LETTER VIII. MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES. DEAR SIR, T I. O vindicate Eufebius, or his author, in afferting that Theodotus was the first who advanced the doctrine of Chrift being a mere man, you fay, p. 37, "That Theodotus in this article "fo far furpaffed the earlier herefiarchs, that the * merit of being the inventor of the mere huma"nity, in the precife and full meaning of the "words, is with great propriety and truth afcribed to him. When the Cerinthians and the Ebionites affirmed that Jefus had no exiftence previous to Mary's conception, and that he was literally and phyfically the carpenter's fon, it might juftly be faid of them, that they afferted the mere humanity of the redeemer: especially as it could "not be foreseen, that the impiety would ever go a greater length than this, of afcribing to "him an origin merely human. These heretics "however went no farther, as I conceive than to "deny our Lord's original divinity: they admitted "I know not what unintelligible exaltation of his "nature, which took place, as they conceived, ་་ upon his afcenfion, by which he became no less "the object of worship than if his nature had been "originally divine.” This, as far as I know, is advanced on your own authority only. I desire to know where you find that the Ebionites paid any kind of adoration to Christ, after he was afcended to heaven, more than Theodotus did. As the extraordinary power communicated to Chrift while he was on earth did not make his nature more than human, so neither could any power conferred upon him after his afcenfion; and if God alone is the proper object of worship, Chrift, being ftil! not God, is as im proper an object of worship now, as he was before. If any ancient unitarians worshipped Chrift after his ascension (of which I believe there is no evidence) Theodotus might do it, and the Ebionites might not, for any thing that appears to the contrary. Socinus prayed to Chrift, though he confidered him as a mere man, in his prefent exalted state. As to your fuppofition that Theodotus might be the first perfon who taught the unitarian doctrine in Rome, which is a fecond plea which you advance for the credit of Eufebius, he himself says nothing about it. And as Tertullian fays that in his time the unitarians were the greater part of the believers, it is highly improbable that there should be none of them at Rome, where there was a conflux of all religions, and of all fects. You here speak of the impiety of the unitarians. Before you repeat any expreffions of this kind, I beg you would paufe a little, and confider how fuch language might be retorted upon yourself. If it be impiety to reduce a God to the state of a man, is it not equally impious to raise any man to a state of equality with God, that God who has declared that he will not give his glory to another, who has no equal, and who in this refpect ftiles himself a jealous God? This you may fay refpects the gods of the heathens. But what were the heathen gods, but either the fun, moon, and stars, or dead men, all creatures of God, and deriving their power from him? And if Chrift be not God, he must be a Creature of God too; for there can be no medium between creature and creator.. I do not call it impiety in you, but it founds unpleasantly in my ears, to apply, as you do, the term boly Father to Athanafius. The catholics, I believe, apply it to Ignatius Loyola.. Our Saviour applied it to his God and Father, and I wish it had always remained fo appropriated. It is high time to drop that ftyle, even with respect to a more holy man than Athanafius was. II. In a work of great variety and extent, I was well aware that I could not expect to escape all overfights; but I was confident they could not be of much confequence. The expectation has been verified in both its parts. You have fet me right with respect to the exactness of two of my quetations; and I fhould have thanked you for it, if you had noted the overfights with good-nature; which would have done you no difcredit, and might not have leffened the weight of your animadverfions. But in fome of the cafes in which you pretend to fet me right, you are much more mistaken than I have been. This is particularly the cafe with refpect to your cenfure of Dr. Clarke and myself, con cerning the piety afcribed to the ancient unitarians' by Origen. I have lately procured the original,' and I appeal to our readers whether you have not mifrepresented the fact, and not Dr. Clarke, or myfelf. You fay, p. 34, that " Origen fays, not that "they were pious, but that they boafted that they "were pious, or affected piety. Piety," you add, and the affectation of piety, belong to "oppofite characters." According to you, therefore, Origen confidered thefe unitarians as impious perfons, the very reverfe of pious. But if the paffage be carefully infpected, it will appear that Origen, notwithstanding he uses the word uxores was far from reprefenting these ancient unitarians as only pretending to piety, and boasting of it; but confidered them as perfons who really dreaded leaft, by admitting Chrift to be God, they should infringe upon the honour that was due to the Father only. "By these means," he says, " may be explained that which greatly disturbs many perfons, who plead plead a principle of piety, and who fear "to make "two Gods *." He afterwards recurs to the fame fubject, and introduces it as an objection of perfons with whom he would not trifle, and whom he was far from charging with hypocrify. "But fince," he fays, it is probable that many may be "offended, because we fay that one is the true "God, namely the Father, and befides this true "God there are many who are made Gods by "participation; fearing that the glory of him, "who excels all creatures, should be brought down to that of others, who attained the appellation of "Gods, &ct." On the whole, therefore, I think that Origen must have thought as refpectfully of thefe early unitarians as I had represented him to do, and that he really confidered them as objecting to the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift from the very best principles. In tranflating the paffage in Theophilus, in which mention is made of God's fpeaking to nothing but his own word and wisdom, I inadvertently used the particle or for and, as you obferve, p. 48; but I do not fee how the right tranflation is at all less Και το πολλές φιλοθεος είναι ευχομένες ταρασσον, ειλά Coμeris duo avayope your Jees. Comment. in Johannem, Edit. Huetii, vol. ii. p. 46. † Αλλ' επει ειχε προσκόψειν τινας τοις ειρημενοις, ένος μεν αληθινα θες το παρον απαγγελλομένο, παρά δε τον αληθινού Θεον θεων πλειόνων τη μετοχη το θεν γινομένων, ευλαβομένες την τε πάσαν κτισιν υπερεχονίας δόξαν εξισωσαί τοις λοιποις της Θεος προσηγόριας του χανεσι, &c. lbid. p. 47. favourable |