^>^.3 /? f... nv cCS^ fC C ccv , - , v^^^ ,^ 4 ^ '^^K ■■^ W,:".€ ^_ Pi:^ c <^< 7. / 'D2- (profe. Srom f ^e feifirarig of (jSequeaf^e^ 6g ^im fo t^e &i6ratg of (Princeton S^geofo^icaf ^eminatg ^^ Sec 35 V -"i:'^"S^ «j>; ;< ■,« ■ * '■Wis." m *^r :.fmy<<' m-c. '•iS^ .-^5BL_. <«: 'C^^ y? / /7a / c/ TRACTS I N Controveify with Dr. Pnejtky UPON THE HISTORICAL QUESTION The Belief of the Firjl Ages 1 N OUR LORD'S DIVINITY. ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED In the YEARS, 1783, 1784, and 1786. NOW REVISED AND AUGMENTED WITH A Large Addition of Notes, AND SUPPLE ME N'TAL D IS .^UIS IT 10 NS, BY THE AUTHOR, SAMUEL, LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID's. eiSbjj Tracri TotjaMoij sc'Slrji av}ir^v5clcx. to A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. t^ to change the expreflions which he found in tlie pub- lic tranflation, for others which correfpond far Icfs ex- aid, [K^'J in Theophilus's Greek. The exa£l rendering of Theophilus's words is to this effeft. " It was to no other perfon" (that is the proper force of &K osXAw Tjvi, haud alii cuipiam) " It was to no " other perfon that he faid, Let us niake^ than to his '' own Word, and to his own "wifdom." tw laJl-d Aoyiji KM TYi laula 'Zocpia, The repetition of the de- monflrative article with the pronoun, as well as the * Ad. Autolyc. p. 114. Oxon, 1684. conne6lIoa A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 49 conneilion by the copulative, clearly fhews that A070J and lopiay the Word and the Wifdom, are different things. Hath Dr. Priefdey written a hif- tory of the Corruptions of Chriftianity, and hath he yet to learn, that in the language of Theophilus and of the beft writers of his age, the Word and the Wif- dom (Acy;j and 'Eo:pia) are ufed as proper names of the fecond and third perfons of the Trinity ? If his own reading in thofe early fathers hath been fo con- fined, that not one of the clear unequivocal inftances that occur in Theophilus himfelf, in Origen, in Ta- tian, and Irenaeus, hath ever fallen under his own proper obfervation ; he mtght have been informed of this peculiarity of their flile, from the notes which ac- company the text of Theophilus in BiQiop Fell's edi- tion printed at Oxford in 1684; which, as it is in- lerted in his catalogue* of principal editions, it is poflible he may have feen. Theophilus's afTertion, that God fpake to no other perfon than his Word and his Wifdom, is an afTertion that he fpake to per- fons of no lefs dignity, than the Son and the Holy Ghofl. It is an afiertion of the Catholic expofitionf of the text, and of the confequences deduced from it, in oppofition to the Jewifh expofitors of that age 5 * Dr. Prieftley's Preface, p. xxii. -f- That this is the true expofition, tliat the text defcribes 2 confultation which pafTed between the perfons of the God- head, is fhewn with great brevity, but with the higheft de- gree of evidence and perfpicuity in Dr. Kennicott's dilferta- tion on the Tree of Life, p. 29, 30. — Compare the fame diflertalion, p. 71. E who so A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. ■who contended that this fpeech of God was addreffed to the angels, "i heophilus therefore in this paflage hath not dropped the perfonification of the Logos ; that is, he hath not receded from the affertion of the perfonality of the Word. He affirms not, that the Logos, fo often mentioned by himfelf and other writers as a perfon, is no perfon, but meerly the Di- vine Attribute of Wifdom ; which, in the ufual lan- guage of Grammarians, w^ere rather to aflert the perfonification* than to drop it : but by the names of the Word and the Wifdom he dif^inguifhes two different perfons ; faying, thefe were the perfons to whom God fpake. IV. I. We have feen by what fort of arguments our author's two firft allertions, " T hat the faith of the " firfl: age was Unitarian, and that the do£lrine of our *' Lord's Divinity was an invention of the fecond," are fupported. If he hath fucceeded no better in the proof of his third affertion, concerning the Platonic Chriilians of the fecond age, the inventors, as he would have it, of our Lord's Divinity ; that the Di- vinity which they fet up was only of that fecondary fort, which was admitted by the Arians, including neither eternity, nor any proper neceffity of exigence, having the meer name of Divinity, without any thing * Of my mifapprehenfion of the •word Perfo?iificatlon, a? iifedby Dr, Priellley, and how little itaffedts my argument, fee the thirteenth of my Letters in reply, ^ 2 5. of A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. Si of the real form : if the proof of this third affertion fliould be found to be equally infirm with that of the other two, his notion of the gradual progrefs of opi- nions from the meer Unitarian dodrine to the Arian, and from the Arian doftrine to the Athanafian faith, muft be deemed a meer dream or fiftion in every part. 2. It rauft be acknowledged, that the firft con- verts from the Platonic fchool, took advantage of the. refemblance between the Evangelic and the Platonic doftrineon the fubjeft of the Godhead, to apply the principles of their old philofophy to the explication and the confirmation of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn from Platonic prin- ciples ; they even propounded it in Platonic language : which to themfelves and their contemporaries was the Uiofl: familiar and intelligible, that could be employed upon fo abftrufe a fubjeil. Nor was this pra6lice to be condemned, fo long as the fcriptures and the ca- tholic traditions were made the teft of truth ; fo long as Revelation was not prefTed into the fervice of philo- fophy, by any accommodation of the pure evangelical doftrine to preconceived opinions ; but philofophy was made to exert her powers in tlie defence of Reve- lation, and to lend her language to be the vehicle of its facred truths. Thefe might be deemed the moft promifmg means that could be employed, for bringing over more converts from the pagan fchools. And tlie writers, who evangelized in this philofophical ilile, cwiceived perhaps, that they had the fandion ofaa E a Apoftlc's Si A CHARJ3E TO THE CLERGY. Apoflle's example, " for becoming all things to all " men, that they might gain Ibme." 3. But whatever might be the purity of their In- tentions, they were guilty of an unpardonable devi- ation from the primitive faith, if it be true that they maintained the doclrine which Dr. Prieftley afcribes to them ; namely that the Son is the meer contingent creature of the Father's Will and Power ; a produc- tion which hath not always exifled*. We have (een that this was not the belief of tlie firil; age; and if it is to be found in the writings of the fecond, it could in- deed be nothing better than a corruption of religion by philofophy. 4. To judge of the truth of a writer's propofition, and even to divine of what fort the arguments will be, which he will allege in fupport of it, it is fometimes fufficientthat the precife tenour of it be clearly under- ftood. They were converts from Platonifm, they were Chriftians, who, with their Chriftianity, are fup- pofed to have retained their Platonifm, to whom Dr. Prieftley afcribes the notion of a Logos which had not always exifted, but began to be, like other creatures, by an adt of the Father's Will. After all that Dr. Prieflley hath written, about the refemblance betvv^een the Ecclefiaflical and the Platonic Trinity ; he hath yet, it feems, to learn that a created Logos, a Logos which had ever not exifted, was no lefs an abfurdity in the Academy, than it is an impiety in the Church. The converts from Platonifm muft have renounced * Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 42, 44, 62. their A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 53 their philofophy, before they could be the authors of this abfurd, this monftrous opinion *. As the notion that this do6lrine toolc its rife with them, betrays a total ignorance of the genuine principles of their fchool ; it is eafy to forefee, that the arguments brought in fup- port of itj can only be founded in grofs mifconftrudi- ons of their language. That this is indeed the cafe will be abundantly proved by a fingle inftance. 5. Athenagoras is one of the writers to whom Dr. Prieftley refers for a proof of his aflertion. The paflage which he cites, as affording a proof that Athenagoras believed not that Chrift had always ex- ifted, or that the Logos had always exilled, other- wife than as an attribute of the Divine mind, hap- pens to be one, in which that philofophic Father aflerts the eternity of the Logos, as a diftind per- fon, in the moft explicit terms j and argues in fup- port pf it from a certain relation of the Logos to the paternal intelle6l, which the name. Logos, implies. " Athenagoras," fays Dr. Prieftley, " calls Chrift " the firft produdlion of the Father ; but fays, he " was not always adlually produced ; for that from *' the beginning God, being an eternal mind, had " reafon in himfelf, being from eternity rational |." But let us hear Athenagoras himfelf J. " If," fays * See more upon this fubjcct in tlic eighth of Dr. Priefl- ley's Fii'fl: Letters to me, and the tliirteenth of my Letters in reply, §.8. t Hilt, of Corriip. voL I. p. 36. t See the entire Greek palfage, p. 56. £ 3 he, 54. A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. he, " endowed as you are with fuperior underftand- " ing" (he addrefles the emperors Marcus Aure- lius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus) *' it fliould occur to you to enquire, v/hence it is " that he is called a Son, I will explain it in a few " words. [It is] that he is to the Father [as] the " iirfl offspring. Not as fomething made" (This is the true fenle of the words, in which Dr. Prieft- ley imagines that it is faid that Chrift was not al- ways produced) " Not as fomething made. For " God, being an eternal intelligence, himfelf from " the beginning had the Logos in himfelf, being •' eternally rational." The learned father under- takes to explain to the philofophical emperors, why the Second Perfon in the ever bleffed Trinity is cal- led the Son. He tells them, that this name is ex- prefTive of a certain relation, which the Second Per- fon ftands in to the firft, who is called the Father ; which relation is that of the eldefl: born. But left the relation of primigeniture fhould lead to the no- tion of a proper phyfical generation, which would fuik the Son into the rank of a creature (for genera- tion is only a particular way in which certain things are made) he fays, that the birth or generation of the Son, is not to be underftood as if he were fome- thing that had been ever made : as if his Being had commenced, at any certain time, by the inducement- of a form upon a praeexifting material. For that i$ the general notion of a making ; although in com- mon fpeech it is ufual to fay of thofe things only, that they are made, to which the form is given at once by A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. SS by the hand of the artift. When the form is gra- dually brought on by the plaftic powers of nature, the fecret procefs is called Generation ; which is therefore but a fort of making, and differs from that which is vifually called a Making, in the means only by which the end is compaffed. Athenagoras there- fore gives the Emperors a caution, not to under- hand by the Generation of the Son, a generation in the literal fenfe of the word, which comes under the general notion of a Making: not to underftand by ic any thing like that natural procefs, by which the bodies of plants and animals, and fome other fub- ftances, are carried forward from a potential to an aQual exiftence. The generation of the Son cannot be underftood, he fays, of any fuch produdlion, be- caufe his actual exiftence is from eternity. This, he fays, is the neceffary confequence of the confeffed eternity of the Father. The Logos hath exifted from eternity, in union with the Father j *' becaufe God, being eternally rational, ever had the Logos in him- felf." The fenfe is, that the perfonal fubfiftence of a divine Logos is implied in the very idea of a God. And the argument refts on a principle which was common to all the Platonic fathers, and feems to be founded in fcripture, that the exiftence of the Son flows neceflarily from the Divine Intelledl ex- erted on itfelf ; from the Father's contemplation of his own perfections. But as the Father ever was, his perfections have ever been, and his intellect hath been ever aCtive. But perfections, which have ever been, the ever-aCtive Intellect muft ever have con- E 4 templated; i5 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. templated ; and the contemplation which hath ievef been, muft ever have been accompanied with its juft effect, the perfonal exigence of the Son. Athena- goras having thus proved, that the generation of the Son can be only a figurative generation, proceeds to explain the figure, by alTigning the particular tranf- adion to which he conceives it to allude ; which is no commencement of the Son's exiftence ; not even that a(5l of the paternal mind, in which the exiftence of the Son originates : but the going forth of the Son to exert his powers in the bufmefs of creation. *' He is," fays Athenagoras, " to the " Father as the firft offspring ; nat as fomething *' that was ever made ; but that he went forth to be *' idea and energy in material fubftances, which *' lay yet in chaos, unqualified 'and undiftinguifhed ; ** the denfe promifcuoufly mingled with the rare, *' waiting the operation of the a£tive fpirit to im- *' pregnate them with form*." Here, indeed, the Son * £< 0£, 6 1 VTTSf'^OMV aVVBCTBUi;, (TKOTTBIV VIXIV I^TEICTJV, 0 Traif TJ ^hXbtm' i^u ^ja (3^a%ewv, tt^cSIov y£vvr)fjt.a thai ra 'TToi^i. in ug ysvofASVov e| ap%>ij ya^ o 0£Oj, vug aioioj oiv, tlx^v auTo; Iv eaurco tov T^oyov, ai^iag >.oyiKog av a7^ wf Tojv b'hiKciiv 0-u(ji.7ra'jlxv ccTiom cpuiTEu; tcai ynj o^fJaj bTCOKZiiisvav 3i«viy, fMEiMyixemv twv '7ra%y,wsf£r£p!' Trpog ra HHtpolBoaj Itt avTO'.g l^sa, aai Bvspyeia slvai or^o^^Swy. There feems to be fome corrviption in the words km yn?. A learned clergy- nian of the archdeaconry of St, Alban's, conjettures, that 7>i? fliould be T«5. Nor can I devife any better emenda- tion. The general knO: of the pafTage cannot but be very clear^ A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 57 Son of God is called an idea, and an energy. But it is not, that he is underftood to be an unfubflan- tial idea, or energy, of the Paternal Mind j but a living idea, energifing on the matter of the univerfe, to fiamp it with the forms of things. And his ge- neration is affirmed to be no commencement of his exiftence, but the firft exertion of his powers in the production of external fubflances : or to ufe a more Platonic phrafe, the firft projedion of his energies. 6. If any thing be juftly reprehenfible in the no- tions of the Platonic Chriftians, it is this conceit, which feems to be common to Athenagoras with them all, and is a key to the meaning of many ob- fcure paflages in their writings, that the external dif- play of the powers of the Son in the bufinefs of creation, is the thing intended, in the fcripture lan- rkar, to thofe to whom the imagery of the Platonifts is in any degree familiar. A paCTage of Hermes Trifmegiftus, preferved by Suidas and Cedrenus, and Malela, may fomewhat illuftrate this pafTage of Athenagoras. Hv (pcoi vospov Trpo (pal^-vospa^Koti itozv ilspcv nv ri thIh holng' aei ev Iccuia oiv, ocsi tu iocjla vol Koct (pull Kai 'H'VEu/Accli 'Ttavla. 'Kzphxzi' enlog Ts7a s SfOj, «;< J^7/£^(^, s ^ixi[xuv^ a« acr(« Tij a^^J1. Tra'Jluv yap Kvpic^f kxi Sfoj, xoii TTcclripj Kai Travlx vTt onJla km h dvi-ji Inv. o yap Aoyoj aJl-d 'TTpot'h^uv^ •Ka'jlzT^ii^ xai yovif/.^ Ka,i ^YifiiH^- yo5 h yovi//.o} i^ali Trtaavf iyxvov £7roini, hm tH; Hcipiag avla. Tlieoph. ad Autol. lib. 2. p. 106. Oxon. 1684. I have taken tlie liberty to infert the prepofition 5rfo, tlie want of it being evidently an omiflion. and 63. A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. and that the Third had ever been the Wifdom. Of the Firft they conceived that he was not properly a Father, before the Second was a Son ; although he ever had been God. I have already given my opi- nion of thefe fubtle diftindtionsj for which the beft apology (for an apology they need) is the evident good intention of the writers, who fiift maintained them. But upon thefe diftindions, whether juft or vifionary, their phrafeology feems to have been founded. They thought the names of God, the Word, and the Wifdom, which exprefs of each of the three divine perfons, what each hath always been, were appellations to be generally preferred to thofe of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoff, which ex- prefs relations only, which, according to their fancy, had not always been. And this explains the reafon, why they ufed the word, God, as the peculiar ap- pellation of the Father. It was not that they fcru- pled to afcribe an equal divinity to all the Three. Perfons J but that rejeding the fimpler nomencla. ture founded on relations, they defired to call each perfon by the name which they conceived to be mofl defcriptive of his eflence : and of the effence of the Father they could find no name at all defcriptive buj: the general appellation, God. 10. The three names therefore, God, the Word, and the Wifdom, in the language of Theophilus's age, were underftood to be equivalent to Father, Son, and Koly Ghoft : and when Theophilus expounds the word Trinity, by God, his Word, and his Wif- dom, it is jufl: the fame thing as if he had rendered it by A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 63 by Father, Son, and Holy Glioft. How this expo- fition may create a doubt, whether Theophilus's Tri- nity confifted of the fame perfons with the Trinity of later ages ; how it may produce a certainty that Theophihis's was not a Trinity of perfons in the Godhead, it is not my bufinefs to explain. Dr. Prieftley fhould have opened this myftery : but he hath not condefcended to give his readers any further light, than his own naked affertion, that the thing is, as he would chufe that it (hould be ; which in this, as in other cafes, he feems to think may pafs for a fuffi- cient proof of any of the paradoxes of his own party. ir. Perhaps his doubt about the real meaning of the word, and his confident perfuafion that it was no Trinity of perfons in the Godhead, have arifenfrom the obfcurity of which he complains, in the fubfe- quent part of the fentence, where tlie Word and the Wifdom are mentioned again. It is indeed but rea- fonable to fuppofe, that thefe words are ufed in the fame fenfe in both places. But in this fecond place, the Wifdom, Dr. Prieftley might imagine, could be no Divine Perfon. For in Dr. Prieftley's Englifh the latter claufe of the fentence runs thus. "The fourth *' day is the type of Man, who needs Light, that the *' Word may be God, and the Man Wifdom." This paflage, Dr. Prieftley obferves, is " certainly obfcure " enough." You all, I am perfuaded, agree in the truth of his remark ; and you will equally agree in mine, if I venture to fay much more of the latter claufei that it is certainly unintelligible — in Dr. Prieft- ley's 64 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. ley's tranflation. But turn to the origin al-^The whole obfcurity will vanifh ; and inflead of it, you will lind that ftrikingperfpicuity of language, which is the cha- raderiftic beauty of Theophilus's ftile. Having faid that the three firft days of creation were types of the Trinity, Theophilus adds, " That the fourth was a ". type of Man, who is in need of Light. That there " might be, or. So that there is, God, the Word, " the Wifdom, Man*." This lafl: claufe is nothing but an enumeration of all that had been mentioned, as typified in the firft four days of creation. To ex- plain how thefe days were types of what they are fup- pofed to reprefent, might indeed be difficult : but in the age of Theophilus, the great art of interpreting the Old Teftament was fuppofed to confift in making types out of every thing. The fenfe, however, of the writer is exprefled with the greateft perfpicuity. It is evident from his own expofition of the word, that he fpeaks of no other Trinity than Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. It appears therefore from the teftimony of Theophilus, that the word was ufed at firft in no other fenfe, than that which it hath borne in later ages, The word hath not changed its original mean- ing ; but in this, as in moft of his aflertions. Dr. Prieft» ley is confuted by his own authorities. TVTCOi EiViv tJJ? r^ia^o;' th 0£«, hccI m Aoya aulny koI rrig '^opiixg aula. Tzlavl-i) ^s Tyjroj hiv dSpxTra' b Trpoa^sri; t8 (p'jp.Oi' ha )i ©fof, Aoyof, 1,o(pia, AvBpcoTro^, Ad Autol. lib. 2. p. 106. Oxon. 1684. I FEEL A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 65 12. I FKEL no fatisfadlion in detedingthe weak- nefles of this learned writer's argument, but what arifes from a confcioufnefs, that it is a difcharge of fome part of the duty, which I owe to the church of God. It is a mortifying proof of the infirmity of the human mind, in thehigheft improvement of its facul- ties in the prefent life, that fuch fallacies in reafoning, fuch mifconftru6lions of authorities, fuch diftorted views of fads and opinions, fliould be found in the writings of a man, to whom of all men of the prefent age fome branches of the experimental fciences are the moft indebted. V. 1. May I be permitted to clofe this long addrefs, with a word of exhortation to the younger members of the priefthood. 2. The aclual ftate of things is fuch, that, to the greater part of thofe who engage in it, our holy profef- fion muft furnifh the means of a fubfiftence. The con- fequence is, that we are obliged to enter upon it in an early feafon of our lives, when it is well if we have previoufly laid a good foundation in our minds of the very firft principles of the dodrine of Chrift : and a due proficiency in theological ftudies, muft be the at- tainment of future induftry. To the novitiates there- fore of our order, confidered as unfinifhed Theologi- ans, 1 take the liberty to recommend the diligent ftudy of the works of biftiop Bull j efpecially of liis writings F on 66 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. on the fubjedl of the Trinity, with the annotations of Grabe his learned editor. In thefc they will find an exacl and critical detail of the opinions of the fathers of the three firft centuries. They will find the faith of the church of England confirmed, and proved to be the original faith, by a tradition traced with certainty to the apofiolic age. And they will find every argu- ment refuted, which the Unitarian party have yet been able to form upon their own views of the opinions of the earliefc ages. 3. The ftudy of Bifhop Bull, if leifure is not want- ing, may be followed, or accompanied, with advan- tage by that of the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians : of the original hiftorians, I mean, Eufebius, Socrates, So- zomen, and Theodorit. As for modern hifcories, the ufe of them, without a previous acquaintance with the ancient writers, is rather to be difcouraged than recommended. By thofe who are already learned in the fubjedl;, they may be redde indeed with emolument; as commentaries on the antient text of hiftoiy, as it lies in the original writers, which may occafionally throw light upon dark and doubtful queftions. But as books of elementary in- ftruftion for beginners, they will generally be perni- cious. For it will too often be found to be the cafe, that the narrative is accommodated, not thro' premeditated fraud, but in-the meer error of preju- dice, either to the private opinions of the writer, or to the interefts of his fe6t. Of this Dr. Prieffley's work is a ftrilcing example. No work was perhaps ever fent abroad, under the title of a Hiliory, con- tainino; A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 67 tainlng lefs of truth than his, in proportion to its vokime. 4. From ecclefiaftical hiftory the ftudent learns what the faith of the church hath at all times been ; and he is enabled to feparate the pure dodrine of the iirft age from all later innovations : a matter at all times of the higheft moment ; but of particular im- portance in the prefent juncture, when the whole ability and learning of the Unitarian party is exerted, to wreft from us the argument from tradition. The importance of the argument from tradition refts upon the fuppofed infallibility of the firfl; preachers. The opinion of their infallibility refts upon the belief of their divine illumination. The confequence of a Di- vine illumination is, that their whole do(Strine muft have been, not indeed obvious to the human under- ftanding, not within the reach of its unafTifted pow- ers to difcover, but confonant to the higheft reafon, nor too difficult, when propounded, for the human apprehenfion ; and though not free from paradoxes, certainly not encumbered with contradidions. No tradition therefore may avail to prove, that any ma- nifcft contradidlion, that a part, for inftance, is equal to the whole, or that the fame thing in the fame refpedl is at the fam.e time one and many, was a part of the apoftolic doflrine ; if the infpiration of the Apoftles be admitted. Or, if it fliould appear, from the evidence of a tradition which cannot rea- fonably be queftioned, that the Apoftles really re- quired the belief of contradi6lions under the name of F 2 mvfteries; 68 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. myfteries ; their pretence to infpiration wi]l be re- futed, and the credit of their doctrine overturned. For as the evidence of intuition is far fuperior to that of fenfe ; no external evidence may eftablifh the belief of a contradiction ; fince no teftimony that a contradiction is, lliould be allowed to overpower the intuitive convidtion, that it cannot be. An inquiry therefore into the reafonablenefs of our faith, as well as juft views of its hiftory, is of great importance. 5. The reafonablenefs of our faith will be beft underftood from the writings of the fathers of the iirfl three centuries. And among thefe, thofe wicked Platonifts of the fecond ■ age, who, in Dr. Prieftley's judgment, fowed the feeds of the antichriftian cor- ruption, deferve particular attention ; for the great perfpicuity with vv'hich in general they expound the faith, and the great ability with which they defend it. And as thefe corrupters brought with them into the church the language of their fchool (I fay the language, for its opinions, except fo far as they har- monized with the Gofpel, they had the ingenuity to retract*) the writings of the Pagan Philofophers, particularly the Platonifts, will be of confiderable ufe to the Chriflian f!:udent j as they will bring him more acquainted with a phrafeology, which is ufed even by the Chriftian Platonifts : nor for this purpofe only, but for fome degree of light which they will throw upon the argument. The error of the later * See tlie beginning of Juftin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, and Thcophil. ad. Autol. lib. 2. Platonifts A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 69 Platonifts was, that they warped the genuhie do6trine of the original tradition, their QBOTra^a^olor ©Ec^.oyia, to a form in which it might be in friendfliip with the popular idolatry. Their writings therefore are a mine, in which the true metal is indeed mingled with a drofs of heterogeneous fubftances ; but yet tlie richnefs of the ore is fuch, as may well repay the coft and trouble of the feparation. Or if leifure fhould be wanting for a minute ftudy of a fubjecl, ■which may feem but of a fecondary importance ; it will at leaft: be expedient, I had almoft faid it will be neceflary, to know fo much of the opinions of heathen antiquity, as is to be learned from thofe au- thentic documents, which the induftry of the inde- fatigable Cudworth hath colledted and arranged with great judgment, in his Intellectual Syftem. 6. The advantage to be expe6led from tliefe deep refearches, is not any infight into the manner in which the three Divine Perfons are united j a knowledge which is indeed too high for man, per- haps for angels ; which in our prefent condition at leaft is not to be attained, and ought not to be fought. But that jufl: apprehenfion of the Scripture doiSlrine, which will fhew that it is not one of thofe tilings that " no miracles can prove*," will be the certain fruit of the ftudies recommended. They will lead * " They are things which no miracles can prove," fays Dr. Prieftley in his Addrefs to Mr. Gibbon, fpeaking of the doftrines of the Trinity, and the Atonement. Sec Hift, Corrup, vol. H. p. S61. F^ us 7© A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. us to fee the Scripture dodlrine in its true light : that it is an imperfect difcovery, not a contradiction. 'J hat the Catholic Faith is not properly compared with the tale of Mahomet's Journey to the third heaven -, his conferences there, while the pitcher of water fell ; or even with the doctrine of Tranfubftan- tiation* : that even the Athanafian Creed is fome- thing very different from a fet " of contradictions, *' the mofl: direct which any pcrfon the moft /killed " in Logic might draw upf." A cenfure, which could hardly have fallen from our learned advcrfary, Unitarian as he is, had he but known fo common a book as Dr. Waterland's Hittory and Paraphrafe. In the opinions of the Pagan Platonifts, we have in fome degree an experimental proof, that this abftrufe doiStrinc cannot be the abfurdity, which it feems to thofe who mifundcrftand tt. Would Plato, would Porphyry, would even Plotinus have believed the miracles of Mahomet, or the dodlrine of Tranfub- flantiation ? But they all believed a doCtrine, which fo far at leafl: rcfembles the Niccne, as to be loaded with the fame or greater objections. By every one ^ho will thus combine the Itudies of Divinity and Philofophy, the truth of Plato's obfervation, I am pel fuaded, will be foon experienced ; that to thofc who apply themfelves to thefe fpeculations, with a humble difpofition to be taught, rather than with the unphilofophical and irreligious habit of deciding * Hift. of Corrupt, vol. II. p. 461. I Ilift, of Corrupt, vol. I. p. 55^. haaily A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. :> haftily upon the firft view of difficulties, what at firrt appeared the moft incredible, will in the end fcem the moft evident and certain ; and maxims, which fecmed at iirft indirputublc, will be difcardcd*. 7. An extenfive erudition in Pagan as well as Chriftian antiquity, joined with a critical underfland- ing of the facred text, is that which hath fo long enabled the clerg)' of the church of England, to take the lead among Protelbnts as the apologifts of the apoftolic faith and difcipline ; and to baffle the united ftrength of their advcrfaries of all deno- minations. God forbid, that through an indolence, which would be unpardonable, we ftiould ever lofe the fuperiority, which we have fo long maintained. The acquifition of learning is indeed laborious, but the fruit is fweet. The private fatisfa(5tion that it muft give to every miniller of the Church of En- gland, to underftand, that his engagements to the eftabliihment are perfectly confiftent with his higher obligations to God and Chrift, is alone fufficient to repay the labour of the ftudies, which afford this comfortable conviction, and contribute to its daily growth. But private fatisfaction is not the end of our purfuits. The nobler end is public edification. It is a maxim of Dr. Prieftlcy's, that ever)- man, who in his confcience diffents from the eftabliihed church, is obliged in confcience to be a declared • Plato in Epift. ad Dionyf. ¥ 4 dijTenter. fz A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. diflenter. I honour the generofity of the fentl- ment. A^X a'hKo'is '7t(xi£m'.^ o^oii; anoXiai^-' It ought much more to be the lentiment of every one who ftands with the received doftrine, to be a declared Churchman. If he would reap any folid advantage from the purity of his faith, he muft be an open and avowed believer j left if he confefs not Chriftj his God and Saviour, before men, he fhould not be at laft confefled before the angels of heaven. If this confeflion be the general duty of every man, who feels convidlion ; it is the particular duty of every one, who hath been called to the Evangelifts' office. He holds the authority of his commiffion for no other purpofe, but to be a witnefs of the truth. A convidion that it is the truth, founded on a deep jnveftigation of the fubje£l:, will fupply him with firmnels to perfevere in the glorious atteftation, un- awed by the abilities of his antagonifts, undaunted by obloquy, unmoved by ridicule : which feem to be the trials which God hath appointed, inftead of per- fecution, in the prefent age, to prove the fmcerity and patience of the faithful. The advocate of that found form of words, which was originally delivered to the faints, hath to expedt that his opinions will be the open jeft of the Unitarian party : that his fmce- rity will be called in queftion 3 or if " a hzvQ poffibUify of A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 73 of his being in earneft*" be charitably admitted, the misfortune of his education will be lamented, and his prejudices deplored. All this infult will not alarm nor difcompofe him. He will rather glory in the recollecftion, that his adherence to the faith of the firfl ages hath provoked it. The conviction, which he will all the while enjoy, that his philofophy is Plato's, and his creed St. John's, will alleviate the mortification he might otherwife feel in differing from Dr. Prieftley ; nor fuffer him to think the evil infup- portable, although the confequence of this diffent fl^ould be, that he mufl (hare with the excellent Bifhop of Worcefter, in Dr. Prieftley's " Pity and *' Indignation! .', Not indeed that he will hold any good man's good opinion cheap :• or efleem it a light evil, that a confcientious attachment to the truth fhould embroil him with thofe, whofe talents he will revere, and whofe virtues he will love. But he will efteem it but a temporary evil ; an evil which Provi- dence in mercy hatli appointed for the trial of his faith, and the improvement of his habits of difin- terefted obedience : an evil therefore which the fpirit of a Chriftian will fupport ; fuffering neither the mis- fortune to dete£l, nor the injury to irritate. Adoring the wifdom of that myfterious difpenfation, which, to heighten human virtue, ordains that it fhould oftei\ * Hift. of Corrnp. vol. II. p. 471. + To fee fiich men as Bifhop Kurd in this clafs of writers [the defenders of the cftablifliment] when he is quahfied to clafs with Tillotfon, Hoadley, and Clarke, equally excites one's pity and indignation. Hift. of Corriip. vol. XL p. 471. niifs ^4. A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY, mifs the reward, which difinterefted virtue ever covets moft ; of that difpenfation, which makes even error and rafli judgment a ufeful part of the difciplihe of the prefent life ; he vs^ill not difgrace the caufe, which he fliould fupport, by any uncharitable conclufions concerning the actual motives, or the future doom, of thofe whofe opinions he may think it his duty to oppofe. Nor, in the neceflaiy afperity of debate, will he haftily retaliate their unjuft afperfions. He will admit much more than a pofiibility, that Dr. Prieil- ley may be in earnefl: in all his mifmterpretations of the fcriptures and the fathers, and in all his mifre- prefentations of facls. Appearances to the contrary, however ftrong, he will refer to the fafcinating power of prejudice, and td the deluflve practice oi looking through authoi's'"^, which the hiftorian of religious opinions ought to have redde. Though truth in thefe controverfies can be only on one fide \ he will indulge, and he will avow, the charitable opinion, that fincerity may be on both. And he will enjoy the refleiSlion, that by an equal fincerity, through th6 power of that blood, which was ilied equally for all, both parties may at laft find equal mercy. In the tranfport of this holy hope he will anticipate that glorious confummation, when faith (hall be abforbed in knowledge, and the fire of controverfy for ever quenched. When the fame generous zeal for God * '• I have taken a good deal of pains to read, or at leaft <' look carefully through, many of the mod capital works of "the antient Chriftian writers."— Dr. Prieftley's Preface, p. xvii. 'gnd A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 75 and Truth, which too often, in this world of folly and confufion, fets thofc at wideft variance whom the fimilitude of virtuous feelings fhould the moft unite, fhall be the cement of an indiflbluble friend- fhip ; when the innumerable multitude of all nations, kindreds, and people (why (hould I not add of all fe(Ss and parties) afiembled round the throne fnall, like the firft Chriftians, be of one foul, and one mind, giving praife with one confent to Him that fitteth on the Throne, and to the Lamb that was (lain to redeem them by his Blood. APPENDIX, [ 76 ] APPENDIX. WHILE thefe fheets were in preparation f@r the prefs, Dr. Prieftley was challenged by a writer in the Monthly Review for June (who the critic may be, I know not — he appears to be learned in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and I am well pleafed to find that his views of Dr. Prieftley's argument in many particulars agree with mine) Dr. Priefiley was challenged by this writer, to point out the particular paflages in Origen's writings, in which he had con- ceived an acknowledgment of the identity of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites to be contained. Dr. Prieilley's reply hath already made its appearance ; in which he is reduced to the neceffity of confeifing, that liQ hath no fuch pafTage to produce*. Still, however, he maintains, that the identity of thefe feclaries, although not acknowledged by Origen, is to be inferred from Origen, Epiphanius, and Eufe- biusf. But this is ffili affirmed, without reference to the particular paffages, either of Origen or of Eufebius, from which the inference is to be drawn : nor is the reader informed, in which of Origen's works that defcrlptlon is to be found of the opinions of the Ebionites, which reprefents them as the fame * See Dr. Prieilley's Reply to the Monthly Review, p. 5. t See Corrections and Additions, &c. at the end of the Reply. opinions APPENDIX. 'j^ opinions which others afcribe to the Nazarenes, and makes it appear that Origen had no idea of any dif- ference between the two feels *. Dr. Prieftley makes a reference indeed to the 13th tract of Origen's Commentary upon St. Matthew's Gofpel f ; but this is for another purpofe ; for proof, of what needs indeed no proof at all, that the Ebionites were of two forts ; the one admitting, the other denying, the miraculous conception, while both rejected the divinity of the Redeemer. What proof of this fe- condary propofition is to be found in the 13th of the Exegctics upon St. Matthew's Gofpel, I know not. I fufpe6l an error of the prefs ; and that the reference (hould have been to the i6th of the Ex- egetics in the 3d fetStion, which treats of the cure of the blind near Jericho. In that tranfadlion, as St. Mark relates it, Origen imagines that the two divi- lions of the primitive church, the Gentile and the Jewifh converts, are allegorifed. Jericho is the world. The multitudes which follow our Lord from Jericho, are the converts from paganifm to the true faith ; who forfake the world to follow Chrift. The blind beggar is a half- converted Jew, addicted to the Ebionaean herefy ; whofe eyes are at lafl opened to the truth of the Gofpel. If this be not the reference which Dr. Prieftley meant to make, let me advife him to adopt it in the emended edi- tion of his work, which he feems to promife. Be- fides that the very purport of the expofition, which * Reply, p. 5. t See the References, p. 4, of the Reply. places 7S APPENDIX. places the chara6terillic diftinftion between the Gen- tile and the Jew convert in a belief or dilhelief of Chriil's Divinity, may feein to militate ftrongly for his favourite opinion, that the whole Hebrew church was Unitarian; he will find one fentence in par- ticular in this difcourfe, or a part r.t lead of one fentence, which, I am perfuaded, he will think worthy to be written in characters of gold. K.ai STTav l^yjs twv utto Indaixv ttitbuovIo^v kir, rov Im'^v Tnv TTfpf la auln^og Tnnr, ol£ y^vj za M.a^iag km \'j)0'r,(p 6iO[j.£Vay a-jlov sLvai^ ote //tuv Ik Mccia; ixovn; Kai ra Ssia Trvsvfxocl©-^ 8 (xw KM fjida TKj TTEpj aJln SeoXoyjaj, o-if/Si k. t. >». *' and when you confider, what belief they of *' the Jewifh race, who believe in Jefus, entertain '' of the Redeemer ; fome thinking that he took his *' being from Mary and Jofeph, fome indeed from " Mary only and the Divine Spirit, but ftill with- *' out any belief of his Divinity : you will under- " ftand, &c." Thefe expreffions taken by them- felves may feem to intimate, that the fe£t of the Ebionites, in its two great branches, embraced, in the time of Origen, the whole body of the Hebrew Chriftlans. But let the learned reader attentively perufe the vdiole difcourfe, let him confider well the fubje(Sl and the ftile ; and he will perceive, that as the fubjeft is not hiftory, neither is the ftile of the fedate hillorlc kind. Theobjeft.of the difcourfe is to fpiritualize a plain ftory. An attempt in which the imagination of the writer is always bufier than the judgment : and the fiile, even in allufion to hiftori- cal fafts, is generally rather warm than exa6l, and is APPENDIX. 7f Is apt to border on the vehement and the exagge- rated. This is in feme degree the cafe in tliis dif- courfe of Origen's. His expreffions are therefore to be interpreted by the kjiown tenor of Ecclefiafti- cal Hiftory : Ecclefiaftical Hiilory is not to be ac- commodated to his expreflions. That the Jewifli converts were remarkably prone to the Ebionaean herefy, from which the Gentile churches in general were pure, is the mofi: that can be concluded from this paffage, firengthened as it might be with ano- ther, fomewhat to the fame purpofe, hi the Com- mentaries upon St. John's Gofpel, But what if it were proved, that the whole fe61 of the Nazarenes was abforbed in the Ebionaean herefy in the days of Origen ? What evidence would that afford of the identity of the Nazarenes and the Ebionitcs in earlier times ? And even that identity, if it were proved, what evidence Vv'ould it afford, that the church of Jerufalem had been originally Unitarian under her firft bifhops of the circumcifion ? 2. But however indecifive the pretended tefl:!- mony of Origen may be; Dr. Prieftley makes himfelf very fure that Epiphanius is on his fide. " Epipha- " nius exprefsly fays, that Ebion held the fame opi- *' nion with the Nazarenes*." The only inference to be made from this affertion, is this : that Dr. Pried- ley hath never troubled himfelf to read more of Epi- phanius's account of the Ebionites, than the firft ele- ven words of the firfi: fentence. Had he redde the * Reply* P- 4. fiift ?d A P P P: N D I X, firft fentence to the end, he would have found that Ebion, although he arofe from the fchool of the Na- zarenes, and held fimilar opinions, preached alfo other doctrines, of which he was the firft inventor. Among thefe novelties by the confent of all antiquity, though not with Dr. Prieftley's leave, we place the meer hu- manity of Chrift, with or without the miraculous conception. 3. Still Dr. Priefdey triumphs in the filence of Hegefippus, and the concefTions of Juftin Martyr. It were not difficult, to (hew the infufficiency of his re- ply to the learned Reviewer of his work, upon both thefe articles : but I forbear to put my fickle into ano- ther's harveft. But that it may not be thought ftrange, that thefe cogent arguments fhould have been fuffered to pafs unnoticed in my own animadverfions, and that the omiffion may not be imputed to the wrong caufe ; it feems proper to declare the true reafon of it, which was this : I wifhed to confine my ftridlures to thofe arguments, in which the learned author feemed to me the mofi: original. In thefe two he is the lead fo. Both are flale. The one is from Zuicker's mint : the other from Epifcopius. Both have been canvafled with great accuracy, and both have been effeftually overturned, by that excellent Divine, whom I have fo often found occafion to mention, and who never mufi: be mentioiied without praife, the learned and pious billiop Bull. THE END. LETTERS FROM THE ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN's, I N REPLY T O DR. PRIESTLEY. LETTERS, &c. LETTER FIRST. The Archdeacon of St. JIban's declines a regidar con- troverfy with Dr. Priejiley — Produces new injlances of Dr. Priejiley' s inaccuracies and mifreprefentations . Dear Sir, w HE N at the requeft of the clergy of my arch- letter * oy -f First. deaconry, I publilhed the difcourfe, in which I had given them my thoughts of your late attack on the do6lrine of the Trinity ; it was not at all my in- tention to open a regular controverfy with you upon the fubje6t. I cannot think, that you have redde my publication with fo little difcern men t, as not to per- ceive in it a defign of quite another kind ; which yet, I fear, I fhall find it difficult to avow in explicit terms, without giving an offence, which, were it pofTible, I would avoid. But flnce you challenge me to a confcfl, in which it is my refolution never to engage ; not from any diftrufc of my own caufe, nor from any dread of the abilities by which I fliould be oppofed ; but from a perfuafion that a controverfy, in which fo little new is to be faid on either fide, could not terminate in the fatisfa(5lion of either party ; it is necefTary that G 2 both S4 LETTERSINREPLY LETTER both yourfelf and the public fhould be made to under- ftand, upon what grounds I conceive myfelf at liberty to decline a difcuflion to which you feem to think me pledged : and for this purpofe, I muft declare in very plain language, what I would rather have left you to colleil : That my original attack upon your Hiftory was fuch, as to lay me under no obligation to profe- cute the argument. My attack was not fo much upon the opinions, which you maintain, however I may liold them in abhorrence, as upon the credit of your Narrative : and if I have fucceeded in overthrowing that, which the judgment of the learned muft decide, 1 am not at all obliged to go into new arguments upon the main queftion. The objedions, which were brought againft you in my charge, all went to the proof of this fingle propofition. That, on which ever fide the truth may lie in the Trinitarian contro- verfy — I have no doubt on which it lies ; but the foot- ing, upon which I put the difpute with you, leaves me at liberty to fuppofe the matter doubtful j with whatever metaphyfical difficulties the catholic dodlrine may be encumbered — thofe difficulties, when the dodrine is rightly apprehended, are in my judgment not great, but I will allow you to fay they are infu- perable : whatever ambiguity may be pretended in the expreffions of Holy Writ, in which the divinity of the Son is generally fuppofed to be alTerted — in the greater part of the texts I perceive no ambiguity, but you may aflume, if you pleafe, that not one of them renders a certain meaning ; whatever variety and dif- agreement is to be found in the orthodoxy of different ages TOD R. PRIESTLEY. 85 ages — for the three firft centuries the opinion of the letter church upon this point was uniform, but I give you leave to fuppofe it as unliable as the world of Heracli- tus ; whatever may be the intrinfic difficulty of the doctrine of the Trinity, however deficient the proof of it from holy writ, and however difcordant the opinions of different ages, ftill I affirm, and the proof of this was the whole objeil of my Charge, that Dr. Prieft- ley, great as his attainments are confefled to be in the profane fciences, is altogether unqualified to throw any light upon a queftion of ecclefiaftical anti- quity. 2. If the inftances, which I have alleged, of mif- information and inaccuracy are only fecondary over- fights, fuch as affedl not the main argument, and are incident to the beft writers in undertakings of fuch extent as yours ; the attempt to depreciate a work of merit, by uncandid cenfure, mufi: redound to my own difgrace. But whoever will take the trouble to compare your work and mine, will find, that with all the illiberal zeal which you afcribe to me, I was not difpofed to cavil about trifles. I fear it will be rather found, that I have erred in the oppofite extreme; and, left I fhould feem too much inclined to cenfure, have pafled over many inaccuracies, which ought to have been pointed out. 3. Such, forinftance, is your inverfion of the or- der of fucceffion of the Roman pontiffs 3 when you G 3 mention iS LETTERSINREPLY LETTER First. LETTER mention Vidor as the fucceffor of the bifliop who came after him*. 4. Such is your afTertionf, that in the age of Ter- tullian it was not pretended " that the fubjeil of the " Trinity was above human comprehenfion;" when but a few pages backj you had produced a paffage from Irenaeus, in which the generation of the Son, which is a part only of the fabjedl, is mentioned as fo wonderful a thing, as to be underftood by none " ex- " cept the Father, who begat, and the Son, who is " begotten." 5. Such is your mifreprefentation of the opinion of Valefius concerning the caufe of the lofs of He- gefippus's hifcory. Valefius you fay " was of opi- *' nion that the hiftory of Hegefippus was neglected " and loft by the ancients, becaufe it was obferved " to favour the Unitarian do&ine .H" Valefius hath indeed exprefiTed an opinion, that the work of Hegefippus was neglected by the ancients, on ac- count of errors which it contained. But what the errors might be, which might occafion this negled^, is a point, upon which Valefius is filent. And what right have you to fuppofe, that the Unitarian Doc- trine was the error which Valefius afcribed to He- gefippus more than to Clemens Alexandrinus, upon * Hift. of Corrup. vol. I. p. 19. f Id. p. 61, X Hift, Corrupt, vol. I. p. 37. II Id. p. 9. whofe TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 87 whofe loft work of the Hypotypofes he pafTes the letter fame judgment* ? 6. Such another inaccuracy, to ufe no harfher word, is your appeal to the teftimony of Epiphanius, in favour of Noetus ; to prove that he was wronged by his adverfaries, when he was accufed of the pa- tripaiHan herefy. Noetus's confefilon, according to Epiphanius, was this ; " that he acknowledged one " God, who was begotten, who fuffered and died." But fuppreiling, or in your rapid glances having not obferved, the latter part of this acknov»fledgment, aflerting the fufferings and death of his one Godj you produce Epiphanius as an evidence, that — " Noetus was fimply an Unitarian, declaring upon " all occafions with great boldnefs, that he neither * Dr. Prieftley, in the nineteenth of his Second Letters, to extricate himfelf from this queftion, endeavours to prove, that the Unitarian doftrines are the only, errors that can with probability be afcribed to Hegefippus in his loft work ; and that Clemens Alexandrinus, tho' he was himfelf no Unita- rian, might, for aught any one now knows to the contrary, have faid things in favour of Unitarians in his loft work of the Hypotypofes. But whatever proof Dr. Prieftley may be able to make out that Hegefippus was an Unitarian, and tJiat Clemens Alexandrinus fpoke favourably of Unitarians, ftill I complain that he alleges the authority of Valefius for more tlian Valefius himfelf affirms ; and I maintain that this in- accuracy (for I have called it in this inftance by no worfe name) in the allegation of authorities, is a circumftance tli.at ought to IcOren his credit as an hiftorian. G 4 " knew n LETTERS INREPLY LETTER « knew nor worfhipped any God but one*" (a). tiaving thus vindicated the injured charader of Noe- tus, you proceed to inform your readers, how it came to pafs, that the Unitarians of that age fell under the imputation of the Patripaflian error. 7. Such another inaccuracy we have in your re- lation of the judgment, which the Roman Diony- fius paiTed upon certain injudicious antagonifts of Sabelliusi who, to avoid his error, divided the Holy Trinity into three perfons unrelated to each other, and diftinct in all refpeSis. E/j Tf ei? v-srora^Ei?, r^ia^a. Thefe are the words, in which Athanafius ftates the opinion, which Dionyfius cenfures : and the cenfure of Dionyfius upon this opinion, Atha- nafius quotes with approbation : as well indeed he might ; for the opinion of three perfons in the God- head unrelated to each other ^ and dijl'in^l in all refpeSis, is rank Tritheifm ; becaufe what are unrelated and di{lin6l in all refpeds, arc Many in all refpefts j and, * Hill. Corrupt, vol. I. p. 74, (a) In the nineteenth of his Second Letters, Dr. P. ac^ Hnowledges that he ought not to have exempted Epipha- nius from the impropriety of charging Noetus with the pa- tripaflian herefy. But he fays, this like the former (the mif- quotation of Valefius) " is a circumftance of little confe- *' ^uence to the main argument." .Dr. Prieftley forgets, that the main argument with him and with me goes to dif- ferent points. His point is the antiquity and the truth of the Unitarian doftrine. Mine is Dr. Prieftley's incompo.i tency in the fubject, which he pretends to treat. being TO DR. PRIESTLEY. S9 being Many in all refpeds, cannot in any refpecS letter be One. But in your tranflation of the palTage, by omitting the very fignificant adjective Isvaj, and the very emphatical adverb TravlaTtaai^ you leave hardly any difference between the opinion which Diony- fius cenfured, and the catholic faith, which Atha- nafius maintained : and thus you procure yourfelf a fine opportunity of introducing an oblique farcaf- tic ftroke at Athanafius, for concurring in a cenfure upon his own opinions. " Some perfons in op- " pofing Sabellius having made three hypoftafes, " which we render perfons, feparate from each " other, Dionyfius bifhop of Rome, quoted with *' approbation by Athanafius himfelf, faid that it " was making three Gods*." Surely truth, can- dor, and confiftency are confpicuous in the writings of our modern Unitarians, and the Archdeacon of St. Alban's is the only writer of the age, who deals in farcafms ! 8. These and other inaccuracies, which might have been remarked without any impeachment of my candor, and with advantage to my argument, I fuffered to pafs unnoticed. I chofe to refl: the ftrength of my attack rather on the importance, than the variety, of the matter of complaint. If the in- ftances of miftake, which I have alleged, be few in number, yet if they are fingly too confiderable in fize, to be incident to a well-informed writer ; if they betray a want of that general comprehenfion of * Hill. Corrupt, vol. I. p. 65, your 90 LETTERS IN REPLY 1>ETTER your fubje£l, which might enable you to draw the true conchifions from the pafTages you cite j if they prove you incompetent in the very language of the writers, from which your proofs fliould be drawn ; unfkilled in the philofophy, whofe dodlrines you pretend to compare with the opinions of the church j a few clear inftances of errors of this enormous fize may releafe me from the tafk, which you would irn- pofe upon me, of canvaffmg every part of your ar- gument, and of replying to every particular quota- tion. A writer, ofwhomitis once proved that he is ill-informed upon his fubje^, hath no right to demand a further hearing. It is a fair prefumption againft the truth of his conclufion, be it what it may, that it cannot be right, but by meer accident. To be right by accident will rarely happen to any man in any fubjectj becaufe in all fubjeds truth is fmgle, and error infinite. 9. Not long fmce I was confuited about a new opinion concerning the adual figure of the earth. 1 objeded, that while the bafis of the author's ar- gument Vs^as an aflumption, that the figure of the meridian is an ellipfis, in his enquiry after the par- ticular fpecies of the ellipfis, he had affigned pro- perties- to the curve of the earth's meridian, which the known nature of the ellipfis would not admit. I was cliallcnged to prove a certain relation, which I afferted, between the rays of curvature in different parts of the curve — to prove tlie curvature at the fe- cond lefs than at the principal vertex — and at lail; I was TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 9» was challenged, to prove the property from which letter the ellipfis takes its name. Was I to blame, that I broke off the conference — that I refufed to con- template another fcheme, or to examine another computation ? lo. Pardon me, Sir, if plain dealing compels me to profefs, that I think little lefs refpedfuUy of this philofopher's learning in the conies, than of your attainments in ecclefiaflical hiftory. I make this avowal with the lefs hefitation, becaufe I find my opinion in fome meafure juftified by your own con- fefllons. You confcfs, that my late publication firft brought you acquainted with the very name of Daniel Zwicker : that from me you have received your firft information of the concelTions of Epifco- pius ; and the firft notice of the coincidence of your own opinions, concerning the Platonizing fathers of the fecond century, with thofe of Petavius and Hue- tius : that you had never in your life looked through the writings of Bifliop Bull, till my frequent refe- rences to them excited your curiofity ; as they gave you to underftand, what before you had never known, that the author is in high efteem with the clergy of the eftabliftiment. What is this but to confefs, that you are indeed little redde in the prin- cipal writers, either on your own fide of tlie queftion or the oppofite ? But as no man, I prefume, is born with an intuitive knowledge of the opinions or the fa6ts of paft ages, the hiftorian of Religious Cor- ruptions, confeffing himfelf unredde in the polemical divines, 9i LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER divines, confefles ignorance of his fubjeft. The opinion therefore which I formed, upon a diligent perufal of your work, is confirmed by your own acknowledgements ; and my viftory is already fo compleat, that I might well decline any further conteft. II. My alarms (if I ever felt alarm) for the Ca- tholic faith, or for the national eftablifliment, as in danger from your attacks, muft now be laid afleep ; and will be no incentive to any very vigorous ex- ertions againfl a proftrate enemy*. But the truth is, that I never was alarmed, and it is necefiary that I fhould fet you right in that point. When I fpake of your extraordinary atteinpt to unfettle faith, and to break up eftablifhmentsf, I fpake of the end, to which your wifhes feem to be carried, not of an event which I thought likely to enfue. The utmoft danger, that I feared, was of an inferior kind : a prefent danger, not to the church, but to the more unwary of her members, who might be mifledde by the juflly celebrated name of Dr. Prieflley : a future danger to myfelf, if f forbore to bear my witnefs to the truth. For although we have a promife, that the gates of Hell (hall not prevail againft the Church, yet the vigilance of the Prieflhood I conceive to be the ordinary means, which God hath provided for * — ' you feem to have taken a particular alarm — I hope * you will exert yourfelf with proportionable vigour to « fave a falling ftate.' Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 2. t Charge, ^.3. its TOD R. PRIESTLEY. 93 its fecurity. I therefore thought it my duty to pre- letter vent the mifchief, which might arife to the un- learned and unliable, by demolifhing the credit of your Narrative, and in thefe fubjeds, the authority of your name. 12. The Letters, which you have lately addrefled to me, give me no reafon to alter my opinion or re- traft my accufation. They only fix me in the perfuafion, that to profecute the difpute with you, would be to Uttle purpofe. You will therefore ex- cufe me, if I decline a controverfy to be carried on, for fuch I underfland to be the conditions of the challenge, " till you ihall have nothing left, which ** you may think of confequence to allege*." When I have fhewn the infufficiency of the defence which you have now fet up, and have coIle6led the new fpecimens of your hiftorical abilities, which this new publication fupplies in great abundance, what- ever more you may find to fay upon the fubjedl, in me you will have no antagonift. I am, See. * Preface to Letters, p. iii. and xviii. LETTER ^4- LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER SECOND. A recapitulation of the Archdeacon's Charge, Dear Sir, LETTER TF I could adopt your heroic plan, of writing on till I (hould have nothing left to fay, our corref- pondence would run to an enormous fize: for I fhould have more than a fingle remark to make upon almoft every fentence of every one of your Ten Let- ters. But as we both write for the edification of the public, and yet few, I fear, will be difpofed to give a long or a clofe attention to our fubje6l ; the eafe of our readers, if we mean to be redde, muft be con- fulted. You, I am told, in defiance of your Book- feller's fage counfels, defpife fuch confiderations. But they will have their weight with me. I fliall be un- willing either to fatigue by the length, or to perplex by the intricacy or obfcurity of my reafoning. To avoid the firfl mifcarriage, I fhall be content to give you a fufficient, rather than a full reply ; and to avoid tlie fecond, I fhall endeavour fo to frame my argu- ment, that my readers may perceive the force of it, without the trouble and interruption of frequent re- courfe to our former publications. For this purpofe I fhall begin with a recapitulation of the fubftance of my Charge j that before I enter upon particular dif- cuffions, the points to be difputed may be brought at once in view. i. The T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 95 2. The general argument of my Charge was a letthr. critical review of your Hiftory, in that part of it which relates to the doih-ine of the Trinity in the three firfl: ao-es. This review confifled of two parts ; a fummary of the account, which you pretend to give, of the rife and progrefs of the Trinitarian dodrine ; and a view of the evidence, by which your narrative is fupported, confining of nine felecSt fpecimens of the particular proofs of which the body of that evi- dence is compofed. 3. Of your account of the rife and progrefs of the Trinitarian doftrine, I faid in general, that it is no- thing new j that it is in all its eflential parts the fame, which was propagated by the Unitarian writers of the laft century, and, upon its firft appearance, refuted by Divines of the church of England. Your anfv/er to this part of my Charge, is, as I have al- ready had occafion to obferve, compleat. You re- pell the imputation of plagiarifm, by the moft dif- graceful confeffion of Ignorance, to which foiled Po- lemic ever was reduced. To this part of your de- fence I have nothing to reply. 4. To your evidence, I made the fame general objedlion, that it is deftitute of novelty ; confiding of proofs long fince fet up, and long fmce confuted ; that if you have attempted any thing new, it is only to confirm the gratuitous affumptions of former Uni- tarians by inconclufive arguments, and falfe quota- tions. The nine fpecimens of your proofs, by which this 96 LETTERS INREPLY LETTER this heavy accufation was fupported, were nothing lefs than your principal arguments in fupport of your tliree fundamental aflertions ; That the Primitive church was fimply Unitarian ; that our Lord's Di- vinity was an innovation of the fecond century ; and that the innovation was made by the Platonifmg fa- thers. If your principal arguments were fairly ad- duced as inftances of weak, infufficient proof j your whole notion of the gradual progrefs of opinions, from the Unitarian doiStrine to the Arian, and from the Arian to the Nicene faith, is overthrown. Of this you have fhewn yourfelf not infenfible, by the great pains which you have taken, to what purpofe will foon appear, to anfwer my objedions. 5. The Nine fpecimens of infufficient proof were thefe. » 6. Two inftances of the circulating fylloglfm. The firft', when you allege your own fenfe of Scrip- ture as the clear fenfe, in proof of your pretended fail, that the Primitive faith was Unitarian ; whereas the fa£l muft be firft proved, before your particular interpretation can be admitted. The fecond, when in like manner you allege the pretended filence of St. John about the error of the Unitarians, in proof that the Unitarian dodrine is no error, but the very truth of the Gofpel. The aflumption that St. John is filent upon this fubjeft, in his firft epiftle, is gratuitous and difputable. It refts upon a particular interpreta- tion of St. John's expreflion, that " Chrift is come in TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 97 in the flefh," which will be admitted by none, who letter • r>T SecONP. are not previouUy convinced that St. John's own faith was Unitarian. If St. John's faith was Uni- tarian, the phrafe that " Chriil is come in the flefh" lignifies only that Chrift was a man : and thus we (hall find no cenfure of the Unitarian do6lrine in St. John's firfl: epiftle. But if St. John was no Uni- tarian, but a believer in the incarnation and divinity of our Lord j then the phrafe of Chrifl's coming in the flefli cannot but be underftood to allude to both thefe articles, as parts of the true faith ; and alluding to both thefe articles, as parts of the true faith, it con- veys a cenfure upon the Unitarian doctrine in every form. The aflumption therefore of St. John's filence, concerning the Unitarian doctrine, prefumes another fa£t, that St. John was himfelf an Unitarian. This is the primary, though tacit aflumption, on which this argument is built. This argument therefore, fairly analyfed, is found to circulate like the former. For the conclufion to be eftablifhed is the pretended faft, that the faith of the Primitive church was Uni- tarian. The mean of proof is the gratuitous aflump- tion, that the faith of St John was Unitarian. But to aflfume the faith of an infpired Apoftle, is the fame thing as to aflume the faith of the primitive church. 7. My third fpecimen was an inflance, in which you cite a tefl:imony, which no where exifl:s. The pretended teftimony is of no lefs a perfon than Atha- nafius. The fail, to which Athanafius is made to «kpofe, is the high antiquity of the Unitarian faith. H His ^S LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER His tefiimony to this faft you find in his piece upon the orthodoxy of the Alexandrine Dionyfius ; in a certain paflage in which he affirms, that the Jews were firmly perfuaded that the Meffiah was to be a meer man ; and alleges, as you underftand him, this perfuafion of the Jews as an apology for a caution, ufed by the Apofiles, in divulging the dovStrineof our Lord's divinity. The Jews, of whom Athanafius fpeaks, you prepofieroufly imagine were Chrillians, the firft converts from Judaifm. Whereas he fpeaks of plain downright Jews ; and what you take for his apology for caution in the apoftles, is in truth a com- mendation of the fagacity, which they difplayed in a judicious arrangement of the matter of their doilrine. 8. My fourth fpeclmen was your capital argument for the antiquity of the Unitarian faith, founded on the opinions of the Nazarenes. This argument I maintain to be lame and impotent in every part. It is built upon two alTumptions, of \yhich the one is a meer gratuitous afTertion, of which no proof is at- tempted ; the other is accompanied with a pretended proof, which arifes however from a forged teftimony nnd an ill-founded alTertion. The gratuitous af- fumption is, that the Nazarenes and the Hebrew Chriftians were the fame people : whereas the fa6l is, that the (ect of the Nazarenes arofe after the ex- tlndlion of the proper church of Jerufalem. The other aflumption is, that the faith of thefe Nazarenes was Unitarian. This is proved by the teftimony of Epiphanius, and by an aflumption, that the Naza- renes; to t)R. PRIESTLEV. ^9 tenes and the Ebionites were the fame. This afler- letter tion is unfounded, and the teftimony of Epiphanius is in fa6l forged ; llnce it is drawn by torture from his words. Indeed it is not pretended to be more than this ; that Epiphanius makes no mention " that the Nazarenes believed in the divinity of Chrift :" and this no- mention is only his confefTion, that he was totally uninformed, whether they believed the divinity of Chrift, or not. Were both thefe aflump- tions true, the argument would be compleat. Both are falfe : and were either fmgly true ; yet the othei' being falfe, the conclufion would be either the reverfe ©fyour's, or altogether precarious. 9. My fifth fpecimen was your mifreprefentatlon of Eufebius ; whom you charge with inconfiftency, becaufe another writer, who is quoted by him, fpeaks of Theodotus, who appeared about the year 190, as the firft who held that our Saviour was a meer man ; when in refuting the pretenfions of the Unitarians to antiquity, he goes no further back than to Irenseus and Juftin Martyr ; although the writings of Eufe- bius himfelf afford a refutation of the alTertion. But although the afTertion, as you choofe to underftand it, would be liable to refutation from the writings of Eufebius, it admits an interpretation, by which the feeming inconfiftency is entirely removed. The pre- tenfions to antiquity, which it was incumbent upon Eufebius, or the author quoted by him, to refute, were not fimply pretenfions to antiquity, but to a prior antiquity : and in refuting thefe, the au- H 2 thor I06 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER thor quoted by Eufebius goes back to the apoftolk Second. ^ j o r a^e. 10. Your objedion to the do6trine of the church drawn from the refemblance, which you find between the Chiriftian and the Platonic do6lrine, furnitlied my fixth fpecimen of infufficient proof. I acknow- ledge the refemblance ; but I infift, that it leads to an enquiry into the fentiments of heathen antiquity, which, purfued to its juft confequences, rather cor- roborates, than invalidates, the traditional evidence of th ecatholic faith. 