: posed to do so; he endeavours, however, to soften this fact in favour of his main argument, by calling these persons philosophical Unitarians; and often intimates, that the common people, who were the majority of believers, were simple Unitarians, holding the pure truth, undisguised by the prevailing philosophy of the age. I would just remark here, that the writers he has quoted make no such distinction they do not inform us that the unlearned Unitarians differed in doctrinal notions from their learned leaders. The Doctor's distinction I consider as mere hypothesis, unsupported by facts, and indeed opposed by them. Some persons may, perhaps, be surprised that I should venture to make such a declaration; they may be ready to ask, "Has he not adduced plain proof, in two or three quotations at least, that the common people, or majority of believers, in the times referred to, were really simple Unitarians?" I answer, No; those authors are of too late a date for the purpose. I know of only three to whom he appeals for direct proof, and two of them, if not all, (besides being too late,) although they do speak of the common people, yet say not a word which implies simple Unitarianism. I will give their words as quoted in the History of Early Opinions. In Vol. III. p. 265, is the following passage from Tertullian: "The simple, the ignorant and the unlearned, who are always the greater part of the body of Christians, since the rule of faith transfers the worship of many gods to the true God, not understanding that the unity of God is not to be maintained except with the œconomy, dread this economy, imagining that this number and disposition of a Trinity, is a division of the Unity. They, therefore, will have that we are worshipers of two and even three Gods; but that they are the worshipers of one God only. We say they hold the monarchy. Even the Latins have learned to bawl out for the monarchy; and the Greeks themselves will not understand the economy." P. 268, Athanasius is quoted as saying, "It grieves those who stand up for the holy faith, that the multitude, and especially persons of low understanding, should be infected with those blasphemies. Things that are sublime and difficult are not to be arrehended except by faith, and ignorant people must fall if they cannot be persuaded to rest in faith and avoid curious questions." In these quotations I cannot see any thing but what may be as properly referred to Sabellians as to simple Unitarians. That the "multitude,” called by Athanasius," persons of low understanding," and by Tertullian, "simple, ignorant and unlearned," must, because thus named, be simple Unitarians, is mere gratuitous inference, and nothing like a fact expressed by those authors. Sabellians might with propriety distinguish themselves from Trinitarians, as "worshipers of one God only," and "bawl out" (as Tertullian says) "for the monarchy." And also the common people might prefer Sabellianism, as more easily understood and less liable to objections than the Trinitarian doctrine. In pages 263 and 264, are the following passages from Origen: "Some are adorned with the Logos itself, others with a Logos which is akin to it, seeming to them to be the true Logos, who know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, who look only at the word made flesh." "There are who partake of Logos which was from the beginning, which was with God, and which was God, &c., that speak of him as the Logos of God, and the Logos that was with him; but there are others who know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, the Logos that was made flesh; such is the multitude of those who are called Christians." To "know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified, the Logos that was made flesh;" and to acknowledge Christ” only “ according to the flesh," may be thought_to imply a denial of his divinity, and a belief, that in his person he was no more than man; but it is not evident to me, that Origen meant more than that the people he mentions knew nothing of the Logos as distinct from the Father, except in its humble state of incarnation, or of prolation from the Father, they being ignorant of its personal pre-existence with the Father before the world was. It is remarkable that Origen says, "Some are adorned with the Logos itself, others with a Logos that is akin to it;" for the Logos of the Sabellians might truly be considered as akin to that of the orthodox, both believing the Logos 66 to be that of the Father, by which he made the worlds, conversed with the patriarchs, and at length "united God to man" in the person of Jesus Christ, only differing on the question of its distinct and permanent personality. It is further remarkable that Origen speaks in a peculiar manner of "the Logos of God, and who was with him," and was from the beginning." Many persons, (I imagine,) upon recollecting the sense in which Origen and similar writers used such language, will be inclined to believe he meant that the