A proper question on this subject is, can a human nature exist without a human person? If not, then there is a whole person of Christ without the addition of a divine nature: again, can a divine nature truly and literally exist without a divine person? If not, then there is a complete person of Christ without the addition of a human nature; and if the two be united, he has not only two natures, but two persons, and therefore two natures in one person is as absurd as two natures in one nature, or two persons in one person. Be it remembered also, that what is called the Deity of Christ is said to be the second person of the Trinity; hence it follows, that either his huma nity is nothing, or that he himself is more than a single person, for he had (according to Trinitarianism) a complete person before he possessed humanity; and if the man Christ Jesus be truly a person, and if this person be united with the second person of the Trinity, then it follows as plainly as that one and one are two, that Jesus Christ is not one person but two persons. Again, if one of the natures comprehended in the person of Christ be the second person of the Trinity, then there is a person within a person; nay a divine person is in this case comprehended in a person neither wholly divine nor wholly human, but made up of both. And if the second person of the Trinity forms part of the person of Messiah, then the Messiah must be not only more than a complete person, but greater than either of the natures or persons of which he is supposed to consist: that is, a person neither wholly God nor wholly man, must be greater, not only than man, but also than God. It must be evident that the same mode of reasoning must be perfectly fair when applied to the Trinity. If there be three persons in God, then consequently, God is equal to all the persons, and greater than any one of them taken separately: thus God is greater than the third person of the Trinity, or Holy Spirit, and greater than the Son, the second person, and greater than the Father, the first person; that is, God is greater than himself, for the Father (it is said) is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. It is unnecessary to add more, we conceive, to prove that three divine persons in one divine essence is equivalent to three persons in one person, three essences in one essence, or three beings in one being; and that two natures in one person is equivalent to two persons in one person, two natures in one nature, or two somewhats in one somewhat, which is equivalent to absurdity. If it be said, this is reasoning, not scripture, we reply that it is better first to reason and then to quote, than first to quote and not to reason; and that unless we bring our reason to scripture, we shall only turn scripture into absurdity. SIR, HE DOULOSCHRISTOU. Jan. 25, 1815. marriage service, as conducted by the Established Church, has of late been frequently the subject of discussion among the Protestant Dissenters; and as they have more clearly understood the nature, or been impressed by the importance, of religious liberty, has excited a proportionate degree of hesitation, as to the consistency of a compliance. These scruples have more particularly taken place among Unitarians; who are apprehensive that they depart here from their great leading principle; a part of the service being undeniably Trinitariau. They have also to observe, that their Irish Dissenting brethren are exempt from this obligation, by the legality of their marriages among themselves. By an Act of the Irish Parliament, Dissenting Ministers may legally perform this service; which is, of consequence, in itself legal and binding. We should conclude, therefore, that there can be no just reason for refusing it to Protestant Dissenters of the sister Island. The Quakers, also have long enjoyed this privilege. It may indeed, be observed by some, that marriage is a civil contract. But if so, religious principles and opinions are blended with it, and a clergyman performs the ceremony. We refer your readers to the service itself for further information. Unitarians have indeed, by a late Act been brought more immediately under the protection of law; but they persuade themselves that the Legislature will not consider them as needlessly multiplying claims with the grants they have received; but here also discover that liberality which has marked their late proceedings. The subject may at least be submit ted to the consideration of our late advocate Mr. Smith, by those who, from situation, have access to him; since, when there shall be any probability of success, no person is better qualified to bring it forward and pursue it to its completion. In the mean time, as these are only introductory hints, it may continue to be the subject of friendly and peaceable discussion among Protestant Dissenters in general, and this particularly in your valuable Repository; to which, Mr. Fditor, no one more ardently wishes a stiil increasing circulation and still greater success, than Sir, your constant Reader, A Member of the Kent and Sussex Unitarian Association. Some Account of Cheynell's "Rise, Growth and Danger