Thomas Emlyn
was born at Stamford, in Lincolnshire, in the year 1663. His parents, though they statedly attended the worship of the established church, were friendly to the principles of the Nonconformists; and accordingly, even at that period, when such a destination held out no flattering prospect, and might lead to bonds and imprisonment, they did not hesitate to devote their son to the Christian ministry in that connexion. For this purpose, after the usual preparatory course of grammar learning, he was sent, in 1678, to an academical institution conducted by a Mr. Shuttleworth, at Sulby, in Northamptonshire. For a short time he was admitted at Emanuel College, Cambridge, and was afterwards transferred to the academy of Mr. Doolittle, in the neighbourhood of London. Here he had greater advantages in the access to books, &c.; but there is reason to think that he was more indebted to his own personal exertions and private studies than to the instructions he received. His tutors appear to have been worthy and conscientious, but narrow-minded men, of no superior talent or compass of thought. He seems, however, to have speedily acquired reputation as a young man of acquirement and promise; for, in 1683, when only twenty years of age, he became chaplain to the Countess [58] of Donegal, who then resided in London, and the following year went over with her family to Belfast in Ireland, where she was shortly afterwards married to Sir W. Franklin. Here he continued for some years in his capacity of chaplain, with a liberal salary, and was treated with great respect and distinction. Sir W. Franklin, who had a large property in the west of England, offered to present him to a considerable living in that part of the country; but he declined it, not in consequence of any scruples on the doctrine of the Trinity, respecting which no difficulties had as yet arisen in his mind, but from a dissatisfaction with the prescribed terms of ministerial conformity. That he was not, however, at this time a rigid Nonconformist, appears from his not only attending regularly the ordinary services of the church, but frequently officiating for the neighbouring clergymen, having a license for so doing from the bishop of the diocese, facultatis exercendoe gratui. The disturbances which took place in the north of Ireland in consequence of the landing of James II. in that country, occasioned the breaking up of the Countess of Donegal's establishment, and Emlyn retired to England; previously to which, however, he received an overture through Mr. Boyse, one of the ministers of the Presbyterian congregation in Wood-street, Dublin, to become his colleague as successor to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Daniel Williams, who had been driven from his charge by the violent and tyrannical proceedings of the popish administration of the time. But he declined the proposal for the present. Having no immediate engagement in England, he accepted an invitation from Sir Robert [59] Rich, one of the Lords of the Admiralty, to his seat near Beccles in Suffolk, and was induced by him to officiate as minister to a small dissenting congregation at Lowestoff, in that county. Here he remained about a year and a half, though without formally undertaking the pastoral charge. During his residence at Lowestoff he maintained a friendly intercourse with the clergyman of the place, accompanying him in making collections for the public charities, and occasionally attending with part of his congregation upon his public services. This was conformable, as we have seen, to his practice while in Ireland, and was by no means inconsistent with his principles; for he was not as yet a dissenter from the doctrines of the church, and he had too much liberality to make the minor matters of difference in discipline and ceremonial an insuperable bar to communion.At this period, however, he also formed an intimate acquaintance with Mr. W. Manning, a worthy dissenting minister at Peasenhall, in his neighbourhood. Their congenial habits and pursuits occasioned frequent meetings, and they engaged together in theological inquiries, mutually communicating to each other their respective sentiments and conclusions; in which, as it happened, they were both led to deviate widely from the opinions then generally prevalent. The doctrine of the Trinity in particular they agreed, first in doubting, and at length in rejecting altogether. Mr. Manning embraced the Socinian view, but could not prevail on his friend to concur with him, as he could not satisfy himself with the Socinian interpretation of the texts usually brought to prove the preexist-ence of our Saviour as the great Spirit or Logos [60] by whose instrumentality God created the material world. He therefore espoused what has since been called the High Arian hypothesis, in which he continued during the rest of his life. In these sentiments he agreed nearly with Whiston, Clarke, Peirce, and many other eminent divines of that and the immediately succeeding age, whose celebrity for a long period gave the Arian scheme the preference over that of Socinus.
When James II. was driven back to France, and affairs in Ireland assumed a more peaceable and settled appearance, Mr. Emlyn was induced to accept a second overture to become joint pastor with Mr. Joseph Boyse of the Presbyterian congregation in Wood Street, Dublin. To this city he accordingly removed in 1691; and here he continued in a station of great comfort and prosperity for nearly twelve years. Mr. Emlyn appears to have been a highly popular and acceptable preacher, and the sermons of his which have reached us, prove that he was very deservedly so. They are at once rational, persuasive, and pathetic; and when the subject calls for it, often rise to a high strain of eloquence. He is said also to have been particularly excellent and attentive in discharging the more private duties of a Christian minister. A few years after he settled at Dublin he married Mrs. Esther Bury, a widow lady with a handsome jointure; and thus being possessed of an easy competence, successful and acceptable in the discharge of his ministerial duties, apparently respected and beloved by his congregation and friends, and peculiarly blest in his domestic relations, he seemed to enjoy the fairest prospect of permanent and increasing usefulness, and of a reasonable share [61] of temporal respectability and comfort. But it had pleased a wise Providence to order it otherwise, and dark clouds were presently destined to overshadow the scene which for some time appeared so bright and promising.