11. Your proofs of your fecond afleftioh, that the dodlrine of our Lord's divinity was an innovation of the fecond age, are all of an oblique and fecondary kind: fuch as, were they liable to no other objec- tion, ^vould lead to no conclufion, without a dif- tindt previous proof, that the faith of the firft age was Unitarian. One of thefe arguments furnifhed my feventh fpecimen of infufficient proof. It is an inftance, in which you cite the teftimony of a Greek writer, to prove the very reverfe of what he fays. It is alleged by me as an inftance of your compe- tency in the Greek language in general, and of your particvilar acquaintance with the phrafeology of the early fathers, 12. My eighth fpecimen was taken from your at- tempt to tranflate a paffage of Athenagoras, at which an abler philologer, than you have fliewn yourfelf to be, unredde in^the Platonifts, might be allowed to flumbl© T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. lei ftumble. I produced it, to convid you of Incom- LETTER petency in the language of the Platonifts ; and to confirm a fufpicion, which the very tenor of your third aflertion might create, that you are ignorant of the genuine doctrines of the Platonic fchool. ence it is to be inferred, that you are little to be trufted, when you take upon you to compare the opi- nions of the firft Chriftians, in which you are not learned, with Platonifm, in which you are a child. 13. My ninth fpecimenwas another inftance of your fkill in the Greek language. A pafTage of Theophilus, in which he expounds the word Trinity by Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, is produced by you to prove that the ufe of the word Trinity, to denote Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, was unknown to Theophilus. Theophilus 's words are fo very clear, that the fenfe was hardly to be mifled, at firft fight, by a fchool-boy in his fecond year of Greek. 14. These are the nine fpecimens, by which I fupport my general charge of the inaccuracy of your Narrative, and in thefe fubjeds, the infufficiency of its author. To all of them, except the feventh and the ninth, you have attempted to reply. With what fuccefs is to be confidered. I am, &c. H 3 LETTER i KIRT. 13^1 LETTERS IN REPLY L E 1' T E R THIRD. Jn reply to Dr. Prlejlle/s Introdu^ory and to part of h'lsfirj} Letter. — His defence of his argujnent from the clear fenfe of fcripture confided. — Of the argu- ment againji our Lord's pre-exijhnce to be drawn from the materiality of man. — Of the Greek pronoun Dear Sir, LETTER '"p^O remove the imputation of having argued in a -*■ circle, when alleging vour own fenfe ot Icrip- ture as the clear fenfe, you infer, that the faith of the fo-ft ages was exadlly conformable to your own opini- ons i you tell me, that the clear fenfe of fcripture and the hiflorical evidence are collateral proofs^ of the early prevale:.ce of the Unitarian faitli. I Ihall admit this, and fliall retra6l all that I have written, when once you fhall have proved to the fatisfaclion of the Chriftian world, that tlie Unitarian doclrlne is deli- vered in the holy fcriptures, taken in tlieir plain and obvious meaning. But wliile your fenfe of fcripture is difallowed by the majority- of Chriliians, I muit Hill contend, that you have no right to call it the clear fenfe ; and that any argument built on a fuppofition, that the fcriptures fpeak a fenfe not generally perceived in them, refts at beft upon a gratuitous alTumption. I confefs, that an argument drawn from a gratuitous af- fumption is not necelTarily an argument running in ^ ' IjCtters to Dr. Horfiey, p. 4 — 6. circle. T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 103 circle, unlefs the only means of reducing the affump- letter tion tea certainty, be a previous proof of the conclu- flon to be drawn. But this I affirm to be the cafe in the inftance under confideration. When we fpeak. of thfe clear fenfe of any piece of writing, this ver)' ex- preflion admits a twofold interpretation. The clear fenfe, may be either that which is clearly conveyed in the words ; or a fenfe, which though it be not clearly conveyed in the words, may be clearly proved, from the context, or from other confiderations, to be the fenfe which was really prefent to the mind of the wri- ter. If you allege the clear fenfe of the fcriptures, in the firft fenfe of the exprcffion, in proof that the pri- mitive faith was Unitarian ; I alk, whether it be not the fole end and purpofe of the enquiry into tlie pri- mitive faith, to fettle the differences of Chriflians upon points in which the fcriptures, if there be any ground in them for the difputes which have arifen, are not clear ? You now alTume a fenfe, which you call their clear fenfe, upon thofe ver)- points, in order to afcertain the primitive fahh. This is to reafon in a circle. 2. But in truth the Unitarian doctrine will never be proved to be the clear fenfe of fcripture in the firlt fenfe of cleamefs. On the contrar)', if ever it fhould be clearly proved to have been the fenfe of the facred writers ; thejuft conclufion will be, that of all writers thefe have been the moft unnecelTarily and the mofi wilfully obfcure. The Unitarians themfelves pretend not that their doctrine is to be found in the plain literal H 4 fenfe 104 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER fenfe of holy writ: on the contrary, they take the greateft pains to explain away the literal meaning. They pretend that the facred v>'riters delight in certain metaphors and images, which, however unnatural and obfcure they may feem at this day, are fuppofed to have been of the genius of the eaftern languages, and of confequence familiar to the firft Chriftians ; who, in the greater part, were of Jev/ifh extradlion. By the help of thefe fuppofed metaphors the Unita- rian expofitors contrive to purge the fcripture of every thing which they difapprove, and make it the oracle, not of God's wifdom, but of their own fancies. When you therefore, as a. Unitarian, fay, that your dodrine is the clear fenfe of fcripture, which, accord- ing to the fcheme of interpretation which you follow, hath no clear fenfe at all ; you can only mean, that this dodrine may be clearly proved to be the fenfe in- tended by the infpired writers. Perhaps in my Charge I was too negligent in the interpretation of your expreffions, when I pretended to expofe the in- firmity of your argument. Be it fo. This then is your affertion. The Unitarian doflrine is clearly the true fenfe of fcripture. But where is the proof ? You can bring no proof that will be generally convincing, unlefs you can find t in the faith of the apoftolic ages. The faith of the firft Chridians, once clearly afcer- tained, mufl: be allowed indeed to be an unerring expo- fition of the written word. To prove therefore that the Unitarian dodtrine is clearly the true fenfe of fcrip- ture, which is your affumption, you muft firfl prove that the primitive faith was Unitarian, which fliould TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 105 be your conclufion. Still this argument circulates, letter and was not improperly alleged by me as m) firfl: fpe- cimen of infufficient proof. 3. But it is of no great importance to difpute, where the particular infirmity of this argument may lie J when you confefs that it is of fuch a fort, " that *' you could not fuppofc it would have any weight " with Trinitarians*." While you condefcend to employ your rare abilities in framing arguments, which will perfuade thofe only who are previoufly per- fuadod, you will do little harm. Why fliould I dif- turb you in this innocent amufement I 4. To compenfate for the confefTcd inefficacy of this argument, you tell me of another, which you might have urged, to difprove not only the divinity, but the pre-exiftence of our Lord ; fuch an argument it feems might have been drawn " from the dodrine ** of the materiality of man, which has been fuffici- " ently proved in your difquifitions on matter and Ipi- *' rit f." In which, by an analogical proof, you have refuted the vulgar error of the immateriality of the human foul, and have in confequence overthrown the whole fyftem of pre-exifience, I believe, Sir, thQ opponents of the Unitarian fcheme will not be dif- pleafed to underftand, that it is at laft to ftand or fall with Dr. Prieftley's Syftem of Materialifm and Dr, Hartley's Theory of the Mind. * Letters to Dr. H, p. 5. -f Letters, p. 5. 5- As ,o6 L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y BETTER 5. Asa ftriking inftance of the conformity between the Unitarian dodrine and the clear fenfe of fcripture, 1 produced the initial fentences of St. John's gofpel ; in which, you know, you find a clear refutation of the perfonality of the Logos. In rendering thefe fentences in Englifli, I took occafion to remark, that the Greek pronoun xtcj naturally renders a perfon. You tell me, " it may refer to any thing that is of the fame " gender in the Greek language, whether it be a per- " fon or not f." I never meant to infmuate the con- trary. Give me leave to refer you to a letter which was publilhed in the Gentleman's Magazine for No- vember laft, under the fignature of PERHAPS. You will find it in my Appendix*, and I now declare ntvlclf the writer of it.- I am, &c. * Letters, p. 7. -;■ Appcm'lx, No. j. Sc z. T, £ T T E R T O P R. P R I E S T L E Y. !•? LETTER FOURTH. /« reply to Dr, Priejiley's Firjl L,ettcr. — His dcfev.ct of his argument from St. fohn's frf epifile con- futed.— The phrafe " cane in the flejh" more than equivalent to the word " to come.'^ — St. fohn's offertion that " Chriji caine in the fejh" not pa- rallel with St. Paul's^ that he " partook of fejh " ajid blood r Y Dear Sir, OUR argument for the antiquity of the Unl- LETTER Fourth* tarian doclrine from St. John's lirft epiftle, the fecond among my fpecimens of infufiicient proofs, refts on a fuppofitjon, that in that epiftle the Uni- tarian doftrine is not cenfured. I have, fliewn* that this fuppofition will (land or fall, according as one or another interpretation of the phrafe of " com- " ing in the flefh" fliall be admitted. That fmgle cxprefTion, as it is generally underftood, reprobates the Unitarian dodrine, and overthrows your fup- pofition. You muft therefore eftabliih your own fenfe of the phrafe, before yovx can be permitted tq affume, that St. John is filent about the Unitarian doftrine. Now to make good this argument, you tell me that " you think," and that " it is your *' opinion," that the phrafe of coming in the flefh is meerly an affertion of our Lord's humanity f, * Charge, 3nd Letter 11. -)• Letters to Dr. H. p. S, lo. Sir, ibi LETTERS IN REPLY. LETTER Sir, I underftood from the firfl: that this is your opi-. *OURTH nion, and I doubt not in the lead your firmnefs in it. But I contend, that no i'uch authority belongs to your opinion, that the bare notification of it fhould command the aflent of the whole Chriflian world, in preference to other opinions, which have more generally prevailed. You muft juftify that opinion, if you would give any colour of plaufibility to your argument. But the opinion cannot be juftified, un- lefs it might be previoufly affumed, that St. John himfelf was an Unitarian. You will hardly fay, that any believer in our Lord's divinity and incarna- tion could employ the phrafe of Chrift's " coming in the flefh" without an allufion, in his own mind, to both thofe articles, as branches of the true faith. But fuch an allufion implies a cenfure of the Unita- rians. Till you fhall have proved, therefore, that St. John was an Unitarian, the phrafe of " Chrift's *' coming in the flefh" may be thought to contain a cenfure of the Unitarian tenets ; and your opinion, that no cenfure of them is contained in St. John's firfl epiftle, will be difputable. 2. You fay, that this phrafe of coming in the fiefh " refers naturally to the do£trine of the Gnof- " tics *." I fay the very fame thing. But I fay, that in the fenfe in which the Church hath ever un- derflood it, this phrafe refers to two divifions of the Gnoftics ; the Docetse, and the Cerinthians ; af- firming a dodb-ine, which is the mean between their * Letters to Dr. Horfiey, p. 9. oppofite TO DR. PRIESTLEY 109 oppofite errors. The Docetae affirmed, that Tefus letter. was not a man m reahty, but m appearance only: the Cerinthians, that he was a meer man, under the tutelage of the Chrift, a fuperangelic being, which was not fo united to the man as to make one per- fon. St. John fays, " Jefus Chrift is come in the " flefhj" that is, as the words have been generally underftood, Jefus was a man, not in appearance only, as the Docetae taught, but in reality ; not a meer man, as the Cerinthians taught, under the care of a fuperangelic guardian, but Chiift himfelf come in the flefh ; the Word of God incarnate. St. John fays, that whoever denies this complex pro- pofition, is of Anti-chrift. It furprizes me that you fliould find an improbability, upon the firft face of the thing, in fuppofing that the fame expreffion fhould be equally levelled * at two herefies, which you confefs to be oppofite. For is it not always the cafe, that expreffions which predicate a truth lying in the middle between two oppofite falfehoods, equally impugn both the falfe extremes ? If I fay, that when Fahrenheit's thermometer in the open air ftands at 60 ° in the fhade, the weather is mild ; do I not equally deny that it is infufFerably hot, or InfufFerably cold ? " Gnofticifm, you fay, is cer- " tainly condemned by the apoftle, but not the " do6lrine of the Ebionites, tho' it is allowed to " have exiftcd in his time f." "Fhe doctrine of the original Ebionites, and that of the Cerinthian Gnoftics, upon the point of Ghrill's divinity, was - Letters to Dr. IL |). 10. f Id. p. 10. the its LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER tiie fame. If the apoftle condemns the one, he condemns the other, -whether he lived or hved not to fee the rife of the Ebionasan fedl*. I ftiall here- after have occafion to (hew, that the Ebionsean fe6t was of later date than you imagine. J. It is perhaps from fomething of a fecret mif- giving, that your interpretation of the phrafe of coming in the fielh, will not be allowed to be its natural and obvious meaning ; that you are fo de- lifous to retreat into the fi:rong-hold of Jewifli idioms. You think the phrafe in queftion " is fi- *' milar to other Jewifh phrafes f , which you think will be allowed to be merely expreffive of humanity, I fear, Sir, it hath been the cuflom of late to lay too much fcrefs upon Jewilh idioms^ in the expofi- tion of the didadic parts of the New Teftament. * " You infift upon it," fays Dr. Prieftley, in the fifth of his Second Letters, " tliat John does cenfure the Unita- " rian doftrine: which is curious enough ; when, according " to your account, there were no Ebionitcs or Nazarenes, that " is none who denied the pre-exiftencc of Chrift, till lon^ *' after the time of John." But this is not according to ?ny account. My account is, that Cerinthus, who was unquei- tionably contemporary with St. John, denied our Lord's pre-cxiftence, and was in this point the precurfor of the Ebionites. And what if I Iiad faid, that St. John had cen- fured a doftrine not taught till after his death ? Do not the tathers perpetually refer to proleptic cenfurcs of late hcrefies in tlie iacred writings ? Ls no proleptic reprobation of the late errors of the Roman church to be found in .St. Paul's epiftles ? t letters to Dr. H. p. g. The TO DR. PRIESTLEY. in The gofpel is a general revelation*. If it is deli- letter vered in a ftyle, which is not perfpicuous to the il- literate of any nation except the Jevvilh ; it as much locked up from general apprehenfionj as if the fa- cred books had been written in the vernacular gib- berifti of the Jews of that age. The floly Spirit, which direded the apoftles and the evangelifts to the ufe of the tongue, which in their day was the moll generally underllood, the Greek, would for the fame reafon, it may be prefumed, fuggefl to them a ftyle which might be generally perfpicuous. It is there- fore a principle with me, that the true fenfe of any phrafe in the New Teftament i'^, for the moft part, what may be called its ftanding fenfe : that which will be the firft to occur to common people of every country, and in every age : and I am apt to think, that the difference between this ftanding fenfe and the Jewifli fenfe will, in all cafes, be far lefs than is imagined, or none at all ; becaufe, though different languages differ Vi^idely in their refined and elevated idioms, common fpeech is in all languages pretty much the fame. 4. But what are thofe Jevvifli phrafes, with which you would compare the Jewifh phrafe of " coming in ^' theflefli?" They are the word " to come," and the phrafe " partaker of flefh and blood." * " The religion of Chrift was an imiveifal religion, and " the dortrincs ot" the golpel were calculated for the Wef- " tern as well as the Eaftern hemifphere." See Mr. She- plierd's Preface to liis Free Examination of the Soclnian expo- Jition of the prefatory ver/cs of Ht. John's Gofpel. 5. The . tia LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER ^, The word " to come" is ufed by metaphor I believe in all languages to fignify either a man's birth, or firft entrance into public life. He came into the world y he came into life:, he came into hiifinefi. I have no where affirmed, that fuch phrafes denote any thing more than human, in any perfon to whom they may beapphed. But is the phrafe " to come in the flefh" no more than equivalent to the word " to come?" Are the words " in the flerti" meer expletives? — If they are not expletives, what is their import, but to limit the fenfe of the word to come to fome particular manner of coming ? — This limitation either prefumes a poffibility of other ways of coming; or it is nuga- tory. But was it poffible for a meer man to come othtrwife than in the fle(h? — Nothing can be more decifive for my purpofe, than this comparifon which you have fuggefced, betv/een the word " to come," which is general, and the phrafe " to come in the " flefh," which is fpecific. — My thanks are due to you for this illufLration of my argument ; which may be rendered ftill more evident by applying the two phrafes fucceffively to a familiar inftance. If fome fu- ture Hifcorian of thefe planet-fcricken times fliould fay, " In the latter end of the eighteenth century came " Dr. Prieftley preaching the Unitarian doilnne," no one will fufpe£t any thing more, than that a man of this name preached this doclrine.-— But if the Hifto- rian fliould fay, " Dr. Prieftley came in the jiefo " preaching this doctrine ;" if the writer, who may ufe this expreffion, fliall have any credit in his day, a general curiofity will be excited to know, whether Dr. Prieftley T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 113 Prleftlev had it in his power to come in any way with- letter. , . ^ ^ ,1-1 , . . lo«KTn. out his fiem, " unmanacled with membrane, joint, or " limb:" and when once it fliall be found, that he liad not ; the llyle of the writer will be condemned, and his credit perhaps leflened. — 1 leave you to make the application. 6. But you think, that St. John's phrafe that *' Chrift came in the flefh," may be expounded by St. Paul's phrafe, that " he was partaker of flefh and " blood." The pafTage to which you refer is this. " Forafmuch then as the children are partakers of " flefh and blood, he alfo himfelf likewife took part of *' the fame*." As you have only hinted, that fome argument might be drawn from this text, to confirm yourfenfe of St. John's phrafe j I am kft to divine what your argument might be. Perhaps you would reafonthus. In this paflage it is faid of men, that they are partakers of flefh and blood : and this expref- fion is evidently defcriptive of the condition of huma- nity. It appears therefore, that to be " a partaker of " flefh and blood" is a Jewifh phrafe, which figni- fies " to be a man." But in this fame pafTage it is faid of Chrifl, that " he likewife took part of flefh and " blood." It is faid of Chrifl therefore that he was a manlike other men : confequentlv nothing more can be meant by his " coming in the flefh." If this be your intended argument, I reply, that Chrifl was in- deed a man like other men : and this perhaps is aJl that is implied in St. Paul's aflTertion, that he was " partaker of flefh and blood." But it follows not, * Heb. ii. 14. I that ,14 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER that this is all which is implied in St. John's expref- f O U R 7 H fion, that " Jefus Chrift came in the flefhj" which allerts indeed his humanity ; but with an evident allu- fion to a prior condition : and the proper conclufion from the comparifon of St. John's expreffion with St. Paul's, is this ; that the two are not, as you fuppofe, equivalent. 7. But Ifufpe6t, that you conned St. Paul's ex- prelTion with your own doiS^rine of materialifm ; and that you would argue thus. Since it is faid of men, who are flerti and blood, and nothing elfe, that they partake of flefli and blood ; therefore " to partake of " flefli and blood," in the Jewifli language, and " to " ^^ flefli and blood," in other languages, are equiva- lent phrafes. Therefore Chrifl, of whom it is alfo faid, that he partook of flefli and blood, was meer fiefli and blood ; a man like other men, in whom the mental faculties were the refult of organifation. Thus, you will fay, the notion of Chrift's pre-exiftence, much more of his divinity, is overturned by the apof- tle's afl'ertion ; and, whatever may have been imagined, no allufion to his pre-exiflence or his divinity was in- tended in any expreflions of the facred writers. The aflertion therefore of Chrift's real manhood is all that can be contained in St. John's expreflions, that *' Chrift is come in the flefli-v" But in this argument the conclufion refults not from any evident parallelifm of the different phrafes ufed by St. Paul and by St. John ; but it is a confequence from a particular inter- pretation of St. Paul's phrafe : which interpretation of St.. Paul refts not upon any thing in his expreflions, but T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 115 but upon fomething quite out of fcripture ; upon your LETTER f O U R '1' K • notion of the meer materiality of man. To have fliewn the true foundation of this argument is to have confuted it. 8. I mufl: remark, that in whatever form this argu- ment may be drawn, it will reft folely on the tranf- lation of the facred text. For in the original, man's connexion with flerti and blood and Chrift's con- nexion are expreffed by different words ; KZKoivoiv^zi and iJLzrza-x^. A difference, which, however flight it may appear to you, was thought of fufficient impor- tance to be prefer/ ed in the Vulgat. commnnkave- rant-^partidpavit *. 9. But not to lay a firefsupon any critical refine- ments upon fmgle exprefTions, let me afk your opi- nion, Sir, upon the general fenfe of the pafTage, in which this phrafe, " to partake of flefh and blood," occurs. I would appeal to yourfelf, whether the con- clufion, which you would build upon that particular exprelTion, is not overthrown by the general fenfe of the pafTage. The purport of the pafTage is to afTign a reafon, why the Redeemer fliould partake of flefh and blood J that is, why he fhould be a man. But a rea- fon why a man fliould be a man, one would not ex- pect to find in a fober man's difcourfe. For why any thing fliould be what it is, rather than what it is not, is a queftion which few, 1 think, would afk, and none would attempt to anfwer. The attempt to afTign * That mivmuv is more than /WeIexeiv. See lamblicli. de Myft. fea. 2. cap. V. la a rea- 116 LETTERS IN REPLY Fol^-nu ^ ^eafon, why the Redeemer fliould be a man, implies both that he might have been, without partaking of the human nature, and by confequence, that in his own proper nature he was originally fomething diffe- rent from man ; and that there might have been an expedation, that he would make his appearance in feme form above the human. It particularly implies, that an expectation of his appearance in fome higher form might be expecSted to prevail among the perfons, to whom this reafon is afligned ; fo that the manifeft manhood of Chrilt would be likely to be an objection with them to his claim to the character of the Mefliah. This, Sir, feems to deferve your particular attention. For the perfons, to whom theapoftle renders thefe rea- fons for the manhood of the Redeemer, were the He- brews ; the firft Jewifli Chriftians ; of whom you fay, that, before their converfion at leafl, " they had no *' idea that their Mefliah was to come down from hea- 'ed to be exprefs, if the epiftles be genuine from which it is produced ; permit me to tell you, in few words, what I know of thefe epiftles. therefore ever pr?fent to pur Lord,' now and in time part ; and being allowed to be now prefent, is fuppofed of neceflary confequence to be capable of efFeiSls in time pafi. But this defcribes nothing lefs than the attribute of omnipotence. But language is no key to " unlock the mind of a Socinian." I Letter? to Pr. H, p. 13, 6. I f O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. i2t 6. I KNOW that ancient writers mention feven letter ... f. Fifth. epiflles of Ignatius, written upon his journey from Antioch, where he was Birtiop, through Afia Mi- nor ; for that way his journey lay, when he was car- ried to Rome, by Trajan's order, to be expofed to wild beads. Of thefe epiftles fix are faid to have been addrefled to the churches of fix different cities ; Ephefus, Magnefia upon Maeander, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna ; and the feventh was addref- fed to Polycarp. I know, that befides fome other epiftles, confefTedly fpurious, tvv'o editions, a longer and a fhorter, are at this day current, of feven epif- tles under the name of Ignatius, infcribed to thofe to whom the real epillles of the blefled martyr, ac- cording to the Ecclefiaftical Hiftorians, were ad- drefled. The longer epiftles firfl: appeared in print in an old Latin verfion, publiflied by Father Stapu- lenfis in 1498 ; a correfponding Greek text was publiflied by Valentine Pacaus, from a MS. in the Auguflan Library, in the year 1557. The fliorter edition likewife made its firil; appearance in print, in an old Latin verfion, publifhed by Ufher from two MSB. in the year 1644. The Greek was publiflied by Ifaac Vofllus in 1646, from a MS. in the Me- dicaean Library at Florence. The Medicsean MS. being imperfedl in the end, wanted the epiftle to the Romans. But a Greek text of this epiflle, perfectly correfponding with Ulher's Latin verfion, was pub- liflied at Paris, from a MS. of Colbert's, by Mr. Ruinard in the year 1689, 7. It J22 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER y. It has been made a queftion, whether the F T F T a » fhorter epiflles are from abridged, or tlie longer from interpolated copies. The phrafeology of the longer feems in fome parts accommodated to the Arian no- tions : that of the Ihorter, is every where agreeable to the Catholic faith. The fhorter edition hath the fufFrage of the Fathers of the five firfl centuries ; their quotations, which are numerous, every where agreeing with this text. William Whiflon, a mar^ whofe meaiory is more to be efleemed for his inte- grity, and the extent and variety of his reading, than for the founduefs of his judgment, from pure at- tachment to the Arian caufe, maintained the autho- rity of the longer copies ; but his opinion hath found but few abetters, and thofe of inconfiderable name, even in his own party. The Prefbyterian Divines, defirous to get rid of fo great an authority as that of Ignatius in favour of Epifcopacy, the rights of which are fet very high in thefe epifiles, were unwilling to allow their authenticity in either form. But with a iTirijority of the Learned thefe feven epiflles are re- ceived as authentic ; and the fhorter edition is fup- pofed to exhibit the genuine text. This at leafl was the opinion of Ifaac VofHus, Ufher, Hammond, Petavius, Grotius, Pearfon, Bull, Cave, Wake, Co- telerlus, Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc. On the other fide fcand no names to be compared witli thefe, except the three of Salmafms, Blondel, and Dallaeus. Perhaps you will add that of Bochart. But the great Bochart's doubts went to one only of the feven*,; the epiflle to the Ps.omansj and they * Hierozoic. P. I, lib. ill. cap. g. are TO DR. PRIESTLEY. are founded on a chronology of the word Leopardus^ l-^' which Pearfon hath proved to be erroneous *. 323 8. MosHEiM holds a middle opinion. The quef- tion of preference between the two editions he thinks undecided. Whichever edition be preferred, he thinks the fufpicion of interpolation and corruption cannot be entirely removed. That thefe epiftles are of great antiquity, lie thinks certain. That they are not altogether forgeries, fo credible that nothing can be more. But how far they are fincere, he takes to be a knot which cannot be untiedf . At the fame time he allows, what with me entirely overturns his fingular opinion, that the authenticity of them would never have been called in qucftion, had they not con- tained, what the advocates of Epifcopacy knew how to turn to the advantage of their caufe ; which when the Prefbyterians and others, who were for abolifhing the privileges of the Clergy, underftood, they at- tacked them with a warmth, by which they more harmed their own reputation than the authenticity of thofe writingsij: . It is true, he taxes the writers on the other fide, but not fo generally, with no lefs intemperance. But, in my judgement, the authen- ticity of antient writings muft be fet very high, which could never have been brought in queftion but thro' prejudice. * Vindiciae Ignatiana?, P. II. p. 91 94, ■\ De Rebus Chriftianorum ante Conftantinum, p. 161. 1 Ibid. p. 165. q. With LETTER FTH. 124 LETTERS I-N REPLY LETTER g. With this preponderance therefore of authori- ties on the fide of the epiftles, and with this confeflion of Mofheim againfl: his own opinion, I fhall take the liberty to appeal to them, as they ftand in the fliorter edition, as the genuine writings of the blefled mar- tyr: not free indeed from thofe blemifhes, which arife from the hafte, the careleflhefs, and the igno- rance of tranfcribers j but upon the whole not lefs fincere, than moft other pieces of the fame antiquity. I fliall appeal to them with the lefs fcruple, forafmuch as the fame fincerity, which I afcribe to them, and which IS quite fufficient for my purpofe, is allowed by the learned and the candid Lardner ; whofe judge- ment mufl have been bialled by his opinions in pre- judice of tlrefe VvTitings, if any thing could have biafled his judgement in prejudice of the evidence of truth. After fuggefting in no very confident language, that " even the fmaller epiftles may have been tampered with "by the Arians, or the Orthodox, or both;" he adds, " I do not affirm, that there are in them any confidera- *' ble corruptions or alterations*." If no confiderable corruptions or alterations, certainly none refpeding a point of fuch importance as the original nature of Chrifl. I will therefore ftill appeal to thefe epiftles, as fufficiently fincere to be decifive upon the point in difpute. Nor fliall I think myfelf obliged to go into the proof of their authenticity, till you have given a, * Thcfe words of Dr. Lardner are cited by Dr. Prieftley liimfelf in his Reply to the Animadverfions in the Monthly Review of June, 17S3, p. 36. They make a part of his proof that thefe epiftles are fd corrupted, as not to be quoted with fafety.- See Reply to Animadverfions, p. 35. fatisfadory TO liR. PRIESTLEY, fatlsfadory reply to every part of Birtiop Fearfon's elaborate defence : a work, which I fufpedt you have not yet looked through, I am, &c. P. S. To the authorities for the epiftles of Igna- tius, according to the Ihorter copies, I muft add Fabricius. LETTER Fifth. LETTER SIXTH. /;/ reply to Dr. Priejlley^s Second. — The difference of the Ebionites and Naxarenes no fingular or new opinion of the Jj-chdeacon's.— The fame thing main^ tained by Mojheim and other Critics of great name, -^Dr. Priejlley's arguments from Origen and Evfe^ bins not negleEied in the Archdeacon^ s Charge. — Dr. Priefllefs conclufions from the feveral pqffages cited by him from Epiphanius confuted. — The Nazarenes no fe6l of the apoJioUc age. — Ebion not contemporary with St. John, — The antiquity of a feSi not a proof of its orthodoxy. Dear Sir, 'T'^HE Citadel of your ftrcngth is the argument •*' from the Nazarenes ; to which however I have given a place among my fpecimens of infufficient proof* LETTER Sixth. ,25 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER proofs. You find the attack upon this fortrefs warm on every fide ; and your refiflance is proportionably vigorous. So impatient are you for its defence, that you take it out of its turn, paiTing by my third fpeci- men, the argument from Athanafius ; which you very properly confider as an outwork, which will be in- deed of little confequence, if the citadel fhould fur- render — which however mufi: be the cafes neither force nor ftratagem can defend it. 2. Two points, you know, muft be made out to fave this argument ; the one, that the faith of the Nazarenes was Unitarian ; the other, that thefe Uni- tarian Nazarenes were the Hebrew Chrifdans, or the members of the primitive church of Jerufalem. To prove the lirfl: point you abide by your original afler- tion, that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites were one and the fame people under different names. This aflertion you attempt to defend againft my objections. We fhall fee with what fuccefs. 3. You allow " it has been imagined by fome, that there " was a difference between the doctrine " of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes, concerning " the perfon of Chrift*." Something of a difference, fome half-witted critics have, it feems, hnagined. But you take care to infinuate in- the next fentence, that none before me ever dreamed of fo wide a dif- ference, as I would put between them. It had only been imagined " that the Ebionites dilbelieved, while " the Nazarenes maintained, the miraculous con- • * Letters to Dr. H, p. 14. ceptioafi" TO DR. PRIESTLEY. tzj " ceptlon* ;" both concurring in the diibelief of our lbtter. Sixth. Lord's divinity. " For as to any Nazarenes, who " believed that Chrift was any thing more than man, *' you find no trace o^ them in hiftoryf." And you think it extraordinary, " that it fliould now be made " a point to find fome difference between the Naza- " renes and the Ebionites, inafmuch as you believe " no critic of any name in the laft age pretended to " find any J." Indeed, you may well be afloniflied. For " the learned Jeremiah Jones |j" wrote a chapter to prove them the fame people. 4. Indeed, Sir, I mufl: take fliame to myfelf, and confefs, that this learned Jeremiah Jones is not of my acquaintance. I find upon enquiry, that he is very much unknown among my brethren of the ertablifiiment. I am informed, however, that he was not undeferving of the epithet which you have coupled with his name. He was, it feems, the tutor of the venerable Lardner- and was thought in natural ability to excell his pupil. Ne- verthelefs, Sir, I conceive I may be pardoned, if I prefume to dilTent from the opinion of Jeremiah Jones, notwithftanding the importance that may have accrued to it from the approbation of Dr. Prieftley. That, Sir, which you are pleafed to call an imagination of fome, the notion of a difi"erence be- tween the Nazarenes and the Ebionites, was the de- cided opinion of a writer better known than Jeremiah * Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. t Ibid. X Letters to Dr. H. p. 23. || Ibid. Jones, 423 LETTERS IN k£;PLY LETTER Jones, the illuftrious Mofliehn, " This Httlc body Sixth. ' r r> • • " of Chriftjans, fays that learned hlftorian, which " coupled Mofes with Chrift, fplit again into two *' fcfls, diftinguiQied from each other by their doc- " trines concerning Chrifl:, and the permanent obli- " gation of the law, and perhaps by other circum- " ftances*." As a certain proof that they were tv/o diftindl feds, he obferves that each had its own gof- pel. He fays, that " the Nazarenes had a better " and truer notion of Chrift than the Ebionitesf." 5. It may be Mofiieim was the inventor of this diftinclion, fince you have not found it in any critic of any name of the lafc age. Perhaps, Sir, you and I, when we fpeak of critics of any name, may not always agree in the perfons, to whom we would apply that defcription. May I then take leave to afk, what you think of Hugo Grotius? Was He a critic of any name? Voffius, Spencer, Huetius, were thefe critics of any name ? If they were. Sir, you muft come again to your confeflions. For Hugo Grotius, Voflius, Spencer, and Huetius % agree that the Nazarenes and Ebionites, though fometimes confounded, were dif- * PufiUum vero hoc Chriftianorum agmen, quod Mofen Chrifto fociabat, in duas iterum dilTiliebat feftas ; dogma- tibus de Chrifto, legifque necelTitate, forte aliis etiam rebus fejunftas. Mojhe'im de Rebus Chr'ifilanorum ante Conjlantinunif Saec. a. § xxxix. t Nazarei nimirum et de Chriflo multo reftius et verius fentiebant quam Ebionei. Ibid. n. * * *. X Grotius in Matth. c. I. Voflius de genera Jefii Chrifti cap. II. \ I. Spencer in Origen contra Cdfum, ad p. 56. Huetius in Origenis commentaria, p. 74. tin£l TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 129 tinft feds J and they maintain the opinion, which I sixth, now maintain, of the high orthodoxy of the proper Nazarenes in the article of our Lord's divinity. 6. But it may be that the Nazarenes were Unita- rian, tho' they were not Ebionites. For the doftrine concerning our Lord's divinity is not the only point, in which the pretended difference is placed : and " as " to any Nazarenes, who believed that Chrift was " any thing more than man, you find no trace of them " in hiftory*." You have then been lefs faccefsful than Hugo Grotius, Voffius, Spencer, and Huetius: not to mention others of inferior note. 7. You fee, Sir, — our readers at leafl: v^'ill fee — that you had little ground to reprefent the opinion, which I maintain, of a difference between the Nazarenes and Ebionites, as Angular or novel. Your attempt to fet it forth in that light I cannot but confider as a flratagem, which you were willing to employ for the prefervation of your battered citadel, the argument from the Nazarenes. In this ftratagem, if I miftakc not, you are completely foiled. In your failles againft the batteries which I have raifed, I truft you will be little more fuccefsful. But as too much of flratageni is apt to mix itfelf with all your operations, it will be neceffary that I watch very narrowly the manner of your approaches. 8. Your reply to my objections againfl: the teili- mony, which Epiphanius is fuppofed to bear tp the • Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. K identity ijn LETTERS IN RE^PLY LETTER identity of the two fe6ls, is opened with a complaint, Sixth. t • r ? that I have faid nothing " to the arguments from " Origen and Eufebius*." Sir, either here is more flratagem, or you have dealt by me, as you profefs to do by the anti nts. You have only looked through my charge. Had you redde it through, you could hardly have miffed fomething that I fay to the argu- ments from Origen and Eufebius. I flatly deny any dire6l teftimony of Origen, in favour of the identity which you would prove ; and I have (hewn that the paffages, from which you would draw the inference, are little to your purpofe f." The argument from Eulebius, you will be pleafed to recoUedl, made no part of your ori ,inal proof. It firft appeared among^ certain co regions and additions, which are annexed to your Reply to the An'imadverfiom of a learned writer in the Monthly Review. It was impoffible therefore that I fhould take notice of it in my Charge, which had been fent to th ; prefs, and was in great part printed, before I had any knowledge of the Reply, or indeed of the Animadv rfions which occafioned it. But in the appendix to my Charge, which was written after I had redde your Reply, and in confequence of it, I complained, that you had made no reference to the particular paffages of Eufebius, upon which you w^ould found your argument J. g. However, that I faid fomething very material to the argument from Epiphanius, you deny not. I * Letters to Dr. H. p. 14. t Charge L ^ 15, and Appendix, % i. X Appendix to Cliargr, % 2. faid TO DR. PRIESTLEY. i^St faid indeed that no man could allege, as you do, the LETTER • 1-1 /♦, ^ Sixth, teftimony of Epiphanius to the identity of the Ebi- onites and Nazarenes, who had redde to the end fo much as the firft fentence of Epiphanius's account of the Ebionites. And I ftill fay the fame thing. For in that firft fentence Epiphanius aflerts, that Ebion made additions to the dodrine of the Nazarenes. Among thefe additions I place, although you will not, the meer humanity of Chrift. 10. You tell me in reply, that if I had myfelf redde the fecond paragraph of this fame chapter of Epiphanius, it would have (hewn me the error of my own remark ; for in that fecond paragraph, you fay it appears, that the difference between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes lay in other particulars, not in the doctrine of the meer humanity of Chrift *. You then produce that paragraph, with a firing of other pafTages confirming, as you think, the aflertion, which you pretend to find in it, of the agreement of the two kSis upon the point in queftion. Epiphanius tells us, as you think. In the fecond paragraph of his firft fe£tion about the Ebionites, " that Ebion borrowed his abo- " minable rites (foyou render ^h>.vpov) from the Sa- " maritans ; his opinion (yvu/xYiv) from the Nazare- " nes ; his name from the Jews." In the fecond fec-- tion, as you underftand him, he places the whole dif- ference between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in a fingle circumfiance, totally unconnected with the opi- nions about Chrift. In the fame fedtion, you fay, he fpeaksofthe two feds as inhabiting the faid country, * Letters to Dr. H. p. 15 — 17, K 2 ^nd rjz LETTERS IN REPLY LETTKR and adds, that " aCTeeins; together thev communi- SjXTH. D & to ] " catedof theirperverfenefsto each other*." 11. Now, Sir, in thefe quotations, I have to complain partly of the want of critical difcernment; partly of ftratagem ; partly of unfkilful interpreta- tion ; and 1 affirm, that not one of the paffages al- leged is to your purpofe. 12. For the fecond paragraph of the firfl feilion, the only claufe in it of which you can avail yourfelf, is that in which it is aflerted, according to your tranf- lation, that " Ebion took. his opinion from the " Nazarenesf." But here, Sir,^ is ftratagem. Why is not the entire claufe produced? Becaufe the en- tire claufe would defeat the conclufion, which it is brought to eftablifh. Does Epiphanius fay, that Ebion took his opinion fimply from the Nazareheis? He fays it not ; even if it be admitted, that the word •yvoj.aviy is rightly rendered by Opinion, If Opijuon be indeed what is here fignified by yxmiMv^ Epiphanius fays, that Ebion took his opinion from " the OfTse- *' ans, th; Nazoraeans, and the Nafaraeans." The Nazorasans of Epiphanius (Na^wpioi) were the Chriftian Nazarenes. But his Nafaraans were no Chriftians. ITtey were a Jewifli fe£l j one of the fcven which were fubfifting at the time of our Lord's appearance ; the fifth in Epiphanius's enumeration. The Oflleans were the fixth of thofe feven feds of Judaifm. So that if any thing is afferted in this claufe concerning the opinions of Ebion, it is that • Letters to Dr. H. p. 15. f Ibid. they TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 153 they "were a mixture of the extravagancies of three letter feds; two Jewifh, and one Chriftian. But this ge- neral aflertion will never determine, to which of thefe three fources any particular opinion, maintained by Ebion, is to be referred. It will be probable, that his do6trine of our Lord's humanity was an ac- commodation of the old doctrine of the Nazarenes to the prejudices of his Jewifh friends. For how will you prove, Sir, that Ebion, if he taught the fame opinions which you now maintain, was not adluated by the fame generous motives : a tender charity for the Jews, whom he might propofe, as you do, to reconcile to the Evangelic dodrine, by diverting the dodrine of every thing properly Evan- gelic ? ■13. But I contend further, that the word yvui^y^v^ in this paflage of Epiphanius, is not rightly rendered by opinion. It often indeed denotes opinion in good Greek writers : but it is not ufed in that fenfe here. That it is not, appears from the fubfequent part of the fame fentence ; in which yvcc/xy^ is mentioned as fomething diftindl from yvucrig and a-uyKara^sa-ig tuv kuayfihioiv (perhaps we fhould read kuayy^'KiTuv) xai aTToroXouv tte^j mrsug. ** Ebion, fays Epiphanius, " defired to bear the appellation of a Chriftian, but " not to adopt the pradice of Chriftians, nor their " yvw.aw, nor their knowledge, nor their aflent to the " Evangelifts and Apoftles concerning the faith*." * X^irtav'jiv ^sXerai £%£(v rw Tr^oa-nyo^tav^ a ya^ ^titthSev tyivte TTpa^iVj koi tw yviiifMvjv, xai rt]v yvaxrtv^ hm Tuv Tijv iuayfihiiiv Koi aTTOTohuv Tnpi TfiyEug o'uyitoLlaBe^iv. K 3 Now iSi LETTERSINREPLY LETTER JsJow knowledsc and aflent concerninff faith to the Sixth. Evangelifts and Apoftles include religious opinion : ■yvcofji.Yi, therefore, being mentioned as diftindt from thefe, is not opinion. It feems to be rather ufed here, for what is expreffed in Englifli by the word fenth7ient\ a thing which often modifies opinion, but itfelf is not opinion. Of this ufe of the word examples are not wanting. " Ebion, it is faid, " pofTeffed the fentiments of Offaeans, Naza- " renes, and Nafarasans." He refembled thefe Chriftian and Jewi(h fedlaries, in that illiberality of fentiment, which inclined the Nazarenes to think the obfervance of the ritual law neceflary to a Chrif- tian's falvation, and difpofed the Offaeans and the Nazarasans to many fenfelefs fuperftitions. But this refemblance is no proof, that he t@ok his opinion of the meer humanity of Chrift from the Chriftian Nazarene§, 14. But if this paffage is not fufficiently explicit, the fecond fe6tion you will tell me is decifive. Un- fortunately the lopg paffage, which you have pro-* duced from this feclion, wants to be fet in order be- fore any ufe can be made of it : and when we have made the beft of the prefent text, which I fear is too corrupt to be perfedlly reftored without MSS. it will Jittle ferve your purpofe. Much indeed of the confufion arifes from a falfe punctuation, which your own tranflation fets in a moft confpicuous light, as a little remark which you have thrown in, points out the correftion of it. " and firft, he ai"- ** fertsd th^t Chrift was bom of the commerce and *' feed T O D R. P R I E S T L E y. ij5 *' feed of a man, namely Jofcph, as we fignlfied letter. " above*. '^ This aflertion of Ebion's had not been fignified above : it is mentioned in this paflagc for the firft time. You remark, that thele words, *' as we fignified above," refer to the firft words of the firft feilion *. But in the firft words of the firft fe6lion we have no fignification of Ebion's denial of the miraculous conception, nor in any words pre- vious to this claufe of the fecond feflion : and the reference cannot be to previous words, for that which no previous words contain. T'he reference therefore, which is explicitly to fomething previous, can have no connection with the denial of the mira- culous conception, which is now mentioned for the firft time. It muft connect however with fomething in the writer's prefent narrative, or it hath no mean- ing. Now in the words which immediately pre- cede the claufe, which regards Ebion's heterodoxy upon the article of the conception, that is in the initial claufes of this fecSlion, Epiphanius adlually re- peats what he had faid before. With thefe claufes therefore this reference to the former part of his nar- rative is to be connected ; and the intervening claufe, regarding the conception, fhould be fet out as a pa- renthefis. I will now prefent you with the Greek text properly pointed, accompanied with two tranf- lations j your own on one fide, and mine upon the other ; that our readers, comparing both with the original, may judge for themfelves of the propriety of eacii. * Letters to Dr. H. p. i6. K 4 Dr, tss L.ETTERS IN REPLY LETTER. Sixth. w o « w 5 "^ •5 ^ 4-1 •T3 •^ ^ -^ ^ o .ti 0) ;^ fcn c g^c" ri t:; ^ '3 « 1^ ^ V ^ ^ ^ g ^ JO s O fcJD 3 O >% 13 ^ •5 ^ — i 4:i o u — « i* -^^ r^ i-- rt > I 1 .S > bJD U i2 .S -5 S ^ "C! ^ .. f« *-- rs « CO c •ri .i2 bx) > ^.^ te 5 .b '^ -« g- 3. X ^ S b ^ '^ jS ^b a -8 l- b s; £ • '« b 3 -3 "O >k 1 S k Cl^ « 1— ( ^ 0^ 5C ^ »-j> « h.- Cli ST '^2 M K i^ -a -a H -8 fe "8 b 8 8 a ■J- tJ 8 3 5 P .- -a h 2 -5 o ei o _2 ex -;:; u3 n-^ - P5 '— '-C5 r- U ^ ,« o fcfi C3 ?: cti "^ S C rt (U •— -^ -S U-, 2 '^ (« -^ 6 ^ 4-1 (U -0 «r 13 rj •2 9J ^ rt ■i-> a. f 4-> 35 5 >-< '- 5 iJ f-o 2 -G i-H a^ (« — ■ t, •:t! "^ Xi O o .-^ b/ bfi d c o CI >h C L^ TJ >-. rt X r^ -a r\ OJ ^ c 0 c; C/3 c ^ '0 w ^ -i i: ^v^ oj oj lu ~ ■r' N «J c ji o ct; -5 -S o 0: CAJ bX) «> C ^ ■*-' r~^ <-M 0 c 0 .2 £ rt 's v-i U > C/Q C ,M p q T a D R. P R I E S T L E Y 137 15. The manner in which Ebion's opinion con- letter cerning the conception of our Lord is mentioned, in parenthefis, feems to exclude it from thofe prin- ciples, which he borrowed from other feclaries. Jf thofe other feilaries therefore were the Nazarenes, then this opinion, as it (hould fcem, was no princi- ciple with them ; and this paiTage, like mod of your quotations, contradids what you have brought it up to prove. 16. You will perhaps ohje£l, that if Epiphanius; meant to infinuate, that Ebion and the Nazarenes held different opinions about Chrift j he would not^ have named another thing as the fingle point in which they differed. Nor hath he done this. Hav- ing defcribed Ebion's dodrine as a compilation of the extravagancies of other feds, he fays, he dif- fered only in a fingle point. That is, there was but a fingle point in his whole fyftem, in which he differed fiom all the feds from which he borrowed : which was this, that his Judaifm was of the Sama- ritan cafl. But it follov/s not from this, that what- ever he maintained befides was to be found in the dodrines of the Nazarenes, or of any other in par- ticular of the various herefies of which the Ebio- naean was compofed. 17. But, to deal fmcerely, I mu(\ confefs, that it is not at all clear to me, that the Nazarenes are the fed intended, in the beginning of this fedion, under the defcription of Ebion's contemporaries, fron^ i3« LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER from whom he borrowed his principles. If they were not ; this fe<^ion will neither afford any proof of your opinion, nor be conclufive on the other fide. The perfons intended are not named, otherwife than by the pronoun rala'j : and for this pronoun, if you examine the original text, you will be much at a lofs to find an antecedent. This pronoun ufed as it is here, as a relative, is generally to be referred to the perfons mentioned iaft before in the author's dif- courfe. But in all the preceding part of this difcourfe about the Ebionites, the Nazarenes are no where mentioned, except in that fentence in which they are joined with the OfTaeans and the Nafaraeans, and at the very beginning of the chapter, where they are intended by this fame pronoun as the fecS: defcribed in the chapter next preceding. The perfons laft mentioned in the prefent difcourfe are the Jews and the Samaritans : and of thefe the pronoun tsJuv may be redditive. Ebion might be called their contem- porary, if he lived before the Jews intirely loft their confideration in the world, as a religious fedlj and while the Samaritans were yet fubfifting as a diftin£l fet of Judaifm. He fet out from the fame princi- ples with them, becaufe he maintained the perma- nent obligation of the ritual law. If this be the true expofition of the two firft claufes of this fedtion ; it is the purport of the parenthefis, which follows them, to remark, that Ebion, even in that part of his doc- trine wliich could not be borrowed either from Jews or Samaritans, carried his defire of accommodating to Jewith principles fuch a length, as to acknow- ietlge our Lord for nothing more tlian a preacher of richteoufnefs. TO DR. PRIESTLEY- 139 rl<^hteoufnefs. But this leads to no conclufion about letter. the faith of the Nazarenes. 18. I HAVE fometimes thought, that the pronoun thIxv might be redditive, not of the Nazarcnes fingly, but of all the feds which are mentioned in the pre- ceding part of the narrative, as furniftiing the con- itituent parts of Ebion's fyftem ; namely, of the Jews, the Samaritans, the Offaeans, the Nafaraeans, the Nazarenes, the Cerinthians, and the Carpocra- tians. With all tliefe, according to the confufed chronology of this inaccurate writer, Ebion, as a junior with an elder, was contemporary : and he fet out from the fame principles with them ; inafmuch as all his principles were borrowed, fome from one of thefe feits, fome from another ; the only thing which was peculiar to himfelf being this ; that the Judaifm, which he prailifed, was of the Samaritan caft. In this expofition of the pronoun %li}v, the importance of the parenthefis muft be to fignify, that the meer humanity of Chrifl: was made a principle by Ebion, although it was no principle with thofe from whom he borrowed. It was indeed a part of the Cerinthian dodlrine, not as a principle, but as a confequence from principles. The principles of the Cerinthian doctrine were the principles of the Ori- ental philofophy : and the denial of our Lord's di- vinity, and of his miraculous conception, in the fyftem of Cerinthus was a confequence of that car- dinal principle of the Oriental philofophy, which put eternal enmity between God and every thing Ciaterial. But with Ebion the denial of the mira- culous J4<> LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER culous Conception was- itfelf a lirft principle, inde- pendent of every thing elfe. In this view of it again the parenthefis leads to no conclufion concerning the Nazarenes. ig. Which expofition of the pronoun mliovis to be preferred, is a point upon which I can bring my- felf to no fixed opinion. I very much fufpe(St, as I have already obferved, fome confiderable corruption of the text. For, although Epiphanius is indeed a wretched writer, the obfcurity of this fentence, as it ftands, is more than meer bad writing is apt to create. But expound the pronoun as you pleafe the paflage will be either againft you, or at the beft nothing to your purpofe. 20. But in a fubfequent fentence, Epiphanius fpeaks, it feems, " of the Ebionites as inhabiting the " fame country as the Nazarenes j" and adds, " that *' agreeing together they communicated of their perverfe- *' 7iefs to each other." It is true, that in the paffage which you have produced Epiphanius fpeaks of the Ebionites as the near neighbours of certain Nazare- nes, and of a refemblance which the vicinity of fitu- ation produced. But the Nazarenes intended, were they the Chriftian Nazarenes, or the Nafaraean Jews ? I'hey are called " the lawlefs Nazarenes" [Na^apyoj ola.vo|xo^^. The Chriflian Nazarenes had nothing in their condudl, that might render them deferving of this epithet. Tlieir error was, that they feared to ufe their liberty, not that they abufed it. The Nafa- raean Jewsj as Jews, were lawlefs in a very emphatic fenfe; T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. i4x fenfe; inafmuch as they renounced the whole of thd letter r , Sixth. Mofaic law, except that they circumcifed, kept the Sabbath, and paid fome regard to the ftated feftivals. It was not, that they denied the authority of Mofcs j but, by what may be gathered from Epiphanius's ac- count of them, they pretended that the real laws of Mofes were loft, and that the Pentateuch of the Jews was, in all but the hiftorical parts, a fpurious work.*. Upon thefe principles they held thcmfelves releafed from ail rites, but thofe which the hiftory itfelf con- firmed. This fe6l was found chiefly in the region of Bafanitis : and in a town called Cochaba, in the fame region, Epiphanius places the original refidence of Ebion. Thefe Nazaraeans therefore were neighbours of the Ebionites, and they feem to be the people in- tended in this pafTage. 21. It may perhaps feem Arange, that any refem- blance fliould be pretended, between a Chriflan kc\: which adhered to the Mofaic law, and a Jewifli fe6l which rejei51:ed it. But the firfl Ebionites, if Epipha- nius is to be trufted in his defcription of them, retained nothing more of genuine Judaifm than the Nafarasans. Whatever more they had which looked like Judaifm, it was borrowed from the Samaritan fuperftition. • This conjefture, which I formed from Epiphanius's ac- count of this feft, I have fince foimd confirmed by Damaf- cenus ; who fays that they held the Pentateuch of the Jews to be a fpurious work, and pretended to have the original in their own hands. Taf 0£ Trji TTSilaleuxa y^acpa^ isK twai MuTtug ^oyfjuxli^aa-i^ a7\Xai h Tra^' aviag ^laQiQaiavra;. Joan. Damafcen. de Hasrcfibus. 22. But I4S LETTERS IN REPLY. LETTER 22. Bu T whoever thefe lawlefs Nazarenes might be, their agreement with the Ebionites, is an addition of your ovv'n, founded on a mifinterpretation of the original. Epiphanius anfwersfor nothing more than fome general refemblance. His words are to this ef- fect. " From hence he began to propagate his per- " nicious doctrine ; namely, from the fame parts *' which it hath before been faid thofe lawlefs Naza- " renes inhabited. For being contiguous, he to them, ^' and they to him, each imparted to the other of his •^^ own particular impiety. And yet in certain things ^'- they differ ; but in evil difpofition they were coun- " terparts one to the other*." What you took for agreement is contiguity of fituation ; and the refem- blance comes at laft to nothing more, than an unde- fined general refemblance, with fpecific differences^ An entire likenefs is not pretended in any circumf^ance but the common depravity of difpofition. 23. To thefe paflages from the chapter about the Ebionites you fubjoin another, from the 7 th feclionof the preceding chapter, which treats of the Nazarenes. " He fays, that they were Jews in all refpeds, except *' tliat they believed in Chrifl ; but I do not know, uihe- *' ther they hold the miraculous conception or not \.'* * EvSsv af%£7ai Tiij Hakn^ aula h'^aaHaT^ia^y o^tv o>jScj» iKstvoig Kai sittivoi riila^ tHoclB^og utto twj iaula /i40%S»f.eyoTJlaig iihvM, adi m aaln^og to (ratjuz tm apva/jLBVHCy tuv h ts vih ^solypia fA,n h^ovla;. Ecc. Theoh lib. I.e. 14. is T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. '^49 is the more probable, for the diflinftion which feems Letter to be made between thefeyZr// heraliU and Ecclcfiaftical Fathers^ who are afterwards mentioned. Strenuoufly as you affert the antiquity of the Ebionites, you have no-whcre, that I remember, alleged this tefti- mony. You were aware perhaps, that were it good for the antiquity of the itdi^ it would be equally good for the reafon and origin of the name. For my own part I am not inclined to avail myfelf of it. I confi- der it as a hafty aflertion of a writer over zealous to overwhelm his adverfary by authorities. I mention it only to proteft againft any ufe, which you may hereafter be difpofed to make of it, in a dearth of proof of Ebion's antiquity. Should you urge me with any part of this teftimony ; I fhall have a right to infift, that you accept the whole. Should you produce it in proof, that an Unitarian fe6l exifted in the apoftolic age ; you will be obliged to allow, that it is equally a proof that the Unitarian doflrine was exprefly condemned by the Apoftles. It will be no concern of mine to difprove the antiquity of Ebion, however I may difbelieve it, fo long as the very ground of his claim feals his condemnation ; fo long as his pretenfions to an early exigence rell: on a prefumption, that he had the honour to be the objedl of Apoftolical cenfure. 2. Upon the ftory of St. John and the hasrefiarch, in the public baths at Ephefus, I pafled judgement haftily, when I fpake of it as a foolilh ftory carrying altogether the air of fidion. I ought to have recol- L 3 leded, ti9 L E T T E R ^ I N R E P L Y LETTER lefted, that Irenseus * vouches flrongly for fo much of it as he relates. He even cites the teftimony of Polycarp, in terms which may be underftood to im- ply, that he was himfelf one of many, ftill Uving when he wrote, who had heard the ftory from the mouth of Polycarp. The teftimony of Irenasus is hardly to be diibelieved ; the teftimony of Polycarp is irrefiftible. But the ftory, which Irenasus relates after Polycarp, he relates of St. John and Cerinthus, It makes nothing therefore for the antiquity of Ebion. As related of him, with the addition of many impro- bable circumftances not mentioned by Irenaeus, it may be deemed a fiilionf. * Lib. iii. c. 3. ■\ Dr. Prieftley, in the third of his Second Letters to me, to corroborate the teftimony of Epiphanius, alleges that ot" Jerom; who, he fays, "mentions the Ebionites, not only as *' a fei5t, but a flourifhing feci in the time of St John." But Jerom makes no fuch mention of the Ebionites. He fays that St, John wrote his Gofpel in oppofition to Cerinthus, and other heretics, and principally the doftrine of the Ebionites (not then flourifhing but) tunc confurgenSy then making its iirft appearance. This I readily allow ; for what was after- wards the do6lrine of the Ebionites was firft propagated by the Ceriathian Gnoftics. LETTER T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. lix LEl'TER SEVENTH. Continuation of Reply to Dr. Pr'iejlle-fs Second. — Of the argwnent from Origen, — That it rejis on tiuo paffages in the books againfi Celfui. The firfi mif- interpreted by Dr. Prieflley in a very importaht point. No argument to be drawn from the tivo pajfages in connection. — Origen convitled of two falfe affertions in the firfi paffage. — The opinions of the firfi age not to be concluded from the opinions of Origen' s. Dear Sir, TN failure of all other proof of your fuppofed iden- LETTER •*■ tity of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, you ftill ap- Seventh. peal to the teftimony of Origen. You have how- ever given a new turn to this part of your argument. Your appeal was originally* to a pretended acknow- ledgement of Origen's, that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites were the fame people. But being made fenfiblef, how difficult it muft be to find an acknow- ledgement of this Identity, in a writer who never once names the Nazarenes ; you abandon that pro- je£l, and in the paffages which were at firft cited to eftablifli this fuppofed identity, you have at laft; the good fortune to difcover an immediate proof of your* * Hiftory of Corruption, Vol. I. p. 7. t See the Monthly Review for June 1783, and for Sep- tember 1783. L 4 mala S5S LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER main propofition, that the primitive faith of the He- brew Church was Unitarian. Your method is to trace from Origen the faith of the Jewifh Chriftians in his age, and from their faith to infer that of their anceftors. 2. The ftrength of this argument lies in two paf- fages in the books againft Celfus ; which are very diftant from each other, for the one is in the fecond, the other in the fifth book ; and yet they muft be taken in connection to give any colour to your reafon- ing. You fet it off indeed to great advantage, when, appealing to the firfl of thefe paflages, you fay, that it appears, and that I deny not that it appears, " that " the unbelieving Jews called all thofe of their race, '' who were Chriftians, by the name of Ebionites *' in the time of Origen ;" and that " Origen's own *' words are too exprefs, to admit any doubt of " this*." Truly, Sir, I was not likely to deny a groundlefs afTertion, before it was made by my anta- gonift i and you now make it for the firft time j at leafl: I remember nothing like it in your former pub- lications. I believe I was myfelf the firft to bring forward this pafTage from the fecond* book againfl Celfus. In your hiftory you have appealed to Ori- gen's acknowledgement of the identity of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, without any reference to particular pafTages. I produced this pafTage, as of all that I could recolletft the moft for your purpofef. I pro- duced it in order to Ihew, that when it is rightly un- * Letters to Dr. Horlley, p. i8. f Charge I. § 15. derfiood, T O D R. P R I E S T L E V. 153 derftood, it is nothing to your purpofe : for, altho' letter Seventh* the Chriftians of the circumcifion in general are in this pafTage called Ebionites j it is according to a pe- culiar definition of the word, which includes not what by other writers always, and by Origen him- felf in other places, is included in the notion of the Ebionaean doclrine ; namely, a denial of our Lord's divinity. The Nazarenes therefore might be Ebi- onites, in the fenfe which is here given to that word, altho' they doubted not our Lord's divinity, and were quite another fet of people than the proper Ebionites. 1 acknowledge therefore, that in this paflage, " Origen fays of the Jewifh Chriftians of *' his own time that they were Ebionites*." Thefe were my very words. But I fald not, that they were the unbelieving Jews, who impofed this name upon the converted : and now that you have been pleafed to fay it for me, I deny it ; and I maintain, that Ori- gen's words are too exprefs to admit a doubt, that you have miftaken his meaning. The entire paflage of Origen t is to this effed " they of the " Jews who believe in Chrift have not abandoned ** the law of their anceftors j for they live according ** to it 5 bearing a name, which correfponds with * Charge I. § 15, •praai tov Trc^piov vo^ov^ ^mcri yaf not aulov^ zTtuvuixoi rvz ya^ 0 ir7aj%oj Trapse IsJaioij xaXfi'/ai, Koi EStura:oi xpW^- li^HO-iv 01 axo I^^MUV TOV Iyi^hv wj Xpirov •7ra^aC'i!;ci{x£V0i. Origen in Celfum, p. 56. edit. Spencer. « the JSA- L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y ttTTER cc the poor expe£l;ations which the law holds out** Seventh. _ , • i, t , t " For a beggar is called among the Jews [that is in " the Hebrew language] Ebion. And they of the " Jews who have received Jefus as the Chrift, go *' by the name of Ebionjeans." The converted Jews went, it is faid, by this name. But where have you found that the unbelieving Jews impofed it? Not in Origen, Sir; but in the Latin tranfla- tion of Gelenius. Attend to the reafons affigned by Origen for the name, and you cannot but perceive, that it could never be impofed by Jews. It was given in contempt : the objects of the contempt were obfervers of the Mofaic law ; and the caufe of the contempt was the mean opinion, which was enter- tained by thofe who gave the name, of expcvftations built on legal righteoufnefs. Could thefe, Sir, be the fentiments of unconverted Jews ? 3. It would have been a circumftance of much advantage to your argument, which I doubt not you well underftand, that the unconverted Jews fliould have been the coiners of the name : becaufe it would have followed, that the name was originally common to the whole body of the Hebrew Chriflians. Then fince Origen, in the other pafTage in the 5th book, makes, as you obferve, only two forts of Ebionites, the one believing, the other denying the miraculous conception ; the deduction might have feemed not unfair, that Origen knew of no Hebrew Chriftians that were not Unitarians. * Literally, bang named after the poverty oj the laiu in expefiation. 4. You T O D R. P R I £ S T L E V. 155 4. You will fay, perhaps, that fince we have Ori- letter gen's teftimony for the univerfality of the name, the argument from the two paflages, taken in connection, may ftill proceed. If I could admit the univerfality of the name upon Origen's teftimony; I fliould infifl that his defcription of the twofold Ebionites, in the fifth book, is not exadly what you take it to be. I fliould remark, that the words, b/xowg yifji,tv, " in like " manner as we do," make an important branch of the chara£ler of the milder fort " thefe, *' fays he, are the double Ebionites ; who either con- " fefs Jefus born of a virgin, hi like tnanner as we do, " or think he was not born in that manner, but " like other men*.'* I ibould maintain, that the words " in like manner as we do," are equivalent to the words " as the truth is," in Epiphanius's de- fcription of that belief in the miraculous conception, which he fays the Nazarenes, for aught he knew to the contrary, might holdj and I fliould contend, that Origen affirms, but with lefs equivocation, of thefe better Ebionites, what Epiphanius reludantly confefl*es of the Nazarenes, that they held the Catho- lic doctrine concerning the nature of our Lord. And in this manner the words of Origen feem to have * Erwtray Je tiv^ ««) tov Inanv aTTO^iyjiyiivoi^ ug Tra^x thIq Xpirtavoi slvoci ay%8',/75f, hi h xccla tov I«5ai.r]?Jis. f Dominu? fullinuit pati pro anima noftra, cum fit orbis terrarum dominus, cui dixit die ante conftitutionem fasciili " Faciamus horainem ad imaginera et funilitudineni nof- *■' tram." ^ v. « and T O D R. PRIESTLEY ,67 " and is the work of his hands, are unable to look letter " diredly againft its rays .*" Compare Deut. xviii. ^''-"i"' 16. Exod. xxxiii. 20. Judges vi. 23. and xiii. H. Again " if then the Son of God, being Lord, " and being to judge the quick and dead, fuffered " to the end tliat his wound might make us alive ; " let us believe that the Son of God had no power *' to fuffer, had it not been. for usf." And again, *' Mean while thou haft [the whole doflrine] con- " cerning the majefty of Chrift ; how all things were " made for him and through him ; to whom be ho- " nour, power, and glory, now and for ever J." He who penned thefe fentences was furcly a devout beHever in our Lord's divinity. It is needlefs to obferve, that he was a Chriftian; and almoftas need- lefs to obferve, that he had been a Jew. For in that age none but a perfon bred in Judaifm could poflefs that minute knowledge of the Jewilh rites, which is difplayed in this book. In the writer therefore of the EpiAIe of St. Barnabas, we have oneinftance of a Hebrew Chriftian of the Apoftolic age, who he]}e .