to whom it was delivered, that the doctrine of a trinity, in its most objectionable form, must be maintained at all events by the proper members of the church of England as its most sacred palladium. Other divines of your church have attempted to explain and palliate it, so that it might be hoped that, in time, it would have been explained away and lost, and at length have been struck out of your articles and forms of worship; whereas now, it seems, it is to be maintained in all its rigour; and as you recommend the writings of Bishop Bull, without exception, I presume you approve of his Defence of the damnatory clause in the Athanasian creed, (indeed you mention this among his most valuable works,) and this in my opinion is going back into all the darkness and horror of popery. But as you cannot bring back those times, your damnatory clauses and excommunications will now have little effect. Yet, as there are liberal senti ments in your performance, I am willing to hope that, on re-consideration, you will, at least, retract your recommendation of that piece of your favourite author.

However, next to the church's reforming itself in this important article, it is to be wished by all the true friends of reformation, that your terms of communion, p. 71, may be universally understood and adhered to; for then I am confident that a majority of the thinking clergy, whose sentiments on this subject are in general, I believe, those of Dr. Clarke, or Arian, and many of them Socinian, would quit your communion at once, And in that case I have little doubt but that the characters and abilities of those ejected clergy would be found to be such as you could not now bear the want

of; and then either a reformation, invitá ecclesia, or a total dissolution of the hierarchy, would immediately follow. I am, &c.

LETTER VIII.

DEAR SIR,

Miscellaneous Articles.

I.

To vindicate Eusebius, or his author, in asserting that Theodotus was the first who advanced the doctrine of Christ being a mere man, you say, p. 37, " that Theodotus in this article so far surpassed the earlier heresiarchs, that the merit of being the inventor of the mere humanity, in the precise and full meaning of the words, is with great propriety and truth ascribed to him. When the Cerinthians and the Ebionites affirmed that Jesus had no existence previous to Mary's conception, and that he was literally and physically the carpenter's it might justly be said of them, that they asserted the mere humanity of the Redeemer; especially as it could not be foreseen that the impiety would ever go a greater length than this, of ascribing to him an origin merely human. These heretics however went no further, as I conceive, than to deny our Lord's original divinity: they admitted I know not what unintelligible exaltation of his nature, which took place, as they conceived, upon his ascension, by which he became no less the object of worship than if his nature had been originally divine."

son,

This, as far as I know, is advanced on your own authority only. I desire to know where you find that the Ebionites paid any kind of adoration to Christ after he was ascended to heaven, more than Theodotus did. As the extraordinary power communicated to Christ while he was on earth did not make his nature more than human, so neither could any power conferred upon him after his ascension; and if God alone is the proper object of worship, Christ, being still not God, is as improper an object of worship now as he was before. If any ancient unitarians worshipped Christ after his ascension (of which I believe there is no evidence), Theodotus might do it, and the Ebionites might not, for any thing that appears to the contrary. Socinus prayed' to Christ, though he considered him as a mere man, in his present exalted state.

As to your supposition that Theodotus might be the first person who taught the unitarian doctrine in Rome, which is a second plea which you advance for the credit of Eusebius, he himself says nothing about it. And as Tertullian says that in his time the unitarians were the greater part of the believers, it is highly improbable that there should be none of them at Rome, where there was a conflux of all religions and of all

sects.

You here speak of the impiety of the unitarians. Before you repeat any expressions of this kind, I beg you would pause a little, and consider how such language might be retorted upon yourself. If it be impiety to reduce a God to the state of a man, is it not equally impious to raise any man to a state of equality with God, that God who has declared that he will not give his glory to another, who has no equal, and who

in this respect styles himself a jealous God? This you may say respects the gods of the heathens. But what were the heathen gods but either the sun, moon, and stars, or dead men, all creatures of God, and deriving their power from him? And if Christ be not God, he must be a creature of God too; for there can be no medium between creature and creator.

I do not call it impiety in you, but it sounds unpleasantly in my ears, to apply, as you do, the term holy Father to Athanasius. The catholics, I believe, apply it to Ignatius Loyola. Our Saviour applied it to his God and Father, and I wish it had always remained so appropriated. It is high time to drop that style, even with respect to a more holy man than Athanasius was.

II.

In a work of great variety and extent I was well aware that I could not expect to escape all oversights; but I was confident they could not be of much consequence. The expectation has been verified in both its parts. You have set me right with respect to the exactness of two of my quotations; and I should have thanked you for it if you had noted the oversights with good nature, which would have done you no discredit, and might not have lessened the weight of your animadversions.

But in some of the cases in which you pretend to set me right, you are much more mistaken than I have been. This is particularly the case with respect to your censure of Dr. Clarke and myself, concerning the piety ascribed to the ancient unitarians by Origen. I have lately procured the original, and I appeal to our readers whether you have not misrepresented the fact, and not Dr. Clarke or myself.

You say, p. 34, that "Origen says, not that they were pious, but that they boasted that they were pious, or affected piety. Piety," you add, " and the affectation of piety, belong to opposite characters." According to you, therefore, Origen considered these unitarians as impious persons, the very reverse of pious. But if the passage be carefully inspected, it will appear that Origen, notwithstanding he uses the word ευχομε vous, was far from representing these ancient unitarians as only pretending to piety, and boasting of it; but considered them as persons who really dreaded lest, by admitting Christ to be God, they should infringe upon the honour that was due to the Father only.

66 By these means,” he says, may be explained that which greatly disturbs many persons, who plead a principle of piety, and who fear to make two Gods*." He afterwards recurs to the same subject, and introduces it as an objection of persons with whom he would not trifle, and whom he was far from charging with hypocrisy. "But since," he says, "it is probable that many may be offended, because we say that one is the true God, namely the Father, and besides this true God there are many who are made Gods by participation; fearing that the glory of him who excels all creatures should be brought down to that of others who attained the appellation of Gods, &c.t" On the whole, therefore, I think that Origen must have thought as respectfully of these early unitarians as I

* Και το πολλους φιλόθεους είναι ευχομένους ταρασσον, ευλαβου MEVOUS duo avayoрevσaι Jeous. Comment. in Johannem, edit. Huetii, 1668, vol. ii. p. 46. D.

† Αλλ' επει εικος προσκόψειν τινας τοις ειρημένοις, ένος μεν αλη θίνου θεου του πατρος απαγγελλομενου, παρά δε τον αλήθινον Θεόν θεων πλειόνων τη μετοχή του θεου γινομένων, ευλαβουμένους την του πασαν κτισιν ὑπερέχοντος δόξαν εξισώσαι τοις λοιποις της Θεος προσφ ηγορίας τυγχανουσι, &c. Ibid. p. 47. C.