will bear to be treated in this manner. The Scriptures themselves will not bear it. For truths, artfully placed together, will appear untruths; and the most candid and benevolent man living may, by the same management, be exhibited as the most uncandid and malignant. Notwithstanding the friendship you express for me, it is evident from what you have written, that you would rejoice in my death, as much as you did in that of my friend Mr. Palmer, whose early decease I lamented, as being cut off in the beginning of his usefulness, "that is," you say, "whilst he was doing his utmost to unhinge the faith of mankind, laying plans to prove that Christ was a mere mortal like himself, and studying to demonstrate the impossibility of the truth of the chief particulars in the history of his miraculous conception. The hidden ways of Providence," you add, “are beyond the reach of man, and it were presumption to pry too curiously into the secret designs of the Almighty. Yet it is highly probable, that many who consider the interests of pure Christianity in a very different light to what Mr. Palmer did, may also have formed very different conjectures upon his sudden removal, and be inclined to pay their grateful thanks to heaven, for what they possibly may conceive to be a peculiar instance of its watchfulness over the interests of true re. ligion." Now had I died twenty years ago, these remarks you will, no doubt, think would have been rather more applicable to myself. I would farther observe, that, whatever is the proper object of gratitude to God after it is bestowed, is always deemed to be a proper subject of prayer while the event is depending. Since, therefore, you would be thankful to God for my death, I must presume that your sentiments and conduct are consistent; and consequently, that you pray for it. And what signify prayers, Sir, without endeavours? But, being of opinion, perhaps, that I have already done all the mischief that I well can, you may think it not worth your while to run any risk in order to cut off the little of my life that is left. You style your address to me an Expostulation, being intended, I suppose, to dissuade me from pursuing this controversy. But you may easily perceive that your advice comes too late, and that the business is nearly over. Such an address as yours, to have done any good, should have In Theol. Repos. See Appendix, No. II. been presented at the very outset of the business, before my measures were so decidedly taken, as you must perceive they now are. In these circumstances, if you had meant to serve the cause that you have espoused, and not yourself only, you should have fairly entered into the argument, and have attempted to refute what I am endeavouring to prove. Instead of this, you content yourself with what is abundantly easier, viz. giving your opinion, which must be considered as very assuming, till your opinions shall have acquired more weight with the learned. Time, and long experience of a man's ability, knowledge, and integrity, are requisite to give credit to what any man should only confidently assert, without condescending to give any reasons for his assertions. And yet this is all you have done with respect to the proper subject of this controversy. What I have professed to maintain is, that the primitive Christian church was Unitarian; and for this I have given my reasons, much at large. But instead of examining any of those reasons, we find nothing but your own ipse dixit: "I flatter myself," you say," that it possibly may be of some little service, as well to the general cause of religion, as to the quiet of those individuals who, from the extraordinary clamour that has been raised against the tenet which has hitherto been held with astonishing unanimity by the great body of Christians in every age and nation, have been led to apprehend that the whole system of revealed religion is built upon some unstable foundation, upon some prejudicated notions, of which the fallacy is likely to be soon demonstrated."* Now, Sir, they must be very strange people, and hardly worth giving satisfaction to, who could imagine that the whole of revealed religion is in danger by establishing the doctrine of one God, and the divine mission of Christ from this one God, to teach the doctrines of the resurrection and of future judgment. This is the system of revealed religion; and how is this in danger of being overturned by my endeavours to prove that this messenger from God to man was a man? Will it be suspected that Moses, another messenger from God to man, was an impostor, because he was nothing more than a man? If you have no doubt of my being a sincere believer in revealed religion, why should you entertain any suspicion with respect to those who may be influenced by my writings? I shall hardly make any * Address, p. 1. (P.) of my readers worse than myself. But, in any event, why should I, or the public, take your mere word for the state of opinions in early times? You must think highly of yourself indeed to imagine this. You say again, speaking of the doctrine of the Trinity, "Iam satisfied that it has been the general sentiment of all Christians for seventeen hundred years. For whereas you have asserted that, during the four first centuries, either the majority, or the multitude, believed the simple humanity of Christ, and were really Socinians, I am convinced that, from the very time that the apostolic mission was completed, even to the present day, (if we except a few turbulent years in the days of Arius,) the grand majority of such Christians, who can properly be said to have had any opinion at all, believed, in some sense or other, in the divinity of Christ."