Logos was from the beginning a person existing with the Father, as one person with another, and was not before his incarnation the Logos of the Father as an attribute; hence, by what he says after, of knowing the Logos only according to the flesh, as contrasted with the above, he meant to condemn the Sabellian doctrine, which denied the proper and permanent personality; and that, therefore, he had no thought of simple Unitarians. If any think the above arguments invalid, I shall only remind them, at present, that I have said of Origen and the other two authors before noticed, they lived at too late a period to an swer Dr. P.'s purpose in quoting them, as I intend to say more on this circumstance at the close of my letter. In the mean time, I shall bring forward what I think to be positive evidence, that the common people were no more simple Unitarians than were those learned persons whom Dr. P. acknowledges held Sabellian tenets, and distinguishes as philosophical Unitarians. First. It appears that simple Unitarianism was broached, about the close of the second or beginning of the third century, by Theodotus, who was thereupon immediately excommunicated as an heretic; so that, contrary to the Doctor's opinion, simple Unitarians were deemed heretics, and treated as such, from their very origin, although Sabellianism had been long tolerated. That Theodotus was excommunicated, Dr. P. himself informs his readers (III. 237): "We find," says he," that all the Unitarians continued in communion with the Catholic Church till the time of Theodotus, about the year 200, when it is possible that upon his excommunication some of his most zealous followers might form themselves into separate societies." The Doctor, indeed, denies that Theodotus was excommunicated for Unitarianism, and says it must have been for something else: what that something else was, however, he could not tell us, but only that he was excommunicated by Victor, who was himself an Unitarian, or at least favoured Unitarians. To this I answer, the passage he refers to proves that Victor, or, as he is sometimes called, Victorinus, favoured Sabellians. See Vol. III. p. 304, where it is said, "Praxeas introduced his heresy into Rome, which Victorinus endeavoured to strengthen. He said that Jesus Christ was God the Father, omnipotent," &c. Now, that this Victor should excommunicate a man who taught that Jesus Christ was not God at all, is no wonder; and, that it was on this very ground Eusebius expressly declares, as quoted in the above page. He says, "Victor excommunicated Theodotus, the leader and father of that God-denying heresy, who first said that Christ was a mere man." The distinction which I make between Sabellians and simple Unitarians, and which the Doctor did not make, I think appears by the above to be of some importance: I will add, it seems to me to be a just distinction, and one which materially affects many of his arguments, as founded on his historical axioms. Secondly. I think the common people of the two first centuries, and later, were not simple Unitarians, but of the same opinions as the learned, they being the leaders and teachers of the multitude, who were their disciples and followers. The Doctor himself says, (II. 48,) "Marcellus was popular among the lower people:" and, Vol. III. p. 350, he says, "His" (Basil's) 66 "In strongest apprehensions were from the Unitarians, the disciples of Sabellius, Marcellus and Paulus Samosatensis." P. 329, he also says, a treatise ascribed to Athanasius, the more simple are represented as easily taken with the assertion, that God the Logos suffered in the flesh." Here the common people are described as admirers and disciples of Sabellian teachers, and as easily taken with Sabellian doctrine; surely, then, it cannot be reasonably thought they were simple Unitarians. Thirdly. The creed, so early as the time of Irenæus, (A. D. 150,) and as would be a serious objection against their testimony of the simple Unitarianism of the primitive Christians, even if they had asserted it in the passages which have been considered (which, however, I believe they have not). Tertullian, the earliest of them, died twenty years after Theodotus is said to have "first" advanced the doctrine given by him, was so framed as to exclude simple Unitarians from the church; yet we do not find the multitude of believers was excluded, therefore they could not be simple Unitarians. This creed is given as follows (I. 308): "He" (Irenæus) "represents all Christians as believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things that are therein, by Jesus Christ," that Christ was a mere man ;" Orithe Son of God, who, from his great love to his creatures, submitted to be born of a virgin, and by himself united God to man," &c. P. 311, the Doctor insinuates that this could not be the proper creed, to which all Christians in the Catholic Church subscribed, because it would not suit Unitarians, of whom he says it is universally acknowledged