Fisher Street Red Lion Square, Nov. 23, 1814. doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus There is no passage of scripture, I believe, on which the advocates for the Arian hypothesis lay more stress than John xvii. 5. "And now O Father glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." On that passage, I myself have made the following remarks, "It is almost impossible to conceive of any terms by which the fact of his (Christ's) pre-existence could be more fully ascertained, than by those here used, and it will surely require great critical skill to explain the words so as to set aside that idea." So I then thought; but further reflection has led me to think otherwise. It is true our Lord prays to be glorified with a glory which, he says, he had with the Father before the world was; but the inquiry is whether Jesus Christ by this expression meant to say that he was then in the actual possession of this glory? That the glory for which our Lord here prays, was actually bestowed upon him after his resurrection, the scriptures expressly affirm. Peter tells the Jews that God had glorified his son Jesus whom they slew and hanged on a tree. This glorification therefore, whether we refer it to his person, which was raised to a life of incorruption and invested with glory, or to the honour and dignity which was conferred upon him, when he had a name given him above every name, in heaven and earth, and all things subjected to him, was the glorification of a human being, of that man who suffered the death of a malefactor; and it is also represented as the reward of his obedience unto death; * Mon. Repos. iii, 653. as such he here prays for it, I have glorified thee on earth, and now O Father, glorify me with thine ownself. humbled him self and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him." "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Now a glory which was the consequence of his resurrection and the reward of his obedience, could not be a glory which he actually possessed before he entered upon the performance of the work which his father gave him to do, and which he had before the world was. If Jesus Christ, according to the Trinitarian hypothesis pre-existed as properly God, a divine person, necessarily possessing all the perfections of deity, his glory as such must be essential to his being, that glory therefore he could neither be divested of nor pray for, nor can that be the glory here intended. If Jesus pre-existed as a superhuman being in a state of glory, the glory which he here prays for and which was conferred upon him in answer to his prayer, could not be his glory as such, because, as we have seen, he was glorified not as a superhuman, but as a human being, properly a man, who had suffered death, a man raised up of the seed of David, and made in all things like unto his brethren of mankind, nor could his glory as such be the reward of his obedience and consequently not the glory intended in this passage. Again, if Jesus Christ was properly a man, as the scriptures always represent him to be, deriving his being, as all other men derive their's, by a natural descent from his parents, being made of the seed of David, then he could not have existed before he was born into the world, and consequent. ly could not have been in possession of glory before the foundation of the world. What then did our Lord mean when he said of the glory for which he prayed that he had it with his father before the world was? The expression "with thee," may, it is truc, mean in the enjoyment of thy presence and in a participation of thy glory: so our Lord says, ch. xiii. 31, 32, anticipa ! Ancient Versions of the Scriptures from the Prolegomena of Walton's Polyglott. 31 ing his future glory, "Now is the 66 All that I have is thine," yet, at the same time, he had not in actual possession, or at his own disposal so much as a kid to make merry with his friends. But he had the whole of the inheritance, (though not in his actual possession,) with his father. Thus the unborn children of a man possessed of riches and honours, while they have no existence, may be said to have with their father those riches and honours, and when born and grown up to maturity may claim the possession of them as what they had long before with him. This is no uncommon case, for inheritances are frequently settled upon persons and their future heirs for ever. Now apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is said of Jesus Christ that "He was verily fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifested," says Peter, "in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory." Now to what was he fore-ordained but to that glory which God conferred upon him when be had raised him from the dead? Another writer tells us that God ap pointed his son heir of all things, and Paul speaking of him as the heir of God, eminently so, says that we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with him. To this glory was Jesus to be advanced by a course of obedience and sufferings, and therefore having finished the work which his father had given him to do, and being just about entering on his last sufferings, he prays to be glorified with his father, that is to be put into the actual possession of that glory of which he was the appointed heir, to which he was fore-ordained and which, as such, he had with the father before the world was; and therefore he says to two of his disciples after his resurrection, “Ou ht not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" These observations, Sir, I submit to you as a more natural and rational interpretion of these words of our Lord, in his address to his father, than that which is generally given of them on the Arian scheme. SIR, Yours, &c. JOHN MARSOM. Dec. 15, 1814. The following account of ancient versions of the scriptures is extracted from the Prolegomena of Walton's Polyglott, and if you think it will be of use to your readers, is very much at your service. PHILO-BIBLICUS. VERSIONS. I. The first, and most ancient of all, is that noble one of the Seventy-two elders, which was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek language, under Ptolemy