and by the dignity of his
character, and the amiable simplicity of his manners
in private life.
Of the transcendent talents of this truly great
man and enlightened philosopher, of the quickness
of his apprehension, of the soundness of his judg-
ment, of the comprehension of his views, of tl;e
activity and versatility of hi« powers, of the ardour
of liis mind, of his resolute and unwearied applica-
9
ys
SKUMOV.
lion, of the divevsily and extent of his erudition, of
his insatiable tliirst after knowledge, of the varietv
and ingenuity of his contrivances to facilitate in-
vestigation, and to diversify experiment; of the
originality, the multiplicity, and the unparalleled
success of his researches into the phenomena and
the laws of nature ; of the extent and value of those
grand discoveries which constitute a new a:ra in the
progress of experimental philosophy ; of the un-
common candour and unexampled generosity with
which he communicated those discoveries for the
benefit of mankind ; and of the high estimation in
which he was held by all his contemporaries who
were capable of appreciating his merits, and who
were willing to do justice to his talents, much
might be said and justly, and much will be spoken
even by those who during his lifetime were most
jealous of his honours, and most niggardly in his
praise, and still more by those who knew and ho-
noured him while he was living, and who now cherish
his memory with gratitude and veneration.
In what remains of this discourse I shall limit
myself to the humbler task of illustrating Dr. Priest-
ley's character in that view of it which is least
attractive to the world, and which is held in little
estimation by many who entertain the highest opi-
nion of his literary and philosophical talents and
acquisitions, but upon which he himself, and in my
apprehension justly; set the highest value, namely,
his character as a christian minister, and an en-
lightened, able, and zealous advocate of christian
truth. In this department he was truly exemplary,
SERMO.V. 99
and his conduct in many particulars bore an honour-
able resemblance to that of the great apostle of the
gentiles. It was the main object and business of
his life " to testify the gospel of the grace of God,"
and from this purpose he was not to be diverted by
any secular consideration whatever.
The foundation of all the excellencies of this
great and good man's private and professional charac-
ter was laid in early, serious, and unaffected piety.
His faith in the existence of God was clear and un-
hesitating, his views of the divine character and
government were rational and sublime, and his
practical regards to the Divine Being were habitual
and uniform. His piety was not obtrusive and
ostentatious, but calm and steady : not obvious to
the notice of the world, but evident to all who were
honoured with his society and friendship. It was
the ruling principle of his conduct, the balm and
consolation of his life. This habit was of the ear-
liest growth under the fostering care of a pious and
benevolent relative, who took the charge of his edu-
cation, and of whose kindness he retained an affec-
tionate and grateful sense to the latest hour of life.
In maturer years, as he acquired more correct con-
ceptions of the attributes of God, his piety became
more confirmed, as a principle of action, while it
was at the same time gradually purified from all
tincture of irrational and unmanly superstition.
Another predominant feature in Dr. Priestley's
official character was a disinterested love of truth,
indefatigable zeal in the pursuit of it, and resolution
to adhere to it when found, at all hazards. This
100 SERMON'.
virtuous principle was generated in his mind by the
vigor of his intellect, and by an early intercourse
with wise and good men of different opinions in re-
ligion. Having often heard these opinions discussed
with temper and ability, and being himself pene-
trated with an impressive sense of the importance
of christian truth, he soon began to regard it as an
imperious duty to take nothing upon trust, but to
think and judge for himself concerning the doctrines
of cjiristianity, according to the ability and oppor-
tunity which divine pro\idence had granted him.
He was educated in the rigorous and gloomy
system of Calvin, and he felt it in all its horrors*.