-td in our Lord's divinity^ ^^£'7rov7EJ aJJoVj hit rov fAthhovla ixn elvai riXiov, e^yov xfi^ay aula VTrosfxiorla, ax Icrxo^iiTiv Big aKlivag uvlo(pBa>.fjLYif nature, viz. the revolution of opinions *' in great bodies of men. Can it then be thought " probable, that the generality either of Jewifh or *' Gentile Chriftians, or both confidered as one *' body, the 01 tt^ei-o;, Ihould have abandoned the " doctrine of our Lord's divinity X }^ the time of " Juftin Martyr §." Certainlynot. The words therefore, k^ av o< cr^firot laJla fxzi ^o^aaavls; eIttoisv could not be intended to convey the fenfe, which * Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 17, t Eu(eb. Ecc. Hift. lib. 3. c. 32. X Dr. Prieftley's words are theftfnple humanity of Chrljl, % Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. iS, 19. you J74 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER you and your vindicator would impofe upon them. On the contrary they muft be underftood as an afler- tion, or at leaft as an infinuation, that the opinion of our Lord's meer humanity was generally con- demned. ' 7. I once thought to have entered minutely into every part of the argument, which you and your vin- dicator have framed from this pafiageof Juflin. But I find myfelf excufed from that tafk by your candid acknowledgement, in the fixth article of your poft- fcript, that you are influenced in your conftrudion of this paflage by your own particular opinions ; " and that another perfon having a different per- *' fuafion concerning the flate of opinions in that *' age, will naturally be inclined to put a different " conflruclion upon it*." A paffage, which may bear one or another conflrudlion, according to the previous perfuafions of the reader, can be of lit- tle avail on either fide. You are welcome to all the proof of that fort, which you will take the trouble to amafs. You feem, Sir, not infenfible of its in- fignificance. Perceiving at laft, that the exprelTions of Juflin, when you have made the mofl: of thera, are but ambiguous, you are inclined to lay but lit- tle flrefs upon the paiTage. You refume the confide- ration of it, with a declaration that you are not " folli- *' citious about trifles f." I mufl remark however, that exprefTions, which in themfelves might be very ambiguous, may receive a definite fenfe from the * Letters to Dr. H. p. 130, t Ibid, p, 127, known T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. , i-^ known hidory of the writer's times. This is the letter. cafe in this paflage of Juftin. His words, confidered by themfch'es, are ambiguous : but connected with the opinions of the writer and of his age, they afford a xiecifive teftimony aguinft you. 8. But you think, if Juftin Martyr and Hegefip- pMv t^ottov is diftributive; introducing, not the mention of any new fe6l, but a fpecific enumeration of the fe£ls which had been already mentioned, under the general de- fcription of " thofe who taught men to fay and to do " many impious and blafphemous things." But the force of the objedion, which my learned ally hath brought againft your argument, depends not on the exact fenfe of this phrafe. It is fufficient for our purpofe, that a blafphemy of Chrifl, by denying his divinity, and refufing to honour him with divine worfhip, is a part of Juflin's defcription of the here- fies to which he alludes. Whence it is manifeft, that his refledtions allude to other heretics befide the Gnoftics i unlefs indeed you will choofe to fay, that feme of the Gnoftics had a principal {hare in this Unitarian blafphemy : which, if you fhould affirm, you will in me have no antagonift. It is indeed my opinion, that the Cerinthian Gnoftics were the firft who denied the divinity of our Lprd. Cerinthus was much earlier than Ebion ; and Ebion, in his notions of the redeemer, feems to have been a meer Cerinthian. But if you concur with me in thefe opinions, it is little to your purpofe to infift, that Juftin Martyr's refle6\ions are levelled only at the Gnofiics ; fince in the Gnoftics, according to this view of their opinions, he cenfures the Unitarians. If you deny, that our Lord's meer humanity was a dodrine maintained by any branch of the Gnoftics, ft ill Juftin exprefsly cenfures the Unitarians, if the N 4 Ebionites j84 letters inreply LETTER Ebionites are not mentioned by name, are you fure Tenth. .,11 u r - . , -, they are not mcludea among the laT^y^oi aXKco ovoimocti] " others of various denominations," thus generally mentioned after an enumeration of the principal Gnof- tic feds. The Ebionaean herefy was at this time in its infancy, and probably too inconfiderable to deferve particular notice. 6. Such, Sir, is your apology for your omifTion, and fuch is your defence of your argument. After this apology, and after this defence, comes in your ap- pendix a flat denial of the omiflions, for which you have apologized. A friend has told you, that the paflage of Juftin is entire, and in its proper place in your letters to me, page 31 *. It is true, Sir, the paflage is entire in the Greek in the margin of your book. But has your friend told you, that it is entire in your tranilation ? My learned ally complains, and indeed. Sir, with too much reafon, that you write for the unlearned. The entire paflage, as long as it appears not in your tranflation, lay innocently enough in the Greek at the bottom of your page. 7. To your argument from the Apoflle's creed, as recited by Teriullian f, it might. Sir, be a fuffi- cient reply, that Jefus Chrift is mentioned in it as the Son of God ; a title whic-h, in the fenfc in which it was conflantly expounded and underflood, rebro- bates the Unitarian herefy. But my learned ally refers you X to another creed, produced by Ter- * Appendix to Remarks. t Letters to Dr. Horlley. p, 47. 28. J Iv-Iontlily Review for January 17S4. p. 60. tullian T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. i8S tullian in the book, De Pr^criptionc, b\: m which \YJrl^ the divinity of Chrift is more explicitly aflcrtcd. This you fay is not fimply a creed, but an expolition of the creed *, and " expreffes no more than l^er- « tuUian's own faith f." Tertullian himfelf, Sir, « was of another opinion. He calls this expofition « a rule of faith appointed by Chrift, He fays, it « exprefled the general faith, which was difputed <* by none but heretics." After this, Sir, will you fay, that " Tertullian did not confider Unitarians as « excluded from the name and affcmblies of Chrif- « tiansj." S. Clemens Alexandrinus, who makes frequent mention of heretics, hath been very filent, you think, about the Ebionites. Hence, you feem defirous to infer, that Clemens thought them not heretical. <' Almoft the whole," thefe are your words, " Almoft " the whole of his feventh book of Stromata relate « to that fubjea [herefies]. He mentions fourteen « different herefiarchs by name, and ten herefies by « charaaer: but none of them bear any relation « to the Ebionites or any fpecies of Unitarians §." Indeed, Sir, it was not without reafon, that I com- plained, in my former publication, of the peculia- rities of your ftyle. I hope, that the great work which you are preparing upon the fubjea of our pre- fcnt controverfy, will be accompanied with a glof- fary, to explain the words of the EngliOi language, * Remarks, Sec. p. iS. + Ibid. p. 21. X Letters to Dr. H. p. 27- ^ Letters to Dr. llorflfv, p. 118. upon iS«? LETTERSIN REPLY I'ETTER upon which you (hall be pleafed to impofe new fen- fes : and that in particular you will not omit to in^ form your readers, how much of a thing may be meant by the whole in your new phrafeology. 9. I FIND, Sir, by the beft computation I can form upon a fingle example, which I am fenfible muft be liable to great inaccuracies, I fpeak therefore under the corre61:ion of your authoritative decifign — but by the beft computation I can form, the whole may be anjr part of a thing not lefs than a forty-eighth. I beg your pardon — I had written this, when turning back to the errata, at the beginning of your book, I there find, that you have been yourfelf very properly fliocked at the extravagant hyperbolifm of your own expreffions ; and for the words ahnojl the zvhole-y you advife the reader to fubftitute thefe, a greed part. Sir, a relucSlant and imperfecl retra6lation is more un- feemly than the firft error, be it ever fo enormous. If you would not be thought to impofe upon your reader's ignorance, or to prefume upon his inatten- tion, you muft corredt again ; and for a great bid him read a very little part. , The feventh book of the Stro?nata, in Sylburgius's edition, which I ufe as moft convenient for my prefent purpofe, becaufe the pages, not encumbered .with notes, all contain equal quantities of text . in this edition the feventh book, Greek and Latin, fills 48 pages. The ge- neral fubje'it of the book is the excellence of Chriftian Knowledge in preference to Philofophy. This ar- gument rills more than 38 pages of the 48, that is, more TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 187 more than three-fourths of the whole book, without letter TZNTR- any mention of heretics. Then the author anlwers an objection to the certainty of Chriftian knowledge, taken from the differences of opinion that fubfifted among the different fedls. This introduces a ge- neral inventive againfl heretics, and a diffuafive of herefy, drawn from general topics, not from the enormities of particular feds ; which fills eight pages more. The diffuafive of herefy leads to an argument for the authority of the Church upon the footing of antiquity : and this introduces the names of fome re- markable herefles, which are mentioned for no other purpofe, but to fliew that the very denominations, which they bore, argued a late origin, fingularity of opinion, and feparation from a more antient fociety. This lift, with nriany interfperfed remarks upon the origin of each fe6l, and aflertions of the unity of the true church, fills perhaps three-fourths of one of the two remaining pages of the book : for the laft page is taken up with a whimfical explanation of the Levi- tical marks of clean and unclean beafts ; which arc fuppofed to be types of the good and bad qualities of true Chriftians and of heretics. Thus it appears that that great part of the feventh book of the Stro- mata^ which you had well nigh miftaken for the whole, is fomewhat lefs than one part in forty-eight. 10. But the Ebionites have no place in that long Jift of heretics, which occupies almoft the whole, or, to fpeak more accurately, a great part, or, to fpeak exadtly, almoft a forty- eighth part of the feventh book of i&S LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER of the Stromata^. I think, indeed they have not. Tenth. . , "^ unlefs they be included, which I fufpe61 may be the cafe, among the Peratic heretics. But I will grant that they are omitted. Is it, Sir, a confequence, that Clemens thought their opinions indifferent ? I cannot fee the neceffity of this conclufion, unlefs in- deed it had been of importance to the argument of Clemens, that he fhould make an exa6l enumeration of all the feds, which he deemed heretical. But this ^vas not the cafe. A few inftances fufficed for the illuftration of his reafoning ; and thefe, in a difcuffion with Greek philofophers, he would naturally feledt from thofe herefies, which, for fomething of fubtlety and refinement in their do£trine, were the moft likely to have attracted the notice of the Gentiles. A fcvSl:, which lived in obfcurity in the North of Galilee, of no confideration for number, learning, or abilities, v/as likely to be the laft that he would mention. 11. It is another circumftance which you urge. Sir, in favour of the early Unitarians, that it is con- feiTed by Jerom, that the Ebionites w^re anathe- matized, not for their Unitarian opinions, but for their rigid adherence to the Mofaic lawf propter hoc Jolwyi a patribus anatheyiiatizoli funtj q^uod leg'is earimonlas ChriJIi evangelio mifcuerunt. 12. I Shall frankly confefs. Sir, that if nothing more were known either of the Ebionites or Cerin- * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. ii8. f Letters to Dr. Horfley, p, 34. thlans. T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. i«9 thians, from ccclefiiftical hirtory, than wliat might be gathered from this fentence of Jerom ; I fhould be apt to conclude, that the fingle error of either fe£t was this ; that they judaifed. The words however are ca- pable of another meaning ; namely, that the Judaic fuperfcition was a thing fo criminal in the judgement of the primitive Chriftians, as to conftitute by itfclf one very fufficient reafon for the excommunication of the feels, which were addidled to it. For it is to be ob- ferved, that the Ebionites are coupled in this paffage with theCerinthians. It is faid of both, that " for " this fingle thing they were anathematized, that they " mixed the ceremonies of the law, with the gofpel " of Chrift." This being faid of both without dif- tindlion, muft be faid of either in fome fenfe in which it may be true of both : and if it acquit the Ebionites of herefy, except in the fingle article of their Judaifm, it equally acquits the Cerinthians. If it be to be con- cluded from thefe exprefTions of Jerom, that to deny our Lord's divinity was no herefy in the Ebionites; it is equally to be concluded from thefe fame expref- fions, that to deny that God was the creator of the univerfe, was no herefy in the Cerinthians. If this paffage of Jerom be no teftimony in favour of the Ce- rinthian do6lrine about the creation ; it is no tefti- mony in favour of the Ebionsean doclrine about our Lord. It is lame and defedive, like every other tefti- mony which you have produced to the fame purpofe ; and your opinion, that the Primitive Unitarians were not confidcred as heretics, I mufi; ftill. Sir, in defiance of LETTER. Tenth. >9^ LfetTERS IN REPLY LETTER of all your teftimonies, take the liberty to place among the extravagant afiertions of Daniel Zuickerj of which Simon Epifcopius was the charitable but infufficient advocate. I am, Sic. P. S. You are pleafed, Sir, to fay in the conclu- flon of your third Letter, that the Unitarian do6trine, even in its mod obnoxious form, exifted in the very time of the Apoftles. I deny that the Unitarian doc- trine exifted at that time in the moft obnoxious form. Produce your indifputable evidence. Obferve that by the moft obnoxious form, I imderftand that form, which excludes the worfhip of Chrift. N. B. In anfwer to Dr. Prieftley's argument from the writings of Irenaeus in particular, iee the Third of the Supplemental Difquifitions. LETTER TO DR. PRIESTLEY. LETTER ELEVENTH. In reply to Dr. Prulilefs fourth^ in which he defends his argument from a pajfuge in Athanafius. — The jenfeofthe zvords ailnz sjMyoi; mi/iaken by Dr. Prie/l- ley — The fetife of the tuord (Tuvsaig miflaken by Dr, Priejlley — Prudence and Caution not fynonymous — The tnatter offaSf, as reprefentcd by Athanafius^ mif- taken by Dr. Priejlley — Mis grammatical argument refuted. — That Athanafius fpcaks of unconverted Jews proved from a comparifon of the two claufcs in which Jews are mentioned. — The Gentiles not un- interejled in quejlions about the Mefiah. — Of defe~ rence to authorities. 191 A Dear Sir, SUPPOSED teftimony of Athanafius made a LETTER principal branch of your original proof, that the xi. faith of the firft Chriftians was Unitarian j and this, with other principal branches of your proof, found a place among my fpecimens of your evidence, of which it was the third in order. For this teftimony of Atha- nafius, you refer your reader to Athanafius 's defence of the Alexandrine Dionyfius, where you think you find a confelTion of two very important circumfrances; that the Apoftles ufed great caution in divulging the do£lrine of the proper divinity of Chrift ; and that the occafion of this caution was the prevalency of a con- trary perfuafion among the firft Hebrew Chriftians. 2. In oppofttion to this, I took upon me to aflure the reverend aflembly which I had the honour to ad- drefs, J9S LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER drefs, that no mention of the caution of the Apoftles, or of the heterodoxy of the firft Jewifh Chriftians, is to be found in the defence of Dionyfius — I believe I might have added, in any part of the writings of Atha- nafius. 3. You have now, Sir, in your fourth letter, pro- duced the paflage, from the defence of Dionyfius, in which you conceive that thefe important fecrets are betrayed. This paiTage, you fay, you " only abridged "■ before*." (lam forry, Sir, to remind you, that the manner in which your abridgments are managed, has appear^ in other inftances). You abridged it before, but novVyqu " give a larger portion of it at " full length :" not the whole, by your ownconfef- flon y " for the whole is much too long to tranfcribe.'* Pardon me. Sir, if I add, that the whole, were it tranfcribed, would juflify the fummary which I have given of it in my Charge : it would prove, that the example of the Apoftles is alleged for the purpofe vvhich I aflign, and in the manner which I mention : it would prove therefore that this " larger portion," which you have given " at full length," is nothing to your purpofe. But to bring the matter to a fliort i{Iue, I will fet the general fcope of the difcourfe quite out of the queftion. I will take the particular portion, which you have produced, by itfelf, as you defire it fliould be taken : and I will flievv, that even thus taken it will give no fupport to your aflertions, without a fin- gularconftrudion of certain words and phrafes, which caimot be admitted. * Letters to Dr. H, p. 39. 4. The TO DR. PRIESTLEY »93 4. The ApofHes, it is faid, fpake of Chrift as a LETTER man ; a man of Nazareth ; a man obnoxious to fuf- ferings. Was it that the Apoilles were in the fenti- ments of Arius ? No fuch thing. " But this they.did, " as wife maftcr-builders and Rewards of the myf- *' terics of God ; and they had this fpecious pretence " for it *." Stop, Sir, a moment. What do I hear ? A fpecious pretence for it ! For what ? Fordoing as wife mafter-buildersand ftewardsof the myfteries of God. Are fpecious pretences needed then for wife conducl ? Or were the Apoftlesmen to make pretences r Surely this is the language of Dr. Prieftley, not of Athanafms. He thought more re- verently of the Apofdes. Let him fpeak for himfelf. Kaj Tnv afliav sx^o'iv hxoyov. Is pretence the fenfe of ailia ? The true Greek word for pretence is tt^oPxtis, And even had this word been ufed, the adje6live soxoyoi would have carried it away from that bafe meaning, which is infeparable from the Englifh words fpecious pretence. For IvKoyo^ is not fpecious in the Englifh fenfe. It may be applied to any thing in qua fpccies cernitur honejii ; but it is not meer feeming. Had Athanafius meant to fay, that the Apoftles had a fpecious pretence only for their condu<51:, the adjedlive muft have been m^avoq. He muft have faid, km Tr^oipocj-iv Tivot iT/fiv TriSavnj'. Or, «ai hh. aTTi^avoy Tiva k(Tx,09 5. The word ailia hath two principal fenfes; a philofophical and a popular. Either of the two may fuit this place. Amongft the philofophers it fignifies »" Letters to Dr. H. p. 39. O a caufe, T9t LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER a caufe, hi any one of the four kinds of caufes j the material, the efficient, the formal, or the final. Hence it comes to fignify a motive, motives being final caufes confidered in their relation to the mind of a rational agent. Thus Plato, fpeaking of the Creator's motive for a particular arrangement of the heavenly bodies, ra ^ a?.^a,, ol ^/i aa) ol aj 'AITL'\2 l^fua-ctloj siTig stts^ioi -Tracraiy Scc. in Timao. Again, Jia oV) Tvjy AITIAN xai tov >^oyio-fjt.ov rovh h oXov H aTTocvlav ETSTilYivaTo. in Titnao. A motive may be either good or bad, but kilia sVKoyoi can be only good. It mufl: be a wife and honourable motive j or, in plain Englifli, a good reafon. 6. Ai7ja, in the rhetorical or popular fenfe, anfwers to the Englifh word caufe in its forenfic meaning. It fignifies an adlion or fuit at law, or a criminal in- didment. In this fenfe ailia lv?.oyoi is a caufe fairly defenfible, upon a juft and honourable plea. I am inclined to prefer this fenfe of the word in this place, becaufe the verb Ixao-j is in the prefent time, when the preceding and the following are in the paft. '' If " the conduit of the apoftles lliould be at any time " queftioned, they have a fair and fubftantial plea." This may ftill be exprefled in Englifh by a gocd reafon. This therefore is the proper Englifli phrafe to convey the holy father's meaning, whether culict, be taken in its philofophical or in its popular ieniQ. 7. Now, Sir, if for fpecious pretence you will b« pleafed to fubflitute good reafon^ you will find that tills TO DR. PRIESTLEY. «9S tliis paflagc, even in your own tranflatlon, will af- letter ford no ground for the inferences you would build upon it. Athanafius proceeds to fliew what this good reafon was ; and he commends the great faga- city, which was difplayed in the condudl of the apoftles. 8. The deficiencies of your tranflation, I muft however confefs, are abundantly compenfated in your comment. " I now have produced the paf- *' fage, you fay, and have pointed out a word, viz. " c7yv£3-K, which, in the connexion in which it (lands " can bear no other fenfe than caution, and great " caution ; (wsla; 'rroyo.r.g cunaso^^ *." Sir, may I afk in what lexicon (you muft excufe me if I fuf- pe£l that you are ufed to take the fenfes of Greek words from ordinary lexicons) in what lexicon, good or bad, have you found that awsa-K;^ in any con- nection may (land for caution ? It is literally tha meeting or coming together of di(ferent things ; and applied to the mind, it is properly that faculty, or that act of the mind, by which it brings things together, and compares them, and forms a ready judgment of fitne(res and difcongruities. It is ex- pounded by the antient Greek lexicographers, who beft underftood their own language, to be the *' knowledge of comparables and incomparables ; *' or a ready following of the mind quickly bring- " ing together the notions of things, readily difco- * Letters to Dr, H. p. 45, O 2 *' verins j^S L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y LETTER « vering what is proper and beieeming to each*." Plato fays more concifely, awisvai means that the mind goes along with things f. Sagacity is the Eng- li(h word, which moil: nearly renders the fame idea. Prudence^ the word which you have ufed in your tranflation, may be born, but the idea, which it eives, is rather fimilar than the fame. You have fhewn, you fay, " from the whole tenor of the " difcourfe, that Athanafius could have intended " nothing elfe than to defcribe their prudence, or *' extreme caution J." Prudence^ or extreme cau- tion ! Do you really think, Sir, that prudence and caution in the Englilh language are fynonymous ? If that be your opinion, I muft beg that one or both of thefe words may go into the gloffary ||, and be declared equivalent. Caution is indeed fometimes ufed abufively for difcretion : but in its proper fenfe it carries with it the notion of fome difhoneft art : and caution, in a teacher or difputant, always de- notes an artful provifion by fome diftioneft referve for the fuccefs of do£lrine or of argument. In the prefent cafe, if you ufe the word without affixing to it the notion of concealment, it will not ferve your purpofe. But nothing of concealment is im- plied In the Greek word. Athanafius extolls the fagacity of the Apoftles; their caution he never mentions. 9. Still you will infift that he defcrlbes the thing, though he may not have called it by its pro- * See Phavorinus. ^ In Cratylo. t Lf-tters to Df. H. p- 4>. 11 See p. 185. per T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 197 per name. " He evidently, ycu fay, does not re- letter. *' prefent them as deferring the communication of " the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift, on account *' of its being more conveniently taught afterwards, " as part of a fyftem of faith ; but only left it " fliould have given offence to the Jews * ." I cannot read this fentence without anonifliment, when I turn back to the quotation, and find that you have fairly produced the pafiage, in which Athanafius, in your own tranllation as well as in the original, affirms that what related to our Lord's humanity •was taught firj}^ for no other reafon, but that the doctrine of his divinity might be taught afterwards with more effe£t. The defire of inftrudling the Jews, not the fear of offending them, was the mo- tive with the Apoftles for propounding firft what was the eafieft to be iinderftood, and the moft likely to be admitted. 10. But whatever the motive may have been with the Apoftles, for their conduft, you infift that the fact was, that the dodtrine of the Trinity was not divulged by them : and of this you think you find a proof in this paflage of Athanafius : in which you think it is confefled, that the Apoftles in the opening of their miniftry were very referved upon this article ; and you obferve, and I think not im- properly, that the reafons for that referve (if they ever fubfified) would operate till within a fliort time of the difperfion and death of the Apoftles. Whence ^ Letters to Dr. H. p. 45. O 3 you ijS LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER you conclude, that if ever they divulged this doc- trine, it muft have been at fo late a period, that the church, in confequence of their former filence upon the fubjeft:, mull have been fixed in the contrary perfuafion *. II. But what if the foundation of this whole argument fhould be rotten. What if the whole fhould be built on a mifinterpretation of Athanafius. Athanafius affirms not, that the Apoftles, in any period of their miniftry, kept the do6lrine of our Lord's divinity a fecret : or that they were referved upon this or any article of faith, with thofe who were fo far converted as to be catechumens. In their firft public fermons, addreffed to the unbelieving multitude, they were content to maintain, that Je- fus, whom the Jews had crucified, was rifen from the dead ; without touching his divinity otherwife than in remote allufions. But to fuppofe that they carried their converts no greater length, is to fup- pofe that their private inftrudion was not more par- ticular than their public. For this you will find little fupport in Athanafius ; or in Chryfofcom ; who is called upon to corroborate the argument from the conceflions of Athanafius. 12. But whatever the doclrine of the Apofiles might be, or whatever opinion Athanafius, or Chry- fofiom, might entertain concerning it; Athanafius, it feems, acknowledges that the firft Jewifh Chrif- * Letters to Dr. H. p, 42 44. tians T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. '^"^ tians were Unitarians. Oj role Ih^moi, « The Jews LETTER " of that time," or, " The then Jews," is the name, by which the perfons are defcribed, who are faid to have holden the erroneous belief of the mecr humanity of the Meffiali. Now, Sir, if " The " then Jews," 0< toIb lad'^xtoi, may denote Jewifli Chriftians ; will you be pleafed to inform me, what more precife expreflions the holy father might have found in the whole compafs of the Greek language, to denote genuine Jewifli Jews, had he had occafion to mention them ? But the verbs, ic feems " in *' that part of the pafTage which mentions- C7;?-//? *' bei}2g come of the feed of David, and the word be- " ing made fiejh, are not in tht future tenfe*.^' In this remark, Sir, I cannot but admire the fingular caution of the expreffion. " The verbs are not " in the future tenfe." It is true, they are not. But the moil important of thefe verbs, in that part of the pafTage which mentions the Mefliah's com- ing, although it be not in the future form, carries a future fignification. It is in the infinitive mood of the prefent tenfe ; which often denotes an inftant futurity, but never denotes time either long fince, or jufl now, part. This obtains in all the G^'eek verbs, but particularly in the verb ip^o/xai; which, not only by ufe, but naturally involves a notion of futurity even in the prefent tenfe. Evo^i^ov rov Xf iro> ■vI'iAov ai/SpojTroi/ fjiovov h^^^at. " They thought " the ChriPc was a-coming as a meer man only." This expreffion refers to the Meffiah not as come, * Letters to Dr. H. p. 42. O 4 but ry» LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER but as coming. Another verb, I confefs, which relates to the incarnation of the V/ord, is in a pre- terite tenfe. «?"£ on Aoyoj a-ap^ bjevsIo STTirsyov. " Nei- " ther believed they, that the word was made flefh.'* 0 >.oyci crai^'i kymio^ " the word Vv^as made flefli," thefe are the words in which St. John mentions the incarnation. The holy father, it is likely, chofe to ufe the very words of the evangelift in fpeaking of this myflery ; and for that reafon, he may have fa- crificed fomewhat of the accuracy of his fyntax to the exailnefs of his quotation. The paflage ihould be printed thus, ah *' on o hoyog cra^^ syevilo" ztci- rsuov. In this grammatical argument your prudence appears, not only in the very guarded expreffions, in which you have ftated it ; but in the declaration, with which it is prefaced, that you defire to lay no great ftrefs upon it. What you have refped to in this pafiage " is the obvious general tenour.and fpi- *' rit of it*." Indeed, Sir, you would do well to be cautious, upon all occafions, how you handle thele briars of criticifm. Let us return then to the general tenour of the paflage. 13. You know, Sir, that Jews are twice men- tioned in it. " The Jews of that age being de- *' ceived themfelves, and hjiving deceived the Gen- " tiles." And again, " the blefled apoffles '' taught what related to the humanity of our " Saviour to the Jews." Is it your opinion, Sir, that they are the fame or different perfons, who are * Letters to Dr. H, p. 42. mentioned TO DR. PRIESTLEY. xot XI. mentioned under the name of Jews, in thefe two letter different claufes ? If they are different perfons, I defire to know, what circumftance or note of dif- ference you find in the author's expreffions ? If you find none, on what is your opinion of a difference founded ? Or not to entangle you again in gram- matical difquifitions, I will for a moment fuppofe the perfons different, and defire you to fhew me, what will then be the fenfe or coherence of the wri- ter's argument. If you allow that the fame perfons are defigned in both places under the fame name ; I mufl: defire you to remark, that the Jews, men- tioned in the fecond inftance, were perfons who were ** at any rate to be perfwaded [at any rate^ that is *' the force of &>.cjj, which you have erroneoufly ** rendered by the vior A. fully) at any rate to be per- *' fuaded, from the adtual fiate of things, and from ** the evidence of the miracles which had been " wrought, that the Chrifi: was come*." Could thefe. Sir, be converted Jews ? Could they be al- ready Chriftians, in whom this general perfuafion, *' that the Chrift was come," was yet to be wrought ? Wanting this perfuafion they were clearly Jews, whofe converfion was not yet begun : and of the fame defcription, fince they were indeed the very fame perfons, were the Jews, to whom it is im- puted, that they held the erroneous belief of the Meffiah's meer humanity, and that they fpread the like error among the Gentiles. * \va 0^0)5 TTSio-avlei aula; In ray (paiVOfjismv tea) yeio- 14. But toj, LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER. 14. But the Gentiles, you fay, who were thus mifledde, muft have been Chriftian Gentiles ; and by confequence the Jews, who milled them, were Jewifh Chriftians *. But, Sir, whence is the certainty that Chriftian Gentiles were intended by Athanafius ? It hangs upon this principle, that to any other Gentiles the whole doctrine of a Meffiah muft have been un- intereftingf. Have you forgotten. Sir, have you never known, or would you deny, what is not denied by candid Infidels, that the expectation of a great de- liverer or benefactor of mankind was univerfal even in the Gentile world, about the time of our Lord's ap- pearance ? If you acknowledge this, where is the im- probability;, that the general opitiion concerning this perfonage fliould be modified by the opinions which prevailed in Judasa- which v^as the center of the tra- dition ? Efpecially when it is confidered, that the Pro- felytes of the gate made an eafy channel of commu- nication between the Jews and the idolatrous Gentiles. But whatever you may be difpofed to grant, or to deny ; this argument is eafily inverted, and turned againft vou. It hatli been (hewn, that none but Jew Jews can be intended by Athanafius, when he fpeaks of the Jews as mifleaders of the Gentiles. They were Gentile Gentiles therefore who were mifledde: for from unbelievino; Tews Chriftians of the Gentiles would hardly take inftruCtion. 15. Your laft refource is to flee for fhelter to the authority of Beaufobre. " The learned BeaufobrCs *> Letters to Dr. Horfley, p, 41. \ Ibid. *• a Tri-. T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 303 *' a Trinitarian, and therefore an unexceptionable letter *' judge in this cafe, quoting this very paflage does not " hefitate to pronounce, that they were believing " Jews,, who were intended by the writer*." It is for you, Sir, to judge, what deference is due from you to the authority of Beaufobre. For my own part — I fliall not affe6l a modefty, which I feel not — when the fenfe of a G reek fentence is the thing in queftion, if I have the writer upon my own flielf, or can find him upon my friend's, it is not much my pradice to fiand bowing at a dillance to authorities j unlefs indeed it be the authority of a Cafaubon, a Scaliger, or a Bentley. But thefe men would laugh, or they would frorm, at your attempts to ccnftrue Greek, with Beaufobre at your elbow. To conftrue Greek ! I fear, Sir, they would think but lightly of your Latin erudition, after the fpecimen which you have given of it, in your attempt to wrefl: from my learned ally his ftrong argument for the difference, which we aflert, in articles of faith between the Naza- renes and the Ebionites. Tlie feats of criticifm, which you have performed for this purpofe upon cer- tain plain words of Jeromf, to draw them from the only meaning of which they are capable, had you been a WeftminAer man, were enough to bring old Bulby from his grave. But alas. Sir, you are not to be per- fuaded though one fhould rife from tlie dead. I trurt: our readers are perfuaded, that the argument from * Letters to Dr. H. p. 42, •\ Ibid. p. 152. 156, Athanafius} 2o4 LETTERS IN REPLY lETTER Athanafius* was with great juftice and propriety placed among my fpecimens of infufficient proof. I am, &c. I,ETTER XII. LETTER TWELFTH. In reply to Dr, Prlejilefs Fifth ; m ivhich he moves certain chronological difficulties. — Hi?nfelf chiefly concerned to find the foliition — His qiiejiion divided—^ The divinity of our Lord, preached from the very he-' ginning by the Jpojlles. — St. Stephen a martyr to this do£lrine. His dying ejaculations jujlify the zvorjhip of Chriji. — Chri/i deified in the Jiory of St. Paul's converfion. — The divinity of "Jefus ac- knoivledged by the Jpojlles from the time when they acknowledged him for the Mefiiah. — Notions of a Trinity, and of the deity of the Meffiah, current among the Jews in the days ef our Saviour, Dear Sir, TN your fifth Letter you call upon me to aflign the particular time, when the knowledge of our Lord's divinity, which, in the perfuafion that the ApofUes were taxed by the fathers with a referve upon * Oftheteftimonies of other writers, by which Dr. Prieft- ley attempts to confirm his argument from Athanafuis, fee the Tenth of his Second Letters to me, and my Remarks upon his Second Letters, part 2. c. i. %. 10. 14. the TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 205 the fubjecl, you are pleafed to call " the great fecret letter " of Chrift being not a meer man, but the eternal " God*;" you call upon me to aflign the time, when this great fecret " was communicated firft to *' to the Apoftles, and then by them to the body of *' Chrifliansf." You " reqaeft my opinion" upoa this queffion with a certain air of triumph, which feems to imply, that, in your apprehenfion, I muft be much at a lofs to frame an opinion upon it, which may be confiftent with my creed. But the truth is, that you are yourfelf the perfon mofl: concerned to find the folution. Or to exprefs myfelf more accu- rately, the quefrion fplits into two, of which the one concerns not me, and the other concerns not either of us. 2. When was the do(5^nne of our Lord's divinity iirfl: publifhed in the church by the Apoftles ? 3. When was the knowledge of the thing firft conveyed to the minds of the Apoflles themfelves? 4. Thefe, Sir, are two diftinit queftlons. Of the firft, it is your concern, not mine, to feek the folu- tion. For fince I have clearly traced the belief of Chrift's proper deity up to the Apoftolic age ; unlefs you can aflign the particular epocha of the publica- tion, I have a right to conclude, that it was a part of the very earlieft do6lrine. Nay, if you fhould even be able to aflign fome later time of its commencement, * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. sS' t Ibid. »o6 L R E T T E R S I N R E P L y LETTER Yg* fmce that time muft fall within the compafs of the XII. "' Apofiolic age, to which you are limited by virtue of my proof from the epiflle of St. Barnabas, a queffion might indeed arife, which might be of difficult refo- lution ; why was this doctrine, for a certain time, kept back ? But this difficulty would not fhake the credit of the doctrine. For fmce there is no reafoa to fuppofe, that any of the Apoftles, having once re- ceived the light of infpiration, was in any future pe- riod of his life deprived of it ; any do6lrine publirtied by them claims implicit credit, whatever might be the time of its firfl publication. A difcovery that St. John had made, in the laft moments of his life, had been equally to be believed, as any thing that St. Peter preached, in his iirft fermon on the day of pen- tecoft. You will therefore choofe your own epocha for the difcovery of " the great fecret." Place it, where it bed may pleafe you in the Apoftolic age ; I will hold no argument with you upon the fubje^l. In my own congregations I fliall think it my duty to bear my witnefs, that from the very beginning of th& gofpel the thing had been no fecret. For proof from holy writ, I Ihall have recourfe to thofe very paffages of the Apoflolic hiilory, from which you draw th» contrary inference. I Ihall remind my hearers, that in St. Peter's urft public fermon, Vv'hen it was rea- fonable to keep to the general affertion, that Jefus was the Meffiah, rather than to enter into the parti- culars which that character might involve ; allufions are neverthelefs ufed, which difcover that the mind of the fpeaker was fa-ongly imprefTed with notions, which TO DR. PRIESTLEY. ao7 which it was his policy to conceal. I fliall particu- LETTER larly defire them to remark, that it is faid of our Lord Jefus, that " it was not poffible that he (hould " be holden of death*." The expreffions clearly imply a phyfical impoiTibility. I fliall bid them ob- ferve, that the great miracle of that day is faid to be an exertion of the power of Jefus exalted by God's right hand -}-. And I fliall maintain, that the three perfons are diftindlly mentioned in a manner which implies the divinity of each, " Jefus — being by the " right hand of God exalted, and having received of " the Father the promife of the Holy Ghofl:J" of the Father— TTapiz th 7r.-i]^oc,-^The Father: the fubftantive, with the article prefixed, defcnbes a per- fon, whofe character it is to be the Father. Paternity is the property, which individuates the peifon. But from whom is the firfl: principle thus difdnguiflied ? From his creatures ? From them he were more no;- nificantly diflinguiflied by the name of God. Not generally therefore from his creatures, but particularly from the two other perfons mentioned in the fame pe- riod, Jefus, and the Holy Ghofi:. And fince this is his diflin6lion, that he is the Father of that Son, from whom together with himfelf the Holy Ghoft proceeds ; it follows, that the interval, between him and them, is no more than relation may create ; that the whole difference lies in perfonal diflinilions, not in efl*ential qualities. Thus I will ever reafon, Sir, for the edification of my own flock, .but with * Aftsii. vcrf. 24, ^ A61i ii. Tcrf. 32, 33. % Ibid. little ici LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER little hope of your conviction from St. Peter's firft lermon. I Shall always infift, Sir, that the bleffed Ste- phen died a martyr to the DEITY of Chrill. The accufation againft him, you fay, was " his fpeaking " blafphemous things againft the temple and the '' law*." You have forgotten to add the charge of blafphemy "againft Mofes and againft Godf." The blafphemy againft the temple and the law pro- bably confifted in a prediiTtion, that the temple was to be deftroyed, and the ritual law of courfe aboliftied. The blafphemy againft Mofes was probably his af- fertion, that the authority of Mofes was inferior to that of Chrift. But what could be the blafphemy againft God ? What was there in the doctrine of the Apoftles, which could be interpreted as blafphemy againft God, except it was this, that they afcribed divinity to one who had fuffered publicly as a male- factor. That this was the bleiTed Stephen's crime, none can doubt, who attends to the conclufion of the ftory. He " looked up ftedfaftly into heaven," fays the infpired hiftorian, " and faw the glory of God," [that is, he faw the fplendor of the Shechinah, for that is what is meant, when the glory of God is mentioned as fomething to be feen] " and Jefus « ftanding on the right hand of God J." He favr the man Jefus in the midft of this divine light. His declaring what he fawj], the Jew-ifh rabble underftood as an aflertion of the divinity of Jefus. They ftop- • Letters to Dr. Horncy, p. 60. + Afts vi. verfe 11. % hcXz vii, verfe 55. |I A£ts vii. verfe j6. ped T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 209 ped their ears; they overpowered his voice with letter their own clamours ; and they hurried him out of the city, to inflict upon him the death which the law appointed for blafphemers *. He died, as he had lived, attefting the deity of our crucified Mafter. His laft breath was uttered in a prayer to Jefus, firft for himfelf, and then for his murtherers. " They " ftoned Stephen calling upon God, and faying, Lord *' Jefus receive my fpirit and he cried with a " loud voice. Lord lay not this iin to their charge f." It is to be noted, that the word God is not in the original text ; which might be better rendered thus, " They ftoned Stephen invocating and faying &c." Jefus therefore was the God, whom the dying martyr invocated in his lafl: agonies ; when men are apt to pray, with the utmoft ferioufnefs, to him whom they conceive the mightieft to fave. 6. It feems the holy Stephen, full as we are in- formed he was in thofe trying moments, of the Holy Ghoft, was not in the opinion, which you are pleafed to impute to me, but you will obferv-e that I difclaim it, that " the proper objeft of prayer is God the Fa- *' ther J." This you tell me I cannot but acknow- ledge. That tlie Father is a proper obje£l of prayer, God forbid that ever I Ihould not acknowledge. That he is the proper objedl in the fenfe in which you feem to make the affertion, in prejudice and exclufion of the other perfons, God forbid that ever I (houJd concede. I deny not, that there is an honour per- * Afts vii. verf. 57, 58. f Afts vii. verf. 59, 69. X Lettsrs to Dr. Horfley, p. 81. P fonallj no L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y LETTER finally due to him as the Father. There is alfo an honour perfonally due to the Son, as the Son j and to the Spirit, as the Spirit. But our knov.'ledge of the perfonal di(lin61ions is fo obfcure, in comparifon of our apprehcnfion of the general attributes of the Godhead, that it fliould feem that the Divinity [the TO Sewv] is rather to be generally worfliipped in the three perfons jointly and indifferently, than that any dillinfl honours are to be offered to each feparately. Prayer however for fuccour againfc ex- ternal perfecution feems addreffed with particular propriety to the Son. 7. When yo" deny, not only that any pre- cept, but that any proper example is to be found in fcripture to authorize the pradice *, you feem to have forgotten, befide many other paffages, the initial falu- tations of St. Paul's epiftles. St. Stephen's " fhort *' ejaculatory addrefs" you had not forgotten ; but you fay, "it is very inconfiderable f." Eut, Sir, why is it inconfiderable ? Is it becaufe it was only an eja- culation ? Ejaculations are often prayers of the moft fervent kind ; the mofl: expreffive of felf-abafement and adoration. Is it for its brevity that it is incon- fiderable ? What then is the precife length of words, which is requifite to make a prayer an acl of worfliip? Was this petition preferred on an occafioa of diftrefs, on which a Divinity might be naturally invoked ? Was it a petition for a fuccour, v\'hich none but a Divinity could grant ? If this was the cafe it was furely an aiSt of worfnip. Is the fituation of the * L/f Iters to Dr. Horfley,-p. §1. + Ibid. tvorlhippcr T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. an worflilpper the circumftance, which in your judge- letter ment, Sir, leflens the authority of his example? You fuppofe perhaps fome confternation of his faculties arifing from diftrefs and fear. The Hiftory juftifies no fuch fuppofition. It defcribes the utterance of the final prayer, as a deliberate a6l of one who knew his fituation, and pofl'efTed his under/landing. After praying for himfelt^ he kneels down to pray for his perfecutors : and fuch was the compofure with which he died, although the manner of his death was the mod tumultuous and terrifying, that, as if he had expired quietly upon his bed, the facred Hiftorian fays, that "he fell afleep *." If therefore you would infmuate, that St. Stephen was not himfelf, when he fent forth this "fliort ejaculatory addrefs to Chrift," » the hiftory refutes you. If he was himfelf, you cannot juftify his prayer to Chrift, while you deny that Chrift is God, upon any principle that might not equally juftify you, or me, in praying to the blef- fed Stephen. If St. Stephen in the full pofteflion of his faculties, prayed to him who is no God j why do we reproach the pious Romanift, when he chaunts the litany of his faints ? If the perfuafion of Chrift's divinity prompted the holy martyr's dying prayer ; then there is no room to doubt, but that the aftertion of Chrift's divinity was the blafphemy, for which the Jews, hardened in their unbelief, condemned him. 8. Another inftance, to which I ever (hall ap- peal, of an eany preaching of our Lord's divinity, tho' it may not conduce to your convidion, is the * A£ls vii. verf. 60. P 2 ftory 114 LETTERS IN REPLY ^^J-.l ^^ i^ory of St. Paul's converfion : in which, as it is twice, related by himfelf, Jefus is deified in the higheft terms. I know not, Sir, in what light this tranfac- tion may appear to you. To me, I confefs, it ap- pears to have been a repetition of the fcene at the bufli, heightened in terror and folemnity. Inftead of a lambent flame appearing to a folitary fliepherd amid the thickets of the wildernefs, the full efful- gence of the Shechinah, overpowering the fplendor of the mid-day fun, burfts upon the- commiflioners of the Sanhedrim, on the public road to Damafcus, within a fmall diftance of the city. Jefus fpeaks, and is fpoken to, as the divinity inhabiting that glorious light. Nothing can exceed the tone of authority on the one fide, the fubmiffion and religious dread upon the other. The recital of this ftory feems to have been the ufual prelude to the Apoftle's public apo- logies; but it only proved the means of heighten- ing the refentment of his incredulous countrymen. 9. These inftances. Sir, will, bear me out in the aflertion, that our Lord's divinity was preached from the very beginning, till you can fix the firft difcovery to fome later epoch. I am therefore not at all concerned in the folution of your firft queftion* 10. The fecond, "when was the knowledge af " our Lord's divinity firft imparted to the minds of " the Apoftles," is wholly infignificant, and unin- terefting to all parties. It concerns not me ; be- caufe, with my notions of infpiration, I am obliged to believe- what the infpired Apoftles taught, how- ev€r late the time might be when they themfelves received T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 113 received their information. It concerns not you j letter becaufe with your notions of infpiration, you are at liberty to difpute what the infpired Apofiles taught, whatever pretenfions they may have to the earlieft information. If the knowledge was infallible which they received from infpiration, it matters not how late ; if not infallible, it matters not how early they received it. If no pofitive proof were extant, that the deity of Chrift was an article of faith among the firft Chriftians; the difficulty of afiigning the pre- cife time, when the Apoftles were firft made ac- quainted with it, might be fomething of an obje£lion againft the antiquity of the doilrine, and againft it's truth. But in oppofition to direcSl proof the objec- tion, were it founded, could have no weight. 1 1 . Upon this quefiion therefore, as the former, you muft not take it amifs if I leave you to yourfelf. Choofe any time, within the compafs of each apoftle's life, for the epoch of his illumination. I will hold no argument upon the fubje6l : although I have an opi- nion upon the queftion, as upon the former, which I ever fhall inculcate in my own congregation : and this, Sir, happens to be the very reverfe of that, which you imagine I muft allow. You muft allow, you fay to me, that at firft " the Apoftles were wholly igno- norant of this*." At firjl indeed, before their ac- quaintance witii our Lord, or at leaft with the Baptift, they were ignorant, I believe, of every thing. But from their firft acknowledgement of our Lord as the MelTiah, they equally acknowledged liis divi- * Letters to Dr. H. p. 56. P 3 nity. 314 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER nitv. Their faith, I believe, was but unfettled, as xn« . their notions of the MefTian's kingdom were certainly very confufed, till the defcent of the Holy Ghoft. But fo far as they believed in Jefus as the Meffiah, in the fame degree they underfcood and acknow- ledged his divinity. The proof, which 1 have to pro- duce of this from holy writ, confifts of too many particulars, to be diftindlly enumerated in the courfe of our prefent correfpondence. I fliall mention two ; which to any but a decided Unitarian, will be very ftriking; Nathaniel's firft profeflion, and Peter's confternation at the miraculous draught of fillies. It was in Nathaniel's very firfl: interview with our Lord, that he exclaimed, "Rabbi, thou art the " Son of God ! thou art the king of Ifrael I *." And this declaration was drawn from Nathaniel by fome particulars in our Lord's difcourfe, which he feems to have interpreted as indications of Omni- fcience. When Simon Peter faw the number of fiflies taken at a iingle draught, when the net was cafl at our Lord's command, after a night of fruit- lefs toil ; " he fell down at the knees of Jefus, fay- " ing, depart from me for Lam finful man, O " Lordf." Peter's confternation was evidently of the fame fort, of which we read in the worthies of earlier ages upon any extraordinary appearance of the light of the Shechinah ; which was founded on a notion, that a finful mortal might not fee God and live. Thefe and many other pafTages of the Evangelical Hiftory difcover, that our Lord's af- * John I. vcrf. 49. f Luke. v. 8. fociales XII. T O D R. P R I E 6- T L E Y. 213 fociates, although it was not till after his afcenfion letter that the Holy Ghoft led them into all truth, had an early apprehenfion of fomething more than hu- man in his charadler. Nor indeed were early inti- mations of it wanting ; in the firft annunciation of his birth by the angelic hofl; in the Baptift's declarations ; and in our Lord's ovn\ affertions of a power to forgive fins, and of an authority to dif- penfe with ordinances of divine appointment; and in his claim to be the proper Son of God, which the unbelieving Jews ever underftood as an exprefs deification of his own perfon. 12. But Judas Ifcariot, you think, "could not *' poflibly have formed a deliberate purpofe of be- *' traying our Lord *," had the belief of his divinity been general among the Apoftles before his crucifixion. Or had any fuch pretenfion been fet up, which had not gained belief, Judas Vv^ould have taken advantage of the impofition, and would have made a difcovery of it to the prejudice of our Lord. It fhould feem. Sir, that you think your own caufe almofi: defperate, if you would defire that Judas Ifcariot fliould be ad- mitted as an evidence for )rou, or as an advocate. But what if your caufe fliould turn out to be, what Judas Ifcariot himfelf would fcruple to undertake. I would not willingly be the apologifl: of that traitor. But I am inclined to think, that, traitor as he was, his in- tentions v/ent not to the mifchicf which he effected. It was rather perhaps his meaning to cheat the Chief * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 58. P 4 Priefts 2i6 LETTERSINREPLY LETTER Priefts of their money, than actually to fell his Maf- ter's life. When he bargained to lead them for a certain fum to the place of our Lord's retirement j he thought perhaps that he might fafely truft to his Maf- ter's povver to repell any attack upon his perfon. This is very confiftent with a belief of our Lord's divinity ; as the mofi: dishonourable defigns are often found to confift with the trued fpeculative principles. That he meant not the mifchief which enfued, may be prefumed from the remorfe which followed, and the vengeance which in defpair he executed upon himfelf. But I care little about his teftimony. Only I think, that, with the Devils he might believe and tremble, and trembling might be ftill a Devil. 13. After all, Sir, I might have fpared fo par-, ticular an anfwer as I have given to your fifth letter. In the conclufion of it, you furnifh me with a fhort reply, of which I might have availed myfelf. " Had " there been any pretence, you fay, for imagining " that the Jews in our Saviour's time had any know- *' ledge of the doflrine of the Trinity, and taht they *' expeded the fecond perfon in it, in the chara6ler " of their Mefliah, the queflion I propofe to you " would have been needkfs*." Then, Sir, the queftion which you propofe to me, is needlefs. The Jews in Chrifc's days had notions of a trinity in the divine Nature. They expected the fecond perfon, whom they called the Logos, to come as the Meffiah. For the proof of thefe affertions I refer you to the work of the learned Dr. Peter Allix, entitled the *'■ 'J^dgemeiii of the ancient ^Je^vifo church again ft the * X-etterg to Dr. Horfley, p. 64. Unitarians," TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 217 XU. " Unitarians. ^^ A work which it is to be hoped, LETTER. Sir. you will carefully look through^ before you fend abroad your intended view of the dodlrine of the firil ages concerning Chrifl *. That you will be convin- ced by Dr. Allix's proof, I have indeed little hope. I fhall produce however another authority, to which you will perhaps be more inclined to pay regard : the authority of a learned Unitarian of the laft century, who wrote in vindication of a former Unitarian work, of great fame, called the The Naked Gofpel. llie Naked Gofpel, you know, v/as printed at Oxford in the year 1690, and was burnt the fame year by order of the convocation. The anonymous author of the Hi/iorical Vindication was fuppofed to be Le Clerc. He it is, who fays in his preface, that the platomc enthufiafm crept firft into the Jewifli, afterwards into the Chriftian church. Then he tells his readers how the Jews picked up their Platonifm. Of which, he fays, the principal do6lrines were two : the one, that of the Pre-exiftence of Souls ; the other that of tlie Divine Trinity. Thefe, he fays, were the opinions of the Jews in the days of our Saviour and his Apof- tles : and hence perhaps it hath come to pafs, that, as the learned have obferved, certain platonic phrafes and expreffions are to be found in the New Tefta- ment, efpecially in St. John's Gofpel. You, Sir, and this Unitarian brother feem to agree but ill in your no- tions of the doiSlrine of the firfl; ages. He thought the do(5lrine of the Trinity one of the ancient corruptions of Judaifm \ which in laying the foundations of Chrif- * Preface to Letters, p. xviii. tianity «,« LETTERS IN REPLY. LETTER tianity, the heaven-taught builders fome how or other forgot to do away. You have difcovered, *' that every notion of the trinity, whatever may be " fancied with refpe£t to more antient times, was " obliterated from the minds of the Jews in our " Saviour's time*." I believe. Sir, I fhall never (it down to the tafk, which you defvre me to undertake; a tranflation of the works of Bifhop Bull f . For as his argvunent is not for the unlearned, the labour would be thrown away. A work which might be more generally edifying, and in which I might engage, if it were not that I really grudge every moment which I give to controverfy, would be a harmony of the Unitarian Divines. 14. You will afk me, whence was the offence which the affertion of our Lord's divinity, by my own confeflion, gave the Jewifli people, if divinity made a part of their own notion of the MefTiah's charac- ter ? 1 anfwer, the deification of the MefTiah was not that which gave offence, but the affertion that a cru- cified man was that divine perfon : and before his crucifixion, the meannefs of his birth gave an of- fence, lefs in degree, but of the fame kind. L am. Sic. * Letter's to Dr. Horfley, p, C^. f Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 113. LETTER T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. ai^ LETTER THIRTEENTH. In reply to Dr. Priejllefs ftxth. — Dr. Priejllcy's igno- rance of the true principles of Platofiifm appears in his difqiiifitions concerning matter and fpirit.-'—'The equality and unity cf the three principles of the Pla- tonifis. — Dr. PriejUefs peciuiar fenfe of the vjord perfonification not perceived either by the Archdeacon, or the Reviewer. — The outline hozvever of Dr. Priefiley^s work not fnifrcprefentcd by the Archdcaccn. — The convey f on cf an attribute into a fuhfiance dif- fers not from a creation out of nothing. — Never taught by the Platonifls — The eternity of the Logos independent of any fuppofed eternity of the world. — Not difcarded therefore by the converted Platonifls — Dr. Priejiley^s arguments from the analogy between the divine Logos and human reafon anfivered. — • The Archdeacon abides by his affertion that Dr. Prieflley hath mifreprcfentedthe platonic language. — The Archdeacon's interpretation of the Platonifls rejls not on his ozvn conjecture.^ but on the authority of Athenagoras — confrmed by other authorities. — Dr. Prieflley'' s quotations from TertuUian confidered — from LaSlantius. Dear Sir, YOU muft forgive me, if I confcfs to you, that letter that fo long fince as when I firft red your dif- ^^*^* quifitions concerning matter and fpirit, I formed no very high opinion of your learning in the Piatonic philofophy. What gave me my iirfl fufpicion, as I well remember, was a furprize wliich you exprefs, that 32« LETTERS INREPLY LETTER that a certain French writer fhould fpeak of the idea XIII . of a circle as itfelf not round *, and of the ideas of extended things as not extended. Your apprehen- fion, that ideas could not be divihble, unlefs they were extendedf, heightened my fufpicion : which be- came fomething more than fufpicion when I found you fpeaking of the foul's need of a repofitory for her ideas % efpe daily during Jleep ; as if ideas were things to be locked up, with our china, in a cupboard. Dr. Prieftley, I faid to myfelf, confounds ideas with the impreflions of external objects on the material fenfory : which impreflions are in truth as much ex- ternal to the mind, as the objects which make them. What pity, that he hath not been more converfant with the Platonifts ! Thefe previous indications, of your deficiency in this branch of learning, in fome nieafure prepared me for what I was to find in your Hijiory of the philofophicaldoiirine concerning the foul ^ infomuch, that I red your aflertlon, that "Plato's phi- " lofophy was the oriental fyflem with very little " variation §," without indignation ; becaufe I con- fidered it as the reproach of an enemy, whom better information might make a friend. I was indeed fur- prized at your want of information in this particular inftance j becaufe Mofheim, whofe authority, as an hiftorian, you feem to hold in due refpeil, indifpofed as he is in general to be partial to the Platonifts, hath however fo far done them jufcice, as to point out the total difcordance, in principle at leaft, between the fober philofophy of Plato and the extravagancies of * Difqulfitions, p. 39, f Ibid. p. 37, 38. % Ibid, 59» 93- S Ibid. p. 274, the T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. aai the Gnoftics ; whofe principles were thofe of the letter. .... Xlll. oriental fyftem. After this, Sir, it gives me no fur- prize at all, that you fhould now aflert, " that it was *' never imagined that the three component members " of the Platonic Trinity are either equal to each other, " or ftriilly fpeaking one*," They are. Sir, more ftridtly fpeaking one, than any thing in nature of which unity may be predicated. No one of them can be fuppofed without the other two. The fecond and third being, the firft is necefTarily fuppofed : and the firil [AyaSov) being, the fecond and third, [Na$ & ^yx>ij muft come forth. Concerning their equality, I will not fay that the Platonifts have fpoken with the fame accuracy, which the Chriftian fathers ufe j but they include the three principles in the divine nature, in the TO &£iov ; and this notion implies the fame equality, which we maintain ; at the fame time I confefs, that the circumftance of their equality was not always ftridly adhered to by the younger platonifts, for rea- fons which I have explained f , 2. The want of perfpicuity Is a fault in writing, of which indeed, Sir, you are little guilty. It is the more extraordinary, that your perfonijication of the Logos fhould not be dillinilly underflood, either by myfelf, or by my learned ally. For my own part, I confefs, I had not the leafl apprehcnfion, that you ufed the word perfonijication in any other than its ufual fenfe ; till, in your reply to the animadverfions of my learned ally, you diftinguiflied between the perfonifi- cation of the Logos, which you impute to Juflin, * Letters to Dr. H. p, 99, f See Charge V. ^ 5. and 353 LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER and the earlier doflrines of the Gnofdcs*. By per- XIII. foniikation I had no fufpicion that you meant any- thing more than a grammatical profopopeia -, which' you feemed to think had been ufed both by Plato and St, John, in fpeaking of the divine attribute of wif- dom. Certainly, Sir, you exprefs yourfelf in your hiftory, as if you thought, that a literal acceptation of fjch figured language was the occafion, that a meer attribute Vv-as miftaken for a real perfon, firll in the Academy, and afterwards in the Church : and that this error led to another, fiill founded on a literal interpretation of figurative expreiHons ; the expreffi- ons in vv'hich St. John defcribes, as you conceive the extraordinary degree in which wifdom and power were conferred on Chrifi", being underflood as affer- tions that Chrill: was that very perfon, which was fuppofed to have been previoufly defcribed by the evangelifl: as a branch of the divinity. I thpught, Sir, that you conceived that a meer grammatical profopopeia had been, in this way, the firft ilep towards the deification of Chrifl:. Upon looking again into the fecond fet^ion of your hiftory, I fee no great rea- fon to be aihamed of my miliake. I believe. Sir, that without the afiifiance of the comment, which your Reply to the Monthly Reviewer furniflies, no reader of your work would difcover any other mean- ing in your expreflions. It feem.s, however, that the word pcrfonlficatioii is a new term of theology, inven- ted by you, for a Qo6^rine which is alfo of your own invention ; though you are pleafed to give the credit * Reply to Montlily Review for June, ^. 5. of TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 223 of it to the platonic fathers : the do£lrIne of the con- LEETTR XII. verfion of an attribute into a perfon ; which was fuppofed, you fay, by its firft advocates to take place immediately before the creation of the world, but be- ing afterwards " carried farther back, namely to all *' eternity, it led to tlie prefent doctrine of the Tri- « nity *." The diftin^lion between this perfonifica- tion of the Logos and the earlier doilrines of the . Gnoftics is, it feems, an important feature in the great outline of your work. The outline of your work, as fketchcd by yourfelf, is briefly this. The exalta- tion of the perfon of Jefus Chrift began with the Gnoftics; who maintained the pre-exiflence of human fouls. When their errors were exploded, the per- fonification was adopted. The Arian do6lrine was fubfequent to this ; and it was after all thefe, that, from improvements upon the doctrine of perfonifi- cation, the prefent dodtrine of the Trinity was brought out f . It is a heavy accufation againft my learned ally and me, that we have not fufficiently attended to thefe diftinftions ; and the omifTion fliews, that, "we have never formed a right con-. *' ception of what we undertook to exhibit J." 3. Every writer mufl be allowed to be the beft interpreter of his own exprefhons. But in the fenfc in which I am now taught to underftand the perfo- nification of the Logos, I cannot perceive. Sir, with • Reply to Monthly Review for June, p. 34, 35. f Ibid. I Ibid. p. 35. and Letters tq Dr. Horfley, p. 66. what 524 LETTERSINREPLr LETTER ^.i;,at propriety it is called the firft ftep towards the deification of Chrift j fince the doclrines of the Gnoftics, -which you maintain to be more antieiit, had, in your judgment, the fame tendency. I am fometimes inclined to fufpedl, that you are apt your- felf to fiuduate between your own and the vulgar fenfe of perfonificationi 4. But although I fhould allow, that I miffed the fenfe of a particular expreffion ; I am not fenfible, that I mifconceived, or mifreprefented, your account of the antient opinions. You certainly make the Unitarian doctrine the general opinion of the firfl Chriftians. In the fecond age you allow, thatfome- thing of divinity was afcribed to Chrift ; but you think, it was a divinity of an inferior kind, including neither neceffity, nor eternity, of a difcinit perfonal exiftence. I therefore mifreprefented not the great outline of your work, when I faid that the firft race of Chriftians were, in your opinion. Unitarians in the fcrideft fenfe of the word j the fecond, Arians*. T^hls is the fum of your account, ftated not in your words, but in my own. You complain however that I ^' have mifconceived your ideaf." You in- form me that " the platonizing Chriftians were not *' Arians. That it is well known that they were not " Arians, but the orthodox who platonized J." 5. Sir, I am very fenfible that the platonlzers of the fecond century were the orthodox of that age. I * Charge I. § i, f Letters to Dr. H. p. 66. I Ibid. havs T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y 225 have not denied this. On the contrary, I have en- letter deavoured to fhew that their platonifm brings no im- putation upon their orthodoxy. The advocates of the calhoHc faith, in modern times, have been too apt to take alarm at the charge of platonifm. I rejoice and glory in the opprobrium. I not only confefs, but I maintain, not a perfe6l agreement, but fuch a funi- htude, as I'peaks a common origin, and affords an argument in confirmation of the catholic dodrine, fi"om its conformity to the moft antient and univerfal traditions. Nor is this the only article, in which heathen antiquity, however you may flight the argu- ment, by the veftiges, which are to be traced even in idolatrous rites, of the patriarchal hidory and the pa- triarchal creed, bears its tel^imony to revelation. But, Sir, I well know that thefe platonizers of the fecond century were far more antient than A rius : nor did I mean to charge you with the abfurdity of maintain- ing a contrary opinion. I thought that the notion which you exprefs, of what was orthodoxy in the fe- cond century, was conveyed in a Tingle word j when it was faid, that you reprefent the Chriftians of the fe- cond race as Arians ; that is, as Arians in belief; becaufe the divinity which you fuppofe to have been afcribed by them to Chrift, was only of that fecondary fort, which Arius and his followers, in a later age, allowed. But to convi6l me of an error in this re- prefentation of your opinion, you now fet up a dif- tindlion, between the opinions which you would afcribe to the early Platonifts and the Arian tenets. *' The Logos of the platonizers, you fay, was an at- Q, " tribute 226 L E T T E R S 1 N R E P L Y LETTER " tribute of the father, and not any thins; that was Xill J z> " created out of nothing, as the Arians held Chrift to " have been*." However, when this diftinclion hath ferved the purpofe of convicting me of one er- ror, it is cleared away again to convidl me of another. This Logos of the Platonifts, I am told, " Vv^as ori- *' ginally nothing more than a property of the divine " mind, which aflumed a feparate perfonal character " in timef." This is the fame notion which is ex- prefled in your hiftory in thefe words. " All the " early fathers fpeak of Chrift as not having exified *' always, except as reafon exifts in man, viz. as an " attribute of the Deity J." And the affumption of a perfonal character, feems to be the fame thing, which in your hiflory you call " the converfion of a meer " attribute into a thinking fubftance§." Indeed, it is not eafy to conceive, how a perfonal charadler may be affumed, otherwife than by being made a perfon. Now, what the difference may be between a making out of nothing, and the converfion of a meer attribute into a fubftance ; or how a perfon made out of an at- tribute may differ from a perfon made out of nothing ; I would rather, Sir, that you than I fhould take the trouble to explain. If this was the difference between the doiStrines of the early platonizers and the Arians, and this is the whole difference which you put be- tween them, they might pafs, I think, for the fame : and your account of the platonic orthodoxy was not mifreprefented by me, when I faid that you made it * Letters to Dr. H. p. 66. t Ibid. p. 72. X Hift. of Corrupt, p. 42. ^ p. 4°' he T O D R. PRIESTLEY. itj the fame thing, the fame in form not in time, with ^^3J^f ^ Arianifm. 