^0»^^^^^fN^ 
 
 
THE ,^ 
 
 TRIAL 
 
 jf PR/A 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNITARIANS, 
 
 A 
 
 LIBEL 
 
 
 
 ON 
 
 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN 
 
 RELIGION. 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 Gccra' 
 
 
 1 
 
 JO^ 
 
 1 " 
 
 
 
 
 Jehovah our God is one Jehovah. 
 
 Deut. vi. 4. 
 
 Ki'piot; 6 0£6g ?/)ua)v Kvpiog tig tcrrt. 
 
 The Lord our God is one Lord. 
 
 Mark, xii. 29. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR 
 
 LONGM/xN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN, 
 
 PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 1830. 
 
LoNDO:<i : 
 
 i'riutcd by A. &. K. SiJotUbWoodc, 
 
 Ncw-Strcet.lSrquare. 
 
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 CHARLES JAMES BLOMFIELD, D.D. 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, 
 
 A PRELATE, 
 
 ALIKE CHARACTERISED BY 
 
 UNAFFECTED PIETY, PROFOUND LEARNING, AND 
 JUDICIOUS ZEAL, 
 
 IS 
 
 THIS VOLUME 
 
 INSCRIBED. 
 
TRIAL. 
 
 THE KING 
 
 versus 
 
 JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, THEOPHILUS LINDSEY, 
 
 AND HENRY BELSHAM. 
 
 On an Ex-officio Information, charging them, severally, with 
 the Publication of 
 
 A LIBEL ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 
 In Trinity Term. 
 Before the Lord Chief Justice and a special Jury, 
 
 The Defendants being called upon their recog- 
 nisances to appear, came forward to answer an 
 Information charging them ; first, with an attempt 
 to uproot Christianity and to plant Deism; and 
 in another count, with the publication of scan- 
 dalous libels on the Christian Religion, the Re- 
 ligion of the State as by Law established, in 
 certain false, profane, and blasphemous writings, 
 with intent to excite untrue and dangerous notions 
 of religion ; — to which they severally pleaded, 
 ^« Not Guiltyr 
 
The Jury empanneled and sworn were — 
 
 Isaac Neisoton, — John Bacon, — Jo/m Locke, — 
 Robert Boyle, — Soame Jenyns, — Robert Nelson, 
 — Henry Hyde, — George Lyttleton, — Henry 
 West, — Joseph Addison, — Richard Steele, — Samuel 
 Johnson. 
 
 The Attorney-General then rose : — 
 
 May it please your Lordship ! Gentlemen of 
 the Jury ! This Information is filed against the 
 Defendants, charging them ; first, with printing and 
 publishing works by which they have attempted 
 to uproot Christianity, and upon the ruins of it 
 to build up a system of Deism; and next, with 
 publishing scandalous libels on the doctrines of 
 the Christian Religion, the Established Religion of 
 this Realm, with intent to excite false and dangerous 
 notions of such Religion in the minds of His Ma- 
 jesty's liege subjects. Now, Gentlemen, with respect 
 to the first part of this Information, in which these 
 persons are charged with a conspiracy to uproot 
 the Christian religion, and to plant Paganism on 
 the ruins of it, it is only necessary, simply to ask ; 
 What is Christianity ? and, I think, you will not 
 hesitate one moment in saying with me, that it is 
 the religion of Jesus Christ, the divine Saviour of 
 man, and that mankind are called and designated 
 Christians, from the God whom they worship ; 
 and therefore, that they who deny Christ to be 
 their God, and do not worship Him with divine 
 
honour, cannot, with any propriety of speech, be 
 called Christians ; it being neither just nor reason- 
 able to denominate any one a Christian who merely 
 believes Christ as a human teacher; for I affirm 
 the common acceptation of the title of " Christian" 
 to apply to those, and to those only, who acknow- 
 ledge Christ for their God. With respect to the 
 first charge made against the Defendants, of at- 
 tempting to substitute Paganism for Christianity; 
 it would be easy to support this, by showing that 
 an impious attempt has been made by these mis- 
 taken men to melt down the Christian religion into 
 the dross of Mahomedanism, and that in this they 
 have so far succeeded, that they and the Ma- 
 homedans have come to these common terms — 
 namely, that they both believe Christ to have 
 been the Messiah, and the revealer of God to man ; 
 that he was a true prophet ; that he gave sight to 
 the blind, healed the lame, and raised the dead ; 
 and that what he taught was truth. Indeed, it is 
 a matter upon record, that an eminent leader 
 and chief propagator of the Socinian heresy in the 
 Palatinate, Adam Neuser, minister of the Church 
 of Heidelberg, began in Unitarianism, and finished 
 his career by turning Mahomedan, and underwent 
 the rites at Constantinople ; and what has hap- 
 pened in this way may occur again, particularly 
 among those who are less able to understand the 
 system. This result is not, perhaps, so much to 
 B 2 
 
be deprecated, since, of the two systems, the Ma- 
 homedan is the nearest to Christianity, for it em- 
 braces the behef that Christ was the Word of God ; 
 that He is the intercessor between God and man ; 
 and that He was conceived and miraculously born of 
 a virgin : and. Gentlemen, if any of you have ever 
 taken up the volume of the Alcoran, you will have 
 found, in the early parts of it, that none are to be 
 accounted true Mussulmans, w^ho do not believe 
 the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament 
 to be the word of God.^ Now, in all these several 
 points of Mahomedan belief, the disciples of the 
 Impostor excel the Unitarians, and out-run them 
 in the nearness oiF their approach to Christianity : 
 nor must it be forgotten, that it was principally on 
 account of this adherence on the part of the Ma- 
 homedans to the waitings of the Old and New 
 Testaments, that the negotiation, opened by the 
 English Unitarians, in the reign of Charles the 
 Second, with the ambassador of the emperor of 
 Morocco, to form an alliance with the Mahomedans 
 for a more extensive propagation of Unitarian 
 principles, failed. If, then, it be admitted that the 
 Mahomedans are Pagans, and that they are op- 
 posed to Christians and Christianity, it follows, as 
 a necessary consequence, that much more so are 
 the Unitarians, the Defendants and their adherents. 
 
 1 See Horsley's sixteenth letter to Priestley. See Sale's 
 Koran, eh. 3, 4, and 3. 
 
But, my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, it is 
 not my intention to proceed in this trial upon the 
 first count of this Information, but to rely on the 
 second, as that which furnishes more extensive and 
 certain ground for expecting your verdict on this 
 prosecution, — a prosecution, let me say, carried on 
 in no spirit of vindictive feeling towards any of the 
 persons before you, but with the aim of protect- 
 ing the public against, what I am fully prepared to 
 show, their pernicious and blasphemous writings. 
 
 Gentlemen, — It is hardly necessary for me to 
 tell you, that the doctrines of our National Church, 
 and more particularly that which is explained in 
 the first article of our faith respecting the holy and 
 undivided Trinity, is a part or parcel of the statute 
 laws of the realm ; and that to attempt to turn the 
 minds of his Majesty's subjects against the admission 
 of them, proved true by the warrant of Scripture ; 
 or to attempt to lessen their importance, by with- 
 drawing from them their only support, the evi- 
 dence of the word of God, constitute a very 
 serious offence. With this offence, grave and 
 awful as it is, the Defendants stand charged ; and it 
 devolves on me, as the Officer of the Crown, to bring 
 to merited punishment those who impugn the 
 Christian Religion. 
 
 In all Christian countries it is necessary that 
 some form of public worship to the Creator should 
 exist : in England it has been established by statute, 
 B 3 
 
in the reign of Charles the Second, that if any 
 man, in writing, reviles, scoffs, or ridicules it, by 
 the Law of the land he is guilty of a libel. Now, 
 to deny the Holy Trinity, by an attempt to show 
 that our blessed Saviour was not a divine but a 
 human being, is taking away the corner-stone on 
 which the beautiful and sacred edifice of Chris- 
 tianity rests, and is reviling the sacred character of 
 its Author; and an attempt to rob this Being of 
 that divinity which is his own, and to hold him out 
 as a mere human creature, and as an unworthy and 
 improper object of worship, is to scoffs at his high 
 claims, if not to ridicule them. The Information 
 charges the Defendants with devising, and in- 
 tending to excite by these means, in the minds of 
 the King's subjects, false and dangerous notions 
 of religion. 
 
 By some, perhaps, it may be thought that such 
 prosecutions as the present are a direct infringe- 
 ment upon that natural law of toleration, which 
 permits every man to worship God in the manner 
 his conscience prescribes. For the establishment 
 and force of this law, I am at all times, and 
 upon every occasion, the firm and decided advo- 
 cate ; and, indeed, in this happy country, it is both 
 the privilege and enjoyment of every individual to 
 seek his God in the way, and after the manner, 
 which he honestly believes and feels to be his 
 duty. Happily for us, we have no such edicts 
 
as those which were passed in Babylon of old, 
 nor such monarchs as Nebuchadnezzar, to decree 
 a prescribed, unauthorised worship to their sub- 
 jects, with the penalty of death to such as should 
 refuse to embrace it : but, at the same time, it is 
 a law which is no less natural than just, that the 
 Established Religion of a State or Nation, if not im- 
 posed as an obligatory duty upon every subject, is 
 so far to be reverenced, that none may wantonly 
 charge falsehood upon its doctrines with impu- 
 nity, when those doctrines are thought by the 
 wise and good to have a heavenly sanction ; and 
 none can attempt to subvert these, without incur- 
 ring the risk of a just degree of punishment. If 
 any there be, who from tenderness of conscience 
 scruple to receive this religion, they are at perfect 
 liberty to dissent from it ; they are at liberty to state 
 and publish the reasons of their secession ; pro- 
 vided, in so doing, they do not shock the feelings, 
 nor attempt to shake the public faith, by offensive 
 and impious statements, or by throwing ridicule 
 upon what the country at large holds sacred. I 
 will even go further than this ; — I will admit that 
 any sect may lawfully promulgate, in a rational 
 and serious manner, their objections even to the 
 established, authorised Religion of the Nation: 
 our laws permit every individual et ^entire qiUB 
 velit^ et quce sentiat, dicer e ; and that they may 
 advance any reasonable arguments* against the 
 B 4 
 
truth of it, if such be the unfeigned and conscien- 
 tious belief of the party in question, and if their 
 objections be stated with that decorum and feel- 
 ing which is due to the sensibility of all who as 
 conscientiously differ from them : for if the Na- 
 tional Religion be not strictly conformable to 
 Holy Writ ; if its doctrines be the mere phantoms 
 and hallucinations of the brain, and not the teach- 
 ings of God's Holy word and Spirit; then let those 
 doctrines and that religion fall, and fall under the 
 weapons of those, who shall succeed in proving 
 their spuriousness ; then let another system be 
 substituted, which has higher and better evidences 
 of truth : but, until this be actually and satisfac- 
 torily done, we cannot quietly submit to the dic- 
 tum of those who set up a mode of interpretation 
 peculiar to themselves, and which has not the 
 sanction of legitimate and critical learning to sup- 
 port it. For such persons as these to publish 
 protests against our faith, to impugn its evidences, 
 and to deny as true those portions of Holy Writ 
 which they cannot prove false, and who only 
 brand as spurious, those parts and passages of 
 Scripture which clash with their pre-conceived opi- 
 nions ; amounts, in my humble opinion, to direct 
 blasphemy, inasmuch as they unblushingly assert 
 portions of that sacred volume, which no one has 
 ever yet shown to be other than the word of 
 God, to be a cheat and invention of designing 
 
men ; and denounce those as no better than dupes 
 to the delusion — dupes in the awful matter of their 
 eternal salvation, who ground their faith on such a 
 foundation. 
 
 Gentlemen, — T am well aware that the present 
 age lays claim to the acquisition of deeper and a 
 more general knowledge, and to a liberality more 
 extensive than has, at any previous time, marked 
 the intellectual advancement of any people ; but 
 before we admit the truth of this, it becomes us to 
 distinguish between liberality and innovatio7i j and 
 with respect to knowledge, it is proper to enter 
 into the distinction between learning and science. 
 The progress of the arts and sciences has carried 
 with it a curiosity and an enterprise, which lead 
 their votaries to see blemishes in every thing long 
 established, and to betray a nervous impatience 
 to move rapidly onwards in the course which rest- 
 less men are hurrying on whatever has hitherto 
 been fixed. I will not, for it is impossible that 
 I should, deny that the world, and the things of 
 the world, cannot always remain stationary, or that 
 experience and insight do not produce knowledge 
 and sagacity, and that this increase of mental 
 power and energy leads to improvement in all 
 things ; but it is, at the same time, essential to 
 guard against the precipitation into which a pre- 
 sumption of great intellectual advancement is apt 
 to carrv the minds of men. He that hasteth to 
 
10 
 
 be wise, is almost as liable to overshoot the mark, 
 as he who " hasteth to become rich." Great and 
 permanent improvement is the result of cool deli- 
 beration and persevering industry, not of a fe- 
 verish and impatient excitement. I am ready to 
 admit that the rapid progress of intellect, of which 
 we now hear so much^ is justly the boast of the 
 scientific world; but I have never yet seen the 
 connection pointed out between any modern im- 
 provements in science, and the new doctrines of 
 reformers in theology. We are certainly much 
 improved, for instance, in the art of making time- 
 keepers, above those who lived a hundred years 
 ago ; but no man will say, that we thence derive 
 any advantage for numbering our days more wisely, 
 or that we have any clearer ideas of eternity than 
 we had before. An eminent artist in this way may 
 doubt of the Apostles' Creed; but there is no 
 visible relation between his art and his unbelief. 
 The conceit of superior learning has always had 
 an ill effect upon Christianity ; and is frequently 
 found in those who have no great parts upon 
 which to pride themselves. We may be as 
 learned as we can make ourselves, and yet con- 
 tinue good Christians; because true learning and 
 true religion were never yet at variance ; but the 
 moment we are vain of our learning, we begin to 
 be in danger, and some folly or other is not far 
 off. The Greeks were unfit to receive the Gos- 
 
11 
 
 pel, because they boasted of a sort of wisdom, 
 between which and the wisdom of the Gospel 
 there is no affinity. They delighted to speak of 
 little things in great words ; while they who first 
 published the Christian faith, propounded to the 
 world the highest objects in the plainest language. 
 Hence it has been observed, that persons in the 
 same state of life with the Apostles of Jesus Christ 
 have attained to a great understanding of sacred 
 things, while some scholars of high pretensions 
 have betrayed great dulness and misconception 
 in respect to the same: for our religion ever 
 had, and ever will have, some things which are 
 hidden from those who are wise and prudent in 
 their own estimation, and are revealed to persons 
 of teachable, child-like dispositions. The natural 
 and adequate effect of all knowledge, when rightly 
 used, is to make men wiser; but the affectation 
 and abuse of learning have a contrary effect.^ 
 
 Gentlemen,— There is no subject on which man- 
 kind are properly more tenacious, than that of their 
 religious faith. There is nothing which they bear 
 with less patience than the sarcasms which un- 
 feeling, or the levities which trifling, minds throw 
 out against their religious sentiments ; for, of all 
 subjects, it is indisputably the most important, 
 because the concerns of it not only mainly affect us 
 
 Bishop Home's Charge to the Clergy of Norwich. 
 
12 
 
 while we dwell on earth, but its momentous interests 
 extend to another and to an eternal state of exist- 
 ence; and if the prospects and hopes of immor- 
 tality, a blessed immortality, be blighted by finding 
 that they have been vainly sought, or that the con- 
 ditions upon which we have been led to attain them 
 are untrue, and not real, there is then prepared for 
 the mind a bitterness which brings on sickness and 
 despair, — a bitterness which renders our being a 
 curse instead of a blessing, and tends to make 
 the author of it despised rather than adored. It 
 is, therefore, the first duty of every nation to set 
 forth and establish a religion which the best and 
 most learned of its luminaries, on the surest 
 grounds, conceive to be true, and the truth of 
 which the experience of ages and the consent of 
 mankind have confirmed. Indeed, the responsibility 
 is dreadfully awful, which imposes upon a govern- 
 ment the propriety of establishing a public form of 
 worship for the moral and spiritual benefit of the 
 community over which it presides: and as this 
 responsibility is surely the most fearful, what must 
 be that of those who impugn and weaken it, unless 
 they can produce reasons and arguments strong and 
 weighty for their contrary opinions. The govern- 
 ment, as the guardian of the uninformed and 
 ignorant of the land, steps in, as in the present 
 instance, between them and the promulgers of 
 unholy doctrines, to screen them from imposition 
 
13 
 
 and delusion ; and as it possesses the power to give 
 a form of worship, so it has the ardent desire that 
 the people committed to its charge may enjoy, and 
 be secured in the enjoyment of, all the advantages 
 and comforts which flov>^ from a true and genuine 
 religion. If other classes of the community have 
 the power of investigating these things, and can 
 form satisfactory, though different, opinions as to 
 what they feel called upon to believe, they are 
 left to the guidance of their own discretion, and 
 they may, for the benefit of others capable of 
 forming conclusions in these high matters, publish 
 and declare the motives and arguments by which 
 they have been led to differ from the mass around 
 them, provided, as I have before observed, they 
 do so in a manner, and by such means, as are 
 rational, serious, and inoffensive. While they thus 
 act, the State holds out protection to them in the 
 public exercise of their peculiar form of worship : 
 but if they quit the limits thus fairly prescribed, 
 and go forth to the public, declaring the national 
 religion, — the Christian religion, false; and attempt 
 to poison the minds of the discontented and factious, 
 or unsettle and disturb those of the great aggregate 
 of the community, who have not the power nor the 
 opportunity to discriminate between the true and 
 false ; and in doing so, declare Scripture, which is 
 the foundation and rock upon which the Church 
 of Christ is built, to be in many parts fictitious, 
 
14 
 
 and not the word of God; — then, among the 
 ignorant and uninstructed, doubts are immediately 
 raised as to what they ought to beheve — the 
 current of their consolatory hopes is stopped by 
 a barrier which they cannot remove ; and distrust, 
 despair, and impiety, follow as the natural con- 
 sequences of these declarations. 
 
 I am aware that, among many, an opinion pre- 
 vails, that it would be better for the Legislature to 
 permit works of an impious and blasphemous 
 description to pass unnoticed, and to leave the 
 principles thus propagated to be refuted by those 
 to whom the charge of preserving true principles 
 of religion is committed, or by others who have 
 a zeal and knowledge of divine things : but in 
 my view of the case, it is with the utmost pro- 
 priety that the Legislature retains the power of 
 inflicting punishment for notorious scandals upon 
 our religion, and especially when our adversaries 
 depart from the course of regular and legitimate 
 reasoning, and have recourse to light and indecent 
 ribaldry in assailing the received doctrines of 
 Christianity : and though it is not my intention to 
 accuse the defendants as guilty in this respect, I 
 do not hesitate to place this offence to the neces- 
 sary effects of their writings ; and sure I am, that 
 the Legislature will never be backward in effect- 
 ually protecting from ridicule and insult those 
 sacred truths which are, and have been received 
 
15 
 
 with reverence and awe by the great body of 
 Christians in all ages and countries. The Law will 
 not sanction blasphemy, — the Law is the guardian 
 of our religion, and will not suffer the Christian 
 faith to be wounded and maimed; but upon all 
 occasions of great and momentous import, when 
 Christianity is wilfully and impiously assailed, will 
 punish the delinquents, I do not say with severity, 
 but in such a manner as to show a proper and 
 due sense of veneration and respect for what is 
 truly esteemed holy and sacred. We have many 
 laws on our statute books which are seldom if ever 
 put in force ; if, then, it be asked. Why retain what 
 is obsolete and unserviceable ? I reply, That it is 
 wise to permit them to remain, if it be only to 
 show what is the spirit of our laws ; — to show 
 that they discountenance, if they do not punish, 
 offences of this nature ; and it is with the same 
 view of discouraging blasphemy, rather than of 
 p2inishi7ig or treating it with any sort of severity, 
 that the Defendants are now brought before you. 
 Surely, when men with bold effrontery come 
 forward, and, with the aid of great but per- 
 verted talents, assail the strong holds of Chris- 
 tianity, representing adoration to its Author as im- 
 pious, and our belief in him as blasphemous; 
 when they openly charge us with dishonesty in 
 adding to the Book of Life, while they are heed- 
 less of the curse on those who take aught from 
 
16 
 
 it ^ ; and represent us as unwise and foolish in 
 our interpretation of it, as Heathens and Poly- 
 theists ; and all this, under the colour of profound 
 reading, liberal sentiments, and enlarged capacity 
 of reasoning; — if this torrent of misrepresentation 
 and error be not checked by some sort of public 
 disapproval and censure ; who is to calculate upon 
 the effects which such infidelity must produce upon 
 the moral conduct and religious feeling of a people ? 
 It is here, then, that I again repel the charge of 
 a narrow and persecuting spirit, in bringing the 
 present prosecution, which I urge, not against the 
 arraigned as individuals, but against their princi- 
 ples, — principles pernicious and impious, tending to 
 the substitution of a cold morality, and blighting 
 Deism, for all the glorious blessings and privileges 
 of Christianity. 
 
 From the pernicious doctrines which the persons 
 before you have promulged, a sect has recently 
 sprung up, who, under the name of " Free-thinking 
 
 I If any man shall take away from the words of the book 
 of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the 
 book of life, &c. — Rev. xxii. 19. 
 
 *' It is true," says Doddridge, " this particularly refers to 
 the hook of the Revelaiion ; but the parity of reason extending 
 to other books, I doubt not the terror of the threatening does 
 so too." . . " I think this passage should make men very 
 cautious, that they may not rashly incur any censure on this 
 account ; though, undoubtedly, the terror of the threatening 
 is planted against any designed erasement or addition." 
 
17 
 
 Christians," have grossly libelled our National 
 Church, as professing a religion which has no other 
 claim than that of being " by law established," — 
 " as a Church whose ministers and pastors are ser- 
 vants of the State only; who retain their office, titles, 
 and privileges, in opposition to the clear and ex- 
 press commands of Jesus ; — as a Church whose 
 laws have no earlier date than Popery, no higher 
 authority than Acts of Parliament ; — as a Church 
 whose unrighteous claims are supported by an appeal 
 to the hopes and fears of men ; — and, as a Church 
 whose un scriptural faith is fulminated by means of 
 a creed, which is at the same time intolerant in 
 its spirit, and contradictory in its assertions.*' ^ 
 
 Gentlemen. When a religious sect adopts the 
 title of " Free-thinkers," it is time to look about us, 
 because we all know what Free-thinkers have done, 
 and what it is that they are prepared to do under 
 this revolutionary signal. The times must be lax 
 indeed which will suffer men boldly and daringly 
 to avow free-thinking and democratical principles, 
 and, under the cover of conscientious scruples, to 
 libel all that we hold most sacred. Religion has 
 too frequently been used as a cloak to conceal the 
 most ungodly designs, and we have too much rea- 
 
 ' See the particulars of the infidelity of this sect, as de- 
 tailed in their petition to the House of Commons in 1827, 
 which is inserted in the Appendix to this volume. 
 C 
 
18 
 
 son, from past experience, to suspect that the Free- 
 thinkers of these days may not be so different from 
 those of former times as the liberality of this age, 
 in its boasted intellectual advancement, may be dis- 
 posed to admit. Free-thinkers, hitherto, have been 
 Atheists, Deists, and Revolutionists. These allege, 
 indeed, that " they receive the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament as containing the revealed 
 word of God, and therefore they are not Atheists ; " 
 but whether by " the Scriptures " they mean all 
 and every part of those sacred, canonical books 
 which we receive, is doubtful; and, therefore, though 
 not Atheists, they may be Deists : and that they 
 are so, may be inferred from setting forth in the 
 development of their disbelief, that "the worship of 
 the man Jesus is idolatrous, and that the worship of 
 God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy 
 Ghost, is the worship of a plurality of Gods, open 
 and avowed Polytheism, and a Polytheism both 
 contrary to the laws of God and our country. 
 That they are Revolutionists also, is, I think, proved 
 upon their own showing, when they declare that 
 they " regard the connection of Religion with the 
 State as the primary cause of the grievances which 
 they suffer, and as having mainly contributed to 
 the corruption of revealed religion ; " and hence 
 they implore the Legislature " to put an end to the 
 connection between Church and Sstate." And who 
 are these men that would alter the government^ 
 
19 
 
 and denounce our ritual " as false and superstitious, 
 and our Church as having its foundation in Rome, 
 a superstructure of ignorance and mystery^ of Hea- 
 thenism and Popery ? " Who? but they who " pro- 
 fess an equality of rights;" among whom are "no 
 religious titles nor distinctions ; and whose aim is to 
 level all things," denying the right of the civil 
 magistrate to interfere in religion, alleging that 
 they are justified in such denial by the example of 
 St. Peter and St. John, who, when the Jewish rulers 
 threatened them if they preached Christ crucified, 
 demanded, " whether it were right in the sight of 
 God to hearken unto them, more than unto God." 
 Now, Gendemen, you are as well aware as I am, 
 that the Apostles put this question to those who 
 would not permit the name of Jesus to be preached : 
 here the Legislature supports the Apostles, and says 
 that that name shall not be blasphemed ; for that 
 divine Master commanded them and all his disci- 
 ples to "be subject to the higher powers," and "to 
 submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
 sake," in accordance with the proof which he had 
 given them, that his religion was not intended to 
 interfere with the established government of the 
 country, when he ordered them to pay tribute- 
 money, and to render to C^sar the things that 
 were Caesar's. We too, like the Aposdes, deny that 
 our sovereign, or chief ruler, or magistrate, has the 
 power to administer God's words and sacraments, 
 c 2 
 
^0 
 
 in right of his sovereignty or office ; but we hold 
 that he is the supreme Head of our Church over all 
 persons and things, and in all causes ecclesiastical 
 as well as civil : and that it is necessary that he 
 should be invested with this power, for the main- 
 tenance of public tranquillity, and for the due ad- 
 ministration of public justice. That the heretical 
 and deistical spirit of these men spring, in the first 
 instance, from the writings of the Defendants, I am 
 now prepared to show ; and in order to substantiate 
 the charge upon the record, I proceed to adduce 
 the strongest evidence in support of this prosecu- 
 tion, by bringing before you witnesses of no com- 
 mon stamp, — men of honour, learning, and sound 
 integrity, — such as are incapable of entertaining 
 prejudices, or of permitting any feeling to prevail 
 in the support of the charge, but such as springs from 
 the purest motives of rectitude, and the most ardent 
 love of truth. I am aware that I have a task of 
 some difficulty to perform, — a task which I would 
 fain were intrusted to better hands than mine : for 
 I am free to confess, that though born and edu- 
 cated in the principles of our national faith, and 
 alive to the duties, as well as to the comforts and 
 blessings of our holy religion, I am am not so well 
 nor so extensively acquainted with the various 
 parts of the divine law, and with those several par- 
 ticulars of doctrine and precept, nor with that 
 critical knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, as those 
 
21 
 
 who by their profession have devoted their lives to 
 the study and acquisition of these high matters. 
 I have, however, the satisfaction to feel assured, 
 that the truth and goodness of the cause, which I 
 feel it my duty to vindicate, will suffer nothing from 
 my ignorance ; for the evidence which I have to 
 adduce is brought by those who are able to give 
 it in the clearest manner, and, what to me is not 
 less consolatory, it will be met and sifted by those 
 who have given sufficient proof of their power to 
 defend themselves : for I have learnt, since my 
 coming into court, that the cause of the accused 
 is to be defended by themselves. In this I think 
 they have rightly judged, for none are more able 
 to explain their conduct and belief; and none, I 
 am inclined to think, can act with greater, though 
 mistaken sincerity than themselves. Aided also 
 by the knowledge of his Lordship, which is con- 
 fessedly very extensive, both in respect to the 
 divine law and the law of the land, they will have 
 in him all the advantages of an advocate, and at 
 the same time the assurance from his general cha- 
 racter that, as he is above all prejudice, and inca- 
 pable of being swayed from the strict line of his 
 duty by any partial or party feelings, there pre- 
 sides a judge on this tribunal, whose veneration 
 for that greater Judge who is hereafter to try him 
 at the bar of Heaven, will not permit him to forget 
 that he stands between the people of this Nation 
 c 3 
 
22 
 
 and their God; and that the responsibility in the 
 full discharge of his duty is, therefore, most awful. 
 Gentlemen, I shall confidently bring this enquiry 
 before you, and leave the issue of it in your hands, 
 persuaded that any cause, whether public or pri- 
 vate, cannot be in greater security than vv^hen it is 
 committed to the keeping, or hangs upon the de- 
 cision, of men whose characters, deserved fame, and 
 conscientious principles, are an ample guarantee 
 for the just and due discharge of their duty. — 
 Call Samuel Horsley. 
 
 Crier, He is sworn. 
 
 Examined by the Attorney-General : — 
 
 Att. Gen, Your name, sir, I think is Horsley ? 
 
 Wit7iess. It is. 
 
 Att, Gen, Do you know any thing of a book 
 entitled " The Corruptions of Christianity ? '* 
 
 Witness, I do, sir : I know it to have been writ- 
 ten by Thomas Priestley, one of the defendants. 
 
 Priestley. To save the time of the Court, I ad- 
 mit that I am the author of that work. 
 
 Att. Gen. Very good. Pray then, sir, inform the 
 gentlemen of the jury of the nature of that work. 
 
 Witness, The obj ect of it is to throw d iscredit upon 
 the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, by denying that 
 it has any existence in Scripture, or that either the 
 Scriptures, or the belief of the primitive Christians, 
 afford any support to the truth of it. It attempts 
 to prove that the doctrine, in the form in which it 
 
23 
 
 is now maintained, is of no greater antiquity than 
 the Nicene Council; — that it is a gradual corruption 
 of the doctrine of the Gospel, which took its rise 
 in an opinion j€r5/ advanced in the second century 
 by converts from the Platonic school ; — that be- 
 fore this innovation, of which Justin Martyr is 
 made the author, the faith of the whole Christian 
 Church, and particularly of the Church of Jeru- 
 salem, was simply and strictly Unitarian ; — that 
 the immediate disciples of the Apostles conceived 
 our Saviour to be a man, whose existence com- 
 menced in the womb of Mary; — that they thought 
 him in no respect an object of worship ' ; — that 
 the next succeeding race worshipped him, indeed, 
 but they had no higher notions of his divinity than 
 those which are maintained by the followers of 
 Arius in the fourth century.^ Thus, by the de- 
 claration that the primitive Christians were Uni- 
 tarians, and their followers, to the fourth century, 
 Arians, have the defendants attempted to level, 
 and too fatally succeeded in striking, a blow which 
 aims to dispossess that Being of divinity, " who, 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God, although he made himself 
 
 1 The doctrine of our Lord's mere humanity is the clear 
 doctrine of the Scriptures, and the apostles never taught any 
 other. — Hist, of Corr. vol. i. p. 6. 
 
 2 See Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry 
 of St. Albans. 
 
 C 4 
 
24 
 
 of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a 
 servant, and was made in the likeness of men." 
 
 Judge, Defendant, — I shall take it as admitted 
 that this and any other statement here made of your 
 work by the witnesses is correct, where you do not 
 interpose to deny it. In what year did the Nicene 
 Council assemble? 
 
 Witness, In the year 325. 
 
 Att, Gen, Is the assumption that the faith of 
 the first Christians was simply and strictly Uni- 
 tarian true or not ? 
 
 Witness. Decidedly untrue ; for it was the evident 
 object of St. John to guard against the possibility 
 of mistaking the divine original of Christ in his 
 decisive statement, that he was the divine Word or 
 Logos that had existed from all eternity ; and Ig- 
 natius, the disciple of St. John, here states in the 
 page now open before me, in terms highly figur- 
 ative, I will allow, but perfectly unequivocal, the 
 Word or Logos to be a distinct person from the 
 Father. " There is one God, who hath ma- 
 nifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who 
 is his eternal Son, who came not forth from 
 silence ^ ;" meaning thereby, that the Son's exist- 
 ence holds not of the Father by any such remote 
 relation as the fabulous genealogies describe ; but 
 he is the eternal Logos of the paternal mind. 
 
 Ign. ad Magn., sect. 8. 
 
25 
 
 Again, Clemens Romanus, the fellow-labourer 
 of St. Paul ^5 says, speaking of Christ, " The 
 sceptre of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, came not in the pomp of pride or arro- 
 gance, although he had it in his power." ^ And if 
 Christ had the power of coming into the world in 
 what manner he pleased, he was a Divine Being ; 
 and this exactly coincides with what St. John says, 
 — " Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ 
 is come in thejlesh, is of God." Now, had Christ 
 been a mere man, in what other way could he have 
 come than in the Jlesh ? and yet Priestley says, 
 that Clemens, when speaking in the highest terms 
 concerning Christ, only calls him " the sceptre of 
 the majesty of God;" whereas both he and the 
 Apostle, his fellow-labourer, declare that he came 
 in the Jlesh ; or, as another Apostle has it, " in the 
 likeness of men." St. John, therefore, with great 
 truth and reason, sets forth this as the cardinal 
 doctrine of Christianity ; insomuch that he speaks 
 of the belief of this article as the accomplishment 
 of our Christian warfare ; the attainment, at least, 
 of that faith which with certainty overcometh the 
 world. " This," he says, " is the victory which 
 overcometh the world, even our faith." Then he 
 adds, " Who is he that overcometh the world, but 
 he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ? " 
 
 « Vide Phil. iv. 3. "> Ep. 1. ch. 16. 
 
26 
 
 " Son of God " is a title that belongs to our Lord 
 in his human character, describing him as that 
 man who became The Son of God by union with 
 the Godhead ; as " Son of Man," on the contrary, 
 is a title which belongs to the Eternal Word, de- 
 scribing that person of the Godhead who was 
 made man by uniting himself to the man Jesus. 
 To believe, therefore, that Jesus is The Son of 
 God, is to believe that he is God himself incar- 
 nate. This the Apostle says, is the faith w^hich 
 overcometh the world ; inspiring the Christian 
 with fortitude to surmount the temptations of the 
 world, in whatever shape they may assail him. 
 On the other hand, the denial of this great truth, 
 so animating to the believer's hopes, he represents 
 as the beginning of that apostacy which is to come 
 to its height in the latter ages, as one of the cha- 
 racters of Antichrist. '' Ye have heard," he says, 
 *' that Antichrist shall come : even now there are 
 many Antichrists. Who is a liar, but he that de- 
 nieth the Father and Son?" And again, " Every 
 spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in 
 the flesh, is of God ; and every spirit that con- 
 fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, 
 is not of God : and this is that spirit of Antichrist 
 whereof ye have heard that it should come, and 
 now already is it in the world." " The Christ" is 
 a name properly alluding to the inauguration of 
 the Redeemer to his triple oflice of Prophet, Priest, 
 
27 
 
 and King, by the unction from above : but in the 
 phraseology of the heretics of the Apostolic age, it 
 was used as a name of that Divine Being with 
 whom we maintain, but they denied, an union with 
 the man Jesus. To deny that Jesus is the Christ 
 was, in their sense of the word " Christ," to deny 
 that he is The Son of God, or God incarnate. 
 He that denieth this, says the Apostle, is a liar, 
 and is Antichrist. Two remarkable sects of these 
 lying Antichrists arose in the Apostles' days — the 
 sect of the Cerinthian heretics, who denied the 
 divinity of our Saviour ; and the sect of the Do- 
 cetae, who denied his manhood, maintaining that 
 the body of Jesus, and every thing he appeared to 
 do and suffer in it, was mere illusion. Thus, both 
 equally denied the incarnation; both, therefore, 
 equally were liars and Antichrists : and to give 
 equal and direct contradiction to the lies of both, 
 St. John delivers the truth in these terms, that 
 " Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh." ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. Now, sir, inform us, whether it be 
 true that the primitive Church of Jerusalem was 
 strictly Unitarian, maintaining the simple humanity 
 of Christ? 
 
 Witness. It is first necessary for me to state, 'that 
 the Jews at Jerusalem, who were first converted to 
 Christianity, are designated " the Hebrews," or 
 
 > Horsley's Sermons, vol. i. p. 175. 
 
28 
 
 ** they of the Circumcision ; " and they, together 
 with James, the brother of our Lord, their bishop, 
 constituted the primitive church of Jerusalem; that 
 original parent church, the mother of us all. 
 When the emperor Adrian drove the Jews from 
 Jerusalem, the descendants of these Hebrew 
 Christians settled in the northern parts of Galilee, 
 and became heretics in one particular, by main- 
 taining the necessity of the observance of the 
 Mosaic law for the attainment of salvation under 
 the Gospel, and were then called Nazarencs, 
 After them arose another sect, called Ebionites. 
 Now, the author of the Corruptions of Chris- 
 tianity confounds these two sects together, and calls 
 them " Hebrew Christians;" and he says, with 
 respect to them, " You will find no trace in history 
 that they believed Christ to be any thing more 
 than man. " ^ It may be true that this author has 
 not been able to discover in history, that the 
 Nazarenes believed Christ any other than a man ; 
 but I affirm, that there is hardly any fact in the 
 early history of the church more clearly established 
 than the distinction between the Nazarenes and 
 Ebionites : both of whom maintained the opinion 
 of the orthodoxy of the proper Nazarenes in the 
 article of our Lord's divinity. It is evident, there- 
 fore, that these sects were not the same with the 
 
 1 Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 32. 
 
29 
 
 Hebrew Christians who composed the primitive 
 church of Jerusalem. 
 
 Att, Geji. You deny the primitive church of 
 Jerusalem to have been Unitarian : when, and how, 
 do you say that Unitarianism commenced ? 
 
 Witness. Cerinthus, who was contemporary with 
 St. John, taught, that to Christ born as a man was 
 added an angelic being: that this union was inter- 
 rupted at the crucifixion and at the time of our 
 Lord's interment, but was restored after the resur- 
 rection ; and, being restored, it rendered the man 
 Jesus an object of divine honour: and this, Ter- 
 tullian says, was a heresy, and a heresy it was con- 
 sidered when Cerinthus lived ', which proves that 
 the divinity of Christ was the orthodox doctrine. 
 Now Ebion, from whom the Ebionites took their 
 name, is declared by Epiphanius and Irenaeus to 
 have held the Cerinthian doctrine or heresy re- 
 specting Christ; consequently, he worshipped Christ 
 as a deified man. From the time of Cerinthus to 
 the year 190, the Ebionites do not appear to have 
 gone further than the denial of our Lord's original 
 divinity, when Theodotus the apostate, the tanner 
 of Byzantium, came to Rome and preached the doc- 
 trine of Antichrist, and probably first taught the 
 mere humanity of Christ ; for there is no evidence 
 to prove that Christ was not worshipped by the 
 
 ' De Praescript. Haeret. c.48. p. 221. 
 
30 
 
 Ebionites ; and as all innovations have a progress, 
 and the divinity of Christ was the belief, and the 
 worship of Christ was the practice, of the first ages, 
 it is probable that presumptuous men would begin 
 to question the ground on which his claim to wor- 
 ship might be thought to stand, before they aban- 
 doned the worship to which they had been so long 
 habituated. I would ask, has not this been the 
 progress of the corruption in latter times? Soci- 
 nus, although he denied the original divinity of 
 our Lord, was nevertheless a worshipper of Christ, 
 and a strenuous asserter of his claim to worship. 
 It was left to others to build upon the foundation 
 which Socinus laid, and to bring the Unitarian doc- 
 trine to the goodly form in which the present age 
 beholds it. 
 
 Court. Well, well. — But was the divinity of 
 Christ the belief of the Apostles ? first show that. 
 
 Att. Gen. That, my Lord, has been proved by 
 what the witness has adduced from St. John. 
 
 Court. That is but a solitary instance. The 
 witness has gone no further than to say, that the 
 divinity of Christ was the belief of the primitive 
 church of Jerusalem ; but it is necessary to show 
 more than this, — that it was the original faith. 
 
 Witness. My Lord, this is a wide field in which 
 the believer in the divinity of Christ may long 
 expatiate, and with delight. St. Peter, in his first 
 sermon on the day of Pentecost, declares publicly 
 
31 
 
 to the people of Israel, that Jesus, whom they had 
 crucified and slain, was raised up from the grave 
 by God ; " having loosed the pains of death, for it 
 was not possible that he should be holden of it." 
 And here, let me ask, who was this that it was im- 
 possible for the bonds of death to hold? Not the 
 mere man, Jesus of Nazareth, for all men are sub- 
 ject to, and are to be holden of, death; — no, it was 
 Christ the divine Redeemer of mankind, — that divine 
 Being w ho was superior to all the powers of death 
 and hell: He, who shed forth upon his Apostles on 
 this day the Holy Spirit from the place of his 
 exaltation on the right hand of God, having re- 
 ceived the promise of the Holy Ghost from the 
 Father. My Lord, I will also insist that the 
 blessed Stephen died a martyr to the deity of 
 Christ. The accusation which the Defendants say 
 was brought against him, was his *' speaking blas- 
 phemous words against the Temple and the Law." 
 The accusation which the Jews brought against 
 him, says the Apostle, was also a charge of blas- 
 phemy against Moses and against God.^ And 
 what was this blasphemy? It was probably a 
 prediction that the Temple was to be destroyed, 
 and the ritual of Law, of course, abolished. The 
 blasphemy against Moses was probably his asser- 
 tion that the authority of Moses was inferior to 
 
 1 Acts, vi. 11. 
 
32 
 
 that of Christ. But what could be the blasphemy 
 against God ? What, except it were this ; that he 
 ascribed divinity to one who suffered publicly as a 
 malefactor ? That this was the crime of the blessed 
 Stephen cannot be doubted, when the conclusion 
 of the story is considered. " While," says the 
 inspired historian, " he looked up stedfastly into 
 heaven, and saw the glory of God," — that is, he 
 saw the splendour of the Shechinah, for that is 
 what is meant when the glory of God is mentioned 
 as something to be seen, — " and he saw Jesus 
 standing on the rif^ht hand of God ' ; " the man 
 Jesus in the midst of the light. The Jewish rabble 
 understood his declaration of seeing Jesus in the 
 divine glory as an assertion of his divinity ; they, 
 therefore, stopped their ears ; they overpowered 
 his voice with clamours, and hurried him out of 
 the city, to inflict upon him the death which the 
 law appointed for blasphemers.- The holy man 
 died as he had lived, attesting the deity of his cru- 
 cified Master. His last breath was uttered in a 
 prayer to Jesus, first for himself, and then for his 
 murderers, — "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Lord, 
 lay not this sin to their charge." ^ 
 
 Court, Are not the words in our version, ** They 
 stoned Stephen calling upon God? " 
 
 1 Acts, vii. 55. 2 Acts, vii. 57, 58. 
 
 » Horsley's Letter XII. to Priestley. 
 
33 
 
 Witness. They are, my Lord. 
 
 Court. And the word " God" I perceive to be 
 in italics, by which I understand it to be supplied 
 by the translators, and that it is not in the original 
 text. 
 
 Witness. It certainly is not in the original text, 
 but the force and the true rendering of the passage 
 in the original is, " They stoned Stephen, invocating 
 and saying, Lord Jesus." ^ 
 
 Court, That may be the better way of render- 
 ing it, but I shall not take it as evidence against 
 Priestley. 
 
 Witness. My Lord, I do not desire that you 
 should ; it is sufficient for us to know that our ver- 
 sion gives the full and correct sense of the original ; 
 and it will equally answer the purpose of my testi- 
 mony, to consider, that, at all events, a prayer was 
 made by the martyr Stephen in his last agonies ; 
 and that men pray with the utmost seriousness to that 
 Being whom they conceive the mightiest to save.- 
 
 Att, Gen. It is stated in this work of the " His- 
 tory of the Corruptions of Christianity " that the 
 notion of the Trinity in Unity was — 
 
 1 ETriKaXovfisi'ov is used in the same sense and manner in 
 1 Pet. i. 17. " If ye call on the Father." 
 
 '2 « Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
 be saved." Rom. x. 13. Ubi voce Knot'ou Christum intelligi, 
 ex contextu planum est. — Bull. Prim, et Apost. Trad. p. 392. 
 D 
 
34 
 
 Court. Stay. You had better ask if another 
 instance can be adduced, in favour of the disciples 
 of Christ believing their Lord to be God, contrary 
 to any other proposition laid down by the writer 
 in this work. 
 
 Att. Gen. Can you, sir, produce any other in- 
 stance to this purpose ? 
 
 Wit7iess. Yes ; and one as strong and certain as 
 any previously advanced. I allude to the story of 
 St. Paul's conversion, in which, as it is twice re- 
 lated by himself, Jesus is deified in the clearest 
 terms. This transaction appears to have been a 
 repetition of the scene of Moses and the bush, 
 heightened in terror and solemnity. Instead of a 
 lambent flame appearing to a solitary shepherd 
 amidst the thickets of the wilderness, the full efful- 
 gence of the Shechinah, overpowering the splen- 
 dour of the mid-day sun, bursts upon the commis- 
 sioners of the Sanhedrim, on the road to Damascus, 
 wdthin a small distance of the city. Jesus speaks, 
 and is spoken to, as the divinity inhabiting that 
 glorious light. Nothing can exceed the tone of 
 authority on the one side, and the submission and 
 religious dread on the other. The Apostle usually 
 recites this story before making a public defence 
 of his belief in Christ, and it had the effect of 
 heiorhteninff the resentment of his incredulous coun- 
 trymen against him. 
 
 Court, Mr, Attorney General, you may now 
 
35 
 
 proceed in the course you were about to take 
 when I interrupted you. 
 
 Att, Gen. Very well, my Lord. — Now, sh', you 
 have stated it to be asserted by Priestley that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity in Unity was first suggested 
 by Plato and his disciples ; what have you to allege 
 against this position ? 
 
 Witness. Priestley in his book asserts, that the 
 notion of the Trinity was suggested, and, as he 
 says, " first advanced in the second century, by 
 converts from the Platonic school." Plato taught, 
 that the Supreme Being included three principles 
 in his divine nature, and that these principles 
 formed a Unity ^ ; and, because Plato has said 
 
 1 Gibbon, in the brilliant effusions of his infidelity, says on 
 this subject, " that Plato has marvellously anticipated one of 
 the most surprising discoveries of the Christian Revelation." 
 (Rom.Emp. ch.xxi. p. 321.) The three principles are not 
 the principles of Plato, but of the junior Platonists of the 
 second and third centuries, who differ widely from Plato, 
 though the acknowledged founder of the sect. (See Cud- 
 worth's Int. Syst. i. iv. 36.) Gibbon boldly asserts, " that the 
 Apostle has bestowed on the fundamental principle of Plato's 
 theology a divine sanction." (Ch.xxi. p. 320.) " His 
 notion of the theology, both of the evangelist and philoso- 
 pher," says Dr. Craven, " must, surely, be extravagantly er- 
 roneous. They who are the best acquainted with Plato's 
 theology make its fundamental principles to be these two; 
 God and Matter ; both eternal, the one independent of the 
 other. St. John gives no sanction to such a doctrine. The 
 Logos of St. John is a person, not a metaphysical abstraction." 
 
 See Craven's Jewish and Christian Dispensations, ch.xv. 
 
 D 2 
 
56 
 
 this, the writer of " The Corruptions of Chris- 
 tianity " conceives that the Christians of the second 
 century borrowed their notions of a Trinity from 
 this notion of Plato; and, as the doctrine was a 
 doctrine of Gentile philosophy, it, therefore, could 
 not be one of Divine Revelation. Now, to say 
 that the discoveries of Revelation and the inves- 
 tigations of philosophy cannot coincide, will be to 
 affirm what cannot be proved; and why is it to be 
 supposed that no one part of the doctrine of an 
 inspired writer could be previously taught by wise 
 men not inspired ? Many of the moral precepts 
 of our Lord are to be found in works of more 
 ancient heathen authors ^ ; and were every iota of 
 the Gospel doctrine to be found in the writings of 
 the Greek philosophers, this would not be suffi- 
 cient to set aside the pretensions of the first 
 preachers of Christianity to a divine commission. 
 But the doctrine of three principles in the Divine 
 
 ' On the forgiveness of injuries, Cicero says, " Quaedam 
 officia adversus eos sei*vanda, a quibus injuriam acceperis." 
 Lib. i. ch. 15. Cicero, also, commends Pericles for saying 
 that a magistrate should not only restrain his hands from 
 doing wrong, but turn his eyes from contemplating objects 
 that excite it. " Decet non solum manus, sed etiam oculos 
 abstinentes habere." Off. i. 40. 
 
 Juvenal says, Whoever secretly meditates a crime, is guilty 
 ofit: — 
 
 Nam scelus intra se taciturn qui cogitat uUum 
 Facti crunen habet. Sat. xiii. 208. 
 
37 
 
 nature was not peculiar to the Platonic school: 
 the followers of Plato pretended to no more than 
 to be the expositors of a more ancient doctrine ; 
 and it may be clearly traced from Plato up to the 
 Egyptian priests. The same notions of a triple 
 principle prevailed in the Persian and Chaldsean 
 theology. Vestiges of it are discernible in the 
 Roman superstition in a very late age; and this 
 worship of the Romans was received from their 
 Trojan ancestors, for the Trojans brought it with 
 them into Italy from Phrygia, and in Phrygia it 
 was introduced by Dardanus as early as the ninth 
 century after the flood; so that a notion of the 
 Trinity, more or less removed from the pm'ity of 
 the Christian faith, is found to have been a leading 
 principle in all the ancient schools of philosophy, 
 and in the religions of almost all nations; and 
 traces of an early popular belief of it appear even 
 in the abominable rites of idolatrous worship. If 
 reason was sufficient for this great discovery, what 
 could be the means of information but what the 
 Platonists themselves assign ; namely, " a theology 
 delivered from the gods," in other words, a theo- 
 logy derived from Revelation. This is the account 
 which Platonists, who were no Christians, have 
 given of the origin of their master's doctrine. But 
 I ask, from what revelation could they derive their 
 information ; they who lived before the Christian, 
 and had no light from the Mosaic ? For, what- 
 D 3 
 
38 
 
 ever some of the early fathers may have imagined, 
 there is no evidence that Plato or Pythagoras were 
 at all acquainted with the Mosaic writings, not to 
 insist (as I strenuously do) that the worship of 
 the Trinity is traced to an earlier age than that of 
 Plato or Pythagoras, or even of Moses. Their 
 information could only be drawn from traditions 
 founded upon earlier revelations ; from scattered 
 fragments of the ancient patriarchal creed ; that 
 creed which was universal before the defection of 
 the first idolaters, which the corruptions of idol- 
 atry, gross and enormous as they were, could 
 never totally obliterate. Thus the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is rather confirmed than discredited by 
 the suffrage of the Heathen sages, since the re- 
 semblance of the Christian faith and the Pagan 
 philosophy in this article, when fairly interpreted, 
 appears to be nothing less than the consent of the 
 latest and earliest Revelations.^ 
 
 Court. What were the three principles in the 
 Divine Nature, according to the Platonists, named ? 
 
 Witness. Goodness^ Intelligence^ and Vitality^ by 
 which was meant the eternal activity of the Deity, 
 the existence of intellect, and the vital principle. 
 
 Att. Gen. My Lord, I have done with this 
 witness. 
 
 1 See Dr. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of the Arch- 
 deaconry of St. Albans, p. 49. 
 
39 
 
 Cross-examination of the Witness, 
 
 Court, Priestley, are there any questions which 
 you wish to ask of this witness ? 
 
 Priestley. Yes, my Lord. In the commence- 
 ment of his evidence, the witness attempts to show 
 that Theodotus was the first promulger of the 
 doctrine of the sole humanity of Christ ; whereas 
 that person only revived the doctrine long pre- 
 viously held by the ancient Unitarians, which 
 doctrine was the universal opinion of the pri- 
 mitive Church until the time of Victor, who was 
 contemporary with Theodotus ; and I challenge 
 the witness to disprove this. ^ 
 
 Witness. Then, Eusebius shall decide the point ; 
 who tells us, " that the pretensions of these here- 
 tics were confuted by the presbyter Caius, who, 
 referring to authors older than the time of Victor, 
 says, " These heretics maintain that all the first 
 Christians, and the Apostles themselves, received 
 and taught those things which the followers of 
 Artemon (the disciple of Theodotus) now hold ; 
 and that the true doctrine which w^as preserved 
 till the time of Victor, the thirteenth bishop of 
 Rome in succession from St. Peter, was first cor- 
 rupted by his successor Zephyr inus. Their as- 
 sertion might have some show of probability, but 
 that, in the first place, the Holy Scriptures were 
 
 ' History of Comip. vol.xi. p. 486. 
 D 4 
 
40 
 
 directly opposed to them; and there are extant 
 many writings of the brethren, more ancient than 
 the times of Victor, which they wrote to the Gen- 
 tiles in defence of the truth, and against the then 
 existing heresies, — 1 speak of Justin, Miltiades, 
 Tatian, Clement, and many others ; in all of which 
 the divinity of Christ is maintained. And who is 
 ignorant of the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the 
 rest, which proclaim that Christ is both God and 
 man ? and whatever psalms and songs were written 
 from the first by the faithful brethren, they all 
 ascribe divinity to Christ, and celebrate him as 
 the Word of God. How, then, can it be pre- 
 tended that the doctrines which the Artemonites 
 inculcate were received till the time of Victor? 
 And how is it that they are not ashamed to throw 
 out this calumny against him, since they perfectly 
 well know that Victor excommunicated Theo- 
 dotus, the inventor and father of their God-deny- 
 ing apostacy^ the first who asserted the mere hu- 
 manity of Christ." These are the words of 
 Eusebius himself. ^ 
 
 Priestley, I see nothing in this passage but a 
 
 1 Hist.Ecc. lib.v. c. 28. 
 
 As soon as Theodotus had impugned the divinity of Christ, 
 he was instantly condemned by the Church for it, and was 
 excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome, Victor, (about 
 A. D. 188,) as an Heresiarch. — Waterland's Judg. of Prim. 
 Chiu'ches. 
 
