Tyrrwhit, Mr. Evanfon, Mr. Maty, Mr. Harries, and Dr. Difney: concerning each of thefe gentlemen we have a short detail they all refigned their emoluments, or expectations, and broke off their connection with the eftablished church; except Dr. Chambers, who feems to have continued in it till his death, declining farther preferment, and altering the liturgy according to his own fentiments; being prepared, we are told, to fubmit to the extremity of the law, had it been put in execution against him, in which cafe, he would have refigned his benefice.

6

In the courfe of this work, other names, and authors, are introduced; particularly the excellent and gentle Tillotion, as he is properly termed; to whofe charge on the Socinians is applied the old proverb: He, the walls of whofe house are made of glafs, fhould be careful how he throws the firft ftone at his neighbour's window.' Dr. Doddridge alfo, to whom the terms excellent and gentle are well known to have also belonged, receives a very respectful tribute to his memory, and his labours; at the fame time that he is mildly animadverted on, for what is here pronounced, a manifeft bias to turn paffages of Scripture in favour of the popular doctrine.' Some few inftances, which he thinks thus chargeable, are produced and criticifed by this writer; who poffibly, though he has great candour, may be under fome degree of bias himself, and a little too fharp in his cenfure; fince there is reafon to think that few men have ufed greater diligence to fatisfy them felves as to Scripture knowledge than did Dr. Doddridge.

Among the reflections which the perufal of a collection of this kind fuggefts, we cannot avoid obferving, and lamenting, the ignorance of themfelves, which men fometimes betray, and the inconfiftency of their conduct. Of this we cannot produce a more glaring and ftriking proof, than in the behaviour of Archdeacon Philpot, a very eminent divine, who fuffered death for the Protefiant caufe, in the reign of Queen Mary. It is aftonifhing, beyond what words can expreis, that this man, imprifoned, for no crime, but on account of what he believed to be the truth, and prepared to defend it at the stake, fhould, at the fame time, manifeft a moft bitter and virulent fpirit against others, who had an equal right with him to judge for themfelves, for a difference in opinion. This he did, in a moft wọnderful way, by expreffing his approbation of the sentence paffed on Joan of Kent, and by the infolent treatment of his fellow prifoners; fome Anabaptifs as they are here called, and we believe are fo called by Fox,-harmlefs, inoffenfive, and worthy people, who held fentiments correfponding in a degree with thofe which Mr. Lindfey efpoufes. Philpot arraigns them with the greatest haughtiness and contempt; and execrates them, not merely in an unchriflian, but in the most savage and brutal manner?

manner! Our author recites feveral paffages, and adds many juft remarks on them: we are glad he does, because the name of Philpot might feem, to fome, to give fanction to a conduct which no name, or authority, or caufe, could ever juftify, or ever excuse. His temper and language leave little room to doubt his condemning thefe perfons to death, even with any kind of torments, had it been in his power. Yet this man was at the fame time willing to fuffer martyrdom himself, and actually did yield his life in the flames !-Alas!-fo it is; the hiftory of mankind, in general, however entertaining or inftructive, prefents us with weakness, error, fraud, violence, oppreffion, wickedness and mifery and the ftory of the best, when fairly and impartially told, offers us but a very imperfect image of virtue ! Luther, learned, wife, and good, was paffionate, turbulent, and ferocious; Calvin, good and great as he, was, in one inftance, at leaft, a perfecutor; Socinus, though more mild and gentle, inclined towards perfecution! What is to be inferred, but that we are to call no man mafter on earth; that we are not to judge and condemn each other.

Another reflection which arifes on this occafion, is, the inAluence which mere wordly policy has often had in promoting religious contentions: ftigmatizing, and giving opprobrious names to thofe of particular fentiments, though fuch perfons might be justly numbered among the moft wife and virtuous of mankind. Happy are we, living, in this refpect, in better and more enlightened times; whatever bigotry and narrowness of fpirit may yet remain, they, at prefent, lie dormant; and whatever engines for oppreffing the confcience, or infringing the rights of private judgment, may ftill exist, they are kept in care-. ful concealment; and there may they ever remain! or, rather, may they be utterly confumed, and perifh in eternal oblivion!

Thus have we given our Readers a brief view of a performance, which furnithes both entertainment and inftruction. As to the immediate fubject, though we honour the gentlemen who have acted in the confcientious manner here related, we do not propofe to make ourselves parties in the enquiry. Let every one, if he can, be thoroughly perfuaded in his own mind. One thing we may obferve, viz. that the propofition, there is One God, and One only, is, with very few exceptions, if any, the common faith of Chriftians. It is a first principle of religion. So far they are all Unitarians. As to the different modes and characters in which this One infinite Being has difcovered himfelf to mankind, there has always been fome difagreement, and uncertainty, under every difpenfation; and fo, for aught we yet fee, it is likely to continue. The matter of principal importance is, that, while men think differently on the fubject (which they ever will do), they fhould endeavour to confine their diffent from each other within the boundaries of piety, peace, and love.