13ut as his mind gradually expanded, he by degrees
acquired courage to examine the prejudices of his
education, and to divest himself of some principles
which were most glaringly absurd and obnoxious,
even before he commenced a regular course of theo-
logical studies. He was, when very young, ex-
cluded from communion with a church in which he
hud been accustomed to worship, because he hesi-
tated to acknowledge himself deserving of eternal
misery for Adam's sin f- And desirous as he was
» Upon tliis subject he thus expresses hiraself : " Bt- lieviiig that a new
•• liirth, produceil by the iiunietliiite ajjency of tlie spirit of God, « as necessary
■' lo salvation, ami not Ixing able lo satisfy myself that I had experienced any
"thing of the kind, 1 had occasionally such distress t)fiuiiul as it is not in my
'■ power to descril«>; and which I still look back upon with horror. Notwith-
'•standing 1 had nothing very material to ivproacli mysilf with, I often con-
•■ eluded that Goil had liirsakeu me, and that my case was that of Francis
"Spira, to whom, as he imagiiud. repiiitance and sal\ation were denietl. lu
'•this state of m. lid I rcniemlxT reading the account of the man in the iron
'• cage in the Pilgrin/s Progress with thi gi-eatest pertm-balion."'
t " Not thinking," says he, " that all the human race, supposing them not
■' to have any sin of their own, wen- liable to the wrath of God, and the
• painsof hell for erer, for that sin only. Kor such was the question that was
••put to me."
SERMOK.
lOl
to be educated for the christian ministry, he pe-
remptorily refused to enter himself as a pupil in an
institution where subscription to articles of faith was
an indispensable condition of admission. He I'e-
solved even at that early age that he would endure
no fetters upon freedom of inquiry.
The chi'istian ministry, as exercised among pro-
testant dissenters, was the profession of his early
and favourite choice ; and though for a time the
delicate and precarious state of his health seemed
likely to prove an insuperable obstacle to the attain-
ment of his wishes, a favourable change in the state
of his constitution at length permitted him to enter
as a student in a respectable institution for the edu-
cation of ministers, at Daventry in Northampton-
shire. Dr. Priestley has often been heard to ac-
knowledge, with great satisfaction, that, at the period
when he became a member of that college, it hap-
pened to be in a state peculiarly favourable for the
investigation of truth. Theological discussion was
conducted with candour and without any restraint,
the tutors and students being almost equally divided
in opinion upon the most important subjects. In
such a situation his love of truth and his thirst after
knowledge increased daily : and before he had
fmishcd his academical course he had divested him-
self of many early prejudices, though he was far
from having acquired those clear, distinct, and com-
prehensive views of christian doctrine which he,
afterwards attained. It was at this period of his
life that he first became acquainted with Hartley's
Observations on Man, an admirable work, whicii
9 *
102 SERMON.
attracted, as indeed it merited, his closest attention,
which gave him an insight into the true theoiy of
human nature, a subject in the discussion of which
he afterwards so greatly excelled. Hartley was his
favourite author to the close of life: and he freely
owned that he had derived more instruction and
more satisfaction from this volume, than from any
other book which he had ever read, the scriptures
alone excepted.
As a public speaker Dr. Priestley was conscious
that he did not possess popular talents ; and early
in life he was afflicted with an impediment in his
speech, which he with great difficulty subdued. This
led him when he first settled in the world to acqui-
esce in situations which were very private and ob-
scure. But wherever he lived, his chief employ-
ment was to study the scriptures, and to investigate
their true sense, Avhether it did or did not accord with
his own preconceived opinions. His, sole object
was truth : the truth as it is in Jesus, the pure un-
corrupted doctrine of the christian revelation ; for
the attuhiment of which he thought no labour too
great, and no sacrifice too dear.
The principles of his education were so deeply
rooted in Dr. Priestley's mind, that it was by a very
slow process, and in consequence of very laboiious
and persevering inquiry for many years, that he at
length disentangled his mind from the web of pre-
judice, and purified his views of the christian sys-
tem from those errors which early prepossessions
liad blended in his mind with the genuine doctrine
o.f Christ. In the course of his preparatory studies
«
SERMON. lOS
he saw sufficient reason to abandon the unscriptural
docU'ines of the trinity, of original sin, and of vica-
rious suffering. He still, however, adhered to the
Arian notion concerning the pei'son and offices
of Christ, to a qualified sense of the doctrine of
atonement, and to other points connected with them.