41 
 
 plain acknowledgement that the ancient Unitarians 
 themselves constantly asserted that their doctrine 
 was the universal opinion of the primitive Church 
 till the time of Victor. ^ The witness has also 
 said, that Ignatius speaks of Jesus as a Divine 
 Being, and as the Son of God, in his epistle to 
 the Magnesians. I will admit that he is made to 
 say so in our present copies of his epistles ; but 
 then the witness cannot but know that those 
 epistles are not genuine ; and the learned, on this 
 account, have long given them up. 
 
 Witness. This I must unequivocally deny : that 
 the longer epistles are spurious, I readily admit ; 
 but those of which we are speaking, the shorter ones, 
 T will, in conjunction with Vossius, Hammond, 
 Petavius, Grotius, and a host of others, main- 
 tain to be genuine ; and in them is the evidence of 
 the truth of Christ's Divine nature, of which I have 
 spoken. ^ 
 
 Priestley. Then, in common justice, I require 
 you to prove them genuine. 
 
 Witness. No ; the onus prohandi rests with you, 
 to show that the great majority, indeed, I may 
 
 > History of Corrup. vol. xi. p. 486. 
 
 2 See Horsley's Letter to Priestley, V. p. 135. 
 
 When Priestley made this assertion he was unacquainted 
 with the writings of Bishop Bull, and many others of the 
 great divines, on this point. 
 
42 
 
 say, that nearly all the learned critics and scholars 
 who hold them as genuine, are mistaken. 
 
 Priestley. Again, my Lord, the witness at- 
 tempts to make St. John speak of an incarnation, 
 when he says, " Every spirit which confesses that 
 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." ^ 
 
 Court. Well, are not these the very words of 
 our common version ? 
 
 Priestley. They are, my Lord; but the term 
 " in thejlesh^^ would be better if it were " of the 
 Jlesli ; " for the clear meaning of the passage is, 
 " Every spirit is of God that confesses Jesus 
 Christ is come of the flesh, or is truly man ; " and 
 if he considers the original, he must admit this.^ 
 
 Witness. I can never admit this ; for how you 
 can venture to change the translation of a word for 
 that which is not the translation of the original, 
 I know not. 
 
 Court. Hand me the Greek Testament. — Iv 
 
 Witness. The words Iv (rup%\ can only be truly 
 rendered " in the flesh ; " and the difference be- 
 tween the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, and 
 his coming of the flesh, is wonderfully great : the 
 one declares an incarnation, the other a mortal ex- 
 traction. 
 
 » 1 John, iv. 2. 
 
 '-! History of Corriip. vol. i. p. 10, 
 
43 
 
 Cmirl The alteration is inadmissible. 
 Priestley. Again, the witness denies that the 
 Nazarenes and Ebionites were the same sect under 
 different names, while Origen and Epiphamus both 
 acknowledge that they were one, and mamtamed 
 the same tenets. Now it is admitted t^,at the 
 Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ, and there- 
 fore the Nazarenes denied the same; and they 
 were the Hebrew Christians, or the primitive 
 church of Jerusalem. 
 
 Witiuss. What Epiphanius says is a mere doubt 
 (for he confesses that he knows nothing of the 
 matter), whether the Nazarenes believed m the 
 divinity of Christ'; which doubt you have mi- 
 proved into a positive assertion that they rejected 
 if and with respect to the singular assertion ol 
 Ori-en, that the name of Ebionites was given, with- 
 ont^xception, to all the Jewish Christians who 
 united with the acknowledgement of Jesus as the 
 Christ, the strict observance of the Mosaic law, 
 it is worthy of observation that he says, at the 
 same time and in the same passage, that these 
 Ebionites were so named on account of " the po- 
 verty of the law h " whereas, when he is speakmg 
 of the Ebionites, properly so called, who professed 
 the opinions of Ebion, and denied our Lords 
 
 , Adv. Hreres. lib.i. p. 123. in Nazaraos. 
 2 Contra Cels. lib. xi. 
 
44 
 
 divinity, he tells us that they were so named on 
 account of " their poverty in their faith of Jesus. ^^ ^ 
 
 Priestley. The learned tutor of the great Lardner 
 proves from his writings, that the Nazarenes and 
 the Ebionites w^ere the same sect. 
 
 Witness. That Jones, to whom you allude, wrote 
 to this effect I acknowledge ; but his single opinion 
 is opposed to that of the greatest critics, — to 
 Grotius, Vossius, Spencer, Huetius, and a host of 
 others, together with the illustrious Mosheim him- 
 self, who says, " This little body of Christians, 
 which coupled Moses with Christ, spht again into 
 two sects, distinguished from each other by their 
 doctrines concerning Christ, and the permanent 
 obligation of the law, and perhaps by some other 
 circumstances;" and he adds, "The Nazarenes 
 had a better and a truer notion of Christ than the 
 Ebionites." - 
 
 1 UroixtvovTtQ TTtpi T)]v tiQ 'Ii]<Tovv TTiGTiv. In Commeiit. in 
 Matt, p. 428. See British Critic, vol. ii. p. 273. 
 
 - Both Nazarenes and Ebionites were Christians of Jewish 
 origin, who lived, for the most part, to the east of Jordan and 
 the Orontes. The Nazarenes retained the name which was 
 originally borne, not by a single sect, but by the followers of 
 Christ in general : the Ebionites derived their name either 
 from the Hebrew word Ebion, which signifies ]}oo7\ or, as 
 some have thought, from a founder of the name of Ebion. 
 Both sects were nearly allied to each other, but on some 
 points they differed. They both agreed in retaining the Le- 
 vitical Law, at the same time that they professed themselves 
 
45 
 
 Priestley. Still I affirm that there is no trace in 
 history, that the Nazarenes believed Christ to be 
 more than man. 
 
 Witness. The silence of history would be no proof 
 on this point, that such was their faith, if indeed 
 history were silent, which I think with Grotius and 
 others it is not. But if it could be proved (which 
 I deny to be possible) that these Nazarenes were 
 the first converts of the Circumcision ; we, who 
 maintain the full divinity of Christ, should find in 
 their confession the verdict of those first Christians 
 in our favour. 
 
 Priestley. Leaving this point upon which we 
 cannot agree, and going to the dying prayer of 
 Stephen, which you say is addressed to Jesus, I 
 have to observe that the proper object of prayer is 
 God the Father ; for " him only " are we called 
 upon to serve : how then can you justify suppli- 
 cation to any other, even though he were a Divine 
 Being ? 
 
 Witness. God forbid that I should ever refuse to 
 acknowledge that the Father is a proper object of 
 prayer, and may he equally forbid that I should 
 consider him as the proper object of adoration to 
 
 followers of Christ ; but they cliiFerecl from each other in this 
 respect, that the Ebionites considered Christ as a mere man ; 
 whereas, the Nazarenes, if not all, at least some of them, are 
 said to have ascribed to him a di\ine origin. — Marsh's Mi- 
 chaelis, vol.iv. p. 162. 
 
46 
 
 the exclusion of the other persons in the Godhead, in 
 the sense in which you seem to charge me. I do not 
 deny that there is an honour personally due to him as 
 the Father ; but there is also an honour personally 
 due to the Son, as the Son ; and to the Spirit, as 
 the Spirit. Our knowledge of these personal dis- 
 tinctions is so obscure, in comparison with our 
 apprehension of the general attributes of the God- 
 head, that it should seem that the Divinity is rather 
 to be generally worshipped in the three persons 
 jointly and indifferently, than that any distinct ho- 
 nours are to be offered to each separately. Prayer, 
 however, for succour against external persecution, 
 seems addressed with peculiar propriety to the Son.^ 
 
 Priestley. Next, I would ask, did not the Chris- 
 tians of the second centur}^, who embraced the no- 
 tion of Plato's Triad of Divinity, conceive Christ 
 (or the Divine Logos as you call him) only to have 
 been an attribute of the Father : and did not this 
 attribute or property of the Divine mind, in process 
 of time, come to be regarded as a separate, per- 
 sonal character ? And was not this the change of 
 a mere attribute into a thinking substance ? In 
 plain words, is not the "wisdom of God personified 
 and called the Son of God ? 
 
 Witness. No such thing; for neither did the early 
 Christians, or any other Christians, mistake, nor 
 
 1 Dr. Horsley's Letters to Priestley, XII. p. 234. 
 
47 
 
 could they mistake, no person for a person, by fits 
 and starts ; nor could they, any more than myself, 
 understand a jDerson for a ^rinciple^ a substance for 
 a shadow, or how to create a thing out of nothing. 
 I affirm with others, that the Logos of St. John is 
 a person, not a metaphysical abstraction.^ The 
 Platonists and Plato have very different notions of 
 the divine Triad. The Platonists separate the 
 divine hypostasis from its attributes, and make of 
 them so many distmct principles ; in Plato they go 
 in union together, and form one wise and powerful 
 Being. 
 
 Priestley, You surely cannot deny that the 
 Christian Platonists, when they became Christians, 
 discarded the notion of the eternity of the Logos 
 as a person, and came back to the original belief, 
 that it was an attribute and not a person.^ 
 
 1 Gibbon says, " the theology of Plato might have been 
 for ever confounded with the philosophical visions of the 
 Academy, if the name and divine attributes of the Logos had 
 not been confirmed by the celestial pen of the last of the 
 Evangelists." (D. & F. c. xxi. p. 318.) But what room can 
 there be, either for confusion or confirmation, when Logos 
 has different and distinct meanings ; and signifies in Plato, 
 wisdom, — a divine attribute indeed, — and in the Evangelist 
 denotes a person. — Dr. Craven's Jewish and Christian Dis- 
 pensations, p. '247. 
 
 2 TertuUian, to prevent this very conclusion, that the Logos 
 was, at some time or other, a mere attribute, remarks, that 
 nothing empty and unsubstantial can proceed from God ; for 
 
48 
 
 Witness. If they did (and I question if more than 
 a few did) look upon the Logos as a principle only 
 of the Divine mind, they were led to adopt this 
 notion from a comparison between the Logos and 
 the reason of the human soul, or between the 
 Word and human speech. 
 
 Priestley. That some did think so, you admit. 
 At all events, the orthodoxy of the second century 
 was mingled with the notions of the Platonic school, 
 and this is a fact which you will hardly deny. 
 
 Witness. Nor do I desire. Unitarians conceive 
 they gain a conquest when they can stamp the 
 Catholic faith wdth the brand of Platonism ; for 
 my own part, I deem it no disgrace ; on the con- 
 trary, I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium, for 
 I am free to confess that I maintain, not a per- 
 fect agreement with the Platonists on this point, 
 but such a similitude as speaks a common origin, 
 and affords an argument in confirmation of the 
 Catholic doctrine, from its conformity to the most 
 ancient and universal traditions.^ 
 
 Court. Would you wdsh to ask any more ques- 
 tions ? 
 
 Priestley. No, my Lord. I have done. 
 
 the Divine nature admitting neither quality nor accident, 
 every thing belonging to it must be substance. — Horsley's 
 Letter XIIL 
 
 • See Bull's Prim, et Apost. Trad, de Jesu^Christi Di- 
 vinitate, ch.v. 
 
49 
 
 Court. Who is your next witness ? 
 
 Att. Gen, Call George Bull. 
 
 Court, Against which of the Defendants does 
 this witness appear? 
 
 Att, Gen. Against them all, my Lord. 
 
 Court, How so ? 
 
 Att, Gen, Because, my Lord, they each and all 
 assert, and have publicly declared in their writings, 
 that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was the 
 invention of the third century, and I bring this 
 witness to prove the direct contrary. Moreover, 
 I have before me on the table the " Apology of 
 Theophilus Lindsey on resig-ning the Vicarage of 
 Catterick," and his "Sequel," the "Calm Inquiry," 
 " The Improved Version of the New Testament," 
 and " The Reply to the Bishop of St. David's," 
 which I shall prove to be the works of the Defend- 
 ant Belsham. 
 
 Belsham, We admit the fact of these being our 
 respective writings. 
 
 Att. Gen, And that they each and all deny the 
 Trinity to be the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures ? 
 
 Belsham. Yes ; decidedly so. 
 
 Court. Proceed. 
 
 Att. Gen, Your name, sir, I believe to be George 
 Bull. 
 
 Witness. It is. 
 
 £ 
 
50 
 
 Att, Gen. I am informed that you are the author 
 of a book entitled, ** Defensio Fidei Nicaenae." 
 
 Witness. I am. 
 
 Att, Gen. What is the object of that work ? 
 
 Witness. To prove the Godhead of the Son, and 
 to show both the consubstantiality and the co- 
 eternity of Christ the Son of God, from the consent 
 of the ancient doctors of the Church, who hved be- 
 fore the Council of Nice, with the Nicene Fathers, 
 by a tradition derived from the apostolical age itself. 
 
 Att. Gen. What are we to understand by the 
 term consubstantial ? 
 
 Witness. A participation of the very same nature. 
 
 Att. Gen. What do the early Fathers assert, in 
 your opinion, respecting the Divinity of Christ ? 
 
 Witness. They prove that Jesus Christ, before he 
 had that name or was born of the Virgin Mary, 
 had a real existence in a far more excellent nature 
 than the human, and in that nature appeared to 
 the holy men of old as a foretoken of his future 
 incarnation, and did preside over, and had care 
 of the Church which was to be redeemed by his 
 blood : so that from the beginning of the world, 
 the whole order of divine economy was altogether 
 transacted through him ; yea, even before the found- 
 ation of the world, he was actually present with 
 God his Father, and through him all the universe 
 was created. 
 
 Court. Adduce your proofs. 
 
51 
 
 Witness. Clement of Alexandria, who wrote 
 A. D. 194, speaking of Christ, says, " Who is most 
 manifestly God, who is made equal to the Lord of 
 the Universe ; because he was his Son, and exists in 
 
 God." The force of which expression lies in this, 
 
 that every son is of the same nature and essence 
 with his father, and that whatsoever exists in God 
 himself, must necessarily be very God.^ Again, the 
 same Father says, " He can want nothing, who has 
 the Word, the Almighty God; nor does he ever 
 lack any of those things which are needful for 
 him : for the Word is a possession that has no- 
 thing wanting to it, and which is the foundation of 
 all plenty."^ — The plain meaning of which is, The 
 Word, as being God Almighty, can want nothing; 
 and thence, can do and give all things to those who 
 
 are His. 
 
 Att, Gen. You stated it as the doctrine and 
 belief of the early Fathers that Christ in his pre- 
 existing state, that is, in the state of his existence 
 before his coming as Messiah, appeared unto the 
 holy men of old : do you mean to say that he is the 
 Jehovah of the Old Testament? 
 
 » Defensio Fid. sect. iv. ch. 2. 
 
 2 Defensio Fid. 2. vi. 4. 
 
 Est enim minime indigens, qui Verbiim habet Deum om- 
 nipotentem, et nullo eorum, qiiibus opus habet, unquam eget ; 
 Verbum enim possessio est,cui nihil decst,etest causa onnus 
 copiae. — Paed. iii. 7. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 Witness, Justin Martyr says that it was Christ 
 who appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre 
 (Gen.xviii. 1.), who rained brimstone and fire 
 from heaven upon Sodom (Gen. xix. 24.)? who ap- 
 peared in the form of a man and wrestled with 
 Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 24.), and who appeared in the 
 burning bush to Moses (Exod. iii. 4.). Irenaeus, 
 also, affirms the same : and these fathers are fol- 
 lowed by Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Ter- 
 tullian, and others.' 
 
 Ait, Gen, If God, or the Lord, be said in the 
 Old Testament to have appeared to holy men in 
 the form of an angel or other divine resemblance, 
 what reason had these ancient Fathers to suppose 
 that it was the Son of God ? 
 
 Witness, No doubt because they were taught to 
 believe this from the Apostles themselves and their 
 immediate successors ; and also for this reason ; 
 because, as God created the world by his Son, by 
 the same Son he governs it; and as the Son had 
 previously held converse with mortals before his 
 incarnation, so he carries on the same intercourse 
 with them after it.^ 
 
 1 Defen. Fid. sect.i. ch. 1. § 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
 
 5 Deus in terris cum hominibus alius conversari non potuit, 
 quam Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. — Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 16. 
 See, also, Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1. i. c. 1 J . Orig. cont. Cels. 
 lib. 6. 
 
53 
 
 Alt. Gen. And you think the angel who ap- 
 peared unto Jacob was God, and that God was the 
 Son or The Word. 
 
 Witness. I do : for Jacob or Israel when he 
 blessed his grandsons said, " God, before whom 
 my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac, did walk, the 
 God which fed me all my life long unto this day : 
 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless 
 the lads." ^ Here it is evident that God and the 
 Angel are the same ; but no created Angel could 
 either confer blessing, or be the God of Abraham ; 
 and therefore it could be none other than He, the 
 Son of God, who is " higher than the Angels," 
 " and came forth from the Father." 
 
 Court. And you say that the early Fathers 
 believed and asserted Christ, or the Son, to be 
 consubstantial with God, the Father; do they also 
 say, that he was co-eternal with him and co-equal ? 
 
 Wit, Clemens Alexandrinus says, " The Son 
 of God never comes down from his watch- 
 tower, as never being divided, never parted 
 asunder, and never passes from place to place, 
 but is always every where and contained no 
 where, all mind, all the Father's light, all eye, 
 sees all things, hears all things, knows all things, 
 and by his power searches all things. To him all 
 the host of angels and gods is in subjection,^— Here 
 
 • Gen.xlviii. 15, 16. ^ Strom, l.vii. p.702.- 
 
 E 3 
 
54 
 
 is a proof of his consubstantiality. In the Book 
 ascribed to Hermas the Shepherd are these words ; 
 — " The Son of God is more ancient than 
 any created thing, so that he was present in 
 counsel with his Father at the creation." ^ — He 
 was therefore not created ; for had he been so, he 
 would' not have been older than all creation, but 
 the oldest created thinff : hence is he co-eternal 
 
 o 
 
 with God. Clemens Alexandrinus further says of 
 Christ, that " he w^as" the divine Logos or Word, 
 who is indeed true God, equal to the Lord of all ; 
 because he is his Son and the Word which was 
 in God.^ — Here Christ is said to be the Divine 
 Word, — very God of very God, — equal to the 
 Father, and that for this reason — because he is the 
 Son of God, and the Word subsisting in God 
 himself.^ 
 
 Att. Geii. But though the early Fathers have 
 declared the nature of Christ to be Divine, may 
 not that heavenly and divine nature be in some 
 degree different, and not altogether precisely the 
 same with the Father ? 
 
 Witness. No : I repeat it, that it is the belief of 
 the earliest Christian wTiters, as well as the doctrine 
 
 ' L. iii. sect. 9. 
 
 See this abundantl} proved, Dei". Fid. sect. iii. v. 
 
 2 Epist. ad Tit. c. 2. 
 
 3 Dcf. Fid. 2. vi. 3. 
 
55 
 
 of Scripture, that the Son is consubstantial with the 
 Father; and that he participates equally in the 
 same nature with him ; that he is not of any cre- 
 ated or mutable essence, but of the very self-same 
 divine and incommunicable nature with the Father; 
 and I affirm this to be the constant and unanimous 
 opinion of the Catholic writers of the three first 
 centuries. These Fathers, indeed, did, by way of 
 distinction, call God the Father, the supreme and 
 most high God, and even the ojie God ; but they 
 also constantly acknowledge the true and undoubted 
 divinity of the Son of God, as I have proved at 
 large, in that section of my Defence of the Nicene 
 Faith, which treats "of the subordination of the Son 
 to the Father as to his origin and source.^ " Ori- 
 gen and Dionysius of Alexandria both speak de- 
 cidedly on these points. 
 
 Court. We cannot now take their opinions, be- 
 cause all that we are endeavouring to prove relates 
 to the belief of the two first centuries. 
 
 Att. Gen. We have proved this from the Chris- 
 tian writers before the Nicene Council; and it is 
 equally necessary to show that the same belief was 
 current, and prevailed from those times to the present. 
 
 Court. I admit this may be necessary by and 
 by ; but as we are are now speaking exclusively of 
 opinions held by the Fathers before the Nicene 
 
 I Def. Fid. sect, i v. 
 E 4 
 
56 
 
 Council, adduce, therefore, some further proofs 
 from the early Fathers. 
 
 Witfiess. Barnabas, who wrote A. D. 72, says that 
 Christ existed before the world, and that he made 
 the world ; " for if he had not come in flesh, how 
 could we men have been saved when we looked at 
 him ? For when men look at the sun, the work 
 of his hands, which will cease to exist, they have 
 not power to resist its rays." ^ — The work of whose 
 hands ? — Christ's. It was, therefore, Christ who 
 made the sun ; but it is said in Genesis, that 
 ^' God made two great lights, the greater light to 
 rule the day : " hence, according to Barnabas, 
 God and Christ are the same. Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus speaks, also, very clearly upon the same 
 point when he says, — " But the most perfect and 
 most holy, the highest and most commanding, the 
 most royal and beneficent nature, is that of the 
 Son, which is most intimately united with Him 
 w7io is alone Almighty^ ^ I am willing to rest the 
 argument of the Son's divine equality with the 
 Father, upon this passage alone; for this account 
 effectually excludes the idea of Christ being a cor- 
 poreal, or even an angelic being : it identifies him 
 with the Father in essence, and ascribes to him 
 those attributes which only belong to God. 
 
 Ep. c. V. p. 16. e Strom. 1. vii. c.2. 
 
57 
 
 Att. Gen. Then here will we conclude the 
 evidence of this witness. 
 
 Cross-examination of the Witness, 
 
 Court. Defendants, what questions will you ask 
 of him ? 
 
 Priestley. My Lord, in his first quotation of 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, the Witness describes the 
 Father as saying, that Christ was made equal to 
 the Lord of the universe ; but this is proving too 
 much, for thus Christ is made supreme, whereas 
 supremacy can only belong, and can only properly 
 be ascribed, to God the Father. 
 
 Witness. Though Christ be declared equal to the 
 Father, as Lord of the universe, he is subordinate, 
 as being the Son ; or, as the Creed which speaks 
 the belief of Athanasius renders it, " He is equal 
 to the Father, as touching his Godhead ; but in- 
 ferior to the Father, as touching his manhood." 
 
 Lindsei/. But when Clement says of Christ, 
 " that he can want nothing who has the Word, the 
 Almighty God^^ surely the scribe has committed 
 an error ; for if the Greek of the original were 
 written in the genitive case, — " the Word of the 
 Almighty God," the mistake would be rectified. ^ 
 
 1 This was the proposition of G. Gierke, in his Ante- 
 iiicemsmusy written against Bishop Bull, to substitute rou 
 iravTOKpcLTopog Qiov for top TravTOKparopa Qiov. 
 
58 
 
 Witness. But we cannot submit to such an 
 emendation where there is no ground for it ; for 
 no manuscript countenances it; and were the alter- 
 ation admitted, the sense and meaning of the pas- 
 sage would be entirely done away. The sense of 
 Clement, as I have already asserted, is this : — 
 " He who has the Word, can want nothing; be- 
 cause that Word is God Almighty, who can do all 
 things for those who are his, and who, as Almighty 
 God, is the cause of all plenty." 
 
 Lindsei/. We defy you to prove that any ancient 
 Father or writer called Christ, God Almighty; for I 
 cannot regard the passage which you have quoted 
 sufficient. 
 
 Belsham. I, also, am of opinion that " Almighty " 
 is always applied to the Father only, by the most 
 ancient writers. ^ 
 
 Witness. Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 200, speaks 
 decidedly to the contrary. He says, " The names 
 of the Father, — God Almighty, — the Most High, 
 — Lord of Hosts, — King of Israel, — I AM, as 
 far as the Scriptures teach us ; — I say, these titles 
 belong to the Son likewise^ and that the Son came 
 in these, and always acted according to them, 
 and so manifested them, in himself, to men. ' All 
 that the Father hath,' he saith, * are mine ; ' why 
 
 > So Dr. Clarke, in his " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,' 
 
 and others, have erroneously said. 
 
59 
 
 not, also, his names and titles? Therefore, when 
 thou readest, Almighty God, the Most High, the 
 Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, and I AM, con- 
 sider whether the Son be not pointed out by these 
 titles, who is in his awn right God Almighty, as he 
 is the Word of God Almighty." — Here the sense 
 of TertuUian is manifest, that Christ, as he is the 
 natural Son of God the Father, and as he is his 
 Word (the Word existing in him) has all things 
 that God the Father has, and so all the essential 
 attributes of God the Father belong to him, and 
 among the rest the attribute of Almighty. ^ 
 
 Lindsey, That the Jehovah of the Old Testament 
 is the same with Jesus of the New seems to be 
 inferred from this and from the other quotation 
 cited by the witness from TertuUian ; but w^e col- 
 lect from the writings of the ancient Fathers that 
 it was not God the Father who appeared unto the 
 Patriarchs of old, and to other holy men, but some 
 representation of himself, suited to be his mes- 
 senger, and to be occasionally seen by men.^^ 
 
 1 Adv. Prax. c. 17. 
 
 Omnia Dei Patris attributa essentialia in ipsum competere, 
 atque inter ea attributum Dei omnipotentis. — Bull. Animad. 
 G. Gierke, p. 271. 
 
 Omnia, inquit, Patris mea sunt; cur non et nomina? — 
 Tertull. ut supra. 
 
 - This objection has been frequently started. — See Water- 
 land'b Defence. 
 
60 
 
 Witness. That Christ is the Jehovah of the Old 
 Testament I have already shown to be the belief 
 of Justin Martyr ; as clearly can I show it to be 
 the belief and assertion of Irengeus, of TertuUian, 
 Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, and the Antiochan 
 Fathers. ^ That the angel who appeared to the 
 Patriarchs and others was, in the judgment of 
 these Fathers, Christ, is indisputable. God the 
 Father was never seen by any man, nor can be 
 seen even under any assumed appearances; for 
 having no principle from whence he springs, he is 
 subject to none ; nor can be said to be sent by an- 
 other. On the contrary, the Son of God, in 
 respect to his being born of the Father, certainly, 
 on that account, receives all his authority from the 
 Father ; nor is it any more dishonour to him to be 
 sent by the Father, than to be born of him. He 
 is of the Father ; by him the Father made all 
 things that are in the world, and, moreover, in due 
 time made himself known to the world by him. ^ 
 
 Lindsey, But a forcible objection has been urged 
 against this position by one who alleges St. Paul, 
 in the beginning of his Epistle to the Hebrews, to 
 declare, " That God, who, at sundry times, and in 
 divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers 
 by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken 
 
 1 Defen. Fid. sect.i. ch. 1. 
 
 ' Defen. Fid. Brev. Animad. adv. G. Gierke, p. 278. 
 
61 
 
 unto us by his Son." Here, by these last days Is 
 to be understood the days of the Evangelists ; be- 
 fore that time, therefore, it seems that neither the 
 Son of God had spoken, nor God, through the 
 Son ; for if the Son of God, or God through the 
 Son, had so spoken, the Apostle could not have 
 made that distinction between the latter times of 
 the Evangelists, and the ancient period of the Old 
 dispensation.^ 
 
 Witness. I answer, with Justin Martyr, that the 
 Word, or Son of God, appeared to the holy men of 
 old as an angel, putting on the form of a created 
 though spiritual intelligence : under the New dis- 
 pensation he appeared in the form of man, and 
 assumed our nature. ^ Now, how does this agree 
 with the Scriptures ? God says, in Exodus (xxiii. 
 20 :) — " Behold, I send an angel before thee, to 
 keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the 
 place which I have prepared : beware of him, and 
 
 1 This was the objection of Ludovicus de Tena, in his 
 " Difficulties in the Epistle to the Hebrews."— See Def. 
 Fid. p. 11. 
 
 2 Filium Dei ad humana colloquia descendisse ab Adam 
 usque ad Patriarchas in visione, in somno, in speculo, in 
 aenigmate, &c. — Tertull. 
 
 Revera enim erat Dominus per Mosen Paedagogus veteris 
 populi ; per seipsum autem populi novi dux, facie ad faciem. 
 — Clem. Alex, Paed. l.i. c.7. 
 
62 
 
 obey his voice ; provoke him not, for he will not 
 pardon your transgressions; for my name is in 
 him." Now, that this angel was Christ, St. Paul 
 directly asserts, when he says, — " Neither let us 
 tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and 
 were destroyed of serpents." 
 
 Belsham, Christ, you say ? Christ is the name 
 of a man who did not then exist. 
 
 Witness. Here Christ is put for the Son of God 
 who, in the fulness of time, assumed our nature, 
 and was called Christ; by whom " were all things 
 created that are in heaven and that are in earth, 
 visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or 
 dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things 
 were created by him, and for him." Moreover, 
 Philo Judaeus, speaking of the angel which pre- 
 ceded the people of Israel, agrees with St. Paul 
 in declaring it to be the Word, or the only be- 
 gotten Son of the Father, by whom God directs 
 and governs the universe. Hence it appears upon 
 what high and clear authority the ancient Fathers 
 affirmed that Jehovah of the Old Testament, ho- 
 noured and worshipped, was none other than the 
 Son of God ; and that it was he who appeared to 
 Moses in the burning bush on Mount Sinai, and 
 who manifested himself to Abraham ; — that Son 
 of God, and that Jehovah who is the God of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a title applied only 
 
63 
 
 to the true God, and not to any created angel or 
 being. ^ 
 
 Belsham. I would ask the witness whether Christ 
 himself does not acknowledge that he was ignorant 
 of the time of the general judgment. — " Of that 
 day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
 angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but 
 the Father.""^ And Irenaeus says that God " the 
 Father is declared by our Lord to have the pre- 
 ference in knowledge, and to be above all : " ^ 
 whereas you affirm the Son to be omniscient, 
 and equal to the Father. 
 
 Witness. I freely confess that the words of Ire- 
 naeus, at first sight, seem to ascribe this ignorance to 
 Christ; and I think the holy Father was hurried on 
 by an excessive zeal and earnestness, in opposing 
 the horrible tenets of the Gnostics, to speak incau- 
 tiously, as it sometimes happens to the best of 
 men: but that Irenaeus really believed Christ, as 
 God, to be ignorant of any thing, none can imagine 
 who have read his w^orks ; for no one has more 
 clearly asserted the absolute divinity of the Son as 
 equal to the Father than Irenaeus. With respect 
 to the words spoken by our Lord, he declares that 
 no dispensation of God, either by man as David, or 
 by an angel, or by the Son of man, had ordained 
 
 ' Defen. Fid. sect. i. ch. 2. "- Mark, xiii. 32. 
 
 3 Super omnia esse Patrem. Irae. l.ii. c. 28. 
 
64. 
 
 as to know the times and the seasons, it being no 
 part of the prophetic office, or within the commis- 
 sion of Christ himself, as Messiah, to reveal this 
 secret to them. As the Son of man he was igno- 
 rant of many things: as the Son of God, his wisdom 
 was infinite.^ 
 
 Priestley. Have not the Catholic writers, from 
 the earhest to the latest times, unanimously de- 
 clared God the Father to be greater than the Son, 
 even according to what you esteem as his divinity ? 
 
 Witness. They have ; but they believed and as- 
 serted this, not owing to a difference of nature, or 
 from any essential perfection which is m the Father 
 and wanting to the Son ; but only by Fatherhood, 
 or his being the Author or Original ; inasmuch as 
 the Son is from the Father, not the Father from 
 the Son. 
 
 Priestley. With respect to the language of Cle- 
 ment, which the witness renders by saying, " The 
 person of the Son is 7nost intimately united to the 
 Almighty, or God the Father; " it should be trans- 
 lated " the person of the Son nearest to the Al- 
 mighty," which, if it signifies any thing, makes for 
 us ; for by how much more intimately the second 
 person is united to the first, so much the more 
 magnificent titles may be assigned to him : but as 
 
 ' Defen. Fid. sect. ii. ch. 5. 
 
65 
 
 the second person is not the first, however inti- 
 mately united to him, so, by consequence, neither is 
 Logos, or the Word, God Ahiiighty, notwithstand- 
 ing the intimacy or closeness of any union with 
 him. 
 
 Witness. I repeat it, that there is no passage in 
 the writings of the Fathers where the expression 
 "• Almighty God," the attribute of Jehovah alone, 
 is more unequivocally referred to Jesus Christ, than 
 the one I have before quoted from Clement, 
 namely, " He who hath the Almighty God, the 
 Word, is in want of nothing." And though the 
 Word be Almighty God, and is nearest and most 
 intimately united to him, yet he is not God the 
 Father ; still, as Clement says " he is the perfect 
 Word, born of the perfect Father, he may be 
 called, and really is, God Almighty." ^ — Farther 
 on, the same Father speaks of Christ as " the 
 almighty and rational Word." '^ — Again, in allu- 
 sion to 2 Cor. xi. 2. : " For I have espoused j-ou to 
 one husband, that I may present you as a chaste 
 virgin to Christ;" instead of using the name of 
 Christ, he explains the one husband by " the Al- 
 
 1 This was the objection which Gilbert Gierke made to 
 Bishop Bull. 
 
 2 Glem. Paedag. i. c. 6. p. 92. 
 
 See Bull's Animadv. in Tract. GUb. Gierke, p. 272. 
 
 3 Paedag. i. 9. 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 miglity God'* ' — Again, he quotes Eph. iv. 11, 12. : 
 " He gave some Apostles," &c. — where "He" evi- 
 dently means Christ, who is named just before; but 
 it is remarkable that Clement begins the quotation 
 thus: "The Almighty God hath given;" — and, 
 lastly, he speaks of the Word as " the Almighty 
 Power, and Omnipotent Will." - It surely is im- 
 possible, either to require more proof on this point, 
 or to expect any more decisive and clear. 
 
 Att. Gen. Sir, we will no longer detain you. — 
 Call Charles Leslie. 
 
 Court. Who is this Witness ? and against which 
 of the Defendants does he appear ? 
 
 Att. Gen. This Gentleman, my Lord, has done 
 infinite service to the cause of Christianity in his 
 defence of it against Deists, Jews, Papists, and 
 Unitarians; against each of whom he has conducted 
 his arguments, in the judgment of the learned, in a 
 manner to carry conviction to almost every reader, 
 and at the same time with a spirit of such true 
 wisdom and charity, as has gained him the appro- 
 bation of all. I do not call upon him as evidence 
 so much against any one of the Defendants, as 
 
 1 Strom, iii. 12. 
 
 " See Clem. Strom, iv. 21., and v. 1. 
 
 Burton's Test, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 143. 
 
67 
 
 against the system which one and all have em- 
 braced : I might, indeed, fairly produce him against 
 two of them in particular, as having revived objec- 
 tions which he had long previously refuted. 
 
 Court. Well, proceed. 
 
 Att. Gen. You, sir, are the author of " The 
 Socinian Controversy," written in six famiHar dia- 
 logues : now, let me ask, what is it that you there 
 adduce which you are now ready to support against 
 the religious system of the Defendants ? 
 
 Witness. In that work I set out, and I still persist 
 in declaring, that the Unitarians have, from first to 
 last, levelled their objections against the great fun- 
 damental doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, on the 
 pretence of such doctrine being a novelty sug- 
 gested by a heathen philosopher, and introduced 
 in the early times of Christianity. Upon this basis 
 of error they have raised an unsound super- 
 structure after their own fancies. History has 
 been misconceived and misapplied, and Scripture 
 has been distorted, to support their opinion ; and 
 from conceiving the doctrine to be contrary to 
 tneir natural reason, they have endeavoured to 
 make Revelation conform to their understanding. ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. You mean, then, to assert that the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is both the doctrine of 
 Scripture, and that which w^as the beUef of the 
 
 1 Fii-st Dialogue, p. 223. 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 primitive Church ; and hence, that the doctrine of 
 Christ's sole humanity is a corruption of the pri- 
 mitive faith; and, consequently, that it is a heresy? 
 
 Witness. That is precisely my meaning. 
 
 Att. Gen, What do the early Fathers say with 
 respect to the divinity of Christ ? 
 
 Witness. Barnabas, who lived A. D. 72., says, 
 " It w^as to Christ that God spoke, when, be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, he said, ' Let us 
 make man in our image, and after our likeness." ^ — 
 Justin Martyr, who wrote A. D. 150., declares it 
 heresy to say that these words were spoken to the 
 angels. " The Father there speaks to the Son, 
 to one numerically different from himself, to an 
 intelligent person." ^ Irenaeus, who wrote A.D. 
 185., says, that " God spoke these words to the 
 Son and to the Holy Ghost;" and in this he is 
 directly followed by Tertullian ^, who flourished 
 A. D. 200. And, lastly, Origen, who lived A. D. 
 24'0., confirmis all this by saying, " None could 
 raise the dead, but he who had heard from the 
 Father, ' Let us make man in our image ; ' — 
 and none could command the wind and seas, 
 but he by whom they, and all things else, were 
 
 ' Ep, c. V. p. 60. 2 Dial, cum Tryph. p. 265. 
 
 3 Jun. adv. Her. 1. v. c. 15. Tertul.adv. Paex. ii. 12. 
 
69 
 
 made." ' — I can adduce further proofs to the same 
 effect, if the Court requires it. ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. ^V^lat you have said goes to show- 
 that Christ existed before the foundation of the 
 world, and that " by him all things were created;" 
 but this does not necessarily prove that he was 
 God. 
 
 Witness. But Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and 
 indeed all the Fathers, agree in declaring that 
 David's prophecy applies to Christ, and Christ 
 alone, at his ascension into heaven ; where he says, 
 " God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the 
 sound of a trumpet. God is king of all the earth. 
 The princes of the people are joined to the God of 
 Abraham. The Lord reigneth ; let the people 
 tremble. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and wor- 
 ship at his footstool. Thy throne, O God, is for 
 ever and ever" ^ — and this proves the Godhead of 
 the Son. 
 
 Att. Gen. But, though Christ be God, is he the 
 supreme God, and therefore equal to the Father ? 
 
 Witness. David, in the ninety-second Psalm, 
 speaking of Christ, says, " Confounded be all 
 they that delight in vain gods (or idols). Wor- 
 ship him, all ye gods ! " 
 
 Court. This ascribes very high honour and 
 
 4 In Matt. p. 266. ^ Second Dialogue, p. 265— 267. 
 
 3 Second Dialogue, p. 270. 
 
 F 3 
 
70 
 
 divinity to Christ ; but still falls short of the 
 supreme divinity of the Almighty Father. 
 
 Att. Gen. It surely does so ; for here we have 
 language speaking of a gradation of gods. 
 
 Witness. I beg to observe that this is an error ; 
 for though Go<^l communicates his name to crea- 
 tures, and calls some of them gods, yet he will not 
 share his worship, nor give his honour to another : 
 of this he is exceedingly jealous : but there is no 
 gradation of gods. 
 
 Court, I do not mean to say that the passage 
 you have quoted in the ninety-second Psalm does 
 not prove Christ to be God supreme ; but I want 
 you to give it that explanation of which you think 
 it capable, and which you have inferred, but not 
 shown. It is true that in Scripture the title of 
 gods is applied to some; as, when Moses com- 
 manded the Israelites not to revile their gods, he 
 meant the judges of the land. ^ Samuel is called 
 god, by the Witch of Endor, as the prophet of 
 the Lord^; and the idols of the heathens are 
 called gods, because they were regarded by them 
 as such ; among whom, as St. Paul says, there 
 were many in heaven and earth ; that is, celestial 
 and terrestrial'^: but the title, in its high and pro- 
 per sense, is applied to none of these. 
 
 > Exod. xxii. 28. ^ j Sam.xxvni. 13. 
 
 3 1 Cor. viii. 5. 
 
71 
 
 Witness, Wlien David, in the psalm alluded 
 to, speaks of Christ, and of the honour due unto 
 him, and calls upon celestial beings to adore him, 
 saying, "Worship him, all ye gods!" St. Paul 
 explains this to be addressed to the angels, — " Let 
 all the angels of God worship him." ^ If, then, all 
 the angels of heaven are called upon, by the Holy 
 Spirit speaking through David, to worship Christ, 
 what further proof can be necessary to show that 
 he is one with the Supreme Being; that Lord God 
 whom only we may serve ? 
 
 Att. Ge?i, What is your opinion respecting the 
 doctrine of Plato, as the Unitarians have applied it 
 to the Trinity in Unity ? 
 
 Witness. Neither Plato nor any other heathen 
 philosopher invented what is called his system of 
 Three Principles, nor any notions so much as ap- 
 proaching to a Trinity in the Godhead : they 
 learnt what little they knew of it from the early 
 Jews. Plato attained his knowledge from Egypt ; 
 and several of the Fathers have remarked the 
 agreement of his doctrine in many respects with 
 the Old Testament: hence it v/as that Numenius 
 the Pythagorean said of him, " Plato is only an- 
 other Moses speaking at Athens."^ Justin Mar- 
 tyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius, unite in 
 
 1 Heb. i. 6. 
 
 2 Ti yao tan HXdrojv ij Moicrjy^ drriKit^iop. 
 
 1? 4 
 
72 
 
 stating that Plato had obtained a knowledge of the 
 mystery of the Trinity; but having got this notion, 
 he refined upon it, endeavouring to square it to 
 the principles of heathen philosophy, until he and 
 others fell into errors and absurdities, as they had 
 done on other points and doctrines which they 
 had received by tradition. Instead, therefore, of 
 aspersing and rejecting the errors of Plato with 
 disdain, I take them as confirmations of the truth 
 of the original tradition. They, having not in 
 their possession the oracles of divine truth, sought 
 to prove their doctrine by their reason ; ^ and we 
 all know what a dull and fallacious light man's 
 finite reason is. With such feeble aid, "in every 
 step of such an enquiry, we are compelled to feel 
 and acknowledge the immeasurable disproportion 
 between the size of the object and the capacity of 
 the human mind. We may strive to abstract the 
 notions of time, of space, and of matter, which so 
 closely adhere to all the perceptions of our expe- 
 rimental knowledge ; but as soon as we presume 
 to reason of infinite substance, of spiritual gene- 
 ration; as often as we deduce any positive con- 
 clusions from a negative idea, we are involved in 
 darkness, perplexity, and inevitable contradiction."^ 
 
 > First Dialogue, p. 244'. 
 
 - Gibbon's Decline and Fall, ch.xxi. p. 322. 
 
73 
 
 Att, Geii. My Lord, I have done with this 
 evidence. 
 
 Cou7-t Stay ; do any of the Defendants desire 
 to examine this witness ? 
 
 Lindsey, Yes, my Lord; on behalf of the sys- 
 tem, and in the names of its supporters, I desire 
 to submit this witness to a cross-examination, 
 which I hope the Court will grant me permission 
 to do at some length. ^ 
 
 Court. Undoubtedly. Take your time, and 
 ask as many questions as you think necessary for 
 your defence. 
 
 Lindsey. I do not hesitate, on the part of the 
 adherents to our belief, to admit that we desire to 
 have the doctrine of the Trinity, if the admission 
 of it be so essential to our salvation as it is repre- 
 sented to be. I say, we desire to have this so far 
 reconciled to our natural reason, as not to involve 
 a contradiction ; for if it does, the doctrine can 
 neither be said to come from God, nor can it be 
 required of us as an article of belief. 
 
 Witness, I also admit that w^e ought to receive 
 nothing but what we think we have reason to be- 
 
 o 
 
 lieve, and undoubtedly, if a doctrine of Revelation 
 
 '• The questions here put by Lindsey are only hnputed to 
 him, although in the main they were the scruples which he 
 entertained in common wdth his sect. 
 
74 
 
 be found to contradict a known or revealed truth, 
 that doctrine is inadmissible. 
 
 Lindsey, Very well. We can and we do make 
 a difference between things incomprehensible, and 
 which exceed our understandings, and those which 
 are direct contradictions. Is it not then a direct 
 contradiction to say, that God should be man, and 
 that three men should make but one man ? 
 
 Witness. If by man you mean person, it is a con- 
 tradiction ; but it is none to say that there may be 
 several human persons in the same human nature. 
 One human nature includes many human persons. 
 For what is a contradiction ? It is where two op- 
 posites are alleged in support of the same thing, in 
 the same respect. We may say, that three men, or 
 three thousand men, make but one company; here 
 is no contradiction : to say that three persons make 
 but 07ie perso?i is a direct contradiction ; but to 
 affirm that three persons may be in one nature is 
 not so. 
 
 Lindsey. But every person partaking of this 
 common nature is a distinct man from all other 
 men, and one man cannot be another. 
 
 Witness. That one person cannot be another 
 person, I grant : but though we call each person a 
 distinct man, yet that is only with regard to his 
 personality ; for one man, though he differs from 
 another in person, does not differ in his nature. 
 Now, though we allow this common way of speak- 
 
75 
 
 ing of mankind, to say one, two, or three meri, 
 when it is only strictly true of Xheiv pei^sons ; yet it 
 is not allowable to speak in such terms of one, 
 two^ or three Gods, when speaking of the persons 
 in the divine nature. 
 
 Lindsey. Allowing the divine nature to be in- 
 finitely exalted above the human, yet, surely, what 
 is a contradiction in one nature is so in another. 
 
 Witness. I beg your pardon. That which is a 
 contradiction in one nature is not necessarily a 
 contradiction in another. 
 
 Lindsey, I don't understand you. 
 
 Witness. Let me give you an example. Is it not 
 a contradiction to say, that while I am standing 
 before you in this Court, I am in your society in 
 another place? This is a flat contradiction as 
 respects my person ; but it is no contradiction as to 
 my soul, which is at one and the same time pre- 
 sent in all the most distant parts of my body. 
 Again, is it not a contradiction that yesterday 
 should be to-day ; or that to-day should be to- 
 morrow ? That would imply that the same thing 
 should be past and not past, present and not 
 present, at hand and yet not come. But with God 
 all things are present, there is nothing past or to 
 come in eternity.^ Hence, what is a contradiction 
 
 5 God's infinite duration being accompanied with infinite 
 knowledge and infinite power, he sees all things past and to 
 
76 
 
 to body, is not so to soul; what is a contradiction 
 to time, is none to eternity ; and what is a contra- 
 diction with men, is not so with God. This arises 
 from the difference in the nature of things ; so that 
 a contradiction in one nature, does not infer a con- 
 tradiction in another.^ 
 
 Zjindsey, Certainly there are many things in 
 the divine nature which infinitely exceed our un- 
 derstandings to comprehend ; on which account 
 we ought not to apply to God those terms which 
 are only proper to ourselves : as, for instance, the 
 word ^^r507?, and to say that there are three per- 
 sons in the Godhead ; because this lano-uage raises 
 the contradiction of which we complain, and w^e do 
 not understand how three persons can be in one 
 nature. 
 
 Witness. But we must use terms suited to our 
 faculties of conception : we do not make three 
 persons into one person, but in one nature. If 
 there were words which could express the nature 
 of God properly, or as he is know^n to the angels 
 of heaven, they would be as unintelligible to us as 
 the word seeing is to one born blind. The Apostle 
 
 come ; and they are no more distant from his knowledge, no 
 further removed from his sight, than the present : they all lie 
 under the same view. — Locke on the Human Understanding, 
 vol.i. ch. 15. § 12. 
 
 ' First Dialogue, p. 224. 
 
77 
 
 said, when he was " caught up into Paradise he 
 heard unspeakable words which it was not possible 
 for a man to utter." ^ 
 
 Lindsey. I readily grant that we are obliged to 
 speak of God in terms and w^ords not strictly and 
 properly adapted to him, but borrowed from those 
 by which we speak of ourselves. When we call 
 God our Father, we mean that we have our being 
 from him, though in a different manner from that 
 in which children are descended from human fathers. 
 
 Witness, It is precisely thus that we understand 
 the term Person; as, when Christ is called "the 
 express image of God^s person" we mean something 
 of a totally different kind from the person of a 
 human being ; but we use it as w^e do the word 
 Father^ because we have no other by w^hich w^e can 
 express it. Indeed, I do not see how you can ob- 
 ject to either word. Father or Person^ for they are 
 both Scripture terms, and both used, though in- 
 correctly, in condescension to our weak capacities. 
 
 Lindsey, Still, let me ask, is it not a contradic- 
 tion to say that the Son is as old as the Father, 
 as you do of the persons in the Trinity, when you 
 say that they are co-eternal; for must not cause 
 necessarily precede effect? 
 
 Witness. This is again measuring one nature by 
 
 2Cor. xii. 4. 
 
78 
 
 another, when we can only speak of one in the 
 finite terms of the other : because it is a contradic- 
 tion between Father and Son among men, it does 
 not follow that it is so with respect to God. The 
 contradictions you allege are all made as parallels 
 between God and the bodily persons of men on 
 earth : if you cannot make such parallels between 
 the soul and the body, which you allow yourself 
 unable to draw, how can you expect to do so be- 
 tween the divine and human natures ? ^ 
 
 Court. Perhaps, Mr. Leslie, it might assist the 
 Jury and myself in better apprehending your opi- 
 nions of this high mystery of the Trinity, if you 
 could adapt to our comprehensions some illustra- 
 tion, and illustration only, from something with 
 which we are already acquainted, as an outline or a 
 shadow of the doctrine. 
 
 Witness. This it will be easy for me to do, by 
 taking the one which I have inserted in my work ; 
 I mean, that respecting the human soul. 
 
 Court. What is it? 
 
 Witness. The soul of man, though in itself one 
 indivisible substance, consists of three principal 
 faculties, the understandings the memory, and the 
 *imll. Of these, though all coeval in time, and 
 equally essential to a rational soul, the iinder- 
 
 1 First Dialogue, p. 228. 
 
79 
 
 standing is, in the order of nature, obviously the 
 first, and the memory the second ; for thmgs must 
 be perceived before they can be remembered, and 
 they must be remembered and compared together 
 before they can excite volitions^ from being, some 
 agreeable, others disagreeable. The memory must, 
 therefore, be said to spring from the understand- 
 ing ; and the mil to proceed from both ; and as 
 these three faculties constitute one soul, so may it 
 be conceived, how may three divine ijersons, par- 
 taking of the self-same nature^ constitute one God. 
 
 Lindsey, How come you to make but three 
 faculties in the soul ? You may make three hun- 
 dred, if you will. Why do you not make every 
 passion a faculty ? And so of the attributes of 
 God : you may make them all persons; one of 
 wisdom, another of justice, a third of mercy, a 
 fourth of power, and so on. 
 
 Witness. The faculties are the powers of the soul 
 itself, and are of perpetual necessity to its con- 
 stitution ; so that without them the soul would no 
 longer be a soul. Not so of the passions : they go 
 and come ; for a man is not always in joy, grief, 
 fear, or anger ; but he always has an understand- 
 ing, a memory and a will ; and it is from the action 
 of these that the passions arise. The faculties are 
 the constitution, while the passions are the com- 
 plexion, of the soul : the complexion often changes, 
 and when the constitution is broken, it is death ; 
 
80 
 
 but the complexion arises from the constitution, 
 not the constitution from the complexion. Now, 
 though the passions are many and various, yet 
 there are but three faculties, and they can neither be 
 more nor less. The difference between these is 
 like that of colour and dimensions in the same 
 body. The colours may be many and various ; 
 but the dimensions are three, and three only ; that 
 is, lengthy breadth^ and thichiess : these are the 
 properties constituting the nature of extension ; 
 and these three together make but one extension, 
 and they are each to be distinguished, though 
 they are inseparable, from each other. Length is 
 not breadth, and neither of them are thickness ; 
 yet no one of these can be without the other tw^o. 
 They are distinctly l/iree, yet entirely one ; they 
 all make up but one and the self-same exten- 
 sion. The colours, indeed, change with every va- 
 riation of the light, but the dimensions are still 
 the same, and still necessary to the body. This 
 body does not alter its nature by the change of 
 colour, but it would cease to be a body could it 
 want any three of its dimensions ; for then it would 
 no longer have an extension, and would no more 
 be a body.^ 
 
 Liiidsey, This is new, and very ingenious ; and, 
 like all novelties, catching. 
 
 1 First Dialogue. 
 
81 
 
 Witness. Not so new nor so original as you 
 may at first imagine : the idea is suggested to me 
 by our blessed Saviour's parable of the Sower, 
 where the three ways of sowing the seed which 
 became unfruitful are arranged according to the 
 three faculties of the soul. The first way refers 
 to those who understood not ; the second, to those 
 who retain or remember not ; and the third, to those 
 whose wills or affections were corrupted by the 
 cares and pleasures of life. 
 
 Lindsey. But this illustration does not come 
 up to a complete parallel with the Trinity in Unity, 
 in all points. 
 
