4812. Controversy between Dr. Priesley, and others.

257

AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY

BETWEEN DR. PRIESTLEY AND DR. HORSLEY, THE MONTHLY REVIEWER, AND OTHERS.

Continued from p. 38.

In the progress of the controversy, we come now to a distinct class of arguments in proof of the unitarianism of the ancient Gentile church, and to the objections which are made to these arguments. It must be remembered that the rudiments of the doctrine of the trinity, according to Dr. Priestley, were introduced, about the time of Justin Martyr, by some of the more learned Christian converts who had been educated in the Platonic philosophy. Before that time he maintains that the whole church was unitarian. He endeavours to prove (as we have shewn) that the great body of the Jewish Christians always continued such. The Gentile Christians, according to him, gradually and slowly adopted the opinions of the more learned of their number. In the part of the controversy of which I am about to give an account he maintains, that the strongest presumptions and the most direct positive evidence show, that long after the time of Justin Martyr, while opinions that were afterwards formed into the present orthodox doctrine of the trinity were introducing, the great majority of gentile Christians still retained what he considers the primitive faith, and had no other belief than that of the simple humanity of our Saviour. The evidence of this fact, as far as I am now about to explain it, he derives from writers who were contemporary with the state of things of which they speak. He derives it however not from unitarian writers; for it is almost needless to observe that none of this character, either controversialists or historians, have come down to us from whom he could receive any assistance; but he brings this evidence from the works of men who were themselves supporters of the trinitarian doctrine as it at first existed, and who viewed with contempt and aversion what he conceives to have been the vulgar and obvious belief of the simple human

ity of our Saviour. From the writings of these men he produces passages, in some of which he thinks it is clearly implied and in others directly asserted, that the majority of Christians did not receive the opinions which these writers maintained, but either neglected them altogether, or regarded them with strong dislike. If the state of things was such as Dr. Priestley supposes; if the trinitarian doctrine was gradually introduced by men accustomed to indulge in philosophical fancies, for we can hardly say philosophical speculations, it may perhaps be reasonable to expect to find some such passages in their writings, to find some notices of the prevalence of opinions contrary to their own. It is obvious however, that if such passages can be produced, they are the most satisfactory of all evidence in support of what Dr. Priestley maintains. These passages are not the suspicious assertions, or the doubtful testimonies of friends of the unitarian doctrine; they are the unwilling recognitions and acknowledgments of its adversaries. From their force therefore no deduction is to be made; they are to be received in the full extent of their meaning.

We shall proceed to state the passages that Dr. Priestley has produced in the order of time of the Fathers by whom they were written. Next after the apostolic Fathers, whom I have formerly mentioned, the earliest Christian writer whose works have come down to us is Justin Martyr. He was, according to Dr. Priestley, the first, or one of the first of those who advanced the doctrine of the preexistence and divinity of Christ as the Logos of God. From his writings Dr. Priestley thinks it may be inferred that this doctrine was novel and not generally received. In proof of this he appeals to a part of his dialogue with Trypho,' (written about A. D. 140) which is an account of a controversy that Justin relates himself to have held with Trypho a Jew in defence of the truth of Christianity. The passage referred to is the beginning of a part of the dialogue in which he maintains his favorite doctrine. It is the first in order of time, but, from the ambiguity of its construction, and from some other circumstances, whatever force may be allowed it, concerning which there will undoubt

edly be much difference of opinion, it will not, I think, be eonsidered as one of the most powerful produced by Dr. Priestley.

"Justin," says Dr. Priestley, "represents Trypho as say ing, concerning the doctrine of the incarnation, it is so extra• ordinary that it can never be proved. That this Christ was a God, existing before the ages, and then born a man, is not • only extraordinary, but ridiculous. To this I answered, I know that this doctrine appears strange, and especially to 'those of your race,' that is to the Jews. It is evident," says Dr. Priestley," from this passage, that Justin thought that this doctrine would appear strange to others, besides the Jews; and as he proceeds, it will appear that he took care not to lay too much stress on this new doctrine, lest he should not be able to prove it satisfactorily."

