(14)

piled from original Writers; proving that the Chriftian Church was at first Unitarian. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. Ac. Imp. Petrop. R. Paris. Holm. Taurin. Aurel. Med. Paris. Cantab. Americ. et Philad. Socius. 4 Vols. 8vo. 11. 4s. Boards. Johnson. 1786.

THAT

HAT our periodical work might be of fome value farther than as a mere record of literature, we have always made it our practice, wherever we have seen occafion, to enter, in a general way, into the examination of opinions, and to give our judgment, together with the grounds on which it has been formed, upon difputed questions in literature and science. And in doing this, although we may fometimes have been cenfured by those who have not understood the whole extent of our plan, we apprehend we have provided a more ufeful as well as interefting mifcellany, than if we had only acted the part of Journalists. There are, however, many fubjects which take fo extenfive a range, and which require fuch minute details, in the difcuffion, that it is impoffible for us, within the limits that we have prescribed to ourselves, to do them juftice. In thefe cafes, we have fometimes judged it expedient to attempt nothing farther, than to give a general fummary of the arguments, which writers on the different fides of the queftion in difpute have advanced, ftill leaving the matter fub judice. And even where we have at firft embarked in any controverfy, whenever we have found that we were in danger of being led beyond our proper limits, and efpecially when we have feen the cause taken up by writers who appeared inclined to difcufs the fubject at full length, we have commonly chofen to retire from the field of action, and content ourfelves with the more humble office of hiftorians.

This is the mode of conduct, which, in the prefent ftate of the controverfy between Dr. Prieftley and his antagonists, we find it neceffary to adopt. The difpute is now drawn out to an extent fo far beyond our expectation, that it would engrofs much too large a portion of our journal, to profecute the fubject in the manner in which we at firft took it up. And we are, befides, too well acquainted with the numerous causes of uncertainty, and occafions of debate, which the writings of the Chriftian Fathers afford, to entertain any hope, that the difpute concerning the perfon of Chrift will be brought to a fpeedy iffue, upon the ground of an appeal to them. For thefe reafons, we chufe rather to decline a combat, which we want room to maintain, than, by allowing a disproportionate fhare of attention to this object, to incur cenfure from the general body of our Readers, for having fuffered ourselves to be drawn afide out of the path of our duty to the Public by the feducing ignis fatuus of theological controverfy.

Of

Of the prefent work, we fhall only lay before our Readers a brief fummary; leaving it to Dr. Prieftley's opponents to detect his errors, and to the Public to decide upon the merits of the question.

The Introduction is chiefly employed in ftating the principal arguments against the doctrines of the Divinity and the Preexistence of Chrift, taken from the general tenor of Scripture; from the difficulty of tracing the time when these doctrines, which were unknown to the difciples before the refurrection, were first divulged; from the univerfal practice, among the first Chriftians, of praying to the Father only; from the contradiction which is implied in the doctrine of the Trinity, and its total inutility to any purpofe of religion or morals; from the improbability of the Arian hypothefis; and from the inconfiftency of both the Athanafian and the Arian fyftem with the doctrine of the Materiality of man, maintained in the Author's Difquifitions en Matter and Spirit. Dr. Prieftley adds, that the Arians, in confidering Chrift as the Creator and Governor of the world, make him a God, and therefore are not Unitarians, but Polytheifts.

The first Part of the work contains the Hiftory of Opinions which preceded the doctrine of the Divinity of Chrift, and prepared the way for it. The chief heads of what is here advanced are these :

The only writings of the Apoftolic Fathers, which contain any certain traces of the doctrines in question, namely thofe of Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius, are either fpurious, or interpolated, fo that little ftrefs can be laid upon paffages quoted from

them.