of Socinianisme." F his pamphlets living of Petworth in Sussex. He attended the Earl of Essex, in one at least of his campaigns, and is said to have displayed great personal courage. In 1646, he was sent down on an evangelical mission to Oxford, whi-' ther also he went in the character of Visitor, in 1647; in which capacity he shewed more zeal than moderation, some of his own decrees and acts tending to his instatement in the Margaret professorship, and the presidentship of St. John's College. He manifested conscientiousness in refusing the engagement to Cromwell, and in resigning in consequence these lucrative preferments. On his resignation, he withdrew to his living of Petworth, where he continued till the Restoration, when he was ejected. After his deprivation, he lived at a small village near Chichester, upon a paterual estate, till his death, which happened in 1665. It is singular that Johnson should Cheynell and la pompt in the have written the life of so zealous a Memoirs of Chillingworth (ix. 211). Cheynell's name is preserved chiefly by its being conjoined with that of the great man above-mentioned; for, as Dr. Johnson remarks, "there is always this advantage in contending with illustrious adversaries that the combatant is equally immortalized by conquest or defeat." This remark introduces the life of Cheynell by Johnson; first printed in a periodical work, intitled The Student, 1751, and since collected into Johnson's Works, 8vo. Vol. xii. p. 130, &c. Francis Cheynell was born in 1608 at Oxford, where his father practised physic. He himself entered the University at that place very early; be came a probationer and then a fellow of Merton College: took the degree of Master of Arts, was admitted to orders, and held a curacy near Oxford, together with his fellowship. He grew into notice 1641, when he attempted to take his degree of Bachelor of Divinity, but was denied his grace for disputing concerning predestination, contrary to the King's injunctions. In the subsequent convulsions of the state, Cheynell declared for the Parliament and Presbytery, embraced the Covenant, was made one of the Assembly of Divines and frequently preached before the Parliament, by whose ordinance he was put into possession of the valuable Presbyterian; and still more singular that he should have written it with much coolness and with an evident respect for the hero of his tale. Palmer, indeed, says [Noncon. Mem. 2d. ed. Vol. iii. p. 325.] that the "narrative is a satire both upon Dr. Cheynell and the times," and this petulant remark is extracted, without censure, into the last edition of Neal's History of Puritans (iv. 420). The reader will probably judge that no great tenderness was due to the author of "The Rise, Growth and Danger of Socinianisme" and of" Chillingworthi Novissima." Dr. Kippis says truly and justly, "Cheynell's conduct was replete with bigotry. He was one of those violent Presbyterians and Calvinists of the last age, who knew but little of the true principles of toleration and candour." (Biog. Britt. Vol. iii. p. 517. c. 2.) An apology is made by Calamy for Cheynell's violence on the ground of his occasional insanity; but what apology can be made for his party, who eucouraged his mad bigotry, whilst it served their purposes? It is very convenient to an intolerant sect to have an advocate with an irregular mind like Cheynell's; they profit by his insane abuse, and when its ferocity draws down shame and contempt, the plea of non compos mentis is put forth as a shield for the reviler and his abettors. These prefatory remarks shall be lengthened by only one more observation, which is, that Cheynell was an active member of that Assembly of Divines, who composed the creed which the Calvinistic Dissenters still regard as the standard of orthodoxy: such being the workman, what was to be expected from the work? "The Rise, Growth and Danger of Socinianisme. Together with a plaine discovery of a desperute designe of corrupting the Protestant Religion, where by it appears that the Religion which hath been so violently contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents) is not the true, pure Protestant Religion, but an Hotchpotch of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and Popery. It is likewise made evident, that the Atheists, Anabaptists, and Sectaries so much complained of, have been raised or encouraged by the doctrines and practices of the Arminian, Socinian and Popish Party. By Fr. Cheynell, late Fellow of Merton College. London. Printed for Samuel Gellibrand, at the Brazen Serpent in Paul's Church Yard. 1643." 