Upon further consideration he soon saw reason to
give up the doctrine of atonement in every sense of
it, and to hesitate concerning the plenary inspiration
of the sacred writers. But it was not till upwai'ds
of ten years afterwards, and when he was settled
with a respectable congregation at Leeds, that, in
consequence of reading with great attention Dr.
Lardner's incomparable letter upon the Logos, he
became a proper unitarian, and a firm believer in the
simple humanity of Jesus Christ, of which doctrine
he contmued ever afterwards a most able and stren-
uous advocate. It was still later than this that Dr.
Priestley adopted and avowed his original and in-
genious hypothesis concerning the homogeneity of
man, which, though a notion most innocent in
itself, and supported by all the appearances of na-
ture, has, in consequence of misapprehension or
misrepresentation, given more offence than any
other opinion which he was known to nraintain*.
» This doctrine, to which Dr. Priestley has unfortuiiatt ly giwn the obnox»
ioiis name of Materialism, thoiigliit iiii);lit perhaps with gi-eater prnpncty be
called Immaterialism, has by some been grossly niisimderslood, and bj othen
wiltully misrepresented. It is commonly l)elieved that Dr. Pritsiley, as a ma-
terialist, held that the soul of niau is an extended, solid, and inert substance : a
notion which he expressly disclaims. He even denies the existtnce of solidity
and inertia in any subsUnce, and adopts the curioirs liypothesis first propos-
ed by P. Boscovicli, that all that we know of matter itself is active power, and
slut the only properties which can be prOTcd to belojig to matter are attratr
104 SERMON.
liis courage and integrity in avowing what he
believed to be important truth, was a most conspicu-
ous and honourable feature in Dr. Priestley's cha-
racter. Before he appeared as the fearless advocate
of truth, it was regarded by many of his brethren
in the ministry as the part, not only of innocence,
but of wisdom, to disguise their real sentiments in
ambiguous language, and to impose upon their
hearers by using terms and phrases in a sense dif-
ferent from that in which they were commonly un-
derstood : thus securing a reputation for the ortho-
doxy which in their hearts they despised. This low
and secular wisdom, this '• deceitful handling of the
"word of God," the magnanimous spirit of Dr. Priest-
ley held in just contempt ; and discountenanced to
the utmost, both by precept and example. Being
fully convinced, after mature deliberation, that truth
tions and repulsions of various kinds. Perception in its sevei-al modes consti-
tutes mind That matter, i. e. that attraction and repulsion combined, may
exist witliout p/rceptioi), many pli^nom. na lend us to conclude, and it is a
fact generally allowed ; but that perci-plion and its modes ever exist, or can
exist, in created being-s, unconnected with matter, i. e. with certain systems
of attinction and repulsion, is contrary to all the known pliienomeiia of na-
ture, and therefore is not to be admitted into trui- philosophy. The only re-
mainini; question is. whether the vinculiMu which cotinects attraction and re-
pulsion is tile same with that which connects these properties wiihperception;
and lo this no specific answer can !k- s;i>vn, Ixn-iiuse it is a subject of which
we are necessaVily and tot dl\ ifrnorant. This hypothesis of Dr. Pr-estley I
have ventured to call the doctrne of the ftoiiioi^enfiti/ of man; which woixl
seems properly to express the idea that man doi s not cot^iit, as is ginenlly
imaf^iied, of two distinct suhstances ha\in!j no conmion property; ai.d on
the other hand it precludes tlie miuakes and misrepivseiitaliocs which arise
from the use of the word matt riatism. It is i.'!.;in th.i'. tiiis is not the hypo-
thesis which Colli IS siipporti-d, and which Dr. Clarke ofspos^d : and Dr. Price
himself, in his coiiWoM-ny with Dr. Prieslhy, verj- nearly jields the point to
his able and acute opponent. See the Comspondeiice lietween Price and
Priestley, p. 85, 86. 23fi. Priestley on Matter and Spirit, p. 17. This subject
is stated more at large in the Elements of the Philoscpliy of the Human ^Ilnd ,
chap. xi.