The principles of the Gnoftics, firft taught among the Jews by Simon Magus, and afterwards embraced by many Chriftians, were borrowed from the philofophy of the Eaft. They held, that matter is the fource of all evil; that the fouls of all men had pre-exifted; that inferior intelligences proceeded from the Supreme Being by a kind of efflux or emanation, a part of the substance being detached from the reft, but capable of being abforbed into it again; that these intelligences, which they called Eons, were fome male and others female, from whom others were produced: and that thefe might occafionally come in the form of men, to inftruct the world. Among the Chriftian Gnotics, the Cerinthians and Carpocratians held, that Jefus was the proper offspring of Jofeph and Mary, and continued to be nothing more than any other man, till his baptifm, when a fuperangelic fpirit, one of the Eons, called the Chrift, came into him; the Docete held, that this fpirit affumed an unfubftantial form, which, though not real flesh and blood, appearing as fuch to the fenfes, was called the man Jefus; and the Marcionites held, that whatever the

body

body of Chrift confifted of, it was fomething that only paffed through the body of his mother, like water through a pipe, and that it did not perform any of the proper functions of a human body, or really fuffer upon the crofs. Thefe doctrines gave offence to the Apoftles, and are frequently cenfured in their writings, particularly in thofe of John. The Gnoftics were regarded as heretics by the general body of Chriftians, and formed feparate focieties. They were the only perfons fpoken of as heretics for two or three centuries after Chrift. Ignatius, Polycarp, Juftin Martyr, Hegefippus, Irenæus, mention none, under this appellation, but different fects of Gnoftics, The cafe is the fame with respect to Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, and Firmilian. The Apoftles Creed was intended as a guard against Gnofticifm. The doctrine of the Divinity of Chrift made its firft appearance among the Ghoftic Chriftians..

The Platonic philofophy taught, that there are three great principles in nature, the Suprene Being, or the Good, his mind er reafon (nous or logos), and the foul of the world. The later Platonifts (chiefly of the Alexandrian fchool) fpoke very obfcurely concerning God and nature; but we neither find in their writings, nor in thofe of Plato himself, any explicit personification of the divine Nous or Logos, as a diftinct intelligence. But Philo, and other Jewith philofophers who had embraced the Platonic doctrine, went fo far as to maintain, that the Logos, though not a permanent intelligent perfon, was an emanation from the Supreme Being, and the vifible medium of all the communications of God to man, that by which he made the world, and converfed with the Patriarchs; and they called this power, the image of God, his fon, his firft begotten fon, and a god.

Many of the Chriftian Fathers (as Dr. Prieftley obferves in the fecond Part of the work, which contains the Hiftory of the doctrine of the Trinity) adopting, in part, the philofophy of Plato, and particularly the doctrine concerning the divine intellect, or logos, that they might reprefent their Mafter in a more reputable light than that of a mere man, they fuppofed this logos to have been united to the man Chrift Jefus. Not contented with perfonifying the logos in a mere figure of fpeech, as the Piatonifls had done, they confidered it as a fubftantial perfon, a fecond God, the fon of the firft. This attribute of the Father, which according to the Jewish philofophers had affumed an occa fional perfonality, in the creation of the world, and the communications from heaven related in the Old Testament, they conceived as acquiring a permanent perfonality, when united to the man Chrift Jefus. It appears from many paffages in the writings of Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, &c. that the logos, or the fon, was, in their ap prehenfion, originally nothing more than an attribute of the

9

Father,

Father, but that, at length, a ftate of actual perfonality took place, which they called the generation of the Son.

To explain this generation, in a manner which fhould neither imply a diminution of the fubftance of the Father, by the production of a fon from himself, nor the entire feparation of the fon, they had recourfe to analogy. Sometimes they explained the generation of the Son by the iffuing of words from men, and fometimes by the flowing of a river from a fpring, or the prolation of a branch from a root, or the lighting one lamp at another. On this fubject many curious queftions arofe, fuch as, Why only one Son was generated? Whether generation neceffarily implied paffion? Why the Son and Holy Spirit did not generate? Whether this generation was in time? Whether it was a voluntary or involuntary act? &c. Many ingenious fpeculations on these, and other fimilar queftions, are found in the writings of the Fathers.