6. But, Sir, I maintain that this is an erroneous and injurious account of the Platonic Chriftians. This converfion of an attribute into a fubftance was never taught by them ; nor by any except the Sabel- lians, and thofe earlier vifionaries defchbed by Juf- tin Martyr, who imagined occafional emiffions and abforptions of the divine Logos. *' Which opinion " (you fay) was not very remote from the Uni- " tarian dodrine*." I am happy. Sir, to be in- formed by you, that the Unitarian dodrine approaches to opinions fo myfterious. I thought, that to be clear of myfteries had been its particular recommendation. I now find, that were I even to turn Unitarian, I fliould have myfteries to digeft: and myfteries much too hard for my digeftion. I will therefore, adhere to my creed ; in which I know no myftery to be compared with this notion, of a thing which may be a perfon and no perfon by fits and flarts. But for any produclion of the Logos, by a converfion, either permanent or occafional, of an attribute into a think- ing fubftance ; I ftill maintain, that, were the thing conceivable, the Platonifts were likely to be the laft to adopt it : becaufe a created Logos, to ufe my for- mer expreffion, had been no lefs an abfurdity in the academy, than it is an impiety in the church : and the notion, that this doctrine took its rife among the * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 73. 0^2 Platonifts, 238 L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y LETTER Platoniftsj betrays an entire ignorance of the genuirie principles of tiieir fchool *. 7. You tell me, that " Idifcover inthefeanimad- " verlions a total ignorance of what you have af- *' ferted. — That you have no- where faid, that either '* the Platonifls, or the Platonizing Chriftians, held, " that the Logos was created, or that it had ever not " exiftedf." What then have you faid ? You faid in your Hiftory, that " All the early Fathers fpeak of " Chrift as not having exifted always, except as " an attribute of the deity :[; :" that they taught "the " converfion of this attribute into a fubflance§." And what is it you fay now ? You fay now that the Platonizing Chriftians held, that " whereas the Lo- *' gos was originally nothing more than a property of " the divine mind, it affumed a feparate perfonal cha- ' ra£ter in time ||." Be pleafed, Sir, to explain the difference between this converfion of attribute into fubftance, or property into perfon, and a creation out of nothing. S. You admit however, tliat the eternity of the Logos was a dodrine of Platonifm ; but you attempt to affign a reafon, why tlie converted Platonifts, when they entered into the church, muft have parted with this opinion. " The Logos (you fay) of the Pla- * Clurge, IV. ^4. t Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 72. % Hiftory of Corrnptions, p. 42. § Ibid. p. 40. II Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 72* " tonifts TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 229 <' tonlfts had, in their opinion, always had a per- letter *' fonal exiftence, becaufe Plato fuppofed creation to " have been eternal ; but this was not the opinion of *' the Platonizing Chriftians, who held, that the *' world was not eternal ; and therefore, retaining as '' much of Platonifm as was confident with thatdoc- " trine, they held, that there was a time when the "^ " Father was «/o/7^, and without a Son*." Sir, if I thought proper to deny your alfertion, that Plato fuppofed creation to have been eternal ; it would re- quire much more fkill in the Platonic Philofophy, than is to be gotten at fecond hand from modern au- thors, who pretend to give an account of it, to con- fute the proof which I might bring to the contrary from Plato's own writings. But as the younger Pla- tonifts generally held the eternity of creation, and Plato in fome parts of his writings feems to favour that opinion, notwithflanding what he fays to the con- trary in the Timaeus ; I fhall take no advantage of the uncertainty of your affumption. Indeed it would befufficient for your purpofe, were your argument found in other parts, that the opinion of the world's eternity Vv'as current in that fchool in which the Chrif- tian Platonirts were trained, and was probably en- tertained by them all before their converfion. Still your conclufion will not ftand, unlefs you can prove, that the Platonifts, whether Chriftian or Pagan, held the Logos to be a part of the world, or thought the eternity of the Logos a confequence only of the * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 72. 0.3 the 23© LETTERSINREPLY LETTER world's etemitv. Whereas neither the one nor the XIII« other of thefe principles would have been allowed, even by thofe Platonifts who deemed the world eter- nal. The eternity of the world feemed to them a confequence of that eternal adivity, which they afcribed to the deity : that is, to the three principles of Goodnefs [TV/aSov], Intelligence [N«j], and Vi- tality [■*'y%5i] : and chiefly to the two laft. For to the firft principle they infcribed indeed an aftivity, but of a very peculiar kind ; fuch as might be con- fiftent with an undifturbed immutability. He a£ls, (W£vav Iv kccula rjBsi, by a fimple indivilible unvaried ener- gy ; which, as it cannot be broken into a multitude of diftincSl adls, cannot be adapted to the variety of external things ; on which therefore the Firft Good a£ls not, either to create or to preferve them, other- wife than through the two fubordinate principles. The eternal activity therefore of the Deity, and by confequence the exiftence of Intellect and the Vital principle, in which alone the divine nature is ailive upon external things, was neceflary in this fyftem to the eternity of the world. And this eternal acftivity was fuppofed to be the confequence of that goodnefs of the deity, which could not fuffer that to be de- layed, which, becaufe he hath done it, appears to be fit to be done. The world therefore, however the fadt may acElually be, might or might not have been eternal. If it hath been eternal; it hath been fuch, not by its own nature, but by the choice of a free agent, who might have willed the contrary. But Intellect and the Vital principle have been eternal by neceffity, as branches of the divinity. Thefe there- fore TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 231 fore muft have been eternal, even if the world had letter XIII. never been, although the world could not be without them ; and this, upon the principles of thofe philo- fophers who deemed the world eternal. The con- verted Platonifts therefore, when upon the authority of revelation they difcarded the notion of the world's eternity, would not find themfelves obliged to dif- card with this the eternity of Intelleft or the Logos : for that ftands upon another ground, and is indeed eternity of quite another kind. 9. But whatever they might be at liberty to do, you are confident of the fa6l, that the eternal exif- tence of the Logos, as a perfon, is a notion which was difcarded by the Chriftian Platonifts, when they became Chriftian. Your proof is drawn from the analogy which fome of them imagined between the divine Logos, and the reafon of the human foul, or between the Logos and human fpeech j and from the dodrine of the converfion of an attribute into a fubftance, which you perfuade yourfelf they deliver in the moft unequivocal language. 10. " That the Logos of the Father, the fame " that conftituted the fecond perfon in the Trinity, " exactly correfponded to the Logos, or reafon, or " word of man, was the idea of Athanafius him- " ftif*." In proof of this affertion you bring a paffage from Athanafius, in which, to prevent as it ihould feem a conclufion which the unwary might draw from the agreement of the name, inftead of the * Letters to Dr. Hordey, p. 69. Q^ 4 exaifl 332 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER exa6l correfpondence which you may imagine, he fhews the great difference between the divine Logos and human fpeech. Tertullian, in a pafiage cited in your hiftory *, fets up fomething of an analogy between the divine Logos and the human reafon. This analogy, if I miftake not, hath been purfued by the fchoohnen with their peculiar fubtletyj and, as far as it obtains, is well explained by the learned Dr. Charles Leflie, in his dialogues intitled The Socinian Controverfy dlfcujfed. Tertullian, to prevent the very conclufion which you draw from this analogy, that the Logos was at fome time or another a meer attri- bute, remarks, that nothing empty and unfubftantial can proceed from God ; for the divine nature ad- mitting neither quality nor accident every thing be- longing to it muft be fubftance. This argument is ably ftated in the work juft mentioned, the dialogues of the learned Dr. Leflie. II. For the converfion of an attribute into a fubflance, I abide by my affertion, that it is the off- fpring of your own imagination ; and can only have arifen from a miiapprehenfion of the language of the Platonic fathers. It is true, that they fpeak of tlie Son's generation as taking place at a particular time, as commencing indeed with the. creation. But by this generation they underftood not any beginning of his perfonal exiftence, but the projedion of his ener- gies ; the difplay of his powers in the production of external fubdances, ■* Hiftory of Corruption, p. 38. 12. You TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 233 12. You reply, "that any meer external difplay letter. '* of powers (hould ever be termed generation, is fo " improbable, from its manifeft want of analogy to *' any thing that ever was called generation before or " fmce ; that fuch an abufe of words is not to be " fuppofed of thefe writers, or of any perfon without " very pofitive proof; and, in this cafe," you fay to me, "you advance nothing but a meer conjefture, ** deftitute of any thing that can give it a colour of " probability*." This fentence, Sir, only finifhes the proof, if it was before defective, of your incom- petency in the fubjedl. It (liews that you have fo little acquaintance with Platonifm, that your mind cannot readily apprehend a Platonic notion, when it is clearly fet before you. What you take for my meer conjecture is the exprefs aflertion of Athenagoras, in the very pafTage which you have quoted : and Athe- nagoras, I fhould think, might be a fufficient evi- dence of his own meaning. He fays, that the Son was called the Son as being the firft offspring of the Father — not becaufe he was ever made, but bccaufe he went forth to adl: upon material fubftances f . He explains the generation of the Son, by declaring firft what it fignifies not; then, what is fignifies. A making it fignifies not ; a going forth, according to Athenagoras, it fignifies. That the generation of the Son of God is fomething figuratively called a gene- ration, will hardly be denied. Athenagoras declares what he underftood by the figure ; and the interpre- tation which he puts upon it, feems to have been * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 70, t See Charge, IV. ^3. ceneral 134 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER general among the writers who came from the fame r 1 1 T n Ichool. It refts not however upon any conjetSlure, but upon his authority; the fault, Sir, is not in me, if you cannot perceive his meaning when it is .render- ed in our own language. You objeft a want of analogy, between the figure and the thing which it is fuppoied to reprefent. This, I think, with an Uni- tarian fliould be but a flight objection : fince the whole language of the New Teftament, in their view of it, is made up of figures in which analogy is wanting. But the queftion is not what may be the natural fenfe of the word generation, when it is ap- plied to the Son of God, or what may be its true fenfe when it is fo applied in Scripture ; but in what fenfe it was accepted by the Platonizing Chriftians. I affirm, upon the authority of Athenagoras, that it was underflood by them, when they fpeak of it as taking place at a certain time, not of a beginning of the Son's exigence, but of a difplay of his powers. To confute this aflertion, inftead of critical reafoning upon the propriety of the language, you muft pro- duce fome better authority upon your own fide, than that of Athenagoras, whofe teftiraony is exprefs and full on mine. 13. But for the fenfe which -thefe Platonlfls put upon the word generation, I am not follicitous to defend it. I have fpoken of it in my Charge as a conceit ; and I have fpoken of the attempt, to put a determinate fenfe upon a figurative expreffion, of which no iwrticilar expofition can be drawn from holy T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 235 holy writ, as highly prefumptuous *. Still, Sir, the letter Platonifts are not without a defence, againft what you have found to objeft to the propriety of the expref- fion, in the fenfe in which they under ftand it. You fay to me, " Since according to your hypothefis the " Logos was always an intelligent perfon, he muft " have exerted his intellectual faculties in fome way " or other from all eternity, as much as the Father " himfelf f." It is true, Sir. But it was not an exer- tion of his faculties in fome way or ether , but the iirfl exertion of them on external things that the Platonic Fathers underftood by generation. This was the exertion in which the Son came forth. Before this he energized only within himfelf : he lay, as it were, uniffued in the bofom of the Father. You go on " was the exertion of the faculties of the Father " in the creation of the world ever called ^ generati- " on of the Father ? and yet, according to you, *' this language muft have been equally proper with " refpedl to the Father J." Not according to me, Sir. I hold with the Platonifts, that the Father's faculties are not exerted on external things, otherwife than through the Son and Holy Ghoft : thefe two perfons being, as it were, the two faculties, in which alone the divine nature is active on created things. Although I approve not the attempt to determine the meaning of a figure, which the holy Scriptures leave undetermined ; yet I cannot allow, that the lan- guage, in that interpretation of it which I afcribe to * Charge, IV. § 6. t Letters to Dr. Hodley, p. 71. J Ibid. the 236 LRETTERSIN REPLY LETTER the Platonifts, is as improper of the Son as it would xiii. : be of the Father. I perceive indeed no impropriety in it, as applied to the Son : I only complain of the want of authority from Holy Writ, 14. Still I maintain, that the thing In queftion is, not the propriety or impropriety of an expreffion ; but the fa61, how an expreffion was ufed and un- derftood by certain writers. It were endlefs to ac- cumulate authorities ; but if the fingle teftimony of Athenagoras is not fufficient, I will produce two more ; to one of which at leaft I expert that you will pay fome regard, becaufe it is given by heretics. The firft is that of Conftantine the Great. The Emperor may be numbered among the platonizing Chriftians j becaufe, as you have yourfelf obferved, he alleges the authority of Plato in fupport of the Catholic dodrine. Now Conftantine the Great in his epiftle to the Nicomedians, written after the Nicene council, ufes thefe expreffions— — " he was begotten, " or rather he himfelf came forth (being even ever '^ in the Father) for the fetting in order of the things which were made by him*." Here the emperor expounds generation by coming forth ; he thinks, " that he came forth," the more fignificant expref- fion ; and he allerts the eternal* co-exiftence of the Son and Father. The other teftimony, on which I fhould more rely for your conviction, if, I could hope that any teftimony might produce it, is that of Arius the Haerefiarch, and the Priefts and Deacons * Eysv-.iS):, fza,X?^ov ^s :rfor,>»9fV awloj, na) 'Tvaviols h t« -sxlci w'.'j kz\ -rrrj Twy a7i' aula TTC/roirif^s't'oov ^lafioa/AwiVi " of TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 237 Xlll. of his fadlion. In their common letter to Alexander, letter Bifhop of Alexandria (the feat you know of the pla- tonic fchool) ftating what they believed, and what they difbelieved : among the articles which they difbelieved is this ; " that the Son previoully exift- " ing was afterwards begotten *." And it is re- markable, that this ftands laft in a lift of articles of dilbelief. In the preceding articles their difbelief is juftified, by a reference of the rejedted propo- litions to certain Heretics, as the firft authors of them ; of one to Valentinus, of another to Manes, and another to Sabellius. But this article is not referred to any heretic ; which argues that they were confcious, that this was the opinion of the church. It is true they immediately fubjoin, that " Alexander himfelf had often publicly declared againft thofe who introduced fuch things;" as if this had been one of the things, which Alexander con- demned. But the falfehood of this infinuation ap- pears from another epiftle of Arius to Eufebius of Nicomedia, to whom as a friend the heretic may be fuppofed to write without art or difguife. In this epiftle he mentions the propofition, " that " the Son is co-exiftent with God without gene- " ration f," as one of the articles of Alexander's public dodrine, to which he could not give affent. You will find both thefe epiftlcs, in Epiphanius's account of tlie Arians. * xoe Tov 6v\a TrpoTs^ov vtsoov vevhSevt^. 15. From ijS LETTERSINREPLY LETTER i^. From thefe teftimonies it is indifputable, that the early Platonifts ; by the generation of the Son, when they fpeak of it as taking place at a particular time, underfland not any beginning of hisexiftence j and it appears that it was the language of the ortho- dox, at the time of the Nicene council, that the ex- iftenceofthe Son was prior to his generation, and independant of it : coasval indeed with the eternal Father's. Later writers diftinguifh three generations : the incarnation ; the going forth to the bufinefs of cre- ation ; and an eternal generation ; which laft is only a name for the unknown manner in which the Son's cxiftence is connedled with the Father's. Tertullian, in the paflage which you have quoted in your hiftory *, which you call upon me fo particularly to confider f , only fpeaks the language of his times, and never dreamed that he fhould be underflood fo aflert a be- ginning of the Son's exiflence, when he faid, " that " the nativity of the. word was perfeded when G od " faid, Let there be Light." 16. You now. Sir, produce another paflage of Tertullian to prove " how ready the Platonizing " Chriftians were to revert to the idea of an attribute " of God in their ufe of the word Logos J." But the paflage, inflead of proving this readinefs of the platonizing Chriftians, proves the readinefs of the pa- gan philofophers to apply this fame name to a perfon ; even to the Maker of the Univerfe. * Vol. I. p. 38 40. t Letters to Dr. H. p. 67. X Letters to_ Dr. Hoiiley, p. ^76. 17. You T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. iZ9 17. You call upon me to confider alfo a pafTage xiii. cited in your Hiftory from Ladlantius, whofe ortho- doxy, you tell me, I cannot queftion*. Sir, you are not more inaccurate in your citations from the antients, than unfortunate in your divinations about the principles of your contemporaries, and the con- ceflions which they will be willing to make to you. The orthodoxy of Ladlantius I fliall queftion, I fhall deny. He had not perhaps the difpofitions of an he- retic. He did not fet himfelf to oppofe, what he knew to be the approved do<5lrine of tiie church. But his talent was eloquence, which he poffelTed in a high degree, and his learning was in mythological antiquity. In Philofophy his inform.ation was fmall ; in Divinity he was a child. The common places of Morality and Natural Religion he touches with ele- gance ; and he inveighs againft the pagan Superftition in a mafterly ftrain. But in his attempt to philofo- phize, or to expound articles of faith, he is contemp- tible. In the feventh chapter of his firft book he afcribes a beginning to the exiftence of the eternal Father. No wonder then that he fhould afcribe a beginning to the Son's exiftence. You are welcome, Sir, to any advantage you may be able to derive from the authority of fuch a writer. 16. I perfuade myfelf I have now (hewn, that your obje(5lion to the catholic do6lrine, founded on its fuppofed Platonifm, and your argument for what I * Letters to Dr. H. p. 76. fhall 2^^ LETTER XIII. LETTERS IN REPLY Ihall call the Arianifm of the Platonizers from Athe- nagoras, are well entitled to the places which they hold among my fpecimens of infufRcIent proof j of which the one is the fixth, and the other the eighth in order. I am, Sec. LETTER FOURTEENTH. In reply to Dr. PrieJIIey's Eighth. — The Archdeacon' s fuppofnion^ that the firjl Ebion'ites luorjhlppcd Chr'ijl^ defended — His fuppofition^ that Theodotus was the jirji perj'on who taught the Unitarian doBrine at Rome, defended. Lr;TTER XIV. Dear Sir, iF all my nine fpecimens of infufficient proofs feledled from the firft book of your Hiftory, the fifth is the only one about which any doubt is likely to remain (except with yourfelf) that it was properly alleged. For the feventh and the ninth you give up : and the other fix have been confidered. 2. My Fifth fpecimen vvas your mifreprefentation of Eufebius, a writer of acknowledged veracity and candour, whom you very raflily charge with incon- fiflency, and even with unfairnefs ; becaufe in his account T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 241 • account of Theodotus the hasrefiarchrwho appeared leettr. XIV at Rome about the year igo, he cites another writer, who fays, that this Theodotus was the firfl: who taught the meer humanity of Chriil: ; whereas it ap- pears from his own hiftory, that the Ebionites, who held tlie mecr humanity of Chrift, were far more an- tient than Theodotus. Admitting the antiquity of the Ebionites, I maintain, that Eufebius is fo eafily reconciled with the author whom he cites, that the difference between them is no juft ground to tax the veracity of either. It is very certain, that Theodotus maintained the meer humanity of Chrifl: in the grof- feft fenfe ; in that grofs and fhocking fenfe, in which it is at this day taught by yourfelf and Mr. Lindfey. It is not certain that the Ebionites, before Theodo- tus, had gone further than to deny our Lord's origi- nal divinity. They probably, like Socinus, admitted fome unintelligible exaltation of his nature after his refurredion, which rendered him the objedl of wor- fliip. If this was the cafe, Theodotus might juftly claim the honour of being the firft affertor of our Lord's humanity, being indeed the firfl who made humanity the. whole of his condition. By this very natural fuppofition, that the Ebionites were Unitari- rians of a milder fort than Theodotus, Eufebius might have been reconciled with himfelf, had it been his own aflertion, that Theodotus was the firft who taught the mecr humanity of Chrift *. 3. But this is not the aiTertion of Eufebius, but of another writer cited by Eufebius. Now, fince Theodotus broached his herefy at Rome, it is very * See Charge, I. ^ 16. R probable, 242 LETTERS IN REPLY ^ LETTER probable, that the writer cited by Eufebius was a Roman, and that he treated of the ftate of religion in the weftern church, and efpecially at Rome : where Theodotus was probably the firll, who, in any fenfe, taught the meer humanity of Chriil *. 4. You tell me, in your eighth letter, that the difference which I put between Theodotus and Ebion is advanced upon my own authority f . Truly, Sir, I think that a fuppofition, which reconciles a writer ®f eftablifhed credit with himfelf, or which is nearly the fame thing, with another writer whom he cites with approbation, fliould need no great authority to fup- port it ; unlefs it be contrary to known fa£l, in which cafe indeed no authority might fupport it, or in itfelf improbable. Now, Sir, can you prove, that Chrill was not worfliipped by the original Ebionites ? Can you prove this, I would aflc, by explicit evidence ? For as for that kind of proof, in which you fo much delight, which is drawn by abflratSt reafoning from general and precarious maxims 5 it is of no more fignificance in hiftory, than teftimony would be in mathematics. To think to demonftrate a fad: by fyllogifm is not lefs abfurd, than to go about to ef- lablifh a geometrical theorem by an affidavit. Ex- CTife me, if I infifi: upon the difference, in the nature of things, between hiftoric certainty and fcientific truth. I apprehend an inattention to this diftindion hath mifledde many, and hath been the caufe of much fruitlefs labour in many fubjecls. Scientific truth * See Charge, p. 39. t Letters to Dr. Horflcy, p. icj, can TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 343 can only be eftablifhed by abftradl reafoning. Tefti- LETTER mony can in fcience produce nothing more than pro- bability. Tn hiftory it is quite the reverfe : abflrad reafoning can never go beyond a probability : proof muft arife from evidence. And the reafon of this is plain. I^he principles of fcientific truth are all with- in the mind itfelf j the truths of hiftory are the occurrences of the external world. Neglefting this neceflary diftindion, the great Berkley queftioned the Qxiilence of the material world, becaufe he found it incapable of demonftration ; and I have known many feek a confirmation of geometrical theorems from experiment. Now to return to my fubje61:; have you evidence, for that is the only proof to which, in this cafe, the judicious will attend ; have you evidence, that Chrift was not worfhipped by the Ebionites ? If you have none, my fuppofition is not contrary to known fait. Is it in itfelf improbable, fmce all innovations have a progrefs, and the divinity of Chrift was the belief, and the worftiip of Chrift the pradice of the firft ages, that prefumptuous men would begin to queftion the ground, on which his right to worlhip might be thought to ftand, before they abandoned the worfhip to which they had been long habituated ? Hath not this been the progrefs of the corruption ( you will call it reformation, but I muft fpeak my own language) in later times ; Soci- nus, although he denied the original divinity of our Lord, was neverthelefs a worftiipper of Chrift, and a ftrenuous affertor of his right to worftiip. It was left to others to build upon the foundation which Socinus laid i and to bring the Unitarian do£irine R 2 to H4-- LETTERS IN REPLY ^yTv^^ to the goodly form, in which the prefent age be- holds it. 5. But, Sir, my fuppofition is not only free from improbability j it is highly probable. Ebion in his notions of the redeemer, as I have already had occa- fion to obferve, feems to have been a meer Cerinthian. Epiphanius and Irenaeus fay, that he held the Cerin- thian dodlrine of a union of Jefus with a fuperange- lic being. The Cerinthian dodlrine was, that this union commenced at our Lord's baptifm 3 was inter- rupted during the crucifixion and at the time of OL.r Lord's interment, but reftored again after his refur- reilion : and being refiored it rendered the man Jefus an objedt of divine honours. As Epiphanius fays in general of Ebion, that he held the Cerinthian doilrine concerning Chrift, without fpecifying parts that he received, and parts that he rejeded; the probability is, that he received the whole ; and of confequence that he worfhipped Chrifl as a deified man, notwithftanding that he denied his original di- vinity. This fuppofition of mine hath, you fee, a probability of its own ; which is quite diftin6t from that which accrues to it from its ufe in reconciling Eufebius with the hiftorian that he quotes, and is founded on the acknowledged agreement of Ebion with Cerinthus. 6. For my other fuppofition, that Theodotus might be the firft perfon who taught the Unitarian doclrine at Rome, you think it highly improbable ; " becaufe Tertullian fays, that in his time the Uni- " tarians TO DR. PRIESTLEY. r;s " tarians were the greater part of believers*." At letter XIV. Rome therefore, " where there was a conflux of all '' religions, and of all fe£ts," the probability is little that there fhould be no Unitarians. Sir, I will grant — I am liberal, I am fure, in my concelFions — I will grant, that Rome fwarmed with Unitarians in the time of TertuIIian. Not for the reafon which you afllgn ; that TertuUian fays, the Unitarians were the majority of behevers. For this TertuIIian hath not faid ; with whatever confidence you may afcribe to him the dreams of Z wicker and his credulous dif- cjples. I mud take the liberty to fay, Sir, that a man ought to be accomplifhed in antient learning, who thinks he may efcape, with impunity, and with- out detedion, in the attempt to brow-beat the world with a peremptory and reiterated allegation of tefti- monies that exifc not. But, Sir, although I deny that TertuIIian fays, that the Unitarians were in his time the majority of believers ; yet I will grant, that they were numerous at Rome in the time of TertuI- Iian. I profefs I know not how numerous, or how few, they were. But to fhew the flrength of my caufe, fmce you are pleafed to have it fo, let them be mimerous. How will their numbers affe6l my fup- pofition, that Theodotus was the firft perfon who at Rome taught the Unitarian doftrine ? Might not tliis be, ahhough the Unitarians fwarmed at Rome in the titpe of TertuIIian ? Believe me. Sir, it well might be ; for tlic times of TertuIIian were the very times of Theodotus. About the year of our Lord * Letters to Dr. H. p. 103.— Sec alfo p. i2i---and Se- cond Letters, p. 71. R 3 185 i^S LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER 1815 Tertullian embraced Chriflianity. About the XJV. . •' year of our Lord 190 came Theodotus the apoftate, the tanner of Byzantium, preaching at Rome the dodrine of Antichrift. f. My learned ally has a third conje£lure for the reconciling of Eufebius and his author. It is by no means neceflary to our argument, that either of my fuppofitions, or that his, or that any particular con- jecSlure which may be made upon the fubjedl, fliould be brought to a certainty. You tax Eufebius with want of candor and confiftency. The charge refts upon an afTumption, that what Eufebius relates of the antiquity of the Ebionites, and what his author affirms of the firft aflertion of our Lord's meer huma- nity by Theodotus, cannot be interpreted but in con- tradictory fenfes. If we have fliewn, by a variety of probable conjeftures, that the two aflertions ad- mit confident interpretations, that each may be true in the fenfe in which each writer underftood himfelf, without contradidion of the other ; the whole evi- dence of your accufation is demoliflied, and the charge of temerity and prefumption lies heavy on yourfelf for an attack, which you cannot fupport with proof, upon the character of a grave and refpedable hif- torian. I am, Sic. LETTER T O D R. P R I E 5 T L E Y. J547 LETTER FIFTEENTH. Jn reply to Dr. Pr'icjlley's Seventh. — The mctaphyfical difficulties Jiated by Dr. Priejily neither new nor un~ anfwerahle. — Difficulties Jhort of a contradiSlion no ohje^lion to a revealed doclrine. — Difficulties in the Arian and Socinian do5lrine. — The Father not thefole chje£l ofworjhip. — Our Lord^ in luhat fenfe an image of the invifible God and the fir/i-born of every crea- ture.— Not the defign of the Evangelifis to deliver a fyjiem of fundamental principles. The doctrine of the Trinity refls on the general tenor of the fa^ cred writings. — The inference^ that Chrijl is 7iot God^ becaufe the Apofllcs often fpeak of him as man^ invalid, — The inference, from the manner in which hefo?ne- times fpeaks of himfelf invalid. — The Jthanafians of the laft age no Tritheijls. Dear Sir, A F T E R the declaration which I have made LETTER that I will not enter into a regular controverfy with you upon the fubjeft of the Trinity, you will not wonder, if you receive only a general reply to fome parts of your Seventh Letter. A particular anfwer to the feveral objedions which it contains, would lead me into metaphyfical difquifitions; which I wifh to decline, becaufe in that fubjedl I forefee that vv'e fliould want common principles and a com- mon language. The queftions which you propofe R 4 in i4S L p T T E R S I N R E P L Y. LETTER 5ri the fecond and the fourth fedions of this letter, are not new, and have been anfwered. But if they were unanfwerable, what would be the inference ? 1'he inference would only be, that the dodlrine of the Trinity hath its difficulties. And is it pofTible, that any dotSlrine concerning the nature of the Deity (hould be without its difficulties ? When the infi- nite diftance is confidered between Man and his Maker ; it feems reafonable to prcfume, that there mufi: be myfteries, far above the reach of the human underflanding both in the nature of God ; and in the plan of his government : that the fuliefl difcovery that could be made, of God and of his ways, to the human intellecl, muft be imperfect ; becaufe, how- , ■ ever perfect in itfelf, it could be but imperfe£lly ap- prehended. No difficulties therefore, fhort of a contradiction, can be allowed to conftitute an objec- tion to a doftrine claiming a divine original. On the contrary, it fliould rather feem, that to involve difficvilties mull be one charadteriftic of a divine re- velation ; and its greateft difficulties may reafon- ably be expe£ted to lie in thofe parts, which im- mediately refpeCt the nature of God and the manner of his exiftence. If you v;ould fuppofe the contrary, if you would infill: that a divine re- velation, being intended for the general information of mankind, muft be perfpicuous and free from dif- ficulty j I would afk, is Chriftianity clear of difficul- ties in any of the Unitarian fchemes ; Hath the Arian hyp'othefis no difficulty, when it afcribes , both the firft formation and the perpetual government of the univerfc, not to the Deity but to an inferior being ? Can any power or wifdom, lefs than the fu- preme, be a fufficicnt ground for the trufl we are required TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 249 required to place in providence ? Make the wifdom letter and the power of our ruler what you pleafe ; Hill upon the Arian principle, it is the wifdom and the power of a creature. Where then will be the cer- tainty, that the evil, which we find in the world, hath not crept in through fome imperfeilion in the original contrivance, or in the prefent management? Since every intellect:, below the fird, may be liable to error, and any power, Ihort of the fupreme, may be inadequate to purpofes of a certain magnitude. But if evil may have thus crept in, what afTurance, can we have, that it will ever be extirpated ? In the So- cinian fcheme, is it no difficulty, that the capacity of a meer man (hould contain that wifdom, by which God made the univerfe ? Whatever is meant by the Word in St. John's Gofpel, it is the fame Word of which the Evangeliil fays, that all things were made by it, and that it was itfelf made flefli. If this Word be tb.e divine attribute "^Vifdom ; then that attribute, in the degree which was equal to the formation of the univerfe, in this view of the fcriptu re- doctrine, was conveyed entire into the mind of a meer man, the fon of a Jewifh carpenter. A much greater dif- ficulty, in my apprehenfion, than any that is to be found in the catholic faith *, 2. Im * In reply to this, Dr. Prieftley fays to me in the thirteenth of his Second Letters, feci. 3. "Pray, Sir, what Socinian " ever maintained that the divine attribute wifdom, in the " degree which was equal to the formation of the univerfe, was " conveyed entire into the mind of Jefus Chrift." I fay, that St. Jolin maintains it, if St. John was, what Dr. Prieft- ley believes him to have been, a Socinian. It \% maintained in tlie 25© LETTERS INREPLY LETTER 2. In the third fe6lion of your Seventh letter, you ' build an argument for the foJe deity of the Father, upon an afTumption that he is the fole obje6l of wor- ship. To this argument I have replied*. I deny the afTumption. I cite the example of St. Stephen, •whofe laft aft of worfliip was addrefTed to Chrift. You allege, on the other fide, the example of our Saviour, who himfelf prayed to the Father ; the au- thority of Origen ; and I know not what early and univerfal pradtice. I reply, that our Saviour, as a man, owed worfliip to the Father. I maintain, that neither the authority of Origen, nor any univerfal praftice of a later age, can outweigh the example of St. Stephen, were it fingle ; much lefs fupported as it is by other examples of equal weight. The the beginning of St. John's Gofpel, if the Evangelifl's %vords be expounded in the true fenfe by the Unitarians. TJie Word, which was with God from the beginning, according to St. John, was made flefli. If tke Word, which was made flefh, was not the fame Word which was in tlie beginning with God, by which all things were made, there is no mean- ing in the Evangehfl's words, literal or figurative. The Word's being, made flerti, according to the Socinians, was only a communication of the word to the mind of Chrift. What was communicated to the mind of Chrift? That Word which •was from the beginning, which made the world. Dr. Prieft- ley fays, this is more than the Unitarians believe. " What *• we believe is that a portion only of the fame wifdora, ** which formed the univerfe, was communicated to Chrift.'* It may be fo. Far be it from me to tax Dr. Prieftley, or his brethren, with a larger faith than they profefs. But if they believe no more than Dr. Prieftley in this pafTage acknow- ledges, they believe much lefs than St. John afterts in the jT-oft reduced itnic of his exprefTions. * Letter XI. v.'orfhip TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 35s worfliip addrefled to Chrift by St. Stephen, and the letter Apoftles, either proves the divinity of Chrift, or it juftifies the v^'orfhip of the faints and martyrs in the Roman church; and they who hve in countries, where the papal fuperftition is eftabUfhed, may, with- out fcruple, invocate St. Michael, St. Raphael, St. Abel, St. Abraham, St. Stephen, St. Sebaftian, and all the faints, angelic, and human, Jewifh and Chrif- tian, of the Roman calendar. 3. The text of St. Paul (Col. i. 15.) was produced by me *, not as the moft explicit afTertion that may be found in Scripture, of our Lord's divinity ; but as an explicit afTertion, that te is at leaft fomething much more than man, and that the univerfe was made by him. If the dignity of his nature were mentioned only in this fingle pafTage, or were no- where defcribed by higher titles than thofe which the Apoftle ufes here, *' the image of the invifible God *' and \ht firjl-born of every creature," divinity might feem more than is implied in them. But when w^e recoHecl: the ftronger exprelTions, which occar in other places ; in particular St. Paul's afTertion, that he was originally in the form of God, of which he emptied himfelf, to take the form of a fervant, i. e. of a man ; and when to all other proofs of the high dignity of his nature we add St. John's explicit doc- trine of his eternity and Godhead ; it murt be very evident, that it could not be the intention of St. Paul, in this pafTage, to fmk the Son of God into the rank, of a creature, or to feparate him from the * Charge, p. 13. '' divine 252 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER divine nature. The force of St. Paul's defcrlption XV. in both its branches, lies rather in the adjedives, invifible and firjl-born^ than in tlie fubftantives, image and creature. The firfl: branch of the defcription, that "he is the image of the invifible God," points to a circumftance, upon which the early fathers dwell, as one of the principal perfonal difhnclions : that it is in the perfon only of the Son that the glory of the Godhead can be rendered vifible. For God, in the .perfon of the Father, no man hath feen at any time *. The Son is therefore an image of the invifible deity ; not as a likenefs formed in a diftindl fubflance, but as he, who in every inftance of an immediate intercourfe between God and man, hath been the appearing per- fonf . The fecond branch of the defcription holds out a difi;in£lion between birth and creation, which im- ^ plies that the Son's exigence is dependent on the Father's, in fome other manner than that in which any creature's .exiftence is dependent on its maker's. You muft knowj that the words in the original text, "TtpuloloTcot; 7roiof the Apoftles to our Lord during his life, pofTefled as they were with an imperfevR: wavering belief in him as the Mefliah, and with indiftindl notions of the Meffiah's divinity, was the natural behaviour of men under thefe imprefFions. They treat him upon all occafions with a very diftant referVe : fometimes they invoke him as a deity ; as St. Peter when he was finking in the fea, and all the difciples in the florm. If the angels Michael or Gabriel fiioukl come and live among us in the manner which you fuppofe *, I think we fliould foon lofe our habitual recolledion of their angelic nature. It would be only occafionally awaked by extraordinary incidents. This at leafl: would be the cafe, if they mixed with us upon an even footing, without affuming any badges of diftindion, wearing a common garb, partaking of our lodging and of our board, fuffering in the fame degree with ourfelves from hunger and fatigue, and feeking the fame refrefhmcnts. The wonder would be if angels, in this difguife, met with any other refpe£f, than that v/hich dignity of characler comiTiands, with fomething of occafional homage, when their mira- culous help was needed. This was the refpecl which * Letters to Dr. H. p. 94. our s 2jS LRETTERSIN REPLY LETTER our Lord met with from his followers. You fay, " he could not diveft himfelf of his fuperior and " proper nature* :" but St. Paul fays quite the con- trary ; that he emptied himfelf, and aflumed a form, which fet out of fight the tranfcendent dignity of his nature, and deprived him of the homage due to it. The fcheme of man's redemption required this humiliation, which made a part of the fufferings by which our guilt was to be atoned. 14. In the eighth feftion of this feventh letter, you argue againft our Lord's divinity, from " the *' manner in which he fpeaks of the power by which *' he worked miracles, as not his own but the fa- *' ther'sf," and from the manner in which he fpeaks of himfelf, faying, My Father is greater than I. If from fuch expreflions you would be content to infer, that the Almighty Father is indeed the fountain and the center of divinity, and that the equality of Godhead is to be underftood with fome myfterious fubordination of the Son to the Father ; you would Jiave the concurrence of the antient fathers, and of many advocates of the true faith in all ages. If you would infer any other Inferiority, than what is neceflarily implied in the relation of a Son ; fome of the very pafTages, to which you allude, will ferve to your confutation. Such' are thofe fayings of our Lord, recorded in St. John's gofpel, that "the Son "can do nothing of himfelf t — the w^ord which you * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 24.. t Ibid. p. 95. X St.. John, y. 19. hear TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 259 " hear is not mine but tlie father's which fent me * letter XV *' the father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the " works f." Refer the expreflions to the context, and it will appear that, with fomething of a fubor- dination on the part of the Son, they aflert the moft perfe£l identity of nature, the moft entire unity of will, and confent of intelleft, and an inceffant co-operation in the exertion of common powers to a common purpofe. You are. Sir, very pofitive in the affertion, that Dr. Waterland in particular, and all the ftrift Athanafians of the lafl age, main- tained, " that the Trinity confifts of three perfons, *' all truly independent of each other:}:." Upon this opinion, which you afcribe to the ftri£l Athanafians, you remark in your hillory §, that to make three proper diftindt perfons, independent of each other, is to make three diftin6l Gods. I concur with you in this remark, in which you have been anticipated by the Roman Dionyfms; whofe judgment ycu know, upon certain perfons of his own time, who, in their zeal agalnft Sabellius, ran into this error, *' is quoted with approbation by Athanafius him- « felfjl." But, Sir, I deny of Dr. Waterland in particular, and of the ftridt Athanafians of the laft age in general, that they fall juftly under this cen- fure. * St. John, xiv. 34. f Ibid. xiv. 10. t Letters to Dr. H. p. 80. § VoL I. p. 147. II See Dr. Prieftley's Hift. vol. I. p. 65, and the Jfirft of thefe Letters. S a 15. Bifhop i€o LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER J 5 Bishop Bull, in his defence of the Nicene A. V# faith, fpends a whole chapter, and a very long chap- ter it is, upon the fubje^t of the Son's fubordination ; which he maintains to be as much a branch of the true faith, as the doflrine of the Son's eternity or con- fubftantiality. 16 The fame thing is aflerted by Biihop Pearfon, in his expofition of the Apoftles creed. He ob- ferves, that "in the very name of Father there is " fomething of eminence, which is not in that of " Son; and fomething of Priority we muft afcribe " unto the iirft in refpeft of the fecond perfon*." " We mufl; not therefore fo far endeavour to *' involve ourfelves in the darknefs of this myftery, " as to deny that glory which is clearly due unto " the Father — he is God, not of any other, but " of himfelf; there is no other perfon who is " God, but is God of him. It is no diminution of *' the Son to fay, he is from another — but it were " a diminution of the Father to fpeak fo of him ; " and there muft be fome pre-eminence, where there " is a place for derogation-r-The firft perfon is a " Father indeed by reafon of his Son, but he is " not God by reafon of him ; whereas the Son is " not only Son in regard of the Father, but alfo *' God by reafon of the famef." Upon this pre- eminence of the Father the learned bilhop founds the congruity of the divine miffion X i ^nd he main- " tains, that " the dignity of the Father appear* * Pearfon on the creed, p. 34. t Ibid. I Ibid, p. 37. " from TOD R. PRIESTLEY 261 « from the order of perfons in the bleffed Trinity, letter " of which he is undoubtedly the firfl. Ahhough in " fome pafTages of the apoftolical difcourfes, the Son " may be firfl: named and in others the Holy " Ghoft precede the Son yet where the three per- " fons are barely enumerated, and delivered unto us " as the ruleof faith, there that order is obferved which *' is proper to them this order hath been perpe- *' tuated in all confellions of faith, and is for ever " to be inviolably obferved*." And this order be- ing fo generally acknowledged by the fathers, the bifliop remarks in a note, that " when' we read in *' the Athanafian creed that in this Trinity none is " afore or after other, we muft underftand the ne- " gation of the priority of perfe6lion or timef." 17. To the fame purpofe the learned Mr. William Stephens, author of fome able difcourfes on the Trinity, in his fermon On the eternal Generation of the Son of God, preached before the Univerfity of Oxford, Auguft 5th 1722 ; affirms, that "on the *' communication of the Godhead from the Father " to the Son — is founded and eflablilhed all that fub- " ordination which we affert among the Perfons of " the Trinity." He adds, that " unlefs fome fub- " ordination be maintained, we run into Tritheifm." For he agrees with you and me, that " three co- " ordinate Perfons would be manifeflly three Gods." 18. The fame fentiments are acknowledged by Dr. Wateriand, in his commentary on the Athana- * Pearfon on the creed, p. 37. f Ibid. S 3 fian 362 LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER fc fjaj-j creed. "When it is faid, none is afore or after XV. . i •' " c//;(^r, we are not to undcrftand it or order : for " the Father is firft, the Son fecond, the Holy Ghoft " third in order. Neither are we to underftand it " of office ; for the Father is fupreiTie in office, while " the Son and Holy GhoPc condefcend to inferior " offices. But we are to underftand it, as the creed " itfelf explains it, of duration and dignity*." 19. From thefe paffages it appears, that you mif- rcprefent the ftridl Athanafians of the laft age, when you charge them with aflerting fuch a feparation and independence of the three Perfons, as would amount to Tritheifm : and you mifreprefent me, when you infmuate, that I would fet the three Perfons at a greater diftance, than the Athanafians of the laft age allowed. I maintain that the three Perfons are one Being; One by mutual relation, indifibluble con- nedlion, and gradual fubordination : fo ftridly one, that any individual thing, in the whole world of mat- ter and of fpirit, prefents but a faint fhadow of their unity. I maintain that each perfon by himfelf is God ; becaufe each pofiefTes fully every attribute of the divine nature. But I maintain that thefe Perfons are all included in the very idea of a God ; and that for that reafon, as well as for the identity of the at- tributes in each, it were impious and abfurd to fay, there are three Gods. For to fay there are three Gods were to fay there are three Fathers, three Sons, * Waterland on the Athanafian creed p. 144. and T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. a6} and three Holy Ghofts. I maintain the equality of letter the three Perfons in all the attributes of the divine nature. I maintain their equality in rank and autho- thority, with refpedl to all created things, whatever relations or differences may fubfift between themfelves. Differences there muft be, left we confound the Per- fons; which was the error of Sabellius. But the dif- ferences can only confift in the perfonal properties, left we divide the fubftance, and make a plurality of independent Gods. It will not put me out of con- ceit with the arguments, which I have brought to fup- port thefe facred truths, or with the illuftrations which I have attempted, that you pronounce them equal in abfurdity to any thing in the Jewifti cabala* ( of which I fufpeft you hardly know enough to judge with certainty of this pretended refemblance ) or that you imagine, when you read me, that you are reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or Duns Scotusf. Perhaps, Sir, though a proteftant divine, I may fometimes condefcend to look into tlie SummaXy and may be lefs mortified, than you conceive, with this comparifon. It was well meant however, and is one of thofe general depreciatory infinuations, which are apt to catch the vulgar, and may ferve the pur- pofe of a reply upon any occafion, when a real reply is not to be framed. I am, &c. * Letters to Dr. H. p. 80. f Ibid. p. 99. t — no Proteftant, I imagine, will ever think it worth his while to read many fei5tions in that work — the Summa. Hiftory of Cojruptions, vol. I. p. 119. S4 LETTER XV. :S4 LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER SIXTEENTH= The Unitarian doctrine mt ivell calculated for the con- verfion of Jtivs.y Mahometans^ or Infddsy of any defcription. Dear Sir, xvj. "^/OU exprefs in your hiftory, and in your letters to me, a very charitable anxiety about Jews, Mahometans, and Infidels. It is one of your great obje£tions to the . doclrine of the Trinity, that it is, as you conceive, an cbfrruclion to their con - verfion ; which you think might be fpeedily efiec- ted, by reducing Chrifiianity to the Unitarian creed. My notion is, that it is our duty to adhere to the letter of the gofpel ; and to leave it to God to open the eyes of Jews, Mahometans, and Infidels, in ids own time and in his o'.vn way. Your device of bringing them to believe Chriftianity, by giving the name of Chriftianity to what they already believe, in principle exa£lly refembles the ftratagem of a cer- tain miflionary of the Jefuits, of whom I have fome- where redde ; who, in his zeal for the converfion of an Indian chief, on whom the fablimity of the doctrine of the gofpel and the purity of its moral precepts made little imprefiion, told him that Chrift had been a valiant and fuccefsful wairior, who in the fpace of three years fcalped men, women, and children without number. Thefavage was well-difpofed to become a difciple of fuch a mailer — He was baptized with his whole tribe, and the Jefuit gloried in his numerous converts. 2. Pardon TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 265 2. Pardon me, Sir, if I exprefs a doubt, whe- letter XVI. ther vour ftratagem promife equal fuccefs. For the Jews ; whenever they begin to open their eyes to the evidences of our Saviour's miflion, they will ftill be apt to confider the New Teftament in con- nexion with the Old. They will look for an agree- ment, in principle at leaft, between the Gofpel and the Law. When they accept the Chriftian doctrine, it will be as a later and a fuller difcover)'. They will reject it, if they conceive it to be contradictory to the patriarchal and the Mofaic revelations. Succeffive difcoveries of divine truth may differ, they will fay, in fullnefs and perfpicuity ; but in principle they mufl harmonize, as parts of one fyftem. They will retain fome veneration for their traditional doctrines ; and in their mofi: antient Targums, as well as in allufions in their facred books, they will find the notion of one Godhead in a Trinity of perfons ; and they will per- ceive, that it was in contradiction to the Chriftians, that their later rabbin abandoned the notions of their forefathers. The Unitarian fcheme of Chriftianity js the laft: therefore to which the Jews are likely to be converted, as it is the mofl: at enmity with their antient faith. 3. With the A-Tahometans Indeed, your profpeds may feem more promifing ; as the whole difference between you and them feems very inconfiderable. The true Muffulman believes as much, or rather more of Chrift, than the Unitarian requires to be believed ; • and though the Unitarians have not yet recognifed tlie divine miffion of A^ahomet, there is good ground to 366 L E T T E R S I N R E P L Y LETTER to think, they will not long {land out*. In Unitarian XVI. . . writings of the lafl: century, it is allowed of Maho- met, that he had no other defign than to reftore the belief of the unity of God — of his religion, that it was not meant for a new religion, but for a refti- tution of the true intent of the Chriftian — of the grand prevalence of the Mahometan religion, that it hath been owing, not to force and the fword, but to that one truth contained in the Alcoran, the unity of God. With thefe friendly dilpofitions towards each other, it fhould feem that the Mahometan and the Unitarian might eafily be brought to agree. But the experiment hath been very ferioully tried, without any event anfwerable to the expedtation. You may not know it. Sir, but fo it was, that in the reign of Charles the fecond, v negociation was re- gularly opened, on the part of our Englifh Unita- . rians, with his excellency Ameth Ben Ameth, am- baflador of the emperor of Morocco at the Britifh court, in order to form an alliance with the Maho- metan prince for the more efteftual propagation of the * Dr. Prieflley, in his Second Letters, p. 163, wittily remarks, " that I might almofl: as well afTert that all the " Unitarians in England are already fo far Mahometans, " that, to my certain knowledge, they are aftually circum- ** cifed." Upon this occafion I cannot but remind him of what hiftory records of an elder brother of our modern Uni- tarians. In the latter end of the fixteenth century, Adam Neufer, pafior of the church of Heidelberg, the firft, or among the firft propagators of the Socinian herefy in the Palatinate, began in Socinianifm, and finished his career with turning Mahometan, and fubmitting to circumcifion at Con- j'^antinoplc. Unitarian TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 267 Unitarian principles. The two Unitarian disines, letter. who undertook this fingular treaty, addrefs the am- baffudor and the MulTuhnen of his fuite, as "vo- " taries and fellow-worfliippers of the fole fuprcme " deity." They return thanks to God, that he hath preferved the emperor of Morocco, and his fubjects, in the excellent knowledge of one only fo- vereign God, who hath no difundion nor plura- lity of perfons ; and in many other wholefome doc- trines. They fay, that they, with their pens, defend the faith of one fupreme God, and that God raifed up Mahomet to do the fame with the fword, as a fcourge on idolizing Chriftians. They therefore fhle them- felves the fellow-champions with the Mahometans for thefe truths. They offer their afllftance, to purge the Alcoran of certain corruptions and interpolations; which, after the death of Mahomet, had crept into I is papers of which the Alcoran was com-- pofed. For of Mahomet they think too highly, to . fuppofe that he could be guilty of the many repug- nancies, which are to be found in the w];itings that go under his name. This work they declare them- felves willing to undertake for the vindication of Ma- homet's glory. They intimate, that the corrections, which they would propofe, would render the Alcoran inore confirient, not w^ith itfclf only, but with the gofpel of Chrift j of which they fay Mahomet pre- tended to be but a preacher. They tell the am- baflador, that the Unitarian Chriftians are a great and confiderable people. To give weight to the affertion, they enumerate the herefiarchs of all ages- who i6$ LETTERS IN REPLY ^yvif ^ who have oppofed the Trinity, from Paulus Samo- fatenfis down to Fauftus Socinus and the leaders of the Polonian fraternity : they celebrate the modern tribes of Arianifmg Chriftians, as aflertors of the proper unity of God: and they clofe the honoura- ble liil wiih the Mahometans themfelves. " All " thefe, they fay, maintain the faith of one — God. " And why iliould we forget to add you Mahome- " tans, who alfo confent with us in the belief of one " only fupreme deity." Such is the fubftance of a letter, which they prefented to the ambaiTador, ■with fome latin manufcripts refpecting the differen- ces between Chriftianity and the Mahometan religion, and containing an ample detail of the Unitarian tenets. They apply to the Muffulman as to a per- fon of " known difcernment in fpiritual and fublime matters ;" and they intreat him to communicate the import of their manufcripts to the cohfideration of the fittetl perfons of h^s countrymen. This fingular epiftle may be feen entire in Dr. Leflie's Socinian con- troverfy difcujfed. An hundred years are almoft elapfed, fmce thele overtures were made to the Moor ; and as no effect hath yet followed, it (liould feem, that the converfion of the Mahometans to the Unitarian Chrif- tianity is as unlikely as that of the Jews. 4, For the unbelievers. Sir, Mr. Gibbon, as you feem yourfelf to intimate, hath given you but flender hopes*. Unbelievers indeed are of tv^o defcriptions.. * *' Mr, Gibbon has abfolutely declined to dif- cufs with me, as I propofed to hirn, the hiftorical evidences of Chriftianity." Preface to Reply to Monthly Review for jane, p. S. The T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 269 The fober Deifts ; who, rcjedino; revelation, acknow- lettex. . . XVI. ledge however the obligations of morality ; believe a Providence ; and expedt a future retribution : and the Atheifts ; who have neither hope nor fear beyond the prefent life ; deny the Providence of God j and doubt at leafl of his exjl^ence. 5. Infidels of the firft defcription will hardly be - come your difciples, becaufe you have nothing to teach them, but what they think they know. " We think, they will fay, no lefs reverently than you of the moral attributes of God. Upon our notions of his attributes we build an expectation of a future exigence ; and we. look for a lot of happinefs or mifery, in our future life, according toourdeferts in this. The whole dif- ference between you and us is this ; that we believe the fame things upon different evidence : you, upoa the teftimony of a man j who you fay was raifed up to preach thefe truths : we, upon the evidence of rea- fon ; which we think a higher evidence than any hu- man teftimony. We think that a revelation is pre- tended with a very ill grace, when nothing hath been aftually revealed. Revelation is difcovery. The dodlrines of a God, a Providence, and a future ftate were known to the Jews before Chrift j to the Patri- archs before Mofes ; they have been known to think- ing men in all ages ; and there can be no place for difcovery, where there hath been no concealment." If you would fay, that the end of revelation is, to ex- tend to all mankind that ufeful knowledge, which niuft othervvife have been enjoyed but by a few ; to convey information by teUimor.y to thofe who are incapable of iio LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER of informing; themfelves by abftracl: reafonin?; that XVI. . the gofpel is therefore a revelation, becaufe to the bulk of mankind it is a difcovery, and a difcovery of fuffi- cient importance to claim a divine original : they will rsply, that whatever weight this argument might carry, if it were urged by thofe who take the fcrip- tiires in their literal' meaning, and conceive that the revelation is conveyed in a plain undifguifed language ; it is a feeble v/eapoii in the hand of an Unitarian. " If your method of interpretation be the true one, the firfi: preachers of Chriftianity, they will fay, dif- fered not from other nioralifts, otherwife than by the wonderful obfcurity of their language, and the air of myftery which they have contrived to throw over the fimpleft truths. Their enigmatic language is as little adapted to popular apprehenfion, as the abftrufe rea- fonings of philofophers. The fuccefs of their dodrine hath been luch as might have been well forefeen. They were ftudious of obfcurity — they have attained their end. They have been mifunderftood by a great majority of their follov^ers for almoft two thoufand years. They profeffed to teach the pure worfliip of the true God. The language, in which they con- veyed their doiSlrine, hath been the ro.eans of intro- ducing the grolTefl: idolatry. We will not truft our- felves to fuch dangerous guides, who, as you expound their writings, never fpake upon the moft interelling fubjeils without figure and equivocation.'* 6. For the Atheiftic infidels, who are in the firfi: place to be convinced of the exiftence of a deity; your dOsSlrine, that there is no mind in rnrm, but what re- fults TO DR. PRIESTLEY i7T fults from the organization of the brain, will never letter. lead them to conclude, that mind is older than body in the univerfe. " You would perfuade me, the Atheift will fay, that there is an higher intelieil than mine, the caufe of all things. But if intelle6l in me be the refult of motion, why not in any other intelli- gent ? You only confirm my incredulity, and mul- tiply my doubts. You make me doubt of my own intellect:, while you would account for its production ; and you confirm the fufpicion, which I have long en- tertained, that the material world is older than its fup- pofed maker : that mind, if indeed fuch a thing exift, hath like all other things flarted fpontaneoufly from a corporeal chaos ; and, inflead of being the firft caufe and • the governing principle, is the youngeft of all nature's produiflions." Your principle that death is an utter extintSion of the man, your Atheiftical pupil will eaiily admit. But it is little likely to awaken him to the hope of a future exiftence. The hope which you hold out of a refurredlion, he will tell you, is no hope at all, even admitting that the evidence of the thing could, upon your principles, be indifputable. " The Atoms which compofe Me^ your Atheiil will fay, may indeed have compofed a man before, and may again. But Afe they will never more compofe, when oncetheprefent Aft' is difljpated. I have no recollec- tion of a former, and no concern about a future felf. Et nunc nihil ad nos de nobis attinet, ante Qui fuimus ; nee jam de illis nos afBcit anger, Quos de materia noflra nova proferet astas. Inter 272 LETTER. XVI. LETTERS IN REPLY Inter enim jeda eft vital paufa', vageque Deerarunt pafTim motus ab fenfibus omnes." 7. It fliould feem, Sir, that your doctrines are ill calculated for the converfion of Jew s or Infidels. Upon the Mahometans their efficacy hath been tried without fuccefs. The Unitarians therefore are not likely t« be the infer uments of thefe converlions. I am, &c. N. B. The ftory of the negociation on the part of the Englifli Unitarians, in the reign of Charles the Second, with the ambafiador of the Emperor of Mo- rocco, Dr. Prieftley, in the Fifteenth of his Second Letters, is pleafed to treat with great contempt, as an invention, that is to fay, a lie or forgery, of Dr. Leflie's. Fortunately the evidence of this extraor- dinary fadt is yet extant in the Archiepifcopal Li- brary at Lambeth. Among the Codices MSS. Tenifoniarj^ is a thin folio, marked with the num- ber 673, and entered in the Catalogue, under the article Socinians^ by the title of Syjiema Theologies^ ^ocinlance. It contains four trads. The firft is the very letter to Ameth Ben Ameth, publirtied by Dr. Leilie, written in a very fair hand. On the pre- cedino: TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 273 cedino; leaf are thefe remarks. " Thefe are the ori- letter XVI. *' ginal papers, \vhich a cabal of Socimans in Lon- *' don offered to prefent to the Embafladour of the " King of Fez and Morocco, when he was taking " leave of England. Augufl: 1682. The faid " Embafladour refufed to receive them, after having " underftood that they concerned religion. The *' agent of the Socinians was Monfieur Verze. Sir " Charles Cottrell, Kn. Mr. of the Cerem. then " praefent, defired he might have them ; wliich was " grauntcd : and he brought them and gave them " to me Thomas Tenifon, then Vicar of St. Mar- « tins in the Fields, Middl." The fecond tra6l is in Latin, entituled, Epijiola Ameth Benundula Mahoinetani ad Juriacum Pri-iui- pe?n Comitum Mauritluniy ct ad Emmanuelern Portii- gallia Principem. The thtrd trad is again in Latin, entituled, J/ii- rnadverf.ones in pracedentem Epijlolam. T^hefe two tracts are the Latin letter, and the remarks of the Unitarian Divines upon it, v^'hich are mentioned in the Engliih letter to Ameth Ben Ameth, and of which Dr. Leflie, in his preface, fays he had feen a printed copy. The fourth traft I take to be the preface to the printed edition, or intended edition. This alfo is in Latin, and is infcribed Tbcognh Irenaus Chrijliuno Ledlori jaliitem. T I DO 27+ LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER I DO moft fokmnly averr, that I have this day (Jan, 15, 1789) compared the letter to Ameth Ben Amethj as publiilied by Dr. Leflie in his Socima?i Coniroverfy difcujjed^ witia the MS. in the Arch- bifhop's Library, and find that the printed copy, , with the exception of fome trivial typographical er- rors, which in no way afFe6l the fenfe, and are fuch as any reader will difcover and correct for himfelf, is exadtly conformable to the MS. without the omif- fion or addition of a fingle word. I do moreover averr, that the remarks in the leaf at the beginning of the MS. giving an account of its contents, and of the manner in which thefe papers came into the pofleffion of Dr. Tenifon, were this fame day copied verbatim from the MS. by myfelf upon the fpot. If Dr. Prieflley fhoVild miftrufl: my veracity in thefe aflertions (which I think he will not) I pro- mife him that I will at any time ufe my endeavours to procure him a fight of the MS. that he may fa- tisfy himfelf. LETTER T O D R. PRIESTLEY. 475 LETTER SEVENTEENTH. The Archdeacon takes leave of the controverfy. Dear Sir, tT might be but confiftent with the pr'ule^ which you impute to m.e as a churchman ; and with the contemptuous airs, which I am apt to give myfelfwith refpeil to diflenters *j were I to clofe our prefent cor- refpondence without any notice of your animadver- fions upon that part of my Charge, which regards the ftudies of the younger clergy, and what you are pleafed to call my terms of communion. It might be a fuf- ficient, and not an unbecoming reply, to remind you that I fpoke ex cathedra, and hold myfelf accountable for the advice which I gave to no human judicature, except the KING, the Metropolitan, and my Dio- cefan. This would indeed be the only anfwer, which I (hould condefcend to give to any one for whom I retained not, under all our differences, a very con- (iderable degree of perfonal efteem. But as Dr. * ** If your pride as a churchman, and the contemptuous ; " airs you give yourfelf with rel'pe6t to Diflenters, &c." \ Letters to Dr. H. p. 112. T 2 Prieftley LETTER XVII. 2y6 LETTERSIN REPLY LETTER Prieftley ismy adverfary, in fome points I could wifli to fet him right, and in fome I delire to explain. 