4to. pp. 76. and Ep. Ded. pp. 8. The work is dedicated "To the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Say and Seale," whom Cheynell compliments on his government of Oxford, which the Parliament had put under his charge. This leads the writer to introduce himself, and to vindicate his proceedings in an affair which we should be glad to have more. fully explained. "When I was commanded by speciall warrant to attend your Honour, (deputed by both houses of Parliament for the service of King and Parliament, to settle peace and truth in the University of Oxford, and to reduce the said University to its ancient order, right discipline and to restore its former priviledges and liberties) there was notice given of a pestilent book, very prejudiciall both to truth and peace, and upon search made, the book was found in the chamber of Mr. Webberly, who had translated this Socinian Master-peece into English, for his private use, as he pretended; to which vain excuse I replyed, that I made no question but he understood the book in Latine, and therefore had he intended it only for his own private use, he might have saved the pains of translating it, Besides, the Frontis pice of the book, under Mr. Webberlie's own hand, did testify to his face that it was translated into English for the benefit of this nation. Moreover there was an Epistle to the Reader prefixed before the booke; (I never heard of any man yet that wrote an epistle to himselfe) and therefore sure he intended to print it. Finally, he submits all to the consideration of these times of Reformation, and the Reformers have thought fit that it should be answered and published. I desired, at the first intimation, to decline the service, because it were better to confute Socinianisme in Latine; but I have since considered that 1. "The opinions of Abailardus, Servetus, Socinus, are already published in English, in a book entitled Mr. Wotton's Defence against Mr. Walker (See Mr. Gataker's Defence of Mr. Wotton), and therefore if this treatise had been suppressed, their opinions would not be unknown, for they are already divulged. 2. "The opinions being published in English without a confutation, it is very requisite that there should be some refutation of the errours published also, for it is not fit that a Bedlam should goe abroad without a keeper. 3. "If there be just suspition of a designe to introduce damnable heresies, it is requisite that the grounds of suspition should be manifested, especially if it be such a pestilent heresy as Socinianisme is, (which corrupts the very vitalls of church and state) it is fit the heresy should be early discovered, lest both church and state be ruined by it. 4. "The Parliament is much blamed for imprisoning the Translatour without cause: and it is much wondered at that his chamber should be searched by officers: now the cause of both will appear. The Translatour and his work were so famous, that there was notice given of his good service intended to this nation, upon notice given there was a search made, now upon search made the book being found, and the Translatour apprehended, the Parliament is rather guilty of his release than of his imprisonment. 5. "The Translatour cannot complain of the publishing of it; because (as hath been shewn) he himself intended to publish it, he submits all to these times of Reformation, and so doe I, let the Reformers judge. This book helongs to your Honour, because it is but a Prodromus or Forerunner to make way for a full answer to Master Webberlie's Translation, and therefore I present it to you, not only because Master Webberlie's book was seized on by your Lordship's warrant, but because I know your Honour hath ever patronized the true Protestant religion." Mr. Webberly is stated in p. 46, to be "a Batchelour of Divinity and fellow of Lincoln Colledge." What the book was which he had translated does not appear from Cheynell; war it the Racovian Catechism? Abelard was commonly reckoned an anti-trinitarian in Cheynell's time. (See Chewney's 'AIPEZIAPXAI, or, a Cage of Unclean Birds, containing the Authors, Promoters, Propagators and chief Disseminators of this damnable Socinian Heresie, added to his Anti-Socinianism. 4to. 1656. p. 135, &c.) Of Anthony Wotton, Chewney says, This is the last perverse publisher of this damnable heresie, that we shall think fit to name; and who first openly professed it in England, and by manuscript pamphlets and printed books dispersed it in London; a place as much adicted to and taken with novelty, as any other whatsoever. For let the doctrine be what it will, if it smell not of novelty, it hath there, for the most part, no better entertainment than Christ among the Gadarens, they regard it not; from thence it was carried as a discovery of some new truth, into several places of the country, and this about forty years ago." (Idem. p. 230.) Having denominated the Papists Philistines, Cheynell thus proceeds, "But there are other Philistines, namely, Arminian and Socinian Philistines, by which church and state are much endangered, and it is the businesse now in hand to lay open their mystery of iniquity to the publique view. Wee may say to these pestilent Heretiques, as well as to malignant statesmen, Ita uati estis ut mala vestra ad Rempub. pertineant; for there are no greater statesmen in the world than the English Arminians and Popish Socinians; for such monsters hath England nourished as are not to be found in all Africa. Herod and Pilate, the Romane and the Racoxian Antichrist, are made friends in England, all the Grand-malignants, Arminians, Papists and Socinians are of one confederacy, all united under one head the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch or Pope of this British world." Archbishop Laud appears in rather a singular character as the patron of Socinianism! We apprehend that the prelate would have been equally ready with the presbyter, had opportunity offered, to prove his orthodoxy, by breaking into the houses, rifling the manuscripts and securing the persons of Unitarians, haling them and committing them to prison. At the end of the Epistle Dedicatory, which is dated, April 18, 1643," there is this parliamentary Imprimatur : "It is ordered this eighteenth day of April, 1649, by the Committee of the House of Commons in Parliament concerning printing, that this book intituled, The Rise, &c. &c. be printed. John White." SIR (To be continued.) WAS glad to learn in your last Number, that the doctrine of the Atonement, as it has been called, is to be examined in your next volume, and I hope that your learned theological correspondents will not be backward to favour your readers with the result of their inquiries on this important question. Before a subject like this can be properly discussed, it is necessary that the doctrine itself should be stated in the most unobjectionable manner. This is particularly necessary on the present occasion, because the advocates of this doctrine have not, especially of late, been agreed in their notions concerning it; and, consequently, different schemes, as the expression has been used, of this doctrine have been proposed. The advocates of reputed orthodoxy have, likewise, frequently eluded their opponents' arguments, by representing them as giving an unfair view of the question, and opposing what none, but the uninformed and over zealous, have either stated or defended. For these and other reasons, it is necessary, as Ruffinus recommended in your last Number, that the doctrine be stated correctly and fairly, after the best authorities. With this view I shall transcribe the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles of the Church of England. 11th. "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification. 12th. "Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgments; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as well known, as a tree discerned by the fruit. 18th. "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesu Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school-authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin." I shall now make an extract or two from the Homily on Salvation. "God sent his only Son, our Sa. viour Christ into this world, to fulfil the law for us; and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same." Again : "And whereas it lay not in us that to doe," [i. e. to make amends to God] "he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesu Christ, who (besides this ransome) fulfilled the law for us perfectly." And again: "So that now in him, and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacketh, Christ's justice hath supplied." The following extracts are from Archbishop Usher's Body of Divinity. "How was our Saviour to make satisfaction for this our debt? "1. By performing that perfect obedience which we did owe. 2. By suffering that punishment due unto us for our sins, &c. "What then be the parts of Christ's obedience and satisfaction? "His sufferings and his righteousness. For it was requisite that he should first pay all our debt and satisfy God's justice, by a price of infinite value. Secondly, purchase and merit for us God's favour and kingdom by a most absolute and perfect obedience, &c. "But how can One man save 80 many? “Because the manhood bring joined to the godhead, it maketh the passion and righteousness of Christ of infinite value; and so we are justified by a man that is God. "Whereunto was he offered? "Unto the shame, pain, torment, and all the miseries which are due unto us for our sins. He suffering whatsoever we should have suffered, and by those grievous sufferings making payment for our sins." The following is from the Helvetic confession of faith: See Sylloge Confessionum. Oxon, 1804. "Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied Divine Justice. Wherefore for the sake of Christ alone, who suffered and rose again, God is propitious to our sins, nor imputes them to us, but imputes the righteousness of Christ instead of our own." In the Belgic confession we find the following statement of this doctrine : "We believe that Jesus Christ, the great High Priest ***, who appeared before the Father in our name to appease his anger with plenary satisfaction.*** He paid what he did not owe, and suffered the just for the unjust, both in his body and in his soul. He felt the guilt incurred by our sins in such a manner, that he sweated water and blood." Your readers probably will deem these authorities sufficient. If any however should not be satisfied with the above, they may look into Calvin's Institutes, the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, and different bodies of divinity, published in the last and preceding century, the orthodoxy of which have not, so far as I know, been ever questioned. From the above extracts it appears that the following things are essential |