there were many in the church. Here again appears his error in confounding Sabellians with simple Unitarians. The creed might and did suit Sabellian Unitarians, and of these it was acknowledged there were many in the church, but not of simple Unitarians. Thus his argument against the creed appears to be founded on an error; and this creed, as given by Irenæus, remains a legitimate historical proof, that no simple Unitarians could, in his day, be in the church. Fourthly. With respect to the passages before noticed, which the Doctor quoted as direct proof of the simple Unitarianism of the common people, I have now to remark, that the authors themselves of those passages actually spake of the simple, the ignorant and unlearned, whom they mention as holding Sabellian doctrine. Tertullian, as referred to, History of Early Opinions, III. 268, says concerning him, The tares of Praxeas grew up, while many slept in the simplicity of doctrine." We have already seen the doctrine of Praxeas was, that "Jesus Christ was God the Father, omnipotent." Athanasius, we have also seen, considered the common people as easily taken with the assertion, that "God the Logos suffered in the flesh," and that Origen considered them as believing in "a Logos akin" to that of the orthodox. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand with what propriety these writers can be considered as ever speaking of the common people as simple Unitarians. Fifthly. What I have hinted respecting the dates of the above authors, gen, 54 years after, or later; and Athanasius, 171 years. Now allowing, for the sake of argument, that these writers really did complain of the common people of their time being simple Unitarians, yet we need not admit, as the Doctor requires, that all the common people throughout the Christian world had always been such: it is not a necessary consequence. For if simple Unitarian doctrine prevailed considerably in the neighbourhood of the above writers, it would be natural for them to complain of its generally affecting the people, and to ascribe its preva lence to their simplicity and ignorance; and it might even, as a new doctrine, thus considerably prevail in the course of twenty, fifteen, or even ten years; that is, in the time of Tertullian, after the excommunication of Theodotus; much more in the later times of Origen and Athanasius, especially after Sabellianism (which appears to me to have led to its being advanced by Theodotus). Zealous teachers, under circumstances by no means miraculous, though favourable, have been known to make a very general impression upon the mind of the multitude in the course of but a few years. I have noticed that Theodotus himself had been a Sabellian, and that, forty or fifty years after his expulsion, Sabellians themselves, who had taken an active part in that deed, began also to be generally expelled from the church, which is a presumptive argument, at least, that Sabellianism, which had long been tolerated, began to be viewed as dangerous, in that it had led to the entire denial of the divinity of Christ. Not presuming to determine whe ther these objections against Dr. P's History, which seem weighty to me, may appear so to others, I commit what I have written to the impartial judgment of your readers; not anxious for the fate of my arguments, but only R. MARTIN. for truth. I SIR, Bristol, Sept. 1, 1821. HAVE read with great pleasure Brief Notes on the Bible. No. XVIII. ATT. x. 28: 66 Fear not them entitled, "The History and Antiqui Mwhich kill the body, but are not ties of the Dissenting Churches in able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” There are two subjects so fruitful of controversy, that the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral might not, perhaps, be found adequate to contain the volumes which have been written and published upon them; but which, in iny humble estimation, have about the same degree of intrinsic importance as the publications on the sublime science of astrology. The first I allude to is the question of infant or adult baptism; the other is the ever-confounding question, whether the soul be a substance distinct from the body, or the result of its confluent particles. If the free expression of my sentiments should pass unnoticed, well! Otherwise, I may provoke a nest of hornets, whose buzzing, however, will not intimidate or disturb a mind, cased as mine is in the armour of indifference. With the first question I meddle not, nor make, conceiving it to be of no imaginable consequence, whether the offspring of Christian parentage be baptized in infancy, in mature age, or at all. The practice, at whatever period, is decorous and unexceptionable; but the Judge of all mankind will consider only whether professing Christians have lived upon Christian principles; and I may safely pronounce, that He will not condescend to ascertain what rites and ceremonies they have either been submitted or spontaneously conformed to. Upon the second