 Wit7iess. No; the allusion between body and 
 soul, between colour and dimensions in the body, 
 between the faculties and passions of the soul, 
 will not answer in every particular, from the vast 
 difference subsisting between the nature of the 
 body and the nature of the soul, and the different 
 manner of their operations. Still they serve suf- 
 ficiently, as his Lordship remarks, for mere illus- 
 tration. But if it be so difficult to conceive matters 
 relating to our souls, if, indeed, we cannot enter 
 into the mysterious nature of them with our limited 
 powers of understanding ; how can we pretend to 
 define, explain, or argue upon the infinitely higher 
 subject of the Divine nature ? The very imperfect 
 knowledge we have of the nature of God is derived 
 from what we see in the works of his creation ; 
 
82 
 
 yet in none of these do we find any resemblance 
 to that eternity, that self-existence, that omni- 
 presence which we know of him from the Scrip- 
 tures. Shall we then deny these as contradictions 
 when applied to us ? No ; we believe them to be in 
 the nature of God, though contrary to our nature, 
 because they are revealed. Adopt the same method 
 with respect to other Scripture truths which are 
 above our comprehension and reason, and we 
 immediately arrive at the assent to the doctrine of 
 the Trinity in Unity. 
 
 Lindsey. How can there be this diversity of 
 three persons in the Godhead without destroying 
 the unity ? This makes God to be compounded 
 of three persons, whereas his nature is simple and 
 entire. 
 
 Witness. The Unity of God is not compounded ; 
 it is the most perfect of all unities. With respect 
 to our bodies we know they are compounded and 
 made up of other bodies. My finger is a part of 
 my body, and there are several parts in my finger, 
 and these parts may be parted again and divided 
 ad infinitum ; so that every body is a compound 
 of many bodies. But this is not true of spirits ; 
 a spirit is not compounded or made up of parts, 
 and therefore cannot be divided, and is incapable 
 of addition or multiplication. You cannot say 
 of the soul that it is either multiplied or divided 
 among its three faculties, or that it is compounded 
 
83 
 
 of them ; these faculties cannot be taken from the 
 soul as a part may be taken from the body : its 
 unity, therefore, is more perfect than the soul ; for 
 the faculties are not the parts, but the powers, of 
 the soul, by which it acts, and without which it 
 would be no longer a soul. Now, these powers of 
 the soul bear a near resemblance to the persons of 
 the Godhead, which are not parts of God, for he 
 is an uncompounded, and simple, and single Being. 
 The whole Deity perpetually flowing, in its full 
 infinity from one person to another, is in the 
 eternal enjoyment of its own beatitude, blessed for 
 ever in itself. This perfect Unity cannot but be 
 very faintly represented even in the unity of the 
 soul. ^ 
 
 Lindsey. But do you mean to affirm that there 
 is not a mutual communication of spirits ? Does 
 not one spirit join with another, and partake of it, 
 as bodies do ? 
 
 Witness, Undoubtedly, there is an infinitely more 
 intimate communion of spirits than there can be in 
 bodies. All enjoyment and satisfaction in the 
 union of bodies is from the union of their souls. 
 This is what we call love : without this, our 
 bodies are insensible to their unions, and are only 
 as trees, plants, and flowers. St. Paul says, man 
 and wife " become one flesh ; but he that is joined 
 
 First Dialogue, p. 239. 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 unto the Lord is one spirit."^ Such a union as 
 this is the foundation of those mystical allusions in 
 the Scriptures which apply to Christ the name of 
 a Bridegroom, and represent the Church as his 
 Spouse, and Heaven as the eternal Marriage Feast. 
 And Christ having assumed our nature, that is, 
 taken it into the Deity in his own person, the com- 
 munications which may thence be given to our 
 glorified bodies from our participating in the same 
 human nature with Christ is " what eye hath not 
 seen, nor ear heard, nor can enter into the heart 
 of man to conceive." Our Lord himself, when on 
 earth, prayed to his Father in behalf of his dis- 
 ciples, " that they all may be one, as thou, Father, 
 art in me, and I in thee ; that they, also, may be 
 one in us : " — " And the glory which thou gavest 
 me, I have given them ; that they may be one, 
 even as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me, 
 that they may be made perfect in one." '^ 
 
 Lindsey. My Lord, I have nothing more to 
 ask of this witness. 
 
 Att. Gen, Sir, we will not trouble you further. 
 
 Court. Stop : I have a question to ask him. 
 What do you say of the doctrine of Plato ? 
 
 Witness, Plato, my Lord, and his followers held 
 
 1 1 Cor. vi. 16. 
 
 9 John xvii. 21, 22. First Dialogue, p. 240. 
 
85 
 
 the doctrine of three Supreme and Almighty Princi- 
 ples, which they called persons (in Greek hypostases)^ 
 and that these act in conjunction, and created the 
 world and all thino^s in it. 
 
 Court. How and when did the heathen philo- 
 sophers embrace this notion of these Three Prin- 
 ciples ? 
 
 Witness. They derived it from immemorial tra- 
 dition : how, it is impossible to say ; but we can 
 show that it was no invention of the Christians. 
 Plato, who speaks so much and so ambiguously 
 of it, was born about 428 years before Christ, but 
 he was not the author of what is called his Triad 
 of the Deity ; nor did the heathen philosophers 
 ascribe it to him : they said that Orpheus treated 
 of it long before Plato, and the Chaldaeans long 
 previously to Orpheus. They looked upon it as 
 having come down to them by old and long tra- 
 dition, from what source they knew not. Plotinus, 
 speaking of these three chiei persojis, which some- 
 times they call principles, says, " that they were 
 not new, nor then invented, but a tradition of old 
 time. ^ " They called these three sometimes "Three 
 Principles," at other times, "Three Gods;" some- 
 times, " Three Natures," at other times, " Three 
 Persons." Nor is it to be wondered at that they 
 
 1 Mj) Kaivovc, piri ck vvv, dXKa wdXai fiev etpr)T9ai. 
 G 3 
 
86 
 
 fell into these varieties of expression, when we con- 
 sider that they were without that Revelation which 
 has more clearly declared these things to us ; and, 
 consequently, they were not tied down to that strict- 
 ness and correctness of expression, which binds us 
 when speaking of this divine mystery. Still, they 
 explained themselves sufficiently to show, that by 
 these Three, they meant only one God. They 
 called, therefore, this Trinity of gods, the to ©sTov, 
 the Godhead, or the nature of God : for what says 
 their ancient oracle ? — " Li all the world there 
 shines a Tynnity.^ ofxiohich an Unity is the head,^^ 
 
 Court, Who is your next witness ? 
 
 Att, Gen. Call Edward Burton. 
 
 Cmirt, Who is Mr. Burton ? 
 
 Att. Gen. Mr. Burton, my Lord, is the erudite 
 author of a very valuable work, held in the high- 
 est esteem by the great Theologians of our day, 
 
 1 U.avTi yap tv K6<rfit^ XafXTrei rpidc, i}c jxovuq dpxei. — 
 Oraciila Zoroastri in Platonicis collecta, p. 8. 
 
 Leslie's Fii'st Dialogue, p. 245. 
 
 Plotinus, the pupil of Plato and the preceptor of Porphyry, 
 speaking of the Auyoc, says, his very nature is God, e^o^, 
 avTT) i) <pv<ngy and to show that he meant not the first person 
 of the Godhead, he calls him devrepog Oeof , a second God. — 
 Ennead. v. 5. c. 3. 
 
87 
 
 entitled, " Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
 to the Divinity of Christ." 
 Court, Very well, proceed. 
 Att. Gen. What do you understand to be the 
 doctrine which the Defendants have upheld in 
 their writings, as respects the divinity of Christ? 
 
 Witness. These modern Unitarians profess their 
 belief in the simple humanity of Christ ; by which 
 they mean, that Jesus had only one nature, and 
 that was the human ; that he was in every sense 
 of the term born in the ordinary way ; that he had 
 no pre-existence ; that he was in no sense of the 
 term God, except as it was apphed to Moses and 
 Elijah, when invested with a divine commission. 
 
 Att. Gen. You say these are the doctrines of 
 the Defendants, whom you call the modern Uni- 
 tarians : who were the ancient Unitarians ? 
 
 Witness. The ancient Unitarians sprung up in 
 the fourth century; but various sects have been 
 thrown off by these in the process of time. The 
 first Socinians have many and various shades of 
 difference from the Unitarians of the present day. 
 Some have approached nearer to the Arian notions ; 
 some have allowed that religious worship may be 
 paid to Christ ; some have believed that since his 
 ascension, he has existed in a much more exalted 
 state. Many other variations might be pointed 
 out: but, without examining them separately, I 
 assert, upon the authority of the Ante-Nicene 
 
 G 4" 
 
88 
 
 Fathers, that the doctrine which they held is 
 wholly irreconcileable to any modification of the 
 Unitarian Creed. ' 
 
 Att. Ge7i. The Defendants have denied in their 
 writings, that Christ was born of a Virgin, and 
 reject all ideas of his miraculous conception ; they 
 do this on the testimony of the ancient Fathers of 
 the Church : now, as your w ork treats, by its title, 
 of these writings, do these Fathers, in your opi- 
 nion, support this notion ? 
 
 Witness. Decidedly the reverse. There is not 
 one of the Ante-Nicene writers, from Barnabas to 
 Lactantius, who does not mention that Christ was 
 born of a Virgin ; and this single circumstance, 
 which I can support by their evidence, destroys at 
 once the notion of Christ being born in an ordi- 
 nary way. There is not one of them who does 
 not speak of Christ being made rnan, or of his com- 
 ing in thejlesh. The expressions, " God becom- 
 ing man," " God being incarnate," ^ are very 
 common in their writings. Now, had these Fathers 
 been Unitarians, had they believed Jesus Christ to 
 have been a mere man, I would ask, could they or 
 would they have spoken of him in this way ? '^ 
 
 Att. Gen. What is your opinion respecting the 
 Nazarenes and Ebionites ? 
 
 1 Burton, p. 440. 
 
 2 Bfof iimv9pMTrf]<Tag, Qebg ivcrapKUJtpeiQ. 
 
 3 p. 440. 
 
89 
 
 Witness, That they were distinct sects. The 
 Ebionites are said, by the Defendant Priestley, 
 not to have been heretics ; and that, as the ancient 
 Fathers did not mention them as heretics, the be- 
 lief, therefore, of these Fathers, which was that of 
 Unitarianism, was not heretical. ^ Now Origen 
 informs us that there were two sects of Ebionites, 
 and that one of them did believe the miraculous 
 conception of Christ ^ : and Irenaeus, whose autho- 
 rity is most valuable, and whose expressions are 
 particularly concise, tells us, that " they used only 
 the Gospel of St. Matthew." ^ It was no wonder, 
 then, that the Ebionites disbelieved the divinity or 
 pre-existence of Christ, if either of these doctrines 
 had been taught them by the Apostles. But, my 
 Lord, though these Ebionites rejected the Gospels 
 of Mark, Luke, and John, this was by no means 
 all they disclaimed. Those " primitive Unita- 
 rians," as the Defendants call them ; those good 
 Christians, who are said " not to have been looked 
 upon as heretical by the early Church ; " these 
 men took the liberty (so we are informed by Ire- 
 naeus, Origen, and Eusebius) ; — I say, they took the 
 liberty of getting rid of all St. Paul's Epistles at 
 once, calling that Apostle an apostate from the 
 
 1 Early Opinions, vol.iii. p. 201. 
 
 •i Cont. Celsum, v. 61. p. 625. 
 
 3 I. 26. 2. p. 105. and iii. 11. 7. p. 189. 
 
90 
 
 Law. ^ After seeing this, who can doubt whether 
 the Ebionites were heretical ? 
 
 Att. Gen, My Lord, as the witness is so fa- 
 miliar with the ancient Fathers as to have them, 
 I may say, ad unguem, I propose, with the permis- 
 sion of the Court, to call upon him to produce 
 passages from those Fathers, which bear upon the 
 doctrines and positions of the Defendants indis- 
 criminately. 
 
 Court. Do so, if you please. 
 
 Att. Gen. Then be so good as to state to the 
 Court, sir, what early Father of the church calls 
 Christ Almighty, 
 
 Witness. The passage affording the most un- 
 equivocal proof of this, you will find in Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, — " He who hath the Almighty God, 
 the J ford, is in want of nothing ; " — and here I 
 would observe : — 
 
 Court. Stop. — That has been already adduced 
 by the witness Horsley. 
 
 Witness, Still, my Lord, I would bear my tes- 
 timony to this being applied to Christ : for the 
 same reason I repeat the observation, that the 
 same Father, in allusion to the words of St. Paul, 
 has said, " For I have espoused you to one hus- 
 
 1 Iren. I. 26. 2. p. 105. Orig. cont. Cels. v. 65. p. 628. Eus. 
 H.E. iii. 27. p. 121. See Burton, p. 443. 
 
I 
 
 91 
 
 band, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to 
 Christ;" where, for the name of Christ, is sub- 
 stituted " the Almighty God." ^ — Tertullian also 
 says, " The titles of the Father, God Almighty, 
 Most High, Lord of Hosts, King of Israel, I AM, 
 as far as the Scriptures teach us, we say that those 
 titles belong to the Son, and that the Son came 
 under those titles, and always acted according to 
 them." — " He was God Almighty by his own 
 right, inasmuch as he is the Word of God Almighty^ - 
 
 Alt, Gen, Now, sir, as to the Son being con- 
 substantial with the Father. 
 
 Witness. Origen makes a resemblance of Christ's 
 proceeding from the Father to the vapour which 
 proceeds from a corporeal substance, and the 
 wisdom of Christ rising from him like a cor- 
 poreal efflux, — " both which likenesses," he says, 
 " most plainly show, that there is a communion of 
 siibstarice between the Son and the Father ; for an 
 efflux seems to be of one substance with that body, 
 fi'om which it is an efflux or vapour."^ And 
 
 1 Tov TravTOKpciTopoQ Qtov. — Strom, iii. 12. 
 
 "' Adv. Prax. c. xvii. p. 510. 
 
 3 Aporrhoea enim o^oouo-ioc videtur, id est, unius substantiaB 
 dim illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea vel vapor. — Ep. 
 ad Heb. vol. iv. p. 697. 
 
 The two expressions, " vapour of the power of God," and 
 " efflux of the glory of the Ahnighty," are taken from the 
 apocryphal Book of Wisdom, vii. 25 — p. 320. 
 
92 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, says, " I have proved 
 that the accusation which they bring against me is 
 false, of saying that Christ was not of one substance 
 ^uoith God.'' — And again, " Christ was by nature 
 Lord, and the Word of the Father, by whom the 
 Father made all things, and is declared by the holy 
 writers to be of o?ie substance wit/i the Father'' ^ — - 
 In both passages the word h\Low(noc, of one substance^ 
 is used ; which expression caused such violent dis- 
 putes at and after the Council of Nice : and this 
 term, Dionysius says, was used by the earlier 
 writers, and he is accused of not having adopted 
 it, which we see he denies; and yet, from the 
 Council of Nice to the present day, there are 
 those who assert that the word was invented and 
 first used at that Council ; whereas, by looking at 
 the creed drawn up by the Council of Antioch, 
 A. D. 269, the same word occurs more than once.^ 
 
 Att. Gen, Now, sir, as to Christ's eternity. 
 
 Witness, I can show this to satiety. Ignatius 
 says of Christ, " Wait for him who is beyond all 
 time, eternal^ invisible, who for our sakes became 
 
 ' Tov XjOicrroj' ofxoovaiov elvai T(p Qecp. — Kai ojxoovctiov T(^t 
 Uarpl eipr]fikvov virb Tutv ayt'wv iraTkpojv. — Ex Elench. et 
 Apol. p. 90. et contr. Paul Samos. p. 214. 
 
 - In the creed of the Antiochan Fathers the word o/xoovcnog 
 occurs twelve times in twice that number of lines. — Vide 
 Concil. Eph. part, iii, c. 6. p. 979. And Bull's Defen. Fid. 
 sect. 2. 
 

 93 
 
 visible." ^ Justin Martyr in his comment upon 
 the seventy-second Psalm, which we know to be 
 prophetical of the reign of Messiah, denies that it 
 was spoken of Solomon, as the Jews conceived, 
 but that it expressly spoke " in honour of the Eter- 
 nal King, that is, Christ ; for Christ is declared to 
 be a King, and a Priest, and God, and Lord, and 
 Angel, and Man, and Chief Captain, and a Stone, 
 and a Child born ; first made capable of suffering, 
 then returning into Heaven (elra b\c, ovpuvov Scvep^o- 
 fjisvog), and again coming thither with glory, and in 
 possession of the eternal kingdom, as I prove from 
 all the Scriptures." - — Justin in his epistle, says of 
 Christ, also, " He who was from the beginning, 
 who existethfor eve?^, in these latter days accounted 
 a Son." ^ — Irenaeus is still more express ; " The 
 Son, who always co-existed with the Father, in 
 times past, and from the beginning, always reveals 
 the Father both to Angels and Archangels, and to 
 principalities and powers, and to all to whom he 
 wishes to reveal." '^ — Origen, in the same manner, 
 says, " The Word, who in the beginning was God 
 
 1 Ep. ad Polycarp. c. 3. p. 40. Tbv dxpovov^ tov doparovy 
 Tov Ci t'lfJidg oparbvy &C. 
 
 2 Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. c. xxxiv. p. 130. 
 
 3 Ep. ad Diognet. c. xi. p. 240. 
 
 •^, Iren. 1. ii. c. 30. Semper autem co-existens Filius Patri 
 olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem et angelis, &c. 
 
94 
 
 with God, does not admit of higher exaltation ; " 
 for *' He that is joined to the Lord in one spirit, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God." ^ — 
 Tertullian says, " Christ our Lord has called him- 
 self Truth, not Custom : if Christ has been always, 
 and is before all things, Truth is equally eternal, 
 and ancient.-" — Hippolytus, who wrote A. D. 220, 
 asks, " Why was the temple destroyed, &c. ? — 
 was it for the blood of the Prophets ? By no 
 means, but it was because they killed the Son of 
 their benefactor ; for it is he, who is co-eternal with 
 the Father." ^ — Dionysius, taking up that favourite 
 illustration of the light emanating from fire, and 
 casting his eye, perhaps, on the expression used 
 by St. Paul, that Christ " is the brightness or 
 effulgence of his Father's glory," says, "Being the 
 effulgence of eternal light, it follows also that he is 
 himself also eternal'^ — Further on he says again, 
 " The Father, therefore, being eternal, the Son is 
 eternal, being light of light." ^ 
 
 • 'O yap Aoyog iv apxy rrpbg rov Qtbp Qebg ouk iTriCsxerai to 
 virtpvJ/ojQrivai. — Comment, in Joan, xxxii. § 17. 
 
 - Dominus noster Christus Veritatem se non Consuetudinem 
 cognominavit. Si semper Christus, et prior omnibus, aeque 
 Veritas sempiterna et antiqua res. — Tertull. de Virg. velandis, 
 P- 172. _ _ ^ 
 
 ^ AvTog yap Icrriv 6 T(p Harpi avvatciog. — Demonstr. contr. 
 Jud. c.vii. vol.ii. p. 4. 
 
 •* 'A7ravyd(T^a de u>v ^(orbg aidiov 7rai>Tiog Kai avrbg dialog 
 tffTiv. — Ex Elench. et Apol. pp. 87, 88. 
 
95 
 
 Court, These are sufficient. 
 
 Att. Geii. Next, sir, we will proceed to the 
 omnijpresence of Christ : what have you to adduce 
 on this point ? 
 
 Witness. Clement has observed, in a manner 
 and in expression decisive on this subject 
 
 Court, Stay, that passage from Clement of 
 Alexandria has already been cited by the De- 
 fendant Bull; therefore, without quoting it again, 
 say whether you adduce that as one testimony 
 to the omnipresence attributed to the Son or to 
 Christ. 
 
 Witness. It is of all others, my Lord, the strongest 
 proof of this divine attribute. What terms or lan- 
 guage can be more express than that the Son of 
 God " is not divided, nor separated, nor changing 
 from place to place ; but every nscherey at all times, 
 and circumscribed no where ? " ^ Without therefore 
 dwelling upon this passage, which I could wish to 
 do for some time, I pass on to Hippolytus, who, 
 speaking of Jesus coming to be baptized of John 
 in the Jordan, thus expresses himself: — " He that 
 is present every xuhere^ and faileth no where, who 
 is incomprehensible to angels and invisible to man, 
 comes to be baptized, as it pleased him." - And 
 
 1 Strom, vii. c. 2. p. 831. 
 
 •! 'H aKaTci\r]7rToq TTi/yj), ?'/ Ziorfv fi\a(TTdvov<Ta Tramv avOptairoig 
 
96 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria directly affirms that " The 
 Father and the Son are every lichere" ^ 
 
 Alt, Gen. That is sufficient proof as to the 
 omnipresence of Christ: now, sir, do any of the 
 Fathers say that he was a being superior to the 
 angels ? 
 
 Witness. St.Paul, speaking of Christ, says, "Being 
 made so much better than the angels, as he hath 
 by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than 
 they : for unto which of the angels said he at any 
 time, Thou art my Son ? Let all the angels of God 
 worship him ?" But Clement, with his eye on this 
 passage of the Apostle, says, " Who, being the bright- 
 ness of his majesty, is so much higher than the 
 angels." ^ And Tertullian has also a very remark- 
 able and a very beautiful passage illustrative of 
 this point : — " You have read," he says, " and be- 
 lieved, that angels have been changed into a human 
 form, and borne such a reality of body, that 
 Abraham washed their feet, and Lot was rescued 
 from the men of Sodom by their hands — what was 
 possible for angels, who are inferior to God, that 
 they might be changed into a human body and yet 
 continue angels, will you deny to the greater power 
 
 KoX teXoq ft)) t^ovcra^ vtto TrevLxpoJV icai 7rpo(Ticaipu)v v5ar<i)v 
 tKakvTTTtTo. — Horn, in Theo. i. p. 261. 
 
 ' 'O Ilar^p Kai 6 'Yibg Travraxov. — De Promiss. c. 6. p. 81. 
 
 « Ep. C.36. p. 168. 
 
97 
 
 of God, as if Christ were not able really to put on 
 man, and yet continue God?" ^ — And Origen in 
 his commentary upon the 1st chapter of Jeremiah, 
 says, " If you ascend to the Saviour, and see him 
 the Word who was in the beginning wdth God, you 
 wdll see that he cannot there speak (as a man); 
 and if you compare the tongues of angels with the 
 tongues of men, and know that he is greater than 
 the angels, as the Apostle Paul bore witness, you 
 will say that he was too great even for the tongues 
 of angels, since The IVord was God with the 
 Father." - I can multiply these proofs, if more 
 be required. 
 
 Court. These are sufficient at present. 
 
 Att. Gen. Now, sir, will you proceed to show 
 which of the Fathers speak of the pre-existence of 
 Christ in union with God the Father. 
 
 Witness. First of all, most briefly and clearly 
 does Ignatius say of Christ, " That he was with 
 
 1 Angelos Creatoris converses in effigiem humanam ali- 
 quando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse 
 veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham, et manibus ipsorum 
 ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth. — Quod ergo angelis inferioribus 
 Deo licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam angeli ni- 
 hilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori Deo auferes, quasi 
 non valuerit Christus vere hominem indutus Deus per- 
 severere ? — Tertul. de Carne Christi, c. 3. p. 309. 
 
 " Kaj t'ihjQ OTi ovrog fiii^otJV terl Kcii dyyf\o)v. — In Jer. Horn. I. 
 vol. iii. p. 128. 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 the Father before the xwrlds^ and appeared at the 
 end." ^ — And again, " Our God Jesus Christ is 
 rather seen by his existence in the Father." - — But 
 still more express is Dionysius of Alexandria, for 
 he says-, " By Christ being in the form of God, 
 is meant, that the Father is in His Son Christ 
 the Word, and Christ in the Father."^ — And 
 even more decidedly still when he adds, " When 
 Christ, the Word, became flesh, the Father did 
 not cease from being contained in him who became 
 flesh because Christ became a body. The Word 
 became Jiesh ; and the Apostle shows that Christ is 
 not altered by becoming flesh, being always co- 
 eternal with him that begat him : in him dwelleth 
 the "iSchole Jidness of the Godhead bodily. Observe 
 how St. Paul reveals the mystery ; for he says, 
 that the Father and the Spirit dwell bodily in 
 Christ."^ — Clement of Alexandria, considering that 
 passage of Isaiah where Christ, the child that was 
 
 1 "Of TT/oo aiu)V(iJV Trapd flarpt i]v. Ep. ad Mag. vi. p. 19. 
 
 2 'O yap QeoQ 7)[.iu>v 'Irjcrovg Xpiarbg tv VLaTpl wv fidXkov 
 ^aivsTai. — Ep. ad Rom. c. 3. p. 26. 
 
 3 UuiQ 6 HciTtjp Iv rqi 'Yup avTOv 'KpiaTi^ Aoy^^, Kcd 6 XpLnrbg 
 Iv T(p Harpi, 6 tv fioptpij Qeov virdpxiov. — Adv. Paul. Samos. 
 Quaest. vii. p. 254. 
 
 4 'AKOvere, TrCJQ Xkya to fivarlipiov 6 iepbg diroaroXog JJavXogy 
 rb yap aufiariKCig KaroiKtiv top HaHpa, Kcii rb Hvtvjxa iv no 
 Xpi(jT(^. Ibid. p. 259. 
 
99 
 
 born, is said to be " Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
 Mighty God, the Everlasting Father," breaks out 
 into this exclamation, " O the Mighty God ! O 
 the perfect Child ! the Son in the Father and the 
 Father in the Son ! " ^ — Hippolytus, reviewing an- 
 other passage of the same prophet, " Surely God is 
 in ihee, and there is none else ; " observes, " By the 
 words God is in thee, he showed the mystery of 
 the incarnation, that by the Word becoming flesh 
 and being made man, the Father was in the Son, 
 and the Son in the Father, it being the Son who 
 lived among men." - — Does the Court require 
 more instances in proof of this point ? 
 
 Att. Gen, No, sir — Now, proceed, if you please, 
 to show that Christ was not a created Being. 
 
 Witness. That may be very easily and fully 
 done, by running through most of the early Fathers 
 in succession. First of all the shepherd Hermas 
 says, " The Son of God is more ancient than any 
 created thing ?" ^ 
 
 1 "Q Tov fityaXov Qeov' ^Q tov rsXsiov Traiciov 'Ywg Iv Tlarpiy 
 Kul liartip ev 'Yi<^. — Paedag. Li. c.6. p. 112. 
 
 2 To £e s'lTTtlVj oTi iv (Toi b Qeog tffriv, ehiKVvev ^xvryry^piov 
 oiKovofiiag, on (TtaapK(x)fikvov tov Aoyov kuI IvavOptoirijaavrog 6 
 Uart/p rjv iv r<^'Yi<^, fcai 6 'Yibg iv t<^ Uarpi iinroXiTtvojx'tvov tov 
 '\iov iv avBpioTToig. — Contr. Noetum, c. iv. vol. ii. p. 8. 
 
 ^ Filius quidem Dei omni creatura antiquior est. Lib. iii. 
 hiimil.9. § 12. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 Court. Do you infer from hence, as the witness 
 Horsley has done, that the expression, " being still 
 more ancient than the oldest created thing," esta- 
 blishes the pre-existence and uncreated nature of 
 Christ ? 
 
 Witness. My Lord, I do ; for in the same manner 
 St. Paul calls Christ not the Jirst of every crea- 
 ture, but the Jirst-horn or Jirst-hegotten of every 
 creature. Justin Martyr and Origen speak the 
 same express and correct language, " He was 
 begotten of the Father, and was with the Father 
 before any thing was created ; " says the former. 
 " The image of the invisible God, begotten before 
 every creature, is incapable of death," says the 
 latter. ^ — Irenaeus, addressing his fellow-man, says, 
 '* Thou art not uncreated, O man ! nor didst thou 
 always exist together with God, like his own 
 Word." ^ — Here are most important disclosures 
 made in these few words, declarative of the un- 
 created, pre-existing, and divine nature of the 
 Word or Christ. And the same Father, com- 
 menting upon St. John, adds, " That angels or 
 archangels, or thrones or dominations, were ap- 
 pointed by Him, who is God over all, and made by 
 
 • Dial, cum Tryph. 100. p. 195. Comment in Joan. vol. iv. 
 p. 392. 
 
 2 Non enim infectus es, 6 homo ! neque semper co-ex- 
 sistebas Deo, sicut propriimi ejus Verbum. — L.ii. c. 25. 
 
101 
 
 his Word, John has thus told us; for, after he 
 had said of the Word of God, that he was in the 
 Father, he added, ' All things were made by him, 
 and without him was not any thing made.' " ^ — Hip- 
 polytus declares that Christ " is neither created, 
 nor circumscribed by creation." 2 — Origen asserts 
 the same repeatedly. 
 
 Court, How is that ? for Dr. Clarke in his 
 Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, as I remember, 
 says, " that Origen expressly reckoned the Son 
 among the created things? [dYifj^iovpyrii^uTu.) 
 
 Witness. Then, my Lord, Origen shall speak 
 for himself ; for this Father, writing against Celsus, 
 thus expresses himself: — " Our Saviour and Lord, 
 the Word of God, says. No one kiiowcth the Son 
 hit the Father ; for no one can know him who is 
 uncreated and begotten before every created nature 
 in its full extent, so well as the Father who begat 
 him; nor can any one know the Father so well 
 as the animate Word, who is His Wisdom and 
 Truth." ^ — And, that we may be the better assured 
 of Origen's belief and doctrine, it may be remarked 
 that, in his commentary upon St. John, he again 
 
 1 Quoniam enim sive angeli, sive archangel!, &c. — Lib. iii. 
 C.8. 52. 
 
 2 Ou ydp TTfcpVKS TTepiypcKpetrOai yevrjTt^ <pucru to Kara (pvaiv 
 aykvrjTov, — Contr. Ber. et Hel. i. p. 227. 
 
 3L.vi. J 17. vol.i. p. 643. 
 
 H 3 
 
102 
 
 says, " God, who is above all created things, be- 
 came man." ' 
 
 Att. Gen. Now, sir, that you have shown w^hat 
 the belief and writings of the early Fathers testify 
 of Christ as uncreated, what do they prove with 
 respect to his office as Creator ? 
 
 Witness. Justin Martyr, in explaining some 
 things to Diognetus which had raised doubts and 
 difficulties in the w^ay of his apprehension of Chris- 
 tianity, addressed a letter to him, in which he 
 says, " The omnipotent and all-creative and in- 
 visible God hath himself from heaven established 
 among men the truth, and the holy and incompre- 
 hensible word, and rooted it in their hearts : not 
 as you might suppose, by sending to men any of 
 his servants, either an angel, or a prince, or one 
 of those who administer the affairs of earth, or one 
 of those who have the management of heavenly 
 things intrusted to them; but the Framer and 
 Creator of the universe himself, by whom he created 
 the heavens, by whom he shut up the sea in its 
 own bounds." - I have already shown that Irenaeus 
 illustrates and enforces the passage of St. John by 
 
 ' 9600 6 v'Kip TTcivTa TO. yevtjTa ki>r]v6pb)7rr](Tev. — In Joan, 
 vol. iv. p. 87. 
 
 - 'AXX' avTov TOP TtxviTijv Kai ^Sjxiovpybv ruJv oXwi/, (^ rove 
 ovpavovQ fKTiaiv, ([> Tt)v Ocikacaav idioir; bpoig ivsKKHaev. — 
 Ep. ad Diognetum, c. 7, p. 237. 
 
103 
 
 saying that '-The Word of God, by "wJiom all 
 things "were made, is our Lord Jesus Christ." ^ — I 
 shall give one other quotation to confirm what 
 I have said, by citing Hippolytus, who, speaking 
 of the baptism of Jesus in the waters of Jordan, 
 remarks, " The Lord, by the mercifulness of his 
 condescension, was not unknown to the nature of 
 the waters in what he did secretly; for (saith 
 David) 'the waters saw him and were afraid;' they 
 all but retreated back and fled from their boundary. 
 Whence the prophet many ages before perceived 
 this, and asked, * What ailed thee, O thou sea, 
 thatthou, fleddest? or thou, Jordan, that thou wast 
 driven back ? ' But they answered and said. We 
 saw the Creator of all things in the form of a 
 servant, and not knowing the mystery of the incar- 
 nation, we are driven back through fear." ^ 
 
 Court, But did not Dionysius of Alexandria 
 believe Christ to be a creature although a Creator ? 
 
 Witness. I think, my Lord, the very reverse, if 
 I may judge from his language to the heretic Paul 
 of Samosata : — " One only Virgin, the daughter 
 of life, brought forth the living and self-substantial 
 
 1 Verbum Dei, per quern facta sunt omniay qui est Dominus 
 noster Jesus Christus. 1. iii. c. 8. ^ 2. 
 
 2 Tor TvavTMV Krt(7r/)v h' fiopcpy SovXov t'idoixiVf Kal to 
 HV<TTi]piov ri'ig olKOvoniacayvo))(ravTe<^,dTrb rrjg hiXiag sXavi^of-uOa. 
 Homil. in Theo. vol.i. p. 262. 
 
 H 4- 
 
104- 
 
 Word, the uncreated Creator^ the God who came 
 into the world and was unknown, God who is 
 above the heavens, the Maker of heaven, the 
 Creator of the isoorW ^ 
 
 Att, Gen. Is the title of " Lord of Hosts," ap- 
 plied by any of these Fathers to Christ ? 
 
 Witness. It is so applied by Justin Martyr in a 
 most unequivocal manner, when, speaking of Christ's 
 ascension into heaven, and commenting on the 
 24th Psalm which predicted it, he says, " When 
 the officers in heaven saw him bearing an uncomely 
 and undignified and inglorious form, they did not 
 recognise him, and asked, JVho is this, the King of 
 Glory P And the Holy Ghost answers them, either 
 in the person of the Father or in his own, " The 
 Lord of Hosts himself, he is the King of Glory." ^ — 
 That Hippolytus referred the sublime part of this 
 Psalm to Christ, in the same manner with Justin 
 Martyr, is evident; and the testimony of both 
 establishes the appropriation of the titles, " Lord 
 of Hosts," and " King of Glory," to the Saviour.^ 
 
 Att. Ge?i. Now, sir, in the last place I call upon 
 
 1 Eyevvrjas tov i^wvTa Aoyov Kai LvvTroffruTOVy rov clkictov 
 Kal SijfiiovpySv TOV fXOovra tv rfp KoafUfiy Kai ayvojarov Qeov, 
 Kal vTTtpovpdviov Ofor, ovpavov TroirjrtjVy tov drjfxiovpybv tov 
 KO(Tfiov. — Ep. ad Paul. Samos. p. 113. 
 
 " Dial, cum Tryph. c. xxxvi. p. 133. 
 
 3 Hip. Frag, in Ps. xxiv. 7. 
 
105 
 
 you to state whether the Fathers have ascribed 
 divine worship to be due to Christ. 
 
 Witness. The only difficulty I feel on this head 
 is, to select a few out of the many instances which 
 I have it in my power to adduce. Justin says, 
 " The Scriptures prove expressly that Christ was to 
 suffer and to be worshipped, and that he is God." ^ 
 Melito, who wrote A. D. 175, says, " We are not 
 worshippers of senseless stones, but of the only 
 God, who was before all things : and also of his 
 Christ, who was verily God, the Word, before the 
 worlds ; " ^ — and here it is worthy of remark, that 
 this Father says that the Christians worshipped 
 Christ, and yet he says also, that they worshipped 
 only one God; which two assertions can only be 
 reconciled by our concluding that the unity of that 
 Godhead which they worshipped comprehended 
 the Son as well as the Father.^ — Clement of Alex- 
 andria makes use of this forcible exhortation, — 
 " Believe, O man, in Him who is man and God ! 
 Believe, O man, in Him who suffered, and is xvoj"- 
 shipped, the living God ! " ^ — Tertullian shows the 
 
 I Tbv Xpiffrbv Kal xaOr]Tbv Kai TrpoffKvvrjTuv Kai Qsbv arcohiK- 
 vvovffiv. — Dial, cum Trj'ph. c.lxviii. p. 166. 
 
 ^"OvTcjQ Qeov Aoyov irpb aiwv<i)V, tcrixev ^prjaKivTai. — Rel. 
 Sacr.i. 112. 
 
 3 Burton, p. 58. 
 
 4 WiarivaoVy dvQpojTrs, av9poj7r(^ Kal Oe(p' Trhrevcoi', dvOpcjTTf, 
 Ttp waOovTi, Kal TrpoffKvvovfiivqi Oe(p ^wvti. — Cohort, ad Gent. 
 
 ex. p. 84. 
 
106 
 
 same where he says, " The kingdom and the name 
 of Christ is extended every where, is believed 
 every where, is had in reverence by all the nations 
 enumerated above, reigns every where, is iscorshipped 
 every where ; he is to all a King, to all a Judge, 
 to all God and Lord." ^ — Minucius Felix, who 
 wrote A. D. 210, having been converted to Chris- 
 tianity, wrote a powerful exposition of the absurd- 
 ities of Paganism : and in doing this, he left a 
 remarkable proof that the Christians then wor- 
 shipped Christ; for on their being upbraided with 
 paying adoration to a man who had been crucified 
 as a malefactor, he says, " As for your charging our 
 religion with a man who was a culprit, and with his 
 cross, you wander very far from the truth, when 
 you think either that a culprit would have deserved 
 that we should believe him to be a God, or that a 
 man of this earth could be believed to be a God. 
 That man is indeed to be pitied, whose whole hope 
 rests upon a mortal man." ^ Add to this, that Ori- 
 gen has these words, — "Christ is to be ^worshipped 
 on account of the Word of God w hich is in him." ^ 
 
 • Ubique regnat, ubique adoratur^ — omnibus Rex, omnibus 
 Judex, omnibus Deus et Dominus est. — Adv. Jud. e. ix. 
 p. 192. 
 
 -2 Longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum 
 credi, aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum, &c. — 
 Min. Fel. Octavi. p. 281. 
 
 3 'O ii XpioTOQ TrpoaKvvrjTOQ did rbv tv avT<i) Aoyov Qeov. — 
 In Psalm, xcix. 5. 
 
107 
 
 And lastly, I will now adduce the words of Cyprian 
 bishop of Carthage, who flourished A. D. 250, and 
 who has these words, " God the Father has or- 
 dered his Son to be ^worshipped ; " and the Apostle 
 Paul, remembering the divine command, declares 
 and says, " God hath highly exalted him;" and in 
 the Revelation, the angel resists John who wished 
 to worship him, and says, " See thou do it not, for 
 I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren : te;or- 
 ship Jesus the Lord!" Jesum Dominum adora.^ 
 
 Att, Gen. My Lord, I shall not call upon this 
 witness for any thing more. 
 
 Court. Now, Defendants, you are at liberty to 
 cross-examine the witness. 
 
 Priestley. Reverting to the subject of the Ebion- 
 ites, who followed so close upon the Apostolical 
 
 1 De Bono Pat. p. 254. In the face of all this evidence, 
 Mr. Lindsey, in his " Apology," (p. 136.) argues that Christ 
 is not to be worshipped ; and he says, " The opinion and prac- 
 tice of the ancient Christians before the Council of Nice has 
 been often shown from their writings, that he was not to be 
 worshipped." Dr. Priestley urges it as a very strong argu- 
 ment against the divinity of Christ, that he was not wor- 
 shipped by the early Christians. (Hist, of Early Opinions, 
 p. 40.) Belsham says, " that Unitarians regard the worship 
 of Christ as idolatrous and unscriptural." — Calm Inquiry, 
 p. 350. 
 
108 
 
 times, and were, I affirm. Unitarians, I must repeat, 
 contrary to the evidence of the witness, that Ire- 
 naeus no where directly calls them heretics ; indeed, 
 TertulHan is the first Christian writer who expressly 
 calls them so.^ 
 
 Witness, This expression will not save you from 
 the charge of having made in your work an un- 
 founded assertion. In the first place, Irenaeus 
 states his doubts very strongly, whether the Ebion- 
 ites can be saved, on account of their disbelief of 
 the divinity of Christ ; and this I think you must 
 admit to approach very nearly to a direct declar- 
 ation of their being heretical.^ But I affirm that 
 Irenaeus expressly calls them heretics, where he 
 says, " Since the means of detecting and convincing 
 all heretics are various and multifarious, and w^e 
 have proposed to ourselves to refute all according 
 to their peculiar tenets, we have deemed it neces- 
 sary to begin by noticing the source and root of 
 them."^ He then mentions several persons, the 
 discussion of whose doctrines occupies the re- 
 mainder of the book. He begins with Simon 
 Magus, and observes of him, that all heresies took 
 their rise with him. He then notices Menander, 
 
 1 Hist, of Early Corrupt, vol. i. p. 281. and vol. iii. p. 201. 
 ^ L.iii. 19. 1. p. 212. 3 L.iii. 18. 
 
109 
 
 Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the 
 Ebioiiites, &c. It surely is impossible to deny that 
 this classification directly and expressly includes 
 the Ebionites in the number of heretics. But, in 
 another place, Irenaeus speaks still more expressly : 
 adverting to the principles of the Gospel, he says, 
 " There is such a certainty about the Gospels, that 
 even heretics themselves bear testimony to them, 
 and each of them endeavours to confirm his own 
 doctrine out of them ; for the Ebionites, who use 
 the Gospel of St. Matthew only," &c. &c. — I 
 think therefore, that I have established the contrary 
 position, and proved decidedly that the Ebionites 
 were not first called heretics in the time of Ter- 
 tullian.' 
 
 Belsham, The witness has quoted St. Paul, where, 
 speaking of Christ, he says, " By whom, also, he 
 made the world ;'^ and infers from hence, that 
 Christ was the Creator, whereas the words of St, 
 Paul should be rendered, " For whom, also, he con- 
 stituted the ages,^^ or, " with a view to whom he evefi 
 constituted the former dispensatioris ; ^^ '^ the preposi- 
 tion S<a ought here to be rendered ybr, not by. 
 
 Witness. Do you not render the word, in your 
 version of St. John, i. 3., and in the first chapter of 
 
 1 Burton, p. 444. See Iraen.iii. 11. 7. p. 189. 
 
 2 Improved Version of the N. T., Heb. i. 2. 
 
110 
 
 the Colossians and 16th verse, "by" and not 
 " for " ? And in the second chapter of Hebrews, 
 verse 10, where the word occurs twice in the same 
 line, but where it is applied differently, do you not 
 come back to the rendering of the common ver- 
 sion? 
 
 Belsham. I allow that I do, but not so in the 
 eleventh chapter of Romans, verse S6\ because in 
 these several passages I have considered the proper 
 and appropriate force of the word. 
 
 Witness. Excuse me ; your reasons are much 
 more apparent : w^herever the term is applied to 
 God the Father, j/o^j consider it to mean the instru- 
 mental cause ; but when it is applied to the Son, you 
 understand it as denoting thejlnal caused 
 
 Belsham. I feel my sense of it to be correct ; 
 and I will add that Jesus Christ is no where in the 
 New Testament said to be the Creator or Maker 
 of the heavens, the earth, the sea, or of any visible 
 natural objects.* 
 
 Witness, If you would admit, as you ought, that 
 the Christian writers of the earliest times were best 
 able to interpret the Christian doctrines, you would 
 have reason to speak differently, for these writers 
 indifferently style the Son, the Maker or Creator, 
 I have already alluded to the passage of Irenaeus, 
 
 • Burton, p. 50. "• Calm Inquiry, p. '^81, 
 
Ill 
 
 where he calls Christ " the only begotten Son of 
 Godj Maker of all things — Maker of the 'wo?id; " 
 and " The Word of God, the Framer and Creator^ 
 and Maker of all things^'' and also speaks " of the 
 Son creating,''^ ^ — Clement of Alexandria speaks of 
 " the Son in the Father, the Creator ; " — and says, 
 that " the Son has boldness of speech, because he 
 is God the Creator^^^ — and again, " Such is the 
 Word, the Creator of the world a?id of man — God 
 the Creator; — the Word, the cause of creation^ " — 
 Hippolytus calls him " the Creator of the univei^se ; *' 
 and " the Maker of all things.^^ ^ — Gregory of 
 Neocaesarea calls him " Creator and Governor of 
 all things^'' ^ — And Dionysius of Alexandria styles 
 him " the uncreated Creator" and " Creator to- 
 gether with his Father." ^ — And, in conclusion, by 
 way of summing up the whole, I will show that the 
 Apostle has distinctly and unequivocally declared 
 
 that Christ was the Maker of the world, for 
 
 Priestley. You may save yourself the trouble of 
 doing so ; for I do not see that we are under any 
 
 1 I. 9. 2.; i. 15.5.; iv. 38. 3. 
 
 2Paed.i.8. p. 142. j i. 11. p. 156.; iii.c. p.310. Strom, iv. 8. 
 V.3. 
 
 3 Beron. et Hel. i. p. 230., and In Theop. 2. vol. i. p. 262. 
 
 4 Orat. Paneg. in Orig. c. 4. 
 
 ^ P. 244. See Burton, p. 52. 
 
112 
 
 obligation to believe it, merely because it was an 
 opinion held by an Apostle.^ 
 
 Witness, Then I have done. It is useless to 
 argue with one who holds language and belief such 
 as this. 
 
 Att, Gen. One thing at least w^e gain from this 
 extraordinary avowal ; by saying this, the Defend- 
 ant at least admits that there was an Apostle who 
 had maintained such a doctrine. 
 
 Lindsey. The witness has attempted to prove 
 that Christ was not only divine, but almighty, which 
 I think he has wholly failed in doing. 
 
 Belsham. Mr. Lindsey agrees with me in con- 
 ceiving those expressions which appear to attribute 
 personal dignity and authority to Christ as wholly 
 figurative. The witnesses plead that the kingdom 
 of Christ is uniformly opposed to that of Satan ; 
 but Satan we conceive to be a symbolical and not 
 a real person, and that his government expresses, 
 not the rule of a powerful evil spirit, but the pre- 
 valence of idolatry, superstition, and vice. It is 
 therefore reasonable to conclude, that the dominion 
 of Christ is to be understood in the same figurative 
 sense.^ 
 
 Witness. I can only urge that the Fathers 
 
 1 These are the very words of Priestley. See History of 
 Early Opinions, i. p. 163. 
 
 2 Calm Inquiry, p. 320. 
 
113 
 
 never entertained any such notion as this, when 
 they affirmed that " The Word was Almighty 
 Godj" and that he " wanted nothing," and that 
 "he was God Almighty in his own right:" and 
 as to the flnicifiil notion of Satan being a figurative 
 person, it is so completely at variance with the 
 opinions and belief of the whol^ Christian world, 
 that no refutation of the doctrine can be expected 
 from me. ^ 
 
 Lindsey. To come to another point ; I beg to 
 deny, not only that Christ was the Creator, but to 
 affirm that he himself was created ; for, to meet 
 your quotation from the Fathers by another, I 
 aver that Dionysius of Alexandria hesitated not to 
 call Christ a creature — one inade,^ 
 
 Witness. Where, let me ask ? 
 
 Lindsey. At least, he speaks of God as a 
 Maker (no<»)T^?), with reference to the Son; and 
 hence I conclude, with others, that the Son is a 
 creature. 
 
 Witness. This strikes me as exceedingly per- 
 verse ; for when they who first started this objec- 
 tion brought it against Dionysius, how did he him- 
 self answer it ? " If," says he, " any of my accusers 
 
 1 Upon this subject of Evil Spirits, see the elaborate note 
 prefixed to Townshend's New Testament, arranged in chrono- 
 logical and historical order, vol.i. p. 156. 
 
 '^ Apology, p. 204. 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 imagine, because I have called God the Maker 
 and Creator of all things, that I also call him the 
 Maker of Christ, let him observe that I first had 
 called him Father, in which the term Son is 
 included." — And in the following chapter, he 
 allows that he may have applied the w^ord Maker 
 to God, with reference to his Son ; but he says 
 that he used it " on account of the flesh, which the 
 Word assumed, and which was made." 
 
 Belsliam, That Christ was a creature, made 
 and born, is what the proper rendering of St. 
 Paul to the Romans (ix. 5.) shows. 
 
 Court, Hand me both the Greek Testament 
 and the common Version : — " Of whom, as con- 
 cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, 
 God blessed for ever." — Well. 
 
 Belsham. My Lord, the sense and force of the 
 passage is this : — " Of whom, by natural descent, 
 Christ came. God, who is over all, be blessed for 
 ever ! " — In this sense it is probable that the early 
 Christian writers understood the words, who do 
 not apply it to Christ.^ 
 
 Lindsey. Yes, my Lord ; this clause was so 
 read as not to appear to belong to Christ, for the 
 
 1 Ex Elench. et Apol. c. 10. p. 96. See Burton, p. 365. 
 See also Bull's Defen. Fid. sect.ii. c. 11. 
 
 2 Belsham's Improved Version, Rom. ix. 5. and note. 
 
115 
 
 three first centuries.^ Had the original stood as it 
 now does, the early Fathers would have cited this 
 clause in proof of the divinity of Christ : but nei- 
 ther Justin (I believe), nor Irenaeus, nor Tertid- 
 lian, have quoted it with this view.- 
 
 Court. Witness, what say you to this ? 
 
 Witness. My Lord, I must confess that I can- 
 cannot show the contrary from Justin Martyr, for 
 a very obvious reason, namely, that he never 
 quotes the passage at all. Irenaeus does quote the 
 passage, and with this punctuation : — "Of whom 
 according to the flesh Christ came, who is God 
 over all blessed for ever;"^ — a division which 
 gives a very different sense from that offered by 
 the Defendant's Improved Version. Irenaeus must 
 often have read this passage himself; he must often 
 have heard it read : it is, perhaps, not assuming 
 too much to say, that he may have heard it read 
 by Polycarp himself, the immediate disciple of 
 St. John. He must, therefore, have known the 
 manner in which it was customary to read the sen- 
 tence in the churches; and we have seen that 
 he reads it, not so as to make the doxology at die 
 end a separate and independent clause, but so as 
 
 1 Lindsey's Sequel, p. 204. 
 
 2 Jones's Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 ' Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super 
 onines benedictus in saecula. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 
 
 to affirm that Christ, who came of the Jews accord- 
 ing to the flesh was also God over all, blessed 
 for ever. So much for Irenaeus : now for Tertul- 
 lian. " If," says this writer, " the Father and 
 the Son are mentioned together, for sake of dis- 
 tinction we call the Father, God^ and Jesus Christ, 
 Lord; yet, speaking of Christ singly, I can call 
 him God, as Paul did, — Of whom is Christ, "jcho, 
 he says, is God over all, blessed for everT And in 
 the same treatise, referring again to the same text, 
 he quotes it word for word, and stop for stop, the 
 same as it is rendered in our version.^ Hippo- 
 lytus, who wrote A. D. 220., begins his sixth 
 chapter thus: — «' As to the Apostle saying. Whose 
 are the Father's, &c., he declares the mystery of 
 the truth properly and plainly. He who is over 
 all, is God ; for he thus says boldly, — All things 
 are delivered unto me of my Father. He that is 
 God over all is blessed : and, becoming man, is 
 God for ever.'' ^ Origen speaks the same thing.^ — 
 
 ' Sed apostolum seqiiar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint 
 Pater et Filius, Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum 
 Bomimim noniinem. Solum autem Christum potero Deum 
 dicere, sicut idem apostolus, £'^- qidbus C//ristns, qui csty inquit, 
 Deus super ovinia bencdictiis in csvum omne. — Adv. Prax. 
 c. 13. p. 507. 
 
 2 Kai dvQphiTTOQ ytvoufvog, Oeog iariv etg tovq a'uoi'otj. — 
 Noet. 6. p. 10. 
 
 3 Comment, in Rom. vii. 13. Vol.iv. p. G12. 
 
117 
 
 Cyprian quotes the same words, in the same way, 
 from St. Paul to prove the subject of his chapter, — 
 " That Christ is God."' — Novatian, who believed 
 in the divinity of Christ, quotes this passage twice, 
 to show, as Hippolytus did, that the Father is 
 God, and the Son is God, and yet not two Gods, 
 but one God.^ — Dionysius of Alexandria, speaking 
 of Christ, calls him twice, God over all, in allusion, 
 we may suppose, to this passage, the only one in 
 the New Testament where this expression occurs.^ 
 And, lastly, the Council of Antioch, convened 
 A. D. 269, against the heresy of Paul of Samosata, 
 asserts this passage in proof that the Son is essen- 
 tially and substantially God."^ So much for these 
 words, which the Defendants state to have been so 
 read, turned, and misapplied by the writer's of the 
 three first centuries as not to apply to Christ. "" 
 
 Belsham. We have heard much of the writers 
 of the three first centuries, and more of the belief 
 which is reposed upon their authority. But what 
 is there to claim respect in the spurious epistles of 
 Clement, in the tissue of nonsense ascribed to Bar- 
 nabas, or in the. silly visions which pass under the 
 name of Hennas, or in the interpolated epistles of 
 those venerable martyrs Ignatius and Polycarp ? 
 
 1 Test, contr. Jud. c. 6. ^ Ch.iii. and ch.xxx. 
 
 3 P. 246. and p. 248. * Reliq. Sacr.ii. p. 467. 
 
 ^ Burton, p. 83. 
 