E 4

ART.

ART. X. Letters to Dr. Horfley, in Anfewer to his Animadverfions on the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Christianity. With additional Evidence, that the primitive Chriftian Church was Unitarian. By Jofeph Priestley, LL. D. F. R. S. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Johnfon. 1783.

ABITUR et labetur: or, as Dr. Priefley expreffes it- Nothing fhall be wanting on my part to keep it up.' And if perfeverance gain the prize, he may almoft confider his victory as certain.

The Author, who is generally the hero of his Prefaces, informs us, that the stages or revolutions of his faith have been various, though not rapid at least, not fo rapid as might have been expected, confidering the distance he now is from the point from which he fet out. In the earlier period of his life, he was a Calvinist, of the ftraiteft fect. At the age of twenty, he commenced an Arian; and continued in that perfuafion till he was about five or fix and thirty, when he again changed his opinion, and became a Socinian. Whether he is arrived to what he calls the MAXIMUM in improvement,' he doth not fay. We fufpect there is fomething yet in referve;-fome efoterical doctrine, which is foon to become exoterical; fome old thing, which is to become new. In the mean time the Monthly Reviewer may be indulging his conje&ures, and preparing his exclamations; for which our readers, fays Dr. Prieftley, will likewife be pretty well prepared.' We, indeed, believe, they are pretty well prepared for any obfervations' the Doctor may make, not only on the fubje&t of the miraculous, conception, but on any subject whatever. If, notwithstanding, any of his readers fhould chance to be unprepared either for those old or those new, things, which he is about to bring out of his treafure, he hath fo ordered matters as to be able to fay-"I did not take you by furprife."

As I find, fays he, no mention of two ferts of Ebionites (one of them believing the miraculous concep ion, and the other not) before the time of Origen, it is probable that in the time of Juftin the Jewish Chriftians were alu oft wholly Ebionites of the oldeft

When Dr. P. publishes thefe Obfervations on the miraculous conception, we should be glad to fee an anfwer to the following queries: I. Was it falle or figurative, or was it a real fact? II. Did the Evangelifts, did the Apoftles believe in its reality; or was it the general or ftanding opinion of Chrift's immediate followers, or the first difciples of his miniftry? . if it was not, what reafon can be affigned for it? Was it not published as a doctrine for the universal belief of Chriftians till after Chrift's refurrection? What made its publication neceffary then, which did not make it neceffary before? IV. If it was at length made known, was it made known by proper authori ty? What are the decifive marks of proper authority? By what line of diftinction can it be known where this authority begins, and how far it extends; what it ftamps as certain, and what it leaves to be admitted or rejected according to the fancies or opinions of individuals? V. If, however, the doctrine of the miraculous conception was made known, and that too by pofitive and fpecific authority, did it meet with the gene ral affent of the church? If it did not, what reafon can be fuppofed to operate against its reception? And what inference can be drawn from this fuppofition of the cafe that can avail any argument but a deiftical one? VI. If, however, it be acknowledged, that the doctrine was true-was authorized, and was generally admitted by the first Chriftians, how came it to have grown into fo general a difrepute in the age of Juftin Martyr the age immediately following? How is fo fudden a • movement' to be accounted for in the ordinary courfe of human events? By what train of circumftances could it be fuppofed to have happened that fo univerfal a change could have taken place, as must have been the cafe, if Dr. Priestley's pofition be true, viz. that all the Jer Chriftians in the time of Juflin, and almost all the Gentile Chriftians, believed that Jefus was only a man begotten both of Joseph and Mary?

gleeft denomination, believing Chrift to be man born of man, in the ftrictest sense of the phrafe; and therefore that, in this refpect also, there could have been no pretence for any infinuation that the Jewish Chriftians were divided on this point; and ftill lefs, that thofe among them who believed Jefus to be a man born of man, were not a very great majority of them.

It is plain from the existence of fuch Chriftians, both among Jews and Gentiles, in the time of Origen, and probably much later, which was long after the publication of the Gofpe's of Matthew and Luke, even in their prefent form (admitting that there might be fome doubt relating to the introductions to them, when they were first publifhed), that they confidered thefe Evangelists fimply as biftorians, and by no means as infpired writers; fo that they thought themselves at liberty to admit or difregard their teftimony to particular facts, according to their opinion of their evidence being competent, or not competent, in thofe particular cales. I have frequently avowed myself not to be a believer in the inspiration of the Evangelifts and Apoftles as writers, and have given my reafons pretty much at large for my opinion. I therefore, with these ancient Unitarians, hold this fubject of the miraculous conception to be one, with refpect to which any perfon is fully at liberty to think as the evidence hall appear to him, without any impeachment of his faith or character as a Christian.”

6

We make no comments on this paffage. Conjectures' would be needlefs and exclamations,' unless they carry an idea of wonder, would be trifling and impertinent. We will therefore affure Dr. P. that we are preparing' nothing of that fort; for nil admirari is become our motto, when fuch writers are the fubject.

