of; and then either a reformation, invitá ecclesiá, 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 son, 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."

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 lan-. guage 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 unitàrians 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 uxoμs-· 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.

ઃઃ

"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 ευχομενους ταρασσον, ευλαβου μενους δυο αναγορεύσαι θεους. Comment. in Johannem, edit. Huetii, 1668, vol. ii. p. 46. D.

† Αλλ' επει εικος προσκόψειν τινας τοις ειρημένοις, ένος μεν αλη θινού Θεου του πατρος απαγγελλομένου, παρά δε τον αληθινον θεόν θεων πλειόνων τη μετοχή του θεού γινομένων, ευλαβουμένους την του πασαν κτισιν ὑπερέχοντος δόξαν εξισωσαι τοις λοιποις της θεος προσο NYOGIAS TUYXAVovoi, &c, Ibid. p. 47. C.

had represented him to do, and that he really considered them as objecting to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from the very best principles.

In translating the passage in Theophilus, in which mention is made of God's speaking to nothing but his own word and wisdom, I inadvertently used the particle or for and, as you observe, p. 48; but I do not see how the right translation is at all less favourable to my argument, as it may still be interpreted of God's speaking, as it were, to himself, or to his own attributes, and by no means necessarily implies that the word and wisdom of God were distinct persons. However, I have other instances in proof of what I have advanced that are not liable to any charge of ambiguity, which it therefore behoved you to consider.

I also mistranslated a sentence in Theophilus, concerning his trinity. It was in consequence of his using a singular verb instead of a plural; but I have no doubt of your translation, p. 59, being right, and shall adopt it. I am still, however, fully satisfied, that neither Theophilus nor any person of his age made a proper trinity of persons in the Godhead; for they had no idea of the perfect equality of the second and third persons to the first.

You say, p. 61, "that they scrupled not to ascribe an equal divinity to all the three persons." If by equal divinity you mean something that might be equally called divine, though in a different sense, I admit it; but that will make nothing for your trinity. And that the fathers before the Council of Nice asserted, in the most explicit manner, the superiority of the Father to the Son, see my third section, in which you will find unanswerable proof of it.