 I 3 
 
118 
 
 And as for the Clementine Homilies, they are, as 
 Dr. Jortin admits, as undoubtedly a romance as 
 " Gulliver's Travels," and contain as much truth 
 as Lucian's " True History : " but, at any rate, 
 they are good evidence of the existence of Unita- 
 rianism in the second century. ^ 
 
 Witness. I beg, my Lord, to decline answering 
 the Defendants any further questions. If this per- 
 son speaks the sentiments of the Unitarians, and 
 he has undoubtedly been invested with the honour 
 of being their accredited organ, we are to under- 
 stand that no confidence is to be placed in the 
 general sense or opinion of the early Christian 
 Fathers. Why, then, have the Unitarians chal- 
 lenged us to adduce the writings of these Fathers 
 against their position, that Christ was solely a 
 human being, by one saying, " It is absolutely 
 necessary that the less learned should be told 
 what, ujjon enquiry^ will be found to be undeniably 
 true, viz., that the Fathers of the three first cen- 
 turies, and consequently all Christian people for 
 upwards of three hundred years after Christ, till 
 the council of Nice, were generally Unitarians ? " - 
 Another asserts that " the Unitarians have made 
 it evident, from undoubted testimonies of the Fa- 
 
 ' Belsham's Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 96. 
 '2 Lindsey's Apology, p. 23, 24. 
 
119 
 
 thers, that the opmion of the Ante-Nicene doctors 
 were either thoroughly Arian, or very near being 
 so; unquestionably nearer to the error in which 
 Arius had fallen, than to the fancies of the school- 
 men:"' And another, that <' the great body of 
 primitive Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, for 
 the two first centuries and upwards, were Unita- 
 rians and behevers in the simple humanity of Jesus 
 Christ."- If all this were true, the foundations of 
 that faith which believes Jesus Christ to be God, 
 are shaken even to the ground. We are naturally 
 led to support that faith by reference to Scripture 
 fairly and reasonably interpreted; but we are 
 called upon by our opponents to investigate, and 
 see whether the contemporaries and immediate fol- 
 lowers of the Apostles do not support their inter- 
 pretation of the sacred Scriptures, and condemn 
 ours. We readily fall in with the proposal, be- 
 cause the works of these writers are the grand 
 repositories of Christian antiquity ; and they them- 
 selves, as preachers of Christian virtue, and as the 
 defenders of true Christian doctrine, are allowed 
 by the Christian world as the best and highest 
 authority to which we can appeal for the testimony 
 we require ; and we have shown, and can further 
 
 1 Gilbert Gierke, Ante-Nicsenesmus, Praef. 
 
 2 Belsham's Calm Inquiry, p. 955. 
 
 I 4 
 
120 
 
 show, that they mention Christ being born of a 
 Virgin, — becoming man, — of his creating all 
 things, — of his appearing to the Patriarchs, — 
 and various other particulars, as undoubted proofs 
 that the writers w^ho used such expressions believed 
 that Jesus Christ was God, or, at least, that they 
 do not agree with modern Unitarians, the De- 
 fendants, who deny that any of these expressions 
 can properly be applied to Christ. To get rid of 
 such plain testimony, the writings of the Fathers 
 bearing on all these points are said by them to be 
 either the errors of the writers, or to be the fables 
 and dreams of impostors, who have interpolated 
 the text of these authors to sanction the doctrine 
 of the unscriptural Trinity in Unity. 
 
 Att. Gen. My Lord, I entirely agree with this 
 witness in thinking that it is lost labour, as far as 
 the Defendants are concerned, to show that the 
 early Christian Fathers, the holy writers of the 
 first three centuries, are directly opposed to their 
 doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. My 
 object in producing his evidence and that of the 
 former witnesses, is to put the matter clearly be- 
 fore the Jury, that they may have all the assistance 
 they can require for forming an impartial decision 
 on this great and momentous question. Now, my 
 Lord, I shall produce witnesses, with another, but 
 no less important view, — to obtain from them not 
 the opinion of ancient writers, but of modern 
 
121 
 
 authors, and that also of their own, as to the sense 
 of the Scriptures on points by which the sole 
 humanity, or the divinity of Christ is to be esta- 
 bUshed. 
 
 Court. I think you are quite right. Whom will 
 you call ? 
 
 Att. Gen. I will call Edward Nares, the author 
 of " Remarks on the Version of the New Testa- 
 ment edited by the Unitarians." 
 
 Do you, sir, acknowledge yourself the author of 
 the book now mentioned ? 
 Witness. I do. 
 
 Att. Gen. What is the object of your " Reply?" 
 Witness. To prove that the Unitarians generally, 
 and the Defendant Bel sham in particular, have 
 perverted the plain and obvious sense of Scripture 
 in reference to every part of it which bears upon 
 or supports the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 Att. Gen. What is it that is affirmed respecting 
 the miraculous conception and birth of Christ ? 
 
 Witness. The Defendant, upon the most un- 
 warrantable plea, declares the greater part of 
 the first, and the whole of the second chapter of 
 St. Matthew, together with the two chapters of 
 St. Luke (with the exception of the five prefatory 
 verses) as all being of such doubtful authority, 
 that they are not to be taken as parts of the 
 
122 
 
 Gospel ; and, he adds, " that the account of tlie 
 miraculous conception of Jesus was probably the 
 fiction of some Gentile convert, who hoped, by 
 elevating the dignity of the founder, to abate the 
 popular prejudice against the sect.^ 
 
 Court. Defendant, you will interpose whenever 
 the witnesses make any statement respecting your 
 writings w^hich you consider misunderstood. 
 
 Belsham. My Lord, I thank you ; I shall not 
 fail to do so. 
 
 Att. Gefi. I now ask you, sir, whether this 
 assertion be true or false, in your opinion ; because, 
 if it be true, it will follow that the sense of the 
 Christian Church is mistaken, and the faith of 
 Christians, instead of being founded upon rock, 
 is built upon the mere sand; but, on the other 
 hand, if it be false, I w^ould ask whether, upon 
 your oath, this does not amount to blasphemy ? 
 
 Witness, I declare it, as my own opinion and 
 as the belief of the soundest divines of Chris- 
 tendom, to be false ; and the notion of elevating the 
 Saviour of the world to the dignity of the heroes 
 and demigods of heathen mythology to be an 
 unquestionable and disgusting blasphemy ; for 
 need any, with the Revelation of St. John in their 
 
 1 Iinpro\ed Version of the New Testament, Notes to 
 Matthew, ch.i. 
 
123 
 
 hands, which even such pruning expositors of 
 Scripture as the Defendants, concede to be genu- 
 ine, — need any to have forged such an account 
 of the birth of Christ with materials such as we 
 have in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke ? They 
 give him a poo7' Virgin for his mother, a small 
 village for his birth-place, a stable for his nursery, 
 and a manger for his cradle ; and they give him 
 these wretched and lowly investments — for what ? 
 " In order," says the Defendant, " to lessen Jewish 
 prejudices, and to raise him to the rank of a 
 demigod ! " Him, who declares himself, in another 
 part of Scripture, to be " the Alpha and Omega, 
 the Beginning and the End, unto whom every 
 creature that is in heaven, and on earth, and under 
 the earth, and in the sea, and all things in them, 
 ascribe blessing and glory and dominion for ever 
 and ever ! " Permit me here to ask, what mytho- 
 logical idol could ever be compared to the Lamb 
 of the Apocalypse, the Lord of Lords and King 
 of Kings ? What demigod of Paganism ever 
 made such an appearance as the Word of God 
 in the Revelation of St. John ? — "I saw heaven 
 opened, and behold a white horse, and he who sat 
 upon him was called Faithful and True, and with 
 righteousness he judgeth and maketh war. And 
 his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head 
 were many crowns. And he had a name written 
 which none knoweth but himself: and he was 
 
124 
 
 clothed with a mantle dipped in blood : and his 
 name is called The Word of God : and the 
 armies which are in heaven followed him on white 
 horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure ; and 
 out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, 
 that with it he might smite the nations : and he 
 shall rule them with a rod of iron : and he shall 
 tread the wine-press of the fierce anger of Almighty 
 God : and he had on his mantle and on his thigh, 
 a name written. King of Kings and Lord of 
 Lords." If I have shown any undue warmth in 
 reciting this passage, and giving my evidence on 
 this point, I trust the Court will excuse it, and 
 attribute it to the feelings of disgust and indigna- 
 tion excited in my mind, by those who talk of 
 elevating such a mighty and august personage as 
 this, to the rank of a demigod ! ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. To go from this point to another. — 
 What is your opinion and belief, as to the Jehovah 
 of the Old Testament being the same with Christ 
 in the New? and how does this opinion and belief 
 either differ from, or agree with, what the Defendant 
 Belsham has published ? 
 
 Witness. On this point I am directly at issue 
 with all the Defendants. My firm opinion is, that 
 the Logos of St. John was the Jehovah Adonai of 
 
 ' Nares's Reply, p. 38. 
 
125 
 
 the Jews ; the Angel of God's Presence ; the Angel . 
 of both Covenants ; the Appearing God. It is thus 
 that we can fairly assimilate the terms of the Old 
 and New Testament, and illustrate the one by the 
 other. When Jehovah appeared in the Shechinah 
 to the patriarchs, it was "in the glory of God;" 
 and is not the Son of God described by the Apostle 
 to the Hebrews as "the brightness of God's glory?" 
 Was not the Angel that was sent to the patriarchs 
 above every thing distinguished by that most pecu- 
 liar circumstance of bearing the very name of God 
 or Jehovah, a name wholly incommunicable to 
 creatures ? — " Behold ! I send an angel to keep 
 thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place 
 which I have prepared; beware of him^ and obey 
 his voice ; provoke him not, for he will not pardon 
 your trangressions, for my name is in him.^' Now 
 this Angel is repeatedly spoken of by Moses as 
 Jehovah, in a manner the most striking^ and re- 
 markable. Nothing, however, is more to the pur- 
 pose than the relation given in Exodus, where it 
 is said, " The Angel of the Lord appeared unto him 
 (Moses) in a flame of fire out of the midst of a 
 bush, and the bush was not consumed ; and Moses 
 said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, 
 why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord 
 [Jehovah) saw that he turned aside to see, God 
 called unto him out of the midst of the bush." 
 (iii. 2 — 4-.) It is certain that the Angel of God, 
 
126 
 
 who, under the patriarchal and legal dispensations, 
 had the name of God in him, was called Jehovah, 
 spake in the first person as Jehovah, calling him- 
 self " The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,'* 
 appeared in the visible glory of God, w^as worship- 
 ped as God ; yet we know, and are assured upon 
 testimony the most unexceptionable, that " no man 
 has seen the Father at any time." But this great 
 and ineffable name of Jehovah was also by the 
 prophets given to the Messiah ; for the prophecy 
 of Jeremiah declares that the name by which 
 the Messiah shall be called is, Jehovah our 
 RIGHTEOUSNESS.^ And what do we read in Isaiah ? 
 " I, even I, am Jehovah, besides me there is no 
 Saviour ; " and yet St. John emphatically declares 
 Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world.^ 
 The great name of Jehovah being thus given by 
 the prophets to the Messiah, and, by implication at 
 least, if not directly, ascribed to Jesus Christ by the 
 writers of the New Testament, is it any wonder to 
 find the Apostle to the Hebrews insisting so much 
 
 1 Ch.xxiii. 6. 
 
 2 See Nares's Reply, p. 88. and note. 
 Compare Isaiah, ch. xiiii. and John, iv. 42. 
 
 The Prophet also says (xliv. 6.) : " Thus saith Jehovah, the 
 King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, I am 
 the First and the Last, and besides me there is no God." — 
 Now, this very character of the God of Israel, Christ as- 
 sumes to himself in the Revelation, " I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the Fh'st and the Last." (Rev. xxii. 13) 
 
127 
 
 on the superiority of Christ above the Prophets of 
 the Old Testament, describing him as the " effid- 
 gence and the brightness of God's glory," and " the 
 express image of his person;" as "sitting on the 
 right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so 
 much better than the angels, as he hath by inherit- 
 ance obtained a more excellent name than they " — 
 " a NAME which is above every name " — " that at 
 the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
 in heaven, and things in earth, and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
 to the glory of God the Father ? " ^ These are the 
 several plain and strong declarations of the Apostle 
 Paul: but, to sum up the whole, and to bring the mat- 
 ter to a perfect focus, I will add that clear, explicit, 
 and incontrovertible passage of this Apostle to his 
 disciple Titus : — " The grace of God that bringeth 
 salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us 
 that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we 
 should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this 
 present world ; looking for that blessed hope, and 
 the glorious appearing of the great God and our 
 Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that 
 he might redeem us from all iniquity. These 
 things speak and exhort." ^ 
 
 Att, Gen. But one of the Defendants has al- 
 
 Philip.ii. 9—11. 2 Chap. ii. 13—1. 
 
128 
 
 readv declared that there is no obligation to credit ^ 
 such things, merely because it is the belief of cin 
 Apostle ; so we will proceed to some other point. 
 How, then, sir, do the Defendants, and Belsham 
 in particular, render the words 'Tjoj Qsov, where 
 it occurs in the New Testament ? 
 
 Witness. Invariably so, as that the same expres- 
 sion may be applied indifferently to any pious and 
 ofood Christian whatever. 
 
 AU. Gen. How is this ? 
 
 Witness. They say the Unitarians acknowledge 
 that our Lord fully confessed himself to be The 
 Son of God ; but then they do not grant it in that 
 high sense which he claimed, and the Evangelists 
 and Apostles ascribe to him ; and they render 'Tio? 
 0=00, " The Son of a God ; " that is, a Son of 
 Jupiter, or Mercury, or the god of Siam, perhaps. 
 And in the passage of St. Matthew (xiv. 33.) where 
 the Disciples are described as worshipping Cln'ist, 
 saying, " Truly Thou art the Son of God," after 
 he had performed the most stupendous miracle, not 
 as an inspired Prophet, but upon his own inherent 
 authority, and they acknowledged in the expres- 
 sion both his divinity and his Messiahship ; they 
 render the words, " Truly Thou art a son of 
 God!" which amounts to nothing more than an 
 acknowledgment that he was a religious person : 
 " Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be 
 called the children of God." When our Saviour 
 
129 
 
 was crucified, his enemies reviled him, because he 
 had said that he was The Son of God : this was no 
 blasphemy, as the High Priests declared it was, 
 had it been spoken in the sense which the Uni- 
 tarians give it, instead of its being claimed by 
 Christ, as being equal to God, and as the title of 
 the Messiah. 
 
 Att. Gen. How do they understand and render 
 Logos, The Word of God? 
 
 Witness, The Court will best see by referring 
 to the first verse of St. John's Gospel, as given 
 and explained in their New and Impi'oved Version. 
 The words are these in our version : — "In the 
 beginning was the Word; and the Word was with 
 God ; and the Word was God : " which are thus 
 rendered by them : — " The Word was in the be- 
 ginning; and the Word was with God; and the 
 Word was a God." Then follows the explan- 
 ation : — " The Word, or Jesus Christ, through 
 whom God revealed liis word, w^as in the begin- 
 ning of the Gospel dispensation ; and The Word, 
 or Jesus, was with God, withdrawing from the 
 world to receive divine instructions and qualifi- 
 cations for his ministry : he was then invested with 
 extraordinary miraculous pow^ers, and thus, in 
 Jewish phraseology, was called a god." ^ 
 
 See Improved Version, and notes upon John i. 
 
130 
 
 Att, Gen. How do they get over the plain and 
 simple construction and grammar of the original 
 Greek? 
 
 Wit7iess. This is all made to give way to 
 their conjectures ; and articles, definite and inde- 
 finite, are subtracted, added, or omitted, to answer 
 the constrained and perverted sense, or rather non- 
 sense, of this unwarrantable interpretation. 
 
 Court. How is that memorable confession of 
 St. Thomas's faith rendered, when Christ removed 
 his unbelief by showing the wounds that had been 
 inflicted upon him at his crucifixion, and he cried 
 out, " My Lord, and my God ! " 
 
 Witness. The force and sense of these words, 
 spoken and solely addressed to Jesus, are got over 
 by the assertion of the Defendants, that they are 
 not a confession, but an exclamation ; an exclama- 
 tion to the Almighty, meaning, My Lord and my 
 God, how great is thy power ! ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. How do you meet this ? 
 
 Wit7iess. By affirming that the words speak a 
 direct and unequivocal confession of our Saviour's 
 divine nature. The Defendant says they are an 
 exclamation ; but it is quite certain that the words, 
 " My Lord," refer to our Saviour ; and in an ex- 
 clamation like that of Tliomas, which was occasioned 
 
 ' John XX. 29. and note of Improved Version. 
 
J31 
 
 by the joyful certainty of bis Master's resurrection, 
 we can bardly separate the two members of the 
 sentence, and apply one to Christ and the other to 
 God. Had St. John so understood it, he would have 
 taken care to record it in such a manner (suppos- 
 ing him to have entertained the same notions with 
 the Defendants) as not to give it the semblance of a 
 direct acknowledgment of Christ's divine nature. 
 He would have told us, that Thomas said, My 
 Lord, and shortly afterwards, My God, or some- 
 thing to that effect. But a fatal objection to the 
 Defendant's interpretation is this : — St. John says 
 expressly, that this exclamation was addressed to 
 Jesus: — "Thomas answered and said unto liim^^ — 
 Besides which, our Saviour commended it as a 
 confession of faith ; which it would not have been, 
 had it expressed only surprise. This passage is 
 more deserving attention, because it is the first 
 time that Christ is called God by any of his dis- 
 ciples. ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. How do they explain that passage 
 of St. John, in which our Saviour told the Jews, in 
 his indignation, " Ye are of your father the Devil : 
 he was a murderer from the beginning ? " 
 
 Witness, They affirm that the Devil here men- 
 tioned is \hQ principle of moral evil personified ; and 
 
 I Bp. Blomfiekl's Five Lectures on St. John's Gospel, 
 p. 86. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 that wicked men are said to be his children^ and to 
 resemble him.^ Now, to say that the wicked are 
 called his children, and that he is a fictitious per- 
 son, would, by parity of reason, imply that the 
 good and virtuous, called the children of God, are 
 the children of an unreal and illusive being. But 
 it is manifest that one of the objects of Christ's 
 coming upon earth was, that he might destroy the 
 works of the Devil, a real but fallen Spirit, whom 
 God permits to tempt mankind in order to make 
 trial of their faith and virtue ; for, says St. John, 
 ** He that committeth sin is of the Devil, for the 
 Devil sinneth from the beginning ; for this purpose 
 the Son of God was manifested, that he might 
 destroy the works of the Devil." ^ The Evil One 
 is, therefore, spoken of in Scripture as the sovereign 
 and head of a kingdom, — " The Prince of the 
 power of the air, the Spirit that worketh disobe- 
 dience." ^ And against this kingdom of Satan the 
 kingdom of Christ was opposed, and subdued it': — 
 "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, 
 his goods are in peace : but when a stronger than 
 he shall come upon him and overcome him, he 
 taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, 
 and divideth his spoils." * But independent of this, 
 
 1 Improved Version, note to John viii. 44. 
 
 2 1 John, iii. 8. 3 Ephes. ii. 2. 
 ■* Lukexi. 21, 22. 
 
133 
 
 our Saviour speaks of him again and again as a 
 real being, and particularly where he says, " The 
 enemy that sowed the tares (among the wheat) is 
 the Devil." ^ And this is made positively certain 
 by what St. Paul says, that Satan can transform 
 himself into the appearance of "an angel of light." ^ 
 as no doubt he did, when he tempted the first 
 Adam in Paradise, and the second in the wilder- 
 ness. 
 
 Att, Gen, My Lord, I have no further ques- 
 tions to ask of this witness. 
 
 Court. Then, Defendants, you are at liberty to 
 begin. 
 
 BelsJiam. I would ask whether we have not 
 assigned good and substantial reasons for our 
 rejection of those parts of the Gospel which have 
 been mentioned? and whether we have not ad- 
 duced the testimony of the learned to support our 
 disbelief of these being genuine parts of Scrip- 
 ture ? 
 
 Witness, I, for one, think the reverse. 
 
 Belsham, My Lord, this is not candid. I will 
 therefore state each of the six objections we have 
 against considering nearly the whole of the first 
 chapter of St. Matthew, and the two first chapters 
 of St. Luke as spurious, when I will call upon the 
 
 1 Matt. xiii. 39. 2 2 Cor. xi. 14. 
 
 K 3 
 
134 
 
 witness to grant at least the force and truth of 
 the evidence we produce. Our rejection of these 
 parts is founded, first, on the ground of the Evan- 
 gelists having affirmed (if what is here said to be 
 his writing is true) that Jesus had completed his 
 thirteenth year in the fifteenth year of the reign of 
 Tiberius Caesar, by which Jesus must have been 
 born fifteen years before the death of Augustus : 
 thus Herod, who died A. U. C. 751., must have 
 been dead upwards of two years before Christ was 
 born ; a fact which at once invalidates the whole 
 narrative. ^ 
 
 Witness. Stop, stop; you are rather too rapid 
 in drawing your conclusion. Who says that He- 
 rod was dead two years before the birth of Christ ? 
 
 Belsham, I refer you to Lardner for the cor- 
 roboration of the fact.^ 
 
 Wit7iess. Stay. Here, at page 432. of the first 
 volume of his works, he says, " It may be made 
 appear several "ways, that Jesus was born above a 
 year, probably above two years, before Herod died." 
 And, after making a comparison of two other 
 computations of Herod's death, he concludes thus : 
 — " Which is the truth, I dare not determine."^ 
 
 Belsham. This does not make against us. 
 
 Witness. Nor for you. All that can be said is 
 
 ' hiiproved Version, note to Lnke i. 4. 
 - Ibid. Nares's Reply, p. 12. 
 
135 
 
 this, that Lardner makes the computation on the 
 notion that Herod died A. U. C. 748. or 749., and 
 not upon that of 751.; and he, and the learned 
 who have endeavoured to clear this point, draw no 
 such hasty conclusion as that at which you have 
 arrived. 
 
 Belsham. The point at least is left undecided. 
 But if this argument be deemed insufficient, I will 
 go on to show, in the next place, that Epiphanius 
 and Jerome state the copies of St. Matthew's Gos- 
 pel used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, that is to 
 say, the ancient Hebrew Christians, to omit these 
 parts of St. Matthew and St. Luke ; and, what is 
 more, the two chapters of St. Luke were rejected 
 by Marcion, a reputed heretic of the second century, 
 who was a man of learning and integrity, though 
 represented by his adversaries as holding some ex- 
 travagant opinions.^ 
 
 Jfztfiess. Your aro'ument is this: — St. Matthew 
 is known to have written his Gospel for the He- 
 brew Christians, therefore the Gospel used by the 
 Nazarenes and Ebionites was the genuine one which 
 St. Matthew wrote. Now, before we grant the 
 conclusion, let us look at the premises. The terms 
 Hebrew Christians, Nazarenes, and Ebionites, which 
 are here artfully classed together, as if synonymous, 
 were decidedly distinct. The Hebrew Christians 
 
 ' Improved Version, Matt, i., Luke i., notes. 
 K 4 
 
136 
 
 for whom St. Matthew wrote, were the body of 
 Jewish converts at his time, viz. at latest A. D. 66. 
 The Nazarenes and Ebionites of whom Epiphaniiis 
 speaks A. D. 370, were posterior to the former 
 three hundred years. The Nazarenes, indeed, were 
 a sect of the Hebrew Christians, holding some tenets 
 peculiar to themselves, and separated from the main 
 body; the name having been first applied to those 
 who, banished from Jerusalem by Adrian, A. D. 1 30, 
 settled in the north of Galilee. The Ebionites, by 
 some authors confounded with the Nazarenes, by 
 others distinguished from them, appear to have for 
 the most part aoreed with them in their main opi- 
 nions and character, but to have been separated 
 from them by some partial differences. Wc are 
 told first " on the authority of Epiphanius and Je- 
 rome, the narrative of the miraculous conception 
 appears to have been wanting in the copy used by 
 the Nazarenes and Ebionites." This statement is 
 not quite correct. Epiphanius treats of the Naza- 
 renes and Ebionites as two distinct sects. The 
 former, he tells us, use ajiill copy of St. Matthew ; 
 the latter use one much altered, and deficient in the 
 two first chapters, as it begins with the account of 
 the baptism. St. Jerome frequently mentions " a 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Naza- 
 renes use," and by this he probably intends the 
 Ebionite Gospel mentioned by Epiphanius, but he 
 no where testifies the fact of its wanting the two 
 
137 
 
 first chapters. Epiphanius also says of the Naza- 
 renes, that sect of Hebrew Christians who are 
 commonly understood to have held other opinions, 
 that he cannot affirm for certain, whether they be- 
 lieve that our Saviour was begotten of Mary by 
 the Holy Ghost ; a doubt which implies the per- 
 suasion on his part, that some Jewish Christians, at 
 least, received the accounts. St. Jerome expressly 
 says of them, that " they believe in Christ, the Son 
 of God, born of the Virgin." ^ But who, let me 
 ask, is Marcion ? — an unjustly rejTuted heretic ? 
 No: Marcion maintained notions the most wild 
 that can be conceived. He affirmed, that our 
 Saviour was man only in outward figure ; that he 
 was not born like other men, but appeared first on 
 earth in a full-grown form. Fie rejected the Old 
 Testament, and mutilated the New where it con- 
 tained quotations from the Old. He received only 
 eleven books of the New Testament; no Gospel 
 besides St. Luke's, and this completely disguised 
 by alterations, interpolations, and omissions, of 
 which a long account is given by Epiphanius. His 
 copy began thus : — In the fifteenth year of Tibe- 
 rius, Christ descended into Capernaum^ &c. And 
 this is the Marcion whose authority is to invalidate 
 St. Luke. 2 
 
 1 Quarterly Review on the Improved Version, vol. i. p. 324. 
 '2 Ibid. p. 326. 
 
138 
 
 Belsham. I understand all this differently. If, 
 however, you reject it, I state, in the third place, 
 that St. Luke does not mention, in his preface to 
 the Acts of the Apostles, that his Gospel contained 
 any thing more than records of the public ministry 
 of Jesus, and makes no allusion to the remarkable 
 incidents contained in the two first chapters, which, 
 therefore, probably were not written by him. 
 
 Witness. Your objection amounts only to what 
 you are pleased to term a probability, which is no 
 argument, and much less any proof, against the 
 validity of the chapters in question ; and even this 
 only arises from St. Luke having, in the preface to 
 the Acts, made no allusion to the incidents in these 
 chapters. Neither did he make any allusion to the 
 remarkable incidents in the third chapter, when 
 John baptized Jesus, and a voice from heaven de- 
 clared him to be his beloved Son ; so that there is 
 the same ground for the prohahiliti/ of the spurious- 
 ness of the third, as of the two first chapters. 
 
 Belsham, The subject of the two first chapters 
 and the third chapter are very dissimilar, and infi- 
 nitely distant in importance. 
 
 Priestley, Justin Martyr is the first writer who 
 mentions the mu'aculous conception.^ 
 
 Belsham. He is so : but, in the fourth place, if 
 the account of the miraculous conception of Jesus 
 
 1 History of Eai'ly Opinions, vol. iv. p. 107. 
 
, 
 
 139 
 
 be true, he could not have been the offspring of 
 David and Abraham, from whom it was predicted 
 the Messiah should descend. 
 
 Witness. Both Joseph and Mary, the reputed 
 father and the actual mother of Jesus, were de- 
 scended from the same lineage, and this lineage 
 was to be traced, according to all Jewish law and 
 custom, by the side of the espoused husband of 
 Mary. It is granted on all hands that Matthew, 
 who wrote principally for the Jews, carries his 
 genealogy to Abraham, through whom the promise 
 of the Messiah w as given to the Jews ; but Luke, 
 who wrote for the Gentiles, carried his genealogy 
 to Adam, to whom the promise of the Saviour was 
 made in behalf of all his posterity : now, from 
 Abraham to David the two genealogies coincide, 
 and it must be remembered that both Evangelists 
 published their Gospels at a time when the general 
 tables of pedigree were still preserved, and when 
 every genealogical title which proposed to trace 
 the descent of one who claimed to be the expected 
 Messiah, would be inspected with the most scru- 
 pulous and jealous anxiety ; and we have no where 
 read that any objection to the accuracy of the 
 Evangelists was raised by their contemporaries.^ 
 
 1 See the full consideration of this subject in the note to 
 the ninth section of Townsend's first volume of " The New 
 Testament arranged in Chronological and Historical Order," 
 p. 51. 
 
140 
 
 Belsham, This is a subject of far too great 
 intricacy to be discussed here. I proceed, there- 
 fore, to the fifth objection. There is no allusion 
 to any of these extraordinary facts (the miraculous 
 conception and birth) in either of the succeeding 
 histories of Luke, or in any other books of the 
 New Testament.^ 
 
 Witness. Could we admit, which we cannot, 
 that " no allusion is made to these events in any 
 other passage of the New Testament," we could 
 by no means allow that this applies as an objection 
 to the miraculous birth exclusively. Many highly 
 important facts of our Saviour's history are not 
 alluded to in other parts of the sacred writings. 
 But, far from conceding the point, I positively aver 
 that most frequent allusion is made to the accounts 
 of his. supernatural birth. I affirm, that this fact is 
 implied throughout his whole history; that it is 
 implied wherever he is spoken of as being God 
 himself, and the Son of God ; that it is supposed 
 and understood in the whole doctrine of the atone- 
 ment. I maintain also, that where we read, " God 
 sent forth his Son, born of a woman," we have not 
 merely an allusion to his miraculous conception, 
 but an express mention of it. It is clear to the 
 most superficial reader of the " Improved Version," 
 that the translators think proper to pervert, to 
 
 1 Note to Luke, ch. i. 
 
141 
 
 other meanings, all the sentences by which the 
 doctrines of the divinity of our Saviour and of the 
 atonement are proved.^ 
 
 Belsham, The expression of being " born of a 
 woman," bears no allusion to the supposed miracu- 
 lous conception of Christ. It is a common Jewish 
 phrase to express a proper human being.^ 
 
 Witness, But the expression "born of a woman," 
 ismanifestly too general to mark out him w^ho, in a 
 particular manner, was to be the '^seed of the woman, 
 who w^as to bruise the serpent's head ; " and, when 
 taken in conjunction with other passages of similar 
 import, surely cannot be misunderstood. " God sent 
 
 1 The Improved Version reviewed by the Quarterly, vol. i. 
 p. 328. 
 
 2 Improved Version, Gal. iv. 4. note. 
 
 The condemnation of the iniquity of Adam's progeny was 
 universal. To reverse the universal sentence, and to purge 
 the universal corruption, a Redeemer was to be found, pure 
 of every strain of inbred and contracted guilt : and since 
 every person produced in the natm-al way could not but be of 
 the contaminated race, the purity requisite to the efficacy of 
 the Redeemer's atonement made it necessary that the manner 
 of his conception should be supernatural. The incarnation of 
 the Divine Word, so roundly asserted by St. John, and so 
 clearly implied in innimierable passages of Holy Writ, in any 
 other way had been impossible, and the Redeemer's atone- 
 ment inadequate and ineffectual ; insomuch that, had the ex- 
 traordinary manner of our Lord's generation made no part of 
 the Evangelical narrative, the opinion might have been de- 
 fended as°a thing clearly implied in the Evangelical doctrine." 
 — Bp. Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 80. 
 
142 
 
 his own Son in the Hkeness of sinful flesh." — " The 
 Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." — 
 " God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made 
 under the law." 
 
 Belsham, I say, with the disciples of Jesus, 
 " This is a hard saying, who can bear it ? " I 
 proceed, therefore, to state, in the last place, that 
 John the Baptist should have been ignorant of 
 the person of Christ is not probable, if this nar- 
 rative be true ; and there are many other circum- 
 stances in the story which bear an improbable and 
 fabulous aspect.^ 
 
 Witness. It has been pretty generally supposed, 
 that John knew not the person of Jesus before 
 his baptism. 1 do not feel certain that this was 
 the case. John, indeed, in two instances, declared 
 that he " knew him not : " but I question if more 
 be implied in these than that he knew him not as 
 the Messiah, till he was especially revealed on 
 his approach to be baptized.^ And as to your 
 charge, that some of the facts have a fabulous 
 appearance, surely this is no other than a direct 
 departure from real argument to vague and un- 
 intelligible insinuation. I would ask, where are 
 these marks of fiction ? From what proofs is 
 
 1 Improved Version, Luke i., note. 
 
 2 Nares's Reply, p. 34. This is the opinion of BezH, 
 Lightfoot, Grotius, and Doddridge. 
 
148 
 
 this inference drawn ? Do not all the facts of our 
 Saviour's history, his several miracles, his resur- 
 rection, bear the same fabulous appearance ? that 
 is, are they not facts wholly out of the common 
 course of nature, which we should never have 
 beheved if they had not been pressed upon' our 
 conviction by evidence which we cannot question ? 
 How far the Defendants may carry this sort of 
 scepticism, I know not ; but the same reasoning, 
 and the same grounds for disbelief, would con- 
 sistently carry them to regard all that our Saviour 
 taught and did, to be a " cunningly devised 
 fable." ' 
 
 Belsham. We proceed on principles of reason 
 for the confirmation of our belief, not upon the mere 
 dicta of others. I affirm, that our Lord is re- 
 peatedly spoken of as the son of Joseph, without 
 any intimation on the part of the historian that 
 this language is incorrect. 
 
 Witness, I admit that our Saviour is mentioned, 
 I think, as many as five times, as the son of Jo- 
 seph. In one, the name is given by a new convert, 
 ignorant, as yet, of his nature and ministry. (John 
 i. 45.) In another, it is urged as an objection 
 to his mission by the unbelieving Jews. (John vi. 
 4-2.) In two others, his hearers, astonished at 
 what they hear and see, exclaim, " Is not this 
 
 ' Quarterly Review on Improved Version^ p. 328. 
 
144 
 
 Joseph's son?" (Luke iv. 22. Mark vi. 3.) and he 
 expressly disclaims the title, by saying, " No 
 prophet is accepted in his own country." In the 
 fifth instance, his genealogy begins : " Being {as 
 was supposed) the son of Josej)h." 
 
 Belsham, The last instance you have mentioned 
 should be rendered, " Being entered in the public 
 registers, the son of Joseph." 
 
 Witness, I will take it either way : for the first 
 refers only to the vulgar opinion; the second 
 regards the legal mode of tracing his ancestry 
 through the espoused husband of his mother: 
 neither tends to prove what j'ou regard as the 
 fact of his being the actual son of Joseph.^ 
 
 Belsliam. Sufficient authority, of a clear and 
 undisputed kind, and natural probabilities, compel 
 us to regard the story of his miraculous concep- 
 tion, if not his birth, as a fable. 
 
 Witness. It must be borne in mind that the 
 Gospels were read in different churches from the 
 earliest times, and copies of them w^ere widely 
 dispersed. Would, then, the Evangelists them- 
 selves have concurred in such a foroerv ? Would 
 Christians of all countries, sects, and opinions, 
 have been willing, silently and at once, to adopt it ? 
 Would history have preserved no record of such 
 an alteration in the code of Christian faith? 
 
 ) Quarterly Review of the Improved Version, p. 330. 
 
 I 
 
145 
 
 Would no doubts or suspicions have remained 
 in the minds of any? Would no enemies of 
 Christianity have heard of such an interpolation, 
 and gladly have exposed it? Would the con- 
 tending sects of Christians never have urged it 
 
 aojainst each other, in the heat of reliojious war- 
 es ^ o 
 
 fare ? ^ 
 
 Belsham. How all this might have been, I 
 cannot stop to enquire, though I think all your 
 difficulties capable of an easy solution. I now 
 advert to another topic which you have urged 
 against us. You endeavour to prove that Christ 
 is the Angel sent, " the appearing Angel " of the 
 Old Testament. We allow that he was an Angel 
 or Messenger' as the prophets which preceded him 
 were ; and that he was the highest of this order of 
 celestial messengers ; but beyond this we cannot 
 go. 
 
 Witness. We read in the third chapter of Ma- 
 lachi, " Behold, I will send my Messe?iger, and 
 he shall prepare the way before me : and the 
 Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his 
 Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, \!ohom 
 ye delight in, saith the Lord of Hosts.'' — This is 
 the passage as it stands in the received text. Now, 
 let us observe, first, that the person speaking is 
 described to be the Lord of Hosts, who, in the 
 
 ' Quarterly Review on the Improved Version, vol. i. p. 33 J. 
 L 
 
146 
 
 original is Jehovah Sabaoth, for Isaiah says 
 that the name of our Redeemer is Jehovah Sa- 
 baoth : ^ " Behold ! I will send my Messenger be- 
 fore ME." — Messenger is here proper : it evidently 
 alludes to Elias, or rather to his representative, 
 John the Baptist, as our Lord himself applied it : 
 — " The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness. 
 Prepare ye the way of Jehovah ; make straight 
 in the desert a highway for our God." — " And 
 the Lord (that is, Jehovah Adonai, the same 
 whom David called his Lord, as our Saviour re- 
 marked), HE shall come to his Temple, the 
 Temple of Jerusalem, that isj the Temple of 
 God, the Temple of the Lord of Hosts ! " ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. My Lord, as this is a point of the 
 gi'eatest importance, I beg permission of the Court 
 to call up the witness Horsley again, to put one 
 question to him upon this matter. 
 
 Court, You have leave to do so, provided 
 your question bears upon this subject, and this 
 subject only. 
 
 Att» Gen. Call again the witness Horsley. — 
 I would beg to ask you one question more, sir : 
 do you consider the Jehovah of the Old Testament 
 to be the Messiah of the New ; if so, how do you 
 show it ? 
 
 Horsleif. I will prove it from the passage of 
 
 ' Ch. xlvii. 4. 2 Nares's Reply, p. 04. 
 
147 
 
 Malachi which is so well taken up by the witness 
 Nares, the consideration of which is now before 
 the Court. A Covenant is to be established be- 
 tween Jehovah and his people ; proposed on the 
 part of God, and to be embraced by the people. 
 The Messenger of the Covenant can be no other 
 than the Messenger sent by Jehovah to make this 
 proposal. The Messenger of the Covenant is 
 therefore Jehovah^s Messenger; — if his Messejiget; 
 his Servant ,• for a message is a service : it implies 
 a person sending, and a person sent. In the person 
 who sendeth, there must be authority to send ; 
 submission to that authority in the person sent. 
 The Messenger, therefore, of the Covenant is the 
 servant of the Lord Jehovah : but the same per- 
 son who is the Messenger, is the Lord Jehovah 
 himself ; noi the same person with the sender, but 
 bearing the same name, because united in that mys- 
 terious nature, and undivided substance, which the 
 name imports. The same person, tlierefore, is 
 Servant and Lord ; and, by uniting these characters 
 in the same person, what does the Prophet but 
 describe that great mystery of the Gospel, the 
 union of the nature which governs and the nature 
 which serves ; the union of the divine and human 
 nature in the person of the Christ ? This doc- 
 trine, therefore, was no less than that of the divi- 
 nity of the Messiah ; a novelty, as we are told, in 
 the third and fourth century after the birth of 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 Christ ; an invention of the dark and superstitious 
 ages ! ' 
 
 Behham, I do not understand how he that 
 said, " I will send my Angel," can be the Angel 
 whom he said he would send. 
 
 Att, Gen. The Father is only known through 
 the Son ; but the Son as Jehovah, speaks as Jeho- 
 vah, though not unfrequently with a marked dis- 
 tinction of persons. 2 Is not this what you mean 
 to say? 
 
 Priestley. I admit it in this instance.^ 
 
 Horslei). Permit me to explain myself further by 
 stating, that the ancient Jews had a persuasion, 
 which their descendants retain at this day, that the 
 true pronunciation of the word " Jehovah " was 
 unknown ; and lest they should miscal the sacred 
 name of God, they scrupulously abstained from 
 attempting to pronounce it "*; insomuch, that, when 
 
 1 Horsley's Sermons, vol. iii. p. 24» 
 
 5 Nares's Repl}^, p. 85. note. 
 
 Compare Exod. xxiii. 22. and xxxii. 34. and xxxiii. 2. 
 
 3 Dr. Priestley admits that " though the angel here be 
 spoken of by the Divine Being as a third person, and distinct 
 from himself y they must^ nevertheless, in effect have been one." 
 — Priestley, as quoted by Nares, p. 86. n. 
 
 -J Among the Hindoos, O — M is a mystic emblem of the 
 Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a 
 syllabic formed of the Sanscreet letters a, u, o, which, in com- 
 position, coalesce, and make o with the nasal consonant w. 
 
149 
 
 the sacred books were publicly read in their syn- 
 agogues, the reader, wherever this name occurred, 
 was careful to substitute for it that other word of 
 the Hebrew language which answers to the English 
 word " Lord." The learned Jews who were em- 
 ployed by Ptolemy to turn the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament into Greek have every where, in their 
 translation, substituted the corresponding word 
 of the Greek language. Later translators have 
 followed their mischievous example, — mischievous 
 in its consequences, though innocently meant : and 
 our English translators, among the rest, in innu- 
 merable instances, instead of the original " Je- 
 hovah," which ought upon all occasions to have 
 been religiously retained, have put the more ge- 
 neral title of " the Lord." A flagrant instance of 
 this occurs in that solemn proem of the Decalogue, 
 in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, " I am the 
 Lord thy God," so we read in our English Bibles, 
 " who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out 
 of the house of bondage.'' In the original it is. 
 " I am Jehovah thy God, who have brought 
 thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of 
 bondage." — Another example of the same unhappy 
 alteration we find in that famous passage of the 
 
 (AUM.) The first letter stands for the Creator^ the second 
 for the Preserver^ and the third for the Destroyer of the Evil 
 Spirit, or Regenerator. — Dr. Adam Clarke on John i. 
 L 3 
 
150 
 
 hundred and twentieth Psalm, " The Lord said 
 unto my Lord ; " which is, in the Hebrew, " Je- 
 hovah said unto my Lord." — If translators have 
 used this unwarrantable licence of substituting a 
 title of the Deity for his proper name in texts 
 where that name is applied to the Almighty Father, 
 — and in one particular, when the Father seems 
 to be distinguished by that name from Jesus as 
 man, — it is not to be wondered at that they should 
 make a similar alteration in passages where the 
 Messiah is evidently the person intended. One 
 among many other examples of this kind is 
 found in Joel, where the prophet, speaking of the 
 blessings of the Messiah's day, saith, " And it 
 shall come to pass, that whoever shall call on the 
 name of the Lord (in the original, Jehovah), 
 shall be delivered." Here, the Holy Spirit has 
 vouchsafed to be his own interpreter; and his 
 interpretation, one would think, might be decisive. 
 St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, alleges this 
 passage of Joel, to prove that all men shall be saved 
 by believing in Christ Jesus. But how is the 
 Apostle's assertion, that all men shall be saved by 
 faith in Christ, confirmed by the prophet's promise 
 of deliverance to all who should devoutly invocate 
 Jehovah, unless Christ were, in the judgment of 
 St. Paul, the Jehovah of the prophet Joel ? ^ 
 
 > Horsley's Sermon xxx. vol. 3. p. 6. 
 
Court. That, sir, is sufficient. 
 
 Belsham. With respect to the words of Thomas, 
 on being convinced that our Lord had actually 
 risen from the grave, by seeing and feeling in 
 Jesus, who addressed him, the wounds which had 
 been inflicted on his body at his crucifixion, 1 have 
 the authority of Beza for saying, that they are " an 
 exclamation ; " as if, in his astonishment, he had 
 said, " My Lord, and my God, how great is thy 
 power ! " ^ 
 
 Wit7iess. 1 do not remember what Beza says ; 
 but the impression on my mind is, that he does not 
 go quite to this length. 
 
 Att, Gen, Here is the volume of Beza on the 
 table ; hand it to the witness. 
 
 Witness, It is as I thought. Beza says, " These 
 words are not merely an exclamation, but an actual 
 address of Thomas to Jesus, calling him, both his 
 Lord, and his God ; an indisputable precedent for 
 invoking Christ as the true God." ^ 
 
 > Improved Version, John xx. 28. and note. 
 
 - Haec igitur verba quae sequuntur non sunt tantum ad- 
 mirantis Thomae, nt hunc locum eludebnnt Kestorianiy sed 
 ipsum ilium Jesum et verum Deum ac Dominum suum com- 
 pellantis. Male igitur vulgate interpretatur hie locus, recto 
 casu Dominus mens et Dens mens ; nee alius est locus in his 
 libris expressior, de Christo, ut vero Deo invocando. — Beza, 
 quoted by Nares, p. 181. 
 
 L 4 
 
152 
 
 Belsham, I am still right in saying that Beza 
 called the passage an exclamation. 
 
 WitJiess. Yes ; but I must be permitted to add, 
 not right nor honest in stopping there, when he 
 said, this is not only an exclamation, but an address 
 to Christ himself; the Word who was with God, 
 and was God. 
 
 Belsham. This reminds me of another point. 
 I have already said that the expression " the Word 
 was with God," signifies that Jesus was in retire- 
 ment with God, qualifying for his ministry ; in the 
 same way that it is said of Moses, that " he was 
 there in the mount forty days and forty nights." 
 Now, in further proof that this does not mean, that 
 Jesus was consubstantial with God, I have this 
 unquestionable evidence. St. John says, " There 
 was a man sent from God whose name was John ; " — 
 a man SGntfrom God ! — a plain illustration of the 
 former text, and implies that he had been first with 
 God.^ This, I think, makes the speculation of the 
 witness to be of no weight. 
 
 Witness. Let us adopt this reasoning. Then, 
 because John was sent froin God, therefore he was 
 first "with God, so that John as truly came from 
 heaven as the divine Logos. John was as truly 
 from above, as truly with God from the beginning, 
 as truly came forth from God when he came into 
 
 ' Improved Version, John i. 6. and note. 
 
153 
 
 the world, as the blessed Jesus. But what says 
 John the Baptist himself? So far from being on 
 any footing of equality with Him^ whose forerunner 
 he was appointed to be, — " He that comethyroTW 
 above^^ saith he, " is above all. He that is of the 
 earth, is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he 
 that Cometh from heaven^ is above all :" — but how 
 above all, if he himself and every other prophet 
 came from heaven, and came from above in like 
 manner? But what does the Saviour tell us of 
 those who come from above, in the way that he 
 came ? — " No man hath seen the Father," he 
 says, " but he that is from God ; he hath seen the 
 Father." Can any one say or believe this of John 
 the Baptist and of Christ, indifferently ? Assuredly 
 not. 
 
 Court. Defendants, do you desire to ask any 
 thing further of this witness ? 
 
 Belsham, No, my Lord. 
 
 Court. Call again the witness Burton. 
 
 Burton. Here am I, my Lord. 
 
 Court. The Defendant Priestley incidentally 
 mentioned, during the cross-examination of the 
 last witness, that Justin Martyr was the first writer 
 who mentions the miraculous conception : do you 
 admit this to be the case ? 
 
 Burton. By no means, my Lord ; for Ignatius, 
 half a century previously, warning the Ephesians 
 to beware of those who taught false doctrines, and 
 
154 
 
 whom he considered almost incurable, says, " There 
 is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, made and 
 not made, God born in the flesh, true life in death, 
 both of Mary and of God, first capable of suffering, 
 and then incajmble : " ^ — which passage reminds 
 us of the expressions of St. John and St. Paul, 
 " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among 
 us," and " God was made manifest in the flesh." — 
 But in another place, after quoting from St. Paul, 
 " Where is the wise, 'where is the disputer ? where is 
 the boasting of those who are called intelligent ? " 
 he adds, " for our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived 
 by Mary, according to the dispensation of God; 
 of the seed, indeed, of David, but of the Holy 
 Ghost."- — Ignatius, also, alludes to the star which 
 appeared at the birth of Christ, which shows that 
 he believed the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel 
 to be genuine.^ 
 
 Court. Call the next witness. What is his 
 name ? 
 
 Att. Gen. Layman Burgh. This gentleman, 
 
 1 'Ej^ (TapKi yivofXtvoQ Qtoq, tv Oavdrii) ^wr) aX-qBiv)), Kai sk 
 Mapiag Kai tic Geov. — Epist. ad Eph. c. 7. p. 13. 
 
 '■^ 'O yap Qeog y'lfjiCJv 'IrjcrovQ u Xptorof eKvo<popr]9r) virb Mapiag 
 kut' oiKovofiiav Qeovy Ik (TTspnarog fxiv Aa/3i^, Uvevfiarog dk 
 ayiov. — Epist. ad Eph. c. 18. p. 15. 
 
 ■^ Burton's Anti-Nicene Test. pp. 22. 28. 
 
155 
 
 my Lord, is the author of " A Scriptural Confuta- 
 tion of the Arguments against the One Godhead 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, produced by 
 the Rev. Mr. Lmdsey in his late ' Apology.' " ^ 
 For, my Lord, I bring no more witnesses, as I 
 intended, in support of the opinions of the ancient 
 Christian writers, nor do I adduce any in support 
 of modern authors, or to show the opinion of the 
 learned from the earliest to the most recent times ; 
 but I now go upon the design of showing the 
 errors of the Defendants, simply from the Scrip- 
 tures themselves. 
 
 Court, I understand. 
 
 Att. Gen, Pray, sir, tell us what is the " Apology" 
 or defence which the Defendant Lindsey has pub- 
 lished, the arguments of which you have aimed to 
 confute ? 
 
 Witness, It is the defence or excuse for the 
 Defendant's conversion from the faidi of the Church 
 of England, to the belief, or, more properly speak- 
 ing, to the dislDelief, of Unitarianism. 
 
 Att, Gen, What is known of the public cha- 
 racter of this Defendant ? 
 
 Witness, He is known to be a conscientious 
 
 ' This confutation was written by a layman (said to be 
 IVIr. Burgh) in ITT-i, immediately upon the publication of the 
 Apology. 
 
156 
 
 person who has thrown up his preferment and 
 office in the church, and himself into want and 
 dependence, as the test of the conviction that he 
 has been in error in having been a minister and 
 member of the church, and that he has gone over 
 to, what he thinks, a better and a sounder faith ; 
 and he has since taken great pains to show that 
 the Christian world lies in error and darkness, 
 and that he is a voluntary martyr to the light of 
 truth. 
 
 AtU Gen. But how does this martyrdom and 
 this apology show the truth of his new belief? 
 
 Witness. To my mind they neither of them 
 prove it. Submission to distress in preference to 
 a dishonest concession to an opinion, proves indeed 
 the sincerity of the sufferer, but not the soundness 
 of the opinion for which he suffers. It may prove, 
 as I think in this case it does, the weakness of his 
 understanding, rather than the strength of his 
 cause. I fear, that too easy credit may be yielded 
 to a doctrine held forth by the claimant to martyr- 
 dom. The seal of blood has given an apparent 
 validity to many a position from which the assertors 
 had previously derived no glory. The stake, where 
 it has been the only argument, has sometimes been 
 considered as a very convincing one ; and a depart- 
 ure in flames has been thought to have revealed the 
 angel, where the precepts for which they are sus- 
 
157 
 
 tained has, perhaps, only shown forth the con- 
 temptible man.^ 
 
 Court, Have you, sir, dedicated much of your 
 time to the study of theology ? 
 
 Witness. No, my Lord, and any one who has 
 read my confutation of the Defendant's arguments 
 will soon perceive that I am altogether unread in 
 theological disputations. 
 
 Court. May I ask, then, what led you to take up 
 the subject ? 
 
 Witness. A gi-eat noise was excited by the 
 Defendant's surrender of his preferment, and still 
 greater on the consequent publication of his " Apo- 
 logy." Drawn by curiosity to look into this book, 
 I found, to my surprise, the design of it was not 
 barely to offer a vindication of the motives, conduct, 
 and sentiments of a private person ; but to assail 
 every fundamental doctrine of the Church, to de- 
 grade the God of our salvation, to snatch from us 
 the object of our religion, and to evince that Jesus 
 Christ is not one with the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost. With perfect freedom from prejudice, 
 nay, I am almost ashamed to confess, with the 
 first serious consideration of so important a point, 
 I sat down to read the Defendant's book ; and for 
 the truth of every position contained in it I ap- 
 pealed to the word of God itself, that I might 
 
 Scriptural Confutation, p. 5, 
 
158 
 
 learn how truly that word was advanced ; when, to 
 my utter astonishment, I soon found, that this was 
 the only book upon the subject which the Apo- 
 logist had not critically read ; and that, in every 
 particular, it directly opposed itself to him and to 
 his frequent quotations. Convinced, however, that 
 the Bible was the only guide to be depended upon, 
 I thought that reading it with attention would be 
 a sufficient preparative for writing ; that my very 
 ignorance in controversy would turn to account; 
 and that it might be considered as a corroborating 
 proof of the truth of what I should write ; and that 
 the Bible alone would be found sufficient for my 
 purpose : and, consequently, the Bible alone have 
 I consulted, without a single prejudice either of 
 my own, or borrowed from any other person. ^ 
 
 CouH. Very well, sir. 
 
 Att, Gen. How does the Defendant impugn 
 the doctrine of the Trinity ? 
 
 Witness. By declaring that the doctrine of a 
 Trinity in Unity is as new as the title given to it, 
 and that both name and title are unscriptural.^ 
 
 Att. Gen. What do you say to this ? 
 
 Witness. I deny it altogether ; for the name of 
 a sacred doctrine not being found in Scripture is 
 no proof against the doctrine itself being a true 
 one. We speak of God's omniscieiice, his onmi- 
 
 ' Scriptural Confutation, p. 221. ^ Apology, p. 12. 
 