3EHH0U. ' tOS
must ultimately be favourable to virtue, and that it
can only make its way by honest profession and fair
argument, he regarded it as an indispensable duty
upon every just occasion to avow, and in a manly
and honourable manner to defend, what he sincerely
believed, after fair and diligent inquiry, to be the
christian truth. He concealed no doctrine which
he apprehended to be true and important, because
it was unpopular, or because the profession of it
might be attended with consequences personally
disadvantageous : a conduct which in his situation was
a proof of uncommon vigour of mind and strength
of principle. Persons of popular talents, or in inde-
pendent circumstances, m-ay without much incon-
venience avow opinions obnoxious to vulgar preju-
dices, or, repugnimt to the popular creed. But
where the public teacher depends for his bread upon
the numbers and the liberality of his hearers^ and
where he is conscious of the want of talents to at-
tract the crowd, the profession of principles which
are sure to give offence to many who would other-
wise be his zealous friends and supporters, is a duty
of uncommon difficulty, and few have fortitude equal
to the trial. Such was the situation of Dr. Priest-
ley when he first entered upon the office of the
ministry amongst protestant dissenters. But innate
strength of mind, confidence in the power of truth,
and a commanding sense of duty, triumphed over all.
And the doctrines which he embraced from con-
viction, and avo.wcd from principle, he was well
prepared to defend with ability and learning, with
zeal and charity. In all the most important con-
106 SERMON.
troversies in which he was engaged, he had studied
the subject thorouglily, and was a complete master
of the whole question. In reasoning, his language
was plidn and simple ; his state of the question was
impartial ; his arrangement was lucid ; his ideas clear
and distinct ; his arguments, though often original
and curious, and sometimes refined, and derived
from the most grand and comprehensive views of
things, were nevertherless in general perspicuous
and forcible, and bearing directly upon the point in
question. There was nothing artificial and ambi-
guous ; no design to slur over difficulties and ob-
jections, or to lay greater stress upon a topic than it
Avould well bear. All was candid, fair, and gene-
rous ; and where his arguments failed to convince,
they nevertheless left a strong impression of in-
genuousness, of talent, and integrity.
In the present state of things religious controversy
is unavoidable, being indispensably requisite to the
discovery of christian truth, and to disentangle it
from prevailing error ; but it has a great tendency
to generate malignant passions in the minds of those
who enter deeply into it. Nevertheless, of writers
who have distinguished themselves so much in con-
troversy as Dr. Priestley, few have preserved their
temper better. He desired nothing so earnestly as
calm and temperate discussion of important ques-
tions ; and those controversies which afforded him
the most satisfaction, were the few which were
conducted on both sides with good temper and good
manners. He seldom adopted harsh and sarcastic
language till his feelings had been irritated by un-
SERMOK. 107
provoked accj^ression. I do not, however, mean to
contend that his language was always guarded and
perfectly correct. It sometimes, perhaps, expressed
a greater degree of animosity than he intended, or
felt ; and sometimes he used expressions which he
would wish to have recalled. But who is wise at
all times ? He has often been charged with making
use of harsh language concerning the opinions of
his opponents. But this was done not with a design
to give offence, but to rouse attention ; and he re-
garded himself as justified in it by the strong testi-
mony which the primitive teachers of Christianity
bore against the superstitions and errors of the
times in which they lived. Yet, while he entered
his grave and solemn protest against the popular
corruptions of the christian doctrine, he was always
tender to the persons of those who conscientiously
adhered to them. He viewed Calvinism as the
extravagance of error, as a mischievous compound
of impiety and idolatry : but he regarded the sincere
professors of this pernicious system with compas-
sion rather than contempt. With regard to many
of them, he knew their integrity ; he revered their
piety ; in that denomination of christians it had been
his happiness to meet with some of the wisest and
the best characters that he had ever known ; and to
an early education in that rigid sect he had been
Indebted for some of his best principles, and his
most valuable and permanent durable religious im-
pressions.