Philadelphus, two hundred and seventy-seven years before Christ. Some say there was another made before this, and that, either the whole, scripture was not translated (but the Pentateuch only) by the Seventy, or that that version perished. II. The second is the Samaritan. This version appears to have been made, at least, before the time of our Lord. John Morinus makes it more ancient than the Greek, viz. the time of Esdras. III. The third is the Chaldee Paraphrase, which was made by various authors, and at different times, Onkelos translated the law about the time of Christ. Jonathan-Ben-Uzziel, a disciple of the celebrated Hillell, (concerning whom the Talmudists have some wonderful traditions,) translated the former and latter prophets. He lived about thirty years before Christ. Another paraphrase is ascribed to him of the Pentateuch, but this may be proved to be the work of a much later author. IV. There is a tradition in the East, that the Syriac of the Old Testament as well as the New, was made not long after the times of the apostles, and arguments are not wanting to prove this. It is publicly read in the churches through the East. It follows principally the Hebrew text, from which the version of the Old Testament was made. V. The fifth is the Ethiopic of the whole scripture, which is much more ancient than Joseph Scaliger thinks. It is mentioned by Chrysostom. It follows, for the most part, the Greek in the Old Testament, and agrees pretty much with the Vulgate in the New. VI. An Armenian Version of the whole scripture is extant, as I have been informed by eye-witnesses. I have the Armenian four gospels, but so obliterated in many places that, without the assistance of another copy, they could not be engraven on types. Most affirm that it was made by Chry sostom VII. Origen arranged the Greek Versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus in his Tetrapla and Hexapla, and to them added a fifth and sixth with the Hebrew text, whence he called these volumes Octapla. Aquila, who revolted to the Jews, made his about Anno Christi, 130. Theodotion, a proselyte, becoming an apostate, first a Marcionite, afterwards a Jew, made his about Anno Christi, 180. Symmachus, a proselyte also, edited his in the reign of Severus, about Anno Christi 200. VIII. The Coptic or Egyptian, as troversy on future punishments was closed, and that the popular doctrine of atonement was to be brought under discussion. I could have wished indeed, that it had been simply the doctrine of atonement, and that the question had been confined solely to ourselves, who are Unitarians. For, if we enter into the popular doctrine, a vast field of controversy is open on a variety of unimportant points, which are all set aside by the conviction in our own minds, that there is only one God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, as we deny that Jesus is other than a man, in the highest degree favoured by God and raised to a name above every name, we cannot enter into the metaphysical arguments on sin, of the necessity of an infinite Mediator, and similar points, by which the mind is led away from scripture to vain and frivolous disputes on the idle traditions of men. But the question of atonement itself is of a far more important nature, and according to the opinions entertained of it, will be the respect and reverence paid to our Saviour. I have found in the writings of several Unitarians, and the conversations of others, that I differ very materially from them in my view of our Saviour's character. Whilst they consider him merely as a teacher sent from God, mighty in word and deed, I look upon him as my Saviour, as one through whom the Creator bestows the greatest of gifts to the human race. He is not to me therefore merely the pointer out of immortal life to his followers, but the indispensable medium, by which we enter into eternity. I need not say with what terms of gratitude such a benefactor must be hailed by every one who looks up to the head of our community, the first-born from the dead, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, in the light I do. The language of St. Paul will not appear to us too glowing, nor are any metaphors too strong to us, who be lieve, that the garments of the holy ones will be made white in the blood of the Lamb. We can enter into the spirit of all these figurative allusions, without in the least trenching on the distinction between him, who was made unto us sanctification, and the great Father of him and of us, who thus condescended to make him the instrument of our atonement. I here use the word atonement, since it is the English term in the vulgar translation for xalxλay; the more appropriate term being reconciliation, which is in fact the term used in other places. When I profess then my sincere belief in the atonement, let it be understood, that I do not involve any thing in that and rest their thoughts upon, I am very much inclined to think that they will continue to view the subject in the manner they now do and have long done. Nothing, not a word of a controversial nature should be said in it, concerning the person of our Lord, &c. that the reader's mind may not, on that account, be prejudiced against it. Some writers, by attempt. ing too much, effect little or nothing. They forget, hasten slowly. I am, &c. J. JEVANS. Chapter Coffee-house, Jan. 7, 1815, SIR, term, which is not comprehended by Nast, (ix. 553.) a Correspondent your Repository for September St. Paul in the term xalaλλayy, or reconciliation; and on this I shall be glad to see a better union among Unitarian Christians. I need not say, that the inquiry into this interesting topic may be conducted in the spirit of brotherly love; and if I might be permitted to advise, I would recommend, that no appeal should be made to any other authority than that of the scriptures. The opinion of writers, living or dead, may be adopted; but if it is introduced, there is danger of it sleading into endless controversy: whereas, if we keep closely to the scriptures, our minds will be enlarged, and whatever mistaken views any of us may have entertained, they are most likely to be rectified when they are weighed in the balance of