159 
 
 potence, and his omnipreseiice ; and though such 
 words are not found in the Scriptures, yet no one 
 can deny that they are the attributes of God, and 
 that the Scriptures declare sucli attributes to be- 
 long to him. In the same manner, if we show, as 
 assuredly we can, that the attributes, the titles, 
 and the inherent power of the Supreme Being are 
 severally and clearly ascribed to the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, any word or name which will in- 
 clude and express all this may be used to desig- 
 nate what is thus found to be a Scripture doctrine. 
 " The Rose, by any other name, will smell as sweet." 
 
 Att, Gen. Well, sir ; but tell us what is the 
 general opinion of the Defendant, not merely in 
 respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, but of the 
 other mysterious doctrines and parts of Scripture ? 
 
 Witness. He lays it down as an undeniable 
 position that " Our Saviour Christ taught no mys- 
 terious doctrine ; " and he treats with contempt 
 every thing connected with the term mystery.^ 
 
 Alt. Gen. How do you answer this ? 
 
 Witness. By stating the difference between the 
 precepts and the doctrines of Scripture : the former, 
 as being clear and intelligible to all ; but the latter, 
 many of them mysterious, and are so declared to 
 be by the Apostles themselves. St. Paul, speaking 
 of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and him crucified, 
 
 ' Apology, p. 16. 
 
160 
 
 declares it not to be given or delivered "with the 
 enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstra- 
 tion of the Spirit ; that our faith might stand, not 
 in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God ; " — 
 and he further adds, " We speak the wisdom of 
 God in a mystery," and this, "by the Spirit of 
 God, by which alone the deep things of God are 
 searched." — " The Sph^it compares spiritual things 
 with spiritual, which things are foolishness to the 
 natural man, who receiveth not the things of the 
 Spirit of God." ^ — But clear as this seems to be, 
 the Apostle is even more explicit, where, speaking 
 of Christ, he says, " In him dwelleth all the fulness 
 of the Godhead bodily." ^ — Is not this a mystery? 
 Is not the Trinity declared to be a mysterious doc- 
 trine by St. Paul himself; for he says, " Without 
 controversy great is the mystery of Godliness. God 
 was made manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, 
 believed on in the world, received up into glory." ^ — 
 Here is the mysterious doctrine of the divinity and 
 incarnation of Christ, circumstantially discovered ; 
 the whole doctrine is here literally epitomised, and 
 the Father and Son are clearly declared to be the 
 same God.* 
 
 ' 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. 7. and 15. ^ Col. ii. 9. 
 
 3 1 Tim.iii. 16. 
 
 ^ St. Paul speaks of another mmtcrif, and a great one, when 
 
161 
 
 Att. Gen. Does the Defendant speak of the doc- 
 trine as derived from Plato ? 
 
 Witness. He does, and he goes so far as to say, 
 that it is achiondedged to be entirely of heathen 
 extraction, borrowed from Plato and the Platonic 
 philosophy ; and this being its true origin, it should 
 seem that a proper zeal for God's word, and regard 
 for Christ and his inspired Apostles, should make 
 us relax a little of our passion and vehemence 
 against those who scruple to use a language not 
 sanctified by their authority, in speaking of, and 
 addressing the great God.^ 
 
 Att. Gen. And do you admit this to be the 
 '' true origin " of the Trinity ? 
 
 Wit7iess. Decidedly not. To deduce the doc- 
 trine from the Platonic philosophy is as absurd as 
 to suppose the doctrine of the Unity of the God- 
 head is derived from Socrates, because, though 
 educated in a country where the unity of the Deity 
 was esteemed impious, that philosopher dared to 
 preach this imagination of his own brain.^ 
 
 Att. Gen. What does the Defendant say of the 
 nature of Christ ? 
 
 Witness. He would fain get rid of the testimony 
 
 he alludes to the union of Christ with his chui'ch, in the same 
 manner that man and wife, though two, are made one flesh. — 
 Eph. iv. 32. 
 
 ' Apol. p. 13. 2 Script. Confiit. p. 8. 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 of the Fathers and all other early Christian writers, 
 by saying ; " Authorities of men are nothing : it is 
 Holy Scripture alone which can decide the point, 
 and to which we must make our final appeal. But 
 if the matter is to be put to the vote as it were, it 
 is absolutely necessary that the less learned should 
 be told, what upon enquiry will be found to be 
 undeniably true, namely, that the Fathers of the 
 three first centuries, and consequently, all Christian 
 people, for upwards of three hundred years after 
 Christ till the Council of Nice, were generally 
 Unitarians, what is now called either Arian or So- 
 cinian, 2.^., such as held our Saviour Christ to 
 derive life and being, and all his powers, from God, 
 though with different sentiments concerning the 
 date of his original dignity and nature."^ 
 
 Jtt. Gen. What do you affirm or deny in this 
 declaration ? 
 
 Court, You hardly want more evidence upon 
 that point. 
 
 Wittiess, 1 do not profess to know much of the 
 sentiments, the opinions, or even the works, of the 
 early Christian writers ; I confine myself simply 
 to the Scriptures themselves. 
 
 Att, Ge?u Are there any passages involving any 
 particular doctrine of Scripture on which this De- 
 
 Apology, p. 23. 
 
163 
 
 fendant has commented, bearing upon the point at 
 issue, — I mean, the Trinity ? 
 
 Witness. There are many, but the principal one 
 is that which contains the command of Christ that 
 his disciples should " Go and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost." " This form of baptism," 
 says this Defendant, " which is made to contain a 
 mystery, is only a compendious summary of the 
 Gospel which Jesus had taught them, and into which 
 all men were to be initiated and instructed : that 
 religion which he received from God the Father, 
 which he, the Son, had preached, and which was 
 to be confirmed and propagated by the miraculous 
 powers of the Holy Spirit : and, from what Jesus 
 had taught, no other construction can be put upon 
 this baptismal commission."^ Now,this explanation, 
 I do not hesitate to say^ is the most absurd that 
 ever was committed to paper. Dust is here thrown 
 into the eyes, which not only pains the sight, but 
 renders objects distorted; for the same sacred 
 names into which Christians are commanded by 
 their Lord to be baptized, are the very same by 
 which the Apostles blessed their hearers ; and it 
 cannot be imagined possible for the people to do 
 otherwise than equally believe in those, in whose 
 names they are both baptized and blessed. They 
 
 ' Apology, p. 104. 
 M 2 
 
164 
 
 must believe that those who are called upon to 
 bestow graces and blessings upon them, are able 
 to give what they are thus taught to call upon them 
 for. And whatever is meant by baptizing in the 
 name of the Father^ Son, and Holy Ghost, it clearly 
 seems that these three are equally concerned in 
 what is done in that sacrament. Whether in this 
 form of baptism be signified, on the minister's part, 
 the authority or commission by which he acts in his 
 administration ; or whether, on the part of the 
 person baptized, be meant any ackno^idedgment or 
 confession, suhmission or dedication of himself; or 
 whether this phrase " in the name " (or, according 
 to the Greek, into the name) implies all this and 
 more ; the whole force and importance of the ex- 
 pression belongs, in the same extent, to Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, The jpo\soer and authority here 
 received is derived from all three: they are all 
 to be acknowledged as Authors of our Salvation ; 
 all infallible, and to be believed in what they teach ; 
 have all the same title to our submission and obe- 
 dience ; and are joint parties in the Covenant which 
 we make in baptism. The inference from all this 
 is very plain and easy ; — that if any one of these 
 terms signify God, they must all three signify God^ 
 and if all three signify God, they must all three 
 signify one and the same God ; for God is but 07ie, 
 Now that the One supreme God, the Lord and 
 Maker of all things, is here meant by the w^ord 
 
165 
 
 Father^ is a thing not questioned , and therefore 
 Son and Holy Ghost are terms expressive of the 
 same Divine Nature: for, let us for a moment 
 suppose^^^the direct contrary, that by So7i was meant 
 only a mere man, or some heavenly being of highest 
 rank under God ; and by Holy Ghost was signified 
 some created spirit, inferior to the Son, or that it 
 meant only the jpo^wer, the love, or the favour of 
 God, how strange would such a form of baptism 
 then appear, as this : — / baptize thee in the name 
 of God, Peter the Apostle, and the Love of God ! 
 or this : — / baptize thee in the name of God, 
 Michael the Archangel, and Raphael, a ministering 
 spirit ! The bare mention of such an exposition is 
 sufficient to show the absurdity and falsehood of it.^ 
 
 Att. Gen. Does the Defendant deny Christ to 
 be a proper object of worship ? 
 
 Witness. He does; for he says, our Saviour 
 Christ, in words as express as can be used, forbids 
 men offering prayer unto himself: — " In that day 
 ye shall ash me nothing : verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name^ 
 he will give it you." ^ Hitherto he had been all 
 along present with his disciples, as it were, in 
 God's stead? And he adds, " As Christ was now 
 
 1 Bishop Gastrell's Considerations on the Trinity. — En- 
 chiridion TheoL, vol. iii. p. 118. 
 
 ■2 Apology, p. 121. 3 Ibid. 
 
 M 3 
 
166 
 
 going to be withdrawn from them, he acquaints 
 them that, when that event took place, they were 
 no more to apply to him for any thing, but to the 
 Father (the Father of him and of them all) in his 
 name. 
 
 Att. Gen. What is the inference which you 
 yourself draw from these words of the Saviour ? 
 
 WitJiess, That, in their plain and obvious mean- 
 ing, they lead to the very opposite conclusion to 
 that drawn by the Defendant. Christ distinctly 
 said, " If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do 
 it.'* ' — "I go unto my Father ; and whatsoever 
 ye shall ask in my name, that mil I do, that the 
 Father may be glorified in the Son." - — But as a 
 still stronger confirmation of my assertion that 
 Christ is the proper object of worship, I will cite 
 the passage from the Acts of the Apostles, which 
 incontrovertibly proves it : — " They stoned Ste- 
 phen, calling upon God, and saying, ' Lord Jesus, 
 receive my spirit.' And he kneeled down, and 
 cried with a loud voice, ' Lord, lay not this sin to 
 their charge.' " ^ Here was present to the martyr's 
 sight, as he " looked up stedfastly into heaven," 
 both the glory of God, and " Jesus standing on 
 the right hand of God ; " that is, the holy She- 
 chinah, which the Jews knew to be the symbol of 
 
 » John, xiv. 14. 2 John, xiv. 13. 
 
 3 Acts, vii. 59, CO, 
 
 i 
 
167 
 
 Jehovah^s presence, and also Jesus: and we find 
 that, in the tortures of a cruel death, St. Stephen 
 does not call upon, does not invoke God, but the 
 Lord Jesus, into whose hands he commended his 
 departing spirit. He could not thus have invoked 
 him, had Jesus been a creature even in this highest 
 state of exaltation. That same Christ had said 
 to Satan, " It is WTitten, thou shalt worship the 
 Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." ^ — 
 " Worship God," said the angel to St. John ^ ; 
 but our Saviour did not say so to Stephen, nor 
 did he refer him to that God whose glory was be- 
 fore his eyes ; and therefore I am justified in con- 
 cluding that it was God, and God only, whom 
 Stephen worshipped in the person of Jesus Christ.^ 
 
 Alt. Gen, What does the Defendant affirm 
 respecting the Holy Ghost, the Comforter ? 
 
 Witness. He says, " The promise of the Holy 
 Spirit to the Apostles has been much mistaken ; 
 and the mistake concerning it has, unhappily, 
 contributed to bring into the Christian Church a 
 new object of worship, a third Divine Person, un- 
 known to the Jews entirely, and to Christians for 
 the three Jirst centuries; but our Lord speaks of 
 the Spirit as a person only, in the same manner as 
 wisdom (Prov. viii.) and charity (1 Cor. xiii.) have 
 
 ' Luke, iv. 8. - Rev. xxii. 9. 
 
 ^ See Script. Confut. p. 82. 
 M 4 
 
168 
 
 personal acts attributed to them : " and he adds : 
 " In the New Testament, where we have an ac- 
 count of the fulfihnent of this promise of Christ, 
 and of the particular mission of the Holy Spirit, 
 we do not find any intelligent agent or person 
 introduced." ^ 
 
 Att. Gen. How do you answer this ? 
 
 Witiiess. Our Saviour, when about to leave the 
 world, gave his disciples the promise that they 
 should not be left either comfortless, or left alone. 
 He promises them the Paraclete, the Comforter, 
 that is, the Holy Ghost. " I will pray the Fa- 
 ther," he says, " and he shall give you another 
 Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, 
 even the Spirit of truth." llien he shows that 
 this Comforter will be himself: — '*/ will not leave 
 you comfortless, I mil come to you" " Where two 
 or three are gathered together in my name, there 
 am / in the midst of them." - Then he proceeds 
 to show that the Comforter is both himself and 
 God : — "If a man love me, he will keep my 
 words ; and my Father will love him, and we mil 
 come unto him, and make our abode mlh him." ^ 
 Here the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, 
 are (or is) the Comforter ; the witness to the Truth, 
 which shall come and abide, or make abode, with 
 
 ' Sequel to Apology, p. 180. ^ Matt, xviii. 20. 
 
 3 John, xiv. 17, 18. 
 
169 
 
 him who loveth the Son, and keepeth his word. 
 The identity of the Godhead, of the Holy Spirit 
 with that of the Father and of the Son, is here 
 expressly declared. And I would caution all men 
 to beware how they reject or blaspheme the Com- 
 forter, by denying his personality with the Father 
 and the Son in the Godhead; remembering, that 
 " all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, 
 and blasphemies wherewith soever they blas- 
 pheme ; but he that shall blaspheme against the 
 Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness." ^ More- 
 over, " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
 whom the Father will send in my name,"- is a 
 title which evidently cannot, with any degree of 
 propriety, apply to a human or corporeal teacher ; 
 but it is also as evident, on the face of the asser- 
 tion, and according to its literal tenour, that not 
 only a spiritual effect or influence, but an intel- 
 ligent and personal agent, is intended, by whom 
 those graces were to be dispensed which should 
 entitle him to the name of Comforter. And there 
 are many passages of Scripture in which the per- 
 son thus designated is adorned with the most 
 striking and tremendous attributes of the Deity. 
 He is spoken of as omnipresent : — " Whither shall 
 I go from thy Spirit ? " — as all-knowing, " The 
 
 1 Mark, iii. 29. 
 
 2 John, xiv. 26. See Script. Confut. p. 209. 
 
170 
 
 Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of 
 God : " — to lie to him is to lie to God : — " Thou 
 hast not lied unto men, but unto God ; " — to blas- 
 pheme him is a crime the most awful in its guilt 
 and consequences of which human nature is ca- 
 pable ; and the inspiration of the prophets, which 
 is, in some passages of Scripture, imputed to the 
 Holy Ghost, is, in others, ascribed to the Al- 
 mighty. " The Holy Ghost saith. To-day, if ye 
 will hear his voice ;" — and, " All Scripture is given 
 by the inspiration of God." ^ 
 
 Att, Gen. How does the Defendant, in his writ- 
 ings, evade the manifest and multifarious proofs 
 of the divinity of Christ with which the Gospel of 
 John abounds ? 
 
 Witness. He says, that " this Evangelist does 
 not describe Christ in any other capacity but 
 as a man extraordinarily commissioned and em- 
 powered by God, nor does he intimate any prior 
 existence belorging to him before his birth of 
 Mary."^ Now, our Saviour says of the Father, 
 "Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the 
 world ; " ^ and to the Jews, " Ye are from beneath : 
 I am from above." "^ " Wliat if ye shall see the 
 Son of Man ascend up where he was hefore^^ ^ to 
 
 1 Bishop Heber's Personality and Office of the Comforter, 
 p. 36. 
 
 2 Sequel to Apology, p. 196. 3 John xvii. 24. 
 4 John viii. 23. ^ John vi. 62. 
 
171 
 
 be glorified "with the glory which I had with the 
 Father before the nx>orld was P " ' If this testimony 
 of our Saviour, which he thus bears to himself, 
 be true, and if the testimony, borne by the Holy 
 Ghost, to which he refers enquirers into his nature, 
 be credible, and if these testimonies unite with 
 that of David 2, in declaring Jesus Christ to be 
 God from everlasting, I see not how a doubt can 
 be entertained either of his divinity or his equality 
 with the Father ; but if his having appeared clothed 
 with flesh among men, as a man; if his sympathetic 
 tears ; if his apprehensive agonies and prayers to 
 have the cup of evil put away from him ; if his 
 having fallen under the severest afflictions, and even 
 having suffered an ignominious death, added to his 
 own testimony and that of the Holy Ghost, be 
 admitted as evidence that he was man, I see not 
 how a doubt can be entertained that he was man 
 inferior to God, as we are inferior to him ; and 
 if these both be admitted, it must necessarHy 
 follow that Jesus Chi'ist is both God and man: 
 But if both God and man, I do not see the force 
 of the objection to his Godhead, that he has acted 
 and suffered as man, particularly as he was, what 
 
 1 John xvii. 5. 
 
 '2 « Thy throne is established of old, thou art from ever- 
 lasting ; " this and other parts of the ninety-third Psalm are 
 universally acknowledged, and even by the Jews themselves, 
 to relate to Christ, the Messiah, the Eternal King. 
 
172 
 
 man never was and God ever is, — free from sin. 
 It is no objection to his Godhead, that he refers 
 the preservation of his human nature to the power 
 which is alone equal to preserve it, — that he prays, 
 as a man, in behalf of the world with which he 
 sympathises, — that he declares his human nature 
 and the man Jesus to be a messenger to man, and 
 acting with power derived from God. For as I 
 believe that men, who made a difficulty of believing 
 any union between two natures being possible, will 
 hardly insist upon their own capacity to explain 
 the manner of it, or to show that, upon such a 
 union, so much of the divinity is derived to the 
 manhood of Christ, as to render it independent of 
 God, and able to act for its own purposes without 
 further application than the exertion of this derived 
 power ; so I will not admit of their explanations of 
 our Saviour's prayers and declarations that he was 
 sent : for these prayers were breathed by the man 
 Jesus ; and this commission to die for and to 
 adopt a world, was given to the human nature by 
 God, and not to the divine nature of Christ, which 
 was itself the power, one with the Father, God 
 Almighty, which had so sent forth this "mm 
 without sin " to atone for us. I am far from saying, 
 that I am myself able to explain this union ; God 
 forbid : but that I am not able to explore the ways 
 of an Almighty God, whose mere creature I am, is 
 not a reason why I should doubt his word, when 
 
17S 
 
 he is pleased to reveal any part of his ways to me. 
 We are told that " the ways of God are not our ways, 
 nor his thoughts our thoughts; " and that "he is past 
 finding out." Shall we then question the wisdom 
 which we cannot comprehend, merely because we 
 cannot understand it ? Were the Almighty pleased 
 to open the stores of his wisdom to our eyes, but 
 not to open our eyes with more extended faculties 
 for looking at them than we now enjoy, is it to be 
 conceived that we could comprehend them? I there- 
 fore readily grant the Defendant that Jesus Christ 
 formally professes his inferiority and dependence, 
 and that he received his human being and his 
 powers from God; but w^hat can he infer more 
 than I have already done, that, as man, the Man 
 Jesus was inferior to God; that is, having two 
 natures, one was greater, and, consequently, the 
 other was less ? Were I, in the midst of an argu- 
 ment proving the immortality of the soul of man, 
 to say, that I laboured under a lingering disease, 
 of which I feared that I should die, would the 
 Defendant say, I had confuted my own doctrine 
 of the soul's immortality ? Would he pronounce 
 that I meant that my soul should die ? Upon this 
 reasoning, he may equally, as in the case before us, 
 declare, that when Jesus Christ speaks as man, he 
 denies his Godhead.^ 
 
 See Scriptural Confutation, p. 25. 2' 
 
174 
 
 Court. Now, then, Defendants, if any of you be 
 disposed to question this witness, you may proceed. 
 
 Lindsey. In reply to what this witness has ad- 
 vanced, I have first to state, my Lord, that to 
 the doctrine called the Trinity I object, as not 
 being revealed by Scripture ; and if it were one of 
 such vital importance as the Attorney-General and 
 the several Witnesses represent it, it seems only 
 reasonable to expect that what constitutes the 
 leading point of Christianity should be clearly and 
 unequivocally defined. If it were, indeed, required 
 as an article of Christian belief. Christians of the 
 dullest faculties, in all justice, should be possessed 
 of sufficient ability to comprehend it. That the 
 doctrine is mysterious, all who hear any thing of 
 it must admit ; but my words respecting mysteries 
 have been wantonly misunderstood : my own ex- 
 pression and my own belief is, that " our Saviour 
 Christ teaches no mysterious doctrine." And I 
 bes: to ask the witness, whether what he has de- 
 clared as the doctrines of Christ are not the 
 doctrines of the Apostles ; and of the Apostles I 
 have not said that they taught no mysteries. 
 
 Witness. What I have before stated, at all events, 
 refers to the belief of the Apostles, who declared 
 many of the doctrines of Christianity mysterious ; 
 and particularly that which relates to the divinity 
 of Christ ; and upon this ground alone your argu- 
 ments fall : but I moreover maintain, that the 
 
175 
 
 deep and mysterious doctrine of the incarnation, 
 and previous divinity of Christ is insisted upon 
 by our Saviour himself; for, as I have ah-eady 
 mentioned, he declares that God " lov^ed him 
 before the foundation of the world ; " — that " he 
 had a glory with the Father before the world was;" 
 — that he spake "what he had seen with the Father, 
 whom no man had seen but himself alone ; " — that 
 *' he came down from heaven to do the will of 
 him that sent him ; " — that " he came forth from 
 the Father, and came into the world, and was to 
 leave the world, and go to the Father ; " — that " he 
 should be seen ascending up where he was be- 
 fore." — And because the Jews cavilled when he 
 observed, that Abraham saw his day with joy, 
 he adds, " Before Abraham was, I am." It is true 
 that he calls himself a man ; but this no more ex- 
 cludes his divine nature, than the application of that 
 term to angels excludes their angelic nature.^ 
 
 Lindsey, Again, my Lord, with respect to the 
 term Trinity, it is one which none have a right to 
 assume as the designation of a doctrine of Chris- 
 tianity, when the doctrine itself is, at best, but 
 
 ' This paragraph is taken from Archbishop Newcome's ob- 
 servations on the conduct of our Lord, sect. ii. p. 6. ; and 
 shows what was that Prelate's belief respecting the divinity of 
 Christ ; although the editors of " the Improved Version " 
 conspicuously place his name in their titlepage, as if he were 
 a favourer of a very different doctrine. 
 
176 
 
 questionable ; and I beg to ask the witness whether 
 Luther or Calvin did not both of them condemn 
 the term ? and with them I agree in considering it 
 barbarous, insipid, and profane; a human invention, 
 grounded on no testimony of God.^ 
 
 Witness. I answer, that Luther and Calvin 
 should prefer addressing prayer to God Almighty, 
 in the name and through the merits of Christ in 
 preference to the Trinity, by no means impugns 
 their belief in the doctrine itself. Were they not, 
 I ask, both of them believers, and strenuous as- 
 sertors of this article of belief? However Luther 
 might prefer praying to God, rather than to the 
 Trinity, it is quite clear that he looked upon the 
 words as synonymous ; and did not Calvin demon- 
 strate the sincerity and earnestness of the same 
 belief, by that horrible proof which he gave in 
 bringing Servetus to the stake for opposing it ? - 
 
 Lindsey, With respect, also, to the argument 
 of the witness grounded on the form of baptism, I 
 
 1 Apol. p. 18. The word Trbiitij was first used for mere 
 convenience, to avoid the repetition of Father^ Son, and Holi/ 
 Ghost. It does not imply that the three persons are divine ; 
 it only implies that, in Scripture, they are so frequently men- 
 tioned together as to make it desirable to have a collective 
 name for them. In the same manner, the word Triumvirate 
 was used to avoid the repetition of Pompey, Ccesary and 
 CrassuSy or of Octaviiis, Anthony, and Lepidns, — Hey's Lect. 
 vol.ii. p. 226. and 259. 
 
 - Script. Confut, p. 1 1. 
 
177 
 
 take the liberty to ask him, whether the Apostles 
 baptized in any other name than simply that of 
 Christ? Peter says, "Be baptized every one of 
 you, in the name of Jesus Christ;" — or when Philip 
 baptized the great officer of the queen of Ethiopia, 
 the confession of faith which he made, and with 
 which Philip w^as satisfied, w^as, " I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is The Son of God." ^ — Now, directly 
 contrary to this, the Nicene Council pronounces 
 that baptism to be nugatory which is not per- 
 formed in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost.^ 
 
 Witness. Hold, hold ! To be baptized in the 
 name of Christ was most essential to be observed 
 then, that the rite might be distinguished from 
 the baptism of John the forerunner. And it is 
 the generally received opinion, that these instances 
 of baptism in the name of Christ only, has no 
 meaning beyond that of a baptism into the faith 
 and religion of Jesus Christ, — that is, a baptism 
 into the Christian covenant: and considering the 
 fact, how unanimous most, if not all, the early Chris- 
 tian writers (not excepting Cyprian himself) have 
 been in denying that the Apostles ever baptized 
 in any different form from what our Lord pre- 
 scribed, it is concluded, that the Apostles baptized 
 all, Jew^s and Gentiles, in "the name of the Father, 
 
 1 Acts, viii. 37. ^ Apology, p. 105. 
 
178 
 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But 
 even granting that baptism was thus administered 
 in the name of Christ only, (which, however, I 
 deny) ; yet whatever it was, it was assuredly sanc- 
 tioned by our Lord, and has nothing to do with 
 that form and mode of administering the sacra- 
 ment, expressly commanded to be adopted by 
 his disciples after his ascent into heaven, when, 
 whatever he might have ordered before, he com- 
 missioned them to " go into all nations, and to 
 baptize every creature, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." You 
 admit however that when the Ethiopian officer was 
 baptized, Philip was satisfied with the confession 
 of faith which he made, by declaring his belief 
 that Jesus Christ was The Son of God. And a 
 noble confession it was. Had he believed Christ 
 to have been the Son of a God, or a Son of a God, 
 or to be a mere " child of God," in the common 
 acceptation of this term, this confession would 
 have applied to Philip himself, or to any other 
 good man. No : far from all this, the Ethiopian 
 convert w^as taught by Philip to confess and believe 
 that Christ was the Son of God, in that Iiigh and 
 divine sense which Christ assumed, and which his 
 Apostles acknowledged it to import, — in that high 
 sense which Peter felt when he said, " Thou 
 art the Christ, the Son of the living God ! " which 
 our Saviour declared to be, not the acknowledge- 
 
179 
 
 raent of flesh and blood, but the revelation of 
 the ffreat God of heaven : an acknowledojement 
 which was the very Rock on which the Church of 
 Christ is built, and against which the gates of hell 
 shall never prevail. 
 
 Lindsey. I still hold to this point, that because 
 the name of Christ and the name of the Holy 
 Spirit are added to that of the Father in this form 
 of baptism, they no more include or infer an 
 equality wdth God, than what Paul said to Ti- 
 mothy, " I charge thee, before God, and the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou 
 observe these things," implied an equality of di- 
 vinity, from the circumstances of the Angels and 
 Christ being named together with God.^ 
 
 Witness. Calling, as St. Paul thus did, upon a 
 minister to the strict discharge of his duty by 
 reminding him of the heavenly w^itnesses of his 
 actions, or by reminding him of that great day of 
 account when the testimony of these witnesses 
 would be adduced against him, is a matter totally 
 distinct from that of the present question; and, 
 I repeat it, that if by Son was meant a mere man 
 higher than an Angel, and by Holij Ghost was 
 signified any created being inferior to the Son, 
 that the form of baptism might as reasonably run 
 in the name of the Father, in the name of Michael 
 
 1 Apology, p. 107. 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 the archangel, and of Philip the deacon ; in short, 
 that it would be a most palpable absurdity. 
 
 Liindseif. It is useless to carry this point further : 
 but with respect to what I have written against 
 your assumed position, that Christ in Scripture is 
 made the object of divine worship, I repeat it, that 
 it is hardly possible for you, or for any one, by any 
 subterfuge or device, to evade or set aside the force 
 of our Saviour's own example and express precept 
 of offering prayer to the one God and heavenly 
 Father. I therefore call upon the witness to deny, 
 by argument and fact, that it is the sheer invention 
 of man, and not the declaration of Holy Writ, to 
 make the word Father signify both, what he calls, 
 the first person of the Trinity, and the divine 
 nature or essence containing the whole Trinity. 
 And I would further ask, when Christ prays, or 
 commands us to pray, to the Father, whether it is to 
 be understood of supplication to the whole Trinity ? 
 If so, the device is not only a weak one, but it 
 involves a long chain of contradictions ; for the 
 Apostles prayed, and directed others to pray to 
 God, and to God only.^ 
 
 Witness. I readily grant you that Christ, as 
 man, prayed to the Father, and as man he suffered, 
 and he commanded others to pray to the Father 
 in his name; but it is equally true that he said, 
 
 » Apology, p. 124. 
 
181 
 
 *' Whatsoever ye shall ask m my name, that mil I 
 do;" " If ye ask any thing in my name, / will do 
 it." ^ The term Father, as the sole object of 
 prayer, though it excludes only other gods, does 
 not exclude the So7i, because he is the same God. 
 The Father and the Son, though distinct persons 
 in the divine nature, are not separate, divided, per- 
 sons; and therefore, in a qualified sense, the Son is 
 the very self of the Father, another self, another 
 same ; distinct, and yet not different, one with the 
 Father, and undivided from him. The Father is 
 regarded as being first of the Unity, the head and 
 fountain of all, because he is the first in our con- 
 ception of God ; when, therefore, we speak of the 
 Almighty God, or the eternal God, the all-knomng 
 God, we primarily and principally mean the Father^ 
 tacitly including the other persons of the divine na- 
 ture. In strictness of speech, one God is the whole 
 Trinity, but we are compelled to speak in such 
 terms as the customary use of language supplies.^ 
 I have, however, shown that Christ taught that 
 prayer should be made unto him, and that he 
 would not only be present in the assemblies when 
 making supplication, that is, by the Holy Ghost, 
 but that what was asked faithfully in his name, he 
 ivotdd do it. St. Paul addresses one of his epistles 
 
 1 John, xiv. 13, 14. 
 
 "' See Waterland on the Divine Unity, vol. ii. p. 82. 
 
 N 3 
 
182 
 
 to " all that, in every place, call upon the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, both theirs and ours : " that is, 
 " whom we and all true Christians join in acknow- 
 ledging and adoring, as their Lord and ours." ^ 
 Ananias, speaking of Saul, says, " And here he 
 hath authority to bind all that call on thy name :" — 
 that is, "all who publicly avow the worship of 
 Christ ; " ^ — and afterwards, again, we read, "And 
 straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, 
 that he is The Son of God. But all that heard 
 him were amazed, and said. Is not this he that de- 
 stroyed them who called on this name P " that is, 
 evidently, they who called on the name of Christ. 
 And does not St. Paul expressly say, " Whosoever 
 shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved ?"^ 
 A text which furnishes us with a double argument 
 in favour of our Lord's divinity, for the Lord Jesus 
 Christ is, without doubt, the only one here men- 
 tioned.'* " But," continues the Apostle, " how^ shall 
 they call on him^ of whom they have not heard ? 
 and how shall they hear without a preacher ? " 
 Consequently, Christ is declared, by the Scriptures, 
 the object of invocation, a principal part of religious 
 adoration; and the man who desires to be saved 
 must " call upon him " by praj-er. 
 
 1 Doddridge in loc. 
 
 - Acts, ix. 14. Sec ITanimond in loc. 
 
 3 Rom.x. 13, 14. -1 Whitby in loc. 
 
183 
 
 Lindsey, But permit me to say to this, that the 
 phrase of " calhiig upon the name of Christ," is to 
 be taken passively, as denoting those who were 
 named by the name of Christ, or who were called 
 " Christians/' 
 
 Witness. But this cannot be. The name Christian ' 
 was not known in the world till some time after 
 St. Paul's conversion, when, as St. Luke expressly 
 informs us, " the disciples were called ' Christians * 
 first at Antioch : " whereas, before that time, they 
 were distinguished by the title of " those who 
 called on the name of Christ." {siriKaKoui/.svoi to 
 ovoi/.o(. Xpio-rou.) St. Paul says, " the same Lord is 
 rich to all who call upon him,'' " for whosoever 
 shall call on the name shall be saved." And Paul 
 himself, upon his conversion, was commanded " to 
 wash away his sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord." ^ " And here," says Origen, " the apostle 
 declares Him to be God, whose name was called 
 upon." 2 
 
 Lindsey. With respect to the case of the proto- 
 martyr St. Stephen, I think the words of his 
 prayer, or rather the 59th verse of Acts vii., may 
 well bear this signification, viz. " Stephen called 
 upon God, saying. Lord of Jesus, receive my spirit; 
 
 1 Acts, xxii. 16. 
 
 2 Origen, Com. in Rom. x. lib. 8. See Bishop Home's 
 discourse upon " Christ adored." 
 
 N 4 
 
184 
 
 for the use of the Greek word (eTnxaXsw) in the 
 Old and New Testament with ''Lord" or " God,'' 
 is so common, that either may be easily under- 
 stood and safely supplied.^ 
 
 Witness. I wholly protest against this alter- 
 ation: any scholar will show" j^ou that the strict 
 critical sense is otherwise. ^ We find the same 
 word and expression used in Genesis : — " Then 
 began men to call upon the name of the Lord;" — 
 " Abram built an altar at Bethel, and there called 
 upon the name of the Lord." ^ 
 
 Lindsey, Whether St. Stephen, at the sight of 
 his master Christ at God's right hand, called to 
 him, as he would have done had he seen him 
 working miracles here on earth, to help and assist 
 him; or whether St. Stephen, according to his 
 Master's rule and example, called upon God, the 
 God and Father of Jesus Christ, is not very ma- 
 terial to be determined either way : — 
 
 Witness. Of no consequence at all ; for neither 
 suppositions are true. 
 
 Lindsey. Be that, I say, as it may. The trans- 
 lators of the common version ought to have been 
 more impartial ; and instead of rendering the pas- 
 sage in question, " They stoned Stephen, calling 
 
 ' Sequel to Apology, p. 59. 2 Vide Schleusner in verb. 
 3 Compare 1 Pet. i. 17. 1 Cor. i. 2. STim.ii. 22.; also 
 Genesis iv. 26. and xii. 8. 
 
185 
 
 upon God^ and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my 
 spirit ; " it had been fairer and truer to have done 
 it thus : — " They stoned Stephen, calling (to Jesus, 
 whom he saw at God's right hand) and saying, O 
 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." ' 
 
 Witness. Every scholar knows that " calling 
 upon God," used in this instance, is the rendering 
 of the Greek word of which we have been speak- 
 ing, and which I have shown to signify involdng. 
 At all events, the matter resolves itself into what 
 I have stated in my evidence ; and the question 
 still arises, —Why did the martyr invoke Jesiis^ and 
 not God^ on whose right hand he stood ? 
 
 Lindsey, This vision might give a sudden turn 
 to his thoughts, and cause him to call out to Christ, 
 and not upon God, as his disciples once did in a 
 storm ; for they, and Stephen too, well knew his 
 power with God, and well they knew their own 
 duty Avas to call upon God for help in extremity ; 
 but being persuaded, like Martha, "that what- 
 ever Christ should ask of God, God would grant 
 it him," upon their seeing Christ, or being with 
 him, they might readily apply to him, whom they 
 knew to be in such favour with God : yet,^ — 
 
 Witness. My Lord, there is no end to the sup- 
 positions which may be made by those determined 
 
 Sequel to Apology, p. Gl. - Ibid. 
 
upon making an escape from what they are re- 
 solved not to believe. 
 
 Ccnirt, Defendant, you do your cause no good 
 by these subterfuges. You have admitted that St. 
 Stephen at all events said the words, " O Lord 
 Jesus, receive my spirit ; " and there stop. 
 
 Lindsey. Permit me, then, my Lord, to add, 
 that St. Stephen, when he surrendered his life and 
 said, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," meant, 
 " Lord Jesus, receive my life, which I give up in 
 thy cause ; " after which he betakes himself pro- 
 perly to address, not Jesus, but God, copying the 
 example of Jesus when expiring by a violent and 
 unjust death : and " he kneeled down and cried 
 with a loud voice. Lord, lay not this sin to their 
 charge." ^ 
 
 Court. The distorted meaning which you en- 
 deavour to put upon the words by which Stephen 
 commends his soul to Christ, as Christ commended 
 his to God, cannot be admitted ; besides, the last 
 part of the prayer is addressed to the same being 
 as the first. 
 
 Lindsey. Be it so, my Lord ; still I will contend 
 that, as this invocation was made by the martyr 
 looking upon Jesus, it offers no precedent for mak- 
 ing prayer to him now that he is invisible. He 
 
 Sequel to Apology, p. 61. 
 
187 
 
 was then So7i of Man ; consider, ^on of Man, and 
 God Most High ! — *i<Dhat a space heU^een ! ^ 
 
 Witness, Do you conceive the actions of an 
 Almighty God to be limited to your comprehen- 
 sion, and that the space beyond your faculties 
 cannot be passed ? I will take you at your own 
 word, — " The authorities of men are nothing ; it 
 is Holy Scripture alone which can decide the im- 
 portant point, and to that we must make our final 
 appeal : " and from these Scriptures I find that 
 God has put his own nature into union with that 
 of man ; and I will believe this, though neither 
 any of the Defendants nor I, know, nor can know, 
 anything of the matter. Now, whether the vision 
 of God and of Jesus at his right hand were all the 
 time, (both in the council and out of the city where 
 Stephen was stoned,) before the martyr's eyes or 
 not, still the glory of God and the Son of Man 
 had appeared, and Stephen passed down from 
 God Most High, through that immense space, to 
 the Son of Man, conducted by the Holy Ghost, 
 sent to " guide him into all truth," to supplicate 
 Jesus ; seeing, as he did, that the Lord Jesus, into 
 whose hands he commended his spirit, was the 
 same Almighty God to whom David, by the 
 guidance of the same Spirit, had said, " Into thine 
 hand I commit my spirit : thou hast redeemed me, 
 
 , 1 Apology, p. 129. 
 
188 
 
 O Lord God of truth ! " ^ — Now, according to the 
 Defendants' argument, Christ was worshipped 
 when he was present ; but he cannot be so when 
 he is mvisible.- How can this be, if Jesus Christ, 
 even in his highest state of exaltation, be but a 
 fellow-creature ? If the command be, and if it is 
 the duty of a Christian, to w^orship God only^ I 
 own myself too blind to discern how the visibility 
 of any creature should supersede the command- 
 ment, and alter the unchangeable law, of God. 
 The angel was visible to St. John,'^ yet he was 
 restrained from worshipping him, which was not 
 done by Christ to his adorer. It is evident, then, 
 that Stephen worshipped God, and God only, in 
 the person of Jesus Christ, one with the Father, God. 
 The word " Got?," acknowledged by the trans- 
 lators of our common version, shows how they 
 understood the passage before us ; and though I 
 do not choose to make use of human authority, I 
 cannot avoid here publicly declaring that I con- 
 sider this conclusion, drawn by men of great 
 abilities, and employed in the most diligent perusal 
 of the w^hole Bible, as more than a balance to 
 every assertion made by the Defendants in the 
 
 1 Psalm xxxi. 5. 
 
 '^ The editors of the Improved Version vii'tually say the 
 same, for they adduce this argument of Lindsey's, in a note, 
 to explain the text of Acts, vii. b^. 
 
 3 Rev. xxii. 9. 
 
189 
 
 establishment of their system, by wresting half 
 sentences to their own particular ends and pur- 
 poses. Christ and God, the Father and the Son, 
 are one God ; " a God at hand, and not a God 
 afar off." 
 
 Court, Well, well : — you need not proceed any 
 farther in this strain. The jury and myself are 
 now in full possession of the sentiments of the 
 Defendants on the subject of the worship to be 
 paid, or not to be offered to Christ. Defendants, 
 you must proceed to some other topic springing 
 from the evidence which this witness has given, if 
 you have more on which to question him. 
 
 Lindsei/. Then, my Lord, I go on to say, that 
 the witness has not disproved my assertion wath 
 respect to what Trinitarians have affirmed of the 
 personality and office of the Comforter, or Holy 
 Ghost ; for I repeat it, that as a divine person, he 
 was unknown as such both by the Jews entirely, 
 and by the Christians of the three first centuries. 
 
 Witness, It does not quite come into my pro- 
 vince to answer these questions : there are others 
 who are present much better qualified than myself 
 to explain them. 
 
 Att, Gen. My Lord, will the Court permit me 
 to recall Horsley and Burton upon these points ? 
 
 Court. Stop. — Lindsey, the witness has said 
 that on these subjects he does not feel himself 
 qualified to speak. I do not know if it be of much 
 
190 
 
 consequence to have the questions answered which 
 you have put ; but if you think it necessary, I will 
 call others to do this. Consider, therefore, whether 
 you judge it desirable for your defence. 
 
 Lindsey. I candidly say that it will make for 
 our cause, if we can show that what I assert cannot 
 be denied. 
 
 Court. But then it will make more against you, 
 if they should prove the contrary. 
 
 Liiidsey. I do not fear it, my Lord ; and to 
 show the Court that we are candid enquirers after 
 truth, I beg to say, that I desire they may be called. 
 
 Court. Then call Horsley. — Horsley, the De- 
 fendant states that the Jews were entirely ignorant 
 of the personality and office of the Paraclete, or 
 the Comforter ; they deny that the Holy Spirit is 
 any other than a figurative personification of the 
 power by which ancient prophets had been inspired 
 to do miracles and to deliver the oracles of God.^ 
 
 Horsley. Christ himself promised his disciples, 
 that " when he should leave them to return to the 
 Father, he would send them another Comforter, to 
 abide with them for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, 
 who should lead them into all truth ; " give them 
 just views of that scheme of mercy which they were 
 to publish to the world ; a right understanding of 
 the ancient prophecies ; a discernment of their 
 
 1 Sequel to Apology, p. 181. 
 
191 
 
 true completion in the person of Christ, and the 
 establishment of his religion ; bring all things to 
 their remembrance which Christ had told them, 
 and supply them, without previous study or medi- 
 tation of their own, with a ready and commanding 
 eloquence, when they should be called to make the 
 apology of the Christian faith before kings and 
 rulers. But this Comforter, he told them, could 
 not come before his own departure ; and this was 
 agreeable to ancient prophecy. David, in the 
 sixty-eighth Psalm, predicting, according to St. 
 Paul's interpretation of the passage, these mira- 
 culous gifts of the Spirit, speaks of them as sub- 
 sequent to the Messiah's ascension, — " Thou hast 
 ascended up on high, thou hast led captivity cap- 
 tive, thou hast received gifts for men." What these 
 mfts should be, is declared in the conclusion of the 
 verse, — " that the Lord God may dticell among themJ^ 
 This dwelling of God must signify more than God's 
 residence in the Jewish sanctuary; for, whatever 
 might have been in the mind of the prophet, the 
 prophetic spirit looked forward to later times. It 
 cannot signify the Son^s dwelling among men when 
 he came to preach the doctrine of life, and to pay 
 the forfeit of their crimes, because it is described as 
 sidfsequent to his ascension. It can signify, there- 
 fore, no other dwelling of God than the residence 
 of the Holy Spirit in the Christian church. I must 
 not pass over this passage of the Psalmist without 
 
192 
 
 remarking, that the original word, which is rendered 
 Lord, — " that the Z/Orc?may dwell among them," is 
 Jah, one of the proper names of God, of the same 
 etymology and import with the name Jehovah, of 
 which, indeed, some have thought it only an abbre- 
 viation. Here, then, you have an instance of a 
 name of the same kind equally proper to the Deity, 
 applied to the Holy Ghost, provided I am right in 
 the application of this clause to him. It may be 
 further observed, that the prophet Jeremiah calls 
 the Holy Spirit " the finger of God, by which," he 
 says, " God's law is put into their inward parts, 
 and written in their hearts ; " " inscribed," as St. 
 Paul explains it, " not with ink, but hy the Sj)irit 
 of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in the 
 fleshy tables of the heart." "^ 
 
 Court. Now, sir, state w^hether it be the fact 
 that the Holy Ghost, oi- Spirit, was unknown to 
 the Christians of the three first centuries, as a 
 person. 
 
 Horsley, This question I can fully and satis- 
 factorily answer from the works of Dr. Waterland. 
 He says that Justin Martyr thus repels the charge 
 of being an Atheist : — " We confess, indeed, that, 
 in respect of such reputed gods, we are Atheists ; 
 
 1 Horsley's sermon upon " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of 
 God," &c. 
 
 2 Jerem. xxxi. 33. 2 Cor. iii. 3. 
 
193 
 
 but not in respect of the most true God, untainted 
 with evil, the Father of righteousness and sober- 
 ness, and of other virtues : Him, and his Son that 
 came from him, and the Prophetic Spirit, we wor- 
 ship and adore, honouring them in spirit {reason) 
 and in truth." ^ — Athenagoras repels the same 
 charge, " Who would not be astonished to hear 
 us called Atheists, who acknowledge the Father as 
 God, and the Son, God, and the Holy Ghost, as- 
 serting their union of power (or pcwer of wiion) 
 and distinction of order." -— Clemens of Alexandria 
 gives us a kind of short baptismal creed, as it seem.s, 
 in these words, "One Father of the whole uni- 
 verse, and One Word of the whole universe, and 
 the Holy Ghost one, the same every where." ^ — 
 And to assure us that he looked upon all three as 
 one God, he further says, " Let us give thanks to 
 the only Father and Son, Son and Father, to the 
 Son our Teacher and Master, together with the 
 Holy Ghost, one in all respects ; in whom are all 
 
 ' Uvevixd re to 7rpo(pT]TiK6v (Tfgojut^rt, Kai irpoaKwovixeVy Xoy<f> 
 Kai aXr]9dq, Ti[iCjvreg. — Apol. i. C 6. p. 11. 
 
 2 Tig ovv ovK av aTroprjtrai, Xeyovrag Qtbv Uarspay Kai 'Yibv 
 OebVy Kai Uvevfia" Ay lOVy ceiKVVVTag avroiv Kai ti)v tv ry tva^ati 
 dvvaniv, Kai Tt)v iv ry ralti haiptmv^ aKOvtrag aOkovg KaXovfxs- 
 vovg. — Legat. c. 10. p. 40. 
 
 3 Kig ixtv 6 tS)V bXwv Rarrip' cte ^£ f^f^^*- » t^'^ '^^^'^ Aoyof koi 
 TO nvfi'/ta r6"Aytov tV, Kai to avrb TravTaxov. p. 123. 
 
 O 
 
194 
 
 things, — to whom be glory both now and for ever." ^ 
 Tertullian tells us plamly and concisely, that the 
 " Father is God, and the So7i, God, and the Hob/ 
 Ghost, God ; and every one singly God, and all to- 
 gether make one GodJ' ^ And he adds, that this doc- 
 trine is, in a manner, the prime article of the Gos« 
 pel, the very sum and substance of Christianity.^ 
 Hippolytus says. The Word of the Father gave 
 his disciples orders after his resurrection, to this 
 purpose, " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; " — 
 signifying, that whosoever should leave out any one 
 of the three, would fall short of honouring God 
 perfectly; for by this Trinity, the Father is ho- 
 noured.'^ — Origen speaks of baptism to the same 
 effect : "It is, by virtue of the invocations there 
 made, the spring and fountain of spiritual graces, to 
 every one that dedicates himself to the Divinity (or 
 Godhead) of the adorable Trinity,^ — And next I 
 
 1 — avv Kai T(^ 'Ay/t^j nvevjxaTL' Tzavra T(p hn' Iv <^ to. Tcavra^ 
 — Peed, l.iii. p. 311. 
 
 « Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et 
 Deus unusquisque. — Cont. Prax. c. 13. 
 
 3 Pater et Filius et Spii'itiis tres crediti unum Deum sis- 
 tunt. C.31. 
 
 4 Aid yap Tpiddog TavTt)Q UarTjp do^d^eTai. — Contr. Noet. 
 c. 14. p. 16. 
 
 5 T^ sfiTrepexovTi eavrbv tij ^uot^tl tT]q dwajneiog twv Tijg 
 TrpotTKVvriTrjQ TpidSog t7riK\r](7Hov iartv rj x<^p^<^l^ciTit)v ^aicjv dpxn 
 <ai Tnjyr], — Com. in Joan, p, 124. 
 
19.5 
 
 subjoin that remarkable passage of Cyprian (who 
 wrote A. D. 250.). Arguing for the invalidity of 
 heretical baptisms, he asks, how any person so 
 baptized can be supposed to obtain remission of 
 sins, and become the Temj^le of God P For, says 
 he, " Of what God {of "jchich of the divine persons) 
 is he made the temple ? Is it of {God) the Creator ? 
 He cannot be so without believing in him. Is it 
 of Christ? Impossible that any should be his 
 Temple who denies Christ to he God. Is it then of 
 the Holy Ghost? But since those three are one, 
 how is it possible that he should be at peace with 
 the Holy Ghost, while he is at enmity either with 
 the Father or the Son?" ^ — And, lastly, I adduce 
 Dionysius of Rome, who sums up the Christian 
 doctrine in these words : — " The divine Logos 
 must of necessity be united to the God of the uni- 
 verse ; and the Holy Ghost must abide and dwell 
 in God ; and the divine Trinity must of necessity- 
 be conceived to be gathered together and collected, 
 as it were, into one head, namely, into the God of 
 
 1 Si baptizari qiiis apud haereticos potuit ; utique et remis- 
 sam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam 
 consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus 
 est ; qusero cujus Dei ? Si Creatoris, non potuit qui in euin 
 non credidit ; si Christi, nee hujus fieri potest templum, qui 
 negaf Deum Christum: si Sjnritus Sancti ; cum tres unum si?if, 
 quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut 
 Patris, aut Filii inimicus est ? — Ad Jub. Ep. 73. p. 203, 
 o 2 
 
196 
 
 the universe, the Almighty." ^ — While Dionysius 
 of Alexandria expresses the same thing in these few 
 words, — " We extend the Uniti/ without dividing 
 it into a TrinUy ; and again, we contract the Trinity 
 without taking from it the Unity ;''^ ' — which passage 
 might be rendered still more concise thus: — The 
 undivided Monad we extend to a Triad ; and again, 
 the undiminished Triad we collect into a MonadJ^ 
 Here, then, I have clearly proved that the Chris- 
 tians of the three first centuries not only knew and 
 acknowledged the Holy Ghost as one of the God- 
 head having a personality and office ; but I have 
 at the same time shown that the form of baptism 
 given by our Saviour was a dedication of the bap- 
 tized into the names of three divine persons, or 
 into the names of three persons, each of which is 
 God. 
 
 Court. That is sufficient. 
 
 Belshain. My Lord, may I be permited to put 
 one question more to this witness ? 
 Court, You may. 
 
 ' "H^i; Kal Tt)i> ^tiav Tpidca tig tVa, ojffTrep eig Kopv(!>r]V Tiva, 
 Tov Qtbv TU)v oXujv TOP iravTOKparopa Xkyit). — Apud Athan. i. 
 p. 231. 
 
 2 'HjUfTf iig T?) T7)v Tpid^a t>)v Movdca TrXarvvofiSv dha'iptroVy 
 Kal Ty)v TpidSa TrdXiv dfidiorov elg t))v MovdSa avyKe<paXaiovni9a. 
 — Apud Athan. vol. i. p. 255. 
 
 3 Waterland's Seventh Sermon on Christ's Di\anity, vol. ii. 
 p. 187. 
 
197 
 
 Belsfiam. Tlien, as the Attorney -General seems 
 purposely to have avoided asking the witnesses for 
 an explanation of that remarkable passage of St. 
 Mark, in which that Evangelist says that our 
 Saviour, when asked by his disciples when the ge- 
 neral judgment should come, replied, *' Of that 
 day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
 Angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but 
 the Father," Now, Mr. Lindsey claims this as a 
 proof that the Father and Son are not equal, for 
 it is clear that he was ignorant of some things ; ^ 
 to which declaration we also subscribe, alleging, 
 with him, that at least Christ is not God, because 
 his knowledge is limited. ^ I, therefore, call upon 
 this witness to refute this argument if he can ; 
 because, as I feel convinced he logically cannot, 
 it will go far to prove that we are the soundest 
 Christians. 
 
 Att. Gen. I beg to say I had not overlooked 
 nor avoided this ; for I know it to be the strong- 
 hold of the Defendants, and as in every battle 
 the defeated enemy, before he yields, throws himself 
 into the place which offers the greatest security, 
 so I conceive the position is taken by the De- 
 fendant as his ultimate resource; and, with per- 
 
 Sequel to Apology, p. 173. 
 Improved Version, Mark, xiii. 32. note. 
 O 3 
 
198 
 
 mission of the Court, I request the witness to 
 answer the pohit. 
 