In the discharge of his professsional duties Dr.
Priestley was eminently assiduous and exemplary.
108 SEKTkfON.
His delight was to communicate instruction, and,
above all, religious instruction. " He led the lambs
of the flock," and condescended to the capacities of
little children. His admirable Institutes of Natural
and Revealed Religion he composed while a student
at the academy, and used it as a text^book for the
instruction of youth in the great principles of moral
and religious truth, in every congregation with
which he was connected ; and the pains which he
took for this purpose are, I doubt not, recollected
with gratitude by many who now hear me.
His public discourses were, generally speaking,
plain, simple, instructive and practical. Occasion-
ally they contained elaborate vindications of natural
and revealed religion ; and sometimes they were
replete with beautiful and interesting sentiments
derived from the principles of a sublime philosophy.
Exposition of the scriptiu'es, or rather annota-
tions upon them to illustrate and explain them,
regularly constituted a part of his public services ;
and in this method he communicated much informa-
tion in an easy, iiiteUigible, and entertaining man-
ner. Upon this subject he took great pains, and he
regarded it as a very useful part of public instruction.
There was nothing he more desired than to excite
the attention of his hearers to the holy scriptures,
and to induce them to read this inestimable volume,
not with superstitious awe, but with the spirit of
liberal and judicious criticism ; not in a careless
formal routine, but with a solicitous concern to
understand its important contents. Divine Provi-
dence spared his life till he had completed his re-
SERMON'. 109
marks upon all the books both of the Old and New
Testament. Of these a considerable part are already
printed ; and his latest care was to give directions for
the proper method of proceeding with the remain-
der of the work after his decease.
But the labours of this truly great and excellent
man were by no means confined to the pulpit. He
published, as is well known, many important theo-
logical treatises both controversial and practical. Of
these, some were able vindications of natural and
revealed religion, from the attacks of unbelievers
of all descriptions ; others were didactic works, in
which the doctrines and precepts of true religion
were stated and established. Some were exposi-
tions of the scripture, accompanied Avith valuable
critical remarks, partly for the use of the learned
and partly of the unlearned reader. Some were
works of controversy, in which he earnestly con-
tended for the purity of the christian faith, and raised
his banner against the corruptions of the .evangelical
doctrine. In one celebrated work he gave a detailed
history of the rise and progress of the principal
corruptions of the christian religion, and with fidelity
and succinctness traced out the growth of the grand
apostacy, from the first deviation from the simplicity
of the apostolic creed, till it pervaded the whole
professing church, suppressing and almost extin-
guishing the vital principles of Christianity. In
another most valuable work, he represented at large,
with great compass of thought, acuteness of dis-
crimination, and extent of learning, the rise and
progress of those enormous errors which have
■10
110 SERMON.
prevailed from age to age concerning the person of
Christ, who from the condition of " a man approved
" of God by signs and miracles, and gifts of the holy
" spirit," which is the character under which he is
represented by himself and his apostles, has been
advanced by the officious zeal of his mistaken fol-
lowers, first to the state of an angelic or superangelic
being, a delegated maker and governor of the world
and its inhabitants, and in the end to a complete
equality with God himself.
Another great work, in the compilation of which
he took unv/earied pains, is a History of the Chris-
tian Church from its commencement to the close of
the last century ; a work distinguished for the per-
spicuity, candour, and impartiality of the narration,
and still more for the wisdom, the originality, and
the importance of tlie remarks with which it abounds ;
which tend to reconcile the mind to the conduct of
Divine Providence in the permission of the great
apostacy ; which, from the veiy existence of the cor-
ruptions of christian doctrine, deduce an irrefragable
argument in favour of the divine origin and au-
thority of the christian religion ; and which, from
the slow but irresistible progi'ess of truth, infer the
approach of a glorious period, when the empire of
genuine Christianity and undefiled religion shall
triumph over all opposition, and shall become uni-
versal and perpetual.