All the Ante-nicene Fathers, though they held, that the Son derived his being from the fubftance of the Father, and before his generation was his own proper wifdom, yet afferted that he was inferior to the Father, and fubject to him. This can only be accounted for upon the fuppofition, that while they hesitated to pursue their principle to its proper extent, they were restrained by the fear of popular prejudices, which would not have borne the doctrine of the equality of the Son with the Father.

After the Logos came to be confidered as a proper perfon, Chrift was looked upon as a threefold being, confifting of the divine Logos, a human foul, and a human body. All the orthodox Fathers before the Council of Nice, held, that Chrift had a human foul, which fuffered, but that the Logos could not fuffer. Several curious questions confequently arofe, with respect to the union between the Logos and the foul and body of Chrift, and their feparate properties, fuch as, Whether the divine nature could feel pain? Whether it ftill retained all its peculiar powers, and particularly its omniprefence? Whether the foul of Chrift knew every thing from its union with the Logos? How Chrift could fay, that he was ignorant of the day of judgment? Whether the body of Chrift was impaffible, and incorruptible? &c. The Logos was now reprefented as having been eternally generated from the Father, fo that each had always exifted diftinctly in these relations. At the fame time the Holy Spirit (concerning whom no controverfy had arifen before the Council of Nice), which had hitherto been spoken of either as a communicated power, or inferior perfon, was maintained to be a third divine perfon, confubftantial with the Father and the Son. The perfect equality of all the perfons in the Trinity was afferted. To reconcile this doctrine with that of the Divine Unity, new diftinctions were invented, new terms ufed, and many analogical illufREV. Jan. 1787.

used,

trations

trations were employed, all of which failed, by leaning too much either towards Unitarianifm or Tritheifm. Much ingenuity was exercifed in drawing arguments both from the Old Teftament and the New, in fupport of the doctrine of the Trinity, and in refuting the objections made to this doctrine; and the fyftem, thus framed, enjoyed the countenance and protection of the civil power.

Having brought a long feries of quotations to illuftrate and confirm this reprefentation of facts refpecting the rife and progrefs of the doctrine of the Trinity; Dr. Preftley proceeds, in the third Part of his work, to relate the hiftory of the Unitarian doctrine; the fum of which is as follows:

The Jews, in all ages, were believers in the Divine Unity, on the authority of their facred books. This the Chriftian Fathers allowed; and acknowledged that the doctrine of the Trinity was fo obfcurely delivered in the Old Teftament, that it was unknown to the bulk of the Jewish nation. They plead, that the Jews were not inftructed in this doctrine, left it should afford them a pretence for relapfing into Polytheifm; and that it was fit, that fo fublime a mystery fhould be gradually revealed. The Jews have always expreffed great indignation against this doctrine; and never expected their Meffiah to be more than man. The orthodox Fathers allow, that Chrift did not teach his own divinity, and that this doctrine was not fully discovered till the publication of the Gospel of John. They account for this by faying, that great caution was neceffary in introducing doctrines fo fublime and difficult, and fo revolting to the minds of the Jews; they add, that the knowledge of our Lord's divinity was concealed, to deceive the Devil, left he should otherwise have been prevented from affaulting him. Athanafius was of opinion, that the Apofties acted with great prudence, and like wife mafter builders, in firft teaching what related to the humanity of Chrift, and deferring the difcovery of fo offenfive a doctrine as that of his Divinity; and he allows that, whilst the Jews were ignorant of this doctrine, they preached the Gospel with fuccefs among the Gentiles. Chryfoftom, Theodoret, and others, impute the Apoftle's filence on thefe fubjects to the fame motive; and affert, that the fame caution was neceflary with refpect to the Gentiles. The plain inference from which is, that the orthodox Fathers must have fuppofed, that the Chriftian church, in general, was at firft Unitarian; efpecially as they thought that John was the first who clearly and boldly taught the doctrines of the Pre-existence and Divinity of Chrift.

Notwithstanding the opinion which Athanafius, and other orthodox Fathers, entertained concerning the Gospel of John, it does not appear, that it produced any change of fentiment, upon its publication. All the Jewish Chriftians remained be

lievers