On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    IT has sometimes been stated as an objection against Dr . Priestley ' s History of the Corruptions of Christianity , that he forms so very different an opinion , concerning the faith of the early Christians , from what has been formed by other writers , who had the same evidence before them . It

    cannot be supposed , that all Trinitarian divines were so biassed by attachment to their system , as to take it for granted , that the early Christian writers agreed with them ,

    if the writings of the earlv Christians contained such clear proofs of the contrary as Dr . P . imagines he has discovered . If , therefore , those Trinitarians , who have examined the

    subject and written concerning the tenets of the early Christians , concurred in representing the early Christian writers as agreeing with the orthodoxy of the present day , we should have just ground for supposing that Dr . Priestley was considerably biassed by his attachment to Unitarianism , so as to be led to discover

    traces of Unitarian opinions ia works , which , in fact , contain no such marks . But this is by no means the case . On the contrary , an examination of the manner in which , orthodox divines have spoken concerning many early Christian writers , will very much

    strengthen the proof , that those writers were very far from agreeing with the orthodoxy of the present day , and that some , especially of the earlier ones , were clearly Unitarian . To prove this , I shall quote the remarks which some Trinitarian writers

    have made on the writings of some of the fathers . Clemens Romanus is placed by Lardner , about Ihe year 96 after Christ . Concerning his EpistJe to the Corinthians , Photius , who was patriarch of Constantinople in

    the year 858 , says , "In these things he may be blamed , that while he calls our Lord Jesus Christ highpriest and patron , he hath not given him more divine and lofty titles . However , lie does not any where openly speak against these / ' * It was

    ? As I have ventured lo differ from Lai'dner ^ s translation , I here insert that translation : " There are in it several things liable to censure . One is , that the writer , though he calls our Lord our high - priest and patron , give * him none of the

    Untitled Article

    not to be expected , that Clemens should openly speak against giving to Christ titles , which no one before that time had ever given to him . From the manner in which Photius speaks of this letter * we may conclude that it is such an one as an

    Unitarian , in the days of Olemeus , would have written . Lardner says , ' so , upon many occasions , Photius h apt to censure ancient writers who come not up to the orthodoxy of bis time . " Clemens Alexandrinus is placed by Lardner , about the year 194 . His

    Institutes * a work now lost , is censured very severely by Photius , because in it , Clemens < c numbers the Son among created things , and says , the Son , as well as the word of the

    Father , is called the word ; but neither he nor the word of the Father , is that word which was made flesh ; but the word which was made flesh , is a certain power of God , flowing as it were from his word * which has entered the

    hearts of men . " From this it appears , that Clemens interpreted the first chapter of John in the same manner that Lardner has done , in his Treatise on the Logos . " All which things /' adds Photius , " Clemens endeavours

    to support by the testimony of the Scriptures , and in many other things he blasphemes and trifles . " Concerning Symmachus , who wrote about the year 200 , Eusebius says , " It should be observed , that Symmachus was an Ebionite * These

    Ebionites are such as say Christ was born of Joseph and Mary , and suppose him to have been a mere man ; and to this day there are extant commentaries of Symmachus , in which he endeavours to support this heresy from the Gospel according to Matthew . " This shews that Eusebius considered both

    Symmachus and the Ebionites as Unitarians , and that the copy of the Gospel of Matthew used by Symmachus , must have been without what are now called the first two chapters * About the year 192 , was written a

    higher and more divine titles , Mowevet , he does not any where openly blaspheme him . " The original is , Ajrtacr < xiro $ ' out th ; ev tolvtou <;—on oc ^ xu § ^ ' Xgotrccrqit tov Kvptov qiAoov \ f \ arsv Xpj £ -oj > tfcovofiaZfiWt e § € ra <; deoTc ^ Eitet t ; koli vipyXvrepoa ; oupvjKe ir ejp * ocvrs < pGcva . <; . Ov fjuyy #$ * a / Kagauti * 7 wwt < 4 <; avTQv vboiuM ev reran ; Shouripqf ** ' *

    Untitled Article

    306 Early Unitarian Christian Writers ..

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1819, page 306, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1772/page/26/