Dr. Priestley, even in his controversial writ-
ings, discovers upon all occasions a deep sense of
piety, and a supreme desire to render every thing he
wrote subservient to the practice of virtue. And
SERMON. Ill
in the practical treatises which he has occasionally
published, which are not indeed numerous, he has
shown how well qualified he was to improve the
heart as well as to enlighten the understanding. His
" Considerations for the use of young men and the
" parents of young men" discover a thorough know-
ledge of the human mind, as well as a most affec-
tionate regard for the honour and virtue of the rising
generation : and in a volume of practical discourses
he illustrates the e^il and danger of vicious habits,
the duty of not living to ourselves, the importance
of virtuous superiority to secular considerations, the
nature and excellence of habitual devotion, and other
similar topics, in a manner equally original and
impressive, and which clearly evinces how beauti-
fully and hoAV forcibly the views suggested by true
philosophy combine with the principles of rational
and pure Christianity to form the chai'acter to dignity
and virtue.
But to give an analysis, ur even a brief character,
of all Dr. Priestley's theological writings, would far
exceed the limits of a sint^le aiscourse : suffice it to
say, that they all discover an active, an ardent, and a
truly enlightened mind, a supreme regard to truth,
an eager thirst after religious knowledge, and a de-
sire equally predominant to communicate instruction
and to diffuse christian truth, as the best means of
promoting christian virtue. Nor is it the least con-
spicuous of his merits, that, in order to accomplish
this most important end, he was willing to sacrifice
that upon which many set the highest value, and to
the importance of which he was by no means in-
1 ^2 SERMON.
sensible, literary reputation. He often observed that
he wrote too much for literaiy fame : but his object
was to be useful, and to promote the cause of truth
and virtue. If this end might be obtained, selfish
considerations were in his estimation of little weight.
Upon this ground he regarded the office of a
christian minister amongst the protestant dissenters
as a situation of great dignity and importance ; not
merely as a liberal, and still less as a lucrative pro-
fession, but solely as affording the best opportunity
of devoting his time to the investigation of christiiui
truth, and to the religious instruction of mankind,
unfettered by subscriptions, liturgies, and creeds,
and unbiassed by human authority in articles of faith.
In this view, it may be truly said of him that " he
" magnified his office," esteeming it a most honour-
able and useful employment. And though endowed
with talents to excel in philosophical and literary
pursuits ; though strongly attached to the investiga-
tion of the phsenomena and the laws of iiature ;
though his numerous, original, and most important
discoveries had actually raised him to the first rank
of scientific and philosophical renown ; he esteemed
all hi^ literary honours as of no account in compari-
son with the acquisition and promulgation of chris-
tian truth ; and was no further solicitous to acquire
philosophical disitinction, than as it might be the
means of attracting greater attention to his theolo-
gical writings, and thus of rcndermg them more
extensively useful.
That in the course of these honourable pursuits
he sijstaincd much violent opposition is sufficiently
SKRMOV. 113
notorious. Having been, from his first setting out
in life, the undaunted champion of christian trutJi,
as far as he apprehended it, when he first became a
public teacher he encountered many difficulties and
discouragements. He was neglected by the friends
of his youth who had assisted in his education for
the ministry, and whose expectations he had dis-
appointed : he was vehemently opposed by bigots,
and strongly censured by those who preferred dis-
simulation and quiet, to integrity and persecution.