Mr. Emlyn had not as yet divulged his abandonment of the prevailing views of the Trinity, which were zealously maintained by his colleague, and doubtless by at least a large majority of his congregation. He abstained from touching upon controverted topics in the pulpit, where his discourses were for the most part practical; though their morality was invariably founded upon the precepts, and carefully enforced by the peculiar motives and sanctions suggested by the Christian scriptures.
‘I own’ (he tells us in his very interesting narrative of the proceedings against him) ‘I had been unsettled in my notions from the time I read Dr. Sherlock's book of the Trinity, which sufficiently discovered how far many were gone back towards polytheism; I long tried what I could do with some Sabellianturns, making out a Trinity of somewhats in one single mind. I found out that, by the tritheistical scheme of Dr. Sherlock and Mr. Howe, I best preserved a trinity, but I lost the unity; by the Sabellian scheme of modes and subsistences, and properties, &c., I best kept up the divine unity; but then I had lost a trinity, such as the Scripture discovers, so that I could never keep both in view at once. Till I had upon much serious thought and study of the holy scriptures, with many concerned addresses to the Father of lights, found great reason first to doubt, and after by degrees to alter my judgment, in [62] relation to the formerly received opinions of the trinity and the Supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. For though the word of God was my rule, I could not tell how to understand that rule but by the use of my reason; knowing well, that he who tells me I must lay aside my reason when I believe the gospel, does plainly declare that to believe it is to act without reason, and that no rational man could be a Christian. I desired only to know what I must believe, and why. As to the latter, I was satisfied that divine revelation is a sufficient ground of belief; but then I must conceive what it is that it reveals, and that I am explicitly to believe and profess. Accordingly I was ever careful not to speak against my own judgment, or what should appear so to a judicious hearer, that I might not act against Christian sincerity; and yet I never confronted the opinions of others by express or unhandsome opposition; I doubted whether this was my duty, or proper in the pulpit, where I could not have freedom to say all that was requisite in such a controversy, and whether I ought at once to cast myself out of a station of service without a more particular and direct occasion given me to profess my mind, which I did apprehend might offer, and which I was determined to accept when it did.’
Thus it appears that with Emlyn, as it has since been with Lindsey, Robertson, and many others who have finally sacrificed their worldly prospects for the sake of the truth, the adoption of so decided a step was a subject of much serious and anxious deliberation, and was delayed even for years beyond the time when the change of doctrinal sentiment had been fully completed. [63]
While this subject was dwelling on his mind, his domestic happiness was painfully interrupted, first by the death of an infant son, and afterwards (towards the end of 1701) by that of his wife. On this latter occasion he preached a sermon from John XIV. 28. ‘If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because I said I go to my Father; for my Father is greater than I. ’ This sermon was afterwards printed, (during the darkest season of his own approaching personal troubles,) under the title of ‘Funeral Consolations,’ and contains many passages which for eloquence, pathos, and true Christian feeling, are not surpassed by any thing in our language. He makes no distinct allusion or express mention of the lamented subject of his discourse, but towards the close, delicately but indirectly portrays her character in the following passage. After describing in a strain of eloquence and lively imagination, purified and enlightened by Christian faith, the great things reserved for those that are gone to the Father, and the consolation to be reaped by survivors from these reflections, he proceeds as follows:
‘All this is most true, when we can say of our deceased friends that they are gone to the Father, and this on solid grounds. When we have known them by divine grace powerfully biassed towards God, holiness, and heaven, as the great centre of all their desires and aims; when we have seen them shine with the Redeemer's image in great meekness and humility, great inoffensiveness and tender goodness towards all,—when we have found them possessed and governed by a conscientious dread of offending God or man, (perhaps in some instances too scrupulous,) diligent also in the daily [64] duties of secret piety and devotion, with reverence and great seriousness; when we have seen them faithful in all their relative capacities, as therein serving the Lord, as well as man; when they have been eminently mortified to this vain world, to all the gaiety and bravery, the interests, divertisements and pleasures of this life, and that in years and circumstances very capable of such temptations, and this because they rather chose the better part which shall never be taken away; when we have beheld their submissive patience and christian resignation to God, under misery; and after all great humility in an abasing sense of their unworthiness and need of mercy; but yet supporting their faith with honourable thoughts of the divine goodness, and a sense of their own sincerity, so as with hope and strong desires to breathe out their departing souls into their Redeemer's hands, welcoming his approaches with “Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;” —when we can thus describe our friends, (and I know well whom I could thus imperfectly describe,) why should we not conclude they are gone to the Father? And why should we not rejoice in all the comforts of that consideration? How unreasonable is our immoderate sorrow, when all the rest of their friends rejoice! For, as themselves rejoice to go to the Father, so the blessed God, their Father, has welcomed them with joy to their everlasting home; Jesus Christ has presented them as his crown and joy, without spot or blemish; holy angels and spirits congratulate their arrival to their society, and cannot be supposed to rejoice less at the consummation of their victorious warfare that at its beginning in their conversion; [65] and shall we alone be swallowed up in sorrow? Rather let us comfort one another with these words, and ascend after them in holy desires to be in the same state and place.’