 Horsley. This difficulty I meet by quoting the 
 able solution of it given by an eminent scholar 
 and deep theologian. Here, then, are the two 
 passages from the Evangelists : — " Of that day 
 and hour knoweth no man, not the Angels in 
 heaven, but my Fatlier only : " so says St. Mat- 
 thew ' ; but St. Mark is supposed to go farther 
 than this : — " Of that day and hour knoweth no 
 man, no, not the Angels which are in heaven, 
 neither the Son, but the Father." These texts 
 prove nothing at all against the perfect knowledge, 
 or strict omiiiscience, of the divme nature of Christ. 
 It is not said, the Son of God knew not the day of 
 judgment ; but, the Son, that is (as it appears in 
 the context in both Evangelists ^) the Son of Man. 
 And it is well observed by Athanasius, that when 
 our Lord says, — " knoweth no man, not the Angels, 
 neither the Son," — he does not, after the Angels, 
 add, neither the Holy Ghost ; because, if the Holy 
 Ghost knew the day, well also might God the Son 
 know it ; and, therefore, what is here said of the 
 Son, relates to the Son of Ma?i only. 
 
 Belsham. In truth and sincerity it cannot be 
 said of Christ that he was ignorant of the day, if 
 
 » IVIatt. xxiv. 36. 
 
 ^ See Mark, xiii. 26. 3:1-. and Matt. xxiv. 37. 39. 
 
199 
 
 he knew it in ani/ capacity. If, as you contend, 
 he knew it as Son of God, he knew it also as Son 
 of Man : in the same manner, you cannot deny 
 that man is immortal, so long as he is immortal in 
 any respect or capacity. 
 
 Horsley. I beg your pardon. You may say truly 
 of the body of man, that it is not immortal, though 
 the wul be immortal ; and in the same manner 
 and with equal truth, you may say that the Son of 
 Man is not omniscient, though the Son ofGodknew 
 every thing. And as Christ may speak of himself 
 either as Son of God or as Son of Man, it is not 
 inconsistent with truth and sincerity for him to 
 deny that he knew, what he really did know in 
 one capacity, while he was ignorant of it in another. 
 Our Lord says, in one place, " Now I am no 
 more in the world," ^ — and in another place, " Ye 
 have the poor always with you ; but me, you have 
 not always ; " ^ — denying that he was, or should be, 
 any longer present with his disciples : which can 
 only be understood of his human nature and bodily 
 presence ; for in another respect, he elsewhere 
 says, " Lo ! I am with you akmy ; '* — and, " If 
 any man love me, ... my Father will love him, 
 and we will come unto him, and make our abode 
 with him." ^ — From hence we see that our Blessed 
 
 1 John, xvii. 2. ^ Matt. xxvi. 2. 
 
 3 Miitt. xxviii. 20. and John, xiv. 23, 
 o 4 
 
200 
 
 Lord might, without any breach of sincerity, deni/ 
 that of himself considered in one capacity, which 
 he could not have denied in another. He denies 
 the knowledge of the day of judgment only in 
 respect of his human nature ; in which respect, 
 also, he is said to have " increased in wisdom," ^ 
 the divine Logos having, with the human nature, 
 assumed the ignorance and other injirmities be- 
 longing to that nature. 
 
 Belsham, But observe the order preserved by 
 the Evangelists in both places, in mentioning first, 
 Man, then the Angels, then the Son, and then the 
 Father ; and this gradation requires us to under- 
 stand the Son as superior to the Angels. 
 
 Horsley. I answer to this, that the union of 
 the Son of Man with the Logos, and the particular 
 concern the Son of Man has in the last judgment, 
 when " He shall come in his glory, and all the 
 holy Angels with him," are sufficient to account 
 for the supposed climax or gradation. 
 
 Belsham. But not only the Son of Man, but 
 the Soil of God, and every other person whatever, 
 is excluded from the knowledge of the time of the 
 judgment, by the words, '' hut the Father," or, 
 " excepting the Father ow/j/." 
 
 Horsley. The exclusive term only is not to be 
 so interpreted as to exclude what essentially be- 
 
 ' Luke, ii. 52. 
 
'201 
 
 longs to the Father, and may be reckoned to hini, 
 as included in him, his Word, or Spirit. It is 
 said of God the Son, that he had a name written, 
 which no o?ie (ouSeij) knew, but he himself.'''' ^ Can 
 you infer from hence that the Father was ignorant 
 of that 7iame ? No : neither is it just nor reason- 
 able to infer from this place of St. Matthew that 
 the Soil was ignorant of the day of judgment. - 
 To preclude the curiosity of men, and to engage 
 their vigilance, Christ is pleased to tell them, that 
 no dispensation of God, either by man (as Daniel), 
 or by Angel, or, which is the highest, by the Son 
 of Man, had ordered us to know the times and the 
 seasons ; it being no part of the prophetic office, 
 or within the commission of Christ himself, as 
 Messiah, to reveal this secret to us.'^ 
 
 Belsham, I can neither admit your conclusion, 
 nor that the judgment spoken of refers to any 
 other than that about to fall upon Jerusalem and 
 the Jewish nation. I hold that Christ was not 
 omniscient, for he knew not the season when his 
 own prophecy, this judgment, should be fulfilled ; 
 and though it is said " he knew all things," it is 
 
 1 Rev. xix. 12. 
 
 2 Waterland's Seventh Sermon on Christ's Divinity, vol. if. 
 p. 163. 
 
 3 Hammond on Mark, xiii. 32. 
 
202 
 
 evident that the words are to be taken in a very 
 restricted sense. ^ But I have done. 
 
 Att, Gen, This, my Lord, is my case. 
 
 Court, Defendants, the time is now come w^hen 
 you are at liberty to enter upon your defence. 
 
 After some consultation among themselves, it was 
 signified to the Court that Mr, Belsham "would enter 
 upon the defence on the part of all of them. He 
 then hega7i hy saying : — 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, — I am called upon to 
 stand forth in defence of a body of Religionists, 
 who are actuated by as sincere and conscientious 
 motives as impel the minds and direct the conduct 
 of any Christian people upon earth, — by motives 
 sanctioned by that reason which heaven has im- 
 planted in our souls as the surest and safest guide 
 to truth. Gentlemen, a charge is made against 
 us, and is supported by all the arbitrary power of 
 which the law-officer of the Crown has been pos- 
 sessed from the dark and bigoted ages of our 
 history to the present time ; — a charge by which 
 the Unitarians are branded with the name of 
 libellers, and, by implication, blasphemers of that 
 Religion which our understandings convince us is 
 preserved pure and unadulterated in the system 
 
 • John, xxi. 17, Belsham's Calm Inquiiy, p. 185. 
 
203 
 
 which we profess to maintain. We are unappalled 
 by any consequences which can befall us from that 
 vindictive persecution which men, bhnd to truth, 
 deaf to the voice of reason, and averse to enquiry, 
 are ever ready to press against us ; nor are we to 
 be turned from the line of our course by the con- 
 tumely so lavishly bestowed upon us by that body 
 of narrow-minded, and, 1 might add, irrational 
 theologians, who, versed in the jargon and encum- 
 bered with the lumber of scholastic lore, would 
 impose upon us the traditions of superstition, 
 rather than the doctrines of a simple and a sound 
 philosophy. Liberal principles in religion, as w^ell 
 as in politics, are now happily gaining ground, and 
 trampling upon that abject spirit of weakness and 
 folly which would bridle men's minds, and chain 
 them down to darkness; and though the demon 
 of bigotry is ever ready to sound his bloody 
 trumpet, and to call forth a host of adversaries, 
 yet, the amended liberality and temper of the 
 times is such, that no enlightened Jury of this 
 free and happy country will give their sanction to 
 the official advocate of the Crow^n to fetter the 
 public exertions in its struggle for that perfect 
 toleration, which leaves every man to follow the 
 dictates of his conscience in the concerns of re- 
 ligion. The learned Advocate has taken infinite 
 pains to establish, and to notify as a fact, that 
 Unitarians are not Christians, and that they ought 
 
204 
 
 to be classed with Atheists, Deists, Heathens, and 
 Mahommedans, with whom he very charitably joins 
 them. He urges this with the very laudable and 
 Christian purpose of making it known that we are 
 within the reach of the law ; so that, if any pious 
 and orthodox believer, like himself, wishes to 
 glorify God and to gratify his own exuberant and 
 holy zeal by the sufferings of us pestilent heretics, 
 he may do it effectually in a circuitous, though not 
 in a direct route ; for though we cannot be ruined, 
 outlawed, or imprisoned for life in a dungeon, as 
 Anti-trinitarians ; yet, the denial of the Trinity 
 being the denial of Christianity, we are still liable 
 to the same penalties as are in force against the 
 class of Deists and Infidels. ^ 
 
 It seems hardly possible to conceive that the 
 advocate for the Crown, in these enlightened days, 
 would display his bigotry by filing an information 
 against any individuals upon such grounds as 
 these; yet so it is, and he does this act in a 
 manner highly offensive, by asserting, that as the 
 Scripture doctrines are founded upon divine autho- 
 rity, we both impugn the divine authority of the 
 Scriptures, and deny the Christian Religion to be 
 true; and, consequently, in either case we come 
 within the offence recited by the statute. But 
 though the learned Attorney- General may have 
 
 Reply to the Bishop of St. David'.s, p. 59. 
 
205 
 
 been raised by his Sovereign to guard the prero- 
 gatives of the Crown, and to bring to punishment 
 those who offend against the spiritual and tem- 
 poral interests of the State ; who, let me ask, has 
 intrusted him with the keys of heaven ? and how 
 does he make good the authority, which he claims, of 
 excluding his Unitarian brethren from the Church 
 of Christ, of which they, equally with himself, pro- 
 fess (and, they trust, not without reason) to be 
 members ? It is in vain that he and others allege 
 the doctrine of the Trinity to be the sum of Chris- 
 tian faith, and that we, who deny that doctrine to 
 be true, deny the Christian Religion to be true 
 also, and that the law of the land supports him 
 in this conclusion. He well knows, or ought to 
 know, that the question, " Who is a member of 
 the Church of Christ?" is not to be decided by 
 the law of the land, nor by any system of articles 
 of belief, which any fallible Protestant, or any in- 
 fallible Catholic Church, may think fit to insert in 
 its list of fundamentals. He well knows that the 
 Unitarians, professing, and truly professing, to 
 admit the Scriptures as the rule of their faith and 
 practice, maintain that no such doctrine is to be 
 found in the New Testament, from one end to the 
 other : nor will we be convinced of the contrary by 
 all the witnesses arrayed here before us this day 
 to support the irrational position that three omni- 
 present nonentities make one omnipresent Being, 
 
206 
 
 any more than that we will guide our faith by cu- 
 rious and far-fetched criticisms on Hebrew idioms 
 and Greek particles. 
 
 The Attorney- General calls the Unitarians un- 
 believers : the Unitarians, in return, denounce the 
 doctrine of the Attorney-General, and of his wit- 
 nesses, as anti- Christian. If they believe our tenets 
 to be contrary to the Gospel of Christ and his 
 Apostles, we also believe the same of theirs. If 
 we are to be charged as libellers, in publicly de- 
 claring our sense of their doctrine, how can they 
 escape the same imputation for declaring their 
 judgment of our doctrine ? If the learned Ad- 
 vocate acts under an imperative sense of duty in 
 warning the public against important errors, we, 
 also defend our conduct upon the same ground. 
 If he pleads that he is justified in supporting such 
 a cause, because he is certainly right, and we are 
 certainly wrong, we call upon him to show the 
 patent of his infallibility with the seal of his office, 
 before we will, with submission, acknowledge our 
 error. Till then, we will rely, in our worst per- 
 secutions, upon the honesty and tolerating spirit 
 of an enlightened Jury of our countrymen ; and 
 trust that they, upon a calm and scientific enquiry 
 into our pretensions, will show the public that ours 
 is the primitive faith, and that the learned At- 
 torney-General labours under an accumulation of 
 error, when he calculates upon the sanction of 
 
207 
 
 twelve impartial jurymen to punish and torture 
 any subjects of this free country for their religious 
 opinions and sentiments.^ 
 
 We wish to have our principles and belief clearly 
 stated and understood. While we discard many 
 of the doctrines of the Established Church as 
 enormously erroneous, we, nevertheless, regard the 
 sincere believers and adherents to it, as worthy 
 members of a Christian community, because this 
 Church professes to receive Christ as its teacher 
 and master, and it believes nothing but what it 
 imagines, however erroneously, Jesus to have 
 taught. The Church looks upon our doctrine as 
 dangerous to the souls of men ; and under that im- 
 pression, it warns mankind against it as a fatal error. 
 We, on the other hand, regard the doctrine of the 
 Church as erroneous, unscriptural, irrational, con- 
 tradictory, filling the mind with perplexity and 
 distress, and leading to spiritual pride, bigotry^ 
 censoriousness, and persecution. But though we 
 conceive these errors so pernicious, we do not re- 
 gard them as damnable ; and we believe that in 
 many instances their evil tendency is counteracted 
 by better principles. The Church is built upon a 
 right foundation, and is, so far, safe; but upon 
 this foundation is reared an edifice of wood, and 
 hay, and stubble, which in the day of trial will be 
 
 1 See the Reply to the Bishop of St. Davids, p. 67. 
 
208 
 
 consumed, though the mistaken architect will escape 
 destruction.^ 
 
 To point out all these errors and misconceptions 
 would be impossible, nor, happily, is it necessary, 
 I hope, for me to dwell upon even the most palpable 
 of them, after the scrutiny to which so many of 
 them w^ere exposed in our cross-examination of the 
 witnesses. There are, however, some few points 
 to which I must revert, before I enter into that 
 explanation of our tenets which it is our wish 
 should be detailed this day. First, then, with re- 
 spect to Jesus Christ: — If he who appeared in the 
 form of a man, with all the incidents of frail human 
 nature had, in truth, been very and eternal God, 
 when this fact w^as first revealed to his disciples, 
 how must their minds have been absorbed and 
 overwhelmed with astonishment and terror ! At 
 Lystra, when the people inferred, from the miracles 
 of the Apostles, '' that the gods were come down in 
 the likeness of men," the whole city was in an uproar. 
 Every one was filled with amazement ; and priests 
 and people assembled together, to worship and to 
 offer sacrifices to the celestial visitants. All this is 
 natural and probable, and exactly what might be 
 expected upon an occasion so extraordinary. What 
 then must have been the feelings and conduct of 
 the Jews, educated as they had been in such exalted 
 
 Reply, p. 68. 
 
209 
 
 ideas of the great Supreme, when a discovery so 
 new, so unexpected, so remote from all conceptions 
 and ideas, so amazing, so overwhelming, was made 
 known to them, that the person whom they con- 
 ceived to be the son of Joseph and Mary, — with 
 whom they had conversed for months and years with 
 the greatest familiarity, — whom many of them had 
 witnessed as having passed through the various 
 stages of human life, from helpless infancy to 
 vigorous manhood, was, — what ? No other than 
 the eternal and almighty God, the irifinite Jehovah, 
 the Creator of heaven and earth ! How would they 
 feel, how would they act, when this surprising and 
 alarming discovery was made ? Would they asso- 
 ciate and converse with him familiarly, as before ? 
 Would they reason with him, would they rebuke 
 him, would they desert him, would they deny him ? 
 Let any one consider with himself what his own 
 feelings would be after such an awful disclosure ; 
 and then look into the New Testament, consult the 
 evangelical history, and see what was the conduct 
 of the disciples of Jesus in the circumstances sup- 
 posed. They discover no surprise, they abate no- 
 thing of their freedom of familiarity ; from the be- 
 ginning to the end of his ministry, their behaviour 
 is uniform ; they talk to him as a companion, they 
 love him as a friend, they revere him as a master, 
 they bow to him as a prophet of the Most High; 
 
210 
 
 but nothing is said, nothing is done, which indicates 
 the least suspicion, that he was in reality any thing 
 more than he was in appearance, much less that he 
 was the eternal Jehovah himself. 
 
 It has been said that this important and astonish- 
 ing fact was not revealed to the disciples till after 
 the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, until the 
 day of Pentecost. — Let us sup}X)se it to have been 
 so. In this case, however, they must have under- 
 stood his language, — "I came down from heaven; " 
 
 — " Before Abraham was, I am ; " — " The Father 
 and I are one " — " Glorify me, O Father, with the 
 glory which I had with thee before the world was ; " 
 
 — expressions which have here been adduced as 
 asserting the pre-existence and divinity of Christ : 
 yet these made no particular impression upon the 
 Apostles, nor any change in their conduct to their 
 master ; a plain proof that they understood his lan- 
 guage in a very different sense from that which 
 modern Christians now put upon it. Would, more- 
 over, the Apostle Peter, immediately upon this grand 
 discovery, when addressing the assembled crowd, 
 impressed and agitated as his mind must have been 
 with the novelty, the magnitude, and the import- 
 ance of the doctrine, — would he have spoken to this 
 tremendous Being, this " very God of very God," 
 under no higher character than that of a man ap- 
 proved by God by signs and wonders, and who was 
 now exalted to God's right hand? 
 
211 
 
 How deeply are the minds of Trinitarians pe- 
 netrated with a sense of the grandeur, subhmity, 
 and importance, of their favourite doctrine ! How 
 seldom, how slightly, do they think and speak of 
 Jesus as a man, in comparison with the fi'equency 
 and earnestness with which they think and speak 
 of him as God ! But how much more deeply must 
 the minds of the primitive disciples have been 
 impressed with the stupendous discovery ! It must 
 have seized and kept possession of every faculty of 
 their souls. In the present age the doctrine of a 
 Trinity of persons in the Deity, and of an incar- 
 nate and crucified God, are so common and fa- 
 miliar that they almost cease to shock the mind. 
 But to the primitive believers it must have had all 
 the freshness and the force of novelty ; it was an 
 idea which would never be out of their thoughts ; 
 it must have occupied and filled the imagina- 
 tion, and must have been the constant topic of 
 their meditation, their conversation, and their cor- 
 respondence. And in sitting down to write the 
 history of Jesus, his high dignity, his divine na- 
 ture, his condescension in becoming incarnate, 
 must have been their darling theme, in compa- 
 rison with which all other topics must have been 
 frivolous and nugatory; and if they were under 
 the necessity of touching upon them for a time, 
 they would constantly recur to that astonishing 
 p 2 
 
212 
 
 fact, which could never be forgotten for a moment, 
 and must have been uppermost in their thoughts. 
 But how stands the fact ? Observe and wonder ! 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke, professing to write 
 a history which should contain all that would be 
 necessary to know and believe concerning their ve- 
 nerated master, absolutely forgot to mention the 
 stupendous fact, that Jesus Christ was the living 
 and true God, and they take no more notice of this 
 awful distinction, than if he were a man like them- 
 selves. And one of these sacred historians (Luke) 
 continues his history for thirty years after the 
 ascension of Christ, and relates the travels, the 
 labours, the doctrine, and the success of the 
 Apostles and first teachers of the Gospel ; but not 
 a syllable does he mention of the divinity of Christ, 
 or the doctrine of the Trinity, and no one would 
 know or suspect from Luke's history that the 
 Apostles had ever heard of any such doctrine. Is 
 this credible, is it even possible, if the doctrine 
 itself were true ? Certainly not. Let every Tri- 
 nitarian lay his hand upon his heart, and declare 
 upon his honour and in the presence of God, 
 whether he could himself have been guilty of such 
 an unpardonable omission. How then can they 
 believe that the Evangelists would have been so un- 
 faithful to their trust, if they really had it in charge 
 to record, or even if they were apprised of this 
 extraordinary event ? 
 
213 
 
 Again, the witnesses affirm that Jesus Christ 
 was the Creator, Preserver, and Governor, of this 
 and of all worlds. This also would be a most 
 novel and astonisliing doctrine, especially to Jews, 
 who had never heard of any Creator but God. This 
 then is a doctrine which we might expect to be 
 blazoned in every page of the New Testament. 
 But what is the fact ? It is omitted by Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, James, Peter, and Jude, and by the 
 Apostle Paul in ten out of fourteen epistles. Is 
 it possible, then, that these writers should have 
 given credit to this doctrine? — no, no ; the thought 
 of it never entered into their minds, and if it had 
 been proposed, they would have rejected it with 
 horror. 
 
 And what, let me ask, is there, with King James's 
 version before us, to rebut these weighty con- 
 siderations, and to command our assent to these 
 astonishing and most improbable propositions, so 
 contrary to all just conceptions of the Unity of 
 God, so contrary to the most explicit declarations 
 of the Jewish Scriptures, and to the main and 
 avowed object of the Mosaic dispensation, and so 
 inconsistent with the general tenour of the Evan- 
 gelical and Apostolic writings themselves, viz. that 
 Jesus Christ is the true God, the Creator of all 
 things, equal with the Father, and that the Father, 
 Son, and Spirit, being three distinct persons, are 
 only one Being, one God ! The witnesses have,. 
 p 3 
 
214 
 
 indeed, referred us to one passage here, and to 
 another there, in which it is said that Jesus Christ 
 is called God, equal to or one with the Father ; 
 and to two or three more, in which he is supposed 
 to be represented as the Maker of the world ; and 
 to a few other texts, in which it is thought that 
 divine attributes are ascribed to Christ. And when 
 we ask for the texts which prove the Trinity, they 
 refer us to the form of baptism ; as if baptizing 
 into the name of a person, of Paul or Moses, for 
 example, was an acknowledgment of their di- 
 vinity : or, they send us to St. Paul's valediction to 
 the Corinthians that the grace of Christ, — that 
 is, that the blessings of the Gospel, the love of 
 God, and a plentiful participation of spiritual gifts, 
 may be communicated to his Corinthian friends. 
 Upon evidence so feeble and unsatisfactory, rest 
 the amazing doctrines of the divinity of Christ and 
 of the holy Trinity ! And these detached texts, 
 being frequently cited by the advocates of these 
 mysterious doctrines, are for that reason believed 
 to be of frequent occurrence in the Scriptures ; and, 
 in contradiction to the most notorious fact, though 
 not to their sincere persuasion, they represent the 
 New Testament as full of these mysteries from 
 beginning to end: though it is plain, that not a 
 shadow of them exists in many of the books, and 
 particularly in those in which we should most 
 naturally expect to find them, in the history of 
 
215 
 
 our Lord's ministry, and of the preaching of the 
 Apostles. We conclude, therefore, that these pas- 
 sages, which only occur incidentally, and which 
 pass without comment, in whatever way they are 
 to be accounted for or explained, were not, and 
 could not possibly be, understood or intended by 
 the sacred writers in the sense in which believers 
 in the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the 
 Trinity now understand and explain them ; because 
 these doctrines did not make that impression upon 
 their minds, nor produce that visible effect in their 
 teaching and writings which they now do in all 
 who receive them, and which they necessarily must 
 and w^ould have done in the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists, and their readers and hearers, if they had 
 believed these doctrines, and if their language 
 had been originally understood in the sense in 
 which they are now received by those who profess 
 the popular creed. 
 
 We, who are armed with such considerations as 
 these, — considerations which must find a way to the 
 hearts and bosoms of all who seriously and im- 
 partially seek after truth, — we are little affected by 
 the curious disquisitions of learned men upon the 
 niceties of grammatical construction and the force 
 of Greek particles. We will never be persuaded 
 that it can be necessary for us to study the bulky 
 volumes of Hoogveen, or the more moderate sub- 
 tleties of Middleton, in order to learn the essen- 
 p 4 
 
216 
 
 tial doctrines of the Christian religion, which we 
 naturally and justly expect to find upon the front 
 and surface, and in the general strain and tenour, 
 of the New Testament. Let us admit, for the 
 sake of argument, that the text of St. Paul to 
 Titus is the true and only proper translation of 
 the passage as rendered in the common version : 
 — " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
 appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ,^* — (ii. 13.) Can we even from such an 
 expression conclude, that the Apostle was an as- 
 serter of the supreme divinity of his crucified 
 master? Surely not. We argue that, if Paul 
 believed that Jesus Christ was the supreme God, 
 his mind would have been so full of the amazing 
 doctrine, that it must have shone forth in every 
 page of his writings, in every sentence of his dis- 
 courses. His delight and his duty w^ould have 
 been to insist continually upon this new, unheard 
 of, and astonishing theme, and to have explained 
 the necessity and importance of it in all its bearings 
 in the scheme of redemption. Could the Apostle, 
 under these impressions, have coldly taught the 
 Athenians that " God would judge the world in 
 righteousness by the man whom he had ordained, 
 of which he had given assurance to all men in that 
 he had raised him from the dead ? " Could he 
 have written to the Corinthians, what, indeed, 
 would hardly be reconcileable to the simplicity of 
 
217 
 
 truth, that " as by man came death, by man came 
 also the resurrection of the dead ? " How then, 
 it may be asked, is this declaration of the Apostle 
 to Titus to be reconciled to his not acknowledging 
 the divinity of Christ ? We answer, upon various 
 suppositions. It may have been a slip of the 
 Apostle's tongue in dictating ; or a mistake of his 
 amanuensis ; or an error of some early transcriber ; 
 or, there may be a various reading ; or, the words 
 might be intended in a different sense; or, the 
 Apostle might not study perfect correctness of 
 language ; or, there might be some other reason, 
 which cannot now be discovered. We will give 
 up the text as altogether inexplicable, sooner than 
 we will believe that the Apostle intended in this 
 casual incidental manner to teach a doctrine so 
 new, so incredible, and of such high importance, 
 and which is so little countenanced by the general 
 strain of his discourses and epistles, and so re- 
 pugnant to the whole tenour of the Christian 
 Scriptures.^ 
 
 Having thus, by the arguments of reason and 
 consistency, shown the firm and solid basis upon 
 which the goodly edifice of our belief and under- 
 standing of Christianity is founded, I proceed to 
 detail the several parts of it, with the view to 
 guard against misconception, and, by these means, 
 
 ' Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 72 — 83^. 
 
218 
 
 rebut the malicious and persecuting charge of 
 being libellers of that Religion which is only pre- 
 served in a pure form, and in genuine force, by 
 our rational system. Our doctrine is this : — We 
 believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a man con- 
 stituted in all respects like other men ; subject to 
 the same infirmities, the same ignorance, preju- 
 dices, and frailties ; descended from the family of 
 Joseph and Mary, — though some of us still adhere 
 to the popular opinion of the miraculous concep- 
 tion ; — that he was born in low circumstances, 
 having no peculiar advantages of education or 
 learning ; but that he was a man of exemplary 
 character, and that, in conformity to ancient pro- 
 phecy, he was chosen and appointed of God to 
 introduce a new moral dispensation into the world, 
 the design of which was to abolish the Jewish 
 economy, and to place believing Gentiles upon an 
 equal ground of privilege and favour with the pos- 
 terity of Abraham — in other words, he was au- 
 thorised to reveal to all mankind, without dis- 
 tinction, the great doctrine of a future life, in 
 which men shall be rewarded according to their 
 works. 
 
 It does not appear to us that Jesus was at all 
 conscious of the honour and dignity for which he 
 was intended till after his baptism, when the Holy 
 Spirit was communicated to him in a visible sym- 
 bol, and when he was miraculously announced as 
 
219 
 
 the beloved Son of God, that is, as the great Pro- 
 phet or Messiah whom the Jews had been taught 
 to expect ; after which, in the course of his pubUc 
 ministry, he occasionally spoke of himself as the 
 Son of Man, and the Son of God. 
 
 After his baptism, we conceive that he spent 
 some time in the wilderness, where he was fully 
 instructed in the nature of his mission, and invested 
 with voluntary miraculous powers, which, by the 
 visionary scene of his temptation, he was instructed 
 to exercise, not for any personal advantage, but 
 solely for the purposes of his mission. Others of 
 us, however, imagine that Jesus never performed 
 a miracle but when he was prompted to it by a 
 divine impulse. It is maintained by some of us, 
 that, during the period of his residence in the wil- 
 derness, Jesus was favoured with divine visions, in 
 which, like the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. xii.), he ap- 
 prehended himself to be transported into heaven ; 
 and that the language which he uses concerning 
 his descent from heaven is to be explained by this 
 hypothesis ; but the greater part of us interpret 
 these expressions as relating to his divine commis- 
 sion ; to the perfect knowledge with which he w as 
 favoured, above all other prophets ; to the will of 
 God concerning the moral state of men ; and the 
 new dispensation which he was appointed to intro- 
 duce. 
 
 We believe, also, that Jesus, having exercised 
 
220 
 
 his public ministry for the space of a year, and, 
 perliaps, a little more, suffered death publicly upon 
 the cross, not to appease the wrath of God; not 
 as a satisfaction to divine justice ; not to exhibit 
 the evil of sin, nor in any sense whatever to make 
 an atonement to God for it, — for this doctrine, in 
 every sense, and according to every explanation, 
 we explode, as irrational, unscriptural, and dero- 
 gatory from the divine perfections ; but as a 
 martyr to the truth, and as a necessary prelimi- 
 nary to his resurrection. And we hold, that it 
 was wisely ordered, to preclude cavils, that his 
 death should be an event of great public notoriety, 
 and that it should be inflicted by his enemies. 
 
 We maintain that Jesus was raised to life by 
 the power of God, agreeably to his own predic- 
 tions, on the third day ; and that, by this event, 
 he not only confirmed the truth and divinity of 
 his mission, but exhibited, in his own person, a 
 pattern and a pledge of a resurrection to immortal 
 life; for which reason he is called the first-born of 
 the whole new creation, and the first-begotten from 
 the dead. 
 
 We further believe, that, after having given suf- 
 ficient proofs to his disciples, for forty days, of the 
 truth of his resurrection, he was in a miraculous 
 manner withdrawn from their society; a circum- 
 stance which is described as an ascension into 
 heaven : and that in a few days after this event 
 
221 
 
 the Holy Spirit was communicated to his Apostles 
 in a visible symbol on the day of Pentecost, by 
 which they were endued with the gift of speaking 
 various languages which they had never learned, 
 and were furnished with many other gifts and 
 powers, by which they were qualified to propagate 
 the Gospel in the world, and to exhibit a most 
 satisfactory and public proof of the resurrection of 
 their master from the dead. 
 
 We maintain that Jesus and his Apostles were 
 supernaturally instructed as far as was necessary 
 for the execution of their commission ; that is, for 
 the revelation and proof of the doctrine of eternal 
 life; and that the favour of God extended to the 
 Gentiles equally with the Jew^s : and that Jesus 
 and his Apostles, and others of the primitive be- 
 lievers, were occasionally inspired to foretell future 
 events. But we believe that supernatural inspir- 
 ation was limited to those cases alone : and that 
 when Jesus or his Apostles deliver opinions upon 
 subjects unconnected with the object of their mis- 
 sion, such opinions, and their reasonings upon 
 them, are to be received with the same attention 
 and caution with those of other persons in similar 
 circumstances, of similar education, and with simi- 
 lar habits of thinking;. 
 
 We admit that the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament, and especially the latter, contain 
 authentic records of facts, and of divine interposi- 
 
222 
 
 lions ; but we utterly deny the universal inspiration 
 of the writers of those compositions, as a quah- 
 fication to which indeed they make no pretension, 
 and of which they offer no proof; and the assertion 
 of which tends only to embarrass the evidences of 
 revelation, and to give advantage to its enemies. 
 And we judge of the genuineness, of the meaning, 
 and of the credibility, of these works, exactly in 
 the same way as we judge of any other ancient 
 writing. 
 
 We believe that Jesus continued to maintain, 
 occasionally at least, some personal and sensible 
 connection with the church during the apostolic age, 
 which he expressly promised to do (Matt, xxviii. 
 20.) ; and in this way we account for the continu- 
 ance of those miraculous gifts and powers which 
 were exercised in his name while the Apostles 
 lived, and also for occasional personal appearances 
 and interpositions, which have never occurred since; 
 but we believe that he is now withdrawn from all 
 sensible intercourse with this world, though some 
 have conjectured that he may still be actually pre- 
 sent in, and attentive to, its concerns. 
 
 We believe, also, that Christ is appointed to 
 raise the dead, and to judge the world. With 
 regard to the former, we believe him to be the 
 instrument of his Father's power. With respect 
 to the latter, whether the declarations concerning 
 it are to be understood literally or figuratively — 
 
223 
 
 whether Jesus will be personally invested with 
 some high official character, or whether nothing- 
 more is intended than that the final states of men 
 shall be awarded agreeably to the declarations of 
 the Gospel, cannot, we think, at present be ascer- 
 tained. Probably, as is usual with prophetic lan- 
 guage, the event will be very different from what 
 the literal sense of the words would lead us to 
 expect. But whatever be the meaning of the de- 
 claration, the part which Jesus wdll bear in it will, 
 we are confident, be no more than what may be 
 properly allotted to a human being ^ ; and in the 
 execution of which his Apostles and Disciples will, 
 it is said, be associated with him.^ 
 
 Wliile we bow to the authority of Jesus as the 
 great prophet of the Most High, and receive with 
 implicit submission whatever appears to us to have 
 the sanction of divine authority, — while w^e regard 
 the character of Christ as the most complete and 
 the most interesting that was ever exhibited to the 
 world, — while we feel ourselves under an indispen- 
 sable obligation to obey the precepts of his Gospel, 
 and, after his example, to diffuse to the utmost of 
 our ability the knowledge of truth and the practice 
 of virtue ; we disavow all those personal regards to 
 Christ, and direct addresses to him, either of prayer 
 or praise, which properly fall under the definition 
 
 1 John, V. 27. 2 Matt. xix. 28. 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3. 
 
224 
 
 of religious worship, as unfounded in reason, 
 unauthorised by Scripture, derogatory from the 
 honour of the Supreme Being, the only proper ob- 
 ject of rehgious homage, and as in a strict and 
 proper sense polytheistical and idolatrous. And 
 in this case, so far from being conscious of any 
 wilful derogation from the honour due to Christ, 
 whom we acknowledge and venerate as our Lord 
 and Master, we are fully persuaded we act in per- 
 fect conformity to his authority and example, and 
 in a manner of which he himself would testify the 
 most entire approbation, if he were to appear in 
 person upon earth. 
 
 We think it superfluous to produce any argu- 
 ments to prove that a person, who is repeatedly 
 called a man, — who had every appearance of a hu- 
 man being, — who was born, who grew, who lived, 
 who conversed, who felt, who acted, who suffered, 
 and who died like other men, — who was universally 
 allowed to be a man by all who saw and conversed 
 with him, — and who was addressed and spoken of 
 as a human being by all his contemporaries, whether 
 friends or enemies, was really what he appeared, 
 and affirmed himself to be, truly and properly a 
 man, and nothing more than a man. This is a fact 
 which must be admitted without hesitation, unless 
 the most unequivocal and decisive evidence can be 
 produced to the contrary. And surely a fact so 
 astonishing, and so contrary to experience and 
 
225 
 
 analogy, as the incarnation of a superior spirit is 
 not to be received on the authority of oblique hints, 
 or of obscure, figurative, and ambiguous phraseo- 
 logy, but that it is reasonable to expect that the 
 evidence of such a fact should be clear and decisive 
 in proportion to its antecedent improbability. Now, 
 after the closest examination of the Scriptures, we 
 find no such clear and satisfactory evidence. As 
 to the passages which have been adduced by the 
 several witnesses, in which Jesus represents himself 
 as having descended from heaven, they signify no- 
 thing more than the divine original of his doctrine ; 
 that where he is represented as the Maker of all 
 things, the new creation only is intended ; that is, 
 the new state of things which he was commissioned 
 to introduce into the moral world ; and that the 
 creation of natural objects is no where attributed to 
 Christ. And with respect to the title of " God," 
 if it ever be applied to Christ in the New Testa- 
 ment (which we deny), it is only in the sense in 
 which Moses is said to have been a god to Pharaoh, 
 that is, as being invested with a divine commission 
 and a power of working miracles in proof of it. 
 We declare that the same, nay even stronger, ex- 
 pressions are applied to Christians in general, than 
 those from which the deity of Christ is usually in- 
 ferred. And, lastly, we maintain that the creation 
 and support of the natural world and its inhabitants 
 is uniformly ascribed to God ; that there is no evi- 
 9 
 
226 
 
 dence whatever, in spite of all that has been said to 
 the contrary, to prove that Christ was personally 
 concerned in any of the former dispensations of 
 God to mankind, either to the patriarchs or to the 
 Jews, but that the contrary is explicitly and re- 
 peatedly asserted in the Scriptures J 
 
 Upon these grounds we rest our pretensions to 
 be received as members of the great Christian 
 community. And while we faithfully adhere to 
 these doctrines, and the principles of action spring- 
 ing fi'om them, though our misjudging brethren 
 may disown and condemn them, — though many 
 who have a high conceit of their own attainments 
 may despise and revile them, — though Churches, 
 which arrogate to themselves the lofty titles of 
 orthodox and infallible, may excommunicate and 
 anathematise us, and though persecutors and men 
 of a persecuting spirit, may vent their impotent 
 execrations upon us, or visit us with pains and 
 penalties horrible to humanity, none of these 
 things can move us ; and from the sentence of 
 these erring and censorious brethren we appeal to 
 Him who knows our integrity, and with humble 
 confidence will we rely upon deliverance from the 
 evils which now beset us, by his power, in the 
 instrumentality of a verdict in our favour. With 
 this hope, as the reward of our sincerity, and this 
 
 I Calm Inquiry, p. 447 — 458. 
 
227 
 
 expectation, as the proof of your liberalitV} I now 
 end our defence.^ 
 
 The Attorney-General no'w rose to reply. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, — In rising to reply to 
 the defence set up by the Defendants, my first 
 object will be, to direct your attention to that pe- 
 culiar species of argument which is made use of 
 to repel the charge upon the record, and to show 
 that the Unitarians pretend not only that their 
 tenets are not censurable, but that they are more 
 rational, and more consistent with truth, than a 
 very considerable portion of the Scriptures them- 
 selves. We argue that, " all Scripture being 
 given by the inspiration of God," whatever it 
 discloses demands our belief; but the Defendants 
 take another and an opposite course, and say, — 
 " Whatever those Scriptures reveal we will not 
 believe, unless the revelation be approved of by 
 our understanding and the faculties of our reason ; 
 nor will we admit that to be Scripture, which is 
 not conformable with our rational conceptions." 
 Hence it is, that vast and most important parts of 
 Holy Writ are wholly set aside ; and, under pre- 
 tence of their being of ' doubtful authority,' or 
 contrary to human conjecture, are reckoned as a 
 dead letter ; and all who object to this arbitrary 
 
 1 See Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 63. 
 9 2 
 
228 
 
 excision are marked as bigots, — men devoid of 
 reason, and of illiberal minds and principles ; and 
 their motto is, Stat pro ratione voluntas. The 
 Sacred Volume thus mangled, and afterwards, in 
 all its essential parts, distorted and disfigured, 
 they call the Scripture : and now mark how they 
 make use of it. " The Attorney-General knows 
 that the Unitarians, professing, and truly professing, 
 to admit the Scriptures as the rule of their faith 
 and practice, maintain that no such doctrine as 
 that of the divinity of Christ, or that of the Trinity, 
 are to be found in the New Testament from one 
 end to the other ; and therefore he has no right 
 to disgrace them by classing them with Deists and 
 Infidels." Gentlemen, the time of the Court has 
 been wantonly wasted, if we have not shown you, 
 to satiety, that the Scriptures every where abound 
 with declarations of the divinity of the Son, — that 
 they declare Christ to have claimed that divinity, 
 and that his Apostles duly acknowledged it. " But 
 then," say the Defendants, " your Scriptures are 
 not ours ; and if you persist in guiding your faith 
 and practice by yours, we do the same by ours." 
 Be it so : but then, what saith the Law of the land ? 
 " I lay no restraint upon the conscience, but I am 
 the conservator of the volume of the canonical 
 Scriptures." Now, the Law knows no other volume 
 of Holy Writ save that which is now before us ; 
 the Law protects all the several books composing 
 
229 
 
 this Sacred Volume, which we call the Bible ; it ac- 
 knowledges and it preserves the whole entu'e, with- 
 out addition or diminution of its parts ; it permits 
 of no arbitrary excisions, to suit persons of every 
 different complexion and character; and, what is 
 more, in discharging the duties of this guardian- 
 ship, it will not suffer what is therein written to be 
 evil spoken of, much less will it bear with impunity 
 that its sacred doctrines be charged with falsehood. 
 The Deists may come forward, and slash from its 
 sacred pages whatever they conceive to be con- 
 trary to reason and to their tenets ; and say, in 
 the language of the Defendants, " We admit the 
 Scriptures (thus garbled) to be the rule of our 
 faith and practice ; but we maintain, that no doc- 
 trines are to be found, nor can the similitude of 
 any such be discovered in the whole volume, which 
 call upon us to believe and act according to your 
 system : " and thus, on the same principle, may 
 any inflict wounds that would engender diseases 
 and death to the souls of men. 
 
 Our Scriptures explicitly declare Jesus Christ 
 to be both God and man ; God from all eternity, 
 and one with the Father, who assumed our nature 
 that, as man, he might redeem and save us. 
 They tell us this fact, and they tell us no more ; 
 but this, our reason convinces us, is sufficient^ 
 because we have full assurance that those '' Scrip- 
 tures were given by inspiration of God," and that, 
 S 3 
 
230 
 
 as they treat not even of the nature of man, how 
 his body and his soul are brought into such an 
 union as to form one living rational being, so 
 neither do they disclose any thing of the nature of 
 God, a subject infinitely more incomprehensible; 
 and if they did develop the particulars of either 
 nature, such a discovery in the present constitution 
 of our minds would be useless, because the mental 
 faculties of man are wholly insufficient for the 
 comprehension of these things ; and, supposing it 
 were otherwise, and that what was thus revealed 
 were all clear to our comprehension, what room 
 would then be left for the exercise of that faith 
 and piety, to which the Gospel makes so many 
 promises of great reward ? Looking, therefore, 
 at the fact as we find it, we receive it with implicit 
 confidence on the faith of God's word : and hence, 
 on subjects of Revelation, we dare not bring our 
 reason to deny what is so much above its province 
 to estimate ; because what thus comes from heaven 
 cannot be measured by the limited scale of human 
 comprehension ; and because we know, in matters 
 of a spiritual nature revealed by God, the ground 
 of our certainty lies not in the evidence of the 
 things, but in the undoubted veracity of God, who 
 has revealed them. We maintain that we derive 
 our doctrines from the most rational consideration 
 of the true meaning of Scripture, from understand- 
 ing its words in their most usual sense, — from 
 
231 
 
 catching its general tone and spirit, and from 
 taking a combined and comprehensive view of its 
 several texts, so as to ascertain its true doctrine 
 in the surest manner. The Defendants, on the 
 contrary, derive their doctrine from their Scrip- 
 tures, — Scriptures made theirs by forcing words 
 from their acknowledged and obvious meaning ; 
 by adopting a most erroneous method of interpret- 
 ation ; by taking single passages without adverting 
 to others bearing on the same point. They say, 
 " We pay no regard to what your Scriptures 
 speak on these points, because reason is our guide, 
 and not revelation. Our reason tells us that the 
 supposition of the Deity putting on the earthly 
 form of its vile creatures, may be believed by 
 Heathens, but in our estimation it is absurd : it is 
 contrary to nature, — contrary to the eternal fitness 
 of things, — contrary to reason. If it were really 
 possible and true, every page of Revelation would be 
 blazoned with the notifications of the astonishing 
 deed; there the matter would be so clearly and 
 conspicuously shown that he who runs might read, 
 and might know it without stopping to consider 
 it ; nor, indeed, was it at all necessary that God 
 should demean his divine nature by putting on the 
 form of a man ; for he might equally well save us 
 from sin and error by coming, as he did, in the 
 plain and intelligible character of a great Prophet." 
 But " Who art thou, O man, that arguest a^gainst 
 9 ^ 
 
232 
 
 God ? ^ Shall the thing formed say unto hhn that 
 formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" or, 
 why wilt thou save us so ? I will ask the De- 
 fendants if they be able to say what a spirit is, 
 how it subsists, and how it can pervade at all times 
 every part of the unbounded universe ? Can 
 they form the least conception how any Being 
 can exist without a cause ? Can they fathom the 
 depths of eternity, and explain how, to the great 
 and unsearchable God, all the past and all the 
 future are but a single point of time ? Can they 
 tell us how the Supreme Ruler foreknows all 
 events, without determining their issues ? how he 
 exercises a providence, without controlling free 
 agency ? Can they explain to us what the soul is ? 
 Can they even tell us the nature of those material 
 bodies which surround them ; on what their pro- 
 perties depend; how these properties are pre- 
 served ; by what means they are brought into 
 action ? Can they look at the most insignificant 
 insect or plant, and not perceive in its structure 
 and economy wonders which baffle all research, 
 and which they cannot pretend to understand or 
 explain ? If, on all these points, they are obliged 
 to confess their ignorance to be most complete, 
 they depart at once from their principle of not 
 
 1 ' AvTaTTOKplveOai non est simpliciter respondere, sed car- 
 j)endi et refellendi animo. — Vide Luc. xiv. 6. Hardy in loc. 
 Rom. ix. 20. 
 
233 
 
 extending their belief beyond what comes home to 
 their apprehensions. ^ 
 
 It is, then, highly presumptuous and arrogant 
 for men, with their finite abilities, to limit the oper- 
 ations of Omnipotence, and to say, "so far shalt 
 thou come, but no farther," It is even worse than 
 this, it is a species of idolatry, to set up a God in 
 the proud temple of the mind, to oppose the God 
 of heaven ; to take reason for a guide and a vain 
 philosophy instead of revelation, and an humble 
 disposition to obey it. — " Verily thou art a God 
 that hidest thyself, O God of Israel the Saviour." ^ 
 Our Scriptures, then, I affirm, are the word of God, 
 and they teach us that Christ our Saviour is both 
 God and man. The Unitarians deny him not 
 only to be their God, but ours : how, then, can 
 they presume to call themselves Christians, when 
 they acknowledge not the God of the Christians ? — 
 when they say. Hail ! Master, and spit on him ? 
 " Deists " is the title nailed over them, let them 
 take down the superscription if they can ! 
 
 Gentlemen, Under the pretence of liberality, 
 and with an affected spirit of benevolence, the 
 Defendants ask us to compromise our differences, 
 and agree that, though one party may consider the 
 other to be enormouslr/ erro7ieous in their religious 
 views and principles, both shall shake hands and 
 
 1 See D'Oyly's Sermons, p. 216. - Is.xlv. 15. 
 
234 
 
 be friends, in no less a matter than that in which 
 God and his blessed Son, and all that relates to 
 heaven and an eternal hereafter, are concerned. 
 They propose to us to extend the right hand 
 of fellowship to those who hold the doctrines of 
 our Church " not to be the doctrines of truth and 
 righteousness ; not as consolatory to the heart and 
 healthful to the soul, but as calculated to Jill the 
 mind with perplexity and distress, and to lead to spi- 
 ritual pride, censorioiisness, and persecution.''^ They 
 consider our views of Scripture as calculated to 
 excite pride, because they teach us that we have 
 God for our Saviour, who, while he kept on the 
 flesh, " was tempted in all things like as we are ; " — 
 as calculated to excite censoriousness, because we 
 look upon those as excluded from the number of 
 Christians, who deny the divinity of Christ, and 
 would rob us of our Saviour ; — as calculated to excite 
 a persecuting spirit, because w^e will not allow the 
 Deity to be spoken of with irreverence and con- 
 tempt. Now, without any disinclination whatever 
 to withhold feelings of kindness, good will, or 
 Christian charity from any, particularly from those 
 who are so sincere and conscientious as we believe 
 the Defendants to be, it is hardly to be expected 
 that we should approach to a nearer intercourse 
 with those who regard our religious sentiments 
 with abhorrence, and who must feel that we en- 
 tertain a similar disgust for theirs. We, therefore, 
 
235 
 
 must decline their invitation io friendship, not for 
 want of liberality of mind, nor for want of every 
 kind feeling towards them, but because we will not 
 run the hazard of imbibing their errors, and of 
 thus endangering our salvation. 
 
 Having protested against that interpretation of 
 Scripture which claims a superiority for reason 
 above revelation, I proceed to consider the argu- 
 ments made use of by the Defendants, that I may 
 show, even upon their principles, that neither do 
 they adhere to the deductions of sound reason, nor 
 to the suggestions of truth in what they bring to 
 oppose us in our belief. " Think," say they, " think 
 into what a state of consternation and alarm the 
 disciples of Jesus would have been thrown, when 
 they were informed that their master, whom they 
 apprehended to be the Son of Joseph and Mary, 
 was no other than the eternal God ! the infinite 
 Jehovah ! the Creator of the universe ! Instead 
 of all this, they talk as familiarly with him as before, 
 they reason with him, they rebuke him, they desert 
 or they deny him, although he had told them 
 that * He and the Father were one,' and that he 
 ' came down from heaven.' All these expres- 
 sions, therefore, were never understood by these 
 honest men to signify that he was any thing more 
 than a mere man." — Thus far we agree with them, 
 that the disciples until after the resurrection (in- 
 deed, hardly before the day of Pentecost, when the 
 
236 
 
 Holy Spirit fell visibly upon them,) " understood 
 none of these things, and these sayings were hid 
 from them, neither knew they the things which 
 were spoken ; " for they were remarkably dull 
 in apprehending many of the plainer discoveries 
 which their Lord and Master made to them. They 
 understood not how he was to die and rise attain 
 on the third day, although he had repeatedly ad- 
 vertised them of it, and they had seen him raise 
 the dead upon three several occasions. They at 
 one moment placed the greatest degree of faith 
 in him, which they withdrew the next. They 
 were, in fact, all ignorance and weakness. When 
 their Lord was captured they deserted him, and 
 all the hopes, which he had so fondly excited in 
 their bosoms, were buried with him in the tomb ; 
 and even after the resurrection they were incredu- 
 lous and fearful ; but the moment they are visited 
 by the Holy Spirit from on high their characters 
 instantly change. No longer ignorant, they speak, 
 and they speak eloquently, clearly, and fluently, in 
 various languages. Instead of assembling '' in 
 private for fear of the Jews, the doors being shut," 
 and whispering their hopes or alarms in each other^s 
 hearing, they declaim openly and aloud. Fearless 
 of every danger, and unawed by the presence of 
 either Scribes or Pharisees, they now removed the 
 veil which concealed the divinity while they looked 
 upon the person of their Master. Thii change of 
 
237 
 
 character and new doctrine is " noised abroad^ and 
 the multitude come together and are confounded, 
 and are amazed, and marvelled, saying one to an- 
 other, Behold ! are not these Galileans ? hear we 
 every man in our own tongue, wherein we were 
 born ? " Indeed, so great is the amazement of the 
 people, that they for a moment attribute the frenzy 
 of feeling in the Apostles to madness, or to the 
 effects of new wine. And what is it that St. Peter 
 now declares unto the amazed multitude? He 
 adds to their astonishment by telling them that 
 Jesus of Nazareth, who hitherto appeared among 
 them " as a 7na7i approved of God," and whom 
 they " had taken and by mcked hands crucified 
 and slain^^ (mark the boldness of the expression,) 
 was none other than God, whom " it was not pos- 
 sible for death to hold " or destroy, and against 
 whom death had no power ; a circumstance which 
 David in the spirit of prophecy had predicted, when 
 he said that he had " foreseen Jehovah," and had 
 thus spoken of his resurrection, " that his soul 
 was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see cor- 
 ruption." And what was the effect which this 
 astonishing discovery of the divinity of Jesus pro- 
 duced upon his hearers ? " They were pricked in 
 their hearts " — their hearts now fail them, for 
 they perceive, but perceive too late, that they had 
 crucified and murdered not only Jesus of Nazareth, 
 but him who was indeed " one with the Father ; " 
 
238 
 
 and in terror and alarm they cry out, " Men and 
 brethren, what shall we do ! " St. Peter afterwards 
 addressed the dispersed Jews to the same effect, 
 " We have not followed cunningly-devised fables, 
 when we made known to you the power and coming 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses 
 of his majesty;" — where the power and coming 
 of Christ, of which the Apostle speaks, was not, as 
 the Defendants conceive, either his general coming 
 to judgment upon the world, or his particular 
 coming upon the nation of the Jews ; but by his 
 power and coming is meant his powerful appear- 
 ance in the world, by which he mightily discovered 
 himself to be the Son of God.^ Before I close 
 this address, I shall adduce another instance of 
 the surprise, consternation, and alarm, which a 
 discovery of Christ's divinity produced among the 
 Scribes, the Pharisees, and others of the Jewish 
 people, who saw, acknowledged, and were per- 
 plexed at the proof of it. This transaction, and 
 that which I have already detailed, are both of 
 them recorded by St. Luke ; and yet what say the 
 Defendants ? — " Matthew, Mark, and Luke, pro- 
 fessing to write a history which should contain all 
 that would be necessary, absolutely forget to men- 
 tion that Jesus Christ was the living and true God, 
 and take no more notice of this axvful distinction than 
 
 ' Stillingfleet's Origines Sacrse, b. ii. c. 9. xiii. 
 
239 
 
 if he *mere a man like themselves.'^ But supposing 
 the case had been as it is here represented, and that 
 Matthew, Mark, and Luke had made no allusion 
 to the divinity of their Lord ; what is to be said of 
 St. John, who wrote almost exclusively upon the sub- 
 ject of the person and office of Christ ? I will take 
 upon myself to say, that an able theologian, with 
 this single Gospel alone, might meet and refute 
 every argument brought by the Unitarians to deny 
 the divinity of Christ : for it is impossible to take 
 even any small part of his Gospel in which it is 
 not again and again asserted or implied.^ Matthew 
 tells, of the miraculous conception of Jesus, that 
 his birth of a virgin was the fulfilment of ancient 
 prophecy, and that his name, Emmanuel, signified 
 " God with us ; " that this blessed Saviour after- 
 wards promised, that "wherever two or three were 
 gathered together in his name. He would be in the 
 midst of them ; and when he finally left his dis- 
 ciples for his heavenly kingdom, he said, " Lo ! 
 / am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world." Mark tells us that the evil spirits imme- 
 diately knew and acknowledged his divine power. 
 