His ministry was deserted ; his company was shun-
ned; he was even sometimes treated v^ith rudeness
and disrespect ; his attempts to acquire a decent
competence by literary industry were opposed and
thwarted: and notwithstanding the utmost prudence
and (Economy, he would have been involved in the
inconveniences of extreme indigence, if his great
merits had not been discovered and patronized by a
few pei'sons of discernment and generosity in the
metropolis. Amongst his earliest friends he often
mentioned the respectable names of Dr. Lardncr,
Dr. Benson, and Dr. Kippis, who applauded and
encourag'ed his theological inquiries, and whose
kindness to him, when he most needed a friend, he
recorded with aflcctionate gratitude. And when, by
the acknowledged superiority of his talents, he had
forced himself into public notice, and was raised
to a situation of honourable independence, he still
encountered the most bitter and malignant opposi-
tion from the advocates of popular creeds and of
established errors, who not only endeavoured to
confute his arguments, to which, if it were in theh-
10 *
1 14 SERMOK.
power, they had an undoubted right, but with un-
paralleled baseness, and unblushing falsehood, they
traduced his character ; they depreciated his talents,
and defamed his motives ; they represented him as
an atheist and an infidel ; as an enemy to God ; as a
traitor to his sovereign ; as a foul conspirator against
the constitution of his country, and unworthy to.
enjoy the protection of its laws.
The sad castastrophe which was the natural result
of these atrocious calumnies is too recent and too
painful to be insisted upon at large. In characters
of indelible infamy are recorded those disgraceful
tumults, by which one of the most celebrated of
philosophers, of the most learned and exemplary of
divines, and of the most mild and benevolent of men,
was driven by violence, and in hazard of his life,
from his peaceful home, from the scene of his ex-
ertions and his enjoyments, and from a station of
great reputation and usefulness : and, ultimately,
after having obtained an honourable but short asylum
in this place, was com/ielled, at least in his own es-
timation, to seek protection on a foreign shore, and
to retire as an exile to the remotest limit of the civi-
lized world. Not indeed to sink into oblivion and
inactivity — that was impossible. For, though perse-
cuted with uncommon rancour by the emissaries of
bigotry and malice, even into his silent and remote
retreat, he lived by the favour of divine providence
to rise superior to them all. He there found a peace-
ful and a convenient home. He lived happy and re-
spected in the bosom of his family. He possessed
the means of prosecuting philosophical inquiry and
SERMON. 115
theological research to a degree beyond what he
had ever before enjoyed. He was successful beyond
his utmost expectation in promoting the cause of
christian truth, and was Uberally supplied with the
means of composing and publishing works which
he justly apprehended to be of the greatest utility
to mankind. He lived in habits of friendship, es-
teem, and correspondence with persons of eminence
and respectability, of talent and character, of all
denominations in religion and politics. And from
being unjustly, and through malignant wilful mis-
representation, regarded and treated as an enemy
to the country where he had sought an asylum, and
in danger of being banished from it, he lived to
enjoy the esteem and friendship of the first ma-
gistrate of the American republic, who invited his
society, honoured him with his correspondence, so-
licited his advice, and patronised his pursuits. And
that he was not forgotten by the friends of truth,
liberty, science, and religion, in his native country,
the late munificent exertions for his benefit bear
ample testimony*.
His days were shortened by his indefatigable
application to various important works, which he
was desirous of completing to serve the cause of
* A niiiiour liaviiii; been circulated tli.it Dr. Priestley liad sustained some
losses in his pcciiniiiry concerns, a proposal was siip^gested to supply (he
Jeticiency : and in a very few weeks an annuity was raised for him amount-
ing to four hundred and fifty pounds a year. Unfortunately lie did not live
to reap the iK'nefit of this exertion, or even to hear that such an affair was in
agitation, 'rhis testimony of afiection and respect would have diffused a ray of
consolation over the evening of his days. The niaj<nity of the subscribers
have, however, as a mark of veneration for Dr. Priestli y's memory, and to
assist ill the publication of his posthumous works, agreed to remit td hi» vm
ill America the subscription of the fint year.