the sanctuary. I remain, Sir, Your constant Reader, W. FREND. who calls himself " A Friend to Justice, Truth and Candour," extracts a note from Storer's "Graphical and Historical Description of the Cathedrals of Great Britain," which either he or you cite as an instance of "blundering bigotry." As a liberal Chris But tian I was inclined to acquiesce in the propriety of this character, especially as you, Sir, expressed your approving wish for more of this ingenious correspondent's communications. one of the most decided Trinitarians eagerly seized this, to him propitious, opportunity of shewing what he called the "bigotry and intolerant illiberality of the professors of reformed Christianity." His arguments were so clear and unanswerable, that I was induced to read Storer's work alluded to, and consequently to address to you this note, that your correspondent might not again fall into the vulgar error of deciding on men's motives merely from their opinions. faith his vestigated your correspondent's letter paragraph by paragraph, and obser ved, "Now, Sir, it so happens that (although the able writer is himself an Unitarian) the main object of Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches (published in 1812) is not to demolish that Gothic and barbarous system of Christianity miscalled orthodoxy," but to prove,as justly stated in the note cited in your Repository, that Josephus and Philo were apologists of Christianity. It is true,however, that the " Sequel to the Ecclesiastical Researches,"published nearly two years later, and either since or about the same period that the 6th number of Storer's Cathedrals appeared, has this object. Now, Sir, this " Friend of Justice, Truth and Candour” himselfactually commits the very blunder which he erroneously and very uncandidly attributes to the orthodox writer; for he confounds the object of two works published at very different periods, which are very dissimilar, and support distinct paradoxes, although the inquiries in the one may have facilitated those in the other. Again, your " Friend of Truth," &c. roundly asserts "it is impossible that the writer of the note should have read Mr. Jones's book." This is an assertion certainly as bold, as dogmatical, egotistical and gratuitous, as any ever made by the most fanatical Methodist, or the most ferocious champion of election and reprobation. Had your correspondent, Sir, shewn enly half as much candour and christian toleration as he has done blind zeal and vulgar dogmatism, he would have logically concluded, that the writer of the note was liberally willing to avail himself of every effort to support Christianity, whilst he with no less caution took care to guard against the adoption or implied reception of any sentiment which according to his mode of thinking was of a heterodox nature. If the Unitarians thus seck to stigmatize every writer who presumes to think for himself and to follow his own opinions, however contrary to theirs, then what are they better or more tolerant in this respect than the Papists? If the dogmas of Unitarianism be as infallible as those of Popery, if the one must be obeyed or received as well as the other, and if all Trinitarians are to be deemed knaves or fools, as all disbelievers in Popecraft 'are considered heretics, then what has society gained what have liberality and toleration to boast of by the Unitarian reform ? Alas! poor Candour, how hardly art thou dealt with by both professed friends and enemies? Truly, Sir, I feel ashamed of such a professed friend, but real enemy, to "Justice, Truth and Candour." He adds, “had the writer read only the preface with as much sound judgment as orthodoxy, he would have known his man better." Where is the proof that he did not "know his man," as it is vulgarly expressed? He candidly admits the talents and learning of Mr. Jones, at the same time he expresses his generous, liberal, and I must say, truly christian hope, that his fancy may not prevail over his judgment, that he may not be misled " by every wind of false doctrine," and that he may not persist in what the orthodox note-writer supposes to be heterodox notions. Surely, Sir, the laconic expression of such sentiments and feelings can neither be "blundering bigotry," uncandid, illiberal nor unworthy selfishness. Mr. Jones has repeatedly in the Ecclesiastical Researches exposed the errors of Dr. Priestley, who wished to be considered the apostle of modern Unitarianism. As to the epithet, "puerilities of Unitarianism," I leave it where I found it. I wish mankind had no errors but those merely puerile. Yet 1 must observe, and I do it with regret, for poor human weakness, that this writer's sueer at bells, &c. is an example, even in the pages of the Mon. Repos. In the present state of society all poor men and women cannot have watches; public worship also is a little older than this invention for measuring time; and as there are to be no churches or houses of worship with bells, and consequently with clocks, how are the poor to know the hour of public meeting? Is it enmity to the arts that would exclude bells and clocks? or is it to imitate more closely the Mohammedans, in order to have a person sit on a high tower to call the time? The Unitarians are, I hope, as attentive to public worship as other Christians; they have also fixed hours for it, and as to "forms of prayer," the chiefs of them read all their prayers as formally as if they were printed. The scoff therefore at the very convenient use of bells is puerile and unphilosophical; the professed rejection of all forms being inconsistent and impracticable. But the most flagrant instance of vulgar bigotry is your "candid correspondent's" assigning causes and ascribing motives to others merely from his own feelings. From time immemorial, merciless bigots, intolerant and unchristian dogmatists, men of fire and faggot, who would burn their neighbour for the glory of God, have uniformly attributed their own motives to all other persons who differed from them in opinion. This has been the grand besetting sin of all professing Christians, and infidels have too truly observed, that "all sects and denominations persecute whenever it is in |