2. If I have any where exprelTed myfelfcontemp- tuoufly, the contempt is not of you, but of your ar- gument upon a particular fubjed, upon which I truly think you argue very weakly; and of your informa- tion upon a point, in which I truly think you are ill informed. This hinders not, but that I may enter- tain the refpedl, which I profefs, for your learning in other fubjeds ; for your abilities in all fubjedts in which you are learned ; and a cordial elieem and af- fedion for the virtues of your character, which I be- lieve to be great and amiable. Your attack being made upon thofe parts of the eftablilhed faith, which I conceive to be fundamental principles of the Chrif- tian religion, I hold it my duty to fhew the weaknefs of your reafoning ; to expofe your infufficiency in thefe fubjeds ; and to bear my teftimony aloud againft your doftrine. Between duty to God and to his church, and refpect for man, it were criminal to he- fitate. Upon any occafion, wherein complaifance might be allowed to operate, you are the lail: perfon, whofe feelings I would have wounded. 3. You feem to think that I fecretly fufped you of artifices, which are incompatible with that pu- rity of intention, which I would feem willing to al- low*. In your laft pamphlet, you complain that I have charged you with feveral inftances of grofs * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 12. difm- T O D R. P R I E S T L E V. 277 difinsenuitv *. I am fenfible, that, in thefe letters, I-Etter o J J n • XVII4 you will find more and itronger infcances of charges, which you will be apt to interpret as unfavourably ; and this, I fear, will heighten the fufpicion which you exprefs ; that even the compliments I fometimes pay you are ironically meant f. 4. Indeed, Sir, in quoting antient authors, when you have underftood the original, which in many inflances is not the cafe, you have too often been guilty of much referve and management. This appears in fome inftances, in which you cannot pre- tend, that your own inadvertency, or your printer's, hath given occafion to unmerited imputations. I wifh that my complaints upon this head had been groundlefs : but in juftice to my own caufe, I could not fuffer unfair quotations to pafs undete(3:ed, I am unwilling to draw any conclufion from this un- feemly pradtice, againft the general probity of your character. But you muft allow me to lament, that men of integrity, in the fervice of wKat they think a good end, fhould indulge themfelves fo freely as they often do, in the ufe of unjuflifiable means. Time was when the pracl:ice was openly avowed; and Origen himfelf was among its defenders. The art which he recommended, he fcrupled not to em- ploy. I have produced an inftance, in which to filence an adverfary, he had recoarfc to the willful and deliberate allegation of a notorious falfehood, * Remarks on the Monthly Review, p. 1 2, note. •f Letters to Dr. H. p. no. T 3 You 27S LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER You have gone no fuch Jensfth as this. I think vou XVII. may believe me fincere, when I fpeak refpefifully of your worth and integrity, notwitliftanding that I find occafion to charge you with fome degree of blame, in a fort in which the great chara6ler of Ori- gen was more deeply infected. Would God it had been otherwife. Would God I could with truth have boafted, " To thefe low arts ftooped Origen ; '' but my contemporary, my great antagonift, dif- *' dains them." How would it have heightened the pride of victory, could I have found a fair oc- cafion to be thus the herald of my adverfary's praife. 5. I AM not fenfible, that I have fpoken con- temptuoufly of DifTenters in general. A fair and confciencious diflent is not the obje£l of contempt ; neither is a petulant hoftility againfi: edablifliments refpeClable. The praife which I give the Church of England, that flie is the firfl in confideration of all the Proteftant Churches, is no more than liberal DifTenters have themfelves allowed. I have heard, from very good authority, of a converfation that paffed between the late Dr. Chandler and a clergy- man of the Church of Scotland, in which Chandler was a warm advocate for the, conftitution of the Church of England, in preference to any of the re- formed Churches. You will remember, that I make the learning and the piety of her clergy, of which ample monuments are extant, the bafis of her pre-eminence j to which however another cir- cumfiance TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 279 cumftance hath in fome degree contributed ; name- ^^J'f,^'^ ly, that ihe had the dilcretion to obferve fome de- cency and moderation, in the bufinefs of reforming. I cannot admit, that meer diftance from the Church of Rome is the true ftandard of purity ^ and when you recolleil, how ftrongly that maxim favours of Jack's fpleen againft Lord Peter ; I am apt to think you will regret, that fuch a fentiment fliould ftain your page *. 6. It is ftill my opinion, that any young cler- gyman who will diligently apply to the courfe of ftudies, which I took the liberty to recommend, may do without Dr. "Whitby's Difquifitions^ or Dr. Clarke's Scripture DoSirine f. The lafl treatife contains indeed a very full collection of the texts re- lating to the Trinity. The compilation from the fathers is incompleatj the learned author having carefully felecled thofe pafiages which, taken by themfelves in detachment from their contexts, feem favourable to his own opinions. I will not however deny, that to ftudents of a certain defcription, the book may have its ufe. I myfelf perhaps owe fome- thing to it : which, as you recommend it to my particular attention, it feems incumbent upon mc to declare. I believe, Sir, that few have thought fo much upon thefe fubjeds, as you and I have done, who have not at firft wavered. Perhaps nothing but the uneafmefs of doubt, added to a jufl; fenfe of the importance of the queftion, coujd engage any * See Letters to Dr, Horfley, p. 112. f Ibid. p. 3. T 4 njan sSo LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER Yuan m the toil of the enquiry. For my own part I ftiall not hefitate to confefs, that I fct out with great fcruples. But the progrefs of my mind hath been the very reverfe of yours. It was at firft my principle, as it is flill yours, that all appearance of difficulty in the dodlrine of the gofpel muft arife from mifinterpretation ; and I was fond of the ex- pedient of getting rid of myftery, by fuppofing a figure in the language. The harfhnefs of the figures, which I had fometimes occafion to fuppofe, and the obvious uncertainty of all figurative interpretations, foon gave me a diftruft of this method of expound- ing : and Butler's Analogy cured me of the folly of lookincr for nothino; mvfterious in the true fenfe of a divine revelation. By this cure I was prepared to become an eafy convert to the doftrine of atone- ment and fatisfa£tion ; which feemed to furnifli in- centives to piety, that no other dodlrine could fup- ply. I foon perceived, how the value of the atone- ment was heigluened, and what a fublimity accrued to the whole doflrine of Redemption, by the notion, clearly conveyed in the Scriptures literally taken, of a Redeemer defcending from, a previous (late of glory, to become our teaciier and to make the ex- piation. Thus I was brought to a full perfuafion of our Lord's pre-exiftent dignity. Having once admitted hispre-exiftence in an exalted ftate, I faw the necefiity of placing him at the head of the cre- ation. " For a derived pre-exifcent Being, fup- *' pofed to animate the body of Jefus, who is not ^' alfo t!ie maker of the world, is, as you v»?ell ob-. ^' fcrve T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. aSt " ferve, a meer creature of the imaeination ; whofe leettr. XVII. *' exiftence is not to be inferred, with the leaft co~ " lourable pretext from the Scripture * :" fince it is not to be found either in the literal, or in the fi- gurative meaning. Not in the hteral confefledly. Not in the figurative ; becaufe if the texts, whicl> fpeak of Chrifc as the maker of the world, admit a figurative confiruclion ; " much more thofe which *' refer only to his pre-exiftence f." I thank you. Sir, for exprefilng my own fentiments with fo much perfpicuity, and for proving them with fo much evidence. Being thus convinced, that our Lord Jefus Chrift is indeed the maker of all things ; I found, that I could not reft fatisfied with the no- tion of a maker of the univerfe not God. I faw that all the extravagancies of the Gnoftics hung upon that one principle : and I could have little opinion of the truth of a principle, which feemed fo big with mifchief. I then fet myfelf to confider, whether I knew enough of the divine unity, to pronounce the " Trinity an infringement of it." Upon this point the Platonifts, whofe acquaintance I now began to cultivate, foon brought me to a right mind. It was in this ftage of my enquiries, while I was waver- ing between the Arian tenets in their original ex- tent, and the true faith, that I firfi: opened Dr. Clarke's Scriptiire-Dociriue of the Trinity. I fat ferioufly down to the perufal of the book — I rofe a firm and decided Trinitarian. And why not re- * Letters to Dr. Horfley, p. 84. f Hiftory of Corruption, vol. I. p. 146. commend zSz LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER commend to others, you will fay, a book which had fo pnncjpal a inare m your own converfion ? I will tell you. It is one of thofe books, which may either inflruft or miflead, according to the previous attainments and habits of the ftudent. I was much at home in the Greek language j I had redde the Ecclefiaflical Hifi:orians5 and I had been many years in the habit of thinking for myfelf, upon a variety of fubjecls, before I opened Dr. Clarke's book. There is in moft men a culpable timidity ; you and I per- haps have overcome that general infirmity ; but there is in moft men a culpable timidity, which inclines them to be eafily overawed by the authority of great names : and, much as we talk of the freedom and liberality of thinking and enquiry, it is this flavi(h principle, not, as is pretended, any freedom of ori- ginal thought, which makes converts to Infidelity and Herefy. Fools imagine, that the greateft au- thorities are alvs'ays on the fide of new and fingular opinions ; and that, by adopting them, they get themfelves into better company, than they have na- turally an)f right to keep : and thus they are fe- cretly worfliippers of authority, in that very zct m which they pretend to fly in the face of it. They worfliip private authority, while they fly in the face of univerfal. They deride an old and general tra- dition, becaufe they have not fagacity to trace the connedtion of its parts, and to perceive the force of the entire evidence : and while they thus trample on the accumulated authority of ages, with an idiot fimplicity they fufFer themfelves to be ledde by the meer J TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 383 XVII. meer name of the writer of the day, a Bolingbroke, letter a Voltaire, a Gibbon, or a Prieftley j as if they thought to become wife and learned by taking a ihare and an intereft in the follies, or the party- views, of men of abilities and learning. And where a fe- cret confcioufnefs of ignorance is not accompanied with the vain ambition of being thought wife ; ftill an undue deference to private authority, in preju- dice of eflablifhed opinion, feems to be the fide upon which even modeft men are liable to err. Info- much, that every man may be fuppofed to partake of this infirmity, in fubjedls in which he feels him- felf unlearned. To thofe, therefore, who are qua- lified to ufe Dr. Clarke's book as a digefl, which, though incompleat, may afTift them in forming a judgment for themfelves ; to thofe who can and will turn it to this ufe, it may be ferviceable. But they, who from a modefi: fenfe of their own infufficiency in the learned languages, and in ecclefiaftical hif- tory, may be difpofed to liften to the opinion of the ■writer, will be more mifledde by his authority than they will be informed by the compilation. In a word, it is a book of which a fcholar may make his ufe ; but I cannot recommend it to young Di- vines, in the beginning of their fludies. 7. In the conclufion of your feventh letter, you fpeak of a certain defence of Bifhop Bull's of the damnatory claufe in the Athanafian creed ; of which, inafmuch as I have recommended the writings of Bifhop Bull without exception, you " prcfume, you tell 2S4 LETTERS IN REPLY ^xvn^^ " ^^^^ "^^' ^^^^ ^ approve." And to correal thefe expreflions, which ftate as a prefumption only, or an inference, what might be dire£Hy proved upon me by my own words, you add in a parerithefis, that I have mentioned this among the mofl valuable works of that learned prelate *. Of whatever im- portance, Sir, I may conceive it to be, that the faith which was firfl delivered to the faints fhould be pre- ferved whole and undefiled ; whatever I may think of the folly and the crime of fetting up private judgement for the rule of public opinion, in oppofi- tion to a tradition traced to the firfl ages, and by confequence of the fame authority with that on which the credit of the Canon refts ; I am no lover of damnatory claufes. I am an enemy to any ap- , plication of damnatory claufes to particular perfons. I am hopeful, that there is more folly in the worl4 than malignity ; more ignorance than pofitive infi- delity ; more error than heretical perverfenefs. How is it then, that I recommend a defence of the dam- natory claufe, among the moft valuable of a learned Bifhop's works ? Sir, did you write this in your fleep ? Or is it in a dream only that I feem to read it ? Bifliop Bull's defence of the damnatory claufe ! From you. Sir, I have now my firft information that Bifliop Bull ever wrote upon the fubjecl. The writings of Bifhop Bull, which I have particularly recommended, are thefe three Latin treatifes ; Dc- fenfio fidei Nicena ; "Judkium Ecclefia: Catholha; de neceffitate credcndi "Jcfum Chrljhan eJJ'e verum Deimt j * Letters to Dr. Horiley, p. loo, Prhnitkoa T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. aSs Prlmit'iva et Apojlolica trad'itio cle Jefu Chrijit dlv'i- LETTER. nitate. To which I might have added a fourth, of lefs importancej Jni?nadverfjones in brevem tradatuni Gul. Gierke^ kc. Thefe are all his writings upon the Trinitarian Controverfy, which are contained in the edition of his Latin works by Grabe. In thefe treatifes there is no defence of the damnatory claufe j nor, that I recolleft, any mention of the Athana- fian creed. There is no defence of the damnatory claufe in the fermons and Englifh trails publilhed by Mr. Nelfon. Nor can I find any fuch tra6t mentioned by Mr. Nelfon among the Bifliop's loft works ; for many fmall pieces, which it was known that he had written, were never found after his death. Where have I mentioned, Sir, with" fuch high approbation, a work which 1 declare I have never feen ; and of which, you will forgive me, if 1 ftill doubt the exiiience * ? 8. Had * Dr. Prieftley is reduced to the necefllty of confeflTing, in the fixteenth of his Second Letters, that he knows no more than I, in what library any work of BiHiop Bull's upon the damnatory claufe in the Athanafian creed is to be found. And yet he affefts to be indignant that I fliould prefume to refent a falfe accufation ; a calumny, founded on my pre- tended admiration of a work that never exifted. It feems, when he fpoke of this defence, he had in his mind the Judi- dicium Ecdcfia: Catholicx, but, " not looking into the title- page of the book," he defcribed it by a wrong name. But vmfortunately his defcription is not more erroneous in the name, than in the fubjeft. The occafion and manner of his error may eafily be divined. Having no acquaintance with Biniop Bull's writings, but what his controverfy with me hath 286 LETTERS I N R E P L Y LETTER 8. Had I been aware of the offence which I find the word conventicle hath given, I would have avoided tlie life of it. We are engaged in a fubje£t, in which I hold it my duty to difplay my argument in its utmoft force ; hath occafioned ; wlien he wrote his Firft Letters, he made a gucfs about the particular fubjetil of each work, from the titles enumerated by me. Among thefe he found the " Ju- " dic'ium Ecdejta: Caiholk^," &c. He guefled that this judgement of the Catholic Church, which Bifliop Bull de- fended, was a judgment founded on the damnatory claufe in the Athanafian creed. So he gueflTed, that Bifhop Bull, defending that judgement^ muft have defended the damna- tory claufe ; and he chofe to guefs further, that I, the pro- fefled admirer of Bifhop Bull, of all parts of his writings the moft admired that defence. Dr, Prieftley hath fince indeed looked further into this matter. And at the time when he drew up his Second Let- ters, he had difcovered that the judgement of the church, defended by Bifhop Bull, is the anathema of the Nicene Council againft thofe, who fliould in any way impugn the article of our Lord's divinity. This Bilhop Bull indeed de- fends : that is, he maintains tlie hiftorical fact, that the Fa- thers of the Nicene Council inforced the belief of that ar- ticle under the folemn fan6tion of a public fentence ; which facTt Epilcopius had denied. Dr. Prieftley, being now informed of the real fubjeft of Bifliop Bull's treatife, fays, " that the damnatory claufe in the Athanafian creed, and the anathema annexed to the Nicene, are things exactly of the fame nature." Were I to undertake the defence of the damnatory claufe in the Atha- nafian creed, it fliould indeed be upon this principle, that it is a thing fomewhat of the fame nature with tlie anathema an- nexed to the Nicene. The anathema is no part of the Nicene creed : it is only a fentence of the church, againft the im- pugners T O D R. P R I E 5 T L E Y. iij force ; and even to ufe pretty freely that high feafonir\g ^^^y^^^" of controverfy, which may intereft the reader's atten- tion ; but I would not willfully give offence by harfh words, from which the reafoning may acquire neither force norluftre. You fay, that the word conventicle ufually fignifies, an unlawful alTembly. For my own part I thought it barely equivalent to the old Greek word cruvy^>.ua-igy which was the name for certain irre- gular affemblies, not as illegal ; for the word was pugners of a particular article. What is called the damna- tory claufe is no part of the Athanafian. It is a claufe, not of the creed, but of a prefatory fentence, in which the au- thor declares his opinion of the importance of the rule of faith he is about to deliver. But in whatever degree the damnatory claufe may be capable or incapable of apology. Dr. Prieftley is, I believe, the only writer, who ever confounded two things fo totally diftincl as an anathema, and an article of faith ; wliich he conceives the damnatory claufe to be. An anathema is fimply a fentence of ex- communication. The church of England anathematizes thofe, who fpeak difrefpe6tfully of her Book of Common Prayer. (See the IVth Canon). But that every perfon, who fliall incur the anathema of the IVth Canon, fhall pe- rifh everlaftingly, is no claufe of the church of England's creed. Dr. Prieflley hath lengthened his ilxteenth letter, with a recital of feveral paffages from Bifhop Bull's works, which he thinks muft compel me to acknowledge, that, whatever I may be, Biftiop Bull at lead was a friend to damnatory claufes. The fentiments exprelTed by Bifhop Bull, in the paflages produced by Dr. Prieflley, I would be underflood to cherifh and embrace with the mofl entire unqualified ap- probation. If to cherifh fuch fentiments, and to be a friend to damnatory claufes, be the fame thing, I ftand convided. flabet confitcntem reum, brought aS8 LETTERSINREPLV LETTER brought into ufe in an age when all aflemblies of Chrif- XVII. . . . . tians were, in the civil fenfe, equally illegal ; but it was the name for aflemblies, meeting for the purpofe of religious worfhip, without authority from the Bifliop. Such aflemblies, in the primitive ages, were thought to be fpiritually unauthorized ; and in this fenfe the word conventicle is applicable at this day to many religious meetings, which are not liable to any legal penalties. I could have wirtied, that the ufe of it had been confidered as one of the meer ar- chaifms of my ftile ; in which nothing of infult was intended. I muft however declare, that it would give me particular pleafure to receive convidion, that Mr. Lindfey's meeting-houfe and your own are not more emphatically conventicles ; in your own fenfe, that is, in the word fenfe of the word. From perfo- nal refpeil: from you and him, I Ihould be happy to be alfured, that you ftand not within the danger of the 35th of Eliz. c. I. or the 17th C. 2. c. 2. To the penalties of which, and of other ftatutes, I muft take the liberty to tell you, you are obnoxious, notwith- flanding the late ail of the 19th of his prefent ma- jefty in favour of diflenters, unlefs at the quarter feffions of the peace for the county where you live, you have made a certain declaration *, which is re- quired by that aiSt, inftead of tlie fubfcription to ar- ticles required by the former ads of Toleration. I am forry, Sir, to inform you, that I find no entry of Mr. Linfey's declaration in the office of the clerk of the peace, either for the county of Mid dlefex, or the city of Weftminfter. Could I make the fame * Appendix, N° VL enquiry T O D R. P R I E S T L E Y. 2S9 enquiry concerning you (which the diftance of your letter refidence prevents) I fear I (hould have the mortifica- tion to find, that you have no more than your friend comphed with the laws, from which you claim pro- ted^ion. A report prevails, that you both object to the declaration, from confcientious fcruples. A very fufiicient excufe for not making it ; but no excufe at all for doing what the law allows not to be done, ex- cept upon the exprefs condition, that the declaration be prcvioufly made. Had you made the declaration, you might indeed be intitled to the fame indulgence by virtue of the late a£l, to which you would have been intitled by a fubfcription to certain articles un- der former afts of Toleration ; but not without the performance of certain other conditions, required by the I ft of William and Mary, c. 18. from which other conditions diflenters are not releafed by any fubfequent flatutes. Forthefingle operation of the 19 th of our prefent gracious fovereign, c. 44. is to fubftitute a fhort and general declaration, inftead of a more par- ticular fubfcription. All other limitations of the in- dulgences granted by the firft of William and Mary ftand as they were. Had you therefore made the de- claration, which the law demands ; ftill to intitle your meetings to the benefit of the Toleration, it would have been neceflary that the places of them fhould be certified (according to the laft claufe of ] ft of William and Mary, c. i8.) either to the Bifliop of the Dio- cefe, or to the Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry, or to the Juftices of the Peace at the General or Quar- ter Seflions of the Peace for the County, City, or U Place i^o LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER Place where fuch meeting; may be held *. 1 have XVII . . fearched the Regifters of the Epifcopal court of Lon- don, of the Archdeacon's court of Middlefex, and the records of the feffions for the County of Middlefex, and for the City of Wcftminfter, for an entry of the houfe in Effex-ftreet, without fuccefs f. About your meeting-houfe I am precluded, as before, from making a regular enquiry. But I fear you have not taken the proper meafures for your legal fecurity ; becaufe the profefled ground of your diflent from the church of England is not a meer difagreement about particular articles, but a general denial of the magiflrate's autho- rity, either to prohibit or to tolerate J. Still, Sir, were you ready to comply with the requifitions of the law in thefe two particulars, the declaration of your own belief in the holy fcriptures, and the notification of the place of meeting to the ecclefiaftical or the fe- cular magiflrate, Mr. Lindfey and you, by the doc- trines which you publicly maintain ]], are excluded from all benefits of the a6ls of Toleration. Your meeting-houfe and his, contrary to your imagination, are Illegal; unknown to the laws, and unpro- tected by them. If this be the definition of a Conventicle, they are Conventicles by the exprefs , •* Appendix, Iso. V. •f But fee xvii. of Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters and my Remarks upon the Second Letters, Part 2. cap. iv, ^ 6. X " Exclufive of every thing contamed in the religion of " the church of Englatid, it is rliiefly the autliority by which •' it is enjoyned that diflenters obje^l to in it.'' Hiil. of Cor- ruptions, vol. H. p. 357. II Appendix, No. IV. letter TO DR. PRIESTLEY. !9I letter of tiie law, and in your own conftruiftion of the letter Vv'ord. Still, Sir, I had no thought to infult over your uiiferable unproteSled ftate. The extravagiaat outcry vyhich you have made,- and the afrogance with which you prefume to fet your conventicles upon a footing with our own churches *, have provoked me to falute you with thefe unwelcome truths. Refpeil: (or individuals in Mr. Lindfey's congregation and in yours, as well as for you and hira, would have re- Arained me from the ufe of a word, which I had perceived to be any otherwife reproachful, than as it might contain a llrong difapprobation and cenfure of your do£lrIne, and a ferious difavowal of your autho- thority to exercife the facred function. If this is to be deemed reproach, I am not at liberty to abftain from it. Your do61rine I muft difapprove and cen- fure ; becaufe I conceive it to be a grofs, I truft not a willful, corruption of the word of God. If your authority, I fpeak not now of the authority which derives from human laws j but even in that you are deficient ; for a meer exemption from civil penalties, which ftill is more than you enjoy, differs from au- thority, juPc as the King's pardon differs from his favour ; if your fpiritual authority, as minifiers of the word and facraments, is wrongfully called in queftion; you muft bear with the prejudices of a churchman, who, when he reviews the practice of the primitive ages ; when he ponders our Saviour's parting promife to be always prefcnt with the Apoftles, the delegated * " our places of wordiip are as legal as yours — ** equally known to the laws and protciSlcd by them." Let- ters to Dr. Horfley, p. 112. CJ 2 preachers 2<.): LETTERS IN REPLY LETTER pi-eachers of the gofpel, even to the end of the world ; XVII o 1 ' ' when he connects it with the hillory of the firfl: oi'- dinations, and with the great ftrefs laid upon the Bi- shop's authority, by Clemens, the fellow-labourer of St. Paul, by Ignatius, the difciple of St. John, and by the whole church for many ages ; allows himfclf to be eafily perfuaded, that the authority of the com- mifiion, under which he afts, is fomething more than meer human legillation can convey ; and, while he would abhor to inforce civil penalties, may think, it his duty occafionally to proteft againft a fpiritual ufur- pation. Indeed, Sir, when I revolve in my thoughts the various diforders and diftraitions, which I have feen in my own country within the compafs of my own life, arifing from the irregular zeal of felf-con- flituted teachers of religion ; when I refleft, how the vinity of the church hath been torn, how tender con- fciences are every day difturbed with groundlefs fcru- ples, and melancholy tempers driven to infanity ; how the fimplicity of the vulgar hath been firft abufed, and their principles in the end unfettled j when I re- collect, how eminently the State hath lately been en- dangered, and the proteftanf caufe difgraced, by a combination of wild fanatics, pretending to affociate for the prefervation of the reformed religion ; when I confider, how by thefe fcaiidals the true religion liath itfelf been brouglit into difcredit ; how it hath been injured by attempts to inflame devotion on the one hand, and by theories fabricated to reduce the myllery of its doctrines on the other ; when I confider that the root of all thefe evils hath been the prcvalency of a principle, of which you feem difpofed to TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 29; to be an advoacte, tliat every man vho hath credit letter . XVII. enough to colIccSt a congregation, hath a right, over which the magirtrate cannot without tyranny exercife controul, to celebrate divine worfliip according to his own form, and to propagate his own opinions : I am inclined to be jealous of a principle, which hath proved, I had almoft: faid, fo ruinous ; and I lean the more to the opinion, tliat the commiflion of a miniftry, perpetuated by regular fucceflion, is fome- thing more than a dream of cloyftered gownmen, or a tale impofed upon the vulgar, to ferve the ends of avarice and ambition. For whatever confufion hu- man folly may admit, a divine inftitution muft have within itfelf a provifion for harmony and order. And upon thefe principles, though I wifh that all indulgence fhould be Ihewn to tender confciences, and will ever be an advocate for the largeft tolera- tion that may be confiftent v/ith political wifdom, being indeed perfuaded, that the refiraints of human laws muft be ufed with the greateft gentlenefs and moderation, to be rendered means of ftrengthening the bands of Chriftlan peace and amity; yet I could wifli to plant a principle of fevere reftraint in the confciences of men. I could widi, that the im- portance of tlie minifteral office were confidered ; that the practice of antiquity were regarded ; and that it might not feem a matter of perfect indiffe- rence to the laity, to what houfe of worfliip they refort. I cannot admit, that every affembly of grave and virtuous men, in which grave and virtuous men take upon them to officiate, is to be dignified with the appellation of a church ; and for fuch irregular af- U 3 femblies 294 LETTERSINREPLY LETTER femblies, which are not churches, I could wiih to find XVII a name of diilindion void of opprobrium. As fuch I iifed the word conventicle ; as expreffing great irre- gularity (which I muft exprefs, wo ! is me if 1 exprefs it not) but no infamy of the alTembhes to which I applied it. If you are ftill difpofcd to be indignant about this harmlefs word ; recoliecSl I befecch you, with what refpeifl you have yourfelf treated the vene- rable body to which I belong, the Clergy of the eftabliftiment. You divide it into two claffes only j the Ignorant, and the Infincere*. Have I no fiiare in this opprobrium of my order ? Have I no right to be indignant in my turn ? 8. Still * Dr. Prieilley, in his Hiftory of Corruptions (Vol. I. p. 147) fays of the Trinitarians of the prefent age, under which denomination it is evident he alludes to the clergy of the eftabhflied church, for he -afterwards defcribes thefe Trini- tarians as pcrlbns " to all of whom the emoluments of tha eftablifliment are equally acceffible;" he fays of thefe per- fons, that " they are all reducible to two clalTes, viz. that " of thofe who, if they were ingenuous, would rank with " Socinians, believing that there is no proper divinity in " Chrifl: befides that of the father; or elfe with Tritheifts, *' holding three equal and didiuiSt Gods.'' The firlt clafs furely mufl: be infincere, as not believing what they profefs : the fecond ignorant, as not perceiving what it is that they believe. In the conclufion of his Hiftory (vol. II. p. 471) .he fays, that all that is urged in defence of the prefent fyftem, by men of the grcated eminence in the church, who have appeared as its advocates, " is fo palpably weak, that it is " barely poflible they fiiould be in earneft — in thinking their " arguments have that weight in themfelves, which they wifh " them to have with others." And he fpeaks of this infin- cerity TO DR. PRIESTLEY. 295 8. Still looking forward to the time, when af- ''^JviT^ ter all that is paft, we rtiall mutually forgive, and be ourfelves forgiven, I remain, Dear Sir, Your very humbje Servant, &c. Fulham Palace, June 15th 1784. cerity of the defenders of the eftabliftiment, as a thing fo no- torious, that it may be reckoned " one of the worft fymp- *' toms of the prefent times." After all this, in his appen- dix to his Second Letters, he denies that he ever intended to make that divifion of the whole body of the eftablifhed clergy, which I afcribe to him, into the two clafles of the Ignorant and the Infincere ; he treats the charge as a calum- ny, from which he juflifies himfelf, by producing a long paf- fage from one of his fermons, in which he profefles to hold the Church of England in no lefs eftimation than the Church of Rome. U 4. APPENDIX. 296 No. I. APPENDIX. N°. I. Gentleman's Magazine for Oclober 1783, p. 842. Mr. Urban, T WAS formerly a pupil of Dr. Harwood, and read with my learned and worthy matter Thucydides, Sophocles, and the life of Mofes, in a magnificent edition of Philo, printed by the learned Mr. Bowyerj and wonder that Dr. Horfley fhould alTert, as he is reprefented to do by the learned and ingenious Mr. Maty in his New Review, that stc? is fpoken o^ per- fans only ; when it is applied to any thing of which the writer is fpeaking, that happens to be of the maf- culine gender. For inftance, it is praedicated of bread twice in John vi. 50 and 58, stoj hi 0 afiog^ and of a ftone, Luke XX. 17, the fame; viz. ftone, stoj \% be- come head of the corner. Controverfialifts are apt to overfhoot the mark. GR^CULUS. N^, II, APPENDIX. 257 N°. II. Gentleman's Magazine for November 1783, p. 944. Mr. Urban, E pleafed, Sir, to inform your correfpondent, ^^^ jj^ Greeculus^ that Dr. Horfley has not aflerted of the Greek, pronoun ktoj, that it is fpoken of perfons only. He renders it indeed, in the fecond verfe of the firftchapter of St. John's gofpel, by the words " This " Perfon," and 'he fays, in a parenthefis, that " this " is its natural force." And this, Sir, maybe; al- though by the ufage of the Greek writers, it is ap- plicable, as Grcsculus with great truth remarks, to any thing of which the writer is fpeaking, that hap- pens to be of the mafculine gender : for few words, in any language, are confined to their natural and primary meaning. But, fmce the application of the word is confefledly fo general inthebeft writers, Gra- culus will perhaps be apt to put the queftion, how (hould Dr. Horfley know, that " This perfon" is more the natural fenfe of s(to$ than " lliis Loaf," or this any thing ? Perhaps Dr. Horfley has obferved, that it is peculiar to the two pronouns aroj and a>7of, to be ufed of any one of the three perfons. Which is one argument, that their proper fenfe is perfonal. Perhaps Dr. Horfley has obferved, that the pronoun »Toj, when it is demonftrative of any thing which has no perfon, and which the writer would not perfon ify, is 29$ APPENDIX, No. n. is often put in the «i?/^?^r gender, although the noun, which it reprefents, be mafculine sTrsioav ^e Ttxvla Ayo-Jile — -"after you have abrogated thefe LAWS — vajxaq. Demofth. Olynth. iii. — ts/o In to (xccij.x /xs. this [i. e. this bread, aplo^] is my body. Matt. xxvi. 6. This is another argument that sto$ is naturally de- monftrative of a perfon. For theie are but three caufes, to which the various anomalies of fpeech may be referred. Ignorance, negligence, defign. Thofe, which are frequent in the beft writers, can be afcribed to neither of the two firfi: caufes. They muft have arifen therefore from the third. But the third, de- fign, implies an end. And what fhould be the end of this anomaly of gender, in the word iiro?, but that it was the means of avoiding an appearance of a profo- popa'ia^ where no profopopa:ia was intended. 2. Perhaps Gracidus^ though perfeftly right in his remark, that hro; may be demonftrative of any thing of which the Greek name is mafculine, has been unfortunate in his feledlion of pafiages in proof of it. Perhaps of the three, which he has produced, two are nothing to his purpofe. Perhaps 'aroz ej-iv o aflo;^ &c. in both the texts in St. John, fhould be rendered " This perfon is the bread, 5fc." i. e. I am the bread, &c. It may be fuppofed that our Lord pointed to himfelf, when he faid this. As the Baptift points to himfelf, when he fays, 'Om; yaf inv I fyiBei^^ &c. " For this perfon is the perfon fpoken of, &c." i. e. For I am the perfon fpoken of, &c. Matt, iii. 3. For that thefe are the Baptift's not the hifto- rian's words, is evident from the fonrs, in which tlie following APPENDIX. 299 following fentence Is begun. Amoj oe 0 luawr,;. " Now No. Ii. " this fame John, &c." a form which marks the ■writer's rcfumption of his narrative, interrupted by the infertion of John's words. 3. Perhaps Dr. Horfley had not erred, had he af- firmed that, in John i. 2. nroi; muft neceffarily be rendered by " ThisPerfon." The utmoft liberty of choice, which the context leaves, is between two ex- pofitions only. " This Perfon" or " This Word." If the latter be adopted, the fecond verfe will be only a ufelefs repetition of what had been before affirmed. Whereas in Dr. Horiley's view of it, it contains an explicit affertion of the perfonality of the Logos, which with great propriety and fignincance precedes the men- tion of his agency in the next verfe. 4. Perhaps to have redde fome two or three diffi- cult authors with a mafter, may have made Gr^cculus almoft a match for the brighteft boys in the upper forms of our public fchools. Perhaps fcmething more fliould be done in the ftudy of the Greek Ian- ' guage, before a man begin to play the critic in it. H 7«p rav Xoywv K^iaii '7to7^>:t](i s'l TTSipoa^ reXsJIaiov iTriyevw/Mx, I am Sir, 30ur mofl; obedient, PERHAPS. N^. 30O APPENDIX. N? III. Short Striftures on Dr. Prieftley's Letters to Dn Horfley, by an unknown hand. No. III. T ETTERS to Dr. Horfley, p. 9. Jefus Chrlfi: is -*— ' come in the flefli. Dr. P. ihould produce an inftance, where the whole phrale oi coming in the flejh is applied to the birth or appearances of any meer man. The inftances alledged by him prove nothing to his purpofe. P. 13. The epiftles of Ignatius. Dr. P. is cer- tainly in the right to reprobate thefe epiflles if he can. They fubvert all his theology and hiflory*. But who are thefe learned in general that have given them up as fpurious ? There are the names of great critics on the other fide : of whofe arguments Archbifliop Wake has given a judicious fummary in his preliminary dif- courfe ; and till they are refuted, Dr. Horfley has an undoubted right to appeal to thefe epiftles, as con- taining the fentiments of an apoflolical father. P. 14. If Dr. P. could, prove, that the Naza- renes held the fame do£lrines with the Ebionitcs, what would it avail his caufe ? Could he prove by this medium, that the Nazarenes continued in the dodtrine of the Apoftles, and that the reputed catho- lic church fell off from it ? Did the Ebionites learn from the Apoftles, that John the Baptift came preach- ing in the days of Herod the king of Judea ; tliat * The chief of them are mentioned by Cave under Ignatius, Chrift APPENDIX. 301 Chrift defcended into Jefus in the form of a dove at No. iir. his baptifm ; cum multis aliis ? See Epiphan. Haeref. XXX, § 14. 24. Here and throughout, Dr. P. fuppofes the Unitarian doilrine to have had a general prevalence among the the gentile Chriftians, and univerfal among the Jewifh. Does this well agree, with refpe£t to the gentiles, with his quotation from Origen at the bottom of page 20 ? The much controverted pafTage of Juftin Mar- tyr in his Dialogue with Trypho *, and the mean- ing of 'HjUETf^ou ysvov^j are well illuflrated by Mr. Bingham, in his Vindication of the dodrine and liturgy of the Church of England, printed at Oxford 1774, page 23. There were according to Juftin, SOME countrymen of his, Jews and Samaritans, " who confefs him to be the Chrifl:, yet affirm him *' to be a meer man." The fame Juftin fays in another place, Firft ApOl. p. 78, Ed. Thirlby, that he had obferved more and truer Chriftians from among the gentiles, than from among the Jews and Samaritans. This paflage [which helps to confirm Mr. Bingham's tranflation of 'H,uET£pou ysvoug] com- pared with the other, contains the teftimony of Juftin, that there were only some of the Jews and Samari- tans, and ftill fewer of the gentiles, profeffing to be- lieve in Chrift, who affirmed him to be a meer man. Pag. 39. Dr. P. who feems to be very mode- rately fkillcd in Greek, may give a faulty tranflation ■* See Prieftley, page 127. fometimcs 302 APPENDIX. No. III. fometimes through inadverteacy. But what dial! we fay for his rendering airlav hy^oyov^ a fpectous pre- tence ? Can he really think, that Athanafius meant to fpeak in this ftile of the condivi^l of the Apoftles ? ^AiiLx hy^oyog occurs in Chryfoftom on Matth. xxiv. 42. (torn. ii. p. 448. Ed. Savil) where tho' ailicx. fignifies fomewhat differently, iv'^oyoi bears the fame ienfe, as here, of wife and reafonable. In the fame paffage e^^firOiti is miftranflated. As the prefent inlinitives have fometimes a future fenfe in the beli clafTic authors, it here meahs a MelTiah TO COME; as the next fcritence evinces, where Chrift already come is faid, iM^'uSsmt. 49. Another inaccurate verfion of Athanafius. 50. Another, of the like kind frotn Chryfoftom. Dr. P. makes him fay, Our Saviour never taught his own divinity in exprefs words. Chryfoftom, I ap- prehend, fays, that he did not, every where, or, on all occafions, 6u 'jravla.yjjv^ fpeak plainly of his own divinity. In the judgment of Chryfoftom he fome- times did fo. See on John vl. 35, 36. viii. 58. X. 30. 56. Last paragraph. Caiaphas adjures our Sa- viour by the living God to tell them. Whether then be the Chrijl^ the Son of God? Our Lord avows, thefe charaders, and adds, Ncverthelejs [rather, more- over] 1 fay laito you^ Hereafter ye Jhall fee the Son of Man fitting on the right hand of pozuer. Kow can Dr. Prieftley be fure, in what fcnfe Caiaphas under- J[lood our Lord's anfwer, when he rent his cloths, and APPENDIX. and accufed liim of blafphemy ? Was the notion of No. in. a Son of God fuperior to all created beings, then un- known among the Jews ? See, befides Bp. Bull's Defenf. Fidei Nicaena?, cap. i . fe6l. i. § i6. p. 13. a remarkable paffage quoted from Philo Jud. by Dr. Randoph, Vindication of the do(Slrine of tlie Tri- nity, part I. p. 29. LETTER V. Dr. P. makes the fathers acknowledge^ that the Apoftles did not preach the divinity of Chrift early ^ and confidently fuppofes them never to have taught it. According to the more general opinion, St. Mat- thew wrote his gofpel early and for the Jews. In the opening of this gofpel he applies the name Emmanuel to our Lord, and gives his own interpretation of it, God with us : by which, plain people conceive him to mean what St. Paul exprefles, God manifeji in the fejh ; and the Apoftolical Ignatius, God appearing in the form of a man. Ad, Eph. xix. If we are \i:6. into an error, it is by taking St. Aiatthcw's words in their literal and obvious fcnfe; and was he lefs felicitous about the truth than even Dr. P. him- felf ? If Dr. P. had been to write a gofpel, accor- ding to his own theology, would he have fet out with 304. APPENDIX. No. III. -with fuch an application and interpretation of the name Emmanuel ? ^od tu non feccris^ Ego feci ? might St. Paul afkj who writes with the greateft fimplicity, and never ufes any amplification of anv fubje^l treated by him : and, as we may juftly con- clude, would not here have fpoken of Chrift as he has done, but becaufe he had very different notions of his dignity from thofe of Dr. P. : to declare which notions he was not afraid of Jewifli prejudices , and clamour. In the fam.e gofpel our Lord is introduced de- claring, " No one knoweth the Son but the Father j neither knoweth any one the Father, fave the Son, and he to whomfoever the Son will reveal him." Here the negative 6u^u<; being univerfal, we feem to be told, that the Father and Son are incomprehenfi- ble to all created intelligences ; and that all they can really know of the Father, muil be in and thro' the Son, by his illuminating fpirit. Does fuch a decla- ration confift with Dr. P.'s plan, with what our Lord fays of himfelf in the next verfe but one, I am' meek and lowly in heart } Ut'ique paru/n modejU [fit ticrbo venia) de feipfo locutus cji Chrijius^ ant alios loquentes audivit^fi nihil interea prccter 7neru7n homitie?n fe ejje nove7-it. Burnet de Fide et-Officiis, p. 20*. The fam.e Saviour, in the concluding paragraph of this gofpel, commands his Apoftles to evangelize all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. Dr. * This is quoted by Dr. Randolph, Vind. Part II. p. 42. where a fimilar paflTage is cited from St. Clrryfcftom, P. APPENDIX. 305 P. confiders the Holy Spirit as an attribute of the Fa- No.iir. ther, not a perfon. But does our Lord, if he had. only an exalted humanity, thruft himfelf in between the moft high, and one of his incommunicable attri- butes? or does he join two perfons with an attribute, in a moft folemn form of words, which leads us al- moft inevitably to believe, that the third is a perfon alfo ? Would fuch a conduit appear fuitable to his care and tendernefs to guide his flock into the whole truth? The fuppofition feems impoihble; and no- thing to be more certain than that the very iirft evan- gelifc, in full harmony with all the fucceeding facred writers, exhibits to us the divinity of Chrill, in the beginning, middle, and end of his gofpel. It is objedled to this form of baptlfm, that the ufe of it does not appear any where in the Ads of the Apoftles. This objedion is, I think, well anfwered by Mr. Bingham, Vindicat. p. 37 — 41. particularly from A6ts xix. P. 63. Towards the end of the firfl paragraph, Dr. P. feems to betray fome fufpicions, that St. Paul did in truth teach the divinity of Chrift. P. 69, Laft paragraph. The reafoning appears ra- ther extraordinary on the paiTage of Athanafius, who feems made by Dr. P. to confider things in the fame light, between which he is ftudious to point out an eternal difference. X LET- ;o6 APPENDIX. No.IIIc LETTER VII. P. 92. " If the do6lrme of the Trinity be true, it is no doubt in the higheft degree important and in- terefting<" So Dr. P. can fay, when it ferves his purpofe. But how does this agree with his previous obfervations, N^. IV. p. 85, &c.? P. 133. It is fomewhat hard to difcover how the remark on Eufebius, and his treatment of the Unitarians, at that time very numerous^ agrees with the obfervation in the preceding paragraph. P. 135; Was the hymn, which as Pliny tells us in his noted epiftle, was fung to Chrift quafi Deo, novel in the time of Paul of Saraofata ? P. 136. Dr. P. fhould, I think, have prefixed that which feems to be his ruling maxim, that the human mind is competent to fearch all things, even the deep things of God. Whether he, or Mr. Burgh, in the firft chapter of his Scriptural Confutation, lays down the pro- vince of reafon in the better way, let others deter- mine, N^. IV. - I W. & M. c. 18. No. IV, Provided always. That neither this acS, nor any claufe, article, or thing herein contained, fhall ex- tend—-^to give any eafe, benefit, or advantage to APPENDIX. 307 to any perfon that fhall deny in his preaching or No. VI. writing the dodrine of the Blefled Trinity, as it is de- clared in the aforefaid articles of religion. N°. V. I. W. & M. c. 18. Provided always, That no congregation or af- fembly for religion, fhall be permitted or allowed by this a£t, until the place of fuch meeting fhall be cer- tified to the bifhop of the diocefe, or to the arch- deacon of the archdeaconry, or to the juftices of the peace at the general or quarter feflions of the peace for the county, city, or place in which fuch meeting Ihall be held, and regiftered in the faid bifhop's or archdea- con's court refpeftively, or recorded at the faid gene- ral or quarter feffions. N°. VI. 19 G. III. c. 44. ■■■■■ ■ ■■ be it enaded, That every perfon diflenting from the church in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, being a preacher or teacher of any congregation of diffenting Proteftants who fhall take the oaths, and make and fubfcribe the declaration againfl: popery, required by the faid ad (i W. & M. c. 18.) and rtiall alfo make and fubfcribe a declaration in the words follow- ing, videlicet. X 2 "I A. B. 307 APPENDIX. No. VI. «' I A. B. do folemnly declare in the prefence of " Almighty God, that I am a Chriftian and a Pro- " teftant, and as fuch, that I believe that the fcrip- '* tures of the Old and New Teftament, as com- " monly received among Proteftant churches, docon- " tain the revealed will of God; and that I do receive " the fame as the rule of my dodlrine and pradtiee.'* fhall be entitled to all the exemptions, benefits, privileges, and advantages granted to Proteftant dif- fenting miniflers by i W. & M. c. 18. and by 10 A. c. and every fuch perfon, qualifying himfelf as aforefaid, fhall be exempted from ferving in the militia of this kingdom, and (hall alfo be exempted from any imprifonment or other punifliment by virtue oftheailof uniformity, &c. SERMON, ON THE INCARNATION, PREACHED IN THE PARISH CHURCH O F St. MARY NEWINGTON, In Surrey, Dec. 25, 1785. X3 LUKE I. 28. -Hail thou that art highly favoured^ the Lord is with thee : BleJJed art thou among women. THAT file, who in thefe terms was faluted by an angel, fhould in after ages become an object of fuperftitious adoration, is a thing far lefs to be wondered, than that men profeffing to build their whole hopes of immortality on the promifes delivered in the facred books, and clofely interwoven with the hiftory of our Saviour's Life, fhould queftion the truth of the melTage which the angel brought. Some nine years fmce, the Chriftian Church was no lefs allonifhed than offended, by an extravagant attempt * to heighten, as it was pretended, the importance of the Chriftian Revelation, by overturning one of thofe iirft principles of natural religion, which had for ages been confidered as the bafis, upon which the whole fuperftruiture of Revelation ftands. The no- tion of an immaterial principle in man, which, with- out an immediate exertion of the divine power to the exprefs purpofe of its deftrudlion, muft neceflarily fur- vive the diffolution of the body j the notion of an * Difquifitions relating to Matter and Spirit, &c, London 5777. X 4 immortal 312 A SERMON ON THE immortal foul, was condemned and exploded as an invention of heathen philofophy. Death was repre- fented as an utter extinction of the whole man, and the evangelical dodtrine of a refurre6lion of the body, in an improved ftate, to receive again its immortal inhabitant, was heightened into the myftery of a re- produdion of the annihilated perfon. How a perfon once annihilated could be re- produced, fo as to be the fame perfon which had formerly exifted, when no principle of famenefs, nothing neceflarily perma- nent, was fuppofed to enter the original compofi- tion; how the prefent perfon could be interefted in the future perfon's fortunes ; why / fhould be at all concerned for the happinefs or mifery of the man, who fome ages hence fliall be raifed from my afhes ; "when the future man could be no otherwife the fame with me, than as he was arbitrarily to be called the fame, becaufe his body was to be compofed of the fame matter which now compofes mine : thefe difficulties were but ill explained. It was thought a fufRcient recommendation of the fyftem with all its difficulties, that the promife of a refurredlion of the body feemed to acquire a new importance from it; (but the truth is, that it would lofe its whole impor- tance if this fyftem could be eflablifhed, fince it would become a meer prediction concerning a future race of men, and would be no promife to any men now exifting), and the notion of the foul's natural immortality was deemed an unfeemly appendage of a Chriftian's belief, for this lingular reafon, that it had INCARNATION. 3^3 had been entertained by wife and virtuous Heathens, who had received no light from the Chriflian, nor, as it was fuppofed, from any earlier Revelation. It might have been expected, that this anxiety to extinguilh every ray of hope, which beams not from the glorious promifes of the Gofpel, would have been accompanied with the moft entire fub- miflion of the underftanding to the letter of the written word ; the mofl: anxious foUicitude for the credit of the facrcd writers ; the warmeft zeal to maintain every circumftance in the hiftory of our Saviour's life, which niiglit add authority to his precepts, and weight to his promifes, by heightening the dignity of his perfon. But fo inconfiftent with itfelf is human folly ; that they who at one time feemed to think, it a preliminary, to be required of every one who would come to a right belief of the Gofpel, that he fiiould unlearn and unbelieve what Philofophy had been thought to have in common with the Gofpel ; as if reafon and revelation could in nothing agree ; upon other occafions difcover an averfion to the belief of any thing, which at all puts our reafon to a ftand : and in order to wage war with myftery with the more advantage, they fcruple not to deny, that that Spirit which enlightened the firll preachers in the delivery of their oral inftrudion, and rendered them infallible teachers of the age in which they lived, directed them in the compofition of tliofe writings, which they left for the edification of 314 ASERMON ON THE of fucceeding ages *. They pretend to have made dif- coveries of inconclufive reafoning in the Epiftles f ; of doubtful fa6ts in the Gofpelsj and appealing from the teftimony of the Apoftles to their own judg- ments, they have not fcrupled to declare their opi- nion, that the Miraculous Conception of our Lord is afubje6^r, "with refpeft to which any perfon is at full " liberty to think, as the evidence fliall appear to him, " without any impeachment of his faith or charac- *' ter as a Chriftian %." And left a funple avowal of this extraordinary opinion fhould not.be fuffici- ently ofFenflve, it is accompanied with certain ob- icure infinuations §, the referved meaning of which we are little anxious to divine, which feem intended to prepare the world not to be furprized, if fomething ftill more extravagant, if more extravagant may be, fliould in a little time be declared. We are affembled this day to comm.emorate our Lord's Nativity. It is not as the Birth-day of a Prophet that this day is fandified ; but as the Anni- verfary of that great event, which had been announced by the whole fucceffion of Prophets from the begin- ning of the world, and in which the predictions con- cerning the manner of the Mefliah's advent received * " I have frequently declared myfelf not to be a believer in the infpiration of the Evangelifts and Apodles as writers." Pr. PrieHley's Letters to Dr, H. Part I. p. 132. f Hiilory of Corruption, vol. II, p. 370. X Letter to Dr. H. part I. p. 132. % Letter to Dr. H. part I. p. 5^1., their INCARNATION. 3,5 their compleat and literal accomplifiiment. In the predidlions, as well as in the correfponding event, the circumftance of the Miraculous Conception makes fo principal a part, that we fhall not ealily find fubjedts of meditation more fuited either to the feafon, or to the times, than thefe two p®ints ; the importance of this dodlrine, as an article of the Chriftian faith, and the fufficiency of the evidence by which the fad is fupported. First for the importance of the do6trine, as an article of the faith ; it is evidently the foundation of the whole diftin6lion between the chara£ler of Chrift, in the condition of a man, and that of any other Prophet. Had the conception of Jefus been in the natural way ; had he been the fruit of Mary's mar- riage with her hufband; his intercourfe with the Deity could have been of no other kind, than the nature of any other man might have equally ad- mitted : an intercourfe of no higher kind than the Prophets enjoyed, when their minds were enlightened by the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. The information conveyed to Jefus might have been clearer and more extenfive, than any imparted to any former Prophet ; but the manner and the means of communication muft have been the fame. The Holy Scriptures fpeak a very different language. They tell us that the "fame God who fpake in *' times part: to the Fathers by the Prophets, hath *' in thefe latter days fpoken unto us by his Son*;" * Heb. I. I. 2. evidently 3i6 A SERMON ON THE evidently eftablifhing a diftindion of Chriftianity from preceding revelations upon a diftinction between the two characters of a Prophet of God, and of God's Son. Mofes, the great Lawgiver of the Jews, is defcribed in the book of Deuteronomy as fuperior to all fucceeding Prophets for the intimacy of his in- tercourfe with God, for the variety of his miracles, and for the authority with which he was inverted. " There arofe not a Prophet in Ifrael like unto *' Mofes, whom Jehovah knew face to face : in all *' the figns and wonders which Jehovah fent him to " do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his fer- " vantSj and to all his land ; and in all that mighty " hand, and in all the great terror, which Mofes « (hewed in the fight of all Ifrael*." Yet this great Prophet, raifed up to be the leader and the legiflator of God's people i this greateft of the Pro- phets, with whom Jehovah converfed face to face, as a man talketh with his friend; bore, as we are told, to Jefus, the humble relation of a fervant to a fon f . And left the fuperiority on the fide of the Son fliould be deemed a meer fuperiority of the office to which he was appointed, we are told, that the Son is "higher than the angels," being the *' effulgence of God's glory, the exprefs image of " his perfon J," the God " whofe throne is for " ever and ever, tlie fcepter of whofe kingdom is " a fcepter of righteoufnefs§:" and this high dignity ot the Son is alleged as a motive for religious obe- * Deut. xxxiv. 10 — 12. f Heb. iii, 5. 6. t Heb. i. 3— -6. (j Jlebr i. 8. dience INCARNATION. 317 dlence to his commands, and for reliance on his promifes. It is this indeed which gives fuch autho- rity to his precepts, and fuch certainty to his whole dodrine, as render faith in him the lirfl: duty of religion. Had Chrift been a meer Prophet, to be- lieve in Chrift had been the fame thing as to believe in John the Baptift. The meffages indeed, an- nounced on the part of God by Chrift, and by Jolin the Baptift, might have been different ; and the importance of the different meffages, unequal ; but the principle of belief in either muft have been the fame. Hence It appears, that the intercourfe which Chrift, as a man, held with God, was different in kind from that wliich the greateft of the Prophets ever had enjoyed; and yet how it fhould differ, otherwife than in the degree of frequency and inti- macy, it will not be very eafy to explain, unlefs we adhere to the faith tranfmitted to us from the pri- mitive ages, and believe that the Eternal Word, who was in the beginning with God, and was God, fo joined to himfelf the holy thing which was formed in Mary's womb, that the two natures, from the commencement of the virgin's conception, made one perfon. Between God and any living being, hav- ing a diftin6l perfonality of his own, feparate from the Godhead, no other communion could obtain, than what fliould confift in the adion of the Divine Spirit upon the faculties of the feparate perfon. This 3i8 ASERMON ON THE This communion with God the Prophets enjoyed. But Jefus, according to the primitive do£lrine, was fo united to the ever-living word, that the very ex- iftence of the man confided in this union*. We ihall not indeed find this propofition, that the exif- tence of Mary's Son confifted from the firft, and ever fliall confifi:, in his union with the Word ; we ihall not find this propofition in thefe terms in Scrip- tur.e. Would to God the necefllty never had arifen * So Thcodoret in the fourth of the feven dialogues about the Trinity, pubhthed under the name of Athanafius. The perfons in tliis dialogue are an Orthodox Believer and an ApoUinarian. The Apollinarian aflcs, Ou>c eriv sv Ima; dvBpcoTTog ; the Believer replies, avsu ra A073 ste a'j9pco7rov avrov oiOcx vTToravla, tyiv yap vTra^^iv auTS £V rri hcoa-Ei th Aoya yvupi^'j}. To the fame purpofe Joannes Damafcenus, . ' ■■ 8 yap TupovTroTacTYi koc^ lavlnv aapzi yiv(o9n 0 ^£iog Aoyogy a^A' ivoiwa-ag tji yarpi tyi; ayiocg 'sra^QEVH avrs^i- ypcc^lcijg^ h rn locvla vTTOraa-Bi Ik tuv ayiuv thj atiTcaphva aifjiMluiv, aaoHa h^ux^fi^vw -^vx^i ^oy'«j1 t£ km vospa, vTTiry^o-alOf avra^x"^^ 'mpo'77\(xQoiJ-iv©- th av9pii7r£is (pvpaf/.txl®'^ ATTOS 'O AOrOS TENOMENOS TH 2APKI 'TnOSTASIS. De Fide Orthodoxa, lib. 3. cap. IL and ac^ain, cap. VII. ^aapKulai tou'W' ■■ tore avlw Xpw^^'^o^^ '^V '^'^p^'' tJTToraa-tv m ts 0£8 A078 uTroracng. So alfo Gregory Nazianzen, a t(j ^locTreTrXiX'T^ai tov avS^ccTTOv^ eiff vTro^EOuKEVOii AEYOi Seov, Holay-pilog. Eiti$ ug h 'STpo(ptTlyi Myoi Hccla %fl!piv ivr,pyr,>i£vaiy aXha (j.y\ hxI kaiav cuvviOOai T£ Kai avvaTrlBcr^ai^ hv] mvog tkj Kpznlov'B- mpytiag^ (jca?\>.ov d's -uTATiflnj t'/^j havliag, Epift. ad Cledon. I. of INCARNATION. 31, of dating the difcoveries of Revelation in metaphy- fical propofitions. The infpired writers delivered their fublimeft doctrines in popular language, and abftained, as much as it was poffible to abftain, from a philofophical phrafeology. By the perpetual cavils of gainfayers, and the difficulties which they have raifed ; later teachers, in the affertion of the fame dodrines, have been reduced to the unpleafing neceffity of availing themfelves of the greater preci- fion of a lefs familiar language. But if we find not the fame propofition in the fame words in Scripture, we find in Scripture what amounts to a clear proof of the propofition. We find the charadterifiic properties of both natures, the Human and the Divine, afcribed to the fame perfon. We read of Jefus, that he fufFered from hunger and from fatigue : that he wept for grief, and was dif- treffed with fear : that he was obnoxious to all the evils of humanity, except the propenfity to fin. We read of the fame Jefus, that he had « Glory with " the Father before the world began*;" that " all " things were created by himf, both in heaven and " in earth, vifible and invifiblej whether they be " thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or pow- " ers; all things were created by him, and for " him J," and « he upholdeth all things by the « word of his power ||." And that we may in fome * John xvii. 5. ^ John i. 3. t CoIoflT. i. Id, II Heb. i. 3. ibrt -zo A SERMON ON THE fort underftand, how infirmity and perfedion (hould thus meet in the fame perfon j we are told by St. John, that the " AVord was made Flefh." It was dearly, therefore, the do6lrine of Holy Writ, and nothing elfe, which the Fathers aflerted in terms borrowed from the fchools of philofophy, when they affirmed that the very principle of per- fonality and individual exiftence in Mary's Son was union with the uncreated Word*. A dodlrine in which a Miraculous Conception would have been implied, had the thing not been recorded ; fmce a man, conceived in the ordinary way, would have derived the principles of his exiftence from the meer phyfical powers of generation. Union with the Divine Nature could not have been the principle of an exiftence phyfically derived from Adam; and that intimate union of God and man in the Redeemer's perfony which the Scriptures fo clearly aiTert, had been a phyfical impoffibility. * 'O HV Qsog Aoyoi a-apH.u9£ii;j are rw tvrrj il^iM ^sapiix jialavonjxsvnv (pvaiv avEXaCsv [a yap crapKucng TH%y a>.\ a7ro^y\ nai 'SJ%atuasug) aTO^a rr\v £v alofMa^ tvv aulnv kaav TYi Iv rep kihi (a5rap%)iv yap avsKaSs t» riixilspH (pvpaixdi^) H naS laulw UTToraaav Kai utoixov %pji/Aa]jcra«rav ^polspofj Kai krui; vie avla 'srpoaM'pGsicraVj a>.h h rn aula vTioTaati iTtap^aaav' aulvi yap f] vTroraatg ra 0£i" Aoyn eyEVilo TV aa^Ki i/TToracrig. Joann, Damafcen. De Fide Orthodoxy, li*. 3. Cap. XL But INCARNATION. 321 But we need not go fo high, as to the Divine Nature of our Lord, to evince the neceflity of his Miraculous Conception. It was neceflary to the fcheme of Redemption, by the Redeemer's offering of himfelf as an expiatory facrifice ; that the man- ner of his conception (hould be fuch, that he fhould in no degree partake of the natural pollution of the fallen race, whofe guilt he came to atone, nor be included in the general condemnation of Adam's progeny. ' In what the ftain of original fin may confiil, and in what manner it may be propagated, it is not to my prefent purpofe to enquire. It is fufficient that Adam's crime, by the appointment of Provi- dence, involved his whole pofterity in punifhment. « In Adam," fays the Apoftle, " all die*." And for many lives thus forfeited, a fingle life, itfelf a forfeit, had been no ranfom. Nor by the Divine fentence only, inflitfling death on the progeny, for the offence of the progenitor; but by the proper guilt of his own fins, every one fprung by natural defcent from the loins of Adam, is a debtor to Di- vine Juflice, and incapable of becoming a media- tor for his brethren. " In many things," fays St. James, " we offend allf-" " If we fay that we " have no fin, we deceive ourfelves," faith St. John, " and the truth is not in us. And if any *' man fin, we have an advocate with the Father, " Jefus Chrift the righteous, and he is the propi- * I Cor. XV, 22. f James Hi. 2. Y ** tiation 52a A SERMON ON THE " tiation for our fins *." Even we Chriftians all offend, without exception even of the firft and beft Chriftians, the Apoftles. But St. John clearly Sepa- rates the righteous advocate from the mafs of thofe offenders. That any Chriflian is enabled, by the affiftance of God's Spirit, to attain to that degree of purity, which may entitle him to the future bene- fits of the Redemption, is itfelf a prefent benefit of the propitiation which hath been made for us : and he, who under the affault of every temptation main- tained that unfullied innocence, which gives merit and efficacy to his Sacrifice and Interceflion, could not be of the number of thofe, whofe offences called for an expiation, and whofe frailties needed a Divine afliftance, to raife them effeilually from dead works to ferve the Living God. In brief, the condemna- tion and the iniquity of Adam's progeny were uni- verfal. To reverfe the univerfal fentence, and to purge the univerfal corruption, a Redeemer was to be found pure of every ftain of inbred and contracted guilt. And firtce every perfon produced in the na- tural way could not but be of the contaminated race ; the purity, requifite to the efficacy of the Redeem- er's Atonement, made it neceffary, that the manner of his Conception (hould be fupernatural. Thus you fee the ntceffary connection of the Miraculous Conception with the other articles of the Chriflian faith. The incarnation of the Divine * i John j. S. and ii. i: Word INCARNATION. 333 Word, fo roundly aflerted by St. John, and fo clearly implied in innumerable paflages of Holy Writ, in any other way had been impoflible ; and the Re- deemer's Atonement, inadequate and ineffectual . Infomuch that, had the extraordinary manner of our Lord's generation made no part of the evangelical narrative, the opinion might have been defended, as a thing clearly implied in the evangelical do6lrine. On the other hand, it were not difficult to fhew, that the Miraculous Conception, once admitted, na- turally brings up after it the great do6lrines of the Atonement and the Incarnation. The Miraculous Conception of our Lord, evidently implies fome higher purpofe of his coming, than the meer bufi- nefs of a teacher. The bufinefs of a teacher might have been performed by a meer man, enlightened by the prophetic fpirit. For whatever inftruilion men have the capacity to receive, a man might have been made the inftrument to convey. Had teaching, therefore, been the fole purpofe of our Saviour's coming, a meer man might have done the whole bufinefs ; and the fupernatural conception had been an unneceffary miracle. He, therefore, who came in this miraculous way, came upon fome higher bufinefs, to which a meer man was unequal. He came to be made a fin-offering for us, '' that we " might be made the righteoufnefs of God in « him*»" * 2 Cor. V. ai. Y 2 S© 3=4 A SERMON ON THE So clofe, therefore, is the connexion of this ex- traordinary fa6l with the cardinal do6lrines of the Gofpel, that it may be juftly deemed a neceflary branch of the fcheme of Redemption : and in no other light was it coniidered by St. Paul, who men- tions it among the chara6leriftics of the Redeemer, that he Ihould be " made of a woman*." In this (hort fentence St. Paul bears a remarkable teftimony to the truth of the evangelical hiftory in this circum- ftance. And you^ my brethren, have not fo learned Chrift, but that you will prefer the teftimony of St. Paul to the rafti judgment of thofe, who have dared to tax this " chofen veflel" of the Lord wiih error and inaccuracy. The opinion of thefe men is indeed the lefs to be regarded ; for the want of infight, which they difco- ver, into the real interefts and proper connections of their own fyftem. It is by no means fufficient for their purpofe, that they infift not on the belief of the Miraculous Conception. They muft infift upon the diftjelief of its if they expeft to make difcerning men profelytes to their Socinian do£lrine. They muft difprove it ; before they can reduce the Gofpel to what their fcheme of interpretation makes it ; a meer religion of nature, a fyftem of the beft prailical Deifm, enforced by the fandion of high rewards, * Gal. iv. 4. " There is no reference to the Miraculous *' Conception, either in the Book of Afls, or in any of tht *' Epijlla:^ Dr. Prieftley's Letters ta Dr. H. p. 53. an'd INCARNATION. 