116
SEUMOX.
rational Christianity, and particularly to fulfil his
engagements to those kind friends whose liberality
had enabled him to commit to tlie press two consi-
derable works, upon the publication of which his
heart was earnestly set, as his last and most valuable
legacy to the christian world.
His health had been for some months in a declin-
ing state ; but in the beginning of last November
his disorder assumed a very serious aspect, and the
accounts which he then wrote of his own case ex-
cited iahis friends the most alarmmg apprehensions.
These apprehensions in some degree subsided, in
consequence of later and more favourable intelli-
gence, which excited a pleasing expectation that the
return of spring might in some degree recruit his
exhausted powers. But these flattering prospects
suddenly vanished by the arrival of the painful in-
telligence, that this great and venerable man was no-
more.
Dr. Priestley had long foreseen that his end'
was approaching ; and he looked forward to the
hour of dissolution with the fortitude of a philoso-
pher, and the cheerful hope of a christian. The
prospect only animated him to increasing diligence ;
and he was desirous of life, only that he might com-
plete some schemes of usefulness which he had be-
gun. The vigour and activity of his mind continued
with him to the last, under the decay of his bodily
powers. During the three last months of his life
he wrote and transcribed for the press a considera-
ble work, comparing the principles of the Grecian
philosophy with those of revelation, at the desire
SERMON, 117
of the President of the United States ; and in the
same period, in twenty-four hours, he composed and
transcribed a defence of the proper humanity of Jesus
Christ, in reply to an American clergyman who
had engaged in a controversy with him upon that
subject*^
On the sixth of February last, this great man end-
ed a life of honourable, persevering, and successful
exertion in the cause of truth and virtue, and without
pain, without a struggle, and even without a sigh, he
gently fell asleep, and entered upon the reward of his
labours. It is pleasing to add, that he died content
and thankful for all he had enjoyed in life ; gratefully
acknowledging that his comforts had far exceeded
his sufferingsf ; rejoicing hi the conviction that he
had not lived in vain ;. thankful for the calm and
easy transition with which he was indulged ; and
triumphing in the glorious hope of the gospel ; the
hope of a resurrection to immortal Ufe and happi-
ness. " I am going to sleep," said he to his grand-
* Dr. Linn, a i>resbyteri:in minister. This is a sufficient refutation of an
idle rumour wliich has been industriously circulated, and by uninformed pep-
sons readily believed ; that Dr. Prit-stlcy, after his removal to America, had
changed his opinions concerning the person of Clirist.
+ In a letter to a friend, dated Nov. 4, 1803, in which he gives an account
of the very alarminj^ state of his health, and of his expectation of a speedy
dissolution, he thus expresses himself: — "But I have abundant reason to he
'■ satisfied with life, and with the goodness of God in it. Few have had so
" hnppy a lot as I have had, and I now see reason to be thankful for events
"which at the time were the most afflicting." After mentioning a severe
affliction, the intelligence of w liich had lately an-ived, he adds : '' My only
" source of satisfaction, and it is a never-failing one, is my firm persuasion
" that every thing, and our oversights among the rest, are parts of the great
"plan ill which eveiT thing will in time appear to have been ordered and
'• conducted in the best maimer. When I hear my own children cr>ing, I
" consider that we who are advanced in life are but children ourselves, and
" as little judges what is good for ourselves or others."
118 SERMON.
children, when brought to his bed-side to take leave
of hinn the evening before he expired ; " I am go-
" ing to sleep as well as you ; for death is only a
" long and a sound sleep in the grave ; but we shall
" meet again in another and a better world."
Thus " he finished his course with joy, and ful-
" filled the ministry," which from the purest mo-
tives, and with the best dispositions, he had under-
taken. " Blessed are the dead who thus die in the
" Lord, for they rest from their labours, and their
*' works follow them." Happy they who being stim-
ulated to emulate this great example, shall be admit-
ted to share with him in his final triumph !
THE END.
r