After the preceding passage Justin further replies, that if he should not be able to maintain this doctrine-" It will be right to say, that in this only I have been mistaken, and not that he is not the Christ, though he should appear to be a man born as other men are, and to be made Christ by election. For there are some of our race, who acknowledge him to be Christ, but hold that he was a man born like other men. With them I do not agree, nor should I do so, though ever so many, being of the same opinion, should urge it upon me; because we are commanded by Christ himself, not to obey the teachings of men, but what was taught by the holy prophets and himself." Trypho then replies, that those who believe that he was a man born like other men seem to him to hold an opinion much more credible than that of Justin, for that all the Jews expect only such a person as their Messiah.*

The whole of this passage, according to Dr. Priestley, is written in the language of a man who was sensible that he was advancing a novel opinion. He intimates some degree of doubt respecting it, and says that if he should not be able to support it, the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the Messiahship of Christ, might still be maintained. In the sub

• Hist. of Earl. Opp. B. iii. c. 14. Hist. of the Corruptions, P. i. c. 1. Justin. Op. pp. 233-236. Edit. Thirlb.

ces.

sequent part of the dialogue, as well as in his writings in general, he labors the proof of it," shewing that it is consonant to the principles of Platonism, and also deducible from the writings of Moses, and other parts of the Jewish scriptures, without referring to any other writer in support of what he advan" His language is very different from that of the opposers of the unitarian doctrine among the later fathers and in modern times. He uses no acrimonious expressions with regard to those who differed from him, but writes on the contrary with great moderation. He speaks of not being overborne by the authority of numbers. "He indeed," says Dr. Priestley, "calls the unitarians some, as if they were the minority; but the term is indefinite, and may apply to the majority; and from the complexion of the whole passage, I have no doubt but that Justin was aware that it was so, and that, with a view to this, he added, that he should not be influenced by that consideration." It may be noticed likewise, that those whom Justin calls 'some' were such as not merely held the simple humanity of Christ, but who likewise denied the miraculous conception, and believed him a man born as other men.

The controversy respecting this passage of Justin was chiefly carried on with Dr. Priestley by the Monthly Reviewer, nothing of importance being said with regard to it by Dr. Horsley. In reply to what has been stated, it is said by the Reviewer, that the most important part of the passage is wrongly translated by Dr. Priestley. "It ought," he says, "to be translated thus: "There are some of our profession who acknowledge him to be Christ, and yet maintain that he was a man; born in the natural way; to whom I could not yield my assent; no, not even if the majority of Christians should think the same; because we are commanded by Christ himself not to rely on human doctrines, but to receive those which were published by the blessed prophets, and which he himself taught us.' Doth this," says the Reviewer, "look like an apology for departing from a generally received opinion? Doth it not bear an aspect the very reverse? According to this representation of the passage, the antithesis lies between the Ts and the AUTO, the minority and the ma

jority of the same general profession. But according to Dr. Priestley's construction Ts and λur must mean the same persons, and both must denote the bulk or generality of Christian professors."* The translation of the Reviewer does not appear to me to be essentially different from that of Dr. Priestley. In his review of Dr. Priestley's reply to his former criticisms he translates again the controverted part of the passage thus: "With whom I do not agree, neither could I, although the major part had adopted the same opinion.”†

With regard to Justin's saying, that if he should not be able to prove our Saviour to have preexisted as God, it still will not follow that he is not the Messiah, which Dr. Priestley understands as implying some doubt of the first opinion, the Reviewer and Jamieson affirm; that this is nothing more than his securing to himself what he conceives proved, before proceeding to a new argument; and they maintain that analogous passages may be found in his writings.

It is the remark of Dr. Priestley, that Justin labors to prove, that his doctrine of the preexistence of Christ is consonant to the principles of Platonism, and may be inferred from the Jewish Scriptures, without referring to any other writings. With respect to this latter circumstance, it is answered by Jamieson, that in disputing with a Jew, Justin could not with propriety refer to any other writings, especially not to the Christian Scriptures, or to the writings of early Christians.

The moderation of Justin in speaking of the unitarians is noticed by his commentator Thirlby, as well as by Dr. Priestley. Thirlby thinks it strange that Justin did not express in more forcible language his dissent from their opinions, which without doubt he considered as detestable and pernicious. He accounts for it by supposing that he was desirous not to offend the Jew with whom he was disputing, and to blast his incipient conversion, by expressing strong dislike to those opinions to which Trypho, from his previous belief, would be · most inclined, and in which perhaps, if in no higher notions of Christ, he might be induced to acquiesce.

* Monthly Review, vol. lxviii, p. 522.

† Vol. Ixix. p. 230.