325 and formidable punifhments, in a future life ; which are yet no - rewards and no punifliments, but fimply the enjoyments and the fufferings of a new race of men to be made out of old materials, and therefore conftitute no fanftion, when the principles of the ma- terialift are incorporated with thofe of the Socinian in the finifhed creed of the modern Unitarian, Having feen the importance of the dodlrine of the Miraculous Conception, as an article of our faith ; let us in the next place confider the fufficiency of the evidence, by which the fail is fupported. We have for it the exprefs teftimony of two out of the four Evangelifts : of St. Matthew, whofe Gofpel was publifhed in Judasa within a few years after our Lord's Afcenfion j and of St. Luke, whofe narrative was compofed, as may be collefted from the author's fliort preface, to prevent the mifchief that was to be apprehended from fome pretended hiftories of our Sa- viour's life, in which the truth was probably blended with many legendary tales. It is very remarkable, that the fa£l of the Miraculous Conception fliould be found in the firfl: of the four Gofpels ; written at a time when many of the near relations of the Holy Family muft have been living, by whom the ftory, had it been falfe, had been eafily confuted : that it Ihould be found again in St. Luke's Gofpel ; written for the peculiar ufe of the converted Gentiles, and for the exprefs purpofe of furnifhinga fummary of au.. thentic fadls, and of fupprefling fpurious narrations. Y 3 Was 326 A S E R M O N O N T H E Was it not ordered by fome peculiar providence of God, that the two great branches of the primitive church ; the Hebrew congregations, for which St. Matthev/ wrote, and the Greek congregations, for which St. Luke wrote j Ihould find an exprefs record of the Miraculous Conception each in its proper Gof- pel ? Or if we confider the teftimony of the writers, {imply as hiilorians of the times in which they lived, without regard to their infpiration, which is not ad- mitted by the adverfary; were not Matthew and Luke, Matthew, one of the twelve Apoftles of our Lord, and Luke, the companion of St. Paul, com- petent to examine the evidence of the fails, which they have recorded ? Is it likely that they have re- corded fads, upon the credit of a vague report, with- out examination f And was it referved for the Uni- tarians of the eighteenth century to detect their errors ? St. Luke thought himfelf particularly well qualified for the work, in which he engaged, by his exa6t know- ledge of the ftory, which he undertook to write, in all its circumftances from the very beginning. It is faid indeed by a writer of the very firft antiquity, and high in credit, that his Gofpel was compofedfrom St. Paul's ferrnons. " Luke, the attendant of St. Paul,'* {ays Irenaus, " put into his book the Gofpel preached '' by that Apoftle." This being premifed, attend I befeech you, to the account which St. Luke gives of his own undertaking. " It feemed good to me alfo, " having had perfect underfianding of all things from ''■^ the very firft, to write untc thee in order, moft ex- " celknt INCARNATION. 327 " cellent Theophilus, that thou mighteft know the " certainty of thofe things wherein thou haft been in- " ftru6led." The laft verfe might be more literally rendered " that thou might know the exa6l truth of " thofe dodlrines, wherein thou haft been cate- " CHisED." St. Luke's Gofpel therefore, if the writer's own word may be taken about his own work, is an hiftorical expofition of the Catech'ifm^ which Theophilus had learned, when he was firft made a Chriftian. The two firft articles, in this hiftorical expofition, are the hiftory of the Baptift's birth, and that of Mary's miraculous impregnation. We have much more therefore than the teftimony of St. Luke, in addition to that of St. Matthew, to the. truth of the fa6l of the Miraculous Conception: we have the tefti- mony of St. Luke, that this fa6l was a part of the ear- lieft catechetical inftru6lion : a part of the catechifm, no doubt, which St. Paul's converts learnt of the Apoftle. Let this then be your anfwer, if any man fhall afk you a reafon of this part of your faith ; tell him, that you have been learning St. Paul's cate- chifm. From what hath been faid, you will eafily perceive, that the evidence of the fait of our Lord's Miracu- lous Conception is anfwerable to the great importance of the dodrine ; and you will efteem it an objedtion of little weight, that the modern advocates of the Unitarian tenets cannot otherwife give a colour to their wretched caufe, than by denying the infpiration of the facred hiftorians, that they may feem to themfelves at liberty to rejeiSl their teftimony. You will remem- ber, that the dodrines of the Chriftian Revelation were Y 4 not 3s8 A SERMON ON THE not originally delivered in a fyflem ; but interwoven in the hiftory of our Saviour's life. To fay there- fore, that the firft preachers were not infpired in the compofition of the narratives in which their doclrine is conveyed, is nearly the fame thing, as to deny their infpiration in the general. You will perhaps think it incredible, that they, who were affifted by the Divine Spirit when they preached, (hould be de- ferted by that Spirit, when they committed what they had preaclied to writing. You will think it im- probable that they, who were endowed with the gift of difcerning fpirits fhould be endowed with no gift of dif- cerning the truth of fa6ts. You will recollefl one in- ftance upon record, in which St. Peter dete61:ed a falfe- hood by the light of infpiration : and you will per- haps be inclined to think, that it could be of no lefs im- portance to the Church, that the Apoftles and Evange- lifts fhould be enabled to dete6l falfehoods in the hif- ory of our Saviour's life ; than that St. Peter fhould be enabled to dete6l Ananias's lie about the fale of his eftate. You will think it unlikely that they who were ledde by the Spirit into all truth, fliould be permitted to lead the whole Church for many ages into error : that they fhould be permitted to leave behind them, as authentic memoirs of their Mafter's life, narra- tives compiled with little judgement or feleiflion from the ftories of the day, from fafts and fiiflions in promifcuous circulation. The credulity, which fwal- lows thefe contradiflions, while it fcrains at my- fleries, is not the faith which will remove moun- tains. The Ebioniics of antiquity, little as they >vere famed for penetration and difcernment, ma- naged INCARNATION. 329 naged however the affairs of the k3: with more dif- cretion than our modern Unitarians. They quef- tioned not the infpiration of the books which they received ; but they received only one book, a fpu- rious copy ot St. Matthew's Gofpel, curtailed of the two lirft chapters. You will think it no incon- fiderable confirmation of the doflrine in queftion ; that the fe6t, which firft denied it, to palliate their infidelity, found it neceffary to rejeiSl three of the Gofpels, and to mutilate the fourth. Not in words therefore and in form, but with hearts full of faith and gratitude, you will join in the folemn fervice of the day, and return thanks to God " who gave his only begotten Son to take " our nature upon him, and, as at this time, to be " born of a pure Virgin." You will alway re- member that it is the great ufe of a found faith, that it furnifhes the moft; effeclual motives to a good life. You will therefore not refi in the merit of a fpeculative failh. You will make it your conftant end^eavour that your lives may adorn vour profefTion that " your light may fo fliine before " men, that they, feeing your good works, may " glorify your Father which is in heaven.'' REMARKS REMARKS UPON Dr. P R I E S T L E Y's SECOND LETTERS TO THE ARCHDEACON of St. ALBAN's, PROOFS OF CERTAIN FACTS ASSERTED BY THE ARCHDEACON 333 PART FIRST, REMARKS. ^T 7HEN firft I had the pleafure to perufe the Se- * ' cond Letters addreffed to me by Doctor Prieftley, upon the fubjeft of our Lord's divinity; I was not ill fatisfied to find the performance fuch, both in matter and ftyle, as might have releafed me from all obligation to a formal reply; although I had made no previous declaration of the refolution, in which I am fixed, never to enter into a ufelefs dif- quifition upon the main queftion — an exhaufted fub- jei5l, in which nothing new is to be faid on either fide ; — nor to purfue an interminable controverfy, with one, whom, with high refpedl for his natural abilities, and for his attainments in fome parts of learning, I muft ftill call an infufficient antagonift. The diflike of trouble in my natural difpofition is fo ftrong, as too often, I fear, to ftrive for the maftery with better principles. I was well fatisfied to find, that in the contefl: with Dr. Prieftley, I was at liberty to indulge my indolence, without feeming to defert my caufe ; that his book, abound- Part I. 3U REMARKS Pakt I. ing in new fpecimens of tliat confident ignorance, ^ which in thefe fubjedls is the moft prominent fea- ture in his writings, and in expreflions of fiery re- fentment and virulent invedive, carried with it, as I thought, its own confutation to unprejudiced readers of all defcriptions : to the learned reader, by the proof which it furniflies of the author's incom- petency in the fubjeft; to the unlearned, by the confcioufnefs which the fiercenefs of his wrath be- trays of a defect of argument. 2. To mention a few inftances; it gave me great fatisfaction to perceive, that the whole con- futation of the proof, which I had built upon the epiftle of St. Barnabas, of the orthodoxy of the firll Hebrew Chriftians*, was to confift in an infmua- tion, that " doubts had been entertained by many " learned men concerning the genuinenefs of that *' epiftle t i" and in an affertion of my antagonift's, " that it is moft evidently interpolated; and that ** the interpolations refpecEl the very fubjedl: of which *' we treat J." The genuinenefs of the epiftle, as a work of St. Barnabas the Apoftle, had been ex- prefsly given up by me; its age being the only circumftance of importance to my argument. For the notion that it is evidently -interpolated, parti, cularly in what refpedls the fubjed of which we treat; the evidence by which the afiertion is fupported, is of that fort, which every one, wlio * See Letter vlii. in reply to Dr. Pricdley. f Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, p. 7. t Ibi'i- engage? UPON SEgOND LETTERS. 335 engages in controverfy, muft rejoice that his adver- Part i. fary fhould condefcend to employ. Some paflages in the Greek text, which allude to our Lord's di- vinity, are not found, it feems, in the old La- tin verfion; others relating to the fame fubjed, appear in the old Latin verfion only, and are not found in the Gr^fek text*. That both the Greek text and Latin verfion carry evident marks of the injuries of time ; that defeds, fometimes of a fingle word, fometimes of many words, fometimes of whole periods, abound in both ; is known to every one who hath ever looked into the work. It is doubtlefs therefore a very rational conclufion, that whatever is not found both in the original, and in the verfion, is in either an interpolation. That the hand of Time muft always have fallen upon the correfponding paflages in the two copies, may be taken as a felf- evident propofition ! If any afi^rtion therefore of our Lord's divinity occur in either copy, which is not found in both ; the fufpicion muft be but too well founded, that fome wicked Athanafian hath been tampering ! 3. I WAS well pleafed to find, that the two paflages which my antagonift hath produced from the Greek text, as evident inftances of interpolation, are not among thofe which I have cited. In thefe two paflages the divinity of our Lord is briefly alluded to. In every one of the four, cited by me, it is dif- tindly afl"erted or ftrongly implied : of thefe four two are found, with inconfiderable varieties, both in the Greek and in the Latin ; the other two in the Latin *• Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, p. 7 only. 336 REMARKS Part I. only. But that I lay the chief ftrefs * upon either of the two, which are in the Latin verfion only, is a meer imagination of my adverfary. 4. The fatisfailion, which this confutation of my argument from Barnabas afforded me, was not a lit- tle heightened, by the manner in ^which I am con- vi£ted of an error, in the appeal, which, in my Sixth Letter to Dr. Prieftly, I made to the authority of Grotius, among others, in fupport of the opinion, which I maintain, of the orthodoxy of the Naza- renes, in the article of our Lord's divinity. Dr. Prieftley in his firft Letters to me, faid, that I was lingular in aflerting this. To (hew that I was not lingular in the affertion (not to prove the thing afferted ; for the proof of that I build entirely upon what is to be found in ancient writers ; but to dif- prove the pretended novelty of the aflertion) I al- leged the authorities of Grotius, Vofiius, Spencer and Huetius. " Having examined, fays my anta- " gonift, in the Third of his fecond Letters, the moft " refpeftable of thefe authorities, viz. Grotius, I find " him entirely failing you, and faying no fuch thing " as you afcribe to him t«" Then, to prove that Grotius fails me, and fays no fuch thing as I afcribe to him; Dr. Prieflley produces a paflage from Gro- tius, to which I never meant to allude, and which is indeed nothing to the purpofe. But he takes no no- tice of the paflage upon which my aflertion was built, and to which the margin of my publication referred him. * Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St. A^hans, p. 8. t Ibid. p. 30. K. The UPON SECOND LETTERS. 337 5. The fatisfadion, which it gave me to find my- Part I. felt tlius confuted, was ftill increafed, by the re- tractation of this confutation in my adverfary's ap- pendix, No. III. A retradation, which in effed is little lefs than a confefTion of the fraudulent trick, which, had not the advice of friends feafonably in- terpofed, it is too evident, he meant to put upon the public. I fay upon the public ; for upon me he could not think that it would pafs. Whatever may be his opinion of my learning; he has, I believe, liad fome experience of my vigilance, in watching the movements of an enemy ; and he could not imagine, that the pafTage, which he produces, would pafs with myfelf, for that which I cited. But he has heard perhaps from thofe who know me, of the conftitutional indolence which domineers in my dif- pofition ; and under this circumftance, and the de- claration which I had made of my intention to give him no reply, he thought himfelf fecure againft de- tedion. 6. I MUST acknowledge another gratification, which I received from this fame No. III. of Dr. Prieftley's Appendix. I learnt from it, that Grotius, " when he fpeaks of the Nazarenes as *' holding the common faith of other Chriftians, " with refpeft to Chrift;" meant only that they held fomething, which was not the common faith of other Chrifiians* And that Sulpitius Sevcrus, when he * " By the common faith of Chriftians in that early age, *' Grotius no doubt meant his eiow ofin'ion, &c." Second Letters to tlie Archdeacon of St. Alban's, p. 217. Z fays 332 REMARKS Part I. fays that "all the Jewifh Chriftians till the time of " Adrian held that Chrift was God, though they *' obferved the law of Mofes, (Chrijlum Deum ftib '' legis obfervatione credebant) is to be confidered as *' having faid nothing more, than that almoft all the *' Jews of Jerufalem were Chriftians, though they " obferved the law of Mofes*." Certainly the learned commentator and the hlftorian are to be fo underftood. For were they to be underftood in the plain meaning of their words, they would flatly con- , tradidl Dr. Prieftley; which however if they had done, it would have been no great matter : for any writer, who may contradi6l Dr. Prieftley, is little to be regarded. 7. Dr. Priestley has been reading the Parme- nidesf ! Having taught the Greek language feveral years at Warrington, he conceived hirafelf well qua- lified to encounter that profound book. The benefit, which he has received from the performance of this knotty tafk, exactly correfponds with my notion of his abilities for the undertaking. He has found the ■whole treatife unintelligible:!:! Perhaps he has 'ere this looked through the Enneads of Plotinus with the iike emolument. He muft therefore be well quali- fied to illuftrate the hiftory of the Platonic doctrines, m the moft myfterious parts : and in the GREAT WORK, with which the prefs now labours, his pro- mife will, I dare fay, be fulfilled, of teaching the world many things refpeding them, of which his * Sscond Letters, p, 318. "f P. 145; % Ibid. antagonif!: UPON SECOND LETTERS. 33? antagonift is ignorant. He can produce hundreds Part i. of paflages to prove, that tiie " divinity which the *' orthodox Chriftians afcribed to Chrift was the very " farne principle which conflituted the wifdom and " other powers of God the Father ;" and he can prove that " this was agreeable to the principles of " thofe Platonifts, from whom Philo and the Chrif-- " tian fathers derived their opinion ;):." That the fecond perfon in the i'lafonic triad was, according to the theology of that fchool, the Principle of In- teUigejtce in the godhead, he will find indeed not difficult to prove. But unlefs he can fliew, that this principle of Divine intelligence was not fup- pofed, by the Platonifts, to have had from all eter- nity a perfonality of its own, diftindt from the per- fonality of either of 'the two other principles ; he will prove nothing, but v/hat is already known to every child in Platonifm. 8. The GREAT WORK will probably abound in new fpecimens of the proficiency which he has made in logic, under the tuition of the great Locke. It was not unpleafant to me to find this great logi- cian confounding beings Juhjiancc^ and fuhjiratum * j that is, ignorant of the diftindions of uTroraa-ig (which feems to be Being in his language) ij-ia and wTTOKEi/vCEvov : to find him unapprizcd of that great principle, without which a logician will handle his tools but aukwardly, that the genus cannot be pre- X Second Letters, p. 124. * Second Letters, &c. p. 138. Z 2 ' dicated j4« REMARKS Part I. dicatcd of the fpecific differences* (a); and, from an ignorance of this principle, falling into an error, into which indeed greater men than he have fallen, that Being is the univerfal genus under which all other ^^«^r^ rank zs /pedes . 9. These, and many other, glaring inftances of unfinifhed erudition, fhallow criticifm, weak argu- ment, and unjuftifiable art to cover the weaknefs, and to fupply the want of argument ; which muft ftrike every one who takes the trouble to look thro' thefe Second Letters ; put me quite at eafe with re- fpeft to the judgment, which the public would be apt to form between my antagonift and me ; and confirmed me in the refolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the fubjeft, except fo far as might be necefTary, to eftablifli fome facts, which he hath fomewhat too * " The former [being] is the genus, and the Jat- *' ter [perfon] the fpecies," Sec. p. 14a. faj In the Sixth of his Third Letters, ^ lii. Dr. Prieflley courageoufly encounters this principle. To prove the fal- lacy of it, he fays, " According to it, fince men are divided •• into fV/jites and Blacks, -tc. &c. it would follow, that it ** cannot with propriety be faid of any Wiiites or Blacks ** tb^t they are men.'" A more curious inftance of logical accuracy will not eafily be found, than this dedudtion. The common genus of White men and Black men, I take to be Man. The fpecific difference between them lies in colour. Of this I apprehend manhood cannot be predicated. But how does this lead to Dr. Priellley's inference, that man- hood is not predicable of any fubjC(St in which colour is found. peremptorily UPON SECOND LETTERS. 341 peremptorily denied; and to vindicate my chara(5ter Part i» from afperfions, which he hath too inconfiderately thrown out. 10. The matters of fa6l which I mean to prove are thefe. I. Origen*s want of veracity in difputation. 11. The exiftence of orthodox Hebrew Chrif- tians at Jerufalem after the time of Adrian. III. The decline of Calvinifm, amounting ahnoft to a total extin£\ion of it, among the Englifh dif- fenters. II. The flander, which I mean to repel, is con- tained in my adverfary's infinuation, that I have fpoken with contempt of the dodrines of Calvin. 12. As for the outcry which he makes about my intolerance, and my bigotry to what he calls high- church principles, it gives me rather pleafure than uneafinefs. I confider it, as the vain indignant flrug- gle of a ftrong animal which feels itfelf overcome ; the meer growling of the tyger in the toils ; and I difdain to anfwer. I glory in my principles j I am proud of the abufe, which they may draw upon me. Nor {hall I pretend to apologize for the feverity and warmth of my prefent language, or of any which I may think proper to employ in the enfuing pages. After the avowal which Dr. Prieftley has made, in Z 3 his 342 REMARKS Part I. his laft publication*, of the fpirit in which he has drawn his polemical fword ; it is time, that on our part alfo Xht fcabbard fijoiild be thrown away. 13. Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters to the Arch- deacon of St. Alban's are, at this inftant, lying open before me, at the 53d page. My eye is atiraded to a paflage near the bottom, dlllinguiihed by a mark, which in the firA: perufal of the work, I had fet againfi it in the margin ; which reminds me, that it is one of thofe, in which I was the moft captivated with the juftnefs of the reafoning, and the franknefs of the writer's declarations. Although I have al- ready fpent more time than, when I lirft took up my pen, I thought to do, in culling the flowers of my adverfary's compofition j I cannot refift the tempta- tion of flopping (although it delay for a few moments the bufinefs to which I h^ften) to pluck this deli- cious bloffom, which I had well nigh overlooked, fenfible how much it will add to the brilliancy and fragrance of my pofey. 14. Bishop Pearfon alleges, that Ignatius in his epiftles to Polycarp, to the Ephefians, Magnefians, and Philadelphians, refers to the dodrine of the Ebion- ites as an heretical doctrine. Thefe references would demo]i(h Doctor Priedley's notion, that the Ebionites were not confidered as heretics, fo early as in the times of Ignatius. Dr. Prieftley " there- * See the Animadverfions on Dr. White's Serrnons an- nexed to Dr. Prieftley's difcourfe upon the Importance of Free Inquiry, p. 72. " for? UPON SECOND LETTERS. 345 " fore finds no fuch references," in thefe epiftles, Part I. " except perhaps two paflages." Two clear refe- rences are juft as good as two thoufand. How then fhall we difpofe of thefe two paflages ? Very eafily, " They may eafily htfuppofed to have been altered." Yes. Suppofitions are eafily made ; and for that very reafon, they are not eafily admitted by wary men ; without fome other recommendation than the bare eafe of making them, joined to the confi- deration of the fervice, which a particular fuppofition may render to a party- writer, as a crutch for a lame argument. .Upon what ground then ma) we build this fuppofition, which is fo eafily made, of an alte- ration in tv.'o paflages in the epiftles of Ignatius, which, as they now ftand, contradi6l Dr. Prieftley ? Upon the firmeft ground imaginable. " When « CORRECTED by an UNITARIAN, nothing ** is wanting to the evident purppfe of the writer,'* CorreSied by an Unitarian I The Unitarians, if they are not fliamefully belied by the ecclefiaftical hifto- rians, have ever indeed been ready at this bufinefs of Correction. The Arians took, the trouble to correil a treatife of Hilary of Poidou, in which the here- tical confefllon of the council of Ariminum was the fubjed : they corrected, and corredled, till the work became a novelty to its author. They, or the Ma- cedonians, did the fame good office for St. Cy- prian's epiftles ; and to circulate their amended co- pies more widely, they fold them at Conftantinople at a low price. Similar liberties were taken with the works of the two Alexandrians, Clemens and Z 4 Dionyfius, 344 REMARKS Part I. Dionyfius. They, who thus correded, were not deficient in the kindred art of forging whole treatifes, under the names of the brighteft luminaries of the church, in which the holy fathers were made to fup- port heretical doctrines. The Holy Scriptures were not unattempted ; as appears by the teftimony of thofe *, who lived at the time when the amended co- pies were extant in the world ; who, in proof of the heavy accufation, appeal to the notorious difagree- ment of different copies, which had undergone the revifion of different herefiarchs. This is indeed the confutation of the Unitarian do6lrine, that both the Primitive Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures, muft be correcSled in every page, before they can be brought to give evidence in its favour. It is be- caufe the Unitarians themfelves have always under- flood this, that they have ever been ready to apply the needful correoiionsy when they thought the thing might be done without danger of detection. But the modern Coryphaeus of the company is, I believe, the . firft who ever had the indifcretion to avow the pradice, and confefs that he could not otherwife fland his ground, than by an appeal to the tgftimony of Cor- rected Fathers! He is himfelf indeed a mafter of the art of corredion. His attempt upon a paflage in St. John's firft Epiftle, will never "be forgotten -} . 15. Will he dare to recriminate? He will. — " The orthodox, he fays, as they are commonly cal- " led, have tampered with the New Tellament itfelf, * See Eufeb. Ecc. Hilt. lib. V. ■\ See the charge to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St. Albans, I. ^ 5. " having UPON SECOND LETTERS. -45 *' having made interpolations favourable to the doc« Pak r 1. " trine of the Trinity, efpecially the famous paflage *' concerning tbe three that bear record in heaven ■*." The great name of Newton is brought up, to give weight to the ace ufation. " Newton among others has clearly proved, &c." And this he imagines, I myfelf will acknovv-ledge. Dr. Prieftley, even before the inditing of thefe fecond letters, muft have found himfelf deceived In fo many inftances, in his imagina- tions about me ; how I would acknowledge, and hov/ I would recant ; how my eyes would be opened by the information which he had to give me ; that I wonder he fliould venture to imagine any more, in a fubje6l in which he hath found himfelf fo liable to er- ror. He imagines, that I mud acknov/ledge, that Newton hath clearly proved, that the record of the three in heaven in St. John's fij-fl epiftle, is an inter- polation made by fome of thofe, whom I call the or- thodox.— No ; I acknowledge no fuch thing. Sup- pofe I were .to make the firft part of the acknowledge- ment, that the pafTage is an interpolation ; what con- f^quence would bind me to the fecond ; that the or- thodox have been the wilfull falfitiers ? Is it becaufe their purpofe might have been ferved by the pretended falfification ? Truly their purpofe had been poorly f?rved by it. It is not agreed, among the orthodox themfelves, that this text relates to the confubftan- tiality of the three perfons in the Godhead. It is my own opinion, that it does not: and this I take to be thereafon, that it is fo feldom alleged by the ancient writers in proof of the Trinity. But why muft I ac- * Second Letters, p. 13. knowledge, S-vS REMARKS Part I. knowledge, that the pafTage is at all an interpQiatlon ? Becaufe Newton and others have clearly proved it. To me the proof is not clear. Were the defe6l of pofitive proof in favour of the paflage much greater, than Newton and others have been able to make out ; it would ftill be with me an argument of its authen- ticity, that the omilTion of it breaks the connedtion, and wonderfully heightens the obfcurity, of the Apof-f tie's difcourfe. Do6lor Prieftley perhaps imagines, that I hold myfelf bound to acknowledge whatever Newton hath attempted to prove. In his letters to me, and in his animadverfions upon Dr. White's ce- lebrated difcourfes, he is often pleafed to boaft of the probability* of what he knows, more than his anta- tagonifts: and that too in fubjeds, in which he hath been convicted of the greatefl want of knowledge. I hope I may fay, without arrogance, that it is probable that Sir Ifaac Nevi'ton's talents in demonftration, are as well knov/n to me, as to Doilor Prieftley. It is probable too, that, after the pains which I have taken to examine the principles and the authorities on which his ancient chronology is founded 5 I am as well quali- fied, as Dr. Prieflley, to judge of his talents in other fubjeds, which are not capable of demonftration. Now ia thefe, I fcruple not to fay with a writer of our own times, that the great Newton went out like a common man. For the expofition, which to com- plete his argument againft the record of the three in heaven, he gives of the context of the Apoftle's dif- •* Second "Letters, p. 135, 146, 200, Z02. ATiima^ver- :^ons on Dr. White^^ P- 66, 72. courfe ; UPON SECOND LETTERS. 347 courfe ; I hold it to be a model of that fort of para- ^^^"^ I* phrafe, by which any given fenfe may be affixed to any given words. But that ^ven the external evi- dence of the authenticity of th6 paflage is far lefs de- feilive, than Newton and others have imagined ; will be denied, I believe, by few, who have impartially confidered the very able vindication of this celebrated text, which hath lately been given by Mr. Travis in his Letters to Mr. Gibbon. Dr. Prieftley perhaps hath not found leifure to look through that performance. Or, if he have, he hath formed, I fuppofe, " no very high opinion of the author's acquaintance with Chrif- tian Antiquity*." For in this all, who oppofe the Socinian tenets, are miferably deficient. 1 6. Here I clofe my remarks upon my adverfary's reafoning; and I now proceed to the proof of my own fads, and the vindication of my own charadler. * See Remarks on Mr. Howes's difcourfe. PART 34» REMARKS 34^ PART SECOND. PROOFS. CHAPTER FIRST. Of Origeri's want of Veracity. — -Of the Fathers in ge- neral,— Of the paffages in which St. Chryfofiom is fuppofed to affert^ that the Apoftles temporifed, — Afpe- cifnen of Corre6i:ion by an Unitarian. ' I ''HE firft fad that comes in quefiion is the want A of veracity in difputation, wliich I impute to Origen. 2. In the fecond book againft Celfus, near the be- ginning of the book, Origen alTerts of the Hebrew Chriflians of his own times, without exception, that they had not abandoned the laws and cuftoms of their anceftors ; and that, for that reafon, they were called Ebionites. Dr. Prieflley fets a high value upon this teftimony of Origen ; as clearly eftablin:iing his great point, that the Ebionites were nothing worfe than tlie Chriftians UPON SECOND LETTERS. 349 Chriftians of the Circumcifion. I maintain, that if Part 11. the truth of Origen's afiertion were admitted ; ftill his teftimony would be lefs to Dr. Prieftley's purpofe, than he imagines. It would prove, indeed, the He- brew Chriflian, and the Ebionite, to be the fame ; but it would equally prove, that the difbelief of our Lord's divinity was no neceflary part of the Ebionaean dodrine. But I go further. I deny the truth of Ori- gen's afTertion in both its branches. I deny, that it is univerfally true of the Hebrew Chriflians, in his time, that they had not abandoned the Mofaic Law ; and I deny that it is true, that they were all called Ebionites. I fay, that Origen himfelf knew better, than to be- lieve his own afTertion. And I fay that it was a part of Origen's character, not to be incapable of aflerting, in argument, what he believed not. 3. Dr. Priestley ill brooks this open attack upon the credibility of one, whom he confiders as a principal witnefs. He defends Origen, by retorting a fimilar accufation upon me ; and, with the utmoft vehemence of indignant oratory, he arraigns me at the tribunal of the Public, as a falfifier of hiftory, and a defamer of the characler of the dead *. From aiTer- tions which I have not rafhly made, it muft be fome- thing more terrible to my feelings, than the reproaches of Dr. Prieftley, loudly re-echoed by his whole party, that Ihall compel me to recede. 4. I fay, then, that in the particular matter in quef^ tion Origen aflerted a known falfehood. I fay, in ge- ♦ Second Letters, Sec. Preface p. xvlii. p. 47, and 192. neral 35° REMARKS Part 11. neral, that a ftri£t regard to truth, in difputatiorij was not the virtue of hi s characler. 5. With refpe£t to the particular matter in quef- tion ; if I prove, that Origen knew the falfehood of his ov.'n affertion in the firft branch of it, in which he avers,- " that the Hebrew Chriftians in his time had " not abandoned their ancient laws and cudoms ;" no great ftrefs, I prefume, will be laid upon the fecond, *' that they were all called Ebionites." For, accord- ing to Origen's account of the reafon of the name (which yet I believe not to be the true one), the two branches of his aflertion muft ftand or fall toge- ther. 6. It is an inconvenience which attends contro- verfy, that it obliges both the writer and the reader to go frequently over the fame ground. I mufl here repeat, what I obferved in the feventh of my letters to Dr. Priellley, that it is in anfwer to a reproach upon the converted Jews, which Celfus had put in the mouth of an unbelieving Jew, that by embracing Chriftianity they were deferters of their ancient law, that Origen afierts, that the Jews believing in Chrifl: had not renounced their judaifm. This aflertion is made at the beginning of Origen's fecond book. Now, at no greater diftance than in the third feclion of the fame book, the good father takes quite ano- ther ground to confute his adverfary. He infults over his adverfary's ignorance, for not making the diftiniTtions, which he himfelf, in the allegation in queftion, had confounded. " It is my prefent point, *' fays Origen, to evince Celfus's ignorance ; who " has UPON SECOND LETTERS. 351 " has made a Jew fay to his countrymen, to Ifraelltes Part ii, *' believing in Chrift ; Upon what motive have you *' deferted the laiu of your ancejiors ? But how have " they deferted the law of their anceftors, who re- *' prove thofe that are inattentive to it, and fay, « Tell me ye^ &c. * r"' Then, after a citation of certain texts from St. Paul's epiftles, in which the Apoftle avails himfelf of the authority of the law, to inforce particular duties ; which texts make no- thing either for or againft the Jew's aflertion, that the Chriftians of the circumcifion had abandoned their ancient law ; but prove only, that the difufe of the law, if it was adlually gone into difufe, could not be deemed a defertion ; becaufe it proceedednot from any difregard to the authority of the Lawgiver : after a citation of texts to this purpofe, Origen pro- ceeds in this remarkable ftrain. " And how con- " fufedly does Celfus's Jew fpeak upon this fubje£t ? •' when he might have faid more plaufibly, some *' of you have relinqidjhed the old cvjlorm upon pre- *' tence of expofitions and allegories. Some again, " expounding, as you call it, fpiritually, neverthelefs *<•■ obferve the inftitutions of our ancefto:"s. But " SOME, not admitting thefe expofitions, are willing " to receive Jefus as the perfon foretold by the pro-- " phets, and to obferve the law of Mofcs according ETTi rov Iv5CJ"8v, TO. Tt waSovleg KctlfKi'^dtTov iL'dl§iovvo(ji.ov} kai TO. E^-tj';. Hu:; ce KalxhzT.oiTTixa-L tov 'sidl^iov voixcv 01 e'Tiili/ji.uvleg tojj (Av oiKHH'Siv avis, xai y^fyovrze,' >.iy(lz ixot 0* T$V VO/XOVj ^C, iS^ R E M ARKS Part II, « to the ancient cu{l:oms, as having in the letter the " whole ineaning of the Spirit *," In thefe words Origin confefles all that I have alleged of him. He confefles, in contradidion to his former aflertion, that he knew of three forts of Jews profeffing Chrif- tianity. One fort adhered to the letter of the Mofaic law, rejecting all figurative interpretations : another fort admitted a figurative interpretation, conforming, however, to the letter of the precept: but a third fort (the firft in Orlgen's enumeration) had relin- quiihed the obfervance of the literal precept, con- ceiving It to be of no importance in comparifon of the latent figurative meaning. 7. But this Is not all. In the next fentence, he gives us to underfiand, though I confefs more indi- redly, but he gives us to underfiand ; that of thefe tliree forts of Hebrews profeffing Chrifhanity, they only, who had laid afide the ufe of the Mofaic law, were in his time confidered as true Chriftians. For he mentions it as a further proof of the ignorance of Celfus, pretending, as it appears he did, to deep erudition upon all fubje(5ts, that in his account of the herefies of the Chriflian Church he had omit- laoMo; Xfysi, ^vvaij^vog 'S^iOavcols^ov - sIttsiv^ oti TINES fisv v/xuv >coila.X£Xoi7ra<7i ra I9w, '^^o(pa.Tsi ^lYiynasuv xai a'XMyo^iuv' TINES h Kai 3»ny8jaEvoj, w? zTray^'ih'hHahy 'isvs'JixuliK'j)'^^ «5"£V rirlov la 'mal^ia ty^^siIb' TINES Je, «de 6ivy>i/j.Evoiy ^HT^^ah nai rov Inanv 'sra^a^e^aaSai wj 'S^^op-nlev- 6ivia^ Hat Tov MajycTEwj i'o/*oy tyj^yijm ndla rac 'srxlfiicxj ug i'j Tn ^fln sy^ovlig rev ^avla T8 'nsviVjxai©' vsv. ted UPON SECOND LETTERS. 353 ted the Ifraelitcs believing in 'Jefus^ and not laying afule, the law of their ancejiors. " But how (hould " Celfus, he fays, make clear diflinctions upon this " point ; who, in the fequel of his work, mentions *' impious herefies altogether alienated from Chrift, *' and others, which have renounced the Creator, " and hath not noticed [or knew not of] Ifraelites " believing in Jefus and not relinquifhing the law of *' their fathers* ?" What opinion is to be enter- tained of a writer's veracity, who, in one page, afferts that the Hebrews profeffing Chriftianity had not re- nounced the Jewifli law ; and, in the next affirms that a part of them had renounced it, not without an infinuation, that they, who had not, were heretics, not true Chriftians ? EGO HUIC TEST!, ETI- AMSI JURATO, QUI TAM, MANIFESTO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDITURUM ESSE CONFIRMO. 8. I FLATTER myfclf, that I have eftabliflied my charge againft Origen with refpeiSt to the particular fa61: in queftion. That a ftriil regard to truth in difputation was not the virtue of his character, I fhall now fliew by another ftrange inftance of pre- varication, which occurs in thefe fame books againft Celfus. Celfus, to deprive the Chriftian caufe of all benefit from Ilaiah's prophecy of the Virgin's * A'KXa 7«p 'SToflfy KeAcroj ra koIcx tov totcov r^avcocraty 05 nxi at^£asj)V (xtv aSfwv, km th Incrs 'usa.vln aXKol^iuv kv TOii E^Yii; E/j-vvixovBuaEj KM aAAwf HOilaMiTTHcruv Tov ^rjixtH^yov' iiK olos 0£ KM l.tlas ik Ii3"«v Zjirsuovld; KM k KOilxT^lTTOvlcii TOV ZSCli^lOV VOfXOV, A a conception, Part II. Chap. I. 354 REMARKS. Part ii. conception, makes his Jew fay, what hath fince been faid by many Jewifli critics without the leaft foundation, that the Hebrew word in If. vii. 14, which is rendered by the LXX, a Virgin^ denotes only a young woman. Origen, in juftification of the fenfe in which Chrillian interpreters underhand the paflage, cites * the law againfl: the incontinence of betrothed virgins, in Deut. xxii. 23, 24. the word TXCbVt which Chriftians underftand of a virgin in Ifaiah, being allowed, as Origen will have it, to denote a virgin in this pafTage of the law. But in this pafiage, according to our modern Hebrew text, the word is not nn^i^, but n^inn. Were it certain that T\\:hv had been the reading in the copies of the age of Origen ; a fufpicion might arife, that the text had been corrupted by the Jews, for the purpofe of de- priving the Ghrifcians of one argument in vindi- dication of their interpretation of Ifaiah. But there is fomething fo fufpicious in the manner of Origen's appeal to this text ; that he is rather to be fufpeded of prevarication, than the fynagogue of fraud. y\ /J.SV XB^ig V A'^/xay hv 01 f/.sv IQooi^wkovIoo ixfiBiMpcx,(Ti 'sspog TYiV 'ssapQevoVy aTO-.oi ds iij tyiv vzaviv^ usfltxtj US 'I'ASI, Kai h TO) ABuli^ovofji.iu ETTi '57a;fSHV8, &c. " Thc word " HD^j; which the LXX have tranilated into the " word isa^Csvog [ a virgin ], but other interpreters, " into the word vsavig [ a young v^'oman ], is put too, *' AS THEY SAY, in Deuteronomy for a virgin." What is this, j^s they fay ? Was it unknown to the eompiler of the Hexapla, what the reading of the * Contra Celf. Lib. I. ^^ 34. Hebrew UPON SECOND LETTERS. 355 Hebrew text, in his own time, was? If he knew PartIL , 1 1 I • , Chap. I. that it was, what he would have it thought to be ; why does he feem to aflert upon hearfay only ? If he knew not ; why did he not inform himfelf ? that he might either aflert, with confidence, what he had found upon enquiry to be true ; or not afl'ert what couJd not be maintained. EGO HUIC TESTI, ETIAMSI JURATO, QUI TAM MANIFES- TO FUMOS VENDIT, ME NON CREDI- TURUM ESSE GONFIRMO. 9. So much for Origen's veracity in argument, fo unjuftly afperfed by me, fo compleatly vindicated by Dr. Prieftley*. 10. I WILL here take the liberty to remark upon the early fathers in general, whofe memories are neverthelefs to be revered, for their learning and the general fandity of their charaders ; that in their popular difcourfes, and, in argument, they were too apt to facrifice fomewhat of the accuracy of fail to the plaufibility of their rhetoric: or, which is much the fame thing, they were too ready to adopt any notion, which might ferve a prefent purpofe, with- out nicely examining its folidity or its remote confe- quences. For this reafcn the great profit, which * " I have completely vindicated the charader of Origen, " which you have endeavoured to blot." Second Letters, Sec. p. 189. See a further Defence of Origen's veracity in the Firft of Dr. Prieftley's Third Letters, and my Reply to that further defence in the Fifth of the Supplemental Diiqui- fitions, A a 2 may 356 REMARKS Part 11. fnav arife from the fludv of their works, is rather Chap. I. •' •' ' that we may gather from them, what were the opi- nions and the pradice of the whole body of the Church, in the times wherein they lived ; than that any one of thefe writers is fafely to be followed in all his aflertions. Inftances of precipitation, in advanc- ing what occurred at the moment, and ferved a pre- fent purpofe, may be found, I believe, in the wri- tings of no lefs a man than St. Chryfoftom. I fhall mention one inftance which occurs to me, which is very remarkable, though perhaps of little confe- quence. In his homilies upon the fecond epiftle to the Corinthians, Chryfoftom relates that it was not agreed, in his time, who the perfon might be, who, is defcribed by St. Paul as the " brother whofe praife *' is in the gofpel in all the churches:" that fome thought St. Luke was meant under this defcription ; others St. Barnabas: and, for a reafon which he mentions, he gives it as his own opinion, that St. Barnabas was probably the perfon intended. But, in his firft homily upon the A(Sls of the Apoftles, he no lefs than three times brings up this text as an atteftation of St. Paul to St. Luke's merit: for no other reafon, but that this application of it ferved the purpofe of a rhetorical amplification of St. Luke's praife. II. Upon this circumftance, the notorious care- leffnefs of the fathers in their rhetorical alTertions, I (hould build my reply to the feveral paffages which Dr. Prieftley hath produced frojn St. Chryfoftom, to UPON SECOND LETTERS. 357 to prove that it was allowed by St. Chryfoftom, that the dodlrine of the Trinity had never been openly taught by the Apoftles ; if thofe paflages appeared to me, in the fame light in which they appear to my anta- gonift. As for the particular paiTage in Athanafius, if any Unitarian, who reads the entire paflage, thinks that the Jews there mentioned were converted, not unbelieving, Jews ; I muft apply to him, what Dr. Prieftley remarks of thofe whom I efteem as ortho- dox, that " the minds of a few individuals may be " fo locked up, that no keys we can apply will be " able to open them*." For St. Chryfoftom, I cannot find that he fays any thing, but what I my- felf would fay ; that the Apofdes taught firfl what was eafieft to be learned, and went on to higher points, as the minds of their catechumens became able to bear them. If I could allow that he hath any v/here faid, what Dr. Prieftley thinks he finds in his expreffions, that the Apoftles had been re- ferved and concealed upon an article of faith ; I (hould fay, that it was a thought that had haftily oc- curred to him, as a plaufible folution of a difficulty, which deferved, perhaps, no very diligent difcuftlon in a popular aflembly ; and that he had haftily let it efcape him. I am well perfuaded, that any prieft in Chryfoftom 's jurifdidion, who fliould have main- tained this extraordinary propofition, that " the " Apoftles had temporized in delivering the funda- " mentals of the Chriftian faith," would have met with no very gentle treatment from the pious Arch- * Importance of free enquiry, p. 59. A a 3 bifnop Part II. Chap. 1. 35S REMARKS. Part II. bifliop of Confcantinoplc. Had the prieft, in his own vindication, prefumed to fay ; " Holy Father, " if I am in error, you yourfelf mud anfwer for it. ■ " Upon your authority 1 adopted the opinion, wliich " you now condemn; you have repeatedly faid in *' your commentaries, upon the facred books, that *V the Apoftles and the Evangeiifts fcood in awe of " the prejudicec of their hearers:" St. Chryfoftom would have replied ; " Faithlefs monfter ! is it thy *' ftupidity, or thy bafenefs, that interprets, as an *' impeachment of the fincerity of the firft infpired " preachers, my encomium of their wifdom ? But *' why fliould I wonder, that he fliould not fcruple *' to llander his bifhop, v;ho fpares not the Apoftles *' and Evangelifts." Had the prieft been able to prove againft St. Qiryfoftom, that he had indeed given countenance in his writings to fuch an error ; the good father would have repented in fackcloth and afhes. 12. As the mention of Dr. Prieilley's quotations from St. Chryfoftom hath occurred ; I muft not omit to do juftice to a pai^age, which hath fuffered a little in the hands of this e?neritus profeiTor of Greek* in the late academy at Warrington. I * n I .taught it nine years, the kill: fix of them at *' Warrington." Second Letters, p. 202. Ad fummum, non Maurus erat, nee Sarmata, nee Thrax, ^llL' fiiinpfit perinas, medns fed natiis Athenis. But " the elements of the language, it feems, were not " taught .there." [Ibid.] The profeffor indeed, had the elements been to be taught, had been ill qualified for his chair, fpeak UPON SECOND LETTERS. 359 fpeak of the pafTage cited by Dr. Pricftley, in his Part li. Second Letters, p. 94, from the lirfl homily on the epiftle to the Hebrews. In the Greek, as Dr. Prieftley gives it, it is rank nonfenfe ; and not very intelligible, in Dr. Prieftley's Engliih. Dr. Prieft- ley, to get it into Englifli at all, has had recourfe to an emendation. An " h muft be turned into ««;, " or fomething elfe.'^ Suppofe s turned into xai ; what will be the antecedent of the pronoun avioq in the Greek, or of himfelf in Dr. Prieftley's Englifh ? Had Dr. Prieflley confulted any good edition of St. Chryfoltom, either the Paris edition of 1735, or the old Paris edition of Fronto Ducasus, or the Eton edition ; he would have found that k ya^ sittev b Seo; Ihould be x ya^ el-^sv 0 X^iroj ; and that a fhould keep its place. " Obferve (fays St. Chryfoftom) *' the Apoftle's prudence in the choice of his ex- *' prelTions. For he hath not faid, Chri/i fpah, al- " though he [i. e. Chrift] was the perfon whofpake: " but becaufe their minds were weak, and they were " not yet able to bear the things concerning Chrift, *' he fays, God /pake by hirn.'^ 13. The particular notion that Chrift was the Jehovah of the Old Teftament, the perfon who con- verfed vs'ith the Patriarchs, talked with Mofes in the bufli, difplayed his tremendous glory at Sinai, and fpake by the prophets ; is what St. Chryfoftom thought the Hebrews not far enough advanced in the theory of revelation to bear. If he thought them too weak, to bear the general dodrine of owr A a 4 Lord's 36e REMARKS Part r, Lord's Deity; his judo-ement would be of little Chap. I. . ^ o weight, fince St. Paul thought otherwife. For, in the fecond verfe of the lirft chapter of this epiftle, the Apoftle enters upon that abftrufe fubjecl, which, in the lirft verfe, according to Dr. Prieftley's inter- pretation of St. Chryfoftom, he is fuppofed to fliun ; in the third verfe, he goes deep into the myftery ; and, in the eighth, he applies to Chrift what the Pfalmift fays of God, that " his throne is for ever '' and ever, the fcepter of his kingdom a fcepter of " righteoufnefs :" and the manner, in which the words of the Pfalmift are introduced, ftiews that the Apoftle thought, that they, to whom he wrote, could not but join with him in this application. Dr. Prieftley, I fuppofe, thought it as well to keep it out of the reader's fight, that St. Chryfoftom, in this very paffage, fpeaks of Chrift as the Jehovah of the Old Teftament. He thought it beft to keep the true meaning of the paflage out of fight ; and for this reafon he chofe to take up the corrupt and fenfe- lefs reading of the Heidelberg edition (a bad copy of the Veronefe text, in a very fmall part only collated with the Palatin and Auguftan MSS.) and rejeding an emendation unanimoufly received by later editors, who took the pains to redify the text by a laborious collation of many MSS. to make the beft of the paf- fage for himfelf, by correSilng in the wrong place. Thus indeed we have a beautiful fpecimen of an ancient father correal ed by an Unitarian ! 14. I "MUST not quit the fubje£l of thefe quota- tions, without obferving, that the Learned Reader, in UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3^3 in this firft homily of St. Chryfoftom upon the cpiAle ^ ^rt ll. to the Hebrews, will find St. Chryfoftom's own confutation of the proof, which Dr. Prieftley at tempts to bring from his works 5 that it was a tiling known and admitted in his time, that the Apoftles had been lilent upon the fubjc^l' of our Lord's divi- nity; and that the orthodox, to account for this ac- knowledged fail, were reduced to the neceffity of fuppofing that they temporized. What the filence of the Apoflles, upon this fubjeif, was ; may b; learned from the epiftle to the Hebrews. What St. Chryfoftom's opinion of their temporizing caution ■was ; may be learned from his firft homily upon that epiftle. Whoever reads only the two firft fec- tions of tliat homily, will perceive, that the pru- dence, which St. Chryfoftom afcribes to the Apof- tles, was a prudence in the manner of preaching myfterious do6lrines, not a diihoneft caution in dif- fembling difficulties. Had he afcribed to them any fuch bafe art ; the epiftle to the Hebrews had been his confutation. His firft homily on that epiilie is the confutation of thofe, who, in ignorance, or in art, would afcribe to him fo unworthy a notion of tlie founders of our faith. CHAP. 5,5i REMARKS CHAPTER SECOND. Of the Church of Mlia^ or "Jerufalem^ after Adrian. —MojheirrCs Narration confirmed.— ^Chriftians not included in Adrian' s Edi£ls againjl the fews. — The return from Pella.y a fail affirmed by Epiphanius. — Orthodox Hebrew Chrijiians exijVmg in the World long after the times of Adrian. c^"^ "i" ''T^^"^-^ *^^^*^ ^^*^ ^^^^ comes in queftion, is the ex- -^ iftence of a body of orthodox Hebrew Chrifii- ans at Jerufalem, after the final difperfion of the Jews by Adrian. 2. In the feventh of my letters to Dr. Prieftley, I ftated briefly, what I take to be the true account of the changes, which took place in the ecclefiaftical ftate of Paleftine upon the banifhment of the Jews by Adrian. The ecclefiaftical hiftory of thofe times is fo very general and imperfecl j that whoever attempts to make out a confiftent ftory from the ancient writers, which are come down to us, will find himfelf under a necefhty of helping out their broken accounts by his own conje£lures. In the general view of the tran- fadions of that time, I agree- almofl entirely with Mofheim; who, in my judgement, hath, with great penetration, drawn forth the whole truth j or what muft feem to us the truth, becaufe it carries the highcCc air of probability; from the obfcure hints, which th.e hifLorian Sulpitius furnillies, conne£led with other hints, which, though unobferved by Dr. Pneftley, UPON SECOND LETTERS. 363 Prieftley, are to be found in other writers of antiquity. Part 11. Dr. Prieftley fpeaks of a feries of fads *, and of many circumftances, which, he fays, I have added to Mo- Iheim's account, and " muft know that I added." If Dr. Prieftley confulted that part of Mortieim's work, De Rebus Chr'ijiianorum ante Coriflantinum^ to which the margin of my letters referred him (but in Mo- fheim, as in Grotius, it is Ukely that he turned to the wrong place) : if he opened Mofheim in the place to which I referred ; he muft know that I have added no circumftance, to Molheim's account; but fuch as every one muft add, in his own imagination, who ad- mits Moftieim's reprefentation of the fadlinits prin- cipal parts. He muft know, that three circumftances in particular, which he is pleafed to mention among my additions, are affirmed by Molheim : the conflux of Hebrew Chriftians to iEIia \ the motive, which in- duced the majority to give up their ancient cuftoms ; namely the defire of ftiaring in the privileges of the ^lian colony ; and the retreat of thofe, who could not bring themfelves to give their ancient cuftoms up, to remote corners of the country f. Thefe were Mo- ftieim's aftertions before they were mine : and Dr. Prieftley either knows this ; or, pretending to feparate Moftieim's own account from my additions, he hath not taken the trouble to examine what is minCj and what is Moftieim's. 3. It may feem, however, that to convit.^ myad- verfary of the crime of ftiameful precipitance, in aflert- ing what he hath not taken the paliis to knov/ ; or of * Second Letters, &'c. p. 192. f lb. p. 39. the 364 REMARKS Part II. the worfc Crime of aflertinff the contrary of what he Chap. 11. ^ ■' knows ; abfolves not me of the imputation, that I have related upon the authority of Mofheim, what Molheim related upon none *. I will therefore briefly ftate the principles, which determine me to abide by Moflieim's account of the tranfaclions in queftion. I take for granted, then, thefe things. I. A Church of Hebrew Chriflians, adhering to the obfervance of the Mofaic Law, fubfifted for a time at Jerufalem, and for fome time at Pella, from the be- ginning of Chriftianity until the final difperfion of the Jews by Adrian. II. Upon this event, a Chriftian church arofe at iElia. III. The Church of iElia, often, but improperly, called the Church of Jerufalem, for Jerufalem was no more; the Church of vElia in its external form, that is, in its dodlrines and its difcipline, was a Greek church ; and it was governed by Bifhops of the un- circumcifion. In this my adverfary and I are agreed. The point in difpute between us is, of what members the Church of lEYiz was compofed. He fays, of con- verts of Gentile extradion. I fay, of Hebrews: of the very fame perfons, in the greater part, who were members of the ancient Hebrew church, at the time when the Jews were fubdued by Adrian. For again, I take for granted, * Second LeUeis, &c. p. 192. IV. TUAT UPON SECOND LETTERS. 365 IV. That the obfervation of the Mofaic law, in Part 11. Chaf»11. the primitive church of Jerufalem, was a matter of meer habit and national prejudice, not of confcience. A matter of confcience it could not be ; becaufe the decree of the apoftolical college, and the writings of St. Paul, mufl: have put every true believer's confci- ence at eafe upon the fubjedl. St. Paul, in all his epiflles, maintains the total infignificance of the Mo- faic law, either for Jew or Gentile, after Chrift had made the great atonement ; and the notion that St. Paul could be miftaken, in a point which is the prin- cipal fubjed of a great part of his writings, is an im- •piety, which I cannot impute to our holy brethren, the faints of the primitive church of Jerufalem *. Again, I take for granted, V. That with good Chriftians, fuch as I believe the Chriftians of the primitive church of Jerufalem to have been ; motives of worldly intereft, which would not overcome confcience, would, neverthelefs, over- come meer habit. VI. That the defire of partaking in the privileges of the -/Elian colony, from which Jews were excluded, would accordingly be a motive, that would prevail with the Hebrew Chriftians of Jerufalem, and other parts of Paleftine, to diveft themfelves of the form of Judaifm, by laying afide their ancient cuftoms. * By the primitive church of Jerufalem, I mean the He- brew Church before Adrian. The retreat to Pella was tem- porary; and, I am inclined to think, of fliort duration ; and the Bifhop, while he fat there, was flill called the Biftiop of Jerufalem. 4. Dr. 365 REMARKS Part II. 4. Dr. Priestley afks me, " Where, Sir, do Chap. II. " you find in this paflage [a paflage of Sulpitius Seve- " rus which he cites] any promife of immunities to " the Jewifh Chriftians, if they would forfake the law " of their fathers*." Nowhere, I confefs, in this paflage ; nor in any other paffage of Sulpitius ; nor in any paflage of any antient, I may add, nor of any modern writer. But the quellion implies a falfe and fraudulent reprefentation of my argument. I never fpake, I never dreamed, of any promife oi particular immunities to JewiOi Chriftians, upon condition that they renounced the Mofaic law. I fpake only of the general immunities of the iElian colony, of which Chriftians might, and Jews might not partake f. * Second Letters, &c. p. 42. f Notvvillifianding tlie explanation, which I have here given, of what I Taid, in the Seventh of my Letters in Reply, of the exclufion of Jews, and of Jews only, from the privi- leges of the ^lian colony ; Dr. Prieflley in his Third Letters, has the alTurance to tell me, " You lay that the Jews were al- " lowed to remain in the place and enjoy the privileges of the *' -ffilian colony, on condition of their becoming Chriftians." As if I had mentioned this as an article of capitulation be- tween the Emperor and the Jews. I conceive, that I have expreffedmy meaning too plainly to be mifapprehended, by thofe who choofe to underftand. I never conceived, I have no where faid, " that Adrian was fo well difpofed to Chrifti- " anity, as to permit the rebellious Jews to remain in Jerufa- " lem on condition of their embracing it." But I fuppofe that the Emperor might diftinguifh between rebels and thofe who had been good fubjefls. The Hebrew Chriftians had \aken no part in the rebellion. And yet, had they not dif- carded the Jewifti rites, they might have been miftaken for jews. 5. Dr. UPON SECOND LETTERS. 367 c. Dr. Priestley alleges, that " the hiftorian p^rt tf. Ch \p, II. " [Sulpitius] fays, that the object of Adrian was to *' overturn Chriftianity*." But wliatever the em- peror's dillike to Chriftianity might be, there is little probability that, upon this occafion, he would be dif- pofed to treat Chriftians with feverity. The hiftorian Sulpitius nowhere fays, that the emperor's edifts againft the Jews extended to Chrirtians ; and the hif- torian Orofius fays exprefsly, that to Chriftians they extended not f . Was Orofius too late a writer to give evidence about thefe tranfadlions ? The hiftorian of Corruptions is, I believe, fome centuries later. His means of information therefore are fewer ; and, were he well informed, his precipitance in aflertion, and his talent of accommodating his ftory to his opi- nions, (hould annihilate the credit of his evidence. The teftimony of Orofius, however inconfiderable, might of itfelf therefore outweigh the opinion of Dr. Prieftley ; if a feather only, in the one fcale, be more than a counterpoife for a nothing in the other. 6. The teftimony, however, of Orofius is not without fome indirect confirmation from other wri- ters ; and, what is more, from its confiftency with other circumftances in thehiftoryof thofe times ; with which the afi'ertion of Sulpitius, that Adrian meant to wound Chriftianity through the fides of Judaifm, will not eafily accord. It is a notorious fact, that * Second Letters, &c. p. 42. t praecepitqiie ne cui Judaso introeiiiidi Hieroruly-^ mam efTetlicentia, Chriftianis tantiim civitate permiffa. Orof. Hill. lib. 7, cap. xiii. Adrian 36S REMARKS I'art. If. Adrian was not unfavourable to the Chriflians. The ' Church, in his reign, obtained a refpite from perfe- cution. The fury of its perfecutors was retrained by the imperial refcripts to the provincial governors : who were directed not to. proceed againfi: the Chrif- tians, except by way of regular trial upon the alle- gation of fome certain crime ; and when nothino- more was alleged than the bare name of Chrilli- anity, to punilh the informer as a fycophant. A refcript to this effect addrefl'ed to Minucius Funda- nus, proconful of Afia, is preferved by Juftin Mar- tyr in his iirft apology.; and, after Juftin, by Eufe- bius in his hiftory *.[«] This equitable difpofition of the emperor towards the Chrifiians, is afcribed by Eufebius to the eloquent apologies of Quadratus and Ariflides, and to the remonftrances of Serenius Gra- nianus, the predecelTor of Fundanus in the Afiatic proconfulate f. When the Jewifh war broke out; reafons of ftate immediately took, place, which would greatly heighten the effe£l of any imprelfions, pre- viouily made upon the emperor's mind by the pleadings of the Chriftian Apologifts, and the inter- cefTions of what friends they might have among his * Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV. c. 8 & 9. [rt] Dr. Prieftley in the Second of his Third Letters con- tends that thefe refcripts meant nothing more, than that no one (hould be pLiniHied as a Chriftian, 'till he was proved to be fiich. But this had been no indulgence ; for every Chrif- tian might have been proved to be a Chriftian by his own confelTion. The writers of the times boaft of thefe refcripts as indulgences. t Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV. c. 3. & in Chron. adann. MMCXLII. courtiers UPON SECOND LETTERS. 369 courtiers. The Chriftians of Paleftine refufed to Part ir. Chap. II* take any part in the Jewifh rebellion ; and they fmarted under the refentment of Barchochebas, the leader of the infurgents. The earlieft teftimony now extant of this fail is, I believe, that of Eufebius in his chronicle *. But the known impiety of Barchoche- bas, which renders it incredible that the Chriftians fliould inlifl: under his banners, fufficiently avouches the truth of the chronologer's afiertion. The thing therefore in itfelf is highly probable, that the emperor Ihould make the diftin6liori which, Orofius fays, he made between the feditious Jews and the harmlefs Chriftians ; who had, indeed, been fufFerers by their loyalty. The probability is ftill incrcafed by certain circumftances mentioned by hiftorians, which indicate a particular antipathy in the imperial court, at this time, to the rites of Judaifm ; which the refradtory manners of the Jews might naturally excite. Spar- tian fays, that a prohibition of circumcifion was one of the pretences of the Jewidi rebellion f . Modef- tinus the lawyer, as he is cited by Cafaubon, alleges a refcript of Antoninus granting a permiflion to the Jews, to circumcife their own children. This re- fcript of permiflion, as it plainly implies, that the pradice had been forbidden by fome preceding em- peror ; in fome mcafure confirms Spartian's relation. All thefe circumflances put together, create, as the thing appears to me, the higheft probability of the truth of Orofius's aflertion ; that Chriftians were not included in the ediils of Adrian, by which the Jews * Ad annum MMCXLIX. t Movebaut ca tcmpeftate & Judcci bellum, quod veta- bantur mutilare genitalia. Spartian in Adr'iano, B b were 310 REMARK Part II. were banifhed from Jerufalem. And althoudi no Chap II . author that I know of, befide Orofius, exprefsly mentions the diftinftioni the contrary, that the Chriftians were included, is affirmed by no ancient writer. The diftindion indeed, though not men- tioned, is clearly implied in Epiphanius's aflertion; that the Hebrew Chriftians, after Adrian's fettlement of the ^lian colony, returned from Pella, whither they had retired from the diftreffes of the war, to ^lia. For it happens, that this fail, of which Dr. Pricftley does me the honour to make me the the inventor, is afierted by Epiphanius. Epiphanius, having related that Aquila, the fame perfon who afterwards made a tranflation of the fcriptures of the Old Teftament into Greek, was employed by Adrian as overfeer of the works at ^lia ; proceeds in thefe words : o roivw A»y^aJ, d'iayuv ev rn Is^acra^^nf/^ xdi opuv Tag (/.aSyftag rccv (/.adrdcov tccv airoro'Koiv avSavla; Tri OTJrei, Hai crvixsia, /j,s'ya>.a spya^oiAEVHg IxaBicv xai aMwy ^avixdl(cv' mav yap 'Tn02TPE>F ANTES' AHO HEA- AHS T51J o£>ca'mo>.£(t}g eij iHpatraXrj^w, nai oi^atTKOvlsg' wiKcc yap l//e.£M£v h 'SJoT^i; aM(Xxtcr9ai vvro tuv Vuiauiccv, 'sr^osx^yi' (/.alia^mav i/Tto ayfeXn 'mavlsg ol {xa^iniai (/.zlarnvai aTto tjj^ "JetoXewj, (AiXKH^TYii; dp^nv dTToKKva&ar oitjiej km /xilavarai yevof/svoi uKwav kv HsXM t>i 'srpoyEypa/jt.jj.evYi 'ssoT^bi 'sss^av m lofSavs, ^TJj £« ^saaTToXsii); >.zy{la.i dvai' (/.ela ^£ tuv ' Efr,/A,uaiv l£pH7a-h-fliM 'EDANASTPEI^ ANTES, k i'pw, ffYji^Bia, (/,Eya>.a s^teteAxv* o toivuv A>cu>^a;^ k, t. X. Epiph. De Pond y Mefif. Whether this return of the Chriftians of 'Jerufalem from Pella took place in the interval between the end of Titus's war and the commencement of Adrian's, or after the end UPONSECONDLETTERS. 371 end of Adrian's, is a matter of no importance. It Part II, is fufficient for my purpofe, that thefe returned Chriftians were refiding at Jerufalem, or more pro- perly at JElhj at the fame time that Aquila was refiding there as overfeer of the emperor's works. Let not the public therefore be abufed by any cavils, which ignorance or fraud may raife, about the chrono- logy of the return *. To this aflertion of Epiphani- us, Moftieim, relating the fa6l, refers. Relating the fame ♦ Dr. Prieftley in the Third of his Third Letters, has treated this tcftimony of Epiphanius juft as I expeded and indeed predicted. He firft endeavours to embarrafs the ar- gument with fome chronological difficulties ; and then gets rid of it in his own peculiar manner, by making pofttive tef- timony fubmit to his own theory. ** What can be more *♦ evident, he fays, than that the return of the Jewifli Chrif- ** tians from Fella, mentioned in this paflTage by Epiphanius> *• is that return which followed the deftruftion of Jerufalem *• by Titus?" Be it fo. It is granted then that fome of the Jewifh Chriftlans, who fled to Fella during Titus's war, re- turned to Jerufalem afterwards. But the queftion is^ not at what time the Jewifh Chriftians, whom Aquila found at JEViSL, had returned thither, but at what time he converled with them. Epiphanius fays he converfed with them at the time that he was fuperintendant of Adrian's works at JElisi. At that time therefore there were Hebrew Chriftians fettled at JEVia, or they could not then have converfed with Aquila. I maintain, that there is no reafon to believe that the Hebrew Chriftians quietly fettled at ^^lia, betore the Jewifli rebellion, were included in Adrian's edidt for the baniihment of the Jews. But Dr. Frieflley remarks further upon the authority of Cave, that Aquila's tranflation of the Old Teftament was B b a made 37* REMARKS Part ii. fame fail, to Mofheim I referred* : to the very paf- Chap. II. fage t, where Dr. Prieftly, had he known what it is to examine authorities before he pronounces upon made in the nth or 12th year of Adrian. Then, fince that tranflation was undertaken in confequence of his apoftacy, and his apoftacy was feme confiderablc time after his conver- fion, Dr. Prieftley infers that his converfion " was probably prior to the reign of Adrian," and fo the whole ftory of his intercourfe with the Jewifh Chriftians at ^lia, while he was refiding there in the time of Adrian, is difcredited. Perhaps to atlign the exaft year of Aquila's tranflatien would prove ata(k of nolefs difficulty to any who fhould at- tempt it, than to determine the day of the week, and the hour of the day, when the laft word of that work was written. The learned Cave had, as far as I know, no realon for fixing Aquila's tranflation to the nth or 12th of Adrian; but that Epiphanius fays, that in the 12th year of Adrian, <'Aquilafirft became known." But if Epiphanius is to be believed, Aquila firft became known by Adrian's appointment of him to fo con- fiderable an office, as that of overfeer of the public works at ^lia. This was inths 12th year of Adrian. His converfion to Chrifl^ianity was fome time fubfequent to that appoint- ment : his apofl:acy, at fome confiderablc diftance of time, fubfequent to his converfion : and his tranflation of the Old Teftament fubfequent to his apoftacy. So that the time of that tranflation, can be no otherwife defined than thus ; that it certainly was not earlier than the 12th of Adrian, and probably was later by an interval of many years. My argument therefore from Epiphanius ftands its ground, and the caution which I gave the public not to be abufed by cavils which might be raifed about the Chronology of the return from Fella, is but too much juftiified by the event. * Letters to Dr. Prieftley, p. 61. t De Rebus Chrifl.ianorum ante Conftantinum. Saec. II. ^ 38. not. * them, UPON SECOND LETTERS. 373 them, might have found the reference to the original Pa"t i^' Ckap> II, author. The confidence with which he mentions this as a fadt forged by me, is only one inftance, out of a great number, of his own ihamelefs intre- pidity in aflertion. 7. But to return from the detection of Dr. Prieftley's fictions to the hiftorical difcuffion. It may feem, that my fix pofitions go no further, than to ac- count for the difufe of the Mofaic Law, among the Chriftians of Palefiine, upon the fuppofition that the thing took place ; and that they amount not to a proof, that a church of Hebrew Chriftians, not adhering to the rites of Judaifm, actually exifted at JEViz. To complete the proof therefore, I might appeal to Epiphanius's aflertion of the return of the Chrifiians of Jerufalem from Pella. But I will rather derive the proof, from a faft which I think more convincing than the teftimony of Epiphanius ; a fad, by which that teftimony is itfelf indeed con- firmed. I affirm then, VII. That a body of orthodox Chriftians of the Hebrews were aftually exifting in the world, much later than in the time of Adrian. 