But we pafs on from this mere eg avle-bufinefs to the main fubject of the Letters (though, according to custom, a good deal of the fame bufinefs occurs alfo in them), and fhall give a general view of the arguments employed by Dr. Priestley in fupport of his hypothefis; and the methods he makes ufe of to defeat the objections of his learned antagonist. In doing this, we fhall, with a few exceptions, acquit ourselves according to the rules Dr. Priestley is pleafed to lay down as proper for reviewing critics at leaft, to conduct themselves by. Such critics, or criticifers, are not, it feems, to prefume at answering an author; though he allows they may fit on him as judges. We shall not difpute this matter with the Doctor; nor will we bind ourselves to follow his directions; for if we are allowed the honour of judges, we see no reason why, in fumming up the evidence, we should be denied the privilege of ftrengthening our fentence by argument and by proof. But this is not the place nor the time to enter into fuch a difcuffion of privilege, as is neceffary to vindicate us from the cavils of a mortified and disappointed author. We decline anfwering Dr. Priestley in all his wrong pofitions, arguments, and conclufions, not fo much from a respect to his inftructions on the nature and duties of our office, as from a perfuafion that Dr. Horley needs no ally;' and allo by way of return to that gentleman's complaifance to us on a fimilar occafion, when he said—“ It were not difficult to fhew the infufficiency of Dr. Priestley's Reply to the Monthly Review; but I forbear to put my fickle into another's harvest."

In the introductory Letter,' Dr. Priestley pofitively, and, we doubt not, very justly, denies the charge of plagiarifm from Zuicker and Epifcopius. The name of the former he had not fo much as heard of before; and he thanks Dr. Horfley for informing him that the latter, though an Arian himself, was convinced that the Christian church was originally what is now called Socinian.' Here is, however, more in the conclufion than the premifes will allow. Epifcopius did indeed acknowledge, and even attempted, by fome of the fame argu

ments

ww

ments that Dr. Priestley hath fince ufed, to prove, that the Unitarians were not excluded from Chriftian communion. Bot could an Arian be fo inconfiftent with himfelf as to declare, that what we now call Socinianifm, conftituted the catholic doctrine of the church in the first age?-The Tws of Jufin, Epifcopius would not grant to be the Ebionites, whom he confidered as below notice: and whatever they were that held the opinion there fpoken of, he looked on them as conftituting a very fmall number (pauci admodum) of the general body of Chriilians. [Vid. Opera Epifcopii, vol. ii. par. 2. p. 296.]

After having exculpated himself from the charge of plagiarism (for Dr. Horfley did not happen to hit upon the right authors, though moft in that line have gone over one and the fame track), Dr. Priestley attempts to vindicate his reafoning from the charge of falle logic, particularly that fpecies of it which dialecticians call, arguing in a circle. He took it for granted, it seems, that the Unitarianifm of the Scriptures had been fufficiently proved by himself and others. He, therefore, in his Hiftory, did not refume the argument on that ground, but proceeded to prove the Unitarianifm of the primitive church from independent evidence, only obferving, that the Unitarian doctrine having been taught by the Apoitles, is likewife a proof of the fame thing.

Dr. Prielley obferves that he might have urged another proof, and upon a new and yet unattempted ground, against the divinity and pre-exiflence of Chrift, viz. from the doctrine of the materiality of man, which he prefumes hath been fufficiently proved by him in his Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit. I maintain, fays he, that there is no more reafon why a man should be fuppofed to have an immaterial principle within him, than that a dog, a plant, or a magnet should have one. This doctrine our Author confiders as directly against the whole fyftem of pre-existence; and being once established,muit of neceffity confirm the Socinian hypothefis.

Next follows the series of Letters; and thefe enter more fully and critically into the controverfy.

The firft Letter treats 6 of the argument from the writings of the Apoles and the Apoftolical Fathers."

Dr. Prielley obferves, that dog doth not neceffarily express a diftin& or perfonal exilence. It may refer to any thing, whether perfon or attribute, fubftance or quality, that is of the fame gender in the Greek language; e. g. alos est ovou, Matth. vii. 12. This is the Law, Rev. xx. 14. and in feveral other places.

66

The expreflion, "coming in the flesh," doth not imply a pre-exiflent ftate. It is laid of John, that he came neither eating nor drinking," by way of oppofition to Chrift, who "came" alfo, but under a lefs' rigid and auftere character.-Chrift's being "fent into the world," no more implies that he pre-exified, than that the difciples pre-cxifted likewife; for the fame form of expreffion is made ule of with refpect to their millon, John, xvii. 18-The phrafe, coming in the flesh, refers to the doctrine of the Gnoflics, who fuppofed Chrift to be a fuperangelic fpirit, which defcended from heaven, and entered into the body of Jesus. Dr. Priestley fees no trace of any other herefy befides this in the Epile of John; and this berely was as different as poffible from that of the Ebionites,