* From reading this, a stranger would naturally conclude that I had done nothing more than you have done in this business, viz. that I had contented myself with asserting that the majority of Christians in early times were Unitarians; whereas I have written a large work to prove it; and my proofs are not to be answered by your confident asser tions. It will be taken for granted that, as you have thought proper, for some reason or other, to take a part in this business, and have taken so much pains to explain the nature of the Trinity, if you could have done any thing with respect to the proper hinge of this controversy, by shewing from clear historical evidence that the primitive church was strictly Trinitarian, you would have done it. For admitting all that you have contended for, viz. that the doctrine of the Trinity is credible in itself, and that the articles of the Church of England are such as an honest man may subscribe, it amounts to nothing, unless you can prove them to be true. You repeat, indeed, some hackneyed arguments from the Scriptures; but you know that I consider all arguments of that kind as sufficiently exhausted on both sides, and therefore have chosen a new field of argument. It is curious enough that you should make such a parade of meeting me, and yet carefully avoid every place where I profess to come. However, as you will not come upon my ground, I will, as far as is consistent with my plan, meet you on your own. I am, &c. • Address, p. 48. (P.) LETTER II. Of Inconsistencies in Mr. Hawkins's Ideas of the Nature of Subscription. REV. SIR, As a great part of your letter to me, as well as of that to Mr. Berington, is employed on the subject of subscription, on which I have addressed "the Candidates for Orders in the two Universities,"† I shall, for their sakes, consider what you have advanced with respect to it. Having quitted the Church of Rome because you could not approve of her tenets, or her discipline, I do not wonder that you hesitated, as you say you did, before you could subscribe the articles of the Church of England. For if, as you very justly observe, "they, and they alone can conscientiously subscribe, who can truly and honestly assent to the articles, in a fair and literal interpretation of the terms;"§ it must be exceedingly difficult to a person who coolly considers the great number of distinct propositions, an assent to which the subscription of the articles requires, to give an unfeigned assent to them all, consistently with the principles on which you dissented from the Church of Rome; especially as you condemn the conduct of the Dissenters from the Church of England, and consider schism as "a sin of the deepest dye;" so that you tell your friend" it concerns both you and us, as we value our salvation, to dread the imputation of it." It is, indeed, steering between Scylla and Charybdis; and I fear you, Sir, have not escaped a rude shock in the passage. There are, I think, evident traces of a bias upon your mind, which may have had more influence than you are distinctly aware of, in the preference you have given to the Church of England; even supposing a view to the emoluments of it to have been wholly out of the question. You say, that you had " a wish to adhere to an episcopal church;" and that after your suspense about subscription, you were determined by "a person of literary and religious eminence;"¶ a member, I presume, of the Church of Eng. land, because your decision was in favour of it. But had your mind been really unbiassed, you would have consulted See supra, p. 5. + Vol. XVIII. pp. 346-948. with persons out of the church as well as those within it; and you might have found persons of literary and religious eminence among them. To consult with none but those of whose opinion we are well apprized, and to decide according to their opinion, is generally considered as a proof that the choice preceded the consultation; and you should have avoided the suspicion of this. That the step was not taken with the full and unwavering assent of your mind, may, I think, be inferred from your occasionally throwing out such generous sentiments as are inconsistent with your subscription; as when you say, "The pale of the church should not be narrower than the apostles left it;" and that "the eunuch and jailor made a sufficient profession of their faith." For certainly this was a very scanty faith compared with that in all the Articles of the Church of England. Many could subscribe the former, who would be excluded from communion by the latter. This narrowness, therefore, you must disapprove. Your plan of a truly Catholic system of religion, I greatly approve; but it is a plan very different indeed from that of the Church of England. "How easily," you say, "might a truly Catholic system of religion be drawn up among Christians! Their canon of scripture should contain those books only which all agree to have been never doubted of by any considerable part of the Christian church. Their form of worship should be such as all allowed to be lawful, though all might perhaps not think it advisable to adopt; their creed to contain such articles as all acknowledge to be revealed, expressed in scriptural terms only, and whatever regarded discipline only to be regulated by each national church, as circumstances might direct. Beyond the plain declarations of scripture every thing should be considered as matter of opinion only, and no consequences of opinion should be charged on any which they positively disown. This," you add," with a sincere love of truth, and a mutual performance of such duties of charity as all Christians owe to each other, would unite them all in one communion, and one society; and a variation of discipline would then be no more a matter of dispute than a variation in language or in climate. With hand and heart I shall ever be happy to promote so desirable a coalition."+ Then, Sir, with hand and heart you will promote a great change in the Church of England. For, substituting parti * Defence, p. 56. (P.) ↑ Ibid. p. 58. (P.) Ibid. p. 83. (P.) |