8. The teftimony of Origen I hold too cheap, to avail myfelf of his triple divifion of the Hebrew Chrif- tians, to prove the exiftence of the orthodox fet in his time. It muft be obferved, however j that, were his evidence at all admiflible, his diftindion would be ibmewhat a ftronger proof for mej than his general B b 3 aflertion, 374 REMARKS Part II. aflertion, of which the generality is difcredited by the diftindion afterwards alleged, can be allowed to be for my antagonift. But I give him Origen. I will reft the credit of my feventh poiition, upon the men- tion which occurs in St. Jerom's commentary upon Ifaiah, of Hebrews believing in Chrift as diftinil from the Nazarenes. St.Jerom relates two different expofi- tions of the prophecy concerning Zabulon and Naph- tali, delivered in the beginning of the ninth chapter of Ifaiah ; of which expofitions he afcribes the one to the Hebrews believing in Chrij} ; the other, to the Naza- reries. The charadler given of thefe Hebrews, that " they believed in Chrift," without any thing to diftinguifh their belief from the common belief of the church, without any note of its error or imperfection, is a plain chara£ler of compleat orthodoxy. For it •was neither the difpofition of St.Jerom, nor the faftiion of his age, tomifs any opportunity of proclaiming the vices of thofe, who were deemed heretics ; unlefs upon occafions when fome rhetorical purpofe might be anfwered by concealing them. But no rhetorical pur- pofe was to be anfwered, in thefe notes upon Ifaiah, by a concealment of any errorj that had beenjuftly to be imputed to thefe Hebrews j nor was St.Jerom at all concerned to maintain the particular expofition, which he afcribes to them. He had therefore no inducement to conceal their errors. But he taxes them with none. He had therefore no harm to fay of them. They were orthodox believers : and the diftinction of them from the Nazarenes, made by St. Jerom, is a plain proof that they wer§ not obfervers of the Mofaic law. For although the Mofaic law was obferved in the orthodax church UPON SECOND LETTERS. 375 church of Jerufalem, until the time of the fupprefllon ^^^"^ ^J* ^ ^HAF« lift of the Jewifh rebelhon by Adrian; it was after his time, by my adverfary's own confeflion, confined to the Nazarcaes and the Ebionites. If then the He- brews believing in Chrift obferved not the Mofaic law in the time of St. Jerom : fince the Mofaic law had been obferved by thefirft race of believing Hebrews j it follows, that the practice of the Hebrew congregations had undergone a change, at fome time before the age of St. Jerom. Dr. Prieftley fays, that great bodies of men change not their opinions foon. I fay, they ne- ver change their old cuftoms and inveterate habits, but from fome powerful motive. Now in what pe- riod of the hiflory of the church fhall we find a poftura of affairs, fo likely to induce the Hebrew Chriftians to forfake the Mofaic law, as that which obtained in Paleftine upon the final difperfion of the Jews by Adrian ? If the orthodox Chriftians of the Hebrews, actually exifting fomewherein the world from the reign of Adrian to the days of St. Jerom, were not mem- bers of the church of /Elh, dwellmgat JElh, and in the adjacent parts of Paleftinej Dr. Prieftley, if he be fo pleafed, may feek their fettlement. It is no fmall difficulty upon my adverfary's fide, that he can neither tell " what became of the Chriftiaa Jews," upon his fuppofition, that with the unbelieving Jews they " were driven out of Jerufalem by Adrian*;" nor from what quarter the Greek church of JElh was furnillied with its members. * " What became of the Chriftian Jews who were drivea ** out of Jerufalem by Adrian, docs not appear." Seconti letters, &c. p. 45. B b 4 9. Upon 376 REMARKS Part ii. q. tJpoN thefe foundations, which a Wronger arm Chap. II o than Dr. PriefUey's fliall not be able to tear up, ftands *' the church of orthodox Jewifh Chriftians at Jeru- "falem*:" To which the afTertors of the catholic faith will not fcruple to appeal, in proof of the anti- quity of their doctrine, whatever offence the very mention of the orthodox church of Jerufalem may give to the enraged Herefiarchf . 10. He afks me, what evidence I can bring diat this church, even before the time of Adrian, was Trinitarian. I brought evidence in my letters J, which he hath not been able to refute. Upon his own principles, the acknowledgement of their ortho- doxy in later times, by writers who would have ac- knowledged no orthodoxy of any Unitarian k&, might be a fufficient evidence of their earlieft ortho- doxy. The evidence which I have brought, is no- thing lefs than an atteftation of a member of this ear- lieft Hebrew churcj;i to the belief of himfelf, and his Hebrew brethren, in our Lord's divinity. But " If ** they were Nazarenes, fays Dr. Prieftley, Epipha- *' nius reprefents them as Unitarian when John " wrote§." I have faid, and I will never ceafeto fay, that Epiphanius's reprefentation juftifies no fuch opi- * " Thus ends this church of orthodox Jewifh Chriftians <* at Jerufalem, &c." Second Letters, p. 44. + " — I hope, (id populus curat fcilicet) I hope, however, ** we fhall hear no more of them as an evidence oftheanti-^ " quity of the Trinitarian doftrine." Second Letters, p. 45. % See particularly Letter VIII, '% Second Letters, p. 45. nion. UPON SECOND LETTERS. 377 nion. But what is Epiphanius's account of the Na- p^rt ii. . _ Chap, II. zarenes, or what is any account or the Nazarenes, to thepurpofei if the Hebrews of the church of Jerufa- lem were no Nazarenes ? With St. Jerom, the He- brews believing in Chrifl, and the Nazarenes, are different people. N. B. Dr. Prieftley's objejftions to the evidence brought from St. Jerom in proof of my Vllth pofition, which he hath advanced in the Fourth of his Third Letters, are anfwered in the Sixth of the Supplemental Difquifitions. CHAP. 3J| REMARKS CHAPTER THIRD, Of the Hebrew Church end its SeSfs, Part II. TT muft ftrike the learned reader, that the Naza-r Chap. III. renes mentioned by St. Jerom, in the paflage to which I now refer of his annotations on Ifaiah, muft have been a different people from thofe men- tioned by him with fuch contempt in his epiftle to St. Auftin, and defcribed by Epiphanius. The Nazarenes, here mentioned by St. Jerom, held the Scribes and Pharifees in deteftation j their traditions in contempt j and the Apoftle St. Paul in high ve- neration *. And yet thefe Nazarenes, of the beft fort, were ftill a diftinft fet of people > from the He- brews believing in Chrift ; that is, from the ortho- dox church of Jerufalem, diverted, in confequence of Adrian's ediils againfl the Jews, of what, until the time of thofe edicts, it had retained of the ex- terior form of Judaifm. Thefe remarks lead, I think, to a more diftinft notion of the different feels of Hebrews profefTing -the Chriftian religion^ than I have met with in writers of ecclefiaflical anti- quity ; a much more dillin£t one, I confefs, than I had myfelf formed, when I delivered the Charge ta the Clergy of ray Archdeaconry, which gave the be- * See Jercm in If. IX. i, 2, 3, et VIII. 14, 19—22. cinnin": UPON SECOND LETTERS. 379 ginnins: to this controverfy : a notion however per- Part ir. ^ ° -^ ' *^ Chap. III. fe£l]y confiftent with every thing, which I then main- tained ; and tending to eftabhfh the points, in which I differ from Dr. Prieftley. As the queftion about the Hebrew fe£ts is of great importance, I fhall here briefly (late the fum of what I have found concern- ing them in ancient writers, and then propound my own conclufions. 2. The Nazarenes are not mentioned by Ire- N^us. Irenaeus fays of the Ebionites *, that they acknowledged God for the maker of the world j— that they refembled not Cerinthus or Carpocrates in their opinions about Chrift ; — that they ufed only the Gofpel by St. Matthew; — were over curious in the expofition of the prophets ; — difowned the Apoftle Paul, calling him an apoftate from the law ; — circumcifed, and retained the Jewidi law and Jewifh cuftoms. This defcription of the Ebionites occurs in that part of the great work of Irenaeus, which is extant only in a barbarous Latin tranfla- tion. In the pafTage which relates to their opinions about Chrift, Cotelerius fufpefts a corruption j and for non fimiliter he would read conftmiliter ; fup- pofing that Irenaeus muft have afHrmed, and that he could not deny, their refemblance of Cerinthus and Carpocrates in that article ; and this indeed is agreeable, as will appear, to the defcriptions given of the Ebionites by other writers. * Ircnasus, lib. i. cap. XXVI. 3. IreNj1:us jSo REMARKS Part II. -?. Irenj^us in another place infinuates, that for Cpap. Ill, . . wine, in the Eucharift, the Ebionites fubftituted pure water*. 4. Tertullian fays, that Ebion made Jefus a meer man, of the feed of David only, that is, not alfo the Son of God ; in fome refpe6l higher in glory than the prophets f. In another place J he fays, that Ebion was the fucceflbr of Cerinthus ; not agreeing with him in every particular, inafmuch as he allowed that the world was made by God, not by angels : that as a confequence of Chrift's meer humanity, he maintained the lafting obligation of the Mofaic law ; becaufe it is written, that the difciple is not above the mafter, nor the fervant above his Lord. Tertullian fays nothing exprefsly about the agreement, or difagreement, of Ebion and Cerin- thus, in their notions of Chrift ; but the impiety of maintaining that he was a meer man, the fon of Jofeph, he afcribes to Carpocrates and Cerinthus as well as Ebion j which renders the emendation, pro- pofed by Cotelerius, in the Latin verfion of Ire- nseus, confimUher for non fimiliter, very probable : efpecially as a further agreement of the Ebionites and Gnoftics, in their notions about Chrift, is maintained by other writers. Tertullian again in another place, having mentioned " that St. Paul, writing to the Galatians, inveighs againfl: the ob- servers and defenders of circumcifion and the law," * Iren3eus,.lib. 5, c. If. f De carne Ciuifti. c. XIV,. X De Prxlcript. Ilairet. c. XLVIII, ^ ' adds, UPON SECOND LETTERS. 381 adds, " this was Ebion's herefy*." This how- PartH- ever is no argument, that Ebion lived when that epiftle was written. TertuUian means only to re- mark, that Ebion's tenets, in this article, were clearly confuted by St. Paul's writings. In the fame place he mentions the denial of the refurredlion of the body, by Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus, as an error reproved in St. Paul's firft epiftle to the Corinthians. But no one, I imagine, would thence conclude that Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus, were contemporaries of the Apoftle. 5. Origen, in the fecond book againfl: Celfus, feems to comprehend the whole body of the He- brew Chriftians under the name of Ebionites ; and affirms, that they adhered to the law of their fa- thers f. But in another place, where he profefTes to defcribe the Chriftianity of the Hebrews with the greateft accuracy, he divides the whole body into three feels. The firft, like other Chriftians, en- tirely difcarded the Mofaic law : the fecond retained- the obfervation of the law in the letter of the pre- cept ; admitting however the fame fpiritual expo- fitions of it, which were fet up by thofe who dif- carded it : the third fort not only obferved the law according ta the letter, but rejeded all fpiritual ex- pofitions of it:};. * De praefcript, Ilasret. cap. XXXIII. t Contra Cell", lib. II. ^ i. I Con. Celf. lib. II. ^ 3. 6. EUSEBIUS ^U REMARKS Past II. 6. EusEBius divides the Ebionites into two fortSj both denying our Lord's divinity ; but the better fort believing the miraculous conception*. Both rejedled the epiflles of St. Paul, whom they called an apoftate from the law. They ufed the Go/pel according to the Hebrews, and held the canonical gofpels in little efteem. They kept both the Jewifli Sabbath and the Chriftian Sunday. Origen and Eufebius, like Irenseus, mention not the Nazarenes by name. 7. St. Jerom, in his commentary upon Ifaiah, mentions Hebrews believing in Chriil f ; and, as a diftindt fet of people from thefe believing Hebrews, he mentions Nazarenes who obferved the law J, but defpifed the traditions of the Pharifees, thought highly of St. Paul]], and held the do£lrine of our Lord's divinity. For, by an expofition of If. viii. I3> 14? ■which St. Jerom afcribes to them, it ap- pears that they acknowledged in Chrift the niK2!£ mn» [the Lord God of hofls] of the Old Tefta- ment. In his epiftle to St. Auguftin §, St. Jerom defcribes Nazarenes of another fort, " who believed " in Chrift the fon of God born of the virgin Mary, " in whom the orthodox believe ;" but were, ne- verthelefs, fo bigotted to the Mofaic law, that they were rather to be confidered as a Jewifh feft, than a Chriftian. In the fame place, he fpeaks of the * Hid. Ecc. lib. III. c. 27. f In If. ix. i, 2, 3, X In If. ibid.- & viii. 14 & 19 — 21. || Ibid. ^ Hieron. Op. Tom. IL f. 341, A. edit. Froben. Ebionites Ckaf. hi. UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3IJ Ebionites as a fetft anathematized for their Judaifm, Part ii.^ and falfely pretending to be Chriftians; and in his commentary upon St. Matthew xii. he fays they ac- knowledged not St. Paul's apoftolical commiffion. 8. Epiphanius defcrlbes the fed of the Naza- renes as a fet of people hardly to be diftinguilhed from Jews. He expreffes a doubt, whether they ac- knowledged our Lord's divinity : but the terms, in which his doubt is cxprefTed, argue that it was groundlefs*. He defcribes the Ebionites as refem- bling the Samaritans, rather than the Jews; — as maintaining that Jefus was the fon of Mary by her hufband i — that the Chrift, defcending from heaven in the figure of a dove, entered into Jefus at his bap- tifm. He fays, that the Nazarenes and the Ebionites had each a Hebrew gofpel (the only one which they received), which they called the gofpel by St. Mat- thew;— that the copies received by the two fe6ls were different : compared with the true gofpel by St. Matthew, which the church receives, the Ebionaean copy was the leaft entire, and the moft corrupt. He fpeaks of the Ebionites as a feet, which branched off from the Nazarenes, and appeared not till after the deftru6lion of Jerufalem |. 9. From the teftimony of an ancient writer, cited by Eufebius, it appears, that one Theodotus, a na- tive of Byzantium, a tanner by trade, at the very end * Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of St. Albans, I. ^ 10, II. t Epiph, Hier. 30. of 3S4 REMARKS Part ii. of the fecond century, was the firfi: who taught the Chap. Ill, , . r r^, -n ^ TT , , ^ meer humanity or Chnft *. He preached at Rome. His dofbine was an extenfion of the impiety of the firft Ebionites: for, with them, the humanity of Chrift was over at his baptifm f . He was then deified ; or, at leaft, exalted above humanity, by the illapfe of the Chrift. 10. Now, from all this, I feem to gather, that, after the deftru6lionof Jerufalem, the Hebrew church, if under that name we may comprehend the fefts which feparated from it, was divided into five different fets of people. I. St. Jerom's Hebrews believing in Chrifl:. Thefe were orthodox Chriftians of Hebrew extraction, who had laid afide the ufe of the Mofaic law. They are the fame with the firft fet in Origen's threefold divifion of the Hebrew Chriftians. 11. Nazarenes of the better fort, orthodox in their creed, though retaining the ufe of the Mofaic law. As they were admirers of St. Paul, they could notefteem the law generally necelTary to falvatioft. If thefe people were at all heretical ; I fhould guefs that it was in this lingle point, that they received the gof- pel of the Nazarenes inftead of the canonical gof- pels. * Hift. Ecc. lib. V. c. 28. t See more upon this point in Mr. Howes's fermon. III. Nazarenes UPON SECOND LETTERS. 3555 III. Nazarenes of a worfe fort, bigotted to the Part ii. Jewiili law, but ftill orthodox, for any thing that ap- pears to the contrary, in their creed. Thefe were the proper Nazarenes, defcribed under that name by Epiphanius, and by St. Jerom in his epiftle to St. Auftin. Thefe two fefts, the better and the worfe fort of Nazarenes, make the middle fet in Origen's threefold divifion. IV. Ebionites denying our Lord's divinity, but admitting the fail of the miraculous conception. V. Ebionites of a worfe fort, denying the mira- culous conception, but ftill maintaining an union of Jefus with a divine being, which commenced upon his baptifm. Thefe two feils, the better and the worfe fort of Ebionites, make the laft fet in Origen's threefold divifion. II. Thus we find a regular, and no unnatural, gradation ; from the orthodox Hebrew Chriftian to the blafpheming Ebionite. It appears, however, that the impious degradation of the Redeemer's nature, though it took its rife among the Hebrew fe6ts, was not car- ried to its height among them. A fe£t of proper Uni- tarians, holding the perpetual undeified humanity of the Saviour, made its firft appearance at Rome, and boafted for its founder Theodotus, the apoftate tanner of Byzantium: if, indeed, it was not the growth of ftill later times ; which feems to be the opinion of the learned Mr. Howes, to whofe judgement I am in- clined to pay great regard. Thefe two points, how- C c ever. 3S6 REMARKS Part II. ever, feein certain ; that the Nazarenes, even of the Chap, III. befl: fort, were a different people from the Hebrew brethren of the orthodox church of Jerufalem : and that the Nazarenes, even of the worft fort, were be- lievers in the divinity of our Lord. In what extent they believed it, may, perhaps, feem to fome a quef- tion in fome degree ftill open to difcuffion. At pre- fent, I fee no reafon to recede from the opinion, which, with great authorities upon my fide, I have hitherto maintained, of their entire orthodoxy upon that article. If, upon that particular point, I fhould, at any time hereafter, fee caufe to think myfelf mifta- ken ; my conviction is not likely to come from Dr. Prieftley, but from a very different quarter. Mr. Howe's's 9th number is jufl fallen into my hands. That learned writer, I perceive, thinks that it was but a fubordinate divinity, v.'hich the Nazarenes ac- knowledged in our Lord. For his opinion I feel all the deference, which one fcholar owes to the fenti- ments of another ; but not without the ftrongefl pre- poffefTions, I confefs, at prefent in favour of my own. C PI A P. tJBON SECOND LETTERS. 387 CHAPTER FOURTH. Of the Ded'me of Cahinifm, — Of Conventicles, I NOW pafs to the third fa6t, wliich I have taken upon me to eflablifti; the dedine of Calvinifm, amounting almofl to a total extindion of it, among our Englifh Diffenters j who, no long time fmce, were generally Calvin.ifts. 2. This fadl is of no great importance in oiir con- troverfy ; as it is but very remotely connected with the queftion about the opinions of the firft ages. The rapid decline of Calvinifm, here in England, was al- leged by me as an inftance, in which Dr. Prieftley's theorem about the rate of velocity, with which tlie opinions of great bodies of men change, would lead, in the pra6lical application of it, to very erroneous conclufions. If my inftance was ill-chofen; it will not immediately be a confequence, that Dr. Prieflley's theorem is a fafe principle for the reformation of the hiftory of the primitive church, in defiance of the tef- timony of the earlieft writers extant. It would give me great pleafure to find myfelf in an error with refpecl to this fa6f ; and to fee reafon to believe Dr. Prieftley, in his afTcrtion, that the great body of our Diffenters at this day are Calvinifts. So many Calvinifts as are among them, fo many friends tliere are to the catholic C c 2 faith Part II. Chajp. IV. 38S REMARKS Part. ir. faith In all its eflential branches ; for the peculiarities Chap IV" of Calvinifm affeil not the effentials of Chriftianity. But I am forry to fay, that I muft ftill believe, that the genuine Calvinifts among our modern Diflenters are very few ; unlefs, in a matter, which hath fo lately fallen under the cognifanceof theBritifli legifla- ture, I could allow Dr. Prieftley's affertion, to out- weigh the plain teftimony of fadls of public noto- riety. 3. If the great body of the Dlflentei-s are, at this day, Calvinifls ; upon what pretence was it, that the diflenting minifters, who, in the years 1772 and ^ 17735 petitioned Parliament to be releafed from the fubfcriptions to which they were held by the ift of /William and Mary, arrogated to themfelves the title of the General Body of diflenting minifters of the three denominations in and about London ? No true Calvinift could concur in that petition. For al- though I cannot admit, that the articles of our church, in the doctrinal part, affirm the Ariel tenets of Calvi- nifm ; yet they are in this part, what, as I conceive, no true Calvinift would fcruple to fubfcribe; and, with refpe6l to the great doilrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, Juftification, and Grace ; every genuine Calvinift would ftart at the very thought of being fup- pofed, even tacitly to concur in a requeft to be re- leafed from a confeflion of his faith : for none better underftands than the genuine Calvinift, the force of that facred maxim, " with the heart man believeth " unto righteoufnefs, and with the mouth confeflion ". is made unto falvation." Would Dr. Prieftley infi- / . nuate. UPON SECOND LETTERS. 33-9 nuate, that his brethren of the rational diffent ap- pAm ir. Chap, IV. proached the auguft afTembly of the Britifli Parlia- ment, with a petition founded upon falfe pretenfions ? Will he fay, that they were, in facfl, the minority of. the body, of which they called themfelves the gene- rality ? Will he fay, that tlie Thirteen *, Vv'ho in the meeting of the General Body at the Library, in Red-crofs Street, on Wednefday December the 23d, 1772, divided againft the vote for an application to Parliament to remove the reftraints, which the wifdoni of our forefathers, by the Act of Toleration, had im- pofed ; were the reprefentatives of a more numerous body, than the Fifty -five who gave their fufFrages for the motion f : who, at a fubfequent meeting, fuffered not the proteft of the thirteen orthodox minifters, to be recorded in the Minutes of the bufinefs of the day; and with difficulty permitted their reafons to be reddej. A proceeding, by the way, which clearly fhews, how cordially thefe pretended friends of general toleration would delight, were they in power, to tole- rate opinions which might differ from their own ; and evinces the propriety of the prayer, which a fenfc of fuch wrongs, drew from a member of the orthodox minority, " From the power of fuch pretenders to fu- *' perior reafon may God and The British Go- * See a pamphlet entitled, ACollcSi'ionofthcfeveralPapers relating to the Application made to Parliament, in 1772 and 1773, byfome of the Protcjlant Dijlnters, for Relief in the mat- ter of Subfcription, &c. London, Printed for y.Wilkie, N'^ Ti^ St. PauVs Church-Yard. MDCCLXXIII. . t See Wilkie's Collcaion, N» III. t. Stc Wilkie's Colkaion, N" II. C C 3 " VERN.MENT 3go REMARKS Part II. « VERNMENT ever defend the oi'tliodoxDifTenters*." Ckaf* IV. Thefe thirteen fpake only the lentuTients of every Calvinift, when they faid, " We believe the doflrines " of the articles to be both true and important. We " dare not therefore confent, to be held up to view as " thofe, who indulge any doubts refpe(5ling their ^' truth, or at all hefitate about their importance. " We confider them as the bafis of our hope, the ^' fource of our comfort, and the mofl: powerful in- " centive to a courfe of fmcere, ftedfaft, chearful, " obedience f." It were injuftice to thefe worthy men, to let any occafion pafs of mentioning their names with the reverence which is due to them. David Muire, John Rogers, Thomas Towle, Samuel Brewer, Edward Hitchin, Thomas Ofwald, John Potts, John Trotter, John Macgowan, George Ste- phens, Jofeph Popplewell, Henry Hunter, John Kello ; thefe were the venerable ConfefTors, who, on the 23d of December, 1772, and on the 27th of Ja- nuary in tlie following year, in meetings of the Gene- ral Body of the three denominations, ftood for the Faith once delivered to the Saints. " They thought ^^ themfelves bound, they faid, to contend earneftly ^' for it againfi: all v/ho ihould oppofe it." For this purpofe they formed, as I gather from the documents efthetimesj, into a diflincl aflbciation. When the * Sec Candid Thoughts on the late Application of fame Protef- }if?u dijftnting M^inijlers, &e. By an Orthodox Diffcnter. Loi%~ douy Printed for IF. Goldfmith, N° . 20, Paternofter-Rp-w^ t Sec Wilkle's Colkaioii, N'' II. § 3. % See Wiikie's CoUeftlon, N" III. and IV. petition UPON SECOND LETTERS. 391 petition of the Rationalifts was laid before the Parlia- p^rt ii. ment, they were firm and adive in their oppofition to it ; confi ieriug the requeft as little lefs than a blow craftily aimed at the very vitals of the Reformed reli- gion, and of Chriilianity, indeed, itfelf. Tliey pre- fented a crofs petition *, iigned, as they themfelves faid, by the Minillers as well as the Laity of the moft refpeftable congregations of real Proteftant DilTenters in town and country. But, when theywilhedto give credit and authority to their oppoiition, by boafting of their numbers: the moft that they could fay of the number of minifters, who had figned the crofs petition was this ; that they were " upwards of Fifty." The number of diiTenting minifters in the whole kingdom was reckoned at that time to be about 2000. Of which 50 is juft the fortieth part. When Dr. Prieftley there- fore affirms, that the " majority of the diflenting mi- " nifters are ftiil Calvinifts," he muft be underftood to \ife the fame rhetorical figure, by which, in the Poftfcript of his firft Letters to me, he fwelled a few periods of Clemens Alexandrinus to the fize of a whole book. By a computation formed upon that inftance, I concluded the proportion of the Prieftleian to the vulgar Whole to be that of i to 48 : from this liew in- fiance it turns out fomewhat larger. 4. Thus, from the evidence of public fails, I have the mortification to find Dr. Prieftley's fentiments confuted, and my own confirmed, concerning the prefcnt ftate of Calvinifm among the Englilh Dificu- * See Wilkie's Colleaion, N^ V. C c 4 ters. 392 REMARKS Part II. ters. And however it may now ferve Dr. Prieftley's purpofe; to magnify the numbers of the Calvinifts; his Rational brethren in the year 1772 fpoke of their own majority in terms which implied, that the Cal- vinifts were, in their judgement, a very inconfiderable part of the whole body of the Diflenters. " It is ad- " mitted," fay the Rationalifts, in the Cafe of the Protejlant dlffent'ing Mimjiers and Schoohnafiers^ '' that *' the greater part of the diffenting minifters have not " complied, and cannot in confcience comply with *' the fubfcription required by the Adi of Toleration. " The diflenting minifters in general are confequently " liable to the penalties abovementioned." After ftat-. ing the relief which they defired to obtain, they allege that the " generality of Proteftant diflenting minifters, " together with their people, are happily \inited in the " objedlof the prefent application*." The petition- ing Diflenters it feems in the year 1772 thought the Calvinifts fo few and inconfiderable j that the minif- ters, who could not in confcience comply with the ift of William and Mary, and were happily united in the obje6l of the application at that time made to Parlia- ment, feerned to them the generality of Proteftant dif- fenting Minifters. Thefe gentlemen knew, it is to be prefumed, the ftate of the dilTent. They meant not to impofe a lie upon the three eftates of the Britifti Ic- giflature. For thry %vere all^ all honourahk men! If then my notion of the decline of Calvinifm is erro- neous. Dr. Prieftley will at leaft confefs, that I am countenanced and fupported, in my error, by a very refpeclable authority. * See Wilkie's Colleiftion, N" I. <. I am UPON SECOND LETTERS, 393 5. I am not Ignorant indeed, that this authority Part if. was treated with little refpect by the protelling Calvi- nifts ; who allowed no fuperiority of numbers on the fide of the Rationalifts *. It was pretended that many Calvinifts concurred in the petition ; fome in mcer tendernefs for fcrapulous confcicnces ; many more upon that goodly principle, the fource of all that or- derly fubmlfiion to the higher powers, which hatli ever been fo confpicuous in the Puritans of this coun- ' try, that even a true faith is not to be confefTed at the requifition of the magiftrate. I bear that good v»ill to Calvinifm, that it gives me real concern to remember, that it hath ever been difgraced by a connection with fuch a principle. I am inclined however to believe, that the Calvinills, who, upon puritanical principles, concurred in the petition of the Rationalifts, in the year 1772, were very few; and that the orthodox Diflenters were deceived, in the idea, which they had formed, of the numbers of their own party. The re- quifition of the magifirate is now removed ; and no pretence exifts for a Puritanical referve. I would adc then, what is now the flate of the Diflenting minifiry? Are they at this time a majority, are they any conli- derable part, of the diflenting minillers, who have qualified under the ift of William and A'lary ? Every dilTcnting minifter hath now the alternative of quali- fying, either by fubfcribing the doctrinal articles ; or by a declaration, which, by the 19th of his prefent Majedy, is accepted inftead of fubfcription. But the Calvinift, even of the puritanical caft, holds himfelf * See " Candid Thoughts, Sec. by an Orthodox Dif- fenter," fcrt. II. bound 394 REMARKS Part II. boimd to at"! Open declaration of his faith; except in that extraordinary cafe, when the interference of the magiflrate makes it a duty, to difown his ufurped au- thority, by refufing to confefs with the mouth, what the heart believes. Every true Calvinift therefore will now qualify under the old A61 of Toleration. And jf they 3re but an inconfiderable part of the diiTenting miniftry, who have qualified in this manner; it is but too plain that Calvinifm among the difTenters is almoft extinguiilied. Inconiiderable, however, as I fear their numl»crs are, the Caivinifts, for the foundnefs of their faith, are the moft rcfpedable part of our modern Dif- fenters : and though few, in comparifon with the ge- neral mixed body of the Rationaliils, I hope they are more numerous than the proper Unitarians. 6. So much for the principal fads which I engaged to ellabliib. It may, perhaps, be expected, that I ihouid take fome notice of another, in which I have been charged with mifreprefentation. Dr. Frieftley, in his firfi: letters to me, expreffed high refentment, at the ufc which I had made in my Charge of the word Conveiiticle ; as delcriptive of meetings in which he, and friends of his, prefiue. 'i'o inform myfelf how far this refentment might be well-founded, and for no ctb.er purpofe, I fearched the regifters of certain courts for, fu'ch an entry of the houfe in E {lex- Street, and for a record of fuch declarations on the part of the; minif- ter, as, by the 19th of his prcfent majeily, are requi-- fite to make a meeting, upon tlie pretence of Divine Worfhip, Dot a conventicle in the flrict fenfeofthe word. I toid Dr. Pneftley, that I had found neitlier entry UPON SECOND LETTER?. 393 entry of the houfe, nor record of the minifter's decla- Part 11. ^ . Chap. i\% ration. Dr. Prieflley rephes, that I could, lodeedj find no record of declaration; for none was ever made : but that I ought to have found an entry of the houfe; for the entry was duly made. Now the truth is, that I employed the clerks at the different offices to make the fearch, for which I paid the ac- cuftomed fee. I trulkd to their report, which I find was not accurate. I believe the fa6l to be, as Dr. Prieftley dates it. The houfe is entered ; but the mi- nifter hath never declared his principles, as the law re- quires. The defence of a ftrong word, which hath been taken perfonally, would be to me the moft un- pleafant part of the controverfy, were it not that the fiyle of Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters, and of fome other publications upon that fide, hath put an end to all ceremony between me and the leaders of the Uni- tarian party, I therefore ftill infill, that all meetings under minifiers who have not declared, whether the place of meeting be entered or be not entered, are il- legal ; and that the word Conventicle, as it was ufed by nie in my Charge, was not mifapplied*. N. B. The ♦ Dr. Prieftley in his Third Letters infifls that his own meeting-houfe, and Mr. Lindfcy's, cannot be brought under the denomination of Cont'entkles merely becau(e they, who preach in them, are not authorifed by Law. He thinks, " that *' if, by any accident an unauthorifed dilTenting Minifter, like ** himfolf, fliould preach in rt /)«r//^ church, it would not on ** tliat account become a con^jent'iclc." Hut whatever he may think, an aflfembly in a parifli church to hear Dr. Prieftley preach, or even to aflift at Divine Worihip performed by a Pried 396 REMARKS Part II. N. B. The preceding Chapter gave occafion to a Pamphlet, entitled, The Calvinifm of the Protejiant Dljenters ajjerted: in a Letter to the Archdeacon of St. Jlban's. By Samuel Palmer, Faflor of the Indepen- dent Congregation at Hackney. London, Printed for J. Buckland^ &c. 1786. The fum of Mr. Palmer's argument is contained, I think, in thefe three propofitions. That of the thir- teen Minifters who figned the proteft againft the refo- lution for the application to Parliament, Six were Scots-men, true members of the Kirk, and therefore not properly among our Englifh Diffenters. That the crofs petition was not prefented by the thirteen ; that the fifty who figned it were chiefly Lay-preachers, not belonging to the body of the London minifters ; Methodifts ; unacquainted with the fundamental prin- ciples of the Proteftant Diflenters. That a great body of Calvinifts concurred in the application to Parlia- ment upon a general principle of Liberty, difliking any interference of the Magifirate in religious mat- ters. Of thefe three propofitions, the two firft feem to militate ftrongly on my fide, heightening the appear- ance at leafl: of a paucity of Calvinifts among our Dif- fenters : fince f;x of the thirteen who protefted, and Prieft of the Church of England, othervvife than according to the form prelcribed by the Book of Common Prayer, would bL- a Cont'cnticle ; and all pcrfons reforting to it would be liable to the penaltiei>, which the Laws denounce againft per- fons frequenting Conventicles. all UPON SECOND LETTERS. -397 all the fifty who petitioned, according to Mr. Palmer, Part ii. were not Englifli Diffenters. As for the third, if the fa£t be as Mr. Palmer ftates it, I can only la- ment that a republican principle fhould fo ftrongly • have infected fo refpeftable a branch of the Chriftian Church, as the Calvinifts are in my eftimation. I believe however that the truth is, and is pretty noto- rious, that Calvinifm is gone among the DifTenters of the prefent times; tho', for what reafon I pre- fume not to fay, the diflenting Teachers diflike to be told of its extindiorvs CHAP. 39* ^ E M ARKS CHAPTER FIFTH". Of the DoSlrines of Calvin. — Of Methodijh Pabt it. T now proced to reply to Dr. Prieftley's infinua- CHAf.v. jJqj^. ^Yiz.t I have fpoken with contempt of the doftrines of Calvin, which at the fame time he ,pre- fumes, I really believe *. He was in good humour with me, when he drew up this concluding paragraph, of his third letter : for his reafon for prefuming that I believe what, he imagines, I fpeak of with con- tempt, is, that he is unwilling " to tax me with in- fincerityf/* 2. If any where I feem to fpeak with contempt of the dodrines of Calvin, I have certainly been unfortunate in the choice of my expreflions. It is one thing not to affent to do6trines in their full ex- tent ; quite anotlier to defpife them. I am very fen- fible that our articles affirm certain things, which we hold in common with the Calvinifts : fo they af- firm many tilings which we hold in common with the Lutherans J and fome things which we hold in common with the Romanifts. It cannot well be otherwife ; for as there are certain principles which are common to all Proteftants, fo the eiTential articles of faith are common to all Chri(llans. Perhaps, in points of meer do61:rine the language of our articles agrees more nearly with the Calviniftic, than with * Second Letters, &c. p. 35. t Ibid. any U P O N S E C O N D L E T T E R S. S?"? anv other Proteftant confefTion, except the Lutheran. Part ii. Chap. >• But I never was aware, till Dr. Prieftley informed me of it, that I am obliged, by my fubfcription to the thirty-nine articles, to believe every tenet that is ge- nerally known by the name of Calviniftic* : and, till the obligation is inforced upon me by fome higher authority than his ; I fliall, in thefe matters, " ftand *' faft in my libert}'." Neverthelefs, I hold the memory of Calvin in high veneration ; his works have a place in my library j and in the ftudy of the holy fcriptures, he is one of the commentators whom I frequently confult. I may appeal to my own congregation at Newington and to other con- gregations to which, by my fituation, I am occafion - ally called to preach, to witnefs for me, that I never mention the Calviniftic divines without refpeft; even when I exprefs, what I often exprefs, a diffent, upon particular points, to their opinions. The refpeil: with which they are mentioned in my Good-friday fermon, in which I afferted the dodrines of Provi- dence on the one hand, and of Free-agency on the other, is, perhaps, in Dr. Prieftley's own recollection. In the pafTage to which he alludes, in my feventh letter to himfelf, he will find no contempt exprefled of Calvinifts, or of their opinions. The feverity of the r'"fle6lion falls on thofe, who have fo fpeedily de- ferted a doctrine to which, for a long time, they were not without bigotry attached ; while they not only maintained Calvin's tenets without exception, but feemed to think there could be no orthodox'y * Second Letters, Sec. p. 35. out 400 REMARKS. Part 11. out of Calvinifm. I confider it as the reproach of the DIfl'enters of the prefent day, that a genuine Calviniil is hardly to be found ; except in a kS:, confpicuous only for the encouragement, which the leaders of it feem to give to a diforderly fanaticifm. The rational DilTenter hath nothing in common with the Calviniil, except it be an enmity to the epif- copal efiablifhment of this country ; and this he hath not fo much in common with the Calviniftic churches, as with his own anceftors the fadious Puritans. 3. It was, perhaps-, an omifTion, that when the fcarcity of Calvinifts among the Englifli Diflenters I was mentioned, a dil'lin6l exception was not made in favour of natives of Scotland, formed into Cal- vinifiic congregations, under refpedable pallors of their own country and of the true Calviniftic per- fuafion, here in London, and perhaps in other parts of England. But I confider thefe as no part of our Englifli Diflenters. They arc members of another national eflabliflimcnt ; who, refiding here, may think that a conformity with the church of Eng- land might be interpreted as a defcrtion of their own communion. The rational diflenter may take no credit to himfelf, for their adherence to their old principles; nor arc they involved in the reproach of his degeneracy. 4. While I thus repel my adverfary's flanderous Infmuation, of contempt exprefled by me of Cal- vin's do6lrines ; the reflection, I doubt not, is ari- fing in his bread, aiid with much fecret fatisfailion he UPON SECOND LETTERS. 401 he fays within himfelf, " He is making his peace, I Part 11. " fee with the Calvinifts ; but how will he get over " my remark, upon the difrefpedlful language in " which he has fpoken of the Methodiils ? his bro- " ther churchmen*!" To the burthen of that crime my flioulders, I truft, are not unequal. What if I frame my reply in terms, which Dr. Prieftley's late publication furnifhes : That whenever occafions fhall arife, which may make it my duty, as a minifter of the gofpel, to declare my fentiments ; I fliall not wait for Dr. Prieftley's leave, to " exprefs my con- *' tempt of what I think to be defpicable, and my " abhorrence of what I think to be fliocking | ." The Methodift, I am fenfible, profeffes much zeal for our common faith. Many of his follies, I am willing to believe, proceed more from an unhappy peculiarity of temperament, than from any thing amifs in the moral difpofitions of his heart. Let him then renounce his fanatical attachment to felf-con- ftituted uncommiflioned teachers ; let him (hew his faith by his works ; not the formal works of fuper- flition and hypocrify, but the true works of everlaft- ing righteoufnefs j the works of Fair-dealing, Cha- rity, and Continence : let him do this, and church- men will turn to him, and call him brother. * See fecond Letters, &c. p. 35. t Importance of free enquiry, p. 29, CHAP. f D d Part ir. Chap. VI. 403 REMARKS. CHAPTER SIXTH. Of the general Spirit of Dr. Prle/iley^s Controverfial Writings . — Conclufion . THAVE replied more largely than I thought to do, to more than is deferving of reply in Dr. Prieft- ley's Second Letters. But, as the controverfy be- tweeri him and the advocates of the catholic faith, is now brought, by his own declarations, to a ftate refembling that of a war, in which no quarter is to be given, or accepted ; I think myfelf at liberty to ftrike at my enemy, without remorfe, in whatever quarter I may perceive an opening j and I think my- felf called upon, by the prefent fituation of the controverfy, not to fupprefs the remarks, which have fpontaneoufly arifen in my own mind upon the pe- rufal of his late writings. 1 fear he is too little redde but by his own party ; and it is fit that it ihould be generally known, what fpirit he is of. 2. He avows, indeed, withthe greateft franknefs, that the great obje£t of his eflays upon theologi- cal fubjeds, is to fpread opinions among his coun- try-men, from the prefs, and from his pulpit, which he flatters himfelf muft end in the total demolition of the polity of his country in the ecclefiaftical branch j the only branch, againft which he thinks it prudent, as yet, to declare his antipathy. In his View of -the Principles and Condu£f of the Protefiant Diffenters^ with rcfpe5i ia the Civil and Ecckfia/lical Conflitution UPON SECOND LETTERS. 403 Conjiitut'ion of England^ a pamphlet firft publiftied In the year 1769, after a pi6lure, highly exaggerated I hope, of certain abufes among the clergy ; which he refers to the principles of our hierarchy, but which, fo far as they are real, are eafily traced to very different caufes ; he, in the true fpirit of patriot- ifm, points out the remedy. His falutary advice is conveyed in the form of a prediilion. He foretells, that in " feme general convulfion of the ftate," fuch as he might hope our difputes with the American co- lonies, which were then vifibly tending to an open rupture, might, in no long time, produce ; " fome *' bold hand, fecretly impelled by a vengeful provi- ** dence, fhall fwcep down the whole together*." In later publications he difcovers no averfion, to be himfelf the hand employed in that vindidlive bufi- nefs ; although his indifcretion, which he avows, and which feems indeed to be very great, when the glorious profpeft of ftate convulfions warms and elevates his patriotic mind, fhould render him, it may be thought, unfit to have a part in the execu- tion of any project, in which the fuccefs may at all depend on fecrecy. In the dedication of his late Hijlory of Corruptions to Mr. Lindfey, he tells his friend (what might be fitting for an afTociate's ear, but it is a ftrange thing to be mentioned in public) " that while the attention of men in power is en- *' grofled by the di^iculties, which more immediately *' prefs upon them ; the endeavours of the friends " of reformation [that is, of thofe concealed inftru- * View of the principles, 8ic. p. 12. D d 2 " ments Part II. Chap. VJ. 404- REMARKS Part II. « mcnts of Vengeance on their devoted countrvT, Ch ^p. VI " their endeavours in points of doflrine pafs with " lefs notice and operate without obJiruSiion *." In his laft publication he has thrown out many acute remarks upon the efficacy of " fmall changes in the " political ftate of things, to overturn the beft com- " paded eftablifhments f :" upon the certainty, with which the exertions of himfelf and his aflbciates "* operate to the ruin of the eccleflaftical conftitution : upon the violence, with which caufes, that lie dor- mant for a time, at laft aft. " We, he fays, are, *' as it were, laying gun-powder grain by grain under " the old building of error and fuperftition, which " a fmgle fpark may hereafter inflame, fo as to pr©- *' duce an inftantaneous explofion J." He (hews, with great ability, that all meafures of government, to fupport the ecclefiaftical conftitution, will be of no avail, if once a great majority of the people can be made its enemies |j . And, for this good purpofe, he declaims in his conventicle to " enlighten the minds *' and excite the zeal §" of the mechanics of the populous town of Birmingham, with refpedt to the doftrines in difpute between himfelf and the aflertors of that faith, which the Church of England holds in common with the firft Chriflians. The avowal of thefe fentiraents in himfelf, of hoftility to the political conftitution of his country ; the attempt, to * Dedication of Hiftory of Corruptions, p. vii. t Importance of free enquiry, p. 39. % Ibid. p» 40, II Importance of free enquiry, p. 41. — 44. % Ibid. p. 29. excite UPON SECOND LETTERS. 405 excite fimilar fentiments, in the breafts of the " com- Part it. Ch "vp. VI. ** moneft people," in whofe breafts they cannot be expected to He inadive, quietly expelling the event of literary difcuflion ; fuch avowal, and fuch attempts are more, I fhould think, than can be juftified by the right of private judgement upon fpeculative quef- tions. Not that I would infmuate that they, in any degree, deferve the attention of our governors j for I am well perfuaded that neither his doftrine, nor his principles, are gaining that ground among the - people, which he feems to imagine. I am. inclined in- deed to think, that the advancement even of his Unitarian do£lrine is but flow, except in his own head ; in which it feems to be making hafty ftrides. In his good wifties to the conftitution, I think bet- ter of many of his Unitarian friends, than to believe that they concur with him. And while Trade and Manufactures fiourifh at Birmingham ; we may fafely truft to the inducements, which every man there will find to mind his own bufmefs, to defeat the fuccefs of Dr. Prieftley's endeavours to " enlighten and ex- *' cite." It feems therefore unneceflary at prefent to think of " raifing the dam or of making it ftronger." It will be the better policy of government, to let the brawling torrent pafs. The attempt to provoke fe- verities by audacious language, in order to raife a cry of perfecution, if fedition, making religion its pre- tence, fhould meet with a premature check from the fecular power, is a ftale trick, by which the world is grown too wife to be taken in. If Dr. Prieft- ley ever fhould attempt to execute the fmalleft part, of what he would now be underftood to threaten ; it D d 3 may 406 REMARKS Part. IT. mav then indeed be expedient, that the magiflrato Chap. VI. j i o fhould (hew, that he beareth not the fword in vain. But whatever Dr. Prieftley may afFe6l to think of the intolerance of Churchmen in general, and of the Archdeacon of St. Alban's in particular ; a Church- man lives not in the prefent age fo weak, who would not in policy, if not in love, difcourage, rather than promote, any thing that might be called a per- fecution of the Unitarian blafphemy, in the perfoii of Dr. Prieftley, or of any of his admirers. A Churchman lives not fo weak as not to know, that perfecution is the hot-bed, in which nonfenfe and impiety have ever thrived. It is fo friendly to the growth of religion, that it nourifl'jes even the noxious ■weeds, which carry but a refemblance of the true plant in the external form. Let us trufi, therefore, for the prefent, as wc fecurely may, to the trade of the good town of Birmingham, and to the wife con- nivance of the magillrate (who watches, no doubt, while he deems it politic to wink) to nip Dr. Prieft- ley's goodly proje> j6o, 161, 163, 208, & alibi paffim, ■\ See Animadverfions pn Mr. White, p. 84. " he UPON SECOND LETTERS. 411 he will ever be reduced to the alternative of renounc- Part ii. Cha?. VI. ing his faith, or relinquifhing his preferments : or to the harder alternative, which Dr. Prieftley feems to threaten*, " of aprifon, with a good confcience, or *' his prefent emoluments without one." If thofe happy times, of which Dr. Prieftley prophedes, fiiould overtake him 'ere his courfe is finiflied ; when an Arian, or Socinian Parliament f, fhall undertake the blefled bulinefs of a fecond reformation, and de- pofe Archbifhops from their thrones, and Archdea- cons from their couches of preferment ; he humbly hopes, that he may be fupplied with fortitude to a£l the part, which may not difgrace his prefent profeffi- ons. The probability, however, feems to be, that 'ere thofe times arrive (if they arrive at all, which we truft they will not) my antagonift and I fhall both be gone to thofe unfeen abodes, where the din of con- troverfy and the din of war are equally unheard. There we ihall reft together, till the laft trumpet fum- mon us to ftand before our God and King. That whatever of intemperate wrath, and carnal anger, hath mixed itfelf, on either fide, with the zeal with which we have purfued our fierce contention, may then be forgiven to us both ; is a prayer which I breathe from the bottom of my foul, and to which my antagonilT, if he hath any part in the fpirit of 4 Chriftian, upon his bended knees will fay, AMEN. . * See Second Letters, &c. p. S8. •f See Second Letters, p. S7. SUPPLE- SUPPLEMENTAL DISQUISITIONS UPON CERTAIN POINTS I N DR. PRIESTLEY'S SECOND AND THIRD LETTERS TO THE ARCHDEACON OF ST. ALBAN'J. B Y SAMUEL, LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVI D's, 41 S "i^" DISQJJISlTION FIRST. Of the Phrofe of « coming in the flefli" as ufed hy St. Polycarp in his ep'iflle to the Philippians. DR. PRIESTLEY in the Fifth of his Second Dis. I. Letters to me, to prove that the phrafe of *' coming in the flefh" afferts nothing more than our Lord's manhood, without any reference to "> prior ftateof exiftence, alleges that the phrafe is fo ufed by St. Polycarp, the difciple of St. John, in his epiftle to th« Phillippians. The paflage, in which Dr. Prieftley imagines that he hath found this ufe of the phrafe, ftands thus in Archbifliop Wake's tranflation, from which Dr. Prieftley makes his quotation. *' Whosoever does not confefs, that Jefus Ghrift ** is come in the flefh, he is Antichrift ; and whofoever *' does not confefs his fufFering upon the crofs, is " from the Devil ; and whofoever perverts the ora- " clesof theLord tohis ownlufts, and fays that there " fiiall be neither any refurredion nor judgement, hs " isthefirft-bornofSatan." By an argument, the force of which will, I believe, be perceived by few, but his Unitarian brethren, Dr. PriieftJey 4?^ D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, Djs. I. Pnen:ley perfuades himfelf, that the Blefled Martyr, In this paflage, is not defcribing three different feds, but that " he alludes to no more tlian one and the faille " kind of perfons by all the three characters," i. e. by the denial of our Lord's coming in the flefh, the denial of his fufFerings, and the denial of the general refurredlion and the future judgement. Hence he would infer, that thephrafe of " com- '^ ing in the flefh," predicates the manhood of our Lord, and nothing more, as I conceive for this rea- fon J for he hath not ftated his argument very clearly. The denial of our Lord's coming in the flefh mufl be fomething that might confifl with the denial of his fufferings; fmce the two errors (by Dr. Prieflley'shy- pothefis) were found in the fame perfons. They, who denied the reality of our Lord's fufFerings, denied his manhood; and in thatfenfe they might, and they did, deny his coming in the flefh. But his Divinity they denied not ; on the contrary they ftrenuoufly af- ferted a nature in him fuperior at leafl to the human. Any allufion therefore, which may be fuppofed in the phrafeofhis " coming in the fiefh," to an original nature in him more than human, they denied nor. His manhood therefore, which is all that they, who are charged with a denial of his " coming in the flefhj'* denied, is all that the phrafe imports. This is the very mof^ that 1 can make of my ad- verfary's argument. And in this flate of it (if I have mifreprefented it, I mofi ferioufly declare it is without delign) I confefs myfelf too dull to perceive the con- ncvStion of the preniifes and the conclufion. We of the D I S QJU I S I T I O N S. 4x7 of the orthodox perfuafion conceive that the phrafe of ^"" ^* " coming hi theflefh" exprefTes the Incarnation. That is to fay, it contains this corrrplex propofition, that a Being originally Divine affumed the human na- ture. This complex propofition they, who denied the reality of our Lord's fufferings, denied ; not in that part which affirms his divinity, but in that part which affirms his affijmption of the manhood; and the denial of this was the foundation of their error about the fufferings on the crofs. Thefe three characters of error, therefore, mentioned by St. Polycarp, might be- long to one and the fame fort of perfons, as Dr. Prieftley fuppofes that they did, and yet the phrafe of " coming in the fleih" in its natural fenfe may, for any thing that appears from St. Polycarp's own words, allude not to the manhood fimply, but to the Catholic Dodrine of the Incarnation. It muft be obferved however, and the fait is too well known to the learned in ecclefiaftical hiftory to require proof, that a great variety of feils, differing from each other in the wild and impious opinions which they feverally maintained, were comprifed under the general name of Gnostics. To fay therefore, that the one and fame kind of perfons, alluded to by St. Polycarp under all thefe three different charadlers, was the Gnoftics; is to fay that this one and fame kind of perfons was many different kinds. Of the va- rious feds that went under this common name, the Docetje, who denied our Lord's genuine manhood, wereone general branch ; itfelf fubdivided, if I miftake not, into many diftindl denominations : the Cerin- E e thians, 4jj D I S QJJ 1 S I T I O N S. Pis. I. thians, who denied his original Divinit3'^, were ano-. ther. Both thefe, equally, tho' in different ways, denied the propolition, that " Jefus Chrift was come " in the flefh," in the fenfe in which the orthodox underftand it. And I confefs I am not fure, tho' Dr. Prieftley fays we are fure of it, that the denial of the refurre£lion, was not to be found in a third clafs, diftindl from either of thefe two, and from every branch of the Gnoftics. The two antient Heretics mentioned by St. Paul (2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.) who faid that the refurredlion was paft, and in that afler- tion, as St. Chryfoftom obferves, denied a refurrec- tion to come and the general judgement, are not numbered, by the writers of antiquity, among the Gnoftic teachers. (See Dr. Whitby's note upon 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.) The future judgement was more explicitly denied by thefe, than by the Gnof- tics ; who only denied the refufcitation of the body. And I think, it not unlikely, that they might be the perfons to whom St. Polycarp, in his third character of damnable herefy, alludes. Be that as it may, it feems clear to me, that St. Polycarp, in the paflage alleged by Dr. Prieftley, defcribes three different fets of people 4 and I fhould paraphrafe the whole paffage thus i *' Whoever confefTes not that Jefus Chrift, the " ever bkifed and only begotten Son of God, the " brightnefs of his glory and the exprefs image of his " perfon, the eternal word by whom he made the *' worlds, is come in the flefh, he is Antichrift. " And if any one, pretending to confefs this, fliall " yet D I S QJJ I S I t I O N S. 41*) •^^ yet deny the reality of his fufferings, in his own Di<.l. *' proper and entire perfon, on- the crols j he alfo, *' notwithftanding he confefs the truth in the former " article, is of the Devil. Again if any one confef- " fing both our Lord's coming in the fle(h, and his " fufferings and death, (hall hovvever pervert the ora- " cles of God, accommodating the divine doitrine^ *' to his own prejudices and conceits, and fay that ^' there fliall be neither refurreilion nor judgement ; *' this man, notwithftanding his confeffion of our '' Lord's incarnation and paffion, is the firft-born of " Satan." But whether St. Polycarp in this paflage defcribe three different fort of Heretics, or one fort by three characters, it is not very material to difpute. The BlefTed Martyr is not enumerating feels, as an eccle- fiaflical hiflorian ; but as a preacher of the truth, he is warning; the faithful againft errors. He men- tions three ; any one of which would avail, in his judgment, to the perdition of him who fhould maintain it. For I contend that nothing in the vvords of St. Polycarp himfelf, nor any known and admitted fail in the hiftory of the herefies of his times, makes it necefTary to apply the defcription in the whole to one fe6l, rather than in the parts of it to three. I contend that the coming of our Lord in the flefh, his paffion, and the general refurredion are three diftincl things : the two firil, for any thing that appears from St. Polycarp's words, as diftinil from each other, as either is from the third : fo dif- tindl therefore from each other, that a perfon admit- ting the one might poffibly not confefs the other. I E e 2 contend 4«9 1) I S QJU I S I T I O N S, Dis. I. contend therefore, that for any thing that appears from the words of St. Polycarp, a perfon confefllng that our Lord came in the flefh, might ftill deny his fuf- ferings. The phrafe therefore of coming in the flelli, for any thing that appears from St. Polycarp's own words, may denote fomething more than our Lord's meer manhood. And I contend yet further, that although it could be proved that St. Polycarp alludes to one fe£l ; fo that the coming in the flefii muft ne- ceflarily be fo underftood, that the denial of that coming and the denial of the fufferings fhould be con- iiftent errors ; ftill it will not follow, that the coming in the flefli muft be underftood as defcriptive fimply of the manhood. If any one feft indeed fingly be de- fcribcd, the Docetae muft be that one ; fince their charaderiftjc error makes an explicit part of the de- fcription. But with their error the denial of the In- carnation was perfedlly confiftent. Dr. Prieftley thinks, that St. Polycarp condemns the Docetae, becaufe they admitted not that Chrift was a mcer man. But if I fay that St. Polycarp condemns them, not for main- taining that he was more than man, but for denying that being more than man, being indeed God, he was made man ; and that, for this reafon, he made choice of the phrafe of ." coming in the flefli" that he misht not feem to condemn more of their dodrine than he really difapproved ; what is there in St. Poly- carp's words to prove that I, rather than Dr. Prieft- ley, mifinterpret ? It may feem, that if for any thing that appears from the writer's words, the phrafe may be inter- preted D I S QJLT I S I T I O N S. 421 preted in either fenfe; the true inference is, that it Is ^^*' '• ambiguous. This conclufion indeed follows, with refpe£l to the ufe of the phrafe in this particular paf-* fage ; and it is upon this very ground that I maintain the total infignificance of the pafTage, to decide the matter in difpute. In the fourth of my letters in re- ply to Dr. Prieftley, I have confidered the natural and internal force of this phrafe of " coming in the fle(h." I have {hewn, that it contains fuch evident allufion to a prior condition of the perfon who fo came, and to the power that he had of coming in various other ways, had itpleafed him otherwife to come, that if the facred writers really meant to affirm, that our Lord was a meer man, and nothing more, no rcafon can be devifed, why they fliould make choice of fuch uncouth myfterious words, for the enunciation of fo fimple a proportion ; which they might eafily have ftated in plain terms incapable of mifconftru(3ion. Dr. Prieft- ley appeals from this reafoning of mine upon the natu- ral fenfe of the words, to the ufage of writers ; which, indeed, when it is clear and conftant, muft be allowed to outweigh all reafoning from general principles : be- caufe the particular fenfe of a phrafe is a quefti.on about a facSl ; and in all fuch queftions external evidence, when it can be had, muft overpower theory. To prove that the ufage of the writers of antiquity fettles the fenfe of the phrafe in his favour, he alleges this pafTage of St. Polycarp's epiftle, as an inftance " that might fatisfy me." But I fay that no one, who thinks the meaning of the phrafe dubious, will be fatisfied by this inftance. For not to infift, that the ufage of wri- ters is very infufficiently proved by a fingle inftance, E c 3 I main- A2X » I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Pis. I. I maintain, that if the phrafe in queftion were in itfelf equally capable of the two fenfes, the low fenfe to, which the Unitarians would confine it, and the fub- limer fenfe in which it is generally underftood, it cer- tainly might be taken in either in this paffage of St. Polycarp ; and that, in whatever light the paffage be confidered, whether as defcriptive of three fe6ts, as I believe it to be, or of one only as Dr. Prieftley under- ftands it. This paffage, therefore, is of no fignificance in the argument ; fmce no paffage can be alleged, as an inftance of any particular ufe of any phrafe, in which various fenfes of the phrafe may equally fuit the purpofe of the writer. To this neutral paffage of St. Polycarp, I have on my fide to oppofea very deciiive paffage of St. Barna- bas ; in which the allufion to a prior condition of our Lord, which I contend to be the natural import of the phrafe, is manifeft; and is fo neceffary to the writer's purpofe, that if the phrafe be underftood without fuch allufion, the whole fentence is nonfenfe. " For if " he had not co?ne in the jicjh^ how fhould we mortals, " feeing him, have been preferved ? When they who *' behold the fun, which is to perifh and is the work of " his hands,, are unable to look dire£lly againfl: its " rays." Let Dr. Prieftley find'a paffage, in which the allufion to our Lord's original glory is as neceffirily excluded from the import of the phrafe, as it is inclu- ded in it in this paffage of St. Barnabas. And even then the only juft inference will be, that the phrafe, is ufed varioufly, in a more retrained or larger fignitica- tion, as may fuit the particular occafion on which it is D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 423 is Introduced : but that in its full and natural import Dis. i. it affirms the Incarnation. But in truth Dr. Prieftley feems to deal by St. \ Polycarp, as by St. John ; by the difciple as by the mafter. Devoted himfelf to the Unitarian do6lrIne, he takes it with him as a principle in the ftudy of St. Polycarp, as of the New Teftament, that the Creed of St. Polycarp, as of all the primitive Chriftians, was Unitarian. Then, whatever expreffions occur allud- ing to opinions of a different caft, he interprets in the fenfe, in which he and his Unitarian brethren would ufe them. From thefe expreffions, fo interpreted, he goes back tp his original prejudice, that St. Polycarp held and taught an Unitarian Creed, as to a conclu- fion which he hath drawn, and can teach others to draw, from St. Polycarp's own writings. Alas! the fum of all fuch reafonings is no more than this : I Joseph Priestley am an Unitarian, therefore fuch was Polycarp. And the bafis of this argument is the fuppofed infallibility of Joseph Priestley, F. e 4 DIS- 4H D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. DISQ_UISITION SECOND. Of TertuIIlan^ s tejlimony agalnji the Unitarians.^ and his nje of the ivordlDiOTA. Dis. II. -T-^ R. PRIESTLEY has made it an occa- -*— ^ fion of great triumph to himfelf and to his party, that he has caught me tripping, as he thinks, in my Greek and Latin, in the tranflatlon which I have given, in the Ninth of my Letters in Reply, of a certain paffage in Tertullian's book ag^inft Praxeas ; which is produced by him as an acknowledgement ofTer- tullian, that the Unitarians were in his time the ma- jority of Chriftians, and is reprefented by me as an af- fertion of the contrary. None but an idiot, as Dr. Prieflley conceives, in the learned languages would imagine that the Englifh word " idiot," which I have ufed in my tranflation of that paffage, might in any fenfe render the Ihcolm of the Greek or the Idiota of the Latins, which is the name by which, with other adjundls, Tertullian defcribes the Unitarians of his time. Dr. Prieflley fays in the Nineteenth of his Second Letters, JecSt. 3. *' What will be faid of the " man, who can tranflate Idiota, idiot?" He hath now for fome confiderable time been receiving the in- cenfe of his own applaufe, and the triumphant acclama- tions of his party, on the occafion of this victory gained over D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 4.a$ over his daring adverfary, on the very ground on which O^^* ^^» the enemy had taken his ftand with particular fecurity. But it will be tioie enough to bind the laurel on their chieftain's fpear, when they are fure he is in poflefiion of the field. in the Seventh of his Second Letters, Dr. PrieftJey fays to me, " I will venture to fay that it properly " fignifies [the word Idlota in Latin, or iSico^Jij in *' Greek properly fignifies] an unlearned man ; or a *' perfon who has not had a liberal education." This Dr. Prieftley ventures to*affirm ; and this I venture to deny. The word I^iwlnj hath ten diftindl fenfes, which 1 (hall recite in order. L J private perfon ; i.e. a perfon in private life, in oppofition to a perfon in public office or employ- ment, civil or military. In this fenfe the word is chiefly ufed by the orators and hiftorians, and by all writers who treat of popular fubje6ts ; and this is its firft and proper fenfe ; as it is of all its fenfes the mofl immediately conne6led with the fenfe of the adjedive l5iof, from which the fubftantive I^iw7/i5 is immedi-. ately derived, IL ji perfon in low I'lfe-y one of the coynmon people y in oppofition to perfons of condition. This is no- thing more than an intenfion of the former fenfe : private life in the extreme becoming obicure and low. in. A Laic^ as diflinguiftied from a clerk. This fsnfe the Greek Fathers eafily grafted upon the firft: 426 r> I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Pis. ir, jf5[j;-ft. tjie church being confidered as a polity of its own kind, in which the Clergy bear the public offices, the Laity are citizens in private life. In a fenfe nearly allied to this, the word feems to be ufed by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 1 6, to denote a private member of a con- gregation as diftinguifhed from the minifter. IV. y/ perfon unjk'illed hi any particular fctence or art^ in oppofition to the profeflbrs of it. The word thus ufed rather exprefles the want of profeflional ikill, than of ordinary knowledge. In this fenfe, the word is fometimes conftrufted by the Attic writers with a genitive of the ^hing ; and by ordinary writers with an accufative, either with or without a prepofi- tion. a^£vo$ (Ji(i)7-iv hv\a. Plat, in Tim. t^v^ I S QJJ I S 1 T I O N S. 4«7 VII. The plural l^lulai, fignifies Indwidnnls; ci- tiis. ii, tizens, individually confidered, as diftinguiflied from the collective body, th^ ftate, VIII. The plural l^iuicxij is a collective name for the illiterate vulgar, in particular reference to their general want of accomplifliment, in literature, the fciences and the arts, O ttoXu; o/^aoj, sj t3(w7aj ol crofoi iia>.His.M« have found in their defers, for the confidence which the queftion befpeaks. I will now refer him to cer- tain lexicons, never known perhaps in the Academy at Warrington, but fuch as a late Greek profeffor there might occafionally have condefcended to con- fult, with advantage to himfelf and to his pupils. The firft is that old gloffary, which was found annexed to fome copies of St. Cyril, and is publifhed by Henry Stephens, in the appendix to his Greek Thefaurus. In this gloffary the word I'^ialvg is expounded by o /jiv voniJMv; words which exprefs not the want of edu- cation, but duUnefs of the natural faculties. The fecond is Robert Stephens's Z>/^/(j«^r/a7« Latino-Gal-^ licum, in which the word idiota is rendered Ufig lour- datdt-j qui rt'e/i pas des plus fins du monde.