 I This has been admirably done by Bishop Blomfield in his 
 " Five Lectures on the Gospel of St. John," a work equally 
 characterised, with all others on subjects of theology from his 
 pen, for that peculiar simplicity of expression and style so 
 rare among the leai'ned, yet with all that force so common to 
 this profound scholar and divine. 
 
240 
 
 — " Let us alone : /what have we to do with 
 thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? Art thou come 
 to destroy us ? I know thee, who thou art, — the 
 Holy One of God." Luke speaks fully of the 
 miraculous conception and the birth of him who 
 was born a Saviour, Christ the Lord ; '* relates 
 the birth and office of his forerunner, who was 
 appointed to go before the face of the Lord (Je- 
 hovah) and to prepare his ways : with a variety 
 of other circumstances bespeaking his divinity. 
 However slight might be the notice of the super- 
 natural incidents accompanying the birth and early 
 years of the Messiah, the virgin mother we are 
 told, regarded all that passed with wonder and 
 amazement; and though, perchance, she did not 
 make known her feelings, yet we are assured that 
 she preserved every thing in her memory, " pon- 
 dering them in her heart." " Yet," say the De- 
 fendants, " Luke, who continues his history for 
 thirty years after the resurrection of Christ, and 
 relates the travels, the doctrines, and the success of 
 the Apostles, mentions not a syllable of the divinity 
 of Christ, and no one would know or^ suspect in 7'ead- 
 ing his history, that the Apostles had ever heard of 
 any such doctrine.''^ 
 
 Luke, however, in the Acts of the Apostles 
 represents them as praying to their ascended Lord, 
 to direct them in their choice of one to supply the 
 place of Judas : — he tells, more tlian once, of the 
 
241 
 
 miraculous circumstances attending St. Paul's con- 
 version, in one narration, he states him to have 
 been expressly chosen for the Apostles to the Gen- 
 tiles, by Jesus; and in the other, that he was so 
 chosen and for that purpose, by God; implying 
 that they were one and the same. He tells us, 
 moreover, that when Paul preached the doctrine 
 of Jesus, and proved the truth of it by the fact of 
 his resurrection, the philosophers and others of 
 Athens accused him of being a " setter forth of 
 strange Gods" 
 
 Again, the Defendants allege that three out of 
 the four Evangelists, neither state nor prove Christ 
 to have been the Creator of the world, and that 
 St. Paul only speaks of the matter in four of his 
 epistles. Now, as these Scriptures are, we affirm, 
 the word of God, the single narration of an occur- 
 rence or truth has the same weight as if it were 
 related a hundred times ; yet we find St. John 
 commencing his Gospel with these words : — "In 
 
 the beginning was the Word all things were 
 
 made by Him, and without Him was not any thing 
 made that was made ; " — having manifestly his 
 eye fixed upon the same language in the opening 
 chapter of Genesis; so that it is clear that the 
 same unerring Spirit spoke both in Moses and the 
 Evangelist. This declaration, of Christ being the 
 Creator, is corroborated by St. Paul, who says, that 
 " God created all things by Jesus Christ .... whom 
 
24.2 
 
 He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom, also, 
 He made the worlds .... for by Him were all things 
 created that are in heaven and that are in earth, 
 visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or 
 dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all things 
 were created by Him and for Him ; for he is before 
 all things, and by him all things consist : " — so that, 
 like St. Paul, " through faith, we understand that 
 the worlds were framed by the Word of God," 
 not as the instrument of the Almighty Father, but 
 as his equal ; for, " without Him was not any thing 
 made that was made." These passages are suf- 
 ficient to convince us of the fact, that the universe 
 and all that is in it was created by the Son of God ; 
 but Unitarians will not believe it, because all this 
 is not " blazoned in every page of the New Testa- 
 ment." " No ; " say they, " in the face of all you 
 adduce from St. Paul or St. John we mil not believe 
 the doctrine, 7ior will ive believe that a tkoug/it of it 
 ever entered their minds ; and^ what is m(yre than all 
 this. We know the spirit of the holy writers well 
 enough to say, that had it heen jpi'Ojposed to them, 
 they would have rejected it with horror ! " Here the 
 Socinian principle of believing only what can be 
 understood, or what men are willing to receive, 
 is clearly displayed; and this mode of trifling 
 with what we regard as most sacred may be illus- 
 trated by a practice much too common, and which, 
 evil as it is, has received the sanction of the De- 
 
243 
 
 fendants. In order to throw an air cf absurdity 
 and ridicule upon the doctrine of Christ being both 
 God and man, they speak of him with an ironical 
 usage of our language, so as to involve us in a 
 species of blasphemy, calling him, the " crucified 
 God ; " implying that he suffered as God, whereas 
 as Athanasius says, " The Scriptures never speak 
 of Jesus suffering as God, but in his human nature; 
 and when they mention the blood of God, it is onl3'^ 
 in reference to the flesh." ^ With equal propriety 
 of expression might these votaries of reason de- 
 signate the Angels who visited Abraham, or those 
 who rescued Lot from Sodom, as ethereal men ; or 
 call the mangled body of the martyr Stephen, a 
 murdered soid. 
 
 The Defendants are so candid as to admit that 
 here and there a few isolated passages have been 
 adduced to show that Christ is represented as 
 equal to God ; and a few others, to prove that 
 
 1 So in Acts, XX. 28. On this point see Hey's Lectures, 
 vol.ii. lib. 4. art. I. sect. 18. p. 275. 
 
 In the same manner Hume speaks of Christ as a crucified 
 Gody and the Jews as being made murderers of God; and 
 Gibbon, after Voltaire, speaks of " Christians having the same 
 being as God and as Victim" Now, all this is wanton per- 
 version ; for it is well known that the Divine Nature cannot 
 suffer, and it is equally well known that Christ did not suffer 
 in his divine nature. 
 
 It is here quite necessary to bear in mind the reading of 
 St. Luke, Ara Tov a'lf.iaTog rov Idiov. 
 R 2 
 
244 
 
 divine attributes were ascribed to him : but they 
 add, " These, from being continually quoted, in 
 process of time have been believed to be of very 
 frequent occurrence; whereas it is a notorious 
 facty that not a shado^jo of the mysterious doctrine 
 exists in many of the books ivhere we (Unitarians) 
 shoidd expect the most to find it; and where any 
 alltisions do occur, they coidd not possibly be under- 
 stood by the sacred writei'S in the sense you believe 
 them : — it is not probable ! it is not natural ! it is 
 not reasonable ! " To what purpose, then, let me 
 ask, did the sacred penmen write, guided by that 
 Holy Spirit which was " to lead them to all truth, 
 and to bring to their remembrance" whatever was 
 necessary to be known or believed of their master? 
 — " That is all very true, for aught we know," say 
 the Defendants ; " but we can account for the in- 
 troduction of these things in a variety of ways : 
 perhaps the "doyiter did not write himself but pro- 
 cured an amanuensis ; and, as he dictated to him, 
 these things were accidental slips of the Apostle's 
 tongue ; perhaps the amanuensis mistook ; perhaps 
 some very early transcriber copied inccnTectly ; per- 
 haps this may be only one of various readings ; 
 perhaps the words might be i?ite?ided i7i a very dif- 
 ferent sense from what they are usually put; it is 
 possible that the Apostle might have sent off his 
 epistle in such a hurry that he did not study per- 
 fect co7rectness ; (and this supposes that the Spirit 
 
245 
 
 was in haste^i and in erroi' also.) In short, it is pro- 
 bable that there were many other reasons^ isohich 
 cannot now he discovered, why all these mistakes 
 occurred. But if Trinitarians will be so bigoted, 
 so irrational, as to believe these things, we will give 
 tip the texts as altogether inexplicable, sooner than 
 we will believe that the Apostle intended, in this 
 casual incidental manner, to teach a doctrine so 7iew 
 and so incredible, and of such high importance, and 
 which is so little countenanced by the general strain 
 of his discourses and epistles, and so repugnant to 
 the whole tenor of the Christian Scriptures ; and, 
 what is more than this, we will not submit to be 
 bullied by the witnesses, in a matter where our 
 conscience and religion are concerned, into what 
 they and the learned call ' the critical interpret- 
 ation * of Scripture ; for we declare, once for all, 
 that we hold the niceties of grammatical construc- 
 tion, and the force of the Greek particles and 
 Hebrew idioms, in perfect contempt." ^ 
 
 Gentlemen, — This is the style of language, and 
 these the expressions, of the defence, made with a 
 view to convince you that the Defendants, in all 
 these particulars, have not libelled the Christian 
 Religion, by denouncing as false the great and 
 savmg doctrines of the Scripture ; and by fritter- 
 ing away the plain and obvious sense of every 
 
 Reply to the Bishop of St. David's, p. 83. and p. 81. 
 R 3 
 
246 
 
 word and expression bearing upon them. Now, 
 why is it that these persons wage war against 
 Hebrew idioms and Greek particles ? Is it be- 
 cause the Hebrew idiom designates the Lord our 
 God, Jehovah ? and that this high name implies a 
 union of persons, and especially when it said, " Je- 
 hovah our God is one Jehovah," and which would 
 be a useless expression in any other sense ?"^ 
 For if we were to say, " the Sovereign our King is 
 one Sovereign," what idea would this convey, but 
 that of absurdity, to suppose any could want to be 
 told a truth which none would or could call in 
 question ? But when we see that David, speaking 
 of Christ, calls him his Lord, and applies the high 
 name of Jehovah to him, — when, as the witness 
 Horsley has powerfully and clearly proved, Christ 
 was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, — then we 
 see why the Defendants scout and detest Hebrew 
 idioms. We find, too, in pursuing the same track, 
 that their abhorrence of Greek particles arises 
 from a principle of the same feeling. St. John 
 opens his Gospel, as I have already mentioned. 
 
 ' This text is ui-ged by the Jews as an unanswerable argu- 
 ment against the doctrine of the Trinity ; but they admit that 
 it is extraordinary and perplexing that the name of God 
 should be thrice repeated. As to the Cliristians against whom 
 it is urged, they are almost unanhnous that in this very sen- 
 tence is a plain indication of the Trinity. — Sandford's Con- 
 nection, p. 328. 
 
247 
 
 after the manner of Moses in opening the history 
 of the creation, with these words : — "In the be- 
 ginning was the Word ('Ev ap%>j ?v 6 Aoyog);" which 
 the Defendant Belsham alters thus: — "The Word 
 was in the beginning," — which, however trifling the 
 variation may at first sight appear, is of immense 
 importance. The Greek construction preserves 
 the parallel with the opening of Genesis, and im- 
 plies, that in the beginning of all things, The Son 
 was in existence : ^ the Defendants' construction is 
 made to imply that The Son was in the beginning 
 of the new (or Christian) dispensation. Now, that 
 Christ should be in existence at the commence- 
 ment of his own ministry, is an axiom which I 
 think none of you, Gentlemen, will be disposed to 
 question ; and if this were all that was meant by 
 the Evangelist, it would be of about as much 
 importance as my telling you that when I com- 
 menced this reply, I was alive in your presence. 
 But St. John proceeds to say, " And the Word 
 was God (Kal 0eoj ^v 6 Aoyog)." The Defendant 
 renders this, — " The Word was a God." Again, 
 they render vlog Qsovy a Son of God, because the 
 article before uloj is omitted ; and this they think 
 implies that he is said to be God, not actually, but 
 
 1 It is still more important to observe here, that these words 
 are rendered in the Jewish Targum, " In the Beginning the 
 Word Jehovah created," &c. 
 R 4 
 
248 
 
 Jiguratively ; and yet they admit that he acknow- 
 ledged himself The Son of God (6 ulo^ toD ©sot), 
 Luke xxii. 70.), where his having made such an 
 acknowledgment subjected him to the charge of 
 blasphemy. Now, permit me here, Gentlemen, to 
 represent to you, and that without exaggeration, 
 the style and manner which the Defendant has 
 adopted in paraphrasing the verses of St. John to 
 which I here allude ; and if you will take up the 
 volume of this "/wzprot?^^/ Version" of our Scriptures, 
 you will see that the absurdity I am about to show 
 is not my own. 
 
 'Ev a^x% ^^ ° Aoyo^. — " In the beginning was the 
 Word." By the beginning I by no means intend the 
 beginning of the creation, or of all things, but merely 
 the beginning of the Gospel dispensation. I do not 
 specify this to be my meaning, because I conclude you 
 will perceive it, though I know well enough that I ex- 
 press m3^self exactly as though I did mean it, and that 
 another beginning must be present to your minds, when 
 the world was made by the Logos or Word of God: 
 however, I certainly do 7iot mean this ; I mean to make 
 no sort of allusion to any thing you may happen to 
 know, or have previously heard, of the Logos or Word 
 of God, by whom the world was made ; but I mean 
 merely to give this appellation to Jesus Christ, a man 
 like myself, because he was commissioned to reveal the 
 word of God ( that is in Greek hlyoq) to mankind : it is 
 what grammarians and rhetoricians would call a me- 
 tonymy ; I do not tell you this in my Gospel, because, 
 notwithstanding any prejudices to the contrary, I think 
 you must know it by instinct. 
 
249 
 
 Ku) h Ao'yo? h ^P°? '^"ov @ziv. — " And the Word was 
 with God," that is, not with him really and personally, 
 — but how, do you think ? Why, in the way of retire- 
 ment or private communion, as might be the case with 
 you, or me, or any other man. Do not fancy he was 
 really with God, though I say so ; there is something 
 implied under the preposition wpo?, which I do not stop 
 to explain to you, because I conclude that you, and 
 every convert that comes after you, however unac- 
 quainted with the Greek language, ivom^n and children, 
 will easily comprehend what I mean, by instinct. 
 
 Ka* ©ec? y\v 6 Aoyoq. " And the Word was God : " — Do 
 not mistake me, I mean God was the Word; though, 
 contrary to grammar, depend upon it this is my par- 
 ticular meaning ; or, if you do not like this, mind that 
 0£^,' has in this place 7io article before it ; therefore, at 
 the utmost, it can only imply that the Word was A 
 God, perhaps you will think Jupiter or 3Iercury : not 
 so, but yet a God ; one, in short, of the Jewish Elohim, 
 but take special care you do not account it one of the 
 Elohim spoken of in Deuteronomy, vi. 4., for, of course 
 it is impossible I should mean any such thing, though, 
 indeed, I know that you have been brought up to be- 
 lieve that the Word of God was the appearing Jehovah, 
 and, therefore, might reasonably be accounted one of 
 the Elohim, which God himself has told us constitutes 
 one Jehovah : but had I meant to describe him to be 
 Jehovah, you may be sure that I should have put the 
 definite article before 0£o?, and called o 0eo^, a dis- 
 tinction which in no manner belongs to him. Though, 
 indeed, I know that St. Matthew has blundered so 
 greatly as to deceive you in this particular, when he 
 tells you that the Messiah was to be God with us, 
 that is, in our language, Emma7iuel ; in the blundering 
 
250 
 
 Greek of St. Matthew, ^eQ' -^/xwy o 0fo?. This may not 
 strike you at first ; but, depend upon it, he never meant 
 Jehovah^ he only meant a God in some way or other as 
 / do : do not, therefore, on any account, attend to his 
 insertion of the article, mind only my omission of it.^ 
 
 Gentlemen, — I should scorn to use ridicule as 
 a test of truth, much more so upon such a subject 
 as this, were I not anxious to show how nearly it 
 borders upon an actual absurdity to suppose that a 
 Jewish evangelist could, in those days, have 50 ex- 
 pressed himself, as to be subject to the interpret- 
 ation which Unitarians 7ionx> put upon his words. 
 
 These arbitrary alterations, so much at variance 
 with the rules of legitimate criticism, and which 
 would instantly be rejected by any scholar in the 
 interpretation of a profane classical author, in con- 
 junction with the great and unwarrantable excision 
 of the text, afford to my mind a very strong argu- 
 ment against the truth of the Unitarian system ; 
 for it is evident that all this lopping and mangling, 
 all the new readings suggested, all the improbable 
 probabilities hazarded, apply to the Scriptures only 
 in those points where they are conceived to oppose 
 that system; and even the substitution of reason 
 for revelation is used only where the doctrine of 
 the Trinity is in question. If we look around us, 
 we shall invariably find this practice resorted to by 
 
 1 Nares*s Remarks on the Improved Version of the New 
 Testament, p. 100. 
 
251 
 
 all fVamers of peculiar systems. The Jew denies 
 the truth of the whole of the New Testament, not 
 because he can disprove any part of it, but because 
 it treats of the actions and teachings of a Messiah, 
 such as his nation mil not receive. His Scriptures, 
 he declares, and we readily admit, to be unquestion- 
 ably canonical and true. They announce the time 
 when Christ was to come, at which time he did ap- 
 pear, although they affirm that his advent is delayed. 
 Now this denial has no effect upon the rest of the 
 religious world, because it is known and seen to 
 spring from obstinacy of belief and a judicial blind- 
 ness ; and, moreover, in this case, the conduct of 
 the Jews is observed to fulfil their own accepted 
 Scriptures. But the Jew and the Unitarian are 
 the only parties who bring against our Scriptures 
 the charge of untruth, if we except, perhaps, one 
 passage blotted out to form the creed of the Ro- 
 manist, and which the Jew satisfactorily proves to 
 be both genuine and authentic ; I mean, the Second 
 Commandment, the rejection of which is admitted 
 by none professing to believe the Bible but the 
 Romanist ; because it is seen that a " fond con- 
 ceit," and a leading doctrine and practice, of the 
 Romish Church is forbidden by this pretended ad- 
 dition. I must not forget that, with respect to the 
 New Testament, words are falsely rendered, and 
 the sense of some passages is wrested to a peculiar 
 meaning, also, by the Romanists, in order that they 
 
252 
 
 may establish or enforce their particular practices 
 and belief: and thus it is that the Jew, the Uni- 
 tarian, and the Romanist, alter and amend, and re- 
 gard as spurious or interpolated, only what mili- 
 tates against their own respective, peculiar, systems. 
 Now, of the Holy Volume, as of the chain of uni- 
 versal being, it may be said, 
 
 " Whatever link you strike, 
 
 Tenth, or ten-thousandth part, divides the chain alike." 
 
 We have shown, then, this day, by the evidence of 
 witnesses whose testimony is as valuable as sound 
 learning and piety, fair character and calm judg- 
 ment can make it, that ou7^ Scriptures divulge the 
 high and mysterious doctrine of a Trinity in 
 Unity ; and nothing that the witnesses have ad- 
 duced in its support has been so much as shaken 
 by all the sifting, shifting, and subterfuge which 
 has been employed to render any part of their evi- 
 dence doubtful. They prove, and they support 
 their proof by the unanimous sanction of all the 
 Christian world, (for I will maintain that the De- 
 fendants exclude themselves from that religious 
 community,) that the doctrine of the Trinity, that 
 is, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, three persons in one divine nature, is the 
 fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the doctrine 
 of the Old and New Testaments, the belief of which 
 is required of us all on the faith of the word of 
 God. This doctrine has been admirably illustrated 
 
253 
 
 by the witness Leslie, in an example taken from our 
 own nature, where the under standings the memory, 
 and the will, three distinct faculties are seen to con- 
 stitute the one soul of man ; that mysterious part of 
 us of w^hich we know no more than that it exists. 
 Where or how it so exists, is altogether hid from 
 us ; and as we cannot unravel a plain circumstance 
 thus mysteriously attached to our own earthly, 
 much less can we expect to comprehend what be- 
 longs to an infinitely higher, and divine nature, 
 beyond what God has been graciously pleased 
 faintly to trace, and shadow out to us in his revela- 
 tion.^ The doctrine, however, is not confined to 
 Christianity, although it is there more clearly ma- 
 nifested than in any of the previous dispensations. 
 There can be no doubt that it was known to the 
 
 1 " The three persons in the Trinity," says Tertullian, 
 " stand to each other in the relation of the root, the shrubs 
 and t\iQ fruit ; of the fountain, the river, and the cut from the 
 river ; of the sun, the ray, and the terminating point of the 
 rayT For these illustrations he professes himself indebted 
 to the revelations of the Paraclete. In later times, divines 
 have occasionally resorted to similar illustrations, for the pur- 
 pose of familiarising the doctrine of the Trinity to the mind ; 
 nor can any danger arise from the proceeding, so long as we 
 recollect that they are illustrations, and not arguments ; that 
 we must not draw conclusions from them, or think that what- 
 ever may be truly predicated of the illustration, may be pre- 
 dicated with equal truth of that which it was designed to il- 
 lustrate. — Bishop Kaye's Eccl. Hist, of Second and Third 
 Centuries, p. 534. 
 
254. 
 
 Patriarchs, and that, after the flood, Noah and his 
 descendants preserved so much of the knowledge 
 of what had been vouchsafed to the antedihivian 
 workl, that the tradition of it was transferred from 
 age to age, faintly marked indeed, but still sufficient 
 to be traced; until, at length, it was adopted by 
 the philosophers of antiquity, and grafted into their 
 system of a divine Triad : and thus, as Dryden says, 
 " What Socrates said of God, what Plato wrote, 
 and the rest of the heathen philosophers of several 
 nations spoke, is all no more than the twilight of 
 revelation, after the sun of it was set in the race of 
 Noah." ^ This knowledge of a Trinity further 
 appears from the accounts given of the cavern of 
 Elephanta, thought to be the most ancient temple 
 of the world,^ in which is rudely but distmctly 
 carved, in the solid rock, a colossal representation 
 of the Hindoo deity, with one body and three heads, 
 
 > Pref. to Religio Laici. 
 
 2 At the upper end of the principal cave, which is in the 
 form of a cross, and exceedingly resembles the plan of an an- 
 cient basilica, is an enormous bust with three faces, reaching 
 from the pavement to the ceiling of the temple. It has ge- 
 nerally been supposed, and is so even by Mr. Erskine, a repre- 
 sentation of the Trimurti, or Hindoo Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu, 
 and Siva. But more recent discoveries have ascertained that 
 Siva himself, to whose worship and adventures most of the 
 ornaments of the cave refer, is sometimes represented with 
 three faces, so that the temple is evidently one to the popular 
 deity of the modern Hindoos alone. — Bishop Heber's " Nai'- 
 rative of a Journey," vol. iii. p. 81. 
 
255 
 
 adorned with the oldest symbols of Indian theology, 
 and avowed, by the sacerdotal tribe of India, to 
 indicate the Creatoi\ the Preserver^ and the Rege- 
 iieratcn' of mankind. That this may be affirmed to 
 be their triune divinity, seems certain from the 
 testimony of a Sanscreet inscription upon a stone 
 found in a cave near the ancient city of Gyre in the 
 East Indies, in which the three persons, BraJima, 
 Veeshnoo, and Mahesa, the Creator^, the Preserver, 
 and the Destroyer qf Evil, make one great divinity, 
 whose name (AUM) is forbidden to be uttered 
 aloud. ^ A triad of deity may be traced in the 
 
 ' The inscription is this : — 
 
 The Deity who is the Lord, the possessor of all, appeared 
 in the ocean of natural beings at the beginning of the Kalee 
 Yoog (the age of contention and baseness). He who is omni- 
 present, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme 
 Being, the Eternal One^ the Divinity worthy to be adored, 
 appeared here with a portion of his divine nature. Reverence 
 be unto Thee in the form of Bood-dha (author of hap- 
 piness). Reverence be unto the Lord of the Earth ! Rever- 
 ence be unto Thee, an incarnation of the Deity and the 
 Eternal One. Reverence be unto Thee, O God ! in the form 
 of the God of Mercy ! the dispeller of pain and trouble ; the 
 Lord of all things ; the Deity who overcometh the sins of the 
 Kalee Yoog ; the guardian of the universe ; the emblem of 
 mercy towards those who serve thee ! O — M (the unutter- 
 able title of the Deity) ! The possessor of all things in vital 
 form ! Thou art Brahmay Veeshnoo^ Mahesa ! Thou art 
 Lord of the universe ! Thou art under the form of all things, 
 moveable and immoveable, the possessor of the whole ! And 
 thus I adore thee ! Reverence be unto the Bestower of sal- 
 vatio?i, and the Buier of the faculties. Reverence be unto 
 
256 
 
 Egyptian and Persian mytholog}^, all emanating 
 from the same source, — the original tradition given 
 to the early race of Adam, and preserved, though 
 gradually fainter and fainter, through the post-dilu- 
 vian world, until the embers of it, blown upon and 
 excited into flame, broke out in the advent of Christ, 
 the incarnate Deity himself 
 
 In every dispute concerning the apostolicity of 
 any point of Christian discipline or doctrine, it is 
 obviously of the highest importance to ascertain 
 what was the belief or practice of those Christians 
 who lived in the first ages of the Church. They, 
 who, like Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius, were con- 
 temporaries with the Apostles, and fellow-labourers 
 with them, could not possibly be ignorant of the 
 doctrines which they taught, or of the disciplme 
 which they established in their respective churches ; 
 and we may be sure they would religiously hand 
 down to their successors that doctrine and that form 
 of government which they themselves had received 
 from the Apostles. Yet the witnesses having pro- 
 duced a multitude of extracts from the writings 
 of these and other fathers of the primitive Church, 
 to establish tlie certainty that the belief of the 
 
 Thee, the Destroyer of the Evil Spirit ! O Damordara (Indian 
 God of Virtue) show me favour ! I adore Thee who art 
 celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in 
 the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy ! Be propitious, 
 O Most High God ! — Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284. 
 
257 
 
 Trinity prevailed in the apostolical and imme- 
 diately succeeding ages; and although the De- 
 fendant Priestley in his writings admits that "it 
 was an unanswerable argument a jpriori^ against 
 any particular doctrine being contained in the Scrip- 
 tures, that it was never understood to be so by those 
 persons for whose immediate use the Scriptures 
 were written, and who must have been much better 
 qualified to understand them, in that respect at 
 least, than we can pretend to be at this day'; " — 
 notwithstanding this admission, the Defendant, 
 Belsham, to get rid of all such testimony, declares 
 the epistles of Clement to be spurious, treats the 
 writings of Hernias and Barnabas with contempt, 
 charges the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp as 
 being filled with interpolations, and stamps the 
 Clementine Homilies as a romance : still, in spite 
 of all this, he arrives at this logical and impartial 
 conclusion : — "At any rate, they are good evidence 
 of the existence of Unitarianism in the second 
 century." ^ Then comes the Defendant Lindsey, 
 
 ' History of Early Opinions, p. 15. 
 
 2 Reply to the Bishop of St. Da\4d's, p. 96. 
 
 When Dr. Priestley was once pressed by the clear sense of 
 a scriptural text, which was too stubborn to bend to his 
 schemes, he declared that, sooner than admit the received 
 sense, he would suppose the whole verse to be an inter- 
 polation, or the amanuensis of the Apostle to have committed 
 an error in taking down his words. — - See Quarterly Keview, 
 vol. XV. p. 46. 
 
 S 
 
S5S 
 
 and with one stroke of his pen, he dashes out 
 the testimony of the Fathers akogether. He must 
 haveaclear and open space for the manoeuvring of his 
 system, and therefore cuts down root and branch 
 to make way for it, and cries out, " The authorities 
 of men ctre nothing !^^ — an assertion. Gentlemen, 
 which I hardly think he would have made had 
 their testimony been in favour of his views. Now, 
 to reject the evidence of the Fathers in the inter- 
 pretation of Christian doctrine and belief, would be 
 as absurd as for us to reject the opinions of all con- 
 temporary lawyers, and the uniform decision of the 
 judges, if the true meaning of some ancient statute 
 were in dispute. This we should consider to amount 
 to an abandonment of the question. On this account 
 it is that all parties involved in doctrinal con- 
 troversy are anxious to obtain the support of the 
 early Fathers ; justly looking upon them as ancient 
 receptacles of primitive articles of belief, and good 
 expositors of the Christian faith. It must, I believe, 
 be admitted, that these holy men have been treated 
 at one time with a deference bordering upon enthu- 
 siasm, at another with a negligence nearly allied to 
 contempt ; neither of which, in the judgment of the 
 learned, they deserved, — extremes from both of 
 which, I am led to think, the sober learning of the 
 present day bids fair to emancipate them. And 
 here I must be permitted to remark, with respect 
 to the vi^ritings of the early Fathers, that, of such 
 
259 
 
 as remain to us, there is not one hundredth part of 
 those which were extant at the bemnninof of the 
 fourth centm-y; and yet, with all this quantity of 
 evidence before the Fathers of the council at Nice, 
 and which was open to their opponents as well as 
 to themselves, they did not hesitate to declare that 
 all their predecessors, all the Fathers who had pre- 
 ceded them, believed in the divinity of Christ. 
 Where were the Unitarian teachers when this 
 confident assertion was made ? If the writers of 
 the three first centuries believed, as we are re- 
 peatedly told, in the simple humanity of Jesus, why 
 was not a whisper of this belief heard at the council 
 of Nice ? ^ There is not the smallest particle of 
 
 1 In the year 325, a numerous and celebrated assembly was 
 convened at Nice in Bithpiia, to extinguish, by their final 
 sentence, the subtle disputes which had arisen in Egypt on 
 the subject of the Trinity. Three hundred and eighteen 
 bishops obeyed the summons of theu* indulgent master ; the 
 ecclesiastics of every rank, and sect, and denomination, have 
 been computed at two thousand and forty-eight persons ; the 
 Greeks appeared in person ; and the consent of the Latins 
 was expressed by the legates of the Roman pontiff. The 
 session, which lasted about two months, was frequently ho- 
 noured by the presence of the Emperor. Leaving his guards 
 at the door, he seated himself (with the permission of the 
 council) on a low stool in the midst of the hall. Constantine 
 listened with patience, and spoke with modesty : and while 
 he influenced the debates, he humbly professed that he was 
 the minister, not the judge, of the successors of the Apostles, 
 — Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. iii. 
 p. 304. 
 
 s 2 
 
260 
 
 evidence to show that the Unitarian or Socinian 
 doctrines were so much as thought of at that 
 council. It is true, indeed, that those who were 
 inch'ned to Arianism appealed to the early Fathers 
 in support of their opinions. Marcion, Valentinus, 
 and others of the same school, were so convinced of 
 Jesus Christ being God, that they could not believe 
 him to be man ; they held that his body was an il- 
 lusion : which surely makes it extremely improbable 
 that the majority of Christians in those days beheved 
 in the simple humanity of Christ. The same con- 
 viction led, in the third century, to the Patripassian 
 and Sabellian heresies.^ The leaders of these 
 sects could not persuade themselves that Christ was 
 a man ; and one taught that he was actually God 
 the Father, the other maintained that he was an 
 emanation from God* I repeat, therefore, that 
 the total absence of all mention of Unitarianism at 
 the Council of Nice is a very strong argument 
 against the notion that the early Fathers were 
 Unitarians. We might believe, perhaps, though 
 
 ' The Patrij)assians were the disciples of Praxeas^ of the 
 third century, who held that it was God the Father who 
 suffered in the person of Jesus Christ. The Sabellians were 
 so called from SabeUiuSy a bishop of Upper Egypt, who 
 flourished near the fourth century. He was a disciple of 
 Nocius, and taught that the Deity appeared in the Old Dis- 
 pensation as the Father, in the New as the Soti ; and that he 
 descended on the Apostles as the Holi/ Ghost : that is, that 
 he was one God with three names. 
 
261 
 
 the hypothesis is highly improbable, that the bishops 
 assembled at that council all agreed in drawing up 
 a profession of faith which they knew to be funda- 
 mentally opposed to the doctrines held in the three 
 preceding centuries ; yet surely they would not 
 have dared to assert, with such a mass of evidence 
 before them, that they were supporting the same 
 doctrine which had always been preached. They 
 would have taken the bolder and more consistent 
 ground of saying, that the Fathers who preceded 
 them had gradually corrupted the purity of the 
 Gospel. But their language is the very opposite 
 to this. They drew up the exposition of their 
 faith in the plainest and strongest terms, explain- 
 ing every article so as to meet the varied objections 
 and subtile sophistry of conflicting heresies ; they 
 were driven to assert the divinity of Christ with 
 more minuteness and precision of language than 
 it had ever been necessary to use before ; and yet 
 they declared, that every article of their belief had 
 been held and preached from the days of the 
 Apostles to their own. Nor did any person venture 
 to rise up and contradict them by saying, that the 
 Catholic church for the first three centuries had 
 believed in the simple humanity of Jes2is Christ.^ But, 
 Gentlemen, to proceed : — the Defendants, in the ex- 
 position of their creed, go all along upon the principle 
 
 1 Vide Burton's Test, of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 448. 
 s 3 
 
262 
 
 of their right to receive or to reject such parts and 
 portions of Scripture as the reasoning faculties of 
 men, of men like themselves, approve or disapprove ; 
 and hence they conceive that Christ was not only 
 a human being, but a man marked with the same 
 " ignorance, prejudices^ cmdfrailties^^^ as characterise 
 every other man : in short, that he w as only a very 
 common man gifted with very uncommon endow- 
 ments. As a proof of this " ignorance^^ they conjee- 
 ture that " Jesus knew not the honour and dignity 
 for which he was intended, until after his baptism," 
 which, we all know, took place when he was about to 
 enter upon his public ministry. Now, upon the face 
 of the Gospel history, it seems to me that his wisdom 
 was most extraordinary, even at the early period of 
 the twelfth year of his age, when, as we read, he went 
 up with his parents to keep the passover at Jerusa- 
 lem, and took the opportunity of leaving their com- 
 pany unobserved, and, after a search of three days, 
 was found in the schools of the Rabbins, within the 
 temple, " Mis Father'' s Iwuse^^ as he called it, hear- 
 ing their arguments, and replying to them in a 
 manner " and v/ith an understanding that asto- 
 nished all who heard him." And w^hat was the 
 language he used in reply to the remonstrances of 
 his mother for having deserted, and caused her and 
 her husband such anxiety ? " How is it that ye 
 sought me ? wdst ye not that I must be about my 
 Father's business" — the business of man's salva- 
 
263 
 
 tion ? To me, and I think also to you. Gentlemen, 
 these words convey an unquestionable proof that 
 Christ, as man, knew from the earliest time what 
 purpose his coming into the world was to answer, 
 and why it was that he had come " down from 
 heaven to do his Father's will." Again, to say 
 that Christ had human ^^ jprejudices^^ is what I 
 think none have shown, and none can prove, 
 unless, indeed, that can be called prejudice, which 
 led him first to prefer his own people and nation, 
 the chosen of God, before others, in offering the 
 terms of his mighty salvation; and to have per- 
 sonally visited them, and not the Gentiles. Unless 
 his consideration of the poor^ rather than of the 
 rich, in his pastoral visitations ; and his preference 
 of the submissive and teachable disposition of the 
 ignorant, to the self-conceited and opinionated 
 Scribes, and others of the wise, be called prejudice ; 
 he assuredly had none. And, with respect to the 
 ''''frailties " to which he is also said to have been 
 subject — if by the expression more be meant than 
 the natural iiifirmities which flesh is heir to, I, on 
 behalf of the Christian world, repel the insinuation 
 with the indignation and scorn which it deserves ; 
 for it is impossible to forget that Jesus, the holy 
 Jesus, " did no sin, neither was guile found in his 
 mouth." ^ And it is upon this firm ground, that 
 
 1 1 Peter, ii. 22. 
 s 4 
 
264 
 
 Christ " did no sin^^'' that I would take my stand 
 against all the host of sceptics, to maintain his 
 righteous claim to divinity. Whatever is of the 
 earth must, in its inherent nature, be depraved and 
 earthly : but here is a being in the form of man, 
 obnoxious to the common infirmities of a created 
 and fallen nature, and yet xvithout sin, " "joithout 
 spot or blemish ! " ^ Here is one having outwardly 
 all the bodily incidents of humanity, with a mind 
 altogether heavenly and divine, and incapable of 
 taint ! Here is a man with a body that it was not 
 possible for death to hold captive or to corrupt, 
 yet with a spirit that was in heaven while he him- 
 self was on earth ! " No man," saith he, " hath 
 ascended up into heaven, but he that came down 
 from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in 
 heaven ! " Here is a proof of his divinity spring- 
 ing from one of the simplest circumstances in the 
 particulars of his history; yet a circumstance of 
 such immense importance, that it was foretold by 
 ancient and authentic prophecy,'^ confirmed by its 
 actual accomplishment, acknowledged by every be- 
 liever of the Gospel, and denied by no enemy, — 
 by none, indeed, save only by Unitarians.^ 
 
 1 1 Peter, i. 19. 2 Isaiah, liii. 9. 
 
 3 It seems incredible, but still it is so, that the Unitarians, 
 and the Unitarians only, deny that Christ was sinless. The 
 trash brought to prop up this horrible perversion may be seen 
 in a long note on Hebrews, vii. 28. of the Improved Version. 
 Yet what say the Scriptures ? — 
 
 God 
 
265 
 
 The Defendant next proceeds to say, " that, 
 after his baptism, Christ retired to the wilderness, 
 where he was fully instructed in the nature of his 
 mission^ and invested mth voluntary miraadous 
 pots:ers, ischich, hy the visionary scene of his tempt- 
 ation^ he was instructed to exercise, not for his own 
 personal advantage, hut solely for the purposes of his 
 mission,'' — insinuations the most gross and the 
 most degrading. This very common man, as they 
 make of the divine Jesus, required, according to 
 their belief, forty days' instruction, in retirement, 
 for the knowledge of his mission ; when his own 
 simple, fearful, ignorant disciples were prepared 
 for theirs by the momentary conversion wrought 
 on them by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente- 
 cost — by the instantaneous impulse of that Spirit 
 which he, Christ, their own Lord and Master, him- 
 self poured out upon them ! After this we are told 
 
 God hath made him to be sin for us, who hieiu no sin. — 
 2 Cor.v. 21. 
 
 He was tempted like as we are, i/et ivithout sin. — Heb.iii. 13. 
 
 Whoso committeth sin, transgresseth also the law, for sin is 
 the transgression of the law : but in him^sno^m. — lJohn,iii. 4,5. 
 
 Christ, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without 
 spot to God. — Heb. ix. 1-i. 
 
 He once suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust.— 
 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
 
 He shall appear a second time without sin. — Heb. ix. 28. 
 
 He that committeth sin is of the De\'il ; whosoever is born 
 of God doth not commit sin. — 1 John, iii. 8, 9. 
 
 Christ himself asked, Which of you convinceth me of sin ? 
 — John,viii. 46. and John,xiv. 30. 
 
266 
 
 that a visionary scene was presented to his mmcl, in 
 which an ideal Spirit came to tempt him to fail 
 in the promise he had made of savmg mankind. 
 Now, mark the consequence which is to follow these 
 visionary trials. By the example which he gave 
 in resisting the allurements of an unreal tempter, 
 he is to teach mankind how to resist temptations 
 that were to be real, and of perpetual occurrence. 
 
 most lame and impotent conclusion ! But the 
 absurdity ends not here. He was, moreover, en^ 
 dued with a voluntary power of working miracles ; 
 but, as this teacher was open to frailties and to sin, 
 it was necessary to guard against an abuse of this 
 voluntary power : this restraint, therefore, w^as 
 cautiously imposed upon him, " that he should 
 not work miracles for his own advantage or profit, 
 but solely for the purpose of his mission ! " What 
 more earthly and groveling can be conceived than 
 this ! Really there is something so puerile, so 
 contemptible, so absurd, in these vile suppositions, 
 that I cannot further stoop to refute them, nor can 
 
 1 suppose that any Jury in this country were so 
 void of understanding or feeling as to require that 
 I should; much less can I deem it necessary to 
 rebut that further charge of ignorance imputed to 
 " Himv/ho knew all things," of incapacity to judge 
 of what was real, and what was unreal, as regarded 
 himself; and that he should be in such a state of 
 doubt, uncertainty, and blindness, as " to apprehend 
 
26*? 
 
 himself transported into heaven^ U'hen only he was 
 Javoiired with a divine vision} 
 
 Next, Gentlemen, we come to another point of 
 great importance. After all that we have heard 
 and believed, what, think you, was the pm'port of 
 the death of Christ ? Perhaps you are irrational 
 enough to think, with St. Paul, that he offered 
 " himself a sacrifice to God for the sins of the 
 world?" that " he died for our sins?" that " he 
 was delivered for our offences?" that " he tasted 
 death for every man ? " or, with St. Peter, perhaps, 
 you think that " he bare our sins in his own body 
 upon the tree?" that "he once suffered for our 
 sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring 
 us to God ? " and that in this manner he fulfilled 
 the prediction of Isaiah, — " He hath borne our 
 griefs, and carried our sorrows, and the Lord hath 
 laid on him the iniquity of us all?"^ " No such 
 thing," say the Defendants : " you and the two 
 Apostles are wholly in an error. Christ did not 
 suffer death to appease the wrath, or to satisfy the 
 justice, of God, In no sense did he make an atone- 
 mentfor sin? You are entirely mistaken, and so 
 is St. John when he ignorantly says, ' He is the 
 pi'opitiation for our sins ; and not for our sins only, 
 
 1 Calm Inquiry, p. 449. 
 
 2 1 Cor. XV. 3. Rom. iv. 25. 1 Pet. ii. 24. 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
 Isaiah, liii. 4. 
 
 3 Calm Inquiry, p. 450. 
 
26S 
 
 but also for the sins of the whole world/ ^ The 
 idea is as contrary to reason as you must see it is 
 to Scripture. No : " the sole purport of Christ's 
 death was, that he might fall a martyr to the 
 truth." « To what truth ?" you ask ; " to the 
 truth of our being redeemed and saved by him?" 
 No : ^^ to the tmth of his resurrection from the grave. 
 This, and this only, was the purport of his coming 
 into the *is:orldP Now, Gentlemen, you will have 
 the goodness to bear in mind that Christ, pointing 
 to his own body, said, " Destroy this Temple, and 
 in three days / will r^ise it up." " / lay down 
 my life, that I might take it again ; / have power 
 to lay it down, and / have power to take it 
 again." ^ Yet he elsewhere says, " As The Father 
 raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so 
 The Son quickeneth whom he will." ^ Who can 
 read these passages and not see that the Son made 
 himself a voluntary sacrifice, and that the Father 
 and the Son are spoken of as possessing equal 
 power ? With respect to the particular mode of 
 death which Christ was to suffer, our Lord did 
 not think fit to disclose it otherwise than by a 
 similitude ; that as the brazen serpent was raised 
 up by Moses, in order that the children of Israel, 
 at the sight of it, might be cured of bodily disease, 
 
 > 1 John, ii. 2. 2 John, xi. 19. and x. 17. 
 
 3 John, V. 21. 
 
269 
 
 so the Messiah was to be Ufted up, that, by a sted- 
 fast looking to, and firm belief in him, so raised up, 
 all men might be healed of the spiritual disease, 
 the disease of sin, — " that whosoever believeth in 
 him should not perish, but have eternal life." No 
 words could more pointedly express the efficacy of 
 the death of Christ. He is lifted up,^ or crucified, 
 in order that whosoever believeth in him may 
 have eternal life. Now, surely men might have 
 believed (and many did believe) that Jesus was the 
 Messiah, a Prophet sent from God, without his 
 being crucified ; and, indeed, our Saviour does 
 not say that he was to be crucified that men might 
 believe in him, but in order that those who did 
 believe in him might be saved. It is then a plain 
 and necessary inference, that the death of Christ 
 was the indispensable condition of man's salvation, 
 and that the belief required of Christians is a 
 belief in the efficacy of that death." ^ 
 
 Yet it is but fair to the Defendants to say, that 
 if only to prove the certainty of the resurrection 
 from the grave were the object of the death of 
 Christ, and the instruction of mankind in morality, 
 were the sole purport of his coming into the world, 
 certainly a very common man with the delegated 
 
 I " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all 
 men unto me." " This," adds the Evangelist, " he said, 
 signifying what death he should die." 
 
 "- Bishop Blomfield's " Five Lectures," p. 4:7. 
 
270 
 
 powers of heaven was quite sufficient to answer these 
 purposes ; and all that our Scriptures tell us, how, 
 " that he purchased the Church of God with his 
 own blood ; " — '^ that he came to give his life a 
 ransom for many ; " — " that we are bought with a 
 price ; " — " that he redeemed us to God by his 
 blood ; " ^ — and all such things, are merely the 
 illusions of a vain philosophy, upon which we can 
 build nothing ; although St. John would persuade 
 us that " through faith in him we are no longer 
 children of wrath, but are made children of grace, 
 for, as many as received him, to them gave he 
 power to become the sons of God, even to them 
 that believe in his name ; which were born not of 
 blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will 
 of man, but of God." ^ But we have not so learned 
 Christ : we have been taught from our youth up 
 tmtil now, with those Scriptures in our hands, that 
 Christ was the " Lamb slain from the foundation 
 of the world ; " that the whole Jewish ceremonial 
 law was one continued type of his coming into the 
 world to offer himself a piacular victim, an expia- 
 tory sacrifice for the sins of the human race ; that 
 the paschal lamb, a male, a firstling without spot or 
 blemish, to be killed, but whose bones were not to 
 
 • Acts, XX. 28. Matt. XX. 28. and 1 Tim.ii. 6. 1 Cor. iv. 20. 
 Rev.v. 9. and 1 Pet. i. 19. 
 •2 John. ii. 12. 
 
271 
 
 be broken, and whose blood was to be poured out 
 upon the earth, was the emblem of the Lamb of 
 God, and that thus the Jewish law of ceremonies 
 "was the schoolmaster which brought us to Christ," 
 by showing that he was the substance and reality 
 of what that law was the mere shadow. St. Paul 
 has indeed said, in language which I should have 
 thought it impossible to have misunderstood : — 
 " We are justified freely by his grace, through the 
 redemption that is in Jesus Christ : whom God hath 
 set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 blood." ^ — " When we were yet without strength, 
 in due time Christ died for the ungodly." " — " God 
 commended his love towards us, in that while we 
 were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more 
 then, being now justified by his blood we shall be 
 saved from wrath through him : for if, when we 
 were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
 death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we 
 shall be saved by his life." ^ But on these points, 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 24. The word which is here rendered prO' 
 p'ltiation, means, properly, a propitiatory victimy QXaGri'jpwv). 
 In 1 John, ii. 2. the word signifies the propitiation itself, 
 (iXacTfiog). — Schleusner in voce. 
 
 2 Rom. v. 6. 
 
 3 Rom. v. 10. The death of Christ is here so distinctly 
 spoken of as the mean, or medium, of our atonement, or re- 
 conciliation with God, KartjWdyijfxtv t<^ Bi<^ did tov Qavdrov 
 Tov 'Xiov av-ov, that the doctrine of the atonement by his 
 blood would stand immoveably upon this single text of Scrip- 
 ture. — Bishop Blomfield. 
 
272 
 
 the Apostle and the Defendants are directly at 
 issue ; and as we stand wondering how it is possible 
 for any to elude the force of these unequivocal de- 
 clarations, in comes the Defendant Priestley, with 
 his pruning knife in hand, and, without attempting 
 to untie the knot, cuts it asunder, exclaiming, " I 
 do not see that we are under any obligation to 
 believe this or that, merely because it was an opinion 
 held by an Apostle ! " ^ We however feel ourselves 
 bound by such an obligation, and prefer the testi- 
 mony of St. Paul, supported as he is by St. Peter, 
 who says, " We are redeemed wdth the precious 
 blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and 
 without spot;" — backed, as they both are, by the 
 prophets Daniel and Isaiah, - to the rash judgment 
 of those who have thus dared to tax this chosen vessel 
 of the Lord with error and inaccuracy.^ 
 
 The Defendants, withholding from us salvation 
 
 ' Hist, of Early Opinions, vol.i. p. 163. 
 
 2 iPet. i. 19. Dan.ii. 24. Isaiah, liii. 6—12. 
 
 3 I think I have shown that the Apostle Paul often reasons 
 inconclusively. — Priestley's Hist, of Corrup. vol.ii. p. 370. 
 
 Such, no doubt, was the Apostle's meaning, if he had any 
 meaning at all. — Belsham's Trans, of St. Paul's Ep. vol. i. 
 p. 171. 
 
 The Apostle does not say that he was inspired to assert 
 the literal truth of the Mosaic history of the fall ; probably he 
 knew no more of it than ive do. — Ihid. vol.i. p. 110. 
 
 This incorrectness of style is not uncommon in the sacred 
 writers, and St. Paul has before availed himself of the am- 
 biguity of the word angel, — Improved Version, note on 
 Heb.ii. 5. 
 
273 
 
 through the satisfaction and blood of Christ; 
 having cut Him down to the standard of a mortal 
 and a very common man, proceed next to deny, 
 contrary to our fondest, and, as we thought, our well 
 founded hopes, that Christ is our Intercessor, Me- 
 diator, and Advocate, " sitting on the right hand 
 of the Majesty on high," to intercede with God 
 for his people. They affirm that he has never as- 
 cended from the earth at all, but is merely " tsoith- 
 dra-ison ; " and this " removal,^' say they, '^from the 
 society of mankind is a circumstance described as an 
 ascension into heaven ;^^ intimating that this super- 
 stitious belief springs from the heathen notion of 
 an apotheosis of a human creature ; so that, in 
 fact, what happened to Christ was only the re- 
 petition of what had previously been done in the 
 case of Lazarus. Now, St. Paul's character on 
 this account ought to be less appreciated than it 
 is ; for he has again led us into error by stating, 
 that " Christ, our High Priest of good things to 
 come, has entered into the Holy Place, a greater 
 and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands;" 
 — and not only has St. Paul been mistaken on this 
 point, but David and Micah also, who both pre- 
 dicted that Christ should ascend up on high, and 
 that the gates of heaven should open to him, the 
 King of Glory.^ And, if my memory does not 
 
 I Heb.ix. 11. Micah, ii. 13. Ps.lxviii. 18. Ps.xxiv. 9. 
 T 
 
274 
 
 deceive me, I think our Saviour himself, when he 
 appeared to Mary Magdalene, said, " Touch me 
 not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father ; " — 
 having long previously said to Nicodemus, '* No 
 man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came 
 down from heaven : " — nor must I forget to remind 
 you that he still more expressly said, " I am the 
 living h^ead^'' (in contrast with the bread or manna 
 which fell fi'om heaven upon the Israelites), — "I am 
 the living bread, which came down from heaven ; " 
 — an expression which the Jews understood to be 
 an assumption of divinity, and which, indeed, gave 
 such offence to his disciples, that, remarking it, 
 he said, " Does this offend you ? What and if 
 ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up "inhere he 
 'was before?" ^ All this the Defendants represent 
 as improbable, useless, metaphorical, unreal, and 
 altogether untrue. According to them, Christ is 
 said in Scripture to have created all things by a 
 figure ! — he made an atonement for the sins of 
 mankind by a figure! Satan and all Angels 
 are fictitious personages ; and here Clu'ist is said 
 to have ascended into heaven by a figure ! Yet 
 when our Lord "led his disciples out to Bethany 
 and blessed them," he did not appear in a figure 
 before them, but was actually, corporeally, present 
 with them : he w^alked out from the city in their 
 company, and when he had reached Bethany, — 
 
 1 John, vi. 42. 
 
275 
 
 when he had conversed with them, and given them 
 his blessing, they saw him, not suddenly snatched 
 from their view, as he had been from the sight of 
 the tw^o disciples at Emmaus, but they beheld him 
 slowly and gradually rise up into the heavens ; 
 and as they stood gazing upwards, in the direction 
 beyond which their mortal ken could not reach, 
 there came two Angels in human form, who ad- 
 dressed not one but all of them, " Ye men of 
 Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 
 This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into 
 heaven^ shall so come in like manner as ye have 
 seen him go into heaven" ^ And thus, "as he 
 came from God, so he went to God." ^ 
 
 Having denied us Christ as our sacrifice oi 
 atonement, — havingdenied him to be our Advocate, 
 Intercessor, and Mediator with God in heaven, — 
 having robbed us of those blessings which could 
 only be purchased by his blood, and which the 
 sufferings, and death, and blood of none but Em- 
 manuel himself could obtain for us, — the Defend- 
 ants aim to leave us still more comfortless, by taking 
 away from us the gracious influence of that Holy 
 Spirit which was given to supply his removal, — 
 given to comfort, to guide, to encourage and assist 
 us, in all dangers ghostly and bodily ; and we are 
 told what, if true, we should receive with infinite 
 
 ' Acts, i. 11. - John, xvii. 3. 
 