question, however, if the subject be not too beaten, I would indulge in a few very brief remarks. Uninteresting as it may be to me, it is not so to others; and as I cannot well be refused the credit of writing dispassionately, the little I have to say may have the better chance of an unprejudiced reception. Perhaps there is nothing that counteracts the notion of the separate existences of soul and body more than this consideration, that the structure of the mind is progressive, together with that of the body. Its deteriora tion is not less evident when the human frame is much relaxed and disordered. Upon the hypothesis of the mere junction of a reasonable soul with perishable matter, and its surviving the dissolution of it, how are we to account for the gradual expansion and maturity of intellect? If one be essentially independent of the other, by what process are they mutually affected? Metaphysicians may busy themselves in this inquiry, and produce hypotheses as various as the moulds in which the human mind is cast; but all must end in conjecture, however profound their disquisitions. Whereas, on the principles of materialism, the subject is simply and satisfactorily wound up, and without, in the slightest degree, touching our belief of a future existence. What is there in the popular doctrine of the separate existence and survivorship of the soul more credible, more comprehensible, or more consoling, than in the rival doctrine, namely, that although the soul, the mind, the perceptive or conscious faculty, (no matter what terms philosophers apply to it,) be the result of a subtle organization of the human frame, and must expire with it; yet that God's assurance of our revivification is as safe a rock of dependence, as any assurance would be that the souls which animate our bodies are distinct and imperishable? How are we, to any serious purpose, concerned in the question that has been so vehemently agitated; with the mode in which God has decreed to prolong or renew our existence; or, indeed, with any thing but the evidence of his promise of a resurrection to a future life? If, as we are told, it be impossible for mind to be a result of any organization of matter, (which is a pretty bold assertion, considering who is the architect of our frames, and the chemist who amalgamates their materials!) how come brutes by the sentient principle, and in degrees almost as various as men possess it? Have they souls, in the popular acceptation of the term? Are their spirits too imperishable? The text prefixed to this paper may seem in its terms to indicate the broad distinction contended for; but their meaning should be sought in their connexion. It asserts nothing, it implies nothing, concerning the source, spiritual or material, whence what is called the soul is derived. Jesus, we know, was in the habitual use of language accommodated to the notions prevalent among his countrymen-as in the instance of demoniacs. It was an opinion of the Pharisees, the predominant sect, that the soul was distinct and immortal, and to be dealt with, after his demise, according to the tenour of a man's life; and the words used on the present occasion appear to fall in, though partially, with their conception of the subject. The great article of the Christian revelation is a resurrection from the state of death to a renewed existence. The current hypothesis made the soul, though in union with the body, indestructible. But, in adverting to the power which human governments assume of inflicting the penalty of death, Jesus would have his disciples regard that power with comparative indifference, and be apprehensive of nothing but the displeasure of his Father, who could withhold the gift of eternal life, and suffer them to perish without resuscitation; for destruction in hell (Gehenna, the place where carcases were consumed by fire) can only be figurative, I apprehend, of total extinction. Taking the words in this sense, I understand the power of destroying the soul to signify that of extinguishing every posthumous hope; and, so understood, the text may be thus paraphrased :-" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to affect the future life, which it is the purpose of my mission to announce, and which the Father only can deprive those of, who shall be found unworthy of it." I would, however, propose this with diffidence; for in the whole circle of theology there is not perhaps any one subject from which the spirit of dogmatizing ought more carefully to be excluded. There is another passage in which our Saviour uses the word soul, certainly not in the distinctive and exclusive sense. He makes the prospering man soothe himself thus, Luke xii. 19: "I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years: take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry." Saying this to his soul was but soliloquising to himself. The soul, if incorporeal, could neither eat nor drink, however merry it might be; and this application of the term suffi, |