In the Preface there is an affecting reference to the hard and injurious treatment under which he was at that time labouring. After adverting to the delay which had taken place in the publication of this sermon, ‘I must own,’ he proceeds,
that I had probably done it sooner, had I not been diverted by many troubles; the issue of which has been such as has not only given me more leisure to review this sermon, but also more occasion often to retire to a serious contemplation of the matters therein contained. What my sufferings (for a principle of conscience) have been, or for what cause I suffered as an evil-doer even unto bonds, I intend not here to complain. It suffices me to leave my complaint with God, whom I desire to serve according to my best understanding; and if I may but please Him, the judge and giver of the prize, I shall be less anxious for the applause of spectators, who must themselves be judged also.
But as to that dispensation of Providence which occasioned this discourse, I do therein, with great reverence and satisfaction, adore the righteous wisdom of the Supreme Lord of life and death, by whose appointment, according to the Prophet's observation (Isaiah LVII. 1), righteous and merciful men are taken away from the evil to come. For, considering what was in the womb of Providence, and so near to its birth, I cannot but reckon it an apparent design of mercy to her who is deceased, that she should be carried into [66] the quiet harbour before so furious a tempest did arise, which might have made too cruel impressions on a disposition so very gentle and tender. But she was gathered to her grave in peace, that she might not behold it. Moreover, by such a rebuke, so adapted to strike at the root of all earthly love and delight, the all-wise God might greatly prepare him who was to survive for better enduring his approaching trials; since thereby neither the prosperity nor the adversity of this world could be any great temptation to one who had less reason than ever to be fond of this life, and so loud an admonition never to seek his contentment on this side God and heaven. Lord, what wait I for?—my hope is in Thee.
It was about nine months after Mrs. Emlyn's decease that a leading member of the congregation, being struck not so much with any thing positive in Mr. Emlyn's preaching or other public services, as with the absence of all reference to certain orthodox doctrines on occasions when a man who had no doubts or difficulties on these points would scarcely have omitted them, communicated his suspicions to Mr. Boyse, the other minister. They jointly waited on Mr. Emlyn, and requested to know what his real sentiments on the subject were. When thus called upon, he did not hesitate to acknowledge, or rather openly to declare, what his faith was; and avowed himself convinced that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is alone the Supreme Being, superior in excellence and authority to his Son, who derives all from him. He told them at the same time, that he had no aim to make any strife among them, and offered to leave the congregation, that [67] they might choose another in his place. This, however, was not the course they chose to adopt. Mr. Boyse brought the affair before a meeting of the presbyterian ministers in Dublin, who seem to have been allowed to exercise a sort of controul and inquisitorial interference in the concerns of other congregations, which those of us who in this country still call ourselves by that name are at a loss to comprehend, A conference took place between Mr. E. and this conclave, at which he candidly explained his sentiments, and they, without further deliberation or delay, cast him off, and decreed that he should not preach any more; and this without any communication with his own flock, the only parties who had any real concern in the affair, of which as yet they were utterly ignorant. Mr. E. immediately called the deacons and other managers of the church together, acquainted them with the circumstances, and requested their dismissal. To this they were unwilling to accede, but proposed to him to go away presently into England for awhile, to afford time for further consideration. The ministers gave their sanction to the arrangement, but withal charged him not to preach during his absence. To this imperious mandate he returned a spirited reply, asserting his undoubted right and full determination to use his discretion in this matter without asking for their permission. He accordingly departed for England, though with great personal inconvenience, the very next day.
‘And now,’ says he, ‘I had leisure to look back; for when so few days' space had made so great a change in my condition, that I was turned out to wander abroad desolate and in uncertainty, I saw [68] I was entered upon a dark scene, and must arm for various, though I knew not what, trials.—I had not been of so unsocial a nature as not to relish the society and love of my dear friends, nor yet so mortified to the world as not to feel some difference between contempt and respect, fulness and straits; but still my convictions of truth were so clear, that these things never staggered my resolutions of adhering to it in the midst of all discouragements. Yet Mr. Boyse, in the preface to his Answer to my Humble Inquiry, taxes me with insincerity in continuing so long in communion with those of a different persuasion. But as I think it was matter deserving of great deliberation, so I did not see any thing sinful required of me: we worshiped one God through Jesus Christ the Mediator, and I had my part in leading the devotions of the society. We had no worship of three modes expressed; and other men's different confused notions did not affect my worship when not imposed on me, who still say that, if they worshiped but one infinite Supreme Mind, they worshiped the same object of supreme worship with me; and as for the secret worship of three modes, of which there is not one word in scripture, I understand no more than themselves what they mean by those terms, or rather they mean nothing at all by them that I can find; and I am persuaded that not three of the whole church could agree in the same rational account, if put to it, of these matters.’