 T 2 
 
276 
 
 concern and amazement, that " the personal or 
 sensible connection which Christ promised, was 
 only to continue dw^ing the apostolic age, since 
 which he is withdrawn from all sensible (and, by 
 inference, all imperceptible) intercourse with the 
 world; though, perhaps, he may be (wherever he 
 is) still attentive to its concerns." * 
 
 Gentlemen, — Can you consent to give up for 
 yourselves and your children, and for the Christian 
 world, all these mighty blessings ? Will you con- 
 sent to yield all the clear and express promises 
 made of them in your Scriptures, without some 
 resistance? The witnesses who have appeared 
 before you this day have shov/n to demonstration, 
 that the Apostles, one and all, speak and declare 
 against this cruel and wicked plunder of our spi- 
 ritual possessions. Upon what grounds do the 
 Defendants set up their plea for this oppression 
 and robbery ? Will they venture to say that the 
 inspired teachers of these doctrines were mistaken 
 in these points ? and that they have taught us not 
 " the truth as it is in Jesus?" You would scarcely 
 believe it possible, had you not heard it, that they 
 do virtually assert this. They declare "that they 
 utterly deny the universal inspiration of these \s:riters, 
 but they judge of the genuineness^ the meanings and 
 the credibility of their works, exactly as they judge 
 
 1 Calm Inquiry, p. 453. 
 
277 
 
 of any other ancient writing : " that is, by the 
 measure of their own reason crippled and paralysed 
 by their peculiar prejudices and their erring will. 
 Now, to this 1 answer by using the words and lan- 
 guage of one of the witnesses, — " You will esteem 
 it an objection of little weight, that the modern 
 advocates of the Unitarian tenets cannot otherwise 
 give a colour to their wretched cause than by 
 denying the inspiration of the sacred historians, 
 that they may seem to themselves at liberty to 
 reject their testimony. You will remember that 
 the doctrines of the Christian revelation were not 
 originally delivered in a system, but interwoven in 
 the history of our Saviour's life. To say, there- 
 fore, that the first preachers were not inspired in 
 the composition of the narratives in which their 
 doctrine is conveyed, is nearly the same thing as 
 to deny their inspiration in general. You will, 
 perhaps, think it incredible that they who were 
 assisted by the Divine Spirit when they preached, 
 should be deserted by that Spirit when they com- 
 mitted what they had preached to writing. You will 
 think it improbable that they who were endowed 
 with the gift of discerning spirits, should be endowed 
 with no gift of discerning the truth of facts. You 
 will recollect one instance upon record, in which 
 St. Peter detected a falsehood by the light of in- 
 spiration ; and you will perhaps be inclined to 
 think that it could be of no less importance to the 
 T 3 
 
27S 
 
 Church, that the Apostles and Evangelists should 
 be enabled to detect falsehoods in the history of 
 our Saviour's life, than that St. Peter should be 
 enabled to detect Ananias's lie about the sale of his 
 estate. You will think it unlikely that they wha 
 were led by the Spirit into all truth, should be 
 permitted to lead the whole Church for many ages 
 into error; that they should be permitted to leave 
 behind them, as authentic memoirs of their Mas- 
 ter's life, narratives compiled, wdth little judgment 
 or selection, from the stories of the day, from facts 
 and fictions in promiscuous circulation. The cre- 
 dulity which swallows these contradictions, while 
 it strains at mysteries, is not the faith which will 
 remove mountains. The Ebionites of antiquity, 
 little as they were famed for penetration and dis- 
 cernment, managed however the affairs of the sect 
 with more discretion than our modern Unitarians. 
 They questioned not the inspiration of the books 
 which they received ; but they received only one 
 book, — a spurious copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 curtailed of the two first chapters." ^ 
 
 It is extraordinary with what pains and anxieties 
 the Defendants labour to dishonour Him who 
 claimed for himself the same honour that v/as due 
 to his heavenly Father. With the same disregard 
 of Scripture, the same aim to pervert it to a mean- 
 
 ' Horsley's Sermons, vol.iii. p. 87, 
 
279 
 
 ing suited to their own earthly notions, they pre- 
 tend to show that Christ when he comes to judg- 
 ment, that is, from his seat in heaven, with all the 
 retinue of Angels and all the heavenly host, will 
 come forth, not from the right hand of God, but 
 from some uncelestial abode with a delegated power 
 as a sort of puisne Judge of the great Assize, with 
 the Apostles associated with him in the same com- 
 mission.^ But let any one read only the latter 
 half of the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel, and say whether we have not, in that sub- 
 lime Scripture, not only reason for the expectation 
 of a very different advent, but a hope of the coming 
 of such a judge, in that most awful and tremendous 
 day of trial, of which no groveling scheme of ra- 
 tional religion can deprive us. With gratitude to 
 the all-merciful Father in heaven, we accept the 
 coming of the Son of Man as our great Judge, be- 
 cause he has been made flesh for us, and has taken 
 a human body in which " he has been tempted in 
 all points, like as we are, yet without sin." 
 
 Having made every attempt to lower the dignity 
 of our Saviour, it is only mere consistency in the 
 Defendants to deny that he can be a proper object 
 of religious worship, although he himself said, " Ye 
 believe in God, believe also in me." This denial 
 and the grounds of it have been so fully and so com- 
 
 1 Calm Inquiry, p. 453. 
 T 4 
 
280 
 
 pletely refuted by the evidence of the witnesses, 
 that it is unnecessary for me to attempt to add 
 greater weight to their arguments ; I shall, there- 
 fore, only observe, in passing, that St. John appears 
 to me to establish the claim which the blessed Son 
 of God demanded, when he required " that all 
 men should honour the Son even as they honour 
 the Father." ^ " These things have I written unto 
 you, that ye may believe on the name of the Son 
 of God. And this is the confidence we have in 
 him, that if we ask any thing according to his 
 will, he heareth us. And if we know that he 
 hears us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we 
 have the petitions we desired of him." ^ But in 
 another part of the same epistle, tlie same precept 
 is repeated, with this only difference, that the word 
 " God " is used instead of " Christ." We have 
 confidence towards God, and whatsoever we ask, 
 we receive of him." "^ Now, I ask, can any man 
 read these two passages, and doubt for a single mo- 
 ment whether his Saviour be the God that heareth 
 prayer ? "* The witness Burton has shown that it 
 was the practice of the earliest Christians to address 
 prayer to Christ ; and to his testimony I have only 
 to add that of Justin Martyr. " We worship 
 and adore," says he, " the God of Righteousness, 
 
 • John, V. 23. - 1 John, v. 13, 14. 
 
 3 1 John, iii, 21. "* Bishop Home's Sermon xxxiv. 
 
281 
 
 and his Son, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy : " — 
 " We hold it unlawful to worship any but God 
 alone." In this he is joined by Origen, who says, 
 "We worship and adore no creature, but the Father, 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost." ^ It must be ob- 
 served, also, that when Christ prayed himself to 
 the Father in the character of a teacher sent unto 
 them, he speaks with propriety as if the Father 
 were the only God, and he himself a man. " This 
 (saith he) is life eternal, that they might know thee 
 the o?ily true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou 
 hast sent." But when he has once said, " 1 have 
 finished the work which thou gavest me to do," — 
 then another scene opens upon us : we are in heaven ; 
 Christ is ascended to the right hand of the Majesty 
 on high ; the earthly things, the earthly offices, of 
 the Messiah are vanished ; and if we give in to this 
 conception, we shall rightly feel and understand 
 what follows : — " And now, O Father, glorify thou 
 me with thine own self, with the glory which I had 
 with thee before the world was."^ Phny, who wrote 
 in the beginning of the second century, and who was 
 employed by the emperor Trajan to examine into 
 the principles of the sect of the Christians, says : — 
 
 ' Justin Martyr, Apol. 4-. Origen, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. 
 lib.i. 
 
 •^ Compare John, xvii. 3, 4. 11. John, x. 30. Lev. xxiv. 16. 
 See Hey's Lectures, vol.ii. p. 266. 
 
282 
 
 " Their custom is to meet on a certain day before 
 it is light, and among other parts of their worship 
 they sing an hymn to Christ, as their God^^ ^ And, 
 beyond all this, Christ himself said, " He that hath 
 seen me, hath seen the Father." — '^ I am in tJie 
 Father, and the Father in me." — "Whatsoever ye 
 shall ask in my name, that "imll I doj'' ^ — Yet, di- 
 rectly in the face of all this, the Defendants hazard 
 this bold, and, as I think, most false assertion : — 
 We are fully persuaded, in refusing this homage, 
 whicli is in itself poh^theistical and idolatrous, that 
 we act in perfect conformity to the authority and ex- 
 ample of Jesus, and in a manner of which he him- 
 self would testify the most entire approbation, if he 
 were to appear in person upon earth.'^ This is as 
 much as to say, We are right in our opinion that 
 Christ is a mere common man, and as such, worship 
 to him is an act of superstitious idolatry; and if you 
 ask us why we say so, in flat contradiction to all 
 
 1 Carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem. 
 — Lib.x. ep. 97. 
 
 Eusebius quotes the Presbyter Cains as appealing to 
 Melito, Irenaeus, and Clement, whether they did not declare 
 Christ to be both God and Man, and whether " the songs 
 and psalms, written from the ^rst by the faithful brethren, 
 did not ascribe divinity to Christ, and celebrate him as the 
 Word of God ? " '^aXixol ck oaoi Kal ujdai a.d(\(pu>v aiz apxVQ 
 VTTO ttkttCjp ypa(pel<Tai TON AOPON TOY e£OY TON XPISTON 
 •YMN0Y2I eEOAOrOYNTES. — Hist. Eccl. lib.V. c.28. 
 
 2 John, xiv. 9. 11. 13. 
 
 ^ Cahn Inquii'y, p. 454. 
 
283 
 
 that you pretend to prove, our answer is, — We 
 will give no other reason than this, and a sufficient 
 one it is, viz., that we are quite sure that we are 
 right. Then again they return to the charge, and 
 take up their former position, and say, " Jesus 
 declared himself to be a man, a fact which must 
 be admitted without hesitation ; " and it is readily 
 admitted by all Christians; for we, one and all, 
 declare that, truly, " he was made man, — made of 
 a woman." " But," they continue, " all that is as- 
 serted of his divinity is founded merely 7ij)on oblique 
 hints^ obscure^ Jigurative^ and ambiguous phi^aseo- 
 logy.'^ ^ " How then," we ask, " do you get rid of 
 such as are not obscure, but which speak clearly and 
 simply to the point?" " Oh," they reply, " all 
 that you conceive to speak of the divinity of Jesus, 
 applies not to himself, but to the divine original of 
 his doctrine?^ " Why, is not Christ said to be the 
 Creator and Maker of all things ?" I ask. " Yes," 
 they answer ; " but you are surely not so simple as 
 to conceive that he was the Maker of the natural 
 isoorld: no, no, he was Maker, we tell you, of the 
 new creation^ — the new moi'al world ! " " But 
 Christ is said to be with God, and to be God him- 
 self." " Ay, so your Scriptures say ; but even 
 them you do not understand, for they speak of 
 him thus, only to imply that he was invested with 
 
 1 Calm Inquiry, p. 456. 
 
284 
 
 a power of working miracles, and is called a god 
 only in the same sense that Moses was a god to 
 Pharaoh. But, let us tell you, to put an end to all 
 farther dispute, that Christians have as great and 
 just a claim to divinity as Christ himself had, inas- 
 much as they are the sons or children of God." * 
 
 Can it be necessary to go farther into this 
 rational scheme of rational Christians, to show the 
 defamatory blasphemous nature of this abhorrent 
 and truly ungodly system ? There is no arguing 
 vrith men who have no other data than their own 
 shifting unstable fancies to reason upon ; and, as 
 their Scriptures and ours are so directly opposed 
 to each other, it is in vain to expect that we can 
 maintain any one doctrine in common with them. 
 The witnesses have proved again and again, and 
 they have adduced evidence from the most learned 
 and pious of the Christian world to show, that 
 Jehovah, in the Old Testament, and our Lord, in 
 the New, are one and the same ; yet these men, 
 perverse to the very last, persist in saying (but it 
 is only saying) that the Scriptures, ours and theirs, 
 explicitly and repeatedly assert " that Christ was 
 not personally concerned in any of the former dis- 
 pensations of God to mankind, either to the Pa- 
 
 • The same, or even stronger^ expressions are applied to 
 Christians in general than those from which the deity of 
 Christ is visually inferred. — Calm Inquiry, p. 458. 
 
285 
 
 triarchs or to the Jews:" yet, if acklitional testi- 
 mony were wanted to establish the direct contrary, 
 I would adduce that simple circumstance which 
 took place at the crucifixion, where a Roman 
 soldier with his spear pierced the side of Jesus, 
 and which St. John says was done in the fulfilment 
 of prophecy, — " They shall look on him whom 
 they have pierced." ' Now, upon referring to the 
 original prediction, we find that it is Jehovah intro- 
 duced, saying, " They shall look upon ME whom 
 they have pierced."'- But, setting all this aside, 
 allow me, Gentlemen, to put a case on which you 
 can as well judge as any theologians whatever. 
 
 The New Testament represents, and Jesus as- 
 serted, that he was man : now, the same Scriptures, 
 and the same Jesus, as often, if not often er, affirm, 
 and still more frequently imply, that he was the 
 Son of God, one with the Father. If we adopt 
 the reasoning and the argument made use of by 
 the Defendants, I can, with equal truth and pro- 
 priety, upon tlieir owm grounds, maintain that 
 Jesus Christ was God, and not man : but, taking 
 the true and correct mode of simple and legitimate 
 reasoning, we arrive at this point, that he was 
 both God and man, " God of the substance of 
 
 1 Compare John, xix. 37. with Zech. xii. 10. 
 
 2 In Gen. XV. 1. 4., 1 Sam.iii. 7.21. and xv. 10., 1 Kings, 
 xiii. 9. 17. and xix. 9. 15., Ps. cvii. 20., have mn' nDT Debar 
 Yehovah^ The Word of Jehovah. 
 
^86 
 
 the Father, begotten before the worlds ; and man 
 of the substance of his mother, born in the world ; 
 equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, but 
 inferior to the Father as touching his manhood : " 
 " who," says St. Paul, " in the days of his fesh, 
 when he had offered up prayers and supplications, 
 with strong crying and tears, unto him that was 
 able to save him from death, and was heard in that 
 he feared : though he were a Son, yet learned he 
 obedience by the things which he suffered." ^ And 
 why was it that he took upon him this flesh, and 
 became Son of God, of God ; and Son of Man, of 
 woman ; and was made subject to these sufferings, 
 and to this death ? Because it was originally fore- 
 told, and first promised, that the seed of the Woman 
 should bruise the serpent's head. Observe, Gen- 
 tlemen, " the seed of the TVoman : " no mention 
 is made of the Man : so that this birth of the Sa- 
 viour was to be effected, not after the ordinary 
 and natural manner ; for then, how could Christ 
 have been the Son of God (properly so called), as 
 the anofel Gabriel had declared ? No : this birth 
 was to be accompanied with superhuman circum- 
 stances ; so that, when Isaiah said, " A Virgin shall 
 conceive, and bear a Son," the Jews did not, nor 
 could they then, comprehend how that were pos- 
 sible to happen. But afterwards the difficulty was 
 
 ' Hei>. V. 7, 8. 
 
287 
 
 removed, and we have seen how Christ was bodi 
 God and Man, — God, as generated by his pre- 
 existing Divinity, which overshadowed the Virgin ; 
 and Man, as born of Womcni, of the V'irgin her- 
 self. 
 
 The last argument I shall adduce in proof of 
 Christ's being " very God of very God," is that 
 furnished by the Jews themselves, when, upon 
 several occasions, they chai'ged our Lord with 
 blasphemy for his assumption of divinity, and for 
 his putting himself upon an equality with the One 
 God whom they worshipped. On one of these 
 occasions he declared to the Jews that fact openly 
 and unambiguously, — "I and the Father are 
 one:" upon which they immediately took up 
 stones to put him to that death which the law 
 sanctioned against blasphemers ; and when he 
 remonstrated with them against the act, and re- 
 minded them of the many good works which he 
 had done amongst them, what was their reply ? — 
 " For a good work we stone thee not, but because 
 thou, being a man, makest thyself God.'" ^ Here it 
 is evident that his claim to divinity brought this 
 charge against him ; for it had not been blasphemy 
 if his claim had been merely to the title of a god 
 by virtue of his office. Again, when, upon another 
 occasion, he told the Jews, " Before Abraham was, 
 
 ' Levit. xxiv. 14. 16. John, x. 33. 
 
288 
 
 I am ; " the assumption, not only of a pre-existing 
 state, but of the title of Jehovah (I AM), again 
 brought upon him their indignation, at what they 
 conceived his abhorrent blasphemy, and once 
 more they would have stoned him to death, had 
 he not exerted his own inherent heavenly power, 
 and vanished from their sight, by the exercise 
 of that miraculous power which he only rarely 
 exerted for his own personal security during his 
 ministry.^ Again, when he healed the man sick 
 of the palsy, by saying, " Man, thy sins are for- 
 given thee," the Scribes and Pharisees declared 
 that he had spoken blasphemy by assuming the 
 attribute and prerogative of God, and of God only, 
 in his pardon of sin - — Jesus, instead of clearing 
 himself by disclaiming the intention, persisted in 
 his right to it; and further, to show that, though 
 the Son of Man, the pov%er of forgiving sins was 
 his own attribute, he added, "/ say unto thee, 
 arise, take up thy couch, and go unto thine home. 
 And immediately the sick man rose up before them, 
 took up that whereon he lay, and departed, glori- 
 fying God." Then foUow^ed all that surprise, and 
 
 > When Christ asked those who came to capture him, 
 " Whom seek ye ? " and they answered him, " Jesus of 
 Nazareth ; " he said to them, 'Eyw et/a, I AM ! and such was 
 the effect of his utterance of these words, that they were 
 struck to the ground, and fell backward. — John, xviii. 6. 
 
 - Compare Isaiah, xliii. 25. and Luke, iv. 21. 
 
289 
 
 awe, and wonder, which the Defendants say should 
 have followed, had he been known to be one with 
 God ; for the people " were all amazed, and glori- 
 fied God, and wevejilled mth fear, saying, We 
 have seen strange things to-day." ^ They were 
 not seized with an uncommon amazement at the 
 miracle itself, for he had before cured a man of 
 leprosy under ordinary symptoms of wonder ; but 
 because the manner of eifecting the miracle sud- 
 denly proved his divinity, by the discovery of his 
 own attribute of pardoning sin. In the last place, 
 when Christ stood arraigned before the High 
 Priest, and the members of the Jewish Council ; 
 and the High Priest adjured him to declare whether 
 he were Christ, the Son of God, he gave them at 
 once to understand that he laid claim to that 
 honour, and that he was very God. The High 
 Priest immediately rent his clothes, in token of his 
 abhorrence at the assertion, and cried out, " What 
 further need have we of witnesses ? behold now ye 
 have heard his hlasjphemy ! " and he was instantly 
 condemned to death.^ And, indeed, it seems pretty 
 evident, by all that has been brought before us, that 
 if the Unitarians had been present upon these oc- 
 casions, they also would so far have taken part 
 with the Jews, as to have declared him guilty 
 of blasphemy. But I trust that you. Gentlemen, 
 
 • Luke, V. 26. ^ Matt. xxvi. 65. 
 
290 
 
 will have no hesitation in repelling such a charge, 
 from the blessed Jesus, and of turning it against 
 those who deny him to be their God, and look 
 upon us as credulous fools and madmen for be- 
 lieving him to be ours. And when we have shown 
 
 o 
 
 you to demonstration, that the Defendants, by their 
 self-made, rational, scheme and system of religion, 
 contend, 
 
 That Christ is not the Son of the Most High, 
 nor born of a Virgin. 
 
 That he was a mere man, a man of ignorance, 
 prejudices, and frailties, and not "without sin. 
 
 That he was only a Teacher and Prophet more 
 highly endowed than any other, and iiiferior to 
 any heavenly being. 
 
 That he came into the world only to teach mo- 
 rality, and suffered only as a martyr to the truth, 
 and died only to prove a resurrection from the 
 grave. 
 
 That he did not die for the sins of mankind, and 
 therefore is not our Redeemer. 
 
 That he was not the Lamb of God, offered as a 
 full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice or oblation and 
 satisfaction to the justice of God, for his fallen and 
 sinful creatures. 
 
 That he did not ascend up into heaven, and 
 therefore is neither our Advocate, nor Intercessor, 
 nor Mediator. 
 
 That he will only be constituted a Judge of the 
 
291 
 
 quick and dead in a commission with his Apostles, 
 to award a sentence of which we know nothing at 
 present. 
 
 That he had no power and no authority to assist 
 mankind after his death. 
 
 That lie can neither be a Comforter, nor send 
 the Holy Spirit to dwell among us, and therefore 
 that we have no Sanctifier. 
 
 That there is no Holy Ghost, no Son of God, 
 no Trinity in Unity. 
 
 That there is no Evil Spirit, no Satan, no Devil, 
 no Wicked One. 
 
 That the temptation of Christ in the wilderness 
 was all a mere vision. 
 
 That what the Apostles have written is not to 
 be regarded in every part as inspiration, but only 
 so much of it as Unitarians will condescend to ad- 
 mit ; and therefore the Holy Spirit did not guide 
 them to all truth. ^ 
 
 1 Perniciosa cumpriniis est haeresis Sociniana, qua inter 
 hodiernas, sub nomine Christiano, nulla asque detestanda. 
 Non enim haec articulum aliquem religionis, sed ejus animam 
 et fundamenta concutit et evertit ferme secundum hanc, et 
 Christus nihil est nisi Doctor aliquis, aut Martyr egregius ; ejus 
 officium, docere duntaxat, non vere redimere ; Evangelium, 
 altera lex ; justificatio, propter opera ; probitas, solummodo 
 ethica; infernus, et animae plurimorum post hanc vitam, 
 nihil; quodque primo loco dicendum fuerat, S. in Deo 
 Trinitas ludibrium et idolum. Quae omnia, iisque annexa 
 capita et errores, quantopere totani theologiam et religionem 
 u 2 
 
292 
 
 Now, I ask, what can this " system of the best 
 practical Deism," as the witness Horsley calls it; 
 or " this sort of infidelity in disguise," as the great 
 Warburton designated it, be, but as gross and 
 scandalous a libel as can be published against the 
 Christian Religion ; against Jesus Christ our Lord 
 and Saviour ; and against his holy Apostles ? I 
 do not mean, however, to say by this that the De- 
 fendants are not sincere in their principles, but 
 only to protest against the baneful influence of 
 their principles, and to show and declare that, 
 rational Christians as they may deem themselves, 
 they are egregiously mistaken, and obstinately 
 perverse in their errors ; and that their principles 
 only serve to shelter and cover Deists and others, 
 who, arraying themselves under the guise of Uni- 
 tarianism, screen from public view and public 
 odium the indecencies of a more odious infidelity. 
 There is nothing, indeed, in the system to captivate 
 the affections of the soul. All there is cold and 
 comfortless, and these deadly feelings are main- 
 tained at the expense of all that is fair, and open, 
 and invigorating, in the Christian scheme ; at the 
 expense of unsatisfactory quibbles, gross distor- 
 tions, and crooked criticism, which, though the 
 coin of an ingenious mint, is base and worthless : 
 
 infestent ac corrumpant, nemo est qui non sentiat. — Hoorn- 
 beck de Socinianismo, p. 441. 
 
293 
 
 a system it is, that only flatters a false pride of 
 sophism, at the expense of all that is pious, all 
 that is honest and good, in philosophy. I there- 
 fore earnestly call upon you. Gentlemen, to mark 
 your abhorrence of it, that it may go forth to all 
 the world that an enlightened, rational, and reli- 
 gious Jury, of the most liberal and intelligent king- 
 dom of the earth, after a full, fair, and clear inves- 
 tigation, have pronounced the several writings of 
 the Defendants to be libels against the Established 
 Religion of the State, — against the Religion of him 
 who was truly the Son of God. By such a verdict 
 you may guard, at least, some portion of mankind 
 from falling under that fearful denunciation, which 
 we will sincerely hope, through the mercy and 
 the merits of this injured Christ, may be the final 
 doom of none. " Of how much sorer punishment, 
 suppose ye, shall they be thought worthy, who 
 have trodden under foot the Son of God, and have 
 counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith they 
 are sanctified an unholy thing, and have done de- 
 spite unto the Spirit of grace ? " 
 
 The Judge then charged the Jury, 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, — The three Defendants 
 are charged, on an Information filed by his Majesty's 
 Attorney-General, with each having written and 
 published works irreverently reflecting upon the 
 great fundamental doctrine of the Christian Re- 
 u 3 
 
294 
 
 ligion, — which doctrine, as grounded on Scripture, 
 the Established Church receives and upholds ; and 
 therefore the offence with which they are charged 
 has reference both to the Holy Scriptures and to 
 the Religion of the State. I need only remind you 
 that we live in a Christian country, and that the 
 Legislature has recognised the canonical books of 
 the Old and New Testament as being authentic 
 and genuine Scripture, — as being most true and 
 holy, — as being the inspired Word of God. From 
 this volume of inspiration has been drawn, by the 
 wisest, the most learned and pious men, a form of 
 public prayer and worship, which, also, the Legis- 
 lature has received as being in exact harmony and 
 consistency with the Scriptures, fairly and simply 
 interpreted. The Defendants are charged with de- 
 nying these Scriptures in many parts to be either 
 canonical or true, and they have proceeded to alter 
 them to suit an interpretation which, if right, goes to 
 show that the State is in error, and that its learned 
 and pious men are mistaken in their notions of the 
 fundamental doctrines of Christianity. They declare 
 that the Scriptures themselves are incorrect both 
 with regard to the matter and manner of their con- 
 tents ; and that, from deducing doctrines not to be 
 found in them, the community is made polytheistical 
 and idolatrous in its worship. It must be evident 
 to you, Gentlemen, that by representing the Na- 
 tional Faith and worship as corrupt, the object and 
 
295 
 
 effect of the writings of the Defendants must be to 
 alienate the people from belief in the accepted 
 Scriptures, and also from conforming to the pre- 
 scribed worship grounded upon them; a proceeding 
 which the Law of the land will not permit, because 
 it tends to unsettle and mislead the public mind, 
 to weaken the sacred cause of religion, and to cut 
 asunder all the ties which bind the people in social 
 compact together. The Law of the land, certainly, 
 cannot so bind the conscience as to compel an in- 
 voluntary belief on such an awful and high subject 
 as that of religion ; but it has such a control over 
 human action, as justly to command outward re- 
 verence and respect for that belief, and that form 
 of worship, which the community at large regards 
 and holds as sacred. However the conduct of the 
 official advocate of the crown may be considered 
 as savouring of intolerance and persecution, I, for 
 one, cannot regret that he has thought fit to bring 
 this high matter to the scrutiny of a British Jury, 
 and a British Court of Justice ; because, if what we 
 have been taught to believe of the holy volume of 
 Scripture has been false, the sooner we are made 
 sensible of our error, and can retract from it, the 
 better and safer it must be for us all : while on the 
 other hand, if those Scriptures have been cut down, 
 and mutilated, and misinterpreted, by the Defend- 
 ants, it is but common justice that their practices 
 u 4 
 
296 
 
 and pernicious errors should be exposed to all the 
 censure and contempt which they deserve. 
 
 Gentlemen, — You have heard this day the body 
 of evidence brought against the Defendants ; you 
 have heard and witnessed how they have met it : 
 but, that you may be guided in your verdict only 
 by the evidence adduced, and that you may not 
 be led away to the one side or to the other, by 
 either the justification of the Defendants, or by 
 the allegations of the learned advocate, I proceed 
 to recapitulate the testimony of each witness as it 
 has been given, and I beg to observe that I shall 
 forbear making a single comment of my own as I 
 proceed, that you may be swayed by nothing but 
 your ow^n clear and unbiassed judgment in return- 
 ing such a verdict as your consciences approve. 
 
 His Lordship then recapitulated the evideiice as 
 it is here given, \sohen he proceeded to observe : — 
 
 I have now fully detailed all the particulars of 
 the case, as the witnesses have severally deposed to 
 it ; and have therefore only further to observe, that 
 Christianity is a part of the law of England, and 
 was so held from the earliest periods of our history. 
 At the Reformation, and by several subsequent acts 
 in the reign of Edward the Sixth, and of Elizabeth, 
 the form of the national religion was established ; 
 but after the restoration of Charles ths Second, 
 the Act of Uniformity, as it was called, was passed, 
 and provided that form of public prayer which was 
 
297 
 
 inserted in the " Common- Prayer Book," and or- 
 dained to be kept in all parts of the country as a re- 
 cord, to be produced, if necessary, in courts of justice. 
 Now, though the Law, as 1 have before observed, 
 does not forbid the decent discussion of the theo- 
 logical subjects to which it referred, it does not 
 allow the Scriptures to be scoffed at, or treated with 
 irreverence and contempt ; much less does it permit 
 any part of them to be upheld as false and unwor- 
 thy of belief. It is for you, Gentlemen, to consider 
 whether in your judgment, the several writings of 
 the Defendants which have been brought before 
 you, and which they have acknowledged to be 
 theirs, do not come under the description of those 
 forbidden by the statute ; and whether, if so, they 
 are not gross libels upon the Holy Scriptures; upon 
 the Christian Religion; and, consequently, upon the 
 Religion of the State as by the Law established. If, 
 in your opinion, the Defendants have erred only in 
 judgment, and not from any evil intention either to 
 Religion or to the State, it is still your duty to find 
 them guilty ; because, the conviction of their having 
 offended against law or not, rests upon j^our verdict ; 
 the degree of punishment is to be determined by 
 the Court ; and, be assured, that will be measured 
 in exact proportion to the intention with which the 
 offence has been committed. If, on the other hand, 
 you are of opinion that the Defendants by their 
 writings have not traduced the Holy Scriptures 
 
298 
 
 and the Christian Religion, — that they liave not im- 
 pugned that holy doctrine which the Law protects, 
 and declares to be the fundamental doctrine of 
 Christian faith and practice, — that they have not 
 committed the offence imputed to them ; then you 
 are to pronounce them not guilty. But, in either 
 case, if you have the least hesitation upon these 
 points, and cannot at once come to a clear and 
 certain decision upon them, I must tell you, that 
 you are then bound in conscience to give the De- 
 fendants the benefit of your doubts. 
 
 The Jury confeyred together without leaving the 
 box ; and in ahout ten minutes returned by their fore- 
 man a verdict of — Guilty. 
 
 The Attorney-General and the. Judge conferred 
 together ; after "tichich the Lord Chief Justice thus 
 addressed the Defendants : — 
 
 Joseph Priestley, Theophilus Lindsey, 
 Henry Belsham : — You have heard the verdict 
 which a most enlightened jury of your country, after 
 a long and attentive investigation, have now de- 
 livered. I studiously abstained, in my charge, from 
 giving the opinion which the evidence adduced 
 before the Court led me, in my own mind, to form 
 of the nature of the publications which have here 
 been called in question ; that opinion, however, 
 without prejudice to your case, I may now state, 
 
299 
 
 and I do so by declaring it to be in perfect unison 
 with the verdict just pronounced. It has been well 
 observed, " that, in spiritual matters revealed by 
 God, the ground of our certainty lies not in the 
 evidence of the things, but in the undoubted veracity 
 of God who has revealed them." This, however, 
 is not admitted by those who take reason for their 
 only guide in matters of religion. They affirm that 
 the veracity of God assures them that they must 
 have a clear and distinct perception of things in the 
 natural world before they can give belief to their 
 reality; and, therefore, if they cannot have this 
 clear and distinct perception in matters above their 
 comprehension, they hold, that they are not bound 
 to believe them. As this objection is made by 
 those who have assumed the name of " Rational 
 Christians," I think it not incompatible with my 
 duty to show them that the objection is not well 
 grounded, and that it is the cause of that unbelief 
 which I conceive to be the rock on which your- 
 selves have split, and which must prove hazardous 
 to the future happiness, as well as to the present 
 peace, of all who adopt the same principle. 
 
 It is evident that the foundation of all certainty 
 of knowledge must be laid upon a clear and dis- 
 tinct perception of that which cannot be compre- 
 hended, — upon the belief of a Being absolutely 
 perfect ; for if we have not a clear and distinct 
 perception of God, then the foundation of all cer- 
 
300 
 
 tainty is destroyed at once, and there is no ground 
 left, even for the belief of the existence of such 
 a Being. They, therefore, who say that there can 
 be no clear perception of God without compre- 
 hending his nature, contradict themselves ; for if 
 he be an infinite Being, he must be " past finding 
 out." Hence it is evident, that there may be a 
 clear perception when the object itself is above 
 our capacity. Now, whatever foundation there is 
 in nature for such a perception without under- 
 standing it, the same and greater there must also 
 be in such things as are revealed by God, though 
 they may be above our comprehension. The idea 
 of God which the mind conceives cannot be so 
 strong a proof of the existence of an incomprehen- 
 sible Being, as the evidence of revealed matters of 
 faith is a proof of their truth, though our senses 
 are lost in attempting to understand the nature of 
 them, and the manner of their existence. The 
 objection made to this is most unreasonable ; 
 namely, that we are to embrace nothing for truth, 
 though divinely revealed, but what our reason is 
 able to comprehend, both as to the nature of the 
 thing proposed for our belief, and the manner of 
 its existence. On these grounds, the doctrine of 
 the Trinity^ Incarnation^ Satisfaction^ and conse- 
 quently the whole mystery of the Gospel of Christ, 
 must be rejected as incredible ; because, though 
 these doctrines have the support of Scripture, yet 
 
301 
 
 we are bound to understand them in some other 
 sense, consonant with our reason. But though 
 Christianity comes to us with the highest testimony 
 of its truth, and although we are not bound to 
 credit any thing but what we have sufficient reason 
 to beheve to be actually revealed, yet that any 
 such revelation should be called in question merely 
 because reason demands a full and adequate con- 
 ception of it, is a most absurd and unreasonable 
 pretence, leading to two as absurd consequences. 
 First, Tliat nothing can be received as true, either 
 in nature or religion, but what can be fully, clearly, 
 and simply explained. Now, let any such unbe- 
 lievers apply this principle to the appearances of 
 nature, and in one moment they arrive at this 
 difficulty, — they must not believe that the sun 
 shines, until they have proved, by demonstrative 
 arguments, the undoubted truth of the Ptolemaic 
 or Copernican systems of astronomy, — they can- 
 not believe the ebb and flow of tides, until they 
 resolve all the doubts which hang about the dif- 
 ferent opinions concerning this phenomenon, — 
 they cannot believe that there is any such thing as 
 matter in the world, until they discover how the 
 several parts of it are united, — they cannot be- 
 lieve that they themselves are possessed of a ra- 
 tional soul, because they cannot explain its union 
 with the body. Until they can understand all 
 these things in nature, it were useless for them to 
 
302 
 
 attempt the comprehension of matters of a higher 
 kind. 
 
 For, in the second place, this would imply that 
 a finite creatm-e might measure the perfections of 
 an infinite and uncreated Being. To form a clear 
 conception of God would be to suppose that he is not 
 of an incomprehensible nature ; for we form an 
 idea of the Divine Being in our mind by taking 
 away all the imperfections we find in ourselves ; 
 and if we can arrive at such a point as that of 
 seeing that he is absolutely perfect, we are then 
 called upon to add iiifinity^ that attribute of Divi- 
 nity, of which, notwithstanding the definitions which 
 the most eminent philosophers have given, the 
 human mind can form no conception; it cannot 
 contemplate any thing so vast as to admit of no 
 addition, nor any thing so small as to admit of no 
 diminution.^ 
 
 " It is therefore a most unreasonable mode of 
 proceeding," as a very learned writer observes, 
 " to examine the Word of Revelation with a pre- 
 conceived resolution to reject every doctrine which 
 shall transcend the grasp of human reason. The 
 first step to be ascertained is, whether the Scrip- 
 tures are, what they profess to be, the word of God. 
 Having settled this to our satisfaction, the next 
 duty is, to read them with the best attention we 
 
 > See Stillingflect's Origines Sacrse, book ii. c, 8. 
 
303 
 
 can give to so important a study : * to search out 
 the testimonies of the Lord,' with a view to dis- 
 covering what we are required to beheve concerning 
 him, and what we are to practise ; to take the 
 words of Scripture in their plain and obvious sense ; 
 to compare its doctrines and precepts, in order 
 that our interpretation of them may be consistent ; 
 to rest assured that what we are unable to com- 
 prehend must yet be true, if it is distinctly stated 
 in the Word of God ; and not to guide ourselves 
 by any such deceitful rule as this, — that w here 
 mystery begins religion ends ; that whatever is not 
 clear need not be believed; a rule by which no 
 man thinks of guiding himself in any other branch 
 of knowledge." ^ 
 
 I have been induced to offer these remarks with 
 the hope that the subject of them may become a 
 matter of greater attention and study to you, and 
 to all who conceive themselves justified in demand- 
 ing greater and higher evidence than they can 
 possibly obtain, or, if obtained, than they could 
 comprehend, and greater than it was clearly in- 
 tended they should ever possess. I have now 
 only to communicate to you, that the learned At- 
 torney-General — having gained all that he aimed 
 at in this prosecution, namely, an enquiry into a 
 
 ' Bishop Blomfield's Sermon on " Mysteriousness of Re- 
 velation no Ground of Objection." 
 
304 
 
 subject of such deep and vital importance; and 
 having shown that the Law of the land protects the 
 Christian Religion, and suffers it not to be lightly 
 spoken of, or its sacred doctrines to be scoffed at; 
 and hoping that the verdict now obtained will 
 operate as a censure upon your writings, and put 
 the community on their guard against them ; and, 
 lastly, feeling that the end and object of justice is 
 amendment, and not punishment — has moved that 
 the judgment of the Court be deferred ; and, ac- 
 cordingly, the judgment of this Courtis so deferred 
 sine die. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 PETITION, 
 
 PRESENTED MAY 12. 1827, BY JOSEPH HUME, ESQ. 
 
 To the Hofwurable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland^ 
 in Parliament assembled. 
 
 The humble Petition of the Elders, Deacons, and Members 
 of the Church of God, meeting in London, and known 
 as Freethinking Christians, 
 
 Sheweth, 
 
 That your petitioners are an united and organised religious 
 body, which, under the appellation of " Freethinking Chris- 
 tians," has existed for nearly thirty years, separate and distinct 
 from all other religious communities. 
 
 That, whilst the Toleration Act hath secured complete 
 liberty of opinion, your petitioners complain that, by an act 
 of the legislature, which passed in the 26th year of the reign 
 of George II. they are prevented entering into the marriage 
 state without submitting to a rite of the Established Church 
 of England, and joining in an act of religious worship with 
 one of its ordained ministers — which act of worship is a 
 clear and public admission of the doctrines, the authority and 
 claims of such church. 
 
 That, to avoid all misconceptions as to their motives, to 
 prove the extent of the grievance of which your petitioners 
 complain, and to establish the practicability of the relief for 
 which they pray — they humbly submit to your Honourable 
 House a declaration of their faith and principles of union. 
 
306 APPENDIX. 
 
 That, convinced of the insufficiency of what is called Na- 
 tural Religion, and confirmed by evidence in their belief in 
 Revelation, your petitioners receive the Scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testament as containing the revealed will of 
 God. 
 
 That, desirous of obeying in all things the will of God, as 
 made known by Revelation, they reject all human authority 
 in matters of religion, making the laws of God, as contained 
 in the Scriptures, the sole rule of their faith, discipline, and 
 practice. 
 
 That, from a serious, unremitting, and free enquiry into the 
 Scriptures, they have concluded and believe — 
 
 That, " there is none other God but one." 
 
 That " the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob," " the 
 God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the Christ," is " the 
 
 ONLY TRUE GoD." 
 
 That " Jesus of Nazareth " was " a man approved of God 
 by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him." 
 
 That he died, and, by the power of God, was " raised again, 
 according to the Scriptures." 
 
 That God " hath appointed a day in which he will judge 
 the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath or- 
 dained." 
 
 That God hath separated to himself a people on earth, 
 " which is the Church of the living God — the pillar and 
 ground of truth." 
 
 That this Church, as " the household of God," is governed 
 by God alone, being " built upon the foundation of the 
 Apostles and Prophets, Jesus, the Christ, himself being the 
 chief corner stone." 
 
 That the constitution, laws, and government of this Church 
 are, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, so expressly set 
 forth as not to need, but absolutely to preclude, all human 
 legislation therein. 
 
 That this constitution, these laws, and this government, 
 being of Divine appointment, cannot be violated — cannot 
 be dispensed with — cannot be altered, abridged, or added 
 to, without rebellion against God, and treason against his 
 authoritv. 
 
APPENDIX. 307 
 
 That your petitioners, an the Churcli of God, acknowledge 
 the constitution, maintain the laws, and submit to the go- 
 vernment, thus given by God to his Church. 
 
 They acknowledge Jesus as the sole and exclusive Head 
 of the Church ; for God " hath put all things under his feet, 
 and given him to be head over all things to the Church." 
 
 They are one united and indivisible Body — " for as the 
 body is one, and has many members, and all the members 
 of that one body being many are one," so also is the Church 
 of God. 
 
 Their membei-s possess an equality of rights, no one being 
 permitted to arrogate to himself religious titles and distinc- 
 tions, or to call any man master on earth — " for one is your 
 Master, even the Christ, and all ye are brethren." 
 
 They reject all hired or exclusive teachers, and in their 
 assemblies " admonish one another " and " edify one another" 
 according to the Scriptures — " for ye may all teach, one by 
 one, that all may learn and all may be comforted." 
 
 They " choose out of themselves " certain officers for the 
 regulation of their affairs, that all things may " be done de- 
 cently and in order." 
 
 These officers of the Church are Bishops (i. e. overseers) 
 or Elders and Deacons (i. e. servants) who are to serve and 
 to take "the oversight thereof— not by constraint but willingly 
 — not by filthy lucre, but of a ready mind — neither as being 
 lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." 
 
 Your petitioners further submit to your Honourable House, 
 that, where God hath fully revealed his will to man, the rites, 
 ceremonies, and acts of worship, in order to be acceptable to 
 God, must be appointed by him ; and believing that, since the 
 abolition of the Mosaic ritual and temple worship, no rites, 
 ceremonies, or public social prayer and worship, have ever 
 been appointed by Divine Authority, they, as the disciples of 
 Jesus, and in obedience to his commands, " pray in secret to 
 the Father," and, as the true worshippers, " worship the 
 Father in spirit and in truth." 
 
 That rejecting, like the Jewish people of old, the pre- 
 tensions of every Church whose doctrines, discipline, and 
 worship are not founded on the laws of God without any 
 X 2 
 
308 APPENDIX. 
 
 admixture of human authority, and required, as they are, b} 
 law, to conform to the established Church in the instance of 
 marriage, your petitioners declare and avow that the Church 
 of England^ whose religious worship they are thus called 
 upon to sanction, they know only as a Church teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men — as a Church profess- 
 ing a religion tvhich has no other claim than that of being " by 
 law established " — as a Church whose laws have no earlier 
 date than Popery, no higher authority than Acts of Parliament ; 
 
 — as a Church whose only head is an earthly potentate, fal- 
 lible in all cases; corrupt and ivicked in the instance of its 
 founder Henry VIII., yet nevertheless, by law " vested with 
 all power to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction" 
 
 — as a Church whose ministers and pastors are the servants 
 of the State only, possessing " no manner of jurisdiction eccle- 
 siasticaly but by and under the King or Queenh Majesty ;'''' — as 
 a Church whose rites and ceremonies, whether of baptism, 
 the Lord's Supper, or for the solemnisation of marriage, are 
 maintained only by a self-asserted authority " to decree Rites 
 and Ceremonies ; " — as a Church ivhose lordly Prelates and 
 asj)iring Priesthood retain their office, titles, and privileges in 
 ojrposition to the clear and express commands of Jesus ; — as a 
 Church whose tithes and revenues constitute a violation at once 
 of the rights of property, and of the laws of God; — as a 
 Church whose unrighteous claims are supported by an appeal 
 to the hopes and fears of men, profanely asserting " that 
 every priest of this church hath power and authority from 
 Almighty God, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to forgive 
 or to retain the sins of men ; " — as a Church whose unsa^i^J- 
 tural faith is fulminated by means of a creed which is at the 
 same time iiitolerant in its spirit and contradictory in its asser- 
 tions ; " which faith," it is impiously avoived, " except every 
 one doth keep whole and undefiled, he shall, without doubt, 
 perish everlastingly;" — as a Church whose canons denounce 
 curses and excommunication upon all who, following the dic- 
 tates of conscience, shall, like your petitioners, " affirm that 
 the form of God's worship, contained in the Common 
 Prayer," is unscriptural ; « that any of its thirty-nine articles 
 are in any part uperstitious," or « that the Government oi' 
 
APPENDIX. 309 
 
 the Church of England, under His or Her Majesty, by Arch- 
 bishops, Bishops, Deans, &c. is rei)ugnant to tlie word of 
 God ; " — as a Church whose alliance with the State hath 
 produced that a'liel and oj^press'ive " Act of Uniformity ^^'' yet 
 unrepealed, by which any one who shall speak any thing to 
 the derogation of the Book of Common Prayer, or any tiling 
 therein contained, " shall, for the first offence, forfeit a hun- 
 dred marks ; for the second, four hundred marks ; and for 
 the thii'd, alt his goods and chattels, and shall suffer impri- 
 sonment DURING LIFE ! ! " 
 
 That this Church — having its foundation in Rome, being a 
 stipcrstriLcture of ignorance and mystery, of heathenism and 
 Pojyery — maintained by worldly riches and power, and 
 guarded by the sword of iJersecution — is, by your petitioners, 
 regarded as part and parcel of that city shadowed forth in 
 prophecy — that great city which hath made merchandise of 
 men's souls, by w hose " sorceries all nations were deceived " — 
 in which was " found the blood of the Prophets and the 
 Saints," but which God, by his judgments, hath threatened 
 to destroy. That in this spiritual Babylon your petitioners 
 can, as the true worshippers of God, have no lot nor inherit- 
 ance. Yea, rather than partake of its abominations, they are 
 prepared to suffer on the altar of its idolatry, mingling their 
 lives Nvith " the souls of them that were slain for the word of 
 God, and for the testimony which they held." 
 
 Viewing the Church of England as part of such a system, 
 of Political Religion and Corrupt Spiritual Poiver — regarding 
 the form of marriage, as contained in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, as one of the rites of such a Church, how can your 
 petitioners conform thereunto ? " Hovv" (in the language 
 of Scripture) " can they do this thing, a«c/ sin against Godf 
 And if, haply, on the grounds o? false doctrines and corrupt 
 practices, no objections existed against the Established Church, 
 yet will it be evident to your Honourable House that, denying 
 as they do, the authority of any established religion — reject- 
 ing the claims oiany priesthood — reflising assent to a// public 
 social worship — your petitioners stand too widely separated 
 from the Established Church, and indeed from all other re- 
 X 3 
 
310 APPENDIX. 
 
 ligioiis bodies, to join in any religious act with any party — 
 other than their own — the true Church of God. 
 
 Your petitioners, in addition to these theii* broad and 
 general grounds of objection against the religion established 
 by law, of which the marriage ceremony forms a part, further 
 and especially object, against that particular ceremony, — 
 
 That it makes a religious rite where God has made none : 
 marriage being a natural and civil right, which is no where 
 appointed in the Scriptures to be entered upon by means of a 
 religious solemnisation. 
 
 That it is a Popish rite, first rendered compulsory in the 
 Church by a corrupt pontiff, as a means of increasing the 
 revenue of the clergy ; and that, though nominally not re- 
 garded by the Established Church as a Sacrament — or 
 Mystery, it is, in substance, and even in terras, made such 
 in the present Church Liturgy. 
 
 That, by reason of its origin from the Popish Mass Book, 
 together ^v^th the obsoleteness of certain of its terms ; its 
 forms are superstitious, its meaning has in some instances be- 
 come obscure, its assertio7is false ; and its allusions indelicate, 
 offensive, and revolting. 
 
 That the worship connected with this ceremony is Idola- 
 trous, the language of prayer being therein addressed to 
 " Christ," who, as the Christ, that is, the Anointed or Mes- 
 siah, is in Scripture expressly called " the Man Jesus," " the 
 Son of INIan," and who hath himself proclaimed, " thou shalt 
 worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
 
 That it is open and avowed Polytheism, a plurality of gods 
 being expressly worshipped and separately invoked therein, 
 as " God the Father," " God the Son," and « God the Holy 
 Ghost ; " such Polytheism being contrary both to the laws of 
 CJod and of our country : to the laws of God, by the declar- 
 ation of the Apostle, that " to us there is but one God, even 
 the Father, of whom are all things;" to the laws of our 
 country, by the 9th and 10th of William IIL cap. 32., as 
 amended by the 53d George IIL cap. IGO., vvhicli alteration of 
 the law still leaves exposed to civil disabilities and imprison- 
 ment, all persons who shall " maintain that there ai*e more 
 Gods than one." 
 
APPENDIX, 311 
 
 That your petitioners, with these views of the church mar- 
 riage ceremony, and of the established religion of which it is 
 a part, have ever held it impossible for their members to sub- 
 mit, and to subscribe thereunto on occasion of their marriages, 
 without publicly, and in the face of the established church, 
 protesting against the same. 
 
 That the delivery of such protests by your petitioners, to- 
 gether with their refusal to kneel at " the Altar," and repeat 
 certain parts of the marriage service deemed by them to be 
 idolatrous, have exposed your petitioners to great and serious 
 pain and inconvenience; that the marriages of members of 
 their body have been, in consequence sometimes refused, 
 sometimes delayed, sometimes broken off, when partly cele- 
 brated, and on one occasion adjourned till a future day. That 
 the members of their body have, in some instances, been kept 
 in the church several hours waiting the completion of the 
 marriage ; that in others they have been threatened to be ex- 
 pelled therefrom by civil force, or be handed over to the 
 terrors of the ecclesiastical courts, — those hateful remnants of 
 spiritual tp'anny and popish oppression ; whilst upon some oc- 
 casions, indeed, the liberality of the officiating minister hath 
 rendered the situation of your petitioners even the more painflil 
 and embarrassing. 
 
 That your petitioners implore your Honourable House to 
 put an end to a state of things painful to all the parties con- 
 cerned therein — necessary to no existing interest of the 
 coimtry — compelled by no avowed object or policy of the 
 laws; and affording neither support nor the appearance of 
 support to the religion established by law. 
 
 That whereas the right to contract marriages before their 
 own congregations being by law allowed to Jews and Quakers, 
 your petitioners trust it will appear to your Honourable 
 House, from the above statement of their doctrines and prin- 
 ciples, that their scruples against conformity with the estab- 
 lished religion are as serious and as valid as those entertained 
 by Jews or Quakers; whilst, from the statement of theii- 
 discipline and church government, it will appear that they are 
 as closely united and as distinct a body as Jews or Quakers, 
 — thus offering to the legislature equal securities against the 
 
312 APPENDIX. 
 
 performance of clandestine or unlawful marriages. That tiu- 
 ther evidence can, if required, be offered at the bar of your 
 Honourable House, as to the unity and identity of > our peti- 
 tioners as a body, so as fully to justify and superinduce the 
 conclusion, that, with reference to all the objects of civil 
 society touching the marriage contract, such contracts may 
 be entered into before the people known as " Freethinking 
 Christians," with the same security as those contracted 
 among the people called Quakers, or the members of the 
 Jewish persuasion. 
 
 That whilst your petitioners will not venture to dictate to 
 your Honourable House the mode of relief now prayed for, 
 they take leave to state, that, as far as their own body is con- 
 cerned, the extending to their members the same exemption 
 from the operation of the marriage act as that which is en- 
 joyed by Jews and Quakers, and upon the same principle, 
 or the permitting them to contract marriages before the 
 justices of the peace, as in the days of the Commonwealth, 
 would be a simple process of legislation, and that the same 
 would be satisfactory to } our petitioners. 
 
 That, regarding marriage as a civil rite, your petitioners 
 seek only to obtain a legal sanction thereto, without a viola- 
 tion of their consciences : they ask this, as the free citizens of 
 a free state, — as Protestants, resisting all spiritual domination, 
 and appealing to the Bible as the great charter of their liber- 
 ties, — as dissenters, denying the right of the civil magistrate 
 to interfere in religion, or usurp authority over the consciences 
 of men, — as the church of God, bound, like its Master and 
 Head, to " bear witness of the truth," and appealing, in the 
 language of the Apostles, to the rulers of this world, " whether 
 it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than 
 unto God — judge ye." 
 
 Thaty regarding the connection of religion with the state as the 
 primart/ cause of the grievance of which i/our jjetitioners com- 
 j)lainy and deploring the same, as ha\nng mainly contributed 
 to the corruption of revealed religioyiy as giving occasion to the 
 infidel and scoffer to speak evil of religion, and above all, as 
 being denounced by the judgments and threatenings of God 
 as made known in the Scriptures ; }our petitioners, beside' 
 
APPENDIX. 31:3 
 
 the relief now sought to be obtained, praj- your Honourable 
 House iojmtmi end to the connection between Church and State 
 — that so the power and simplicity of divine truth may 
 appear — that so the word of God may no longer be blas- 
 phemed — that so the judgments of God may peradvcnture be 
 averted from our country — when "Babylon the Great" 
 shall be had in remembrance, and her sins shall have " reached 
 unto heaven." 
 
 That all and several the allegations contained in this pe- 
 tition — whether as regards the grievance sustained by your 
 petitioners, their claims as a true church, or all the matters 
 and things urged against the established religion, and the 
 marriage ceremony, to which they are by law required to con- 
 form — your petitioners are prepared to support and prove 
 at the bar of your Honourable House, or before a convocation 
 of the clergj- for that purpose assembled ; and they pray for 
 such alteration in the lav/ as in the premises shall seem meet 
 to your Honoural)le House. 
 
 And your petitioners will ever pra} \ 
 
 THE END. 
 
London : 
 
 Printed by A. & R. Spoltiswoode, 
 New-Street- Square. 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01029 2581