^ qui n'ha pas grand efprtt^ Idiot. The third is the learned Cale- pini's DiSiionarium 05lolingue^ in which the author gives the French words lourdaut, fot^ ignorant, and the Englifli words, an idiot, a fool, as rendering the Latin idiota. The fourth is the Thefaurus of our learned countryman Cooper, in which idiota is thus ex- pounded; One that is not very fine -wittcd; anideot^ If my adverfary demand the autbority of an ordinary dictionary, I will refer him to a very ordinary dicli- onary indeed; to a diclionary in every fehool-boy's hand. Let him turn to the word idiota in Ainfworth ; he will find artiong its firft fenfes, an idiot. I ABIDE therefore by my afiertlon, that this paf- fage of Tertullian, which Dr. Prieftley mifiakes for a teftimony. of the popularity of his favourite opinions in Tertullian's time, is no fuch teftimonyj but a charge of D I S QJJ 1 S I T I O N S. 431 of ignorance againft his party : of fuch Ignorance, as Dis. ir. would invalidate the plea of numbers, if that plea could be fet up. And that this is the true reprefentation of Tertul- lian's meaning, may be proved, v^'ithout infifting upon any particular force of the word tdiotts^ from the neceflary indifputable fenfe of tlie adverb femper ; which'extends Tertullian's propofition, concerning the majority of believers, from his own time in particular to all time. He fays not, what were, or what were not, the prevailing opinions of his own times : but he fays, that thofe perfons, who come under the charac* ters oifiinplicesy hnprudenteSy and idlotts (that is, ac- cording to Dr. Prieftley's own tranflation, which yet 1 admit not otherwife than difputandl gratia^ for I have ftill " the aflurance" to call my own an exadl tranf- lation) but according to Dr. Prieftley's own tranfla- tion, Tertullian fays, that perfons, who come under the charader of " the fimple, the ignorant, and the *' unlearned," whatever their opinions at one time or another may be, are, in all times, the greater part of believers : as indeed they muft be of every fociety colIe(fted indifcriminately, as the church is, from all ranks of men. Tertullian alleges that perfons of that defcription, in his time, meaning to afiert, what they little underftood, the Divine A4onarchy, were ftartled at the doctrine of the Trinity, which they as little underftood. This is the only fenfe in which Tertul- lian's words can be taken ; unlefs fome Unitarian ad- ventwer in criticifm ijiall be able to prove, that the adverb 43» D I S QjJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. II. adverb femper is equivalent to nunc.^ expreffive of pre- fent time exclufively. Dr. Priestley " wonders at my affurance" in another circumftance : namely, that I (hould limit, as he fays, what Tertallian affirms, as he would have him underftood, of the whole body of the Jimplices and idiots to fome of them. In this limitation, he fays, I am altogether unwarranted. But when Ter- tullian fays, that fimple perfons and idiot,^ are ftartled at the ceconomy, the natural fenfe of the words is, that this feruple was incident chiefly to perfons of that defcription; not that it was to be found in the whole body of the common people. He infmuates that per- fons of that weak charadler only were liable to that alarm. Had he meant to fpeak of the whole body of the common people, he mufthaveufed phrafes of ano- ther caft; as vulgus mdoSiwn^ ox genus hominu?n /im- plex. Dr. Prieftley's complaint againfl: me might have feemed to have fome foundation, had the word " fome" been prefixed to " fimple perfons" in my tranflation. But it only appears in an expofitlon of the paflage, which follows the tranflation. And furely having tranflated the paflage exadly, I took no unwarrantable liberty in adding an explanation of the author's fenfe (or of what I take to be his fenfe) in my own words. Had Dr. Prieftley's loofe expofi- tions of the pafl!*ages in antient writers, which he cites, been always accompanied with exacl tranflations ; the world would have had lefs reafon to ftand aghaft at his aflfuranceandill-diflembled management. But to what purpofe can it be to hold an argument with a man. D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 433 man, who is too hafty to diftinguifh between what Dis.ir. profefles to be paraphrafe, and what pretends to be exa6t tranflation j who has the vanity to play the critic in languages, to the idioms of which he is a flranger ; and the audacity to challenge the produc- tion of authorities, without taking the pains to inform himfelf, in which fcale the weight of authority may preponderate? " Pray, Sir, in what lexicon or dic- " tionary, ordinary or extraordinary, do you find " idiota in Latin, or iSiwlnj in Greek, rendered /W/o^f"* VideGIofTarium Vetus} R.Steph. Calepin. Cooper, Ainfworth. F f D I S. 4J4 I' 1 S QJLT I S I T I O N S. D I S Q,U I S I T I O N THIRD. On what is found relating to the Ebionites in the zvrit- ings o/'Irenjeus; in confutation of an argument^ advanced by Dr. Prieflley in favour of the EbioniteSy in the Third of his Firfy and the Fourth of his Se- cond Letters.) from the writings of Ireneeus in par- ticular, Dts. III. ' I '^ H E particular argument in favour of the Ebio- ■*- nites, which Dr. Prieftley, in the Third of his Firft Letters to me, attempted to draw from the writ- ings of Irenaeus, was fo ably, though concifely, an- fwered in tlie Monthly Review for January 1784, by Mr. Badcock; who, taking fads as Dr. Prieflley chofe to ftate them, Ihewed, even upon his own ftatement of the fads, the utter futility of his conclufion ; inaf- much as the contrary conclufion might be drawn with equal probability from the fame afiumptions ; that when I wrote my Letters in Reply, J thought 1 might be excufed if I palled by this argument without any other notice, than a flight reference to Air. Bad- cock's confutation. But in the Sixth of his Second Letters, Dr. Prieftley hath attempted to refit this (bat- tered piece of his artillery, and to bring it again into action. He fays to me, " It is truly remarkable, and may *' not have been obferved by you, as indeed it wa-s " not D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 435 ^ not by myfelf till very lately,"— It had indeed been Dis. in ftrange, if any fagacity of remark in me had outrun Dr. Prieftley's !— « that Irenaeus, who has written " fo large a work on the fubjea of herefy, after the " time of Juftin, in a country where it is probable " there were fewer Unitarians, again and again cha- " ra6lerifes them in fuch a manner as makes it evi- " dent, that even he did not confider any other per- " fons as Heretics, befides the Gnoftics. He ex- " prefles a great dillike of the Ebionites, but he ne- " ver calls them Heretics." * Freely I refign to Dr. Prieftley the honour of hav- ing been the firft to make this remark. At lead I fliall put in no claim for myfelf, or for my friends. If any plagiarifm hath been committed, which I pretend not in this particular inftance to afTert, the depredation muft have been made upon fome of his own party. For I will venture to affirm, that the remark, fo far as it extends to Irenaeus's acquittal of the Ebionites from the imputation of herefy, could have occurred to none, that had not been in fome good degree an Idiot in the writings of Irenasus. If could have occurred to none, that had known more of the work of Irenaus, than is to be learned from an occafional reference to particular paffages, by the help of an Index. The great objea of Irenaeus, in his work againft herefies, is to afTert the Scripture dodrines of tlie * Second Letters, p. 56, F f 2 unity 436 D 1 S QJJ I S I T I O N 3. Dis. III. unity of God, and the Incarnation of the Divine Word, in their original (implicity, againfl the nume- rous feclaries of liis times, who, from various views and motives, had varioully disfigured and difguifed them. Some thought, that they gave a clear folution of the dark quefhon about the origin of evil, when they maintained that the world is the work of one or more intelligences, far inferior to the firfi: mind. Some, to account for fome circumftances of contrariety, that may appear upon a fuperficial view of the Old and the New Teftament, taught that the God of the Jews was a dift:in£l being from the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrifi:. Some, to folve the difficulties in the great doctrine of the incarnation, indulged in a mod criminal wantonnefs of fpeculation concerning the perfon of Chrift. Some, affedling a deep myfterious wifdom, endeavoured to explain, in obfcure and ill- imagined allegories, the proceffion of the different or • ders of intellect and life from the Divine Mind, and the produ6lion of the vifible world. Some, the moft profane and hardened, artfully availed themfelves of certain myfterious points of the Chriftian doiSlrine, to give perfonal confequence to themfelves, and to gain credit among the vulgar to the moft impious preten- flcns. To guard the faithful againflthefe various fe- duftions, and to eftablifh them in the belief of the true Scripture dodlrine, of One God, abfolute in power and in all perfection, who, by his Eternal Word, created all things in Heaven and in earth, vifible and invifiblej and, having in time part fpoken to the fa- thers by the Prophets, hath fpoken in the laft days by his Son, the fame Divine Word incarnate, and hath reconciled D I S Q^U I S I T I O N S, 437 reconciled mankind to himfelf, through him, who, Dis. iii. to effect this reconciliation, united the manhood to the Godhead in his own perfon : to eftablifh the faith- ful in this do'flrine, Irenaeus xmdertakes the confuta- tion of thofe extravagant conceits, by which it is either contradicted, or perverted and difgraced ; never lofing fight of his two cardinal points, the Unity of God, and the Incarnation of the Word. His whole work confifts of five books. Of thefe, the Firft is hiftorical; exhibiting a general view of hae- retical opinions, in thofe points, in which they differed mofl efTentially from genuine Chriflianity ; reciting the names of the principal Haerefiarchs ; defcribing their characters, and relating the varieties of opinion, by, which the different feds were diftinguifhed. In the Second book, the author profefles to refute, the extravagant opinions recited in the firft, by ge-^ neral arguments expofing the incoherence and intrin- fic abfurdity of each. In the Third, he engages to bring a confutation of the fame opinions from Scrip- ture in general : in the Fourth, from our Lord's own difcourfes in particular : in the Fifth, from our Lord's own words, and the writings of St. Paul. In the Firfl book, after a general recital of the prin- cipal extravagancies of the Valentinians, the author undertakes to fhew, that Simon Magus was the pa- rent of all herefy •, and that the diftinguifhing conceits of every fecf attached to one point or another of his dodtrine. For this purpofe, he gives a lift of Haere- F f 3 fiarch^ 43? D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Di5, III. fiarchs and feds from Simon Magus in fucceffion to his own time, fpecifying the particular doctrines of each. In this lift, the Ebionites have the honour to have the name of their feil enrolled* between the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans. If Irenaeus deemed them not Heretics, he has furely put them in bad company. At no great diftance from the Ebionites, he introduces Marcionf . This Marcion was a moft diftinguiflied Heretic ; not only for the extravagance and impiety of his doctrine, but for the liberty which he took with the books 6f the New Teftament ; al- tering or expunging whatever he dilliked, till he made the Holy Scriptures, as he thought, fpeak his own fentiments. Irenaeus promifes a particular confuta- tion of the opinions of Marcion, from the Scriptures as Marcion himfelf received them. But notwith- flanding this defign, he found it neceflary, he fays, to mention him in this place in order to make out his aflertion, " that all who adulterated the truth, and " impugned the public doctrine of the Church, were " difciples of Simon the Samaritan Sorcerer J." In- timating, that having in his contemplation a particu- * Lib. I. Cap. xxvi. f Lib. I. Cap. xxix. % Sed huic quidem — -feorfiim contradicemus ; ex ejus fcriptis arguentcs eum, et ex iis fernionibus, qui apud eum obfervati funt, Domini et Apoftoli, qiiibus ipfe utitor, everfionem ejus facientes prrefiante Deo. Nunc autem necef- fario meminimusejiis, lit fcires quoniam omnes, qui quoquo niodo adulterant veritatem, et prsconium Ecclefise lasdunt, Simonis Samaritani Magi difcipuli et fucceCTores funt. Lib. I. cap. xxix & XXX. lar D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 4.19 lar work upon the herefy of Marcion, he would have ^'s- i^'* omitted the mention of him in this place, but that the omiflion would have rendered the lift of Hzerefi- archs, defcending from Simon Magus, defedtive. Here then we fee both the author's attention to the accuracy of his lift, and his own notion of what fort of perfons they were, who had a right to a place in it. 'I'he accuracy of his lift had certainly been as much vitiated by an improper infertion, as by an omilFion. Where then is the probability, than an author, who declares he would have omitted Marcion, but from a fcrupulous attention to the accuracy of his catalogue of Haerefiarchs, in defiance of any fuch fcruple, would have inferted the Ebionites, had not their notorious herefy, and their affinity with Simon Magus, given them an equal claim with Marcion, and with their next neighbours, the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans, to admiflion ? Again the author's notion of the fort of perfons, that were to be included in his lift, namely, " adulterators of the truth, impugners of the public " dodrine of the church, and difciples of Simon the " Samaritan Sorcerer," clearly proves, what the public charadter of the Ebionites was, whom he hath enrolled among thefe worthies. To have regiftered among the fe£ts allied to Simon Magus perfons, who lay under no public imputation of herefy, however in his own private judgement he might fee reafon to reprobate their tenets, had been a very aukward proof of the general affinity between herefy and Simon Magus. To the proof of this, a confcnt or refem- blance of opinion between Simon Magxis and thofe F f 4 who 440 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. III. who were no heretics, or not generally deemed fuch, could little contribute. It would rather indeed con- duce to th^ acquittal of Simon, than the condemna- tion of an innocent fe6l faid to refemble him. The Ebionites, therefore, having a place in this lift, by which Simon is to be proved the common parent and founder of all herefies, unqueftionably partook of that charader, which Irenseus makes the peculiar mark of that family. They were adulterators of the truth J not barely of what was truth in the private judgement of Irenaeus, but they were impugners of the public doflrine of the church. If fuch perfons were not Heretics, I have yet to learn the meaning of the name. I AM well aware, that a laudable concern for the reputation of his anceftors will incline Dr. Prieftley to put the queftion, in what circumftance the Ebio- nites refembled Simon Magus ? Some refemblance, he will fay, according to Irenaeus's notions, was ne- ceiTary to conftitute a herefy. For if all Heretics re- fembled Simon Magus in fome circumftance or ano- ther, they, who refembled him in none, were no He- retics, To this, it may be anfwered, that Epiphanius, when he tells us that Ebion's Judaifm was of the Sa- maritan caft, fays what may be thought to imply a re- femblance, in many circumftances, between this fe6l and the Samaritan Sorcerer. But the principle in which Irenaeus, 1 doubt not, placed the refemblance, was no other than the cardinal dodrine of the Ebio- nites D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 44X nltes of the meer humanity of our Lord. This, as Dis. iii, it was taught by the Cerinthians and the firft Ebio- nites, was indeed nothing more than a refinement upon the older error of the Docet2e, of which Simon was the firft teacher. The DocetiE, thinking it be- neath the dignity of a celeftial being to undergo the life of a man, and to fubmit to a violent and painful death, maintained that the body of Jefus was a meer illufion, and the whole fcene of his fufferings phan- taftic. Or if any of them admitted the reality of the fufferings, they denied, however, that Jefus was the fufferer. The Cerinthians, whofe doctrines the jfirll: Ebionites followed in what related to the perfon of our Lord, thought it more reafonable to admit that Jefus was a real man, the fubjecl of real fufferings. They maintained that he was a meer man j and they fup- pofed a fuperangelic being, which they called the Chrift, to have been through life the guide and guar- dian of the man ; fomething more perhaps than a So- cratic Daemon, but yet diftindt from the man, and exempt from all participation of his fufferings. This is evidently a refinement upon the do£lrine of the Do- cetae. Both doctrines had a common objeil : to give the do£trine of the incarnation fuch a turn, that a di- vine or fuperangelic nature might not be involved in the miferies of mortality. For this purpofe the Docetae denied the reality of the manhood i and the Ebionites, with the Cerinthians, maintained a fepa- rate perfonality and diftincl conditions of the man and the fuperior being. Thus the affinity between the pbionites and the Simonians is manifcft ; and the de- rivation © 44* D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S Di«. III. rivation of the one from the other, eafy and natural y and I cannot but remark, that as the antient Ebio- naean do6trine paffes by a fingle ftep, the difmiflion of the fuperangeUc being, into the modern Unitarian ; that too is traced to its fource in the chimaeras of the Samaritan Sorcerer. And thus both the Ebionites of antiquity, and the Unitarians of our own time, are in truth branches, or the offspring at leaft, of Gnofti- cifm. And in this extended meaning of the word, I am read)- to allow that Irenseus knew of no Heretics, but what are included under the general name of Gnoftics. Be that as it may, I maintain, that the firft book of Irenaeus, by the enrolment therein made of the Ebionites, in a lift, in which the author had done diflervice to his own argument, had he inferted any but known Heretics, affords a clear argument that the Ebionites were Heretics, in the judgement of the church, in the time of Irenaeus. In the Second book of Irenseus no mention of the Ebionites occurs either by name, or by defcription. Nor is this, indeed, the place, where any mention of that fe6l might be expelled. The argument of the fecond book is a confutation of heretical opinions from principles of meer reafon ; from general views of their intrinfic abfurdity and incoherence. But the error of the Ebionites is not of the number ofthofe that may be fo confuted. The great myf^ery of god- linefs, the incarnation of the Divine Word, was no difcovery of natural reafon. Reafon, therefore, whofe natural powers, upon this fubjeft, gave no knowledge of the truth, is infufiicient without the aid of revela- tion D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 443 tion to the refutation of the contrary falfehood. The Dis* in conviction of the Ebionites muft refl entirely upoa Holy Writ. Accordingly in the Third book, in which the confutation is drawn from Scripture, the Ebionites are thus mentioned. " They again who fay, that he '' was meerly a man, engendered of Jofeph, die ; con- *' tinning in the bondage of the former difobedience, " having to the lafl: no conjunction with the word of *' God the Father, nor receiving freedom through " the Son, according to that faying of his own, If *' the Son give you manumijjton^ ye Jhall he free indeed. " But not knowing him, who is the Emmanuel of the *' Virgin, they are deprived of his gift, which is eter- " nal life. And not receiving the incorruptible word, *' they continue in the mortal flefh, and are liable to " the natural debt of death, not accepting the anti- " dote of life*." That the Ebionites are the perfons intended in this paflage, we need not be felicitous to prove ; fmce * Rurfus autem qui nude taritum hominem eum dicunt ex Jofeph generatum, perfcverantes in fervitute priftinas inobe- dientiae moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo Dei Patris, ne- que per Filium percipientes libertatem, quemadmodum ipfe ait ; ft F'd'ius njns manujti'ifcrit, iz. IV. 46* D I S QJLT I S I T I O N S. I>i». 1 V# Upon thefe principles, I (hould wifh to decline all dif- pute upon the metaphyfical difficulties of the fubjeft, even with an adverfary better qualified, than I take Dr. Prieftley to be, for fuch difcuiTions. I fhould think indeed that I had already been guilty of an in- difcretion, in the avowal that I have made in my Charge* of my own opinion about the manner, in which the Son's eternal exiftence, without any dimi- nution of its own neceflity, may be conneded with the Father's ; were it not, that what I am there at- tempting to illuflrate is not fo much the fcripture doc- trine itfelf, as the manner in which that dodrine- was underflood by the platonizing fathers. I SAID, and I ftill fay, that it was their common principle " that the exiftence of the Son flows necef- " farily from the Divine Intelledl: exerted on itfelf f." I fhewed how the Son's eternity will follov^ from this principle. And I difcovered, what indeed 1 might have concealed, that 1 myfelf concur in this principle with the Platonifts: for I faid, that " it feems^to " me, to be founded in Scripture J." By which I meant not to afTert that it is fo exprefsly declared in Scripture, that I would undertake to prove it by the Scriptures, to others ; in the fame manner, that I would undertake to prove that the world was created by Jefus Chrift: or that the one like the other ought to be made a branch of the public confeffion of the Church ; or that the belief, or diibelief of this parti- cular principle is a circumftance that may, in the Icaft, * IV. § 5i- f Ibid. t Ibid. affea D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 461 affedl the integrity of any Chriftian's faith. It was Dis. IV, not alleged as a principle, on which I meant at all to reft the credit of the Scripture do6lrine j it was men- tioned only as a principle, which, true or falfe, was embraced by a certain fet of writers, and ferves to ex- plain certain things faid by them, which without it are unintelligible, or at leaft, liable to mifinterpreta- tion. At the fame time, I difcovered my own opinion about this principle, that I think it true, or likely to be true J for it feems (that is the word I ufed) to be founded in Scripture. Many phrafes of Holy wris feem to me to allude to it : and to thofe, who firlt thought of it, I doubt not but that the fame allufions feemed couched in the fame phrafes. Yet I will not undertake to teach every one to read the fame fenfe in the fame exprelHons. When I fliewed, that from this principle once admitted, a ftri6t demonftration might be drawn of the eternity of the fecond perfon j it was not that I fet any value upoa that demonftra- tion, as adding in the leaft degree to the certainty of the Scripture dodlrine. Upon fuch points, the evi- dence of Holy Scripture is, indeed, the only thing that amounts to proof. The utmoft that reafoning can do, is to lead to the difcovery, and, by God's grace, to the humble acknowledgement of the weak- nefs and infufRciency of reafon ; to refift her encroach- ments upon the province of faith ; to filence her ob- je£tions, and caft down imaginations, and prevent the innovations and refinements of philofophy and vain deceit. Had philofophical reafoning upon points of exprefs revelation been held as cheap by Dr. Prieftley, as it is by me, the prefent controverfy never had ari- fen. 463 D I S OJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. IV. fen. But this demonftration cf the Son's eternity, was produced for no other purpofe, but to lliew the difagreement between the immediate confequences of t!ie principle, from which it was deduced, and certain notions which Dr. Prieftley would afcribe to thofe who held that principle. But Dr. Prieftley, miilak- ingfor an iiluflration of Scripture, what is only an il- luftiation of writers, whofe meaning had been per- verted by him ; conceiving that the whole Catholid do£lrine of the Trinity would be confuted, if a certain, principle, which being admitted might furnifli a de- monftrativeproofof a particular part of it, might be fhewn to be v/ithout foundation ; calls upon me in the Seventh of his Firft Letters *, to " fhew what it is in *' the Scriptures, or indeed in the Fathers, that gives " any countenance to that curious piece ofreafoning.'* In another part of the fame letter, he tells me that '^' in reading my attempt to explain the dodtrine of " the Trinity [fa he calls it], he fancies himfelf got " back to the darkeft of the dark ages, or at leafl^ " that he is reading Peter Lombard, Thomas Aqui- " nas, or Duns Scotusf." In his Second Letters, waxing confident by my negledl, which he interpreted as a cowardly defertion of my argument, he is louder in his challenge, and more ftout in his defiance. Upon every occafion of thefe' challenges and ealls, of which fometimes the Dean of Canterbury, fome- times Dr. White, fometimes Bifliop Prettyman, fometimes I myfelf have the honour to be the objed, * Firft Letters, p. 7S. ■f Firfl Letters, p. 99, Uport D I S QJLJ I S I T I O N S. 46J tipon every fuch occafion, but particularly on thisj his tone reminds me of the ftrutting a£lor on the Hage J Clifford of Cumberland, 'tis Warwick calls. And if thou doft not hide thee from the bear, Now, when the angry trumpet founds alarum, Clifford, I fay, come forth and fight with me. Proud Northern Lord Warwick is hoarfe with calling thee to arms. I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 467 hi the eflence, the perfons, and the works ofCrea- Dis. iv. tion, which was the notion of Thomas and his fol- lowers. And for this unbounded curiofity of fpecu- lation, they are juftly cenfured by Simon Epifco- pius * ; whofe cenfure is a teftimony, which Dr. Prieflley, perhaps will regard, that fuch opinions were maintained, and fuch queftions agitated. After the Council of Trent, this peculiar notioh of mine, this fmguiar conceit, for which no autho- rity whatever can be produced, antient or modern, became the public dodlrine of the Church of Romcj being exprefsly afTerted in the rule of public teaching, let forth by the authority of that council, for the allif- tance and dire£lion of the parochial clergy, under the title of Catechifmus ad Parockos. The iirft part of that work is an expofition of the Apoftles Creed. In the explanation of the firft article, the comment upon the word " patem^'^ is clofed with an exhor- tation to the true believer to pray without intermif- fion, " that being at fome time or other admitted *' into the eternal tabernacles, he may be thought " worthy to be allowed to fee what that wonderful fe- " cundity of God the Father is, that contcynplatlng *' and exerting his intelligence upon hi7nfclj\ he Ihould *' beget a Son the exadl counterpart and equal of " himfelff". In the expofition of the fecond article, * Epifcop. Inft. Lib. iv. feJl. 11. c. 33. f Oret fine intermidione — ut aliqiianJo in reterna taber- nacula receptus dignus lit qui videat, quie tanta lit Dei Patria foECunditds, utfeipfum intuens atqiie intelligens parem et squa lem fibi Filium gignst. Artie. Prim. \ xiv. H h 2 upon 46S D 1 S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. iv. upon the words " Fllium ejus unicutn^" it is faid, " That of all funilitudes that are ufually brought to " explain the manner and way of the eternal genera- " tion, that feems to come the neareft to the thing, " which is taken from the reflexion of our own mind i " upon which account St. John calls the Son the *' Word. For as our mindj exercifing its intelligence *' upon itfelf, forms as it were an image of itfelf, " which Divines have called its word; fo God, fo " far as human things may be put in comparifon with *' divine, exercifmg intelligence upon himfelf, gene- " rates the eternal Word*." This, however, was not fo peculiarly thedoilrine of the Roman Church, but that it had its advocates among the moft eminent of the proteftant Divines. Philip Melandhon, that great luminary of the refor- mation, was its conftant and ftrenuous aflertor ; and he repeatedly reforts to it as a principle for the expla- nation of the Phrafeology of Scripture. Philip Me- lanithon, a man with whom it were more honourable to err, than to be in the right with Socinus or Dr. Priellley, thought, as I think, that the notion was * Ex omnibus autem, qtias ad indicandum modum ra- tionemque jEternas generationis fimiiitudines afferuntur, ilia propius ad rem videtur accedere, quse ab animi noftri cogita- tione fuaiitwr; quamobrem fan6tus Joanes Filium ejus ver- bum appellat. Ut enim mens noftra, fe ipfum quodam modo intelligcns fui effingit imaginem, quam verbum Theologi difcerlint; ita Deus, quantum tamen divinis humana con- ferre polfunt, fiipfum intelligeris^ verbum aeternum generate Artie. Secund. i) xv,- founded D I S QJJ I S I T I O N 5. 4^9 founded in Holy Writ. He thought it indeed fo Du. IV. clearly Implied in the Scripture phrafes, that he was lefs fcrupulous, than I would be, in aflerting it as a part of the Scripture doflrine. In his Loci Theologici, he fays, " the Son, there- " fore, Is an image generated by the Father's *' Thought. The eternal Father, ccntcinplatbig « hlmfelf^ begets a thought of himfelf [or a concep- *' tion of himfelf in his own thoughts] which is an *' image of himfelf never vanKhing away, but fub- " fifting, the effence being communicated to the " image. He is called the Word, becaufe ** he is generated by thought. He is called the " Image, becaufe thought is an image of the thing " thought upon*." Let me by the way entreat the learned reader to compare thefe fentences of Melan6lhon with Tertul- lian's fifth chapter againfl: Praxeas, and judge for him- felf, whether TertulUan and Melanclhon had not the fame view of the fubjecl. Again in the form of examination of Candidates for holy orders, A'lelanithon lays : " The eternal ♦' Son is the fecond perfon of the Divinity, which * Eft igitur imago cogitatione Patris genita. Pater Kternus fefe intuens gignit cogitationem fui, qua; efl imago ipfius non evanefcens, fed fubfiflens, communicata ipfi eden- tii. -Dicitur Aoyoj, quia cogitatione gencratur. Dici- tur imago, quia cogitatio eft imago rei cogitatae. Op. Me- Unft. Tom. I. p. 152. H h 3 <' perfon 470 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. IV. « perfon.is the fubftantial and entire image of the eter- " nal Father, which the Father, cof2ie??jpIating ami *' conjidering hhnfelf^ generates from eternity*." The fame thing is repeated nearly in the fame words, in his definitions of appellations f, and again in his fecond expofition of the Nicene Creed %, In his firfl expofition of the Nicene Creed, he fays, " The eternal Father is a divine perfon, eternal, *' not fprung of any other, but hy thought upon him- " 7^^ generating from eternity the coeternal Son, his *' own image. The Son is a divine perfon be- " gotten by the Father thinking upon and content- " plating himfelfW,''' In the fecond expofition, he fays, " To be born Is *' of the intelligent power j becaufe the Son is born *' by thought §." In his annotations upon the Gofpel, for the feafl: of the nativity, he fays, " Bafil and others, fay, that " the Son is called the Word, becaufe he is the * Filiiis seternus eft fecimda perfona divinltatis, qua? eft fubftantJalis et Integra imago casterni Patris, quam Yaterfefe intuens et conjiderans ab acterno gignit. Opera Melandlh. Tom. I. p. 307. f Tom. I. p. 350. X Tom. H. p. 213, and p. 315. II Pater aeternus eft perfona divina, aetenia, non nata ali- unde, fed cogitatione fui gignens ab aeterno Filiura cOcTterniim, imaginem luam. Filius eft perfona divina genita a Patre cogitante ac intuente feipfum. Symb. Nicen. De Tribus perlonis. ^ Nafci eft. a potentia intelligente J quia Filius cogitatione nafcitur. Tom. II. p. 228. *' image D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Alt " image of the Father, generated by the Father P"* J"V» " thinking upon himfelf. For the Father, contemplat-' " ing himfelf^ generates a thought, which is called " the Word ; which thought is the image of the Fa- " ther; into which image the Father, if we may fa " fpeak, transfufeshisown effence*." So poflefled was Melanilhon with this notion, which Dr. Prieftley, learned only in his own imagi- nations, conceives to have been firft hatched in my brain, ages fmce the good Melanilhon fell afleep, that upon every occafion, when he mentions the ge- neration of the Son, he introduces this notion of the manner of it. And Melandhon, the learned reader will obferve, never dreamed that in this he was fetting up a notion of his own. He thought, as I do, that the Fathers entertained the fame view of the fubjeil; and that this view of the fubje6l was countenanced by the phrafeology of Holy Writ. Zanchius indeed, an orthodox writer of great piety and learning, fpeaks of this fame notion in terms, as it may feem., of ftrong difapprobation. " What " fome, he fays, as the fchoolmen write, that God " the Father, by feeing and confidering himfelf begot ^' the Word, and that the emanation of the Son * Bafilius et alii diciint, Fillum dici Aoyor, quia fit imago Patris, genita a Patre feje cogitantc. Pater enim hituensfef gignitcogitatioaem, qu;e vocatur verbum ; quaj cogitatio eft imago Patris, in qiiam imagincm Pater, ut ita dicamus, Uanstiindit fiiam edcntiam. Tom. III. p. 12. H h 4 « from 47« D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. IV. <« from the Father, is after the manner of an emana- " tion of Intellect, and other things of that kind, " which have no proof from the word of God, we " muft rejedl them as rafh and vain ; that is to fay, " if the thing be pofitively afierted fo to be*." Zan- chius, therefore, were he now hving, to be a witnefs of this controverfy between Dr. Prieftley and me, would have taxed me, it feems, with rafhnefs and prefumption, had he found me propounding this no- tion of the Divine Generation, as the way in zvhich the thing mujl certainly be. But he would have little admired my adverfary's learning, or commended his modefty, when he upbraids me as a fetter forth of new dodlrines of my own coinage, and challenges me to produce any authority, antient or modern, in fup- port of this opinion. Zanchius well knew, though the tiling is unknown to Dr. Prieftley, that the autho- rity of the Schoolmen, and of others, is on the fide of the opinion. And in the very cenfure, which he paf- fes upon the doctrine, he acquits all of his own, or later times, of the invention. But in truth, this learned Calvinift feems to have thought no worfe of this opinion, than I myfelf think of it : that it is not a thing to be too pofitively alTerted * Caeterum quod quidam, ut fcholaftici, fcrlbunt, Deum patrem fe videndo et confiderando genuifle Aoyov, et quod emanatio Filii' a Patre eft fecundum emana,tionem intelleftus, et alia id genus, quas nullum habent ex verbo Dei teftimo- nium, rejlcienda nobis funt tanquam temeraria & vana; nempe fi res it^^ fefe liabere afTevcretur. Zancliius DeTribus Elchini. Lib", v. c. S. fo D I S Q^U I S I T I O N S 4V5 fo to be. In itfelf he feems to have thought It not Dis. iv» improbable. For in another part of his works, he mentions it as a notion furnifliing the beft anfwer to thofe who would deny the Son's eternity, upon the principles fo frequently alleged by the Arians and other Antitrinitarians, that that which is begotten, muft always have a later beginning of its exiftence than that which begets ; and that all generation is efFefled by motion and change. Such objeilions, he fays, may be anfwered by analogies taken from the material world. The fun at all times generates rays from his own body. Thefe rays are emitted without any change in the fun himfelf. " But a clearer refutation, " he fays, may be drawn from the example of our " own incorporeal intelledl. Intelledl, in the " energy of intelligence, generates another quajt- '' iittellc", as the philofophers call it, like unto itfelf i ** which, for this reafon, is called by us a Conception " of the Mind ; by the Platonifts, Mind generated of *' Mind ; and by the Fathers, the Word and Aoyoj " of the Mind. And this it begetteth within itfelf. '* And there is no fuch thing as intellect actually in- *' telligent, that is, which is truly intelle6t, without " this other generated intclleft; and the parent in- " tellecl: generates without fuffering in itfelf any f' change*." Zanchius fuggefts thefe philofophical ' topics * Claruis etiam haec refutarl pofTunt exemplo intelle(5iris noflri incorporei. Intellectiis, diim intelligit, gignit (lit philofophi vocant) alium qiiafi intellectiim, fibi fmiilem, quern banc ob cavifam nos conceptiini mentis, Platonici men- tcm genitam a mente, Patres verbum Si Aoy:v mentis appcl- larunt. 474 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. IV. topics of reply to philofophical arguments agalnft the eternity of God the Son. This analogy, there- fore, between the Father's generation of the Son, and the mind's generation of a conception of itfelf in thought, he efteemed an hypothefis philofophically probable; which might be very properly employed to convince thofe, who upon philofophical grounds made a difficulty of the only begotten Son's eternity, that what they called in queftion might eafily be ; though he thought it prefumptuous in any one to aflert too pofitively, that this analogy reprefents the way in which the thing actually is. If the Calvinifts have been (hy of reforting in their difputes with Anfitrinitarians, to the arguments, which Zanchius fuggefts and recommends ; I take thereafon ofthis to be, that the analogy, on which thofe arguments were founded, feemed repugnant to an opinion, which Calvin himfelfwas thought to hold. Calvin, in the heat of his difputes with Valentinus Gentilis and Blandratta, was carried to the ufe of fome unguarded expreffions, which feemed to imply that the exiftence of the Son was entirely independent of the Father's. He went indeed fo far as to queftion the propriety of the expreffion In, the Nicene Creed, *' God of God." This notion was confidered as a dangerous novelty, and gave much alarm to fome of the mod eminent Divines of thofe times, as neceffa- laruiit, Et ilium gignit intra fe ; & nunquam intelle£liis cH: adu intelligens, & ideo vere intelleftus, fine lioc genito al- tero intellectu : & quidem fine ulla fui imUatione gignit. 7anchius De Natura Dei. Lib. II. c. 7. rilv D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 47^ r'lly terminating in one or the other of two horrible ^^^' ^"^• extremes ; Sabellianifm on the one hand, or Tri- theifni on the other. It was treated with great kve- rity by writers of the Roman Church, and was fcrc- nuoully oppofed, though with much moderation and candour, by my illuftrious predecefTor Bifhop Bull among ourfelves, and in Holland by Arminius. Beza, in his preface to Athanafius's dialogues, makes tlie apology of Calvin ; confefling that he had not been fufficiently circumrpe61: in the choice of expreflions, and alleging that his expreflions had been mifunder- ftood ; which I take indeed to be the truth. It feems to me, that Calvin meant only to deny that the Son was a contingent being, the creature of the Father's will ; to aflert, that he is ftridly fpeaking God ; and that the exiftence of the three perfons, of the fecond and third, no lefs than of the firll, is contained in the very notion of a God, when that notion is accurately developed. However, his words were otherwife un- derftood by many of his followers ; his authority gave credit and currency to an error, which was fuppofed to be his do£lrine, and the notion of the Son's origi- nation in the neceflary energies of the paternal intel- \t3i is rejeiled by many of the Calvinifts, more pe- remptorily than by Zanchius. The Church of England, with her ufual caution, hath abftained from giving her fanif^ion to any parti- cular opinion concerning the manner of the Divine generation. Of her Divines, fome have embraced the opinion, which I have acknowledged for my own (particularly Dr. Leflie in his Soclnian controverfy difcujfed) 476 D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S, Dis. IV. difcujfed) and a great majority acknowledge adepen- dance of the Son's exiftence on the Father, ftrenu- oufly afferting in the language of the Nicene Creed, that the Son is « God of God." But fome, of no inconfiderable name, have adopted what was thought to be Calvin's doctrine, in an extent to which I think, with Beza, Calvin himfelf never meant it (hould be carried. Upon the whole, I truft it appears, that this fingu- lar conceit of mine, this invention for which I am challenged to produce any authority, antient or mo- dern, is a principle that was tacitly affumed by many of the Fathers ; openly maintained by fome ; dif- puted about by the Schoolmen ; approved by the Church of Rome; maintained by the greateft of the Lutheran Divines ; objected to by the Calvinifts as a point of dodlrine, but received by fome of the moft learned of that perfuafion as at leaft a probable fur- mife. About the truth of the opinion, I have de- clared that I will not difpute ; and I Ihall keep my •word. But Dr. Prieftley's rafti defiance, I may place among the fpecimens, with which his hiftory and his letters to me abound, of his incompetency in this fubjeft, and of the effrontery of that incurable ig- norance, which is ignorant even of its own want of knowled2:e. D I S. 1> I S OU I S I T I O N S. 477 D I 8 Q,U I S I T I O N FIFTH, Of Origai's ivant of Veracity. THE defence of Origen's veracity, which Dr. Djs. v. Prieftley hath attempted to fet up in tlie Second of his Third Letters, is in fome parts fo weak, and in others fo difingenuous, that it would deferve no ferious reply, if the reader might be confidered as a judge be- fore whom Origen was arraigned, who would be obliged, by his qffice, lo canvafs the arguments and weigh the evidence on both fides with a fcrupulous at- tention, in order to a folemn condemnation or acquit* tal of the accufed party. But it may be expedled of a controverfial writer to fave trouble to the reader, who is bound to no fuch official duty ; to affift him in form- ing a final judgement upon the evidence produced on either fide, and to expofe the futility of arguments and the fallacy of aflertions, which, in a criminal procefs before any of his Majefly's judges of aflizc, might fafely be trufted to expofe themfelves. The work of Celfus againfl: Chriflianity being loft, neither the plan nor the matter of it is otherwife to be known, that by what may be gathered from Origen's anfwer. It appears from Origer>, that it was a com- pofition of much art, and highly laboured. Many of 47S D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. V. of Celfus's objeflions were delivered in the perfon of a Jew, who is fuppofed to addrefs his difcourfe firft to Jefus, and afterwards to the Hebrew Chriflians. In the difcourfe addrefled to the Hebrew Chriftians, Celfus makes his Jew upbraid them with a defertion of the Mofaic Law. To this reproach, Origen, in vindication of the Hebrew brethren, gives a double anfwer ; which I have fhewn to be inconfifcent witii itfelf in the two different branches *. Firft, he aiferts, that the Jews beheving in Chrift had not renounced their judaifm. Upon occafion of this affertion, he goes into a difcourfe of fome length about St. Peter's adherence to the Mofaic Law, and the information, which was conveyed to that Apoftle in a vifion, con- cerning the extindion of its authority. From this- difcourfe he runs into a fecond, upon a faying of our Lord's, which he expounds as an asnigmatical al]u- fion to the intended abrogation of the Law. And when in this digreffive way he hath written " about it and about it," till he had hirafelf forgotten, or might reafonably truft that his reader would have forgotten, the pofition with which this prolix difcourfe began, he enters upon the fecond branch of his defence of the Hebrew brethren ; in which he flatly contradifts his firft affertion, infulting over Celfus*s ignorance, wha had not made his Jew diftinguifli the different feds of the converted Hebrews ; two, v;hich obferved the Law, and one, which had to all intents and pnrpofes abandoned it. I have given this paflage at length in * Remarks' on Dr. P's Second Letters. P. 2. Chap. I. S v5. my D I S QJJ I S 1 T I O N S. 479 my Remarks on Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters *, and Dis. v, ihall not tire my reader's patience with a needlefs re- petition of it. Dr. Priestley, to vindicate Origen from the charge of felf-contradi6lion in this inftance, hath re- courfeto a very curious piece of Criticifm. He bids me obferve, that Origen contends not that Celfus's Jew, had he faid what Origen fays he fhould have faid, would have faid what was true, but what was plaufible f. The fame critical fagacity, that flruck out this diftinclion, might have perceived, that the want of plaufibility, witli which Celfus's Jew is taxed, con- fifted in the confounding of diftindlions, which aclu- allyexilled: and that the^exifting diflinftions, which Celfus's Jew confounded, were the diftindtions be- tween the Hebrew fe6ls, two obferving the Law, and one difufing it. For this is the language of Origen's reproach. " How confufedly does Celfus's Jew fpeak, " when he might have faid, &c." and, by faying fo, have avoided the imputation of confufion. The plaufibility, of the want of which Origen complains in the difcourfe of Celfus's Jew, is what may be called poetical plaufibility. It is that general air of truth, which a writer of judgement and good tafte contrives to give to the fable of a drama, by an attention to the peculiarities of times, places, man- ners, and charadlers : a neglect of which {lamps a * Remarks on Dr. P's Second Letters. P. 2. Chap. I, t Third L.ettei:5. P. ro. manifeil 4Xo D I S CL^U I S I T I O N S. Dis. V. manifeft chara6ler of clumfy fidtion on what ought to feem reality. As would be the cafe in any ferious play, in which the Maid of Orleans fhould be feated on the Delphic tripod or Hugh Peters introduced j maintaining the divine rights of Kings and Bifliops. This is the want of plaufibility, with which Origeii taxes Celfus. He fays, that Celfus, with all his great pretenfions to learning and tafte, knew not the com- mon rules of art about maintaining charadler in the fidtion of perfons. To auohn^v hk ol^s Kafarov TQTTCi'J mg TrpocrccTroToiag. He made his Jew fay what no real Jew would have faid. — That the Hebrew Chriftians in general had deferted the Law of their anceftors. This no Jew would have faid, becaufe it was a down- right falfehood ; which every Jew muft have known to be fuch. Had Origen ftopt ftiort here, he would not have himfelf betrayed the want of truth in his firft alTertion, that the whole body of the Hebrew Chrif- tians retained the obfervation of the Law. For the two propofitions concerning the Hebrew Chriftians, that they had all forfaken their Law, which was Cel- fus's Jew's aflertion, and that none of them had for- faken it, which was Origen's, are fo compleatly op- pofite, that the entire falfehood of the one were per- fe6lly confident with the entire truth of the other. But Origen, unfortunately for his own credit, goes on to tell his reader, what Celfus's Jew might have faid with more plaufibility, i. e. with more propriety of character — ^more confidently with a Jew's knowledge of the truth — that is more truly : fo that plaufibility and truth, .in this ufe of the word plaufibility, are the very fame thing. Had Celfus made his Jew reproach the D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 481 the Hebrew Converts, not, as he did, with a general Dis. v. defertion of their law, but with great difagreements among themfelves about the extent and duration of its authority, and the refpecl due to it under the Chriftian difpenfation, he would have made his Jew fpeak more in charader ; becaufehe would have fpoken more confiftently with what every Jew muft have known to be the real ftate of opinions, among the Chri ians of the circumcifion. Had Celfjs's Jew talked like a Jew upon this fubje^t, he would not have faid that all the Hebrew brethren were deferters of their law ; but he might, it feems, with great pro- priety have faid, that fome of them had forfaken it. This had been very confiftent with that accurate infor- mation, which a Jew might be expe£ted to poflefs. Confequently, it appears, that Origen fhould not have faid, that they all adhered to it. And his own reprefentation of the faift, when he comes to ftate it accurately, betrays the falfehood of that firft afier- tion. That the diftinfllons, which Origen fays Celfus's Jew might have put between the Hebrew Chriftians, were differences really fubfifting in that body at the time, is ftrongly implied in the form of the expref- fion, ^vvaixvjc^ kiTTSiv ; the force of which is very im- perfectly rendered, in my tranllation of the paiTage, by the words " when he might have faid." It had been better rendered, " when he had it to fay." The Greek words ^wjitxrmq Iitteiv, like the Englifli " he " had it to fay," are applicable only to fubftantial I i fads. D:5. V. f> I S QJU I S 1 T ! O N 5. ii3«j whkh might lafdy be averred ^thout danger oc' refutation. Dx. Priestley indeed feems willii^ to concede, that Origen, in this fecood branch of his reply to Cel- fus's Jew's reproach, " may allude to a few*' of the Hebrew Chriiaans, " who bad abandoned tbor an- tient cuftoms *." So that the qudtica ^ laft connes to this ; How many of the Hebrew Chriitians had abandoned thofe cuitoms : For chat feme had aban- doned them, is at Jail confeiled. Thefe pms were by Oiigen's account enov.- to be reckoned a feet. But Dr. Prieltley hath taken care to fettle the propor- tion to the advantage of his own argument. " There " might be, he iays, a few Jewith Chriitians who '' had delened their fanner cuftoms, which would *' have givQi Celfus a pj:uJihU pretence for making " fuch a diviilcn of than as to make thefe one of the " chiles; vet the great body cf them had notf." But there is nothing in Origen's expreiSons, which fhould implv, that either of the two \^^ of the He- brew Chriitians which retained the law, was a greater bodv than the feS, which had abandoned it. S:fm and Ssim and S^ns is the word, l^' which the men • tiffliof each dais is introduced. In what proportion the foil " Some*' might tail (hort or, cr exceed, die fecond or the third, it exceeds my (kill in compata> tion to inveltigate. Dr. Prieitley, perhaps, folved th:-- : /. in that early period of his li^ when he wz -to mathematical purfuits^. * Third Letters. ?. lo. % Ibid. ■\ Secocd Letter?. P. 191. .But D I S OJJ I S I T I O N S. 4«3 But I have maintained, that Origen, in the fen- Dis. v. tence wliich follows this divifion of the Hebrews pro- feflxng Chril^ianity into three claffes, gives us to un- derftand, that of thefe three forts, they only, who had laid aiide the obfer^-ation of the Mofaic Law, were in his time confidered as true Chriftians. For he mentions it as a further proof of Celfus's igno- rance, tliat, in his account of the herefies of the Chriilian Church, he had omitted the Ifraelites be- lieving in yfjus and nst laying ajide the law of their ancejiors. I refer the reader to an exaft tranflation of Origen's words in my Remarks upon Dr. Prieftley's Second Letters *. Upon this, Dr. Priefiley fays to me, in the Firft of his Third Letters, " From this conftruilion of *' the palTage, a perfon might be led to think that *' Origen reprefented Celfus as having undertaken to « give an account of the herefies in the Ghrillian " Church, and as having in that account omitted " the Ifraelites believing in Chrift, and not laying ** afide the rites of their anceftors i and upon no *' other ground can your infmuation ftand f ". On no other ground, I declare, does my infmuation fland. But I am confident, that witii the exception of Dr. Prieftley and his aflbciates and admirers, every perfon, who will take the trouble to confider the paf- fage as it ftands in Origen's difcourfe, will perceive, that mine is the plain and natural conliniilion of it. Every unprejudiced perfon, who can conftruel the * p. 2. Chap. i. ^ 7. + Tliird Letters, p. 13. I i 2 paflage 4H D I S QJJ I S I T I O N Dis. V. pailage for himfelf, ■will perceive that Origan hath in- deed thus reprefented Celfus ; as pretending to give an account of the herefies among Chriftians, and in that account inferting fome who had not a right to be inferted, and omitting others who had. Of Celfus's work, as hath been before remarked, we know not the contents, but fo far as they may be gathered from Origeii's reply. It fhould feem from this paffage in Origen, that Celfus, in fome part of his work, had found it to his purpofe to enumerate the principal fe6ls, of which he would have it believed the general body of the Chriftians was compofed. It is not diffi- cult to conceive, how it might be to his purpofe, to enumerate fects, and make as many of them as he could. He might intend by this, to throw difcredit on Chriftians in general ; as difagreeing among themfelves, and broken into parties, about the parti- culars of the Revelations which they profefled in common to believe. Origen fays, that in the execu- tion of this delign, he numbered among the herefies of the Church impious feds, which were not to be deemed in any degree Chriftian, and pafTed unno- ticed, or knew not of, the real herefy of the Judaizing Hebrews. This is in itfelf a very juft and pertinent obje£lion to Celfus's enumeration. But then it is a confefTion, that the Judaizing Hebrews were an he- retical feet ; and of confequence that Origen aft'erted what was falfe, when he faid of the Flebrew Chrifti- ans in general, that they Judaized. For that the great body of the Hebrew Chriftians was deemed he- retical, is what, I beleive, no adventurer in Ecclefiaftical Hiftory hath ever yet affirmed. Another D I S Q^U I S I T I O N S. 485 Another inftance which I produced * of Origen's Dis- v. difpofition to prevaricate, is his anfvver to Celfus's Jew's objedlion to the famous prophecy of the mira- culous conception, contained in Ifaiah VII. 14. Cel- fus's Jew maintains, that the Hebrew word in that text, whicli the Chriftians, with the old Greek tranf- lators, undeiftand to fignify a virgin, properly ren- ders, not the condition of virginity, but the feafon of youth ; not a virgin, but a young woman. Origen, to prove on the contrary that this word properly ren- ders a woman in the ftate of virginity, cites a text in Deuteronomy, where he would have it believed, that the word in queftion is clearly ufed in that fenfe. But according to our modern copies of the Hebrew text, the words, which correfpond to the Greek Trocf/Bevoi in the two pafiages in Ifaiah and Deuteronomy, are two different words. And there is much reafon to be- lieve, as I have Ihewn in my Remarks on Dr. Priefl- ley's Second Letters f , that the fame two different words occurred in the two pafTages in the copies of Origen's time, and that Origen himfelf was apprifed of the difference. The text in Deuteronomy, there- fore, as it (lands in the modern Hebrew text, and as it probably ftood in the more antient copies, affords no illuflration oflfaiah's words; and Origen's exprefli- ons give t e greatefc caufe to fufped, that he well knew the infirmity of hi own argument; and b con- fequence that in the ufe of fuch an argument he was guilty of prevarication. * Remarks on Dr. P's. Second Letters, p. 2. Chap. i. t Ibid. I i ? Dr. Priestley 4S6 D I S QJ.T I S I T I O N S. Dis. V, ]3i-, Priestley fays to me, in the Firft of his Third Letters, " The queflion between Origen and '* the Jews was, not what was the word in the He- " brew, but what was the meaning of it in a particu- " Jar place *". It is true. The main queftion between Origen and Celfus's Jew was about the meaning of a word in a text. But then the cuefdon was not indefi- nite ; about one or another of different words in diffe- rent places. It was about a particular word, in a par- ticular place. About the meaning of the word ni3^J/ irilfaiah vii. 14. This was indeed, the queftion be- tween Origen and Celfus's Jew. But the queflion between Dr. Priedley and me, is, by what fort of argument Origen attempted to fufcain his own opi- nion upon the matter in debate between him and the Jew ? Whether by fuch an argument as might have been employed by an honeft difputant, who had pre- ferred general truth to vidlory in a particular queftion. Origen, to juftify the fenfe in which he underftood the word, reforts to a critical argument. He appeals to a paffage in Deuteronomy ; in which he would have it believed that the word was indifputably ufed in the fame fenfe, in which he undcri^ood it to be ufed in the text in queftion in Ifaiah. Now it is evident that this critical argument refts entirely upon the identity of the word in the two different' texts ; and Origen's good faith, in the ufe of that argument, refts on his knowledge or belief of the identity. I remark, that Origen takes not upon him to affirm pofitively this identity of the word, upon which his whole argument * Third Letters, p. 14. depends i D I S Qj; I S I T I O N S. 487 depends ; but fpeaks of it as from hearfay only. I Dis. V. remark, that from the prefent flate of the Hebrew text, there is great reafon to think that this hearfay was a falfe report. For in the text in Deuteronomy we find not naVj; but nbini. Nor did Dr. Kennicott find HD^i^ in the text cited by Origen from Deuteronomy, in any one of the innumerable copies, which he col- lated. Now 1 fay, that the confefled fenfe of the word ^b^^^ in Deuteronomy can never fettle the dif- puted fenfe of the word no'7i> in Ifaiah. And I fay, that the doubtful manner, in which Origen fpeaks of the identity of the two words in Ifaiah and Deutero- nomy, creates a vehement fufpicion, that the words ' were different in the copies of his time, as they are in thofe of the prefent day ; and that Origen well knew that his argument was founded on a mifreprefenfa- tion of the text in Deuteronomy *, Dr. Priestley adds, " admitting that the dif- " pute was about the true reading in the original, " what great matter was there in Origen's faying, *' the yews faidfo^ when he knew that what they '^ faid was true | ?" Here again we have a beautiful fpecimen of our Greek profeflors readincfs in the Greek language. The Jews faid fo! Origen fays no- thing of what the Jews faid. There is no mention of Jews, more than of Cherokees, except of Celfus's fic- titious Jew, in this part of Origen's difcourfe. The * Remarks on Dr. P's. Second Letters, p. 2. Cluip, i. t Third Letters, p. 14. I i 4 nominative 4^8 D I S QJQ I S I T I O N S. Dis. V, nominative of the verb (pa fumptive argument, that the former were compleatly orthodox. The exiftence of thefe orthodox Hebrew believers in the time of St. Jerome, being thus proved by St, Jerome's evidence, the probability of the fa£t that they refided at ^lia, and that fuch a body had been fettled at JEliz from the time of Adrian down- wards, refts upon my fix former pofitions, St. Jerome relates, as I have obferved, [Re- marks, Part 2. Chap. ii. § 8.] two different expo- fitions of the prophecy delivered by Ifaiah, in the be- ginning of the ninth chapter, concerning Zabulon and Naphtali. The firft of thefe expofitions he afcribes to " the Hebrews believing in Chrift," the other, to " the Nazarenes, whofe opinion he had *' given above." Dr. Prieftley thinks, that by thefe Nazarenes, St. Jerome '* did not intend any other " than the Hebrews believing in Chrift, but only " meant to vary his mode of expreffion*." This might feem probable, if the difference of name were the only note of difference between the people ; and if the Nazarenes had not been mentioned before by their proper name, and a particular opinion mentioned as peculiar to the perfons fo named. But to fuppofe that, under all thefe circumftanees, St. Jerome hath defcribed the fame people under different names, meerly for the fake of varying his mode of expreffion ; is to lappofe, that he hath varied his expreffion, when It ought leaft of all to have been varied i and when a » Third Letters, p. 29. \'UriatIon D r S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 49J variation could ferve no purpofe, but to create con- ^'^^ ^^- fufion. An imputation, to which St. Jerome is too good a writer to be liable. The Nazarenes are twice mentioned by St. Jerome under their proper name, in his commentaiy on the next preceeding chapter of Ifaiah's prophecies : the eighth. Upon the paflage — in lapidetti autejn offenjionis ct pctrom fcandali duahus domihus Ifrael. — St. Jerome remarks, that " the Na- *' zarenes, who fo receive Chrift that they difcard *' not the rites of the antient law, interpret thefe two ** houfes of the two fchools of Sammai and Hillel j *' from which fprang the Scribes and Pharifees, — and " that thefe are the two houfes that received not the " Saviour, &c." Again upon the paffage at the con- clufion of the fame chapter, — cum dixerint ad vos quecrite a Pythonibiis^ — he remarks, that the Naza- renes expound this paffage alfo to the difadvantage of the Scribes and Pharifees. Theperfons, whom he mentions under the fame name in his commentary upon tiie ninth chapter, put, as he affirms, a fimilar fenfe upon the firft verfes of that : expounding the darknefs and fliadow of death, which overfpread the land of Zabulon and Naphtali, of the load of pha- refaical ceremonies, from which they were delivered by the gofpel. Certainly ihefe perfons, mentioned by the fame name, as expounding paffages fo near to each other, in the 8th and 9th chapters of Ifaiah, fo much to the fame purpofe, were the fame perfons : and when St. Jerome, in his commentary on the ninth chapter mentions " the Nazarenes, whofe opi- ** nton he had given above" he refers to that opinion of 494 D I S QJJ I S I T 1 O N S. Dis. VI. of the Nazarenes, which he had adlually related juft above, in his commentary on the eighth chapter* But " the Hebrews believing in Chrift," gave, ac- cording to St. Jerome, an expofition of this prophecy concerning the land of Zabulon and Naphtali, very different from that, which is afcribed by him to tlie Nazarenes. They imagined that the prophet, in the miferies which he defcribes of thofe northern pro- vinces, alluded to the miferies of the captivity, which they were the firft to undergo ; as, in compenfation, they were the firfl: who enjoyed the light of our Lord's own preaching. What fimilitude can Dr- Prieflley find between thefe two expofitions ? What connection between the miferies of the captivity, and the load of pharifaical ceremonies ? To fay, as Dr. Prieflley fays, that the Nazarasan expofition was only " a farther " illuflration*" of this of the Hebrew Chriliians, is as if any one fhould fay, that Dr. Prieflley's expo- fition of the beginning of St. John's gofpel is only an illuftration of mine. . Here then two different expofitions of one and the fame prophetic text are afcribed to expofitors, def- cribed under two difierent names. The neceffary in- ference is, that thefe expofitors, differing in their names and in their fentiments, were different perfons : or to (pezk more accurately, fmce they are names of bodies, by which tliey are feverally defcribed, two different fects. This is St. Jerome's evidence, that the Hebrews believing in Chrifl were different peo- ple from the Nazarenes. # Third Letters, p. 29. Dr. D 1 S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 455 Dr. Priestley thinks it a prefumptive argu- i^is« VI. ment, that thefe Hebrew Chriftians were the fame with the Nazarenes, and indeed with the Ebionites, that St. Jerome introduces their interpretation of the prophecy " after giving a tranflation of the paflage " by Aquila and Symmachus, both Ebionites *." Due regard being paid to this circumftance, Dr. Prieftley thinks this paflage of St. Jerome " furnilhes " an argument that in the idea of Jerom," thefe Hebrews "were the very fame people" with the Naza- renes; " if it does not alfo prove, that their opi- " nions were the fame with thofe of Aquila and Sym- " machus, or of the Ebionites f." The fa6l, however, is, that thefe Hebrew Chrif- tians, as it fhould feem from their expofition of the prophecy, in this paflage at leaft, followed not the tranflation either of Aquila or Symmachus ; fo far as vve know what their tranflations of this pafl"age were, from the information which St. Jerome hath given. The Hebrew Chriftians took the word ^*^j to be the proper name of the region of Galilee ; where- as both Aquila and Symmachus, as St. Jerome tells us, took it for an appellative. And this circumflance, their different interpretations of that fingle word, with Symmachus 's interpretation of another fmgle word in the firfl: verfe, is all that St. Jerome hath "given" us, of the tranflations of this paflage by Aquila and Symmachus; though Dr. Prieftley hath thought pro- per to Ipeak, as if St. Jerome in his commentary had * Ibid. t Ibid. given 49^ D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. VI. gjyen their entire tranflations of the prophecy, and would lead his readers to believe that the expofition of the Hebrew Chriftians was founded on thofe tranfla- tions. The probable argument that the Hebrew Chrilli- ans were orthodox, is this : that the eharader given of them by an orthodox writer, is fimply this, " that " they believed in Chrift;" without any thing to dif- tino;ui(h their belief from the common belief of the church, without any note of its error or imperfeilion. This argument acquires great weight from the well- known temper of St. Jerome and his times*. Dr. Priestley thinks it " remarkable; that *' having before maintained, that thofe, whom Jerom " called Chriftians, in his epiftle to Auftin, were or- " thodox, I fhould now allow, that by the fame term " he here means heretics ; and that the phrafe ^e- *' lieving in ChriJ}^ fhould now be a chara(£ler of *' complete orthodoxy, when in that epiftle it is pre- " dicated of the heretical Ebionitesf." I never maintained that the Nazarenes, mentioned by St. Je- rome in his epiftle to St. Aullin, were orthodox Chriilians. I maintained the contrary ;{:. I only maintain, that upon the particular article of our Lord's divinity,,,they were certainly orthodox ; and fo far as we know, in moft other articles of their creed. But by their bigotted attachment to the law, they were * Remar^ks, &c. Part 2. Chap. ii. § 8. f Third Letters, p. iG. % Charge i. § 12. heretics. D I S CLU I S I T I O N S. 497 heretics. I have given my reafons *, why I think Dis. vi. the Nazarenes mentioned here a different fet of peo- ple from the Nazarenes mentioned in the epifHe to St. Auftin ; and ftill lefs, if at all, heretical. Of the Ebionites, the belief in Chrift is not predicated in that epiftle, fimply, as here of the Hebrews ; without any thing to difhnguifli their beUef from the common belief of the church, without any note of its error or imperfedion. St. Jerome, when he fpeaks of the belief of the Ebionites, marks and reprobates their mifbelief in the diftin6left and fevereft terms. At this day, the word believer, in its common acceptation, fignifies a found Chriftian. But, with certain addi- tions to qualify and reftrain its meaning, I, uncha- ritable and intolerant as I am, might apply it even to Dr. Prieftley. But it would hardly be underftood that by fuch an application of it, I could mean to al- low, that Dr. Prieftley is a believer in the full fenfe of the word. It would certainly be in very different fenfes, that I Ihould apply this fame word to Dr. Prieflley, and tq the Dean of Canterbury, Profeffor White, or Mr. Parkhurfl, If there be any thing in Dr. Prieflley's Letters, which I receive with particular complacency, it is the kind concern, which he fometimes difcovcrs, left in my heedlefs zeal to oppofe his opinions, I fhould fuffer my own foot to Hip from the f^rait line of or- thodoxy. In reply to my reafoning for the ortho- doxy of one branch at leaft of the Nazarenes, from ♦ Remarks, &-c. Part 2. Chap. iil. ^ i. K k the 49? PIS QJJ I S I T I O N S. Dis. VI. the expofition afcribed to them by St. Jerome of If. viii. 13, 14*, by which it clearly appears, that tliey thought the Saviour of the world defigned in that pafTage by the title of mxnK mn», he tells me, that " he wonders that this mode of interpreting '^' fcripturcj fhould not ftagger even myfelf. He " thought that themoft orthodox, oftheprefent day, " had believed that the perfon charaderifed by the " title of the Lord of hofls had been not the " Son, but the Father f." So he may have thought. That he hath fo thought, only proves that he is as little acquainted with the orthodoxy of the prefent, as of pafc days. The orthodox of the prefent day well know, that the Son, no !efs than the Father, is often charaiterifed in the Old Teftament, by the word Je- hovah put abfolutely. They hold it one irrefragable argument of the Son's divinitjr, that the writers of the New Teftament ufually mention Chrift by the title of Ky^ioj " the Lord ;" which is the word that through- out the Old Teftament, in the Greek verfion of the 70, is ufed as equivalent to the Hebrew Jehovah. Him whom the Apoftles and Evangelifts called Ky^ loj, writing in the Greek, they muft have called mn* (Je- hovah) had they written in the Hebrew language. The orthodox of the prefent day believe, becaufe they knov/ St. John believed it, that Chrift Jefus is the Jekovah, whom the prophet Ifaiah faw upon his throne the year that King Uzziah died ; whofe praifes were the theme of the Seraphic Song, whofe glory filled the temple. * Remarks, &c. Fart 2. Chap. lii. ^ 7. \ Third Letters, p, 34. Tli£ D I S QJJ I S I T I O N S. 499 The difturbed foundations of the church of iElIa Dis. vi, are again fettled. I could wi(h to truft them to their own folidity to withftand any future attacks. I could wilh to take my final leave of this unpleafing tafk, of hunting an uninformed uncandid adverfary through the mazes of his blunders, and the fubterfuges of his fophiftry. But I have found by the experience of this conflict, that a perfon once engaging in controverfy, is not entirely at liberty to choofe for himfelf to what length he will carry the difpute, and when he will de- fift. I perceive, that I was guilty of an indifcretion in difcovering an early averfion to the continuance of the conteft. My adverfary, perhaps, would have been lefs hardy in aflertion, and more circumfpe6l in argument, had I not given him reafon to expe6l, that every aflertion would pafs uncontradidted, and every argument uncanvafTed. Unambitious, therefore, as I ftill remain of the honour of the lall word, be it how- ever underftoodthatifDr. Prieftley fliould think pro- per to make any further defence, or any new attack, I am not pledged cither to reply or to be filent. F J JV I S. '-^swes^ _2;>-.^».- ^-3Ji > ;:^3?^;**^'i"' V •»; 3.%»\ ;3e> . -)>i3»,2»»» >3»:i, )?> ,ar30e» -*!>>;'» >:»> -~:i*>^_aBfe»"»-^:s Tli^S^ (f>Fvt?'-^^^^. »» r» ^n'^13X» ^-W:.^^■ " ^«/