On his return to Ireland, Mr. Emlyn found that a great clamour had been raised against him in his absence, both in the pulpit and elsewhere: he therefore thought that justice to himself as [69] well as to the truth required that he should shew what evidence from the scriptures he had on his side, and accordingly he wrote and published his ‘Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ.’ In this tract, after acknowledging that the title God is in some instances applied to Christ, he shews that this term is used in scripture in various senses, supreme and subordinate, and that the former is reserved exclusively to the Father;—that our Lord Jesus speaks of another as God distinct from himself, and owns this God to be his superior; while he disclaims those infinite perfections which belong only to the Supreme God, as underived power, absolute goodness, unlimited knowledge. He examines the texts which are usually cited to the contrary of these positions. He afterwards answers the argument deduced from the worship, or more properly honour and reverence, due to the Lord Jesus; shewing that no supreme worship is offered to him, and that, if it were, it would be inconsistent with the character with which he is invested of a Mediator between God and men.
As soon as might be after the appearance of this tract, it was Mr. Emlyn's intention to have returned to England. Some however of the more bigoted and hot-headed dissenters (with singular inconsistency, considering that they themselves had at this very time in Ireland no legal toleration, but were only connived at) were resolved to have him prosecuted, and with this view procured a warrant from the Chief Justice, Sir Richard Pyne, to seize the author and his books. The Chief Justice was at first disposed to refuse bail, but afterwards consented, and two sufficient persons [70] were bound in £ 800 for his appearance. The indictment, after having been three several times altered before it could be finally settled, occasioned the trial to be postponed till June 14, 1703. On that day, before the court sat, Mr. Emlyn was apprised by an eminent counsel that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was determined to run him down like a wolf, without law, or game; and he soon found that this was not said without sufficient reason. Six or seven bishops were present, including the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, who took their seats upon the bench. ‘If,’ says Mr. E., ‘they had used arguments with me, or had informed the court how unfit a jury of tradesmen were to judge of abstruse points of divinity, or had protested, as holy bishops of old did, against that strange and unheard — of impiety, that a spiritual or church affair should come before a secular judicature, I should have thought it would have been to their praise.’
There was no little difficulty in procuring legal evidence that Mr. Emlyn was the author of the book; and it was not so much proved at last, as taken for granted on the presumptive ground of a conformity between the opinions maintained in it, and those which he had professed in conference with Mr. Boyse and his brother ministers. And the main question still remained, whether what was quoted from the book was blasphemy. But this was never spoken to at all. ‘I intended,’ says Mr. E., ‘after the matter of fact was over, to have spoken on this head; and to have shewn how unreasonable it was to account that blasphemy which, for the manner of it, had not been uttered with any token of a designed contempt; [71] and, for the matter of it, was not very different from what divers learned men and dignitaries of the church had published. I could have shewn that men of great probity and character differ very much about these matters; and that, if a mere error must be judged blasphemy by a party of the contrary opinion, then may any thing be judged such, let but the adverse party have the drawing of the consequences. But my counsel would say nothing on this head on my behalf, and they would not let me speak for myself: when I offered it, the Queen's counsel turned upon me, and cried, Speak by your counsel.’
The Chief Justice seems to have acted the part of an accuser rather than of a judge; and the jury, intimidated by his representation, and probably overawed by the unwonted presence of so many dignitaries of the church, brought in, but with apparent reluctance, a verdict of guilty. When the verdict was pronounced, the Attorney-general moved that the prisoner might have the honour of the pillory; but sentence was deferred till the last day of the term, and in the mean time he was committed to the common gaol. During this interval, Mr. Boyse, who, if he had not been actively concerned in the previous arbitrary and violent proceedings, certainly did not express that dislike of them as carried on by others, nor of such methods of persecution in general which might have been expected of a Christian minister, seems to have shewn more concern for his former friend and colleague, and exerted himself to prevent the rigorous sentence the Attorney-general had moved for. Mr. Emlyn himself also addressed the following letter to the Chief Justice an his own behalf:— [72]
My Lord,
Though your Lordship may perhaps judge me guilty of a fault that you cannot admit any apology for, yet I may presume upon so much compassion as to have leave to offer something by way of mitigation. I do assure your Lordship, that I have no greater desire than to learn the truth from the Holy Scriptures, by which I shall always be guided according to my best light; and if I am mistaken in my opinions, God knows, it is altogether unwillingly. It is most obvious that I have forfeited my interest and sacrificed my reputation in the world, and exposed myself to such evils as nothing could ever make me submit to, but the real fear of offending God; which your Lordship will, I doubt not, allow for a very great reason. I am ready to do any thing consistent with my judgment and conscience; but I am ashamed to do that for fear of shame from men, for which my conscience may suggest to me that Jesus Christ will be ashamed of me at the great day. I imagine, by something spoken on my trial, that your Lordship conceived I had written some deriding, scornful expressions of the holy Jesus, which I am sure I never designed; the sum of the whole book being only to shew the Father to be greater than he, not denying him any glory consistent with that. I hope that, as the great and merciful God will sooner forgive many errors of the understanding than one wilful crime, so your Lordship will make a considerable difference between disputable errors, which men of probity and learning are divided about, and scurrilous reflections on the blessed Jesus, which are intended for contempt, and which my soul shall ever abhor. I shall only presume to add, that as it is entirely for my conscience [73] that I suffer, so I can never be deprived of the comfortable support which such a consideration carries in it; having, I hope, learned in some measure to be conformed to Him who endured the cross, and who will shortly appear the righteous Judge of all. Knowing how much depends on your Lordship's favour and clemency as to the penalty I am liable to, I entreat for it; and am,
Your Lordship's, &c.
When he appeared to receive judgment, and refused to retract, the Chief Justice sentenced him to suffer a year's imprisonment, to pay a thousand pounds to the Queen, to be imprisoned till the fine was paid, and to find security for good behaviour during life. Instead of the pillory, which he was told was dispensed with because he was a man of letters, he was led round the four courts with a paper on his breast to be exposed. After passing this severe sentence, the judge added insult to injury by magnifying its clemency; reminding the prisoner, that if this case had been tried in Spain or Portugal, the stake would have been his portion! It is remarkable that the process upon the writ de haeretico comburendo had been abolished in Ireland only seven or eight years before; ‘else I know not,’ says Mr. E. ‘but I might have been put to the fiery trial, which I hope I should have been enabled to endure, through Him whose grace is sufficient.’
After sentence, he was closely confined in the house of the Under-sheriff for about a quarter of a year, but was then transferred to the common gaol, where he lay for five or six weeks in a close [74] room surrounded by the other prisoners; but was afterwards removed, on petition for the sake of his health, to the Marshalsea, where he had more accommodation. Here he wrote his ‘General Remarks on Mr. Boyse's Vindication of the True Deity of our blessed Saviour.’ In this situation he remained for two years (his imprisonment being prolonged in consequence of the nonpay-ment of his fine), during which time he feelingly complains in his narrative, that most of those with whom he had before been on the most familiar terms seemed estranged from him, and did not vouchsafe him even the poor and cheap favour of a visit. Mr. Boyse was almost the only exception, who at length made exertions to procure his enlargement, and a mitigation of the heavy fine, which was utterly beyond his ability to pay.
In this gentleman's conduct through the whole affair there seems to have been a degree of vacillation and inconsistency, for which it is not easy to account. By persisting in laying the case before the other ministers, whom he knew to be bigoted, narrow-minded, violent men, he certainly was the means, in the first instance, of bringing on the persecution, though very probably he was far from anticipating the length to which matters would be carried, or the serious consequences which ensued. But the publication of his reply to Mr. Emlyn's Humble Inquiry, even before the trial came on, in which the theological argument was accompanied with many unnecessarily harsh and irritating expressions, was, to say the least of it, unseasonable and precipitate;—not dictated, one would think, by the feelings which might have been expected towards one with whom (in [75] whatever error he might now think him involved) he had been for so many years connected on terms of such intimacy and friendship. Mr. Emlyn's own remarks on this subject are conceived in a truly Christian and forgiving spirit. ‘Mr. Boyse made several attempts for my liberty; whose kindness I thankfully acknowledge, in that with great concern and much labour he pursued it from time to time, which has abundantly confirmed my affection and respects to him, and extinguished all uneasy resentments. I am sensible that what he did against me was with regret and grief,—what he did for me was with choice and pleasure. So that I hope nothing in this history shall be any diminution to the character of his great worth and good temper, who endeavoured to allay the common odium against me as far as he could, without the loss of his own reputation. At length, through his frequent solicitations for a reducement of my fine, and by a very friendly and generous gentleman's help,1 I obtained the then Duke of Ormond's favour, who gave directions to the commissioners of reducement to reduce my fine to a hundred marks, according to the Lord Chancellor's favourable report, (to whom my petition had been referred,) that such exorbitant fines were against the law.’
Thus at length, but with difficulty, this heavy, and (as it appears) illegal fine was reduced to seventy pounds, which was paid into her Majesty's exchequer. But the Archbishop of Armagh, who (as Queen's Almoner!) had a claim, it seems, of a shilling in the pound on all fines, was not to be [76] thus satisfied, but insisted for some time on the full amount of his per-centage on the whole fine. At last, after several applications and letters, he was beat down to twenty pounds, which he had the meanness to take; ‘thinking it no blemish to his charity or generosity to make this advantage of the misery of one who for conscience towards God had endured grief.’
On July 21, 1705, upon giving security by two bondsmen for good behaviour during life, Mr. E. obtained relief from his tedious imprisonment. ‘And now after all, (to adopt his own concluding words, in the very interesting narrative he has left us of this affair,) I thank my most merciful God and Father, that as he called me not to this lot of suffering till I was arrived at some maturity of judgment and firmness of resolution, so he left me not when my friends and acquaintance forsook me; that he supported my spirit to endure this trial of my faith without wavering; that I was never so cast down as to be tempted to renounce the truth; that he preserved my health under this long confinement; that I had a few friends who were a comfort to me in my bonds, (the Lord grant that they may find mercy of the Lord in that day!) that he inclined any in authority to shew at last compassion to me; that he has brought me out of prison, and set my feet in a large place; that I have yet food and raiment left me; and, above all, that he has given me a mind, I think, as well contented with it as ever I was in my greatest prosperity. I am content to want the kind and vain respects of the world, and to give up my name to mistaken reproach; or to lose it, if that may be, in silent unregarded [77] obscurity. I have suffered the loss of many things, and do not repent; but upon the review, I do still count it all but loss and dung, if it has in any way advanced the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.’
During Mr. Emlyn's confinement in the Marshalsea prison, he procured the use of a large room, where he preached to such of the debtors as came to hear him, and to several of the lower class of his former hearers, who resorted to him there, when their betters were for the most part restrained by the fear of man, and whose continued affection and attachment was a great source of consolation to him. After his release, he shortly removed to London, where he preached for some time to a small congregation of friends who entertained similar opinions with himself, but without receiving any salary, though his income was now much reduced, his wife's jointure having passed to her children by her former marriage. This, however, was, after a few years, dissolved by the death of the principal members, and he had not afterwards any ministerial engagement, but retired into a silent obscurity, but not into idleness, as he appeared occasionally before the public as the author of various able tracts, both in support of the principles for which he had suffered so much, and on other theological questions. Many of these were afterwards collected into a volume printed in 1719, to which is prefixed the interesting narrative from which we have given several extracts of the proceedings against him at Dublin.
His first publication was a short letter to Dr. Willis, Dean of Lincoln, remonstrating against [78] his attempt, in a sermon preached before the House of Commons, to vindicate the penal laws against the Catholics on religious grounds. If these laws were to be justified at all, which ill this tract he does not call in question, it must be from political considerations, and those only. How far it was reasonable at any time to take for granted, as he seems to do, that all Catholics as such were necessarily hostile to the existing political constitution, and that they ought on that account to be visited with coercive laws, we shall not here inquire; but, in protesting against visiting them with persecution or civil disabilities on the ground of their religious opinions merely, he shews himself to have fully probed a question, which, even at that late period, was by no means so clearly and generally understood as it is at present.
Shortly afterwards (in 1706) appeared ‘A Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ on Unitarian Principles;’ in answer to Mr. Boyse. This is an elaborate performance, displaying very considerable acuteness and ability; and many of the texts on which Trinitarians are accustomed chiefly to rely, are very satisfactorily explained. He proposes to establish two points; first, that the Holy Scriptures do never require us to pay divine worship to our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, as he is distinct from the Father who dwells in him and is worshiped by us; secondly, that they do allow and require us to pay him our inferior religious worship. Under the first of these heads, his argument is distinct and conclusive: he contends that there is no instance in the New Testament of prayer to Jesus Christ [79] when absent and invisible; and that all the cases (very few in number) which are thought to encourage the contrary idea, both admit and require a different interpretation. Again, with respect to what may be called the internal acts of worship, as faith, love, and reverence, it is obvious, that all these sentiments may be entertained towards one whom we honour as the most distinguished messenger of God. We may have faith in his message, because we believe it to come from God; we may love him in sincerity, with fervent gratitude to so great a benefactor, believing him, nevertheless, to be the instrument or agent of a still greater benefactor; our esteem and rational love must ascend higher, and not rest till it centre in his God and ours. Under the second proposition there is a perceptible confusion in his own argument, arising out of the ambiguity still attaching (and in his time still more than at present) to the term worship: and his proof does not, in fact, establish his point, but merely goes to prove what all Unitarians, of whatever grade or denomination, will be equally ready to admit, that the homage we pay to our Redeemer and Mediator is of a subordinate nature, implying an acknowledgment of his character as the instrument or servant of his Father, under whose direction he acted, and whose words he spake, in the whole work of our salvation. If by religious worship in this argument be meant the cultivation of the highest degree of love, attachment, and reverence, which can be cherished towards a creature, higher than we can or ought to feel towards any other creature, it is admitted. But if it imply any direct devotional address to [80] him, or any petition offered to him, either for benefits which he is expected to confer, or for his mediation and intercession with the Father, then there is no authority for any thing of this kind, either from reason or scripture. Not from reason, because Christ's being the hearer and answerer of prayer, would imply an omnipresence which is the exclusive attribute of deity; not from scripture, because it appears, and Mr. Emlyn has himself distinctly shewn, that there exists no instance in the New Testament of any direct address to Jesus, except where he was, or was believed to be, personally and sensibly present. Moreover, it seems to us to be clearly inconsistent with our Saviour's express command, ‘In that day, ye shall ask me nothing; but whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.’ John XVI. 23.
Our author lays considerable stress on the character ascribed to Christ as a Mediator of worship. ‘It must be granted,’ he says, ‘that Jesus Christ as a Mediator of worship, is as really supposed to know our prayers and wants, as when he is an object of it. If the man Jesus Christ does intreat for us, if he be our advocate, then in all reason he must know our case before he pleads it. God, who exalted him to that office, has in some way or other capacitated him for it; and this is a sufficient ground for worshiping him as Mediator, though it be far from implying him to be equal in perfection to that God with whom he intercedes, and consequently is no ground for truly divine worship.’ —If I understand this argument, it proceeds on the supposition that Christ is in such a sense Mediator between God and men, that he is the [81] medium of presenting our petitions to the Father: otherwise, what necessity would there be for his possessing, as it is contended he must do in this capacity, an accurate knowledge of all our circumstances, prayers, and wants? But there is no scriptural warrant for ascribing to him any such character as this.
The tendency of directing our thoughts upon different persons or objects of worship to degrade our conceptions of the infinite perfections of the Divine nature is strikingly illustrated in the following passage:—
The supposed economy of the Divine nature carries with it many injurious reflections on the honour and perfections of the blessed God. It supposes that it is a happiness for one person of the Trinity to have all the government in his hands, and to get the whole from the other two; so that it seems it is not so well for that person when the Father has his part again; for this sole exercise they call a privilege; and therefore when the Son delivers up the kingdom, he is supposed to resign a great privilege of his Divine nature.
We have sometimes been told that society in the Divine nature is delicious and a great happiness; and therefore that there are emanations of several persons. But then how comes it to pass that society in government is so grievous, that it should be such a privilege for one of them to have the others' rights conferred upon him? Sure that society should be as pleasing in government as in any thing else. And it should be the best for the three persons to rule alike, as they did before Christ's reward, and must do again hereafter; [82] when it is supposed that all will revert to their natural order, and then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost shall be jointly concerned in the administration of government.
On the whole, I cannot but lament to see how wofully the holy Christian religion is by such invented absurdities as these exposed to the grievous scorn of infidels, while they see such schemes as this, representing God, his Son, and Spirit, not only as three several men for distinction, but also as to their temper and way of management; making them to parcel out the divine regimen, and one to devolve his part on the other, (as the Son at first leaves his rights with the Father, say the Trinitarians,) and then to receive in his turn the other's part for a reward and gift, and then to give back again as at the last day the Son must. As if, like ambitious mortals who furiously scramble for dominion, and labour to undermine each other, it were so among the three persons of the Godhead, that one should account himself raised to honour and privilege by the other's divesting himself and leaving all to him. So that one may plainly see it were more for the Divine glory and happiness that there were but one person in God, since he would have all the privilege of ruling without a sharer or competitor; which, no doubt, is the real truth of all. To such sad derision do some bold disposers of God Almighty expose him, as if they thought him, and had a mind to teach others that he is, altogether such as themselves! Are these the venerable mysteries of Christianity? of which I find not one word in holy writ; and therefore they must answer for the shame done to Christianity hereby, [83] who have dared by such strained artifices to distort and abuse holy scripture, that they may impose these violent absurdities upon the gospel.
In 1707 our author printed two tracts; one entitled ‘The Supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated, against Dr. Sherlock;’ and the other ‘A Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester (Dr. Fowler) from the Charge of Heresy brought against him by Dr. Sherlock.’ In these tracts, which are written with great smartness, he very dexterously sets against each other the two opposite parties of Trinitarians, sometimes called the Realists and the Nominalists, who were at that time engaged in a very animated controversy, and who carried matters to such a length that it would seem as if each party was worse in the estimation of the other than even the Socinians were in that of either.
In the next year appeared three tracts, in reply to Mr. Leslie, on the same general controversy, but remarkable for a particularly sound and judicious view of the argument on what is called the ‘satisfaction to the Divine justice for the sins of men in the sufferings and death of Christ.’ The personal controversy involved in these pieces has long since lost its interest, and references to it interfere occasionally with the cause of the reasoning; otherwise there are few works which contain in a smaller compass a more distinct and satisfactory statement of the views commonly maintained by Unitarians on this subject. The only objection which presents itself, and which is equally applicable to the very acute and judicious review of this argument in the Racovian catechism, arises from the use which is made of the term sacrifice, and even expiatory sacrifice, in speaking [84] of the death of Christ. It is true these terms are so explained as to do away with the inference founded upon their employment in scripture by the patrons of the common doctrine of satisfaction, that Christ is to be considered as our substitute, bearing the punishment due to our sins from vindictive justice; but still there is a degree of confusion arising from the unnecessary introduction of this phraseology, and one is almost inclined to suspect a sort of lurking wish by the use of familiar terms commonly understood in an orthodox sense, to beguile some into an acceptance of the doctrine recommended, who would have been startled by the exhibition of it in an undisguised form.
In 1710, a remarkable tract appeared from Mr. Emlyn's pen, entitled, ‘The previous Question relating to Baptism.’ Before entering upon the controversy between the advocates of infant and adult baptism, it appears necessary first to settle the question, “ What reason we have for supposing that baptism under any form was prescribed as an ordinance of perpetual obligation, to be practised not on converts merely, but on the offspring of Christian parents?” Mr. Emlyn, though disposed on the whole to agree with the paedo-baptists, supposing this ‘previous question’ to be granted, is rather disposed to answer it in the negative; and, among other arguments, urges the undeniable fact, that no instance is to be found in the New Testament of the baptism of either the infant or the adult descendants of persons already members of the church. If there were any cases of the baptism of infants, (which is only a somewhat doubtful inference from Acts XVI., 15 and 33,) these were baptized [85] at the time of the conversion of the parents; and such baptism was a part of the ceremonial by which the parents, not the children, were admitted as disciples. The argument is plausibly maintained, and deserves the attention of both the contending parties.
The whole of this controversy is well fitted to teach one practical lesson, which has, however, been as little attended to in this case as in any other; namely, Christian charity and forbearance. For, to whatever opinion any one may incline, if he is candid, and has really studied the subject, he can hardly, one would think, perceive such a preponderance of argument in favour of his own conclusion, as to make it at all wonderful to him that others should think differently. While therefore, even with respect to those disputed points on which his own opinions are most decided, such a one would readily offer the right hand of fellowship to those who had conscientiously adopted a different sentiment,—in this case, almost above all others, he would refrain from expressing any opinion so positively as to imply that, if others do not agree with him, it must be the effect of improper bias or prejudice.
In 1715, Mr. Emlyn entered the field of biblical criticism with an able and learned view of the argument against the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses (1 John v. 7). This was answered by a Mr. Martin, pastor of a French church at the Hague, to whom our author published a reply. Martin returned to the charge; but Mr. Emlyn, thinking that the argument was exhausted, was contented, as he well might, to leave his antagonist in possession of the field. [86]
There can be no doubt that the series of tracts of which we have now given a short account, had a considerable effect in keeping up the public attention to the Trinitarian controversy, and in promoting a more extensive diffusion, under one modification or another, of Unitarian sentiments, especially among those who then began to be called (or to call themselves) by way of distinction, the liberal dissenters. And he lived to see a very marked and considerable change in this respect, from the time when he seemed almost to stand alone and unfriended to bear the brunt of persecution in its most formidable shape. Nevertheless, for some reasons not very clearly explained, there seems to have been a sort of jealousy, which prevented his admission to many pulpits among the London dissenters; and, after the dissolution of his own little society, he speaks of himself as almost a silenced man; so as to be sometimes ready to lament himself as an unprofitable servant, turned out of his Master's service. The only exceptions to this remark whose names have been mentioned, are Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. (afterwards the celebrated Dr.) James Foster, Ministers of the Baptist congregation at the Barbican. His talents and learning were, however, estimated at their due value by some of those who were most competent to appreciate them; and he was admitted to the intimate friendship of several persons of high distinction and eminence, particularly Dr. Samuel Clarke and Mr. Whiston; who nearly agreed with him in religious opinions, and the latter of whom had suffered for his principles, though not to the same extent. In 1726, on the death of the excellent Mr. James Peirce, of Exeter, [87] it was proposed to invite Mr. Emlyn to become his successor. As soon, however, as he was acquainted with it, he requested them to desist, thanking them for their respectful attention to him, and excusing himself from accepting an invitation on the ground of his declining years and increasing infirmities, He was naturally of a very cheerful and lively temper, and enjoyed a good state of health through the greater part of his life, the gout excepted, which by degrees impaired his constitution, and to which he finally fell a sacrifice on the thirtieth of July 1743, in the eighty-first year of his age.
The name of Thomas Emlyn well deserves to be had in affectionate remembrance and veneration by those, whatever their religious sentiments may be, who duly value simplicity and godly sincerity, and the genuine graces of the Christian character made manifest not only in sufferings for conscience' sake, but in unaffected piety and purity of life. He is chiefly known to posterity as a venerable confessor, who rejoiced that he was thought worthy to suffer shame and loss and imprisonment for the cause of Gospel truth. But he was not less remarkable for a meek devotion, and for the practical influence of Christian principles, which were equally his guides in prosperity, while all men spake well of him, and his consolation and effectual support in the period of adversity and persecution. Others have gone through more severe bodily sufferings, but none have displayed in their conduct and their sentiments more of the spirit of Him who, ‘when he was reviled, reviled not again.’
Mr. Emlyn's tracts, the greater part, of which [88] have been enumerated in the preceding memoir, were collected and republished in two volumes, in 1746, with a life of the author by his son, Sollom Emlyn, Esq., who was bred to the legal profession, in which he attained considerable eminence. Besides these, a posthumous volume was published of sermons, which are of a character to induce the judicious reader to wish that a more copious selection had been made.
Note.—Mr. W. Manning was one of the venerable two thousand whose names were immortalized in the recollection of all true lovers of religious liberty on Bartholomew's day, 1662. He was ejected from Middleton, in the county of Suffolk. In Palmer's Non-conformist's Memorial, he is described as ‘a man of great abilities and learning, but he fell into the Socinian principles, to which he adhered till his death, which was in February, 1711.’ Descendants